Professional Documents
Culture Documents
South Elevation
Evaluation Methodology
T = 1.27 sec.
PMR = 85%
Longitudinal Fundamental Mode
500
2nd Fl. Int. Columns Shear Hinge
Ext. Beams
+
M Hinge
400
2nd Fl. Ext. Columns Shear Hinge Uniform
Base Shear [kips]
Modal
300
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Roof Displacement [in.]
Hinge locations
Response Spectra
Subject: Site Response Spectra Job Number: A2162007.00
4207
Phone: 415.392.6952
Fax: 415.981.3157
Date: 4/29/02
Job: PEER Van Nuys By: RGP Section:
Checked By: Page: ___ of ___
2.5
2% in 50 Years
2
10% in 50 Years
1
0.5
50% in 50 Years
0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Period [sec]
Roof Displacement
Peak displacement during Northridge
9.2 inches
Calculated displacement capacity is
significantly less. Why?
Conservative hinge assumptions? (actual
elements can go farther)
Conservative limitations on lap splice capacities?
Conservative accounting for degradation (C3)
Higher Mode Effects? (not a factor based on our
linear model results)
Plastic hinge not a reliable EDP?
Summary
ASCE 31 Tier 1 does a good job of
predicting possible deficiencies
FEMA 356 does reasonable job of
predicting cracked stiffness, in lieu of
more detail
FEMA 356 NSP yields very
conservative results for this building
Can PEER Methodology more
accurately predict recorded response?