Modern methods of seismic design (since the 1970s) allow structural engineers to design new buildings with the aim of predictable and ductile behaviour in severe earthquakes, in order to prevent collapse and loss of life. However some controlled damage is expected, which may result in the building being damaged beyond economic repair after severe shaking. Seismic protection of structures has seen significant advances in recent decades, due to the development of new technologies and advanced materials. It has only been recently recognised world-wide that it is possible to design economical structures which can resist severe earthquakes with limited or negligible structural damage. There are two alternative ways of designing buildings to avoid permanent damage in severe earthquakes; base isolation and damage-resistant design. Base isolation requires the building to be separated from the ground by isolation devices which can dissipate energy. This is proven technology which may add a little to the initial cost of the building, but will prove to be less expensive in the long term. Damage-resistant design is developing rapidly, in several different forms. These include rocking walls or rocking frames, with or without post-tensioning, and a variety of energy dissipating devices attached to the building in different ways. If not already the case, damage-resistant design will soon become no more expensive than conventional design for new buildings.
Extended Direct Analysis (EDA), developed at the University of Canterbury, is an advance on the AISC Direct Analysis method for the analysis of frames subjected to static forces. EDA provides a faster, simple and more rational way to properly consider the second-order effects, initial residual stresses (IRS) and the initial imperfections or steel structures under one directional loading than conventional analysis methods. This research applied the EDA method to quantify the effect of member overstrength on frame behaviour for a single storey frame. Also, the effects of IRS, which were included in the EDA static analysis, but which are not considered explicitly in non-linear seismic analysis, were evaluated in two ways. Firstly, they were considered for simple structures subject to increasing cyclic displacement in different directions. Secondly, incremental dynamic analysis with realistic ground motion was used to quantify the likely effect of IRS in earthquakes. It was found that, contrary to traditional wisdom and practice, greater member strengths can result in lower frame strengths for frames under monotonic lateral loading. The structural lateral capacity of the overstrength case was reduced by 6% compared to the case using the dependable member strengths. Also, it resulted significantly different in member demands. Therefore, it is recommended that when either plastic analysis or EDA is used, that both upper and lower bounds on the likely member strength should be considered to determine the total frame strength and the member demands. Results of push-pull analysis under displacement control showed that for IRS ratio, gamma < 0.5 and axial compressive force ratio, N*/Ns, up to 0.5, IRS did affect the structural behaviour in the first half cycle. However, the behavior in the later cycles was not significantly affected. It also showed that the effect of initial residual stresses in the frame was less significant than for the column alone when the column was subjected to similar axial compressive force. The incremental dynamic analysis results from both cantilever column and the three-storey steel frame showed that by increasing gamma = 0 to 0.5, the effect of IRS on seismic responses, based on the 50% confidence level, was less than 3% for N*/Ns, up to 0.5.
