r~UTTERWORTH I"I~E , N E M A N N

EngineeringStructures,Vol.

0141-0296(94)00006-9

t7, No. 3, pp. 187-197, 1995 Copyright 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0141~0296/95 $10.00 + 0.00

Developments in seismic structural

analysis and design

Egor P. Popov, Carl E. Grigorian and Tzong-Shuoh Yang
Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA (Received December 1993; revised version accepted March 1994)

After a brief overview of the world-wide state-of-practice in seismic design, nonlinear structural response spectra for strength, ductility and number of yield reversals as a function of building period and structure strength for several strong motion earthquakes are presented. Illustrations of three-dimensional mesh surfaces for the absolute seismic energy input and the dissipated hysteresis energy for selected earthquakes are given. These results are compared with conventionally evaluated elastic response spectra and code criteria. The issues of overstrength factors in the Mexico City code are then examined. The remainder of the paper is devoted to the description of a simple frictional energy dissipating connection. Its behaviour in cyclic tests and in shake table tests of a three-storey braced steel structure is illustrated.
Keywords: energy dissipation, friction, Mexico City seismic code, seismic design, over-strength factors

The world-wide state of seismic design practice based on current codes and some developments in nonlinear seismic spectra are highlighted first. These include displacement ductility and a number of yield reversals spectra for the 1986 San Salvador, the 1985 Chile and the 1985 Mexico City earthquakes. Three-dimensional mesh surfaces of absolute input energy and hysteretic energy for the 1985 Mexico City earthquake are displayed. These surfaces show graphically the seismic energy demands on the structural systems subjected to the Mexico City earthquake. The Mexico City code force spectra, supplemented with spectra considering structural overstrengths above the code minima, are then examined for the effect of overstrength. Spectra for the number of load reversals at different levels of overstrength are also shown. The second part of the paper concerns itself with a recently developed frictional energy dissipator. This inexpensive and nonproprietary device dissipates energy through friction during rectilinear tension and compression cycles. It can be conveniently used as a connection between a brace and a gusset plate. In addition to the gusset plate having long slotted holes, the splice plates and two thin brass shims make-up the assembly fastened together with high-strength bolts tensioned to the required tension force. An extensive experimental programme was conducted on the reliability of this connection. The final verification of these connections was obtained by doing a shake table test on a three-storey model having 12 such connections and the same number of chevron braces. There are two pending projects in California where it is intended that frictional energy dissipating connections will be used.

State-of-practice in design
The state-of-practice in design is based on response spectra determined by studying the behaviour of elastic systems. For a fixed natural period of a system and damping coefficient, a step-by-step integration is performed for the duration of an eathquake determined from an accelerogram. The largest value of the selected response, commonly acceleration, is the spectral value of the response of the system corresponding to the fixed period. By repeating the process for numerous periods, a spectral curve is obtained. This procedure was repeated for six different earthquakes to generate the curves shown in Figure 1.
ACCELERATION (g's) 2.5 I m ME~OCO
11rTe M I Y A G ~

2.0
l"

/:t

,~--" C H
, t. ~, 1"7-4

..... ~ r,~

---

I040 ELCENTRO

I m COMAP~'TA

1 ~ CHILE

ei 'r~"" LP"

1.5

~ I,

o.,

0.0 0.0

* o.s

1.0

1.s PERIOD ( s e e )

2.0

2.s

3.0

Figure 1 C o m p a r i s o n o f l i n e a r elastic r e s p o n s e spectra w i t h 5% d a m p i n g f o r selected e a r t h q u a k e s ( c o m p i l e d b y E. M i r a n d a )

187

188

Seismic structural analysis and design: E. P. Popov e t al. VB/W Ceu-,,v~ELASTIC ULTIMATE y LIMITSTATE / ( P E R I O D DEPENDENT)

After numerous studies of spectra, idealized elastic ultimate state spectra were adopted by different authorities. Two such idealized curves proposed by the Applied Technology CounciP are shown in Figure 1. One of these curves is for Soil 1, corresponding to stiff soil conditions; the other, for Soil 3 is for soft clays and sand. Similar curves in the form of an equation are promulgated by the UBC (Uniform Building Code) z, giving the total design base shear, Vs, for the allowable stress design V8 = n - Wwhere C 1%

/
C,=C.o/R,
C= = Ceu/R I - - - Y - FIRST PLASTIC HINGE (NEHRP) Cw= Ceu/Rw I~LALLOW. STRESS DESIGN ( UBC/ SEAOC)

