13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Vancouver, B.C., Canada

August 1-6, 2004
Paper No. 2196

UNIFORM HAZARD SPECTRA FOR THE PERFORMANCE BASED

DESIGN OF STRUCTURES

Mauro NIÑO1, A. Gustavo AYALA1 and Rafael TORRES2

SUMMARY

This paper presents a Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD) procedure to determine consistent
uniform hazard design spectra for structures with the same probability to reach a performance level for a
given design level. The spectra correspond to given rates of exceedence of performance indices, chosen to
represent the performance level for which a structure will be designed. Its formulation considers the non-
linear behaviour of the structures and an accepted distribution of damage under design conditions. This
procedure involves the determination of the seismic hazard, necessary for the definition of design levels
consistent with the PBSD philosophy; a sufficient large number of earthquakes of different magnitudes,
simulated using the empirical Green function method; and the statistics of the response of equivalent
single degree of freedom systems with behaviour curves function of the capacity curves of real structures,
obtained using the Monte Carlo method. With these results the conditional probability that a structure
exceeds a specific performance level is obtained. As illustration, design spectra for structures in the Lake
Zone of Mexico City are determined for two performance indices, one a ductility demand and the other a
Bozorgnia and Bertero Performance Index calibrated for given site conditions and various rates of
exceedence. The calculated spectra are used to design an eight-storey RC regular building using a
previously developed PBSD procedure. The performances of both designs are compared and evaluated
emphasizing the potential of each approach on achieving the goals of PBSD in future codes. It is
concluded that the proposed procedure is a significant improvement on those proposed in documents such
as Vision 2000 and a very useful tool for research and further developments on the PBSD of structures.

INTRODUCTION

The evaluation of the performance of structures during recent destructive earthquakes in many sites
around the world has shown that current seismic design codes do not always provide adequate safety
levels as the application of their design provisions does not guarantee the performance levels that the
structures are expected to reach under design seismic demands.

1
Instituto de Ingeniería, UNAM, México D.F., México. Email: MNinoL@iingen.unam.mx,
gayala@dali.fi-p.unam.mx
2
Universidad de los Andes, Mérida, Venezuela, email: torres27@cantv.net
The reasons for this deficiency of existing seismic design procedures have been attributed to the fact that
they do not explicitly consider the non-linear behaviour of structures under design demands and that the
seismic performance and damage accepted in a structure cannot be guaranteed to occur under these
demands. A seismic design philosophy that aims to include these two points in the design process is that
of PBSD.

The basic difference between the design procedures which use the PBSD philosophy and the previous
approaches is the use of specific design objectives and limit states which are based on indices that
represent the structural performance in a better way.

The main difficulty in using PBSD is the lack of accepted seismic design and performance as well as
analysis and design procedures which implicitly consider them. This paper addresses the topic of seismic
demands and limit states where design spectra based on structural performance and probability are
determined.

The current approaches used in the earthquake-resistant design of structures allow part of the energy
induced by significant earthquakes to be dissipated via the non-linear behaviour on the structural
components, i.e., structural damage under significant earthquakes is acceptable. To reach this objective,
current codes use elastic design spectra reduced to obtain inelastic design spectra; this procedure has the
inconvenience that the latter spectra are based on maximum credible seismic demands without
information about their effects. Nowadays there are different approaches to obtain inelastic spectra from
elastic spectra, which give demands of strength that a structure should provide to reach a target
performance level.

The procedure presented in this paper has its origin in a PBSD procedure proposed by Ayala [1] and
improved by Ayala and Basilio [2]. The design spectra obtained correspond to the collapse prevention
performance level, with a performance index given by a damage index. The said spectra are applicable to
structures located in the Lake Zone of Mexico City. However, the determination of design spectra for
other regions with a different seismic hazard is possible using the same procedure.

It is important to point out that the PBSD methodology used in this paper is based on the same concepts
that traditional structural design in practice has used for many years in most buildings codes throughout
the world. In these codes, the performance levels are such to resist frequent earthquakes without structural
damage (fully operational), and significant earthquakes avoiding collapse (collapse prevention).

