Based upon elastic perfectly plastic oscillators, this research investigates the influence of cumulative damage on seismic response modification factors. To take into account the cumulative damage due to hysteretic energy absorption, the Park–Ang damage index was adopted as the damage measure. A large number of iterative nonlinear response history analyses were conducted for the oscillators with periods and other features representative of conventional civil structures. Analysis results show that a significant portion of the total damage in a system reaching its damage limit state is due to hysteretic energy absorption. Consequently, the maximum tolerable ductility demand in the system under earthquake loading is lower than its ductility capacity determined under the monotonic loading condition. Moreover, the existing formulae for calculating response modification factors are shown to be inadequate to capture the effect of cumulative damage. A new method was developed for improved estimates of the response modification factors.
ArayaRSaragoniGR (1980) Capacity of the strong ground-motion to cause structural damage. In: Proceedings of the 7th world conference on earthquake engineering, Istanbul, Turkey.
2.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.
3.
BerteroVVAndersonJCKrawinklerH. (1991) Design guidelines for ductility and drift limits. Report no. UCB/EERC-91/15 EERC. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
4.
BerteroVVMahinSAHerreraRA (1978) Aseismic design implications of near-fault San Fernando earthquake records. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics6: 31–42.
5.
ChopraAK (2001) Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6.
CornellAC (1997) Does duration really matter?FHWA/NCEER Workshop on the National Representation of Seismic Ground Motion for New and Existing Highway Facilities (NCEER project 106-F-541 and ATC-18-1), Burlingame CA, 29–30 May, pp. 125–133. Washington, DC: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
7.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2003) NEHRP Recommended Provisions and Commentary for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450). Available at: http://www.nehrp.gov/pdf/fema450provisions.pdf
GhoshSDattaDKatakdhondAA (2011) Estimation of the Park-Ang damage index for planar multi-storey frames using equivalent single-degree systems. Engineering Structures33: 2509–2524.
10.
HidalgoPAAriasA (1990) New Chilean code for earthquake resistant design of buildings. In: Proceedings of the 4th US national conference on earthquake engineering, Palm Springs, CA, 20–24 May.
11.
HouHQuB (2015) Duration effect of spectrally matched ground motions on seismic demands of elastic perfectly plastic SDOFS. Engineering Structures90: 48–60.
12.
KunnathSKReinhornAMLoboRF (1992) IDARC version 3.0: A program for the inelastic damage analysis of reinforced concrete structures. Report no. NCEER-92-0022, 31August. Buffalo, NY: National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research.
13.
LaiSPBiggsJM (1980) Inelastic response spectra for aseismic building design. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division106: 295–310.
MirandaEBerteroVV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthquake Spectra10: 357–379.
16.
NassarAAKrawinklerH (1991) Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems. Report no. 95, June. Stanford, CA: The John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University.
17.
NewmarkNMHallWJ (1973) Seismic design criteria for nuclear facilities. Report no. 46. Washington, DC: Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation, National Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce.
18.
ParkYJAngAHS (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering114: 722–739.
19.
PorushAR (1988) Current changes and future trends in U.S. seismic code provisions. In: Proceedings of the 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, vol. V, 2–9 August, pp. 568–574.
20.
RahnamaMManuelL (1996) The effect of strong motion duration on seismic demands. In: Proceedings of the 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, 23–28 June.
21.
RiddellRNewmarkNM (1979) Statistical Analysis of the Response of Nonlinear Systems Subjected to Earthquakes, (Structural research series no 468). Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign.
22.
RiddellRHidalgoPCruzE (1989) Response modification factors for earthquake resistant design of short period structures. Earthquake Spectra5: 571–590.
23.
SamantaAMegawatiKPanTC (2012) Duration-dependent inelastic response spectra and effect of ground motion duration. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon, 24–28 September.
24.
SaragoniGR (1985) Azimuthal effects on earthquake destructiveness. In: Proceedings of the transactions of the 8th international conference on structural mechanics in reactor technology, vol. M, Brussels, 19–23 August, pp. 303–308.
25.
Van de LindtJWGohG (2004) Earthquake duration effect on structural reliability. ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering130: 821–826.
26.
VidicTFajfarPFischingerM (1992) A procedure for determining consistent inelastic design spectra. Workshop on nonlinear seismic analysis of RC structures, Bled, 13–16 July.
