Application of Performance-based Design to Naveed Anwar ...solutions.ait.ac.th/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NA-Day-2-Workshop... · Seismic Design of Tall Buildings” •PEER/ATC 72-1,

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Application of Performance-based Design to

actual projects (Case Studies)Naveed Anwar, PhD


Performance-based DesignAn Introduction


•

•

•

•

•

•


• The Gravity Load Resisting System

•

• The Lateral Load Resisting System

•

• The Floor Diaphragm

•


Source: NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 3


• PEER 2010/05, “Tall Building Initiative,

Guidelines for Performance Based

Seismic Design of Tall Buildings”

• PEER/ATC 72-1, “Modeling and

Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings”

• ASCE/SEI 41-13, “Seismic Evaluation

and Retrofit of Existing Buildings”

• LATBSDC 2014, “An Alternative

Procedure for Seismic Analysis and

Design of Tall Buildings Located in the

Los Angeles Region”


Required Information


•

•

•

•


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


•

•

•

•

•

•

•



• Service Level Earthquake (SLE)

• 50% of probability of exceedance in 30 years (43-year

return period)

• Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)


return period)

• Maximum Considered Earthquake

(MCE)


return period)0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CELE

RA

TIO

NNATURAL PERIOD (SEC)

Response Spectra

SLE (g)

DBE (g)

MCE (g)


•

• 10-year

• 50-year 700-year

•

•

•

•


Performance-based DesignThe Procedure


Preliminary design

Detailed code-

based design

SLE Evaluation

MCE Evaluation

Geotechnical investigation

Probabilistic seismic hazard

assessment

Peer review

Wind tunnel test

Performance-based Design Procedure


Structural

system

development

• Bearing wall

system

• Dual system

• Special moment

resisting frame

• Intermediate

moment resisting

frame

Finite

element

modeling

• Linear analysis

models

• Different stiffness

assumptions for

seismic and wind

loadings

Check overall

response

•Modal analysis

• Natural period, mode

shapes, modal

participating mass

ratios

• Gravity load response

• Building weight per

floor area

• Deflections

• Lateral load response

(DBE, Wind)

• Base shear, story drift,

displacement

Preliminary

member

sizing

• Structural density

ratios

• Slab thickness

• Shear wall thickness

• Coupling beam sizes

• Column sizes


• Modeling

•

•

•

• Gravity load design

•

•

• Wind design

•

••

•

••

•


• Seismic design (DBE)

•

•

•

•

•

•

•


Source: FEMA P695 | June 2009


•

•

•

•

•

•

•


•

•

•

•

•


•

•

•

•

•

•


Source: LATBSDC 2014


•

•

Force-deformation relationship for deformation-controlled actions

Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13


•

• Critical actions

•

•

• Non-critical actions

•

•

Force-deformation relationship for force-controlled actions

Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13


Component Action Classification Criticality

Shear wallsFlexure Deformation-controlled N/A

Shear Force-controlled Critical

Coupling beams (Conventional)

Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A

Shear Force-controlled Non-critical

Coupling beams (Diagonal) Shear Deformation-controlled N/A

GirdersFlexure Deformation-controlled N/A

Shear Force-controlled Non-critical

ColumnsAxial-Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A


Diaphragms

Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical

Shear (at podium and basements) Force-controlled Critical

Shear (tower) Force-controlled Non-critical

Basement wallsFlexure Force-controlled Non-critical


Mat foundationFlexure Force-controlled Non-critical


PilesAxial-Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical


Classification of Actions


Item Value

Peak transient drift Maximum of mean values shall not exceed 3%.Maximum drift shall not exceed 4.5%.

Residual drift Maximum of mean values shall not exceed 1%.Maximum drift shall not exceed 1.5%.

Coupling beam inelastic rotation ≤0.05 radian for both conventional and diagonal reinforced beams

Column (Axial-flexural interaction and shear)Flexural rotation ≤ASCE 41-13 limitsRemain elastic for shear response.(Column shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)

Shear wall reinforcement axial strain ≤0.05 in tension and ≤0.02 in compression

Shear wall concrete axial compressive strainIntermediately confined concrete ≤ 0.004 + 0.1 ρ (fy / f'c)Fully confined concrete ≤ 0.015

Shear wall shear Remain elastic (Check for 1.5 times mean value)

Girder inelastic rotation ≤ASCE 41-13 limits

Girders shear Remain elastic.

