Seismic Perfomance Assessment

Performance based Earthquake Engineering

Performance Based Seismic Design

Conjunction of the design, construction
and maintenance procedures necessary to
reach,
through
engineering
means,
predictable performances for multiple
design objectives.
Its purpose is to minimize the economic
losses after a seismic event during the
useful life of the structures.

Slide: 2/55

Code Procedures
Require buildings have complete
structural systems
Require systems have sufficient
strength to resist specified forces
Limit permissible drifts under
specified forces
Require members and connections
be detailed prescriptively

2003

Building Codes Imply

Performance
> Ability to resist frequent,

minor earthquakes without

damage

> Ability to resist infrequent,

moderate earthquakes with

limited structural and
nonstructural damage

2003

> Ability to resist worst

earthquakes ever likely to

occur without collapse or
major life safety
endangerment

Performance is not guaranteed

100 yrs

500 yrs

2,500 yrs

Building Codes & Peformance

Warranties
> If a building is affected by an extreme event and
performs poorly:

There is an expectation of how the building

should have performed but no implied
warranty
> The only warranty is that the engineer complied with
the standard of care

For most buildings, demonstration that a

design was performed in accordance with
the building code will provide adequate
proof of conformance to the standard of
care
Slide: 5/53

Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering
To transform earthquake engineering assessment and
design ...
Traditional Approach
Perform.-Based Approach
Non-scientifically
defined seismic
hazard

Scientifically-defined
seismic hazard

Indirect design
approaches

Direct design
approaches

Undefined and
uncertain
outcomes

Defined outcomes with

probabilities of
achieving them
Slide: 6/55

Performance Based Seismic

Design
Seismic performance level.
Expression the maximum acceptable damage in a
structure subjected to earthquake action.

Seismic design level.

Seismic demand representing the hazard of a site

where the structure would be located.

Seismic design objectives.

Union of a performance level and a level of seismic

design.

Slide: 7/53

Performance Based Seismic Design

ATC-33
FEMA 273, ATC 40
SEAOC- Vision 2000
Euro Code 8
Japanese code

Slide: 8/53

EC8: Conventional Criterion

Explicitly satisfy the level of performance Life
safety under a design level rare

Limit the economic losses through a check of

the damage limits for a frequent demand

Prevent the collapse under any imaginable

demand through a Capacity Design

Slide: 9/53

Selecting Performance
Present Generation
Joes

Joes
Beer!
Food!

Operational

Beer!
Food!

Immediate
Occupancy

Beer!
Food!

Life
Safety

Collapse
Prevention

Operational negligible impact on building

Immediate Occupancy building is safe to occupy but
possibly not useful until cleanup and repair has occurred
Life Safety building is safe during event but possibly not
afterward
Collapse Prevention building is on verge of
collapse, probable total loss
Slide: 10/55

Performance Level

Seismic Design Level

Fully
operational

Operational

Life safety

Collapse
prevention

Frequent (43 years)

50% in 30 years
Ocassional (72 years)
50% in 50 years

Rare (475 years)

10% in 50 years
Very Rare (970 years)
10% en 100 years
Slide: 11/53

Code-equivalent Performance
Joes
Beer!
Food!

Frequent event (varying between

50- and 100- year return periods)

Immediate
Occupancy

DBE

MCE

Beer!
Food!

Life
Safety

Collapse
Prevention
Slide: 12/55

Assessment by Static Pushover

Analysis (FEMA 273/356 and ASCE 41)
Base
Shear
Demand

Joes
Beer!
Food!

Beer!
Food!

Very rare events

(2%/50yrs)
Rare events
(10%/50yrs)
Occasional events
(20%/50yrs)
Frequent events
(50%/50yrs)

Operational

Life Safe

Structurally
Stable

Lateral Deformation
Ref: R.O. Hamburger

Slide: 13/55

Performance-Based Earthquake
Engineering
O
P
E
N

O
P
E
N

O
P
E
N

Collaps
e
Onset

Damage
Threshold

PBEE today

Deformatio
n
IO

PBEE tomorrow

25%

0.0
0

LS

0.0001
1

50%

CP

100%

0.001 0.01
30

180

0.25

FEMA 356 Performance

Levels
$, % replacement
Casualty rate
Downtime, days
Slide: 14/55

Damage Assessment: Nonstructural

Fragilities
P(DM|EPD)
P(DM|EPD)

5/8"
wallwall
withwith
3-5/8"
WallWall
Frame
5/8"Gypsum
Gypsumpartition
partition
3-5/8"
Frame

Probability of
Damage State

1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8

Severe damage to gypsum

board and distorsion of metal
frame

(Replace partition)

