You are on page 1of 14

PHILOSOPHY AND PRINCIPLES

OF EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN

Yogendra Singh
Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee

1. INTRODUCTION
Man has been building shelters for time immemorial. He has observed his buildings
being washed away by floods and landslides and razed down by earthquakes and
fire. He has learnt lessons from these calamities and developed methods to
safeguard his construction.

V
? Lack of Knowledge
on Earthquake
Demand and Building
Capacity

Vdes Linear Elastic


Building Response

(a) (b)

Demand Reduced
S Based on Inelastic
Capacityof building
V Elastic Forces
Reduced for
Design by R

Performance Point
Inelastic
V des
Response

yield max des


Sd
(c) (d)

Fig. 1 Evolution of Earthquake Resistant Design

Earthquake Resistant Design / 1


The first significant point regarding the earthquakes, which was learnt by mankind
was that earthquakes cause lateral loads on buildings. Today, it may appear very
obvious and easy to understand, but it was a great leap of understanding when
somebody presented this idea first time. Since then, our understanding of
earthquakes and their effects on buildings has increased a lot.
Initially there was no understanding of origin and occurrence of earthquakes. Now
we have significant information about origin of earthquakes and their recurrence
periods in different parts of the world. Further, we have a fair idea of the expected
characteristics of earthquakes likely to occur in different parts of the country and
world. Although, this information, by no means, is adequate for predicting the
characteristics of expected ground shaking at a given location, we can estimate the
average probable values on regional basis for design purposes.
The first concept of earthquake resistant design was (Fig. 1) to design the buildings
for a lateral load which was 5% to 10% of gravity load. Later, it was discovered that
earthquake force on a structure depends on its time period of vibrations. Further, it
was seen that a structure can withstand much higher force during earthquake, than
for which it was designed. This is due to ductility of structures. Ductility is the
property of the structure by which it can deform plastically without loosing its
vertical load carrying capacity. The current practice of designing earthquake
resistant structures, takes into account both strength and ductility of structures,
under earthquake loads.

2. CHARACTERISTICS OF EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION


Earthquakes occur due to rupture of earths crustal rock along the planes of
weakness called faults. Magnitude of an earthquake is an indicator of the total
energy released during the rupture, while Intensity is the severity of shaking of
ground at a given location. Among the several prevalent scales, Richter scale is the
most commonly used scale for magnitude of earthquake and MMI and MSK scales
are the most popular scales for measuring the Intensity of scale. The damage at a site
is indicated by the intensity of ground shaking at the site. The damage potential of
ground shaking at a location depends on the following parameters:
(i) Amplitude of ground motion, i.e. Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), Peak
Ground Velocity (PGV), and Peak Ground Displacement (PGV),
(ii) Frequency content of ground motion, and
(iii) Duration of earthquake.
It is customary to consider the effect of first two parameters in the design, which are
represented in the form of response spectrum. The effect of duration of earthquake
is generally not considered by the current codes of practice, as it is difficult to be
estimated and modelled. These parameters in tern depend on the magnitude of

Earthquake Resistant Design / 2


earthquake, rupture characteristics,
path characteristics, local topology
and local geotechnical conditions at
site. All these characteristics
together cause large variation in
ground motion within a city or a
region. This variation can be
considered in Seismic
Microzonation of the city, which is
a costly and involved process. In
India efforts have been initiated
towards Microzonation of some
important cities. However, the
present code of practice is based on
the concept of Seismic
Macrozonation, in which an
average ground shaking level is
assigned to a considerably large
zone. At present the country is
divided into four zones as shown in
Fig. 2. Fig. 3 shows the normalized
Fig. 2 Seismic Macrozonation Map of India
shape of the response spectra as per
IS:1893-2002. Three different shapes

Fig. 3. Normalised spectral shape as per IS:1893-2002

Earthquake Resistant Design / 3


have been suggested for three different types of soil conditions. These shapes take
into account the local site conditions to some extent. The code specifies zone factors,
which may be interpreted as the Effective Peak Ground Accelerations, for each zone.
The normalized spectral shape multiplied by the zone factor results in the design
response spectrum for the given zone and the given soil type.
Another important parameter of the earthquakes is their probability of occurrence,
which is normally interpreted in terms of the average return period of the
earthquake of a given severity. It is obvious that a larger magnitude earthquake will
have lower probability of occurrence or larger average return period. Our code
(IS:1893-2002) has defined two levels of earthquakes Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) and Design Basis Earthquake (DBE). The code is silent about the
probability of occurrence of these earthquakes, but, as per the prevailing definitions
world over, the MCE corresponds to 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years and
an average return period of 2,500 years, while the DBE corresponds to 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years and an average return period of 475 years. The
severity of ground shaking in MCE is about double of that in DBE and it is
considered as a theoretical limit on the maximum ground shaking which can occur
at a site.