Mat foundation (Flexure and shear)Remain elastic.(Mat foundation shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)

Diaphragm (In-plane response)Remain elastic.(Podium diaphragm shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)

Piles (Axial-flexural interaction and shear)Remain elastic.(Pile shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)

Acceptance Criteria (MCE)



Concrete Element SLE/Wind DBE MCE

Core walls/shear wallsFlexural – 0.75 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural – 0.6 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural – **

Shear – 0.2 Ag

Basement wallsFlexural – 1.0 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural – 0.8 Ig

Shear – 0.8 Ag

Flexural – 0.8 Ig

Shear – 0.5 Ag

Coupling beams(Diagonal-reinforced)

Flexural –0.3 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural –0.2 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural – 0.2 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Coupling beams(Conventional-reinforced)

Flexural –0.7 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural –0.35 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural – 0.35 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Ground level diaphragm(In-plane only)

Flexural – 0.5 Ig

Shear – 0.8 Ag


Shear – 0.5 Ag


Shear – 0.25 Ag

Podium diaphragmsFlexural – 0.5 Ig

Shear – 0.8 Ag


Shear – 0.5 Ag


Shear – 0.25 Ag

Tower diaphragmsFlexural – 1.0 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural – 0.5 Ig

Shear – 0.5 Ag

Flexural – 0.5 Ig

Shear – 0.5 Ag

GirdersFlexural – 0.7 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag


Shear – 1.0 Ag


Shear – 1.0 Ag

ColumnsFlexural – 0.9 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural – 0.7 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Flexural – 0.7 Ig

Shear – 1.0 Ag

Stiffness Assumptions in Mathematical Models


Evaluation of Results


•

•

•


•

•

•

•

•

•

•


30,878

81,161

269,170

201,762

160,409

133,233

57,826

39,137

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

X Y

Base s

hear

(kN

)

Along direction

Wind (50-yr) x 1.6 Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE-NLTHA Elastic SLE

1.68

4.42

14.67

11.00

8.74

7.26

3.15

2.13

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

X Y

Base s

hear

(%)

Along direction

Wind (50-yr) x 1.6 Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE-NLTHA Elastic SLE


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Sto

ry level

Drift ratio

Transient Drift

GM-1059

GM-65010

GM-CHY006

GM-JOS

GM-LINC

GM-STL

GM-UNIO

Average

Avg. Drift Limit

Max. Drift Limit


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020

Sto

ry level

Drift ratio

Residual Drift

GM-1059

GM-65010

GM-CHY006

GM-JOS

GM-LINC

GM-STL

GM-UNIO

Average

Avg. Drift Limit

Max Drift Limit


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

Sto

ry level

Lateral displacement (m)

Lateral Displacement

GM-1059

GM-65010

GM-CHY006

GM-JOS

GM-LINC

GM-STL

GM-UNIO

Average


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Sto

ry level

Absolute acceleration (g)

Floor Acceleration

GM-1059

GM-65010

GM-CHY006

GM-JOS

GM-LINC

GM-STL

GM-UNIO

Average


Total dissipated

energy

Dissipated energy from shear walls

Dissipated energy from conventional reinforced coupling beams

Total dissipated

energy

Total dissipated

energy

Dissipated energy from diagonal reinforced coupling

beams

Time (sec)

Energ

y

dis

sip

ati

on (%

)

Time (sec)

Energ

y

dis

sip

ati

on (%

)

Energ

y

dis

sip

ati

on (%

)

Time (sec)


Component Response

Pile foundation Bearing capacity, pullout capacity, PMM, shear

Mat foundation Bearing capacity, flexure, shear

Shear wall Flexure (axial strain), shear

Column PMM or flexural rotation, axial, shear

Beams Flexural rotation, shear

Conventional reinforced coupling beam Flexural rotation, shear

Diagonal reinforced coupling beam Shear rotation, shear

Flat slab Flexural rotation, punching shear

Basement wall In-plane shear, out-of-plane flexure and shear

Diaphragm Shear, shear friction, tension and compression


Peer Review


•

•

•

•

•

•

•


•

•

•

•

•

•


CASE STUDY 1

44


•

•

•

•

•

45


MODELING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

46

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 47

Elastic models (ETABS)

