A study of the dynamic seismic performance index of building in Indonesia

Figures & data

Figure 1. SDOF system with bilinear hysteretic model.

Table 1. Selected ductility factor when varying T₀ and C_y.

Cy T0	0.1	0.2	0.3	0.4	0.5
0.1	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10
0.2	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10
⋮	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10
1.0	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10
1.2	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10
⋮	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10
2.0	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10	1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10

Note: 1, 2, 3, ⋯, 10 are μ_cr

Figure 2. The response spectrum design of Indonesian code.

Table 2. Simulated earthquake ground motions.

Type of Ground Motion	Year	PGA [cm/s^2]	Simulated PGA [cm/s^2]
El Centro – NS	1940	341.6	309.2
El Centro – EW		210.1	259.9
Kobe – NS	1995	817.8	403.0
Kobe – EW		617.1	418.3
Taft – NS	1952	152.7	362.9
Taft – EW		175.9	310.5

Figure 3. Simulation of the acceleration response spectrum.

Figure 4. Relationship between shear force coefficient C and ductility factor μ.

Figure 5. Characteristics of maximum displacement.

_{Table 3. The shear coefficient of C0.}

T0	δ max	Q max	C0
(s)	(cm)	(kN)
0.10	0.01	4352.50	0.453
0.20	0.06	5686.83	0.592
0.30	0.13	5642.17	0.587
0.40	0.24	5777.83	0.602
0.50	0.39	6025.17	0.627
0.60	0.59	6301.67	0.656
0.70	0.78	6150.83	0.640
0.80	1.07	6463.00	0.673
0.90	1.28	6124.33	0.638
1.00	1.66	6404.83	0.667
1.20	2.24	6028.67	0.628
1.40	2.43	4790.33	0.499
1.60	2.80	4224.67	0.440
1.80	3.18	3797.83	0.395
2.00	3.54	3420.00	0.356

Figure 6. The spectrum of the dynamic seismic index (_dI_s).

Figure 7. Relationship dynamic ductility index (_dF) and critical ductility (μ_cr).

Figure 8. The spectrum of dynamic ductility index (_dF).

Figure 9. The reliability of the ductility index estimation method with increasing the critical ductility factor.

Table 4. The percentage of error estimation for each _dF estimation.

T0	% Error					dFest_#
	dFest_1	dFest_2	dFest_3	dFest_4	Min
0.1	38.7%	58.7%	13.8%	51.6%	13.8%	dFest_3
0.2	19.1%	47.4%	16.0%	37.4%	16.0%	dFest_3
0.3	12.9%	43.6%	25.3%	32.8%	12.9%	dFest_1
0.4	12.8%	44.3%	26.0%	33.2%	12.8%	dFest_1
0.5	1.0%	37.2%	43.5%	24.5%	1.0%	dFest_1
0.6	9.1%	31.7%	59.1%	17.4%	9.1%	dFest_1
0.7	10.4%	31.5%	61.6%	16.9%	10.4%	dFest_1
0.8	24.8%	23.7%	83.9%	6.9%	6.9%	dFest_4
0.9	28.1%	22.3%	89.3%	4.9%	4.9%	dFest_4
1.0	42.4%	14.1%	111.0%	5.5%	5.5%	dFest_4
1.1	39.6%	15.7%	106.8%	3.4%	3.4%	dFest_4
1.2	53.2%	8.1%	127.6%	13.1%	8.1%	dFest_2
1.3	52.5%	8.7%	126.5%	12.4%	8.7%	dFest_2
1.4	56.6%	6.2%	132.7%	15.5%	6.2%	dFest_2
1.5	64.1%	1.6%	143.8%	21.1%	1.6%	dFest_2
1.6	63.9%	1.6%	143.5%	21.1%	1.6%	dFest_2
1.7	66.7%	0.0%	147.7%	23.1%	0.0%	dFest_2
1.8	66.1%	0.3%	146.7%	22.7%	0.3%	dFest_2
1.9	65.7%	0.5%	146.2%	22.4%	0.5%	dFest_2
2.0	69.5%	1.5%	151.9%	25.0%	1.5%	dFest_2

Figure 10. Relationship critical ductility factor and dynamic ductility index on several estimation methods.

Table 5. The percentage of error comparison for both estimation method.

T0	% Error		Min error
	dF_est_AIJ	dF_eq(19)	estimation
0.1	9.6%	13.8%	dF_est_AIJ
0.2	3.2%	16.0%	dF_est_AIJ
0.3	3.1%	12.9%	dF_est_AIJ
0.4	2.7%	12.8%	dF_est_AIJ
0.5	7.3%	1.0%	dF_eq(19)
0.6	8.0%	9.1%	dF_est_AIJ
0.7	1.9%	10.4%	dF_est_AIJ
0.8	0.9%	6.9%	dF_est_AIJ
0.9	8.5%	4.9%	dF_eq(19)
1.0	7.9%	5.5%	dF_eq(19)
1.1	16.9%	3.4%	dF_eq(19)
1.2	12.8%	8.1%	dF_eq(19)
1.3	13.3%	8.7%	dF_eq(19)
1.4	11.0%	6.2%	dF_eq(19)
1.5	6.8%	1.6%	dF_eq(19)
1.6	6.9%	1.6%	dF_eq(19)
1.7	5.4%	0.0%	dF_eq(19)
1.8	5.7%	0.3%	dF_eq(19)
1.9	5.8%	0.5%	dF_eq(19)
2.0	3.9%	1.5%	dF_eq(19)