This work uses as a reference the PBSD concepts proposed in the Vision 2000 report, SEAOC [3], which
formalized PBSD philosophy in the United States. This document explicitly introduces the concept of
design objectives, which relates, in a design process, the performance levels and the seismic design levels.
These levels are also known in current codes as limit states, representing the maximum level of accepted
damage in a structure, and seismic demands, representing the seismic hazard level at the site where a
structure will be located. The seismic hazard level is represented by the return period or the probability of
exceeding a specific seismic intensity.

In the original proposal of Vision 2000, the performance objectives relate pairs of limit states and demand
levels, corresponding to the probability of exceeding certain seismic intensities. However, this definition
of seismic design levels does not give information about the rates of exceeding the performance levels
used in the design of the structure. To eliminate this deficiency, in this paper performance objectives
involve seismic design levels associated with exceedence rates of the corresponding performance indices
used to define the performance levels.
With this modification, it is possible to obtain consistent uniform hazard seismic design spectra for each
established performance objective. These spectra have uniform exceedence rates for the proposed
performance indices.

In this work, the performance level used to characterize a performance objective corresponds to a damage
index, defined as a linear combination of maximum displacement and hysteretic energy dissipated by the
structure during a seismic event. The use of cumulative damage indices has greater importance when the
structures are located in soft soil zones, like those found in the Lake Zone of Mexico City.

PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN PROCEDURE

This research is based on the PBSD procedure developed by Ayala and Sandoval [4], where the non-linear
behaviour of the structure is explicitly considered, and applicable to the design of steel and reinforced
concrete structures. The procedure uses the concept of the behaviour curve of a single degree of freedom
(SDOF) system being considered equivalent to the multiple degree of freedom (MDOF) system
representing the structure to be designed, Fig. 1.
Sa

m
(R2/m)
k ω22
c (R1/m)

ω12

Sd
Sd1 Sd2
üg
Figure 1. Behaviour curve for an equivalent SDOF system.

The expected structural performance depends on a distribution of damage, originally assigned to the
structure, whose effect is reflected in the post-yield stiffness, represented by the slope of the second
branch of the behaviour curve of Fig. 1, Sandoval [5].

Using basic concepts of structural dynamics, the post-yielding (k2) to initial (k1) stiffness ratio is defined
as:

2
 2π 
m  2

α= 2 =  2
k T  =  T1  (1)
2 T 
k1  2π   2
m 
 T1 

where T1 is the fundamental period in the elastic range and T2 is the fundamental period of the structure
with the considered distribution of damage. In the above definition, different slopes of the second branch
of the behaviour curve of the equivalent SDOF system correspond to different configurations of damage in
the original structure and therefore lead to different design spectra.
 PROCEDURE TO ESTIMATE PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN SPECTRA

Seismic hazard
To determine seismic design spectra consistent with the PBSD philosophy, it is necessary to quantify the
exceedence rate of the considered performance levels, defined as the expected number of times per unit
time that the structural response exceeds a given performance level when the structure is subjected to
many earthquakes of different magnitudes generated at all seismic sources which define the seismic
hazard of the site of interest. This can be expressed as:

N M Ui
d λi ( M )
ν (r ) = ∑ ∫− Pr ,i (r > rlim M , Li )dM (2)
i =1 M 0 dM

where the summation includes the N seismic sources which contribute to the seismic hazard of the site;
MUi is the maximum magnitude which may be generated at each source; M0 is the magnitude for which
the earthquake catalogue is considered complete, the threshold magnitude; rlim is the target performance
level for which the structure will be designed; Pr,i (r>rlim |M, Li) is the probability that the obtained
performance level, r, exceeds the target performance level of the structure given that an earthquake of
certain magnitude, M, is generated at the i-th seismic source located a distance Li from the site of interest.
Finally, λi(M) represents the local seismicity of that source.

Based on the results of previous research on the seismic hazard in the Lake Zone of Mexico City, the
Guerrero gap is considered the only seismic source that affects the evaluation of the seismic hazard, Singh
et al. [6]. Thus, the summation in Eq. (2) only has one term, i.e. one source located at a constant distance
from the site of interest. The probability that a structural system develops a performance index larger than
the target is given by:

dλ ( M )
MU

ν ( R) = ∫−
M0
dM
Pr ( Re > R M )dM (3)

The evaluation of Eq. (3) requires the determination of the rate of exceedence of magnitudes for the
seismic source of Guerrero as well as the probability of exceedence of the considered performance levels.
The former is obtained by evaluating the seismic hazard of the Lake Zone of Mexico City; therefore, it is
necessary to determine the activity of the seismic source which affects this site. The probability that the
response of a considered structure exceeds a given performance level, is obtained by evaluating the
response of the equivalent SDOF structure, when subjected to a large number of seismic events of several
magnitudes corresponding to the seismic hazard of the site where the structure will be located.