• Analyze

• Wind (Linear static analysis)

• SLE (Response spectrum analysis)

• DBE (Response spectrum analysis)

• Includes shear walls, columns, coupling beams,

girders, beams, slabs, and foundation

• Shell elements were used to model the floor

slabs, considering the diaphragm flexibility

Nonlinear model (Perform 3D)

• Nonlinear response verification for MCE

(Nonlinear time history analysis)

• Includes inelastic member properties for

elements that were anticipated to be loaded

beyond their elastic limits (flexural response of

shear walls, coupling beams, girders, and slab-

outrigger beams)

• Elements that were assumed to remain elastic

were modeled with elastic member properties.


0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sp

ect

ral A

cce

lera

tio

n (

g)

Natural Period (sec)

Response Spectra

SLE MCE


ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA

49


Item Limit

Story drift 0.5%

Coupling beam Remain elastic

Shear wall Remain elastic

Girder Remain elastic

Column Remain elastic

• Demand to capacity of the primary structural members shall not exceed 1.5, in which the capacity is computed by nominal strength multiplied by the corresponding strength reduction factor in accordance with ACI 318.

• It is anticipated that the demand to capacity ratio of 1.5 based on design strengths can be expected to result in only minor inelastic response.


Item Limit

Peak transient driftMean value shall not exceed 3%.Maximum drift shall not exceed 4.5%.

Residual driftMean value shall not exceed 1%.Maximum drift shall not exceed 1.5%.

Column Remain elastic

Coupling beam rotation ≤ 0.05 radians

Girder rotation ≤ASCE 41limits

Shear wall reinforcement strain≤ 0.05 in tension≤ 0.02 in compression

Shear wall concrete strainIntermediately confined concrete ≤ 0.004 + 0.1 ρ (fy / f'c)Fully confined concrete ≤ 0.015

Force-controlled action demand shall be 1.5 times the mean if it is not limited by well defined yield mechanism. If itis limited by well-defined yield mechanism, use the mean plus 1.3 times standard deviation but not less than 1.2times the mean. The capacity is determined based on expected material properties with corresponding strengthreduction factor.


OVERALL RESPONSE

52


Mode Period (sec)Modal Participating Mass Ratio

X (%) Y (%)

1 8.81 0.1 54.3

2 8.08 53.1 0.1

3 6.96 1.3 0


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

X Y

Bas

e S

he

ar (

%)

Along Direction

Base Shear in terms of Percentage of Weight of Building at Ground Level

SLE (Elastic) DBE (Elastic) MCE (Elastic) MCE (Inelastic)

Weight of the building = 2,255,500 kN


-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04

Sto

ry

Transient drift

Transient drift (X-direction)

Drift-A

Drift-B

Drift-C

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04

Sto

ry

Transient drift

Transient drift (Y-direction)

Drift-ADrift-BDrift-CAvg Limit


-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015

Sto

ry

Residual drift

Residual drift (X-direction)

Drift-A

Drift-B

Drift-C

Avg Limit

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015

Sto

ry

Residual drift

Residual drift (Y-direction)

Drift-A

Drift-B

Drift-C

Avg Limit


Evaluation of Components at MCE Level

57



•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

59


•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

60


4-DB28 4-DB254-DB25

4-DB28 4-DB28

Diaphragm chord reinforcement In-plane forces


Conclusion

62


•

•

63


CASE STUDY 2

64


•

•

•

•

•

65

Tower 1

Tower 2



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SP

EC

TR

AL

AC

CE

LE

RA

TIO

N (g

)

PERIOD (sec)

RESPONSE SPECTRA SLE 2.5% Damping MCE 5% Damping


Elastic Model

• Used for DBE, SLE and wind analysis

• Used ETABS 9.7.4

• All components were modeled as elastic.

• Response spectrum analysis was conducted for

DBE and SLE earthquakes.

• Used for MCE analysis

• Used Perform 3D V4.0.4

• Inelastic member properties

• Flexural response of shear walls

• Flexural response of coupling beams

• Flexