Effectiveness of simple approaches in mitigating residual deformations in buildings

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 36, Issue 12, 2007, Pages 1763-1783

  Pettinga, Didier ^a   Christopoulos, Constantin ^b   Pampanin, Stefano ^c   Priestley, Nigel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PAVIA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Performance based design; Permanent deformations; Post yield stiffness; Residual displacement

Indexed keywords

DEFORMATION; DEGREES OF FREEDOM (MECHANICS); REINFORCEMENT; STIFFNESS; STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS;

DIRECT DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN; POST-YIELD STIFFNESS; RESIDUAL DISPLACEMENT;

SEISMIC DESIGN;

BUILDING; DEFORMATION; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; SEISMIC DESIGN; STIFFNESS;

EID: 34648816830     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.717     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. MacRae GA, Priestley MJN, Tao J. P - Δ design in seismic regions. Report No. SSRP-93/05, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 1993.
2. MacRae GA, Kawashima K. Post-earthquake residual displacements of bilinear oscillators. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1997; 26:701-716.
3. Priestley MJN. Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering conflicts between design and reality. Proceedings of the Thomas Paulay Symposium: Recent Developments in Lateral Force Transfer in Buildings, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, vol. SP-157. ACI Special Publication, 1993; 231-254.
4. Kawashima K. The 1996 Japanese seismic design specifications of highway bridges and performance based design. In Proceedings of the Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Bled, Slovenia, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds). Balkema: Rotterdam, 1997; 371-382.
5. MacRae GA. Residual displacements of reinforced concrete bridge columns subject to seismic loading. Proceedings of the 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, WA, U.S.A., 1998; Paper 155.
6. Borzi B, Calvi GM, Elnashai AS, Faccioli E, Bornmer J. Inelastic spectra for displacement-based seismic design. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2001; 21(1):47-61.
7. Christopoulos C, Pampanin S, Priestley MJN. Performance-based seismic response of frame structures including residual deformations. Part I: Single-degree-of-freedom systems. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2003; 7(1):97-118.
8. Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E. Residual displacement ratios for assessment of existing structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(3):315-336.
9. Uma SR, Pampanin S, Christopoulos C. A probabilistic framework for performance-based seismic assessment of structures considering residual deformations. Proceedings of the Ist ECEES, Geneva, Switzerland, 2006; Paper 731.
10. Christopoulos C, Pampanin S. Towards performance-based seismic design of MDOF structures with explicit consideration of residual deformations. ISET Journal 2004; 41(1):53-73.
11. Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Priestley MIN. Performance-based seismic response of frame structures including residual deformations. Part II: Multi-degree-of-freedom systems. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2003; 7(1):119-147.
12. Pettinga JD, Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Priestley MJN. The role of inelastic torsion in the determination of residual deformations. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2007; 11:133-157.
13. Priestley MJN. Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited. The Mallet Milne Lecture, IUSS Press: Pavia, Italy, 2003.
14. Kawashima K, MacRae GA, Hoshikuma J, Nagaya K. Residual displacement response spectrum. Journal of Structural Engineering 1998; May:523-530.
15. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Report FEMA 356, Washington, DC, 2000.
16. Bentz EC, Collins MP. Response-2000 v1.0.5, www.ecf.utoronto.ca/ ~bentz/home.shtml, October 2005.
17. Carr AJ. Ruaumoko Program for Inelastic Dynamic Analysis - Users Manual. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury: Christchurch, New Zealand, 2005.
18. Otani S. Hysteretic models for reinforced concrete for earthquake analysis. Journal Faculty of Architecture 1981; XXXVI(2):125-159.
19. Antoniou S, Pinho R. SeismoStruct, www.seismosoft.com, March 2005.
20. Menegotto M, Pinto PE. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal force and bending. Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, Zurich, Switzerland, 1973; 15-22.
21. Dazio A. Residual displacements in capacity designed reinforced concrete structures. Proceedings of the 13th WCEE, Vancouver, Canada, 2004; Paper No. 2399.
22. Standards New Zealand.NZS1170.5:2004 Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake actions - New Zealand. 2004; 80.
23. King A, Davidson B, McVerry G. Inelastic response of buildings subject to revised code ground motion. Proceedings of the NZSEE Conference, Napier, New Zealand, 2002; Paper No. 3.3.
24. Bommer JJ, Acevedo AB. The use of real earthquake accelerograms as input to dynamic analysis. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2004; 8(Special Edition):43-91.
25. Kiggins S, Uang CM. Reducing residual drift of buckling-restrained braced frames as a dual system. Engineering Structures 2006; 28:1525-1532.
26. Ruiz-Garcia J, Miranda E. Evaluation of residual drift demands in regular multi-storey frames for performance-based seismic assessment. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35:1609-1629.
27. Fu Q, Menun C. Residual displacements caused by fault-normal near-field ground motions. Proceedings of the 8th National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, San Francisco, CA, 2006; Paper No. 1027.
28. Pettinga JD, Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Priestley MJN. Developments in the prediction and mitigation of residual displacements due to seismic demand, including asymmetric structural response. Research Report ROSE, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, Pavia, 2007.
29. Pampanin S, Christopoulos C, Priestley MJN. Residual deformations in the performance-based seismic assessment of frame systems. Research Report ROSE, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk, 2002/02, Pavia, 2002.
30. Watanabe A, lEtomi Y, Saeki E, Wada A, Fujimoto M. Properties of brace encased in buckling-restraining concrete and steel tube. Proceedings of the 9th WCEE, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, 1988.
31. MacRae GA. P - Δ effects on single-degree-of-freedom structures in earthquakes. Earthquake Spectra 1994; 10(3):539-568.
32. Sullivan TJ, Priestley MJN, Calvi GM. Direct displacement-based design of frame-wall structures. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2006; 10(Special Issue 1):91-124.
33. Englekirk R. Steel Structures. Wiley: New York, 1994.
34. Paulay T. Some design principles relevant to torsional phenomena in ductile buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2001; 5(3):273-308.