Hysteretic energy dissipation capacity and the cyclic to monotonic drift ratio for rectangular RC columns in flexure

Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics

Volumn 38, Issue 7, 2009, Pages 907-928

  Poljanšek, Karen ^a,b   Peruš, Iztok ^a   Fajfar, Peter ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LJUBLJANA   (Slovenia)

^b JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Cumulative damage; Deformation capacity; Energy dissipation capacity; Non parametric empirical method; Reinforced concrete column; Ultimate drift

Indexed keywords

AXIAL LOADS; BUILDING MATERIALS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; CONCRETE BEAMS AND GIRDERS; CONCRETE BUILDINGS; CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION; CONNECTORS (STRUCTURAL); DEFORMATION; DETERIORATION; ELECTRON ENERGY LOSS SPECTROSCOPY; ENERGY DISSIPATION; ENERGY DISSIPATORS; REINFORCED CONCRETE; REINFORCEMENT;

CUMULATIVE DAMAGE; DEFORMATION CAPACITY; ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY; NON-PARAMETRIC EMPIRICAL METHOD; REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMN; ULTIMATE DRIFT;

COLUMNS (STRUCTURAL);

COLUMN; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; CYCLIC LOADING; DEFORMATION MECHANISM; DYNAMIC RESPONSE; EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING; ENERGY DISSIPATION; FAILURE ANALYSIS; FLEXURE; HYSTERESIS; REINFORCED CONCRETE; SEISMIC RESPONSE; SHEAR STRESS; STRUCTURAL RESPONSE; TREND ANALYSIS;

