CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

9. SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN: A PRIMER

9.1 Recommended Reading

1. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M. J. N., Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and

2. ATC, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Report ATC-40,

3. FEMA, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings,

4. Naeim, F., The Seismic Design Handbook, 2nd Edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers

5. Bozorgnia., Y. and Bertero, V.V., Earthquake Engineering, CRC Press

6. Bolt, B. A., Earthquakes, Freeman

9.2 Analysis and Design for Earthquake Shaking

The practice of analysis and design for the effects of earthquake shaking differs substantially
from that for normal excitations such as gravity and wind loads. The table below lists some of
the key differences.

Normal Excitation Earthquake Excitation

Generally static loading Always dynamic loading

Constant loading or occur frequently Design shaking rare or very rare (2500 years)

Magnitude and direction known Magnitude and direction generally unknown

Single overload envisioned Multiple overload cycles envisioned

Loads applied directly to the framing Loads applied indirectly by moving the base

Not economically viable to prevent yielding

Module 9 Page 1
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

Codes of practice for seismic design have existing in the United States since the early 1930s.
(For information, Japan first adopted provisions for seismic design in the 1890s.) The basis
seismic design equation of the 1927 Uniform Building Code for a building was

V  CW

where V is the design base shear (to be discussed later), C is a seismic coefficient, and W is the
weight of the building.

The rupture of a fault produces seismic waves that can be recorded by seismographs
(accelerometers) and related digital equipment. A typical seismograph records three translational
components of earthquake shaking: two horizontal and one vertical. Acceleration histories from
the 1994 Northridge earthquake at one recording site are shown below. These histories can be
used directly for response-history analysis but are more traditionally converted into a response
spectrum for design purposes as discussed below.

Module 9 Page 2
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

9.3 Response Spectra

A response spectrum is a plot, for a given earthquake history, of the relationship between the
maximum value of a specific response quantity (e.g., acceleration, velocity, displacement) and
vibration period (or frequency). Sample acceleration, velocity and displacement spectra are
presented below. Such spectra are generally plotted for linear-elastic response and one or more
damping ratios. The typical damping ratio is 5%.

1.2

1.0
Acceleration (g)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

P eriod (sec.)

150
Displacement (cm)

100

50

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
P eriod (sec.)
The pseudo-acceleration ( PSa ) and spectral displacement ( Sd ) ordinates are related through the
period of vibration (T) by the following equation:

2 2
PS a  ( ) Sd
T

In large earthquakes, recorded peak horizontal accelerations have exceeded 0.8g. What does this
mean in terms spectral demands?

Module 9 Page 3
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

 For T = 0.3 second, PSa  2.0 g , Sd  1.8 in

 For T = 1.0 second, PSa  0.6 g , Sd  in

 For T = 3.0 seconds, PSa  0.2 g , Sd  in

Much information on the generation of response spectra for design is available in FEMA
356/ASCE-41 and related documents.

9.4 Traditional Seismic Analysis and Design

Traditional seismic analysis has been based on analysis of linear elastic models of building
frames using forces derived from an acceleration response spectrum. The equation for the
maximum design shear force at the base of a building (V) has traditionally taken the form

PS a (T , )W
V
R

where R is a response modification factor that is intended to characterize the ability of the
framing system to dissipate energy, and all other terms have been defined previously. If R is set
equal to 1.0, the design base shear is that associated with elastic response in the building frame.
More typical values for R are in the range of 6 to 8 for ductile reinforced concrete framing
systems.

 Implications for damage in moderate levels of shaking?

Once the design base shear force is established, this force is distributed over the height of the
building using a profile that is generally related to the first mode shape of the buildings. See the
cartoon below.

The sum of the lateral forces acting at the different floors of the building is equal to the design
base shear V. Together with gravity loads, these lateral forces are imposed on a linear elastic

Module 9 Page 4
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

model of the building frame. The resulting moments, shears, and axial forces are used to
proportion the components of the building frame.

Prescriptive details must then be followed to provide sufficient deformation capacity in the
components that could undergo inelastic response.

9.5 Inelastic Response of Building Structures

The practice of earthquake engineering makes use of terms such as displacement ductility,
ductility ratio, and strength reduction (or response modification) factor. The idealized base shear-
roof displacement relationship presented below is used to introduce these terms.

Force

Ve

Vy

y u
Displacement

Using the figure above, the following terms are defined:

 Displacement ductility is u   y , which is a measure of inelastic deformation capacity

u
 Displacement ductility ratio is  
y
Ve
 Strength reduction or response modification factor is R 
Vy
For common ductile reinforced concrete building-framing systems R ranges between 6 and 8.
The actual maximum strength is likely to be 2 to 3 times the nominal design strength.

 Why?

Module 9 Page 5
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

Accordingly, the effective value for R (due to ductility) ranges between 2 and 3 for ductile
building framing systems. What is a more representative force-displacement relationship than
that presented above?

For the design of ductile reinforced concrete bridge construction, the value of R is in the range of
4 to 5. Reserve strength in bridge components is smaller than that in buildings (say 1.3 to 1.5).
Accordingly, the effective value for R (due to ductility) for ductile bridge construction is again
between 2 and 3.

9.6 Nonlinear Response of Building Framing Systems

9.6.1 Local and Global Ductility Demands

Consider the cantilever wall (beam) shown below with a lateral force applied at the top of the
wall. One commonly adopted idealization of the response of the wall is shown.

lp

y u
Wall elevation Moment diagram Curvature distribution

What is the lateral force versus wall tip displacement relationship for this wall?

Force

Displacement at tip of wall

For this wall, the local and global displacement ductility demands will be (similar, identical, or
different)?

Module 9 Page 6
CIE 525 Reinforced Concrete Structures Instructor: Andrew Whittaker

Consider now the two frames shown below. Assume that the yield deformations in both frames
are equal to  y , where this displacement is measured at the roof of the building, and that the
displaced shape at yielding is that of the frame on the left below.

δ δ

For these two frames, what are the

 Local ductility demands in the first story of the frames?

 Global ductility demands in the frames?

Module 9 Page 7