{"title":"Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering--Conflicts Between Design and Reality","authors":"M. Priestley","doi":"10.14359/983","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current practice in seismic analysis and design is examined, with particular reference to reinforced concrete structures. The attitude of the paper is deliberately iconoclastic, tilting at targets it is hoped will not be seen as windmills. It is suggested that the current emphasis on strength-based design and ductility leads us in directions that are not always rational. A pure displacement-based design approach is advanced as a viable alternative. Improvements resulting from increased sophistication of analyses are seen to be largely illusory. Energy absorption is shown to be a mixed blessing. Finally, accepted practices for flexural design, shear design, development of reinforcement, and the philosophic basis of capacity design are questioned.","PeriodicalId":305630,"journal":{"name":"SP-157: Recent Developments In Lateral Force Transfer In Buildings","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1995-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"294","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SP-157: Recent Developments In Lateral Force Transfer In Buildings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14359/983","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 294
Abstract
Current practice in seismic analysis and design is examined, with particular reference to reinforced concrete structures. The attitude of the paper is deliberately iconoclastic, tilting at targets it is hoped will not be seen as windmills. It is suggested that the current emphasis on strength-based design and ductility leads us in directions that are not always rational. A pure displacement-based design approach is advanced as a viable alternative. Improvements resulting from increased sophistication of analyses are seen to be largely illusory. Energy absorption is shown to be a mixed blessing. Finally, accepted practices for flexural design, shear design, development of reinforcement, and the philosophic basis of capacity design are questioned.