14WCEE Keynote Presentation

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings in the United States
Jack Moehle
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center University of California, Berkeley with contributions from Yousef Bozorgnia, Tony Yang, PEER/Berkeley Ron Klemencic, MKA Seattle Joe Maffei, Rutherford & Chekene Paul Somerville, SCEC/URS John Wallace, PEER/UCLA
Performance-based seismic design

O P E N O P E N O P E N
Base Shear
Damage Threshold
Collapse Onset
Deformation
Serviceability Infrequent
Safety Very rare
Performance Levels
Shaking Level
Performance-based seismic design

O P E N O P E N O P E N
Base Shear
Damage Threshold
Collapse Onset
Deformation
Today
Serviceability
Safety
Performance Levels
Tomorrow 0
0.0 0
25% 0.0001 1 7
50% 0.001 0.01 30 180
100% 0.25
$, % replacement Casualty rate Downtime, days
Tall buildings
(proposed, approved, or under construction, at last count)
Over 75m: San Francisco 38; Los Angeles 61; Seattle
Steve Boland, 2006
The new generation of tall buildings

Whats different about them?
High-performance materials and systems Framing systems not satisfying code prescriptions
undefined systems defined systems beyond permitted height limits
MKA
MKA
MKA
MKA
MKA
104.11 Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment. The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the installation of any material or to prohibit any design or method of construction not specifically prescribed by this code, provided that any such alternative has been approved. An alternative material, design or method of construction shall be approved where the building official finds that the proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the equivalent of that prescribed by this code in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.
Building review and approval

Peer review
Three-member panel with relevant expertise
Submittal requirements
Seismic design criteria Computer models Design and verification results Project specs and construction drawings
Seismic Design Criteria

Earlier approach
Satisfy all code requirements, with limited exceptions Code enhancements
explicit capacity design performance verification using nonlinear analysis detailing enhancements
More recent approach

Establish performance objectives explicit capacity design as appropriate performance verification by nonlinear dynamic analysis detail as required to ensure performance
Seismic performance objectives
after Vision 2000, SEAOC
Performance objectives question

Given 40 tall buildings in a city. Very rare earthquake. What do you think of this performance scenario?
Hypothetical Performance Level A Level B Level C Expected No. of Bldgs in each Structural Damage State None/Slight Moderate 20 19 12 15 9 6 Extensive 4 7 9 Complete 1 4 9 Collapse 0 1 4
Holmes et al, 2008
Seismic performance objectives
Serviceability check
Code level design with exceptions
Stability check
Seismic hazard analysis
URS
2.5
Pseudo Acceleration, g
2.0
2% in 50 yr UHS
1.5
Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis
1.0
0.5
0.0
10
Period, sec
Selection and scaling of ground motions
TARGET
Scenario spectrum
2.5 2% in 50 yr UHS
Pseudo Acceleration, g
2.0
2% in 50 yr M6.5 Scenario
1.5
1.0
T1
0.5
0.0
10
Period, sec
Nonlinear analytical models

Moment
Lateral system
Floor Number
3000
2000
Link beam
Analytical Experimental
1000
Gravity-only system
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000 -0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0.05
0.1
0.15
Rotation
Bounding Analysis 0.25-1.0Gc 0.1-0.5Gc
Model sensitivity: Wall shear

40 Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 No Factors
30 Floor Level
20000 10000 0
20
10
0
-10000 -20000
Wall Shear
ATC 72 (Wallace), 2008
Model sensitivity: Wall moment

60
Floor Level
50 40 30 20 10
Strong hinge Intermediate Intermediate Weak hinge
intended yield hinge
0 0 10000 20000
Moment
Modeling assumptions
40
Fiber Hinge Fiber all
4 40
Fiber Hinge Fiber all
30
3 30
Floor Level
20
Floor Level
-20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000
2 20
10
10
-30000
-20000000
20000000
North South Force (K)
Moment about East West axis(K-in)
ATC 72 (Wallace), 2008
Damping
ATC 72 (Deierlein), 2008, after data from Goel and Chopra, 1997
Calculated dynamic response
Yang, 2007
Scenario spectra
1.4
T3 Spectral Acceleration, g
1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 DBE CMS, T1 CMS, T2 CMS, T3
T2
T1
Period, sec
Baker and Yang, 2008
Wall shears and moments