ZIG

1.25S T2,3 <- 2.75

(1)

VI .I

and Z = seismic zone factor, I = importance factor, Rw = structural system coefficient, S = site coefficient for soil, T = fundamental period of vibrations of the structure, and W = total seismic load. Assuming the largest seismic zone factor Z = 0.40, I = 1, S = 1.2 for stiff soil, Rw = 1, and a period T near zero, the ratio of the design shear of the total seismic reactive dead load W, is 1.10, as shown in Figure 2. The remainder of the curve for the various periods T follows from equation (1). Since Rw is assumed to be unity, such a curve represents the elastic ultimate limit state. For allowable stress design the values so established are divided by R,. For major construction either in concrete or steel, Rw is either 8 or 12, dramatically reducing the design values of the ratio V J W from the elastic ultimate limit state spectrum. For example, V J W = 1.10 for R w = 8 becomes 0.1375. For R,. = 12 such a value is even smaller. Equation (1) is formulated on linearly elastic concepts and is modified for ductile behaviour by Rw. Brittle members are generally excluded from seismic resistant construction. The behaviour of structures constructed from ductile members can generally be idealized as shown in Figure 3, where: Ce, = mathematically plausible elastic ultimate limit state corresponding to a fixed period T Cy--seismic coefficient for idealized plastic capacity of the system

O Z1. Z~ r STORY DRIFT, ZI Figure 3 Structural system response3,5

/1too-

Cs = seismic coefficient for formation of the first plastic hinge, or first significant yield Cw = seismic coefficient for reaching the allowable working stress Ry, R, Rw = reduction factors for determining C~., Cs, and Cw, respectively, from C~,
The diagram in Figure 3 represents the behaviour of steel frames as well as those of ductile reinforced concrete. Note that on forming the first plastic hinge, provided the consecutively forming hinges retain strength and capacity for deformation, the ultimate capacity of the structure is reached at mmax 3'4. On forming the first plastic hinge, in general, the capacity of a structure is not exhausted. The useful capacity of a structure can be approximated by Cy = Ce,/Ry. It is higher than the capacity Cs = Ce,/R occurring at the first plastic hinge. The ratio of R over Ry, is the overstrength factor YL i.e.

n = Cv _ _R Cs Ry

(2)

v,wJ
1.10 I ~ 1988 UBC (Rw= I, S = 1.2) ELASTIC ULTIMATE LIMITSTATESPECTRUM

For some steel frames Uang and Bertero 5 and Whittaker

et al. 6 estimated this factor to be of the order of 2. The

overstrength is due to the inadvertent statical indeterminancy of a system, selection of oversize members to control drift, stronger material than the specified minima etc. For optimized systems, such as perimeter frames, EBFs etc., the overstrength factor may be small.

' i,-

\
I

Comparison of lateral load provisions in various countries

A comparison of current code provisions in several countries is given in Table 1. In the US there are two different approaches: the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) approach exemplified by UBC z and the Ultimate Stress Design (USD) procedure advocated by NEHRP 6'7. In the table, the main features of the Japan Building Standard Law (BSL) s, as well as the National Building Code of Canada 9 and the Eurocode l are summarized 4. Except for differences in notation, the second column is very similar for all co_des. The Canadian code has a special feature of dividing R by U, a calibration factor set at a constant value of 0.6. Hence the Canadians for the present assume that 1 ) - - 1 / U = 1/0.6 = 1.67. In the New Zealand

uec

j(R.=I2)

Oo

-T--

-T--%

PERIOD, T (SEC)
Figure2 Empirical seismicforce spectra

S e i s m i c structural analysis a n d design: E. P. Popov et al.

Table 1 C o m p a r i s o n o f seismic codes
NEHRP (USD) UBC (ASD) BSL (Japan) NBCC (Canada) EUROCODE

189

Ce. = CsR

Ce= C~qw
Ceu=ZR,
(1) C w = ( 0 . 1 8 - 0.27)ZR, (2) Cw= O.18ZRt Ce.= C-R/U Overstrength: D = 1/ U C~. = Csq = AR( T) w h e r e q = R and 12 = Ceu/eI =# const