0.6
0.6

Wide cracks in gypsum boards

boards gypsum boards)
(Replace

0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
00

Smallcracks
cracks
Small
cracks
Small
only
only
only
(Patch, Retape

0.005
0.005

0.01
0.01

0.015
0.015

& Paint)

0.02
0.02

0.025
0.025

Interstory
Drift Ratio
EPD
(IDR)
EPD (IDR)

Ref: E. Miranda

Slide: 15/53

Performance-Based Methodology
Collapse &
Casualties

Decision Variable

Direct Financial
Loss
Downtime

Damage Measure

drift as an EDP

Engineering Demand
Parameter

Intensity Measure
Slide: 16/55

Incremental Dynamic Analysis

Collapse
EQ: 11111, Sa: 2.06g

EQ: 11112, Sa: 2.19g

EQ: 11121, Sa: 2.86g

EQ: 11122, Sa: 2.32g

Sa (T=1.0s)[g]
g.m. INTENSITY
GROUND MOTION

3.5

44 Ground
Motion
Records

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio

STRUCTURAL RESPONSE (DRIFT)

Slide: 17/55

Nonstructural Damage and Losses

(Caltech)

Slide: 19/53

PBEE Methodology: IM-EDP-DM-DV

> Ground Motion Hazard Characterization

IM Definition (Sa, )
Selection and Scaling of Ground Motions
> Simulation: IM EDP
Choice of EDPs (Drift, Floor Accel., other )
Fidelity of simulations to model collapse
> Damage Modeling: EDP DM
Taxonomy of components
Definition of conditional EDP-DM damage function
> Loss Modeling: DM DV
Definition of conditional DM-DV loss functions
Downtime and injuries/fatalities are a challenge

Slide: 20/53

Performance Assessment
Components
Decision
Variable

Relating Performance to
Risk Decision Making

Damage
Measure

Quantifying Damage
Measures

Engineering
Demand
Parameter

Simulation of System
Response

Intensity
Measure

Earthquake Hazard
Characterization
Slide: 21/53

Performance Assessment
Components
Decision
Variable

DV: $ loss, functionality,

downtime, casualties

Damage
Measure

DM: physical condition &

consequences/ramifications

Engineering
Demand
Parameter

EDP: Drift Ratio (peak, residual),

Floor Acceleration, Local
Indices (Qp, strain, )

Intensity
Measure

IM: Sa(T1), multiple Sas, epsilon,

Sdinelastic, duration
Slide: 22/53

Seismic Analysis Methods of

Structures
Linear static analysis

Equivalent static analysis

Most common in
Linear dynamic analysis
routine applications
Modal analysis
Direct time-history analysis
Nonlinear static analysis
- Nonlinear static procedures (NSPs)
Capacity spectrum analysis (ATC-40, FEMA-440)
Displacement coefficients method (FEMA-273-274,356,440)
- Improved NSPs
Modal pushover analysis (MPA) (Chopra & Goel, 2002)
Adaptive Modal Combination (AMC) (Kalkan & Kunnath, 2006)
Nonlinear dynamic analysis

Slide: 23/53

Nonlinear Static Analysis

Conceptual Theory
&
Current Practice

Slide: 24/53

Multi-degree-of-freedom (MDF) system

seismic behavior can be approximated
with certain accuracy
by
equivalent SDF systems.

Equivalent SDF (ESDF) system properties are

computed by conducting
pushover analyses
Slide: 25/55

Conventional Nonlinear Static

(Pushover) Analysis
Choose height-wise distribution of lateral forces
Monotonically increase lateral forces till the control node reaches a
target displacement i.e., increasing load factor while fixing load
pattern.
Develop pushover (capacity) curve: Plot of base shear vs. roof
displacement
ur

Vb
Slide: 26/53

Summary of Nonlinear Static Analysis

D

Fsn/Ln

Pushover Analysis

Dn
ESD System
Force-Deformation Relation
ut

Target Displacement
of MDF System ut

uj
dj

Inelastic
SDF System

Participation
Factor, Gn

Capacity estimation at
target displacement
Slide: 27/55

Fundamental Assumptions:
The response of the multi-degree-of-freedom

(MDF) structure can be related to the response of

an equivalent SDF system, implying that the
response is controlled by a single mode and this
mode shape remains unchanged even after
yielding occurs.

The invariant lateral force distribution can

represent and bound the distribution of inertia

forces during an earthquake.