3. PHILOSOPHY AND PRINCIPLES OF EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN


It should be clear that earthquakes result in very high lateral forces on structures. it
will be uneconomical to design all the buildings for such high earthquake forces. As
earthquakes are rare events, the IS: 1893 outlines the philosophy of earthquake
resistant design that the building should not have any significant structural damage
under moderate earthquakes, which are relatively frequent. On the other hand,
under a major earthquake, which is rare (average return period being 1000 years or
more), the building may undergo severe damage, but it should not collapse in any
case, as collapse results in large scale loss of life.
To avoid collapse of buildings during earthquakes there are four basic principles: (i)
Reduced mass; (ii) Symmetry and Continuity of construction, (iii) Strength and
overstrength and (iv) Ductility of structure. There are functional limits on reduction
of mass, but it is obvious that a light weight structure will attract less force
compared to a heavy structure. Seismic performance of a symmetric and regular
structure has been observed to be much better than the asymmetric and irregular
structures. The common types of irregularities found in buildings are described in
the following sections. Role of strength and overstrength in resisting the inertia
forces due to earthquakes is obvious. Overstrength is that part of the strength of the
structure, which is not explicitly estimated in the design process and considered as a
reserve strength. It arises due to higher material strength, strain hardening, strength
increase due to strain rate effect, member oversize, provided reinforcement more

Earthquake Resistant Design / 4


than required, codal minimum requirements, effect of non-structural elements and
redundancy etc.
The role of ductility in resisting the earthquakes is not that obvious to common
sense. It can be visualized by considering the earthquake ground motion as an
energy imparted to the structure, which is to be dissipated by the structure. Ductility
is the property of the structure which helps in energy dissipation without excessive
damage or collapse of the structure. This is being dealt with in detail in the
following sections.

4. IMPORTANCE OF DUCTILITY IN EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN


Fig. 6 shows the
resistance vs.
Effective Elastic Limit
displacement curve for a
Actual Resistance typical building. The
ry
ductility is defined as the
Actual Yield ratio of the maximum
Point Effective Yield
Resistance

Level
displacement u m to the
Useful Limit of
Displacement
yield displacement u y .
Larger is the capacity of
um= uy
the building to deform
after yielding, without
O uy Displacement um collapse, larger is the
ductility of the building.
Fig. 6 Typical load-displacement curve for a building
This ductility is very
important in loss of energy
under cyclic loading, such as
earthquake loading. The Bilinear representation
effective damping ratio of capacity spectrum
depends on the ratio of the
Spectral Acceleration

Capacity spectrum
energy dissipated due to
ap
hysteresis, ED in each cycle
Kinitial Keffective
and the total strain energy Eso.
Fig. 7 shows the two energies
ay
as the areas under load ED Eso
deformation curves. The
effective damping results is
reduction of effective
earthquake forces on the dY dp
Spectral Displacement
building.
Fig. 7 Energy dissipation due to ductility resulting
in effective damping

Earthquake Resistant Design / 5


Fig. 8 shows the reduction in effective earthquake force on the building due to its
ductility. As shown in the Fig., it has been observed that total displacement of a
yielding long period (i.e. tall) building remains almost same, under a given
earthquake, irrespective of its ductility. This is called Equal Displacement
Principle. This means that we can design a structure in a number of combinations
of strength and ductility. If the building has no ductility, we have to design it for a

FE
FE
Seismic Force

m
R 2
(R+1)