L42 L37 L32
DBE CMS, T1 CMS, T2 CMS, T3
Floor Number
L27 L22 L17 L11 L6 L1 B5 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0
Wall Shear Baker and Yang, 2008
Wall Moment
(b) Peak building responses
Design values?
ROOF Roof drift, ft Wall Wall base moment at shear, k 13th floor, 1000 x k-ft 7600 29700 15500 22200 0.43 5500 513 1080 900 1090 0.21 760
13th
Minimum Maximum Mean (m) m+ c.o.v. Nonlinear static
2.1 6.7 4.2 5.4 0.23
BASE
(a) Building elevation

after Maffei
(b) Summary of results
a design philosophy
in rare earthquake ground shaking
there should be no more than a 50% chance that demands will exceed capacities for ductile failure modes, and the chance of experiencing a nonductile failure mode should be less.
Structural wall tests
CTL 1980 Berkeley and PCA tests ca 1970s and 1980s
Flexural assessment
0.035 0.03 0.025 0.02
+2.0%
Test Results Fiber model
strains
0.015 0.01 0.005 0 -0.005 -0.01 -0.015 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Distance from the left end [mm]
Wallace 2007
Typical flexure verification
Core wall tension strains
Shear-compression failure
CTL 1980 Corley, Fiorato, Oesterle, ACI SP 72, 1981
Design for brittle failure modes

Design demands shall consider dispersion of calculated responses. Design strengths shall be based on specified materials properties with strength reduction factors per the code.
Frequency
Vn Vu
mean +
R = capacity Q = demand Y=R-Q
P[(Y = R - Q) < 0] = shaded area
Y=R-Q
Outrigger Forces
1.2D + 1.6L Mo
Gravity
reactions (L reduced) moments (L not reduced)
1.0D + 0.1L
Seismic
Mo Mo /4
Equivalent gravity frame model
Rigid-plastic hinges
core wall
equivalent slab-beam equivalent column
Floor plan
Simplified model
Calculated outrigger axial forces

42
Floor number [-]
37 32 27 22 17 11 6 1 B5
Mean Mean + std data
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
axial force [kips]

Yang, 2008
Slab-wall connection performance
Klemencic, Frye, Hurtado, Moehle, PCI, 2006
Link beams
Confine diagonals
Confine section
ACI 318, 2008
Diagonally reinforced link beams

Drift (% Rotation)
-0.12 200 -0.06 0 0.06 0.12
ln/h = 2.4
100 Diagonal (B2) Full (B1)
Lateral Load (k)
-100
-200 -4.32 -2.16
Relative Displacement (in)
2.16
4.32
Rotation = 0.06
Wallace, 2007
Buckling-restrained braces and steel plate shear walls
LA Live!, Los Angeles
WAMU Center, Seattle
One Rincon Hill, San Francisco
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
76 stories 11 ft/story
LA Convention Center
Park 5th Pershing Square
2000 Third, Seattle
Millennium Tower, San Francisco
LA Center, Los Angeles
Grand Avenue, Los Angeles
Summary
New generation of tall buildings Performance-based design Opportunities and challenges
Grand Avenue, Los Angeles

14WCEE Keynote Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14WCEE Keynote Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings in the United States

Performance-based seismic design

Safety Very rare

Performance-based seismic design

50% 0.001 0.01 30 180

$, % replacement Casualty rate Downtime, days

Steve Boland, 2006

The new generation of tall buildings

Building review and approval

Seismic Design Criteria

More recent approach

Seismic performance objectives

after Vision 2000, SEAOC

Performance objectives question

Holmes et al, 2008

Seismic performance objectives

Code level design with exceptions

Seismic hazard analysis

Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

Selection and scaling of ground motions

Nonlinear analytical models

Bounding Analysis 0.25-1.0Gc 0.1-0.5Gc

Model sensitivity: Wall shear

Model sensitivity: Wall moment

Strong hinge Intermediate Intermediate Weak hinge

intended yield hinge

Fiber Hinge Fiber all

Fiber Hinge Fiber all

North South Force (K)

Moment about East West axis(K-in)

ATC 72 (Wallace), 2008

Calculated dynamic response

Wall shears and moments

DBE CMS, T1 CMS, T2 CMS, T3

L27 L22 L17 L11 L6 L1 B5 0 0.5 1.0 0 0.5 1.0

Wall Shear Baker and Yang, 2008

Minimum Maximum Mean (m) m+ c.o.v. Nonlinear static

2.1 6.7 4.2 5.4 0.23

(a) Building elevation

(b) Summary of results

Structural wall tests

CTL 1980 Berkeley and PCA tests ca 1970s and 1980s

Distance from the left end [mm]

Typical flexure verification

Core wall tension strains

CTL 1980 Corley, Fiorato, Oesterle, ACI SP 72, 1981

Design for brittle failure modes

R = capacity Q = demand Y=R-Q

P[(Y = R - Q) < 0] = shaded area

Equivalent gravity frame model

equivalent slab-beam equivalent column

Calculated outrigger axial forces

Floor number [-]

Mean Mean + std data

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

axial force [kips]

Slab-wall connection performance

Klemencic, Frye, Hurtado, Moehle, PCI, 2006

ACI 318, 2008

Diagonally reinforced link beams

Lateral Load (k)

-200 -4.32 -2.16

Relative Displacement (in)