Slide: 28/53

Two Important Components of

Nonlinear Static Analysis

Construct loading vector shape

Determine target roof displacement

Slide: 29/55

Height-wise Distribution of Lateral

Forces: FEMA Recommendations
Uniform:

s *j m j

First Mode :

s *j m j j 1

ELF :

s *j m j h kj

SRSS :

k 1 to 2

s *j from story shears

ELF and SRSS distributions

intended to consider higher mode
responses
Slide: 30/55

FEMA Recommended Force

Distributions
Each force distribution pushes all floors in
same direction

Slide: 31/53

Higher Mode Response

Initial

Initial

Yielding

Yielding

Initial

Yielding

Initial

Yielding
Slide: 32/53

Two Important Components of

Nonlinear Static Analysis

Construct loading vector shape

Determine target roof displacement

Slide: 33/55

Target Displacement Estimation

(Displacement Coefficient Method)
f

ut C0 Cinel

Te2
SA 4 2

Elastic SDF System

f

f
u

Inelastic MDF System

Inelastic SDF System

C0 = Constant to relate elastic deformation of SDF and MDF system

Slide: 34/53

Displacement Coefficient Method

FEMA-356: Cinel =C1C2C3

C1 = Ratio of inelastic and
elastic SDF systems
C2 = Constant to account for
effects of pinching, stiffness
degradation, and strength
deterioration
C3 = Constant to account for PDelta effects

ASCE-41: Cinel = C1C2

C1 = Ratio of inelastic and
elastic SDF systems
C2 = Constant to account for
cyclic degradation of stiffness
and strength
Upper limit on R to avoid
dynamic instability

Slide: 35/55

Capacity Spectrum Method

ut C 0 S D (Teq , eq )
f

Teq, zeq

f
u

Inelastic MDF System

Equivalent Linear Elastic SDF System

f

Inelastic SDF System

Slide: 36/53

Capacity Spectrum Method

Equivalent Damping Concept
eq 0.05

1 ED S
a
4 ESo

For bilinear systems

Teq= Tsec

Teq To
ESo
Sd
ED

z eq

1 11
0.05
1

Requires iterations to compute Teq and zeq

because of unknown ductility (uinel / uelas)

Slide: 37/55

FEMA-440 Capacity Spectrum Method

z eq A 1 B 1 z o ; 4.0

4.0 6.5
C D 1 z o ;

2
F 1 1 Teq
z o ; 6.5
E
2
F 1 To
2

2
3
Teq G 1 H 1 1 To ; 4.0

I J 1 1 T ;
4.0 6.5

-1

1 1 To ;
6.5
K

1+L 2

A to K = Constants that depend on hysteretic behavior and postyield stiffness ratio

Slide: 38/55

Limitations of Conventional (FEMA

& ATC) Nonlinear Static Analysis
Procedures
> Restricted to single mode response, can be reliably

apply to 2D response of low-rise structures in regular

plan.

> Gives erroneous results in case of:

Higher Mode Effects
Plan Irregularities (i.e., Torsion, Vertical
Irregularities)

> No established procedure for 3D pushover analysis

yet.

Slide: 39/53

Energy-based ESDF system representation of

nth-mode MDF system capacity curve
SDF
Level

(i-1) (i)

Capacity
curve

F 3 (i)

Dd 3 (i)

F 2 (i)

Dd 2 (i)

(i)
(i-1)

Forces
(s n (i) )

F 1 (i)

Dd 1 (i)

Sa , n

Vb, n
Wn

Roof Displacement, u r,n

Tn (elastic)

wn(i)) 2

Capacity
spectrum
DD n (i)
wn (i)
DD n (i)

Dd 3 (i)
ur,n(i-1) ur,n(i)

Spectral Acceleration, Sa,n

Base Shear, V b,n

MDF
Level

zn (i)

Spectral Displacement, S d,n

Sd ,n DDn(i ) ( Fn(,ij) Dd n(i, )j ) / ( Fn(,ij) )

j 1,3

j 1,3

Slide: 40/53

Performance point evaluation using system

ductility through a set of inelastic spectra
Demand
Side
Tn (elastic)
wn (i)

Tn (elastic)

zn (i)

Global
Yield

Tn (ip)

wn (ip)) 2

( yield )
d ,n

( ip )
n

Sd ,(nip )
Sd ,(nyield )

Sd(ip,n)

Spectral Acceleration, S a,n

Spectral Acceleration, S a,n

Capacity
Side

Inelastic phase,
period elongation

Tn (ip)

Inelastic Demand Spectra

plotted at different
ductility levels
Dynamic Target
Point

n( ip )
M odal Capacity
Curve

Spectral Displacement, S d,n

Spectral Displacement, S d,n

With computed system ductility, n

( ip )

Slide: 41/53

Thank You

Slide: 42/55