Rate of exceedence of magnitudes

To evaluate the local seismicity associated with a seismic source, it is required to determine the
exceedence rate of magnitudes, λ(M), defined as the frequency of occurrence of seismic events with a
magnitude greater than or equal to, M. The inverse of the exceedence rate of magnitudes is the return
period of a seismic event with said magnitude or larger.

The local seismicity of a seismic source may be represented by two mathematical models, which depend
on the recurrence time of magnitudes. The principal difference between these models is that, in the first,
the earthquakes are generated in accordance with a Poisson process i.e., the recurrence of earthquakes
does not depend on time, while, in the second, this recurrence does depend on time (characteristic
earthquake model).
For Mexico City, it has been observed that the distribution of magnitudes of large earthquakes (M>7)
generated in the Guerrero gap is different from that predicted by Gutenberg and Richter, Singh et al. [6],
and that the distribution with time of earthquakes of equal magnitude generated at specific rupture zones
in this gap have a constant recurrence time. In the characteristic earthquake generation model, magnitude
depends on the time elapsed between earthquakes; i.e., the magnitude of a future earthquake increases
with the time without seismic events. For this model, the expected magnitude is defined as a time function
as follows, Ordaz et al. [7]:

E ( M T 00) = max(M 0 , D + F * Ln(T 00)) (4)

where E(MT00) is the expected value of the magnitude of the next seismic event given that a T00 time
has elapsed since a characteristic earthquake of magnitude M > M0 occurred, and D and F, are
parameters which define the variation of expected magnitude with time.

In the characteristic earthquake model, the exceedence rate of magnitudes changes as a function of time
and is given by:
  M − E (M T 00) 
λ ( M ) = λ0 1 − Φ  k
 for M 0 ≤ M < MU (5)
  σ M 

and

λ (M ) = 0 for M ≥ MU (6)

where:

1
λ0 = (7)
T0

T0 is the median of the time elapsed between seismic events with magnitude M > M0, σM is the standard
deviation of magnitudes, Φ is the standard normal distribution; and k is a normalization factor such that
the area under the normal distribution curve is equal to one, Avelar et al. [8]. This can be expressed by:

1
k= (8)
  M U − E (M T 00)   M − E (M T 00) 
Φ  − Φ 0
 


  σ M   σ M 

The Probability Density Function (PDF) of magnitudes is given by:

1 dλ ( M )
f M ( x) = − (9)
λ0 dM

For the characteristic earthquake generation model of the Guerrero gap, the parameters of regional
seismicity are well established and are given by Ordaz et al. [7], as: T00 = 80 years, M0=7.0, MU = 8.4, D
= 7.5, F = 0.0, σM = 0.27 and T0 = 39.7 years.
Hence, substituting the above parameters in Eq. (4), the expected value of magnitude for a characteristic
earthquake of the Guerrero gap zone for the considered return period, T00 = 80 years, may be obtained as:

E (M T 00) = 7.5 (10)

To obtain the exceedence rate of magnitudes, both values λ0 and the normalization factor, k, need to be
obtained, therefore:

1
λ0 = = 0.025188 (11)
T0

and k=1.118

The evaluation of the exceedence rate of magnitudes in Eq. (5) using the above parameters gives the
variation illustrated in Fig. 2 for a range of magnitudes between M0 and MU (7.0 to 8.4).
EXCEEDENCE RATE OF MAGNITUDE
0.1
rate (1/year)
Exceedence rate (1/year)

0.01
Exceedence

3
1 .10

4
1 .10
7 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5
Magnitud e
Magnitude

Figure 2. Exceedence rate of magnitudes.