EID: 68149150797     PISSN: 00988847     EISSN: 10969845     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/eqe.875     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Akiyama H. Earthquake-resistant Limit State Design for Buildings. University of Tokyo Press: Tokyo, 1980.
2. Fajfar P. Equivalent ductility factors, taking into account low-cycle fatigue. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1992; 21(10):837-848. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290211001.
3. Cosenza E, Manfredi G. The improvement of the seismic-resistant design for existing and new structures using damage concept. In Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds). Balkema: Rotterdam, 1997; 119-130.
4. Chai YH, Fajfar P, Romstad KM. Formulation of duration dependent inelastic seismic design spectrum. Journal of Structural Engineering 1998; 124(8):913-921.
5. Chai YH. Incorporating low-cycle fatigue model into duration dependent inelastic design spectra. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(1):523-537. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.422.
6. Teran-Gilmore A, Jirsa JO. Energy demands for seismic design against low-cycle fatigue. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(3):383-404. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.663.
7. Sucuoĝlu H, Erberik MA. Energy-based hysteresis and damage models for deteriorating systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33(1):69-88. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.338.
8. Surahman A. Earthquake-resistant structural design through energy demand and capacity. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(14):2099-2117. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.718.
9. Benavent-Climent A. An energy-based damage model for seismic response of steel structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(8):1049-1064. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.671.
10. Fajfar P, Vidic T. Consistent inelastic design spectra: hysteretic and input energy. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1994; 23(5):523-537. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.4290230505.
11. Kunnath SK, Chai YH. Cumulative damage-based inelastic cyclic demand spectrum. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33(4):499-520. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.363.
12. Manfredi G. Evaluation of seismic energy demand. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001; 30(4):485-499. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.17.
13. Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Cosenza E. Ground motion duration effects on nonlinear seismic response. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(1):21-38. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.529.
14. Arroyo D, Ordaz M. On the estimation of hysteretic energy demands for SDOF systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(15):2365-2382. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.736.
15. Ghosh S, Collins KR. Merging energy-based criteria and reliability-based methods. Exploring a new concept. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(13):1677-1698. DOI: 10.1002/ eqe.602.
16. Prasanth T, Ghosh S, Collins KR. Estimation of hysteretic energy demand using concepts of modal pushover analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2008; 37(6):975-990. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.802.
17. Lew SH. Evaluation of seismic performance parameters. In Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds). Balkema: Rotterdam, 1997; 151-158.
18. Kunnath SK, El-Bahy A, Taylor AW, Stone WC. Cumulative seismic damage of reinforced concrete bridge piers. Technical Report NCEER-97-0006, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, 1997.
19. Erberik A, Sucuoǧlu H. Seismic energy dissipation in deteriorating systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2004; 33(1):49-68. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.337.
20. Park H, Eom T. A simplified method for estimating the amount of energy dissipated by flexure-dominated reinforced concrete members for moderate cyclic deformations. Earthquake Spectra 2006; 22(2):459-490. DOI: 10.1193/1.2197547.
21. Chang GA, Mander JB. Seismic energy based fatigue damage analysis of bridge columns. Part 1 - evaluation of seismic capacity. Technical Report NCEER-94-0006, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York, Buffalo, 1994.
22. Haselton CB. Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern reinforced concrete moment frame buildings. Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University, 2006: 218.
23. Ibarra FL, Medina RA, Krawinkler H. Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(12):1489-1511. DOI: 10.1002/ eqe.495.
24. Grabec I, Sachse W. Synergetics of Measurement. Prediction and Control. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, 1997; 458.
25. Peruŝ I, Poljanšek K, Fajfar P. Flexural deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns determined by the CAE method. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2006; 35(12):1453-1470. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.584.
26. Peruŝ I, Fajfar P. Prediction of the force-drift envelope for RC columns in flexure by the CAE method. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(15):2345-2363. DOI: 10.1002/ eqe.735.
27. Elwood KJ, Matamoros AB, Lehman DE, Heintz JA, Andrew D, Mitchell AD, Moore MA, Valley MT, Lowes LN, Comartin CD, Moehle JP, Wallace JW. Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions. Earthquake Spectra 2007; 23(3):493-523. DOI: 10.1193/1.2757714.
28. Zhu L, Elwood KJ, Haukaas T. Classification and seismic safety evaluation of existing reinforced concrete columns. Journal of Structural Engineering 2007; 133(9):1316-1330. DOI: 10.1061/ (ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:9(1316).
29. Koduru D, Haukaas T, Elwood KJ. Probabilistic evaluation of global seismic capacity of degrading structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2007; 36(13):2043-2058. DOI: 10.1002/ eqe.733.
30. University of Washington. The UW-PEER Reinforced Concrete Column Test Database. http://www.ce.washington.edu/~peera1/, 2005.
31. Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN. Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Structural Journal 2001; 98(2):135-148.
32. Fardis MN, Biskins DE. Deformation capacity of RC members, as controlled by flexure or shear. In Performance-based Engineering for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Structures, Kabeyasawa T, Shiohara H (eds). A volume honoring Shunsuke Otani, University of Tokyo: Tokyo, 2003; 511-530.
33. Berry M, Parrish M, Eberhard M. PEER Structural Performance Database: User's Manual (Version 1.0). Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, 2004.
34. Dimova SL, Negro P. Influence of construction deficiencies on the seismic response of structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005; 34(6):613-635. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.436.
35. MatLab. The Language of Technical Computing. The MathWorks, Inc.: Natick, MA, 2000.
36. Cosenza E, Manfredi G. Seismic analysis of degrading models by means of damage functions concept. In Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds). Elsevier Science Publishers: London and New York, 1992; 77-94.
37. Krawinkler H, Nassar AA. Seismic design based on ductility and cumulative damage demands and capacities. In Nonlinear Seismic Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds). Elsevier Science Publishers: London and New York, 1992; 23-40.
38. Bellman RE. Adaptive Control Processes: A Guided Tour. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, 1961.
39. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. EN 1998-3, Brussels, European Committee for Standardization, 2005.
40. Comité Euro-International du Béton (CEB). RC Frames under Earthquake Loading - State of the Art Report. Convenor MN. Fardis. London, Thomas Telford, 1996.
41. Bertero VV. Performance-based seismic engineering: a critical review of proposed guidelines. In Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes. Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds). Balkema: Rotterdam, 1997; 1-32.