C. = Ceu/R (Rw= 1.51~

Cs = (0.25 - 0.38)ZRt

c~= D. (ZR,)
Typ. U = 0.6

code D is set at 1.511. Both values of D appear to be conservatively set, as they should be, compared with the value of 2 determined by Uang and Whittaker noted above. The Japanese code (BSL) requires consideration of two design phases: serviceability, implying elastic behaviour, for moderate earthquakes, and determination of the ultimate limit state for a major seismic event. For short and regularly shaped buildings there are two escape routes requiring only the use of ASD. Thus for a steel building of no more that 13 m (43 ft) in height, nor more than three storeys, equations on line (1) of Table 1 with a coefficient of 0.18 for Cw which has been adjusted to account for the difference of the allowable stress increase (1/3 in UBC and 1/2 in BSL) for earthquake load combinations, is used to determine serviceability. For checking the ultimate state the coefficient Cw is increased to 0.27. It can be shown that this coefficient extrapolates into 0.38 for Cs, corresponding to a conservative value of 2.6 for NEHRP-type R factor4. For symmetric buildings not exceeding 31 m (102 ft) in height, again using the equations on line (1), the coefficient for Cw can vary from 0.18 to 0.27 depending on the ratio of lateral shear resisted by braces to total shear; the larger the shear resisted by the braces, the larger is Cw. The smaller values of Cw are used in predominantly moment resisting dual systems. These values of Cw extrapolate into 0.25 and 0.38 for Cs, corresponding to an R factor of 4 (versus 8 in NEHRP) for ductile moment frames, and to 2.6 for braced frames. The conservative nature of BSL can be readily judged from the values of these coefficients. The basic features of the two-phase BSL design procedure can be seen more clearly from the equations on line (2). These provisions apply to complex buildings as well as those exceeding 31 m (102 ft) in height. Here the serviceability requirements are checked using the values of Cw that are shown. A mandatory explicit check for the building's ultimate strength, requiring nonlinear analyses, is also required using Cy. The values of Ds, a reciprocal of Rs in other codes, are 0.25 for ductile frames, and 0.55 for nonductile structures. In Japan the design of buildings over 60 m (approx. 200 ft) in height requires the creation of a government committee, and approval of the Minister of Construction. The Eurocode ~ is similar to others. In the last line of Table 1, A is ground acceleration, and R(T) simply indicates that the normalized elastic design spectrum R is a function of the building period T. In application it is necessary to determine the actual overstrength factor D requiring nonlinear iterative solutions. Such an approach, without an appropriate software, may be difficult to implement. However, default values are given, avoiding complex calculations for a large range of situations. In this respect the Eurocode resembles the approach adopted by the Japanese BSL for lower rise buildings.

Displacement ductility and number of yield reversals spectra

The constant ductility force spectra for the 1986 San Salvador, the 1985 Chile, and the 1985 Mexico City earthquakes are shown in Figures 4(a), (b) and (c), respectively. These spectra are determined using nonlinear differential equations and applying numerical methods of analysis ~2. Note that unlike the seismic code coefficients Cw or Cs which vary linearly with the displacement ductility /x, the variation of the Cy from the nonlinear analysis is shown to decrease exponentially with/x. In other words, a change in ductility, as from ~ = 1 (elastic state) to 2, or from /z = 2 to 4, causes a much more rapid decrease in Cy than, for example from/x = 6 to 8. The shapes of the displacement ductilty spectra for the San Salvador and the Chile earthquakes are rather typical, whereas for the Mexico City earthquake the spectra has a unique shape with the maximum at a period T of about 2 s. In all three cases for large values of/x the spectra are less jagged than those for small values of/x. The spectra for the number of yield reversals (NYRs) for the 1986 San Salvador, the 1985 Chile, and the 1985 Mexico City earthquakes are shown in Figures 5(a), (b) and (c), respectively. The curves for NYR = 1 are the same as those for/x = 1 in Figure 4 and correspond to a purely elastic response. The small discrepancy between the two sets of curves is attributable to the numerical procedure used. It is significant that the curves for the San Salvador and the Chile earthquakes are very similar. Therefore, seismic design based on ductility requirements, such as alone, would be essentially the same because the duration of an earthquake and the consequent NYRs is not considered in such analyses. By comparing the NYR curves given in Figures 5(a) and (b) it is clearly seen that the Chile earthquake lasting 116 s was much more damaging than the 9 s San Salvador earthquake. Including NYRs in design would provide a clearer picture as to what is required of members and connections. The procedure for determining the NYR spectra is now available.

Seismic energy input and dissipated hysteresis energy

It is instructive to display the seismic energy input for a given earthquake. Confining the calculations to a selected T-Cy region, the calculated contours for the seismic energy of the Mexico City earthquake are shown in Figure 6(a). The corresponding three-dimensional mesh surface is shown in Figure 6(b). This surface clearly shows that structures with a period T less than one should experience very little damage: whereas for those that would display larger

190

Seismic structural analysis and design: E. P. Popov et al.