Probability to exceed a given performance level

To obtain the probability that a structure exceeds a given performance level, the Monte Carlo method was
used, evaluating the response SDOF system subject to a large number of earthquakes of several
magnitudes, simulated by the empirical Green function method, using as a seed an earthquake of
magnitude 6.9 originated in the Guerrero gap and recorded at the SCT station of Mexico City on April 25,
1989.

The simulations were obtained by Avelar [9], for a magnitude range from 7.2 to 8.2 with increments of
0.1. For each magnitude considered, 1000 earthquakes were simulated with a total of 11000 different
records. For the performance indices considered the strength spectra for each of the simulated earthquakes
were evaluated. The strength spectra, calculated in this work correspond to a post-yielding to initial
stiffness ratio of 0.24 (α = 24%) and a 5% damping ratio.

Fig. 3 illustrates a three-dimensional representation of the probability density functions (PDF) of the
design strengths, function of the natural period of vibration, necessary for the SDOF system to develop a
target performance level (DI = 1) given an 8.1 magnitude earthquake. These PDFs were obtained for a
magnitude range of 7.2 to 8.2, with increments of 0.1.
Once the exceedence rate of magnitudes and the conditional probability that a structure exceeded a given
performance level were calculated, it was necessary to calculate the integral of Eq. (3) for the magnitude
range of M0=7.0 to MU=8.4, which corresponds to the local seismicity of the considered seismic source.
With the values obtained from this equation, a surface may be constructed from a group curves of
vibration periods vs. strengths per unit mass, with a uniform exceedence rate of the target performance
level.
R/m (cm/sec2)

T (sec)
f (R/m)

Figure 3. PDFs of design strengths for an 8.1 magnitude earthquake.

SEISMIC DESIGN SPECTRA

Uniform hazard spectra for a constant damage index

A damage index, DI, is a performance index based on a set of response variables such as force,
deformation and/or hysteretic energy. In agreement with existing experimental information on the
behaviour of reinforced concrete structures and elements, Park et al. [10] proposed a damage index, DIPA,
representing the damage caused by deformations due to cyclic reversions of loads in the non-linear range
of the structural behaviour, given by the following linear equation:

DI PA =
δm
+β
∫ dE (12)
δu Fyδ u

where: δm = maximum response deformation under an earthquake; δu = ultimate deformation capacity

under monotonic loading; ∫dE = EH, dissipated hysteretic energy; Fy = yield strength and β = parameter
representing the hysteretic loop stability. δm and ∫dE are dependent on the loading history, and the
parameters δu, Fy and β define the structural capacity under monotonic loading.

The first term in Eq. (12), represents the contribution of maximum displacement and the second term that
of the cumulative damage measured as the amount of energy dissipated through hysteresis. Experimental
values of β have been reported by Park et al. [10] and Cosenza et al. [11] with a mean of 0.15.

Eq. (12) has as drawbacks that it may give DIPA> 1 when the structure still has loading capacity and
DIPA>0 when its behaviour is still elastic. Values of DIPA > 0.4 have been considered as those
corresponding to irreparable damage or excessively expensive to repair. To correct these drawbacks, a
new expression was proposed by Bozorgnia and Bertero [12]:
1/ 2
 µ − µe   EH 
DI BB = (1 − α 2 )   + α2   (13)
 µmon − 1   EHmon 
where, µ=umax / uy = displacement ductility, µe = 1 for inelastic behaviour and is equal to µ for elastic
behaviour; µmon=umon / uy = monotonic displacement ductility; umax = maximum deformation, umon =
maximum deformation capacity of the system under a monotonically increasing lateral deformation, uy =
yield deformation; EHmon = hysteretic energy capacity under monotonically increasing lateral deformation;
and α2 is a constant varying between zero and one that is calibrated with the conditions at the site of
interest.

The monotonic displacement ductility, µmon, involved in Eq. (13) depends on the detailing of the structure;
those with good detailing will develop high monotonic ductilities, while those with poor detailing will
develop relatively low monotonic displacement ductilities, although it may be shown that it is possible to
find structures quite stiff or flexible, which cannot develop such ductilities.

The design spectra based on a performance level given by a constant damage index represent the variation
of strength vs. period of SDOF systems under seismic events. These spectra can be used in the typical
design of structures, which considers damage as the effect of structural inelastic behaviour characterized
by the post-yielding stiffness of the structure subject to seismic events.

The determination of the parameter, α2, in Eq. (13) is carried out through a calibration of the DIPA;
however as the value of this index at each end is not very reliable, only DIPA values between 0.2 and 0.8
are considered in the calibration. The approach begins by obtaining the DIPA value for an earthquake
representative of the site conditions where the structure will be built; after that, this value is substituted in
Eq. (13) and an α2 value is obtained. The α2 coefficient used in this paper was found for the soft soil
conditions of Mexico City and EW component of the September 19th 1985 Michoacan earthquake
registered at the SCT station. All the DIPA values for SDOF systems with different periods and strengths
were obtained using β = 0.15. In this calibration a µmon = 7 was assumed, obtaining an α2 = 0.264. Thus
the equation used to determine the damage index in the soft soils of Mexico City is:
1/ 2
 µ −1   EH 
DI BB = 0.736   + 0.264   (14)
 µmon − 1   EHmon 

To illustrate the approach used, a performance level corresponding to near collapse using a DIBB = 1.0 and
a monotonic displacement ductility, µmon = 7, were assumed. Under these conditions, the equation to
calculate the exceedence rate of the given performance level, Eq. 3, is:

d λ (M )
8.4
ν (1.0) = ∫−
7.0
dM
Pr ( DI > 1.0 M )dM (15)

Evaluating Eq. (15) for the constant damage index, DIBB = 1.0, defined by Eq. (14), a surface constructed
by families of curves of period vs. strength per unit mass, with a uniform rate of exceeding the
corresponding performance level, was obtained, Fig. 4.
 λ (R1)
1/year

T (sec)

R1/m
(cm/sec2)
Figure 4. Surface of curves with constant exceedence rate for DIBB = 1.0, as function of strength.

Intersections with planes normal to the exceedence rate axis, give design spectra with a different constant
rate of exceeding the target performance level, Fig. 5. The ordinates of each of these spectra have the same
probability of being exceeded in the given interval.
R1 / m
(cm/sec2)

T (sec)

Figure 5. Uniform hazard seismic design spectra for: DIBB = 1.0, for several constant exceedence
rates.

Design stages
The above spectra, when used in the modal PBSD procedure proposed by Ayala and Basilio [2],
correspond to the first design stage, where the strengths obtained with a particular spectrum (R1)
represents the break point of the bilinear behaviour curve of the equivalent SDOF system and is the
strength that should be assigned to the structural elements in which earthquake damage is accepted under
design conditions. Applying the same approach, uniform hazard design spectra may be obtained for the
strength of the elements expected to remain elastic (R2) under design conditions, Niño [13].

Fig. 6a illustrates a surface constructed by a family of curves with uniform hazard for a DIBB = 1.0 and Fig.
6b a group of uniform hazard spectra for several exceedence rates corresponding to the last point of the
second branch in the considered behaviour curve.
 λ (R2)
R2/m
a) 1/year b) (cm/sec2)

T (sec)
T (sec)

R2/m
(cm/sec2)

Figure 6. a) Surface of constant exceedence rate curves and b) uniform hazard spectra for an
DIBB=1.0.

Fig. 7 illustrates design spectra corresponding to the two design stages involved in the PBSD procedure
used in this work. These spectra are for a rate of exceedence of 1/1000 and a performance index,
DIBB=1.0.

250

200

R2
R/m (cm/sec2)

R1
150

100

50

-
- 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
T (sec)

Figure 7. (R1) and (R2) strength design spectra for DIBB = 1.0.

Design elastic spectrum

In the procedure proposed by Ayala and Basilio [2], for each of the design stages, an elastic design
spectrum is reduced so that the R1 ordinate of the strength spectrum coincides with that of the reduced
elastic design spectrum. The spectra used corresponded to the E-W SCT record of the 1985 Michoacan
earthquake. These spectra however cannot be used for PBSD purposes as they are based on a single
seismic event, which although it is representative of the seismic hazard at the site of interest, the
exceedence rate of the performance level corresponding to this response spectrum is unknown.

The elastic design spectra are obtained by assuming as performance level the displacement ductility, µ =
1.0, since this value represents the limit of elastic behaviour of the structure, Fig. 8. It is important to point
out that to be consistent with the PBSD methodology presented in this paper it is necessary that the
strength and elastic design spectra be defined for the same exceedence rate in accordance with the
assumptions made in the design process.
 λ (R) R/m
1/year (cm/sec2)

T (sec)

R/m T (sec)
(cm/sec2)

Figure 8. Surface of curves and elastic spectra of uniform hazard of R/m for several exceedence
rates.

DESIGN OF AN EIGHT-STOREY RC BUILDING

In this section, based on the design methodology proposed by Ayala and Basilio [2], an eight-storey RC
building will be designed for both, a ductility demand and a damage index proposed by Bozorgnia and
Bertero. The design will be made with the constant ductility spectra obtained by Avelar [8] and with the
uniform hazard design spectra obtained above in order to show the differences when these two
performance indices are used. The geometry of one of the frames of the building to be designed is shown
in Fig. 9a and the proposed damage distribution under design conditions in Fig. 9b. The performance
indices to be used are µ=4 and DIBB=1.0 which represent an assumed performance level for collapse
prevention with an exceedence rate of this performance level corresponding to a return period of 1000
years.

8
a) b)
7

Figure 9. Elevations of the eight-storey RC building to be designed; a) geometry and b) damage

distribution.

The fundamental periods for the structure in the respective elastic and inelastic states are T1=0.89 and
T2=1.826 sec. Using a value of α=24% obtained from Eq. (1) for the damage distribution shown in Fig 9b,
the design spectra for DIBB=1.0 for the two design stages and a rate of exceedence 1/1000 are those shown
if Fig. 7. The (R1) and (R2) strengths of the structure are obtained directly from these spectra, Fig. 10.

300 300
245.18
250
a) 250
b)
222.6

R / m ( cm/sec 2 )
R / m ( cm/sec 2 )

200 R1 200 R1
R2 R2

150 129.98 150 125.92

100 100

50 50

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
T (sec)
T (sec)

Figure 10. Design spectra for a) µ=4 and b) DIBB=1.0.

With the strengths obtained from the design spectra and the application of basic concepts of structural
dynamics, the design forces for the structural elements may be calculated using conventional spectral
modal analysis. In accordance with the design procedure proposed by Ayala and Basilio [2], the design
spectra for the modal analyses of a particular structure may be obtained by reducing the uniform hazard
elastic spectrum in such a way that the ordinates corresponding to the fundamental period of the structure
are the same as those obtained for R1 and R2 from the strength design spectra for both µ=4 and DIBB=1,
Fig. 11.

The possibility of using a single design spectrum for calculating the contributions of all modes involves an
important assumption that needs to be further validated: all the behaviour curves corresponding to the
SDOF systems representing the higher modes of vibration have the same post-yielding to initial stiffness
ratio.

10 0 0 10 0 0

900 a) 9 00 b)
800 8 00

700 7 00
R / m (cm/sec 2)

R / m (cm /sec 2)

600 6 00 E la s t ic
E la s t ic 5 5 5 .3 4
500 5 00 R 2
R1
400 4 00
2 18 .8 7
300 3 00
F a c t = 0 .2 14
200 2 00

10 0 F a c t = 0 .5 7 5 10 0
12 5 .9 1
119 .2 7
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
T (sec) T (se c)

Figure 11. Reduced spectra for both the elastic and inelastic stages of the structure for DIBB=1.0.

To obtain the total design forces, the sum of the results of three analyses is needed, one with the dead and
live gravitational loads and the other two, the modal analyses with the reduced spectra as described above.
A comparison of design forces acting in some columns for both ductility and damage index designs are
shown in Figs. 12 to 14.
 8 8

7 DI = 1
7
µ=4
6 DI 6
µ=4

5 5
Level

Level
4 4

3 3

2 2

1
1

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Axial Force (Ton) Shear Force (Ton)

Figure 12. Axial forces acting in columns. Figure 13. Shear forces acting in columns.

8 8
DI = 1
7 µ=4
DI = 1 7
µ=4
6 6
Level

Level
5 5

4 4

3 3

2 2

1 1

-250 -200 -150 -100 -50 0 -175 -125 -75 -25

Bending Moment (Ton*m) Bending Moment (Ton*m)

Figure 14. Bending moment acting at the ends of all columns.

It may be observed that the design forces of the elements obtained with the design spectra for DIBB are
larger than those obtained with the ductility design spectra. This is because in the DIBB spectra, the
hysteretic energy dissipated by the structure is accounted for; therefore the structure needs to have a larger
strength than that required by maximum displacement ductility alone.

CONCLUSIONS

The research described in this paper develops an approach that allows the determination of uniform
hazard spectra applicable in the performance based seismic design of structures. The resulting spectra
correspond to seismic design objectives composed by pairs of specific performance and design levels,
with an exceedence rate of the index which defines the seismic performance level.

In accordance with the PBSD procedure developed by Ayala and Basilio [2], uniform hazard spectra for
the two required design stages, one to define the strength corresponding to the first break point of the
behaviour curve (i.e., strength of the elements which allow damage) and the last strength (i.e., strength of
the elements that remain elastic for design conditions), can be directly obtained with the methodology
proposed in this work.

With the elastic spectra obtained in this work, the uniform hazard of the site is also taken into account,
thus the consistency with the exceedence rate used in the application of the PBSD method is preserved.
The PBSD of structures considering as a performance index a linear combination of the maximum
displacement ductility and the dissipated hysteretic energy leads to larger design forces than those
obtained using only the maximum displacement ductility; this additional strength is needed by the
structural elements to dissipate energy through hysteretic loops.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the National Council for Science and Technology (CONACYT) of Mexico for
the graduate scholarship of the first author and for the sponsorship of the project “Development and
Experimental Evaluation of a Performance Based Seismic Design Method”. The economic support for the
academic leave of the last author by the Coordination of Scientific Research of UNAM is also
acknowledged.

REFERENCES

1. Ayala A. G. “Evaluation of the seismic performance of structures – A new approach.” (in

Spanish), Revista Internacional de Métodos Numéricos para Cálculo y Diseño en Ingeniería,
2001; Vol. 17, No. 3: 285-303.
2. Ayala AG, Basilio I. “Performance based seismic design of frames of tall buildings.” (in Spanish),
Proceedings of the XIII National Congress on Earthquake Engineering. Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico.
2001: CD-R.
3. SEAOC, “Vision 2000, Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings.” Structural
Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, Cal. 1995.
4. Ayala AG, Sandoval P. “Procedure for the performance based seismic design.” (in Spanish),
Proceedings of the XII National Congress on Earthquake Engineering, Morelia, Mich., Mexico.
1999: 1136 – 1145.
5. Sandoval P. “Procedure of seismic design for performance based on a simplified method of non-
linear analysis.” (in Spanish), Master of Engineering Thesis. Graduate Program in Engineering.
UNAM, Mexico, 2000.
6. Singh SK, Rodríguez M, Esteva L. “Statistics of small earthquakes and frequency of occurrence of
large earthquakes along the Mexican subduction zone.” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of
America 1983; Vol. 73: 1779 – 1796.
7. Ordaz M, Aguilar A, Arboleda J. “Crisis99 - Computer system for the calculation of seismic
hazard.” (in Spanish), Proceedings of the XII National Congress on Earthquake Engineering,
Morelia, Mich., Mexico, Vol. 1, 1999: 3 – 12.
8. Avelar C, Ayala G, Diaz de León A. “Design spectra determination for performance based seismic
design.” Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Applications of Statistics and
Probability in Civil Engineering, San Francisco, C.A., 2003: 899-906.
9. Avelar C. “Determination of design spectra of use in performance based seismic design.” (in
Spanish), Master of Engineering Thesis. Graduate Program in Engineering. UNAM. Mexico.
2002.
10. Park Y, Ang A, Wen Y. “Seismic damage analysis of reinforced concrete buildings.” Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE, 1985; 3(4): 740-757.
11. Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Ramasco R. “The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: a
comparison between different methods.” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1993;
Vol. 22: 855-868.
12. Bozorgnia Y, Bertero V. “Improved shaking and damage parameters for post-earthquake
applications.” Proceedings of the SMIPO1 Seminar on Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, Los
Angeles, CA., 2001: 1-22.
13. Niño M. “Application of uniform hazard spectra in the seismic design of buildings.” (in Spanish),
Master of Engineering Thesis. Graduate Program in Engineering. UNAM, Mexico, 2003.