Seismic Force
m
Y
Y 2
Elastic Elastic
Ductile

FY FY

Ductile
Y m Y m
Displacement Displacement

Fig. 8 Equal Displacement and Equal Energy Principle

Table 1. Response Reduction Factors as per IS:1893-2002


S. No. Lateral Load Resisting System R
1. Ordinary RC moment-resisting frame ( OMRF ) 3.0
2. Special RC moment-resisting frame ( SMRF ) 5.0
3. Steel frame with
a) Concentric braces 4.0
b) with Eccentric braces 5.0
6. Steel moment resisting frame designed as per SP 6 5.0
7. Load bearing masonry wall buildings
a) Unreinforced 1.5
b) Reinforced with horizontal RC bands 2.5
c) Reinforced with horizontal RC bands and vertical 3.0
bars at corners of rooms and jambs of openings
8. Ordinary reinforced concrete shear walls 3.0
9. Ductile shear walls 4.0
10. Buildings with Dual Systems
Ordinary shear wall with SMRF 3.0
Ordinary shear wall with SMRF 4.0
Ductile shear wall with OMRF 4.5
Ductile shear wall with SMRF 5.0

Earthquake Resistant Design / 6


very high lateral force. As shown in the Fig., the reduction in force R is equal to
ductility in such a case.
For a short period (i.e. short) building the total displacement is not the same but the
total energy absorbed by the building remains same. The total energy absorbed is
shown by the area of the force-displacement curve and as shown in the Fig. 8,
R 2 1 , in this case.
Ductility of building depends on the material of construction, and proportion and
detailing of the components of the building. Based upon the ductility of different of
building IS: 1893 gives the reduction factors for the buildings (Table-1).

5. RESPONSE REDUCTION (BEHAVIOUR) FACTORS IN EC8


Eurocode 8 defines the main structural systems as following:

Wall system
Structural system in which both vertical and lateral loads are mainly resisted by
vertical structural walls, either coupled or uncoupled, whose shear resistance at the
building base exceeds 65% of the total shear resistance of the whole structural
system. In this definition, the fraction of shear resistance is considered as the fraction
of shear forces in the seismic design situation. If most of the total shear resistance of
the walls included in the system is provided by coupled walls, the system may be
considered as a coupled wall system.

Frame system
Structural system in which both the vertical and lateral loads are mainly resisted by
spatial frames whose shear resistance at the building base exceeds 65% of the total
shear resistance of the whole structural system.

Dual system
Structural system in which support for the vertical loads is mainly provided by a
spatial frame and resistance to lateral loads is contributed to in part by the frame
system and in part by structural walls, coupled or uncoupled.

Frame-equivalent dual system


Dual system in which the shear resistance of the frame system at the building base is
greater than 50% of the total shear resistance of the whole structural system.

Earthquake Resistant Design / 7


Wall-equivalent dual system
Dual system in which the shear resistance of the walls at the building base is higher
than 50% of the total seismic resistance of the whole structural system.

Torsionally flexible system


Dual or wall system not having a minimum torsional rigidity. The buildings having
required torsional rigidity should satisfy the following conditions. At each level and
for each direction of analysis x and y, the structural eccentricity eo and the torsional
radius r should be in accordance with the two conditions below, which are
expressed for the direction of analysis y:
eox 0.30 rx (1a)
rx l s (1b)
where
eox is the distance between the centre of stiffness and the centre of mass, measured
along the x direction, which is normal to the direction of analysis considered;
rx is the square root of the ratio of the torsional stiffness to the lateral stiffness in the
y direction (torsional radius); and
ls is the radius of gyration of the floor mass in plan (square root of the ratio of (a) the
polar moment of inertia of the floor mass in plan with respect to the centre of mass
of the floor to (b) the floor mass).
An example of the torsionally flexible system is a structural system consisting of
flexible frames combined with walls concentrated near the centre of the building in
plan. This definition does not cover systems containing several extensively
perforated walls around vertical services and facilities. For such systems the most
appropriate definition of the respective overall structural configuration should be
chosen on a case-by-case basis.

Inverted pendulum system


System in which 50% or more of the mass is in the upper third of the height of the
structure, or in which the dissipation of energy takes place mainly at the base of a
single building element. One-storey frames with column tops connected along both
main directions of the building and with the value of the column normalized axial
load nowhere exceeding 0.3, do not belong in this category.