~I,~DUCTIIJTY(~4.NB&LVADORI~N5) 1 5, I.O
0.8 k'U~B]~ OF y l m n ~ ( S ~ l SALVADOR 1986

1.2
i / k ' " " " : '"

1.0
O.B

tJ

"

"NYR';IO

C~ 0.8
0.4 O2

Cy 0.8
0.4 OJ~

"~ 0.0
a

~
. . . .

....
|

0.0
0

Period (8)

2
a

l ~ a o d 1.1

D u c ' m 4 w (csn.le ~eee) 1.2

1.2 I
,.0
0.8 .

NUlemCR OP "n]~J) ~ . . . . ~
j] ___: ......

(cem~ ~e8,~) NYR,, ! NYR- 10 ~nR- 150

NYR,-200

~,-e
1.0
0.8

/i

........

1:'

C; 0.8
0.4 02

\
| I

[~ 3 1

~ ......

c,o.6

~ 5_~

0.4

,..
V""-~
"% -

F'f "~ X_ "

%

....

0.(

0.0

b
1.2

Period 1=1

PERIOD (s)

, 3

b
I~)

D~PLkCEM]DTT D U ~

(M]DOCO ~ ~-1

OF ~

(MEX1COCITY ]985) - - - NYR-IO . . . . . . . . IWfR-50

1.0
0.8

-4

1.0
0.8

C~ 0.8
0.4

CT 0.6
0.4 02 0.0 8 . . . . *

02
0.0
. . . . J . . . . e . . . .

....
**.......oo.... o.... .....
.

. . . . PERIOD (-)

P~'tod (=)

J 2

. . . .
3

Figure 4 Nonlinear response spectra for displacement ductility /~ varying from 1 to 8 for: (a) 1986 San Salvador earthquake; (b) 1985 Chile LIolleo earthquake; (c) 1985 Mexico City earthquake
periods, substantial d a m a g e can be expected. These conclusions are in complete agreement with other studies and observations ~3. Proceeding similarly, the hysteresis energy that is dissipated due to this earthquake can be calculated. The contours for this energy for the same T-C,, region are shown in Figure 7(a). The corresponding three-dimensional mesh surface is s h o w n in Figure 7(b). The hysteresis energy

Figure 5 Nonlinear response spectra for number of yield reversals for: (a) 1986 San Salvador earthquake; (b) 1985 Chile Llolleo earthquake; (c) 1985 Mexico City earthquake
expended on inelastically deforming a structure can be, in the absence of nondestructive means of energy dissipation, considered as the seismic damage energy. Thus with even greater clarity than shown by the surface for the seismic energy input, Figure 6(b), the regions vulnerable to seismic damage can be seen from Figure 7(b). There is also a large region where the dissipated hysteretic energy is very small where repetition of the 1985 earthquake would cause little or no damage.

Seismic structural analysis and design: E. P. Popov

nmv'r
12 t.O
~ i4-~J ' 1 - 0 2: ,.--. ,8 8.: t

et al.

191 I N P U T ENERGY (MEXICO C I T Y

nmzRC:yOu:xro cn'y soe6)

' " " " "i ' ; l t j

',
I

" ; "

"~

1985)

( m g e s 2)

-~:.~., , ~ - 0 .

0h
0.1~ O.l 0
0h

0.8
C3, O.e

i!,V
|

iIt!!

lip. |

[,11

.I

:t'" ~ )i : , I
s e

.,:

I
.

0.4

o2
0.0 a
. . . . I . . . . t . . . .

Period 1=1

2
o ~,eriod

(')
seismic energy input

b
1985 Mexico City earthquake. (a) c o n t o u r s of seismic energy i n p u t ; (b) 3 D m e s h s u r f a c e o f a b s o l u t e

Figure 6

m,s'rmm~ ~,t
12 '
t.O O.8
~, o.e

O a m c o crry s ~ ) _r..-o.o,4 r.~=0.028 . . . . . . . . r~-0.042 ~-O.OM mils. z ) '

HYSTERESIS ENERGY (MEXICO CITY 1 9 8 5 ) ( m E z,,2)

0h

0.~

0.4 02
1
| * i | * * * *

0.0
a

eaU00

(,)

c)

.~
o

,t . (s) period

Figure 7 1 9 8 5 M e x i c o C i t y e a r t h q u a k e . (a) c o n t o u r s o f h y s t e r e s i s e n e r g y ; (b) 3 D m e s h s u r f a c e o f s e i s m i c h y s t e r e s i s e n e r g y

By integrating the volume under the mesh surfaces and assuming uniform strength building population, it is possible to obtain meaningful indices of earthquake strength and damage potential 14. The volume under the mesh surface for the absolute seismic energy input can be related to the strength of the earthquake; the volume under the mesh surface for the hysteretic energy can be considered to be the potential damage that would be caused by an earthquake. On this basis both indices rate the Mexico City earthquake as the most damaging, and the San Salvador the least damaging of the three earthquakes considered. On a relative basis, if the Mexico City earthquake has a damage potential of 1, the Chile earthquake is 0.42, and the San Salvador earthquake is 0.13. Overstrength f a c t o r s in t h e M e x i c o City code

of Mexico City for selected overstrength factors ~ are shown in Figure 8. The one for fully ductile systems of Group B buildings, qualifying for seismic behaviour factor Q = 4 (formerly called the ductility factor), is shown with
C O D E FORCE SPECTRA o.4~ , '
=

" " '

............

"u~Ic~
B = 1.0~

0.3
t

;
I

.......................

flA 1.00 ...... t'ls= 1.5~ DA: 1.33 . . . . . . . . fib 2.0. ~J-~ ....... "-'-~-~

flA 2.00 . . . . . . . .

fiB=3.0.

.r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I l ,'/

% 0.2

1,/

:'I / . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 1 / , .....................................

,

* oO .......................................................................

- .....

1 / / ,"
I
0.1 p t / J t oO* oO,O

//,'
I

It was pointed out earlier that in well designed structures for resisting seismic forces overstrength factors, as defined by equation (2), are inadvertently present. The Canadian code 9 and the Eurocode j recognize this possibility and reduce the ductility requirement somewhat. Therefore it is of interest to examine the effect of the overstrength on the designs based on the Mexico City code. The code force spectra for Zone III of the lake-bed area

0.0

'

'

'

'

'

'

2 PERIOD (s)

. . . .

Seismic force spectra for first yield for Z o n e III and Q = 4 at D,A = 1, D,e = 1 and for o v e r s t r e n g t h design up to -QA = 2 and D,a = 3

Figure 8

192

Seismic structural analysis and design: E. P. Popov

N U M B E R O F YIELD R E V E R S A L S (MEXICO CITY

et al.

l~e= 1. Multiplying the ordinates for this case by 1.5 results in a curve having two meanings, corresponding to the case of an overstrength factor of 12, = 1.5 for Group B buildings, or of fie = 1 for 'essential' facilities referred to as Group A buildings. Meanings can be attached to the lines identified by l~u = 2 corresponding to either an overstrength factor of 2 for Group B buildings, or of an I)A = 4/3 for Group A buildings. The lines associated with ~ = 3 are for Group B buildings with overstrength of 3, or of an ~ a = 2 for Group A buildings. Other building groups in other zones, and of further types, are not considered here. Performing nonlinear analyses, the ductility demand IX corresponding to the five cases of f~s given in Figure 8 are shown in Figure 9. From these results it appears that the Mexico City code has a flaw, in common with other seismic codes, by underestimating the seismic forces in the low period range below about 0.6 s. A less pronounced inadequacy is also found in the current US codes 2'7 Outside of this range the seismic provisions appear to be particularly well chosen for Group A buildings up to the period of about 1.6 s. Thereafter a line gradually sloping downward to the right could be chosen to retain the ductility Ix at 4. Allowing a higher ductility factor Ix seems inappropriate, because, as shown in Figure 4, little is gained by specifying higher ductilities. The most beneficial contribution to structural behaviour occurs at the smaller ductilities, such as 2 or 4. The situation is quite different for Group B buildings. For building periods in the range up to 1.4 s the ductilities Ix over 8 may be required. Therefore for this group of buildings considerable reliance must be placed on the overstrength factor. Thus if f ~ = 1.5, a seismic performance equivalent to I'~A= 1.0 can be expected. The conservatism of the seismic provisions for Group A buildings in Mexico City can be further justified by examining Figure 10. From this figure it can be seen that a dramatic decrease in the number of yield reversals occurs with an increase in the strength of a structure. The large NYRs for Group B buildings when ~ = 1.0 may initiate fatigue failures. For both groups of buildings overstrength of II a = 4/3 or ~ , = 2.0 and higher are unnecessary, but would not be disadvantageous. In reality, well designed and constructed buildings are likely to develop some overstrength.

1985)

F
40 r

i'..
~
":

.... I

"

.Ex,c
.

~.

~ n ' : l lOG . . . . . .
" ~ . = 1 . 6 7 .........

............

fie = 1.0] Os=2.04

fla=2.Sq

n . = 1"53

J. [~

"O A 1 . 3 3 . . . . . . . .
,,

__Fi
. . ,.

/v"

"

--,
,,',

n;=zoo ........ "-..,~

, :.

n.=3o 1

:i
o

PERIOD (s)

Figure 10 R e d u c t i o n in n u m b e r o f yield reversals w i t h i n c r e a s e in a v a i l a b l e o v e r s t r e n g t h f a c t o r ~Q f o r 1985 M e x i c o City e a r t h quake

A simple energy dissipator To survive an earthquake enough means of energy dissipation must be supplied by the structure. In conventional construction this is provided by hysteresis energy dissipated in the members and connections. Hysteretic energy is developed by inelastic action and causes damage. This can be avoided by providing nondestructive means of energy dissipation such as frictional energy dissipators. The trend to using such devices is increasing. Damage to a structure can be greatly reduced by using dissipators. Currently there is a surge in their development ]5']6. Here the discussion is limited to the Slotted Bolted Connection (SBC) as tested at the University of California, Berkeley wJ~. The SBCs are designed to dissipate energy through friction during rectilinear tension and compression cycles. Typical details of an SBC are shown in Figure 11. The design with brass shims was arrived at after much experimentation. Connections with steel on steel friction surfaces were erratic and were abandoned. In the adopted design the friction occurs between clean mill-scale A36 steel and halfhard cartridge brass USN-260 surfaces. The assembled connections (Figure 12) with different numbers of 1/2 in highstrength A325 bolts were placed into an MTS loading frame, and subjected to the displacement-time history shown in Figure 13. Representative generated hysteresis loops for a two-bolted SBC test specimen are shown in
~-" I / 2 " D4~ 4~25 BOLT, 3 - I / 2 " LONC I iJ r HARDENED FLAT WASHER 1 i 8-EH-112 SOLON i COMPR~ON W ~ E R t NUT

lO_q ~,,'~

"

'

"

"

'

~
$~)}; }~i
lO ~ ,,,.t t ~b,, ,,.. ,b~ " h',,, ,, ;~.,, .,.
~tt t %

............ fle=l.~ fl,_- 1.oo . . . . . . n e 1.5!

f~A 1.33 . . . . . . . . f / . - 1.67 . . . . . . . . . fl~=2.oo . . . . . . . .
flo=2.0"

'

"IUlEXICO"

tqs'= 2.5" na=3.o"

/~
10 |

10 0

i!
;,~',, ,,,,
t. , t i, i

".. . . . - ' - ,
i i

, t i

| i

~ ~l

~. .

. . . .

*'-.--.. %
" .
.

.oo

%...o

. ....

..--...-*'-%

-.~-..

(~

....

"X. . . .

~-..:~.,-.~...~.---:.-"
1

,-.-.-

"'-"

~"'~-

.....=-.

- . - .......
-.

2 PERIOD (s)

4
cq~cv

TE~ON iNDiCATOR (O~) ~

11

Figure9 Reduction in ductility demand /x with increase in available overstrength factor f~ for 1985 Mexico City earthquake

UNDER
Figure

UCE PLATES i L o / | e . . ~ - 1 1 2 - LONe ,SLOT

Typical detail of SBC

Seismic structural analysis and design: E. P. Popov et al.

:"::::: l / B "

193

B A S SHIMS RS

I I;

'~, ll.. ,
5 / B " A36 PLATES::

WELD:::::: 1 I
I l i

o %0 0 I
o o o 0 0000

o % I

;I

o%0

oooooo j
o

ooo o o

...... BOLT HOLES FOR ATrACHMENT TO ....... J SPECIAL MTS CLEVICES

Figure 12 Assembly of two-bolted SBC specimen for test in

MTS testing machine

STEEL ON BRASS IMPOSED DISPLACEMENTS

1.5

........ r . . . . . . . .

!..... .

0.5 0 -0.5

--

"

-1 -].5
0 20

I l
40 60

--t . . . . I J TIME

i ......... i
120 140

(SECONDS)

S0

100

Figure 13 Typical imposed displacements by MTS to specimen such as shown in Figure 12

Figure 14. The remarkable stability and uniformity of the

hysteresis loops, particularly in the relevant range o f +1 in, can be observed from this diagram. After repeated verification o f SBCs with brass shims as to their repeatability and reliability under prescribed displacements (Figure 13), a similar connection with a slip STEEL ON BRASS HYSTERESIS DIAGRAM
40

...20
r,~

0
-20

.-40
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

DISPLACEMENT (INCHES)
Figure 14 Hysteresis loops for two-bolted SBC test specimen with friction between mill-scale steel and brass surfaces

Figure 15 Two general views of test structure on shake table

194

Seismic structural analysis and design: E. P. Popov e t al.

LU
, 0

-OA

.02

0.0

02

0.4

-0,4

-02

0.0

0.2

0.4

DISPLACEMENT(INCHES)
Figure 16 Force - displacement hysteresis loops for six SBC connections due to Chile Llolleo signal amplified to PTA = 0.88g
force of 60 kips was subjected to simulated earthquake responses in the MTS machine. The earthquake record chosen first was the Pacoima earthquake, followed with simulation tests for five times the Taft, twice the E1 Centro, and 40 times the Whittier Narrows earthquakes. Results from the experiment correlated very well with the analytical predictions 19. The final verification of the SBCs was on a shake table in the braced structure shown in Figure 15. This structure represents the two end walls of a building. There were six braces in each of the two end frames. The SBCs were placed at the top of each brace. Wire potentiometers were used to measure the essentially rectilinear motion of each dissipator. The 0.5 in bolts were used at the connections in the bottom braces, and one active 0.5 in bolt was provided at the top connections for each of the braces at the upper floors. Strain gauges continuously monitored data for determining the axial forces in the braces. The model was loaded with dead weight of approximately 30 kips per floor. Accelerometers provided information for verifying the magnitude of horizontal lateral forces. The model was subjected to over 40 inputs of table motion for different earthquakes and several severe sinusoidal motions. Examples of recorded hysteresis loops for axial brace forces versus dissipator slip for one of the test frames are shown in Figures 16 and 17. Those in Figure 16 are for the table motion simulating the 1985 Chile Llolleo earthquake amplified to the peak table acceleration (PTA) =0.88g. Those in Figure 17 are for a sinusoidal motion on the shake table amplified to PTA = 1.25g, corresponding to the maximum acceleration that the table could deliver. Several interesting observations can be made regarding these hysteresis loops. The largest brace forces were developed in the first storey reaching approximately _+15kips. This is the result of using two 0.5 in bolts in the SBCs. The second floor SBCs, having just single 0.5 in bolts per connection, with the capacity of _+7.5 kips, experienced the largest displacements; the third floor SBCs, also with single 0.5 in bolts, displaced the least amount. In all cases the displacements were remarkably small. It is to be noted that although in fabricating these frames great care was taken to achieve symmetry, precise antisymmetry of the resulting hysteresis loops is not evident.

Seismic structural analysis and design: E. P. P o p o v et al.

195

o
O

-0

CtC

~'

o
0

li
.4).4

-02

0.0

0.2

0.4

.0.4

-02

0.0

02.

0.4

DISPLACEMENT(INCHES)
Figure 17 Force-displacement hysteresis loops for six SBC connections due to sinusoidal motion input of PTA = 1.25 g
ABSOLUTE INPUT ENERGY TOTAL DISSIPATED BY 8BC DISSIPATED "VISCOUSLY"

AT LEVEL $ BY $BCs

~ I

.r-'t J - , - - Z , " f ~-'-" V-..-~Y.-/r<

~rZ.,.-" __~.

. . . . . . .

AT LEVEL 2 BY SBCs

_ :
-

AT LEVEL 1 BY $BCs

| 10 20

30

'rlUS (SECOk~)S)

Figure 18 Energy histogram for 1985 Chile Llolleo earthquake amplified to PTA = 0.88g

Two examples of reduced data showing the comparison between the input energy by the table and the sum of the energy dissipated by the SBCs at the top of the braces are shown in Figures 18 and 19. It is clear from these diagrams

that SBCs are very effective in dissipating most of the input energy. These experiments also showed that the residual deflections are very tolerable. Such behaviour speaks well for energy dissipators in general for seismic applications.

196

Seismic structural analysis and design: E. P. Popov

et al.

;
OISSIPATED "VISCOUSLY"

|2
i

"'

AT LEVEL $ BY SBCs

AT LEVEL 2 BY SBCs

f
o 2

AT LEVEL t BY 8BGs

TiME(aC-CONOS)

Figure 19 Energy histogram for sinusoidal motion input of PTA = 125g

Conclusions
The large increase in the number of strong motion records world-wide, together with careful studies of structural damage caused by the earthquakes, is helping to advance the art and science of earthquake engineering. Our ability to carry out complex calculations with the aid of computers is also playing a valuable role in enhancing knowledge. Based on the issues discussed in this paper the following conclusions can be drawn: The nonlinear response spectra for ductility force decreases in an exponential manner with /x. A change in ductility, as from/x = 1 to 2, or from/x = 2 to 4, causes a much more rapid decrease in Cy than from /z = 6 to 8. Codes do not recognize this variation. Nonlinear response spectra for the number of yield reversals are of great value in assessing building response. Such spectra are very sensitive to the duration of earthquakes, and indirectly provide a measure of input energy. The overstrength factors already appearing in several codes warrant further study. Their implications for the Mexico City code have been briefly considered. The inadequacy of code specified spectra in the low period ranges is to be noted. Further study on this question is recommended. Displays of three-dimensional mesh surfaces for seismic energy input and for hysteretic energy provide guidance for establishing seismic zones. Such diagrams are particularly appropriate for Mexico City with its unique ductility force response spectrum. The great advantages of passive energy dissipators have been demonstrated. Rapid development and extensive use of passive energy dissipators in seismic design is envisaged.

particular, do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors. This paper was first presented at the III International Symposium and VI National Symposium on Steel Structures at Oaxaca, Mexico, in November 1993, and is reproduced with their permission.

References
1 Applied Technology council 'Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings', ATC 3-06, Redwood City, CA, 1978 2 International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (UBC) Whittier, CA, 1988 3 Newmark, N. M. and Hall, W. J. Earthquake spectra and design, EERI monograph, 1982 4 Uang, C-M. 'Structural overstrength and limit state philosophy in seismic design provisions', Report CE-91-01, Department of Civil Engineering, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, 1991 5 Uang, C-M. and Bertero, V. V. 'Implications of recorded earthquake ground motions on seismic design of building structures', Report UCB/EERC-88/13, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1988 6 Whittaker, A., Uang, C.-M. and Bertero, V. V. 'Earthquake simulation tests and associated studies of a 0.3-scale model of a six-story eccentrically braced steel structure', Report UCB/EERC-87/02, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1987 7 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Recommended provisions for the development of seismic regulations for new buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DC, 1991 8 International Association for Earthquake Engineering (IAEE) Earthquake resistant regulations - a world list. Tsukuba, Japan, 1988 9 National Building Code of Canada (NBCC) National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, 1990 10 European Convention for Constructional Steel (Eurocode) European recommendations for steel structures in seismic zones ECCS Technical Committee, Brussels, Belgium, 1988 11 Clifton, C. 1993 (private communication) 12 Yang, T.-S. Structural seismic design for frictional energy dissipators, Report CE299 Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA 1993 13 Bertero, V. V. (Ed.) Lessons learned from the 1985 Mexico Earthquake, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 1985 14 Popov, E. P., Yang, T.-S. and Grigorian, C. E. 'New directions in structural seismic design', Earthquake Spectra, (in press) 15 ATC 17-1. Seminar on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation, and active control, Vol. 2, Applied Technology Council, San Francisco, March 1993, pp 447-698

Acknowledgments
Partial support of the research by the National Science Foundation (Grant BCS-9016781) and the American Iron and Steel Institute is greatly appreciated. The continued encouragement of NSF Project Director Dr. S. C. Liu is particularly valued. Useful discussion with Professor V. V. Bertero of the University of California, Berkeley, and Mr. Enrique Martinez-Romero of Mexico City were essential in clarifying the Mexico City new code. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors, and, in

Seismic structural analysis and design: E. P. Popov et al.

16 Hanson, R. D. (Ed.) Theme issue: passive energy dissipation, Earthquake Spectra, 1993, 9, (3), pp 641 17 Grigorian, C. E. and Popov, E. P. 'Slotted bolted connections for energy dissipation', Proceedings of seminar on seismic isolation, passive energy dissipation, and active control, ATC 17-1, Vol. 2, 545-556, 1992

197

18 Grigorian, C. E., Yang, T.-S. and Popov, E. P. 'Slotted bolted connection energy dissipators', Earthquake Spectra, 1993, 9, (3), 491-504 19 Grigorian, C. E., Yang, T.-S. and Popov, E. P. 'Slotted bolted connection energy dissipators', Report UCB/EERC-92/10, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1992