Earthquake Resistant Design / 8


Energy dissipation capacity and ductility classes
The design of earthquake resistant concrete buildings shall provide the structure
with an adequate capacity to dissipate energy without substantial reduction of its
overall resistance against horizontal and vertical loading. In the seismic design
situation adequate resistance of all structural elements shall be provided, and non-
linear deformation demands in critical regions should be commensurate with the
overall ductility assumed in calculations. Concrete buildings may alternatively be
designed for low dissipation capacity and low ductility, by applying only the rules
of EN 1992-1-1:2004 for the seismic design situation, and neglecting the specific
ductility provisions. Design with this alternative, termed ductility class L (low), is
recommended only in low seismicity cases.
Earthquake resistant concrete buildings other than those described above (DC L),
shall be designed to provide energy dissipation capacity and an overall ductile
behaviour. Overall ductile behaviour is ensured if the ductility demand involves
globally a large volume of the structure spread to different elements and locations of
all its storeys. To this end ductile modes of failure (e.g. flexure) should precede
brittle failure modes (e.g. shear) with sufficient reliability. Such buildings are
classified in two ductility classes DCM (medium ductility) and DCH (high ductility),
depending on their hysteretic dissipation capacity. Both classes correspond to
buildings designed, dimensioned and detailed in accordance with specific
earthquake resistant provisions, enabling the structure to develop stable
mechanisms associated with large dissipation of hysteretic energy under repeated
reversed loading, without suffering brittle failures.

Behaviour Factors for Different Structural Systems and Ductility Classes


Eurocode 8 defines Behavior Factor, q to consider the inelastic energy dissipation in
structures. Except for those classified as torsionally flexible systems, concrete
buildings may be classified to one type of structural system in one horizontal
direction and to another in the other. A wall system is classified as a system of large
lightly reinforced walls if, in the horizontal direction of interest, it comprises at least
two walls with a horizontal dimension of not less than 4.0 m or 2hw/3, whichever is
less, which collectively support at least 20% of the total gravity load from above in
the seismic design situation, and has a fundamental period T1, for assumed fixity at
the base against rotation, less than or equal to 0.5 s. It is sufficient to have only one
wall meeting the above conditions in one of the two directions, provided that: (a) the
basic value of the behaviour factor, qo, in that direction is divided by a factor of 1.5
over the value given in Table 2 and (b) that there are at least two walls meeting the
above conditions in the orthogonal direction.
The upper limit value of the behaviour factor, to account for energy dissipation
capacity, shall be derived for each design direction as follows:

Earthquake Resistant Design / 9


q = qokw 1.5 (2)
where,
qo is the basic value of the behaviour factor, dependent on the type of the structural
system and on its regularity in elevation;
kw is the factor reflecting the prevailing failure mode in structural systems with
walls.
For buildings that are regular in elevation, the basic values of qo for the various
structural types are given in Table 2.

Table 2. Basic value of the behaviour factor, qo, for systems regular in elevation
STRUCTURAL TYPE DCM DCH
Frame system, dual system, coupled wall system 3.0u/1 4.5u/1
Uncoupled wall system 3.0 4.0u/1
Torsionally flexible system 2.0 3.0
Inverted pendulum system 1.5 2.0

For buildings which are not regular in elevation, the value of qo should be reduced
by 20%. 1 and u are defined as follows:
1 is the value by which the horizontal seismic design action is multiplied in
order to first reach the flexural resistance in any member in the structure,
while all other design actions remain constant;
u is the value by which the horizontal seismic design action is multiplied, in
orderto form plastic hinges in a number of sections sufficient for the
development of overall structural instability, while all other design actions
remain constant. The factor u may be obtained from a nonlinear static
(pushover) global analysis, as shown in Fig. 9.
When the multiplication factor u/1 has not been evaluated through an explicit
calculation, for buildings which are regular in plan the following approximate
values of u/1 may be used.
a) Frames or frame-equivalent dual systems.
One-storey buildings: u/1 =1.1;
multistorey, one-bay frames: u/1 =1.2;
multistorey, multi-bay frames or frame-equivalent dual structures:
u/1 =1.3.

Earthquake Resistant Design / 10


b) Wall- or wall-equivalent dual systems.
wall systems with only two uncoupled walls per horizontal direction:
u/1=1.0;
other uncoupled wall systems: u/1=1.1;
wall-equivalent dual, or coupled wall systems: u/1=1,2.

Vb

uF

1F

roof
Fig. 9 Typical Capacity Curve Obtained from Pushover Analysis and Definition of 1 and u

For buildings which are not regular in plan the approximate value of u/1 that may
be used when calculations are not performed for its evaluation are equal to the
average of (a) 1.0 and of (b) the value given above. Values of u/1 higher than those
given above may be used, provided that they are confirmed through a nonlinear
static (pushover) global analysis. The maximum value of u/1 that may be used in
the design is equal to 1.5, even when the analysis results in higher values. The value
of qo given for inverted pendulum systems may be increased, if it can be shown that
a correspondingly higher energy dissipation is ensured in the critical region of the
structure.
The factor kw reflecting the prevailing failure mode in structural systems with walls
shall be taken as follows:
(i) 1.00, for frame and frame equivalent dual systems
(ii) (1+ o)/3 1.0, but not less than 0.5, for wall, wall - equivalent and torsionally
flexible systems where o is the prevailing aspect ratio of the walls of the
structural system.

Earthquake Resistant Design / 11


If the aspect ratios hwi/lwi of all walls i of a structural system do not significantly
differ, the prevailing aspect ratio o may be determined from the following
expression:
o =hwi /lwi (3)
where
hwi is the height of wall i; and
lwi is the length of the section of wall i.
Systems of large lightly reinforced walls cannot rely on energy dissipation in plastic
hinges and so should be designed as DCM structures.

5. HOW CAN WE MAKE RC BUILDINGS DUCTILE


Concrete is known to be brittle material, i.e. it fails suddenly when subjected to load.
But concrete can be made ductile when confined by reinforcement. Fig. 10 shows the
behaviour of unconfined and confined concrete. It can be seen that confinement not
only increases the strength of concrete, but it tremendously increases the ductility of
concrete. The confinement of concrete is obtained by providing stirrups. Here, it is
very important, that stirrups should be hooked at 1350 into the core concrete,
otherwise these stirrups open up under force due to earthquake and the confining
action is not available.
Confined Further, even with
concrete First hoop confinement, RC
Compressive Stress, f c

Fracture
f'cc members are sufficiently
ductile in bending action
only, but not in axial and
f'c Unconfined shear action. Therefore,
concrete
we have to ensure that
Ec Assumed for
cover concrete
RC members should yield
Escc
fi in flexure and not in axial
Et Eco 2Eco Esp Ecc Ecu or shear action. This can
Compressive Strain, Ec
be ensured by designing
the RC members in such a
Fig. 10 Behaviour of Confined and Unconfined Concrete
way that their shear and
axial load capacity is higher than their capacity in flexure. This concept is called
Capacity Design and it can be understood by the following analogy.

Earthquake Resistant Design / 12


PiS Pi PiS
P1
Pi >PE/

Brittle Links Ductile Links Brittle Chain Links


PIS PO ' '
PO = Pi = PE PiS n
'
+ 2
1

PO PO
' Pi ' Pi
1
+ 1
2
21 PE (n+ 2)
2 (n+1)

1 l 2 l
n l+ 2 u l

n Brittle Links + Ductile Links Ductile Chain Links


(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 11 Analogy for Capacity Design

Fig. 12 Local and Global failure mechanisms

Fig. 11, shows a chain, which has one ductile link, while all other links are brittle.
This chain is subjected to load P at the ends, as shows in the Fig. Now, the question
is, whether the failure of chain will be brittle or ductile? This can be answered, if we
know whether the ductile link is going to fail first or a brittle link. If the capacity of
all brittle links is higher than the ductile link, the failure of the chain will be ductile,
otherwise it will be brittle. This concept is used in making a building to behave in a

Earthquake Resistant Design / 13


ductile manner by designing all the brittle modes to have higher strength than the
ductile modes.
In a building two modes of failure are possible (Fig. 12). In the first mode of failure
columns of one storey yield and building fails in a local mechanism. On the other
hand, in the second mode of failure, all the beams yield first than the columns. This
type of failure mechanism is called global mechanism. It is obvious that the second
mode of failure provides much larger ductility than the first mode. This can be
achieved by designing the beams of the building weaker than the columns. Weak
beam and strong column design is the most important concept of building design.

REFERENCES
1. ATC 40, 1996, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied
Technology Council, California.
2. Eurocode-8. 2004. BS EN 1998-1: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-
Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. Brussels, Belgium,
European Committee for Standardization (CEN).
3. IS 13920-1993, Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to
Seismic Forces Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
4. IS 1893-2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 General
Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
5. IS 4326-1993, Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of buildings Code of
practice, Bureau of India Standards, New Delhi.
6. IS 456-2000, Plain and Reinforce Concrete Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
7. Key, David, 1988, Earthquake Design Practice for Buildings, Thomas Telford,
London.
8. Paulay T., and Priestley, M.J.N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & sons, Inc., New York.
9. Penelis, George G., and Kappos, Andreas J., 1997, Earthquake Resistant Concrete
Structures, E & FN Spon.

Earthquake Resistant Design / 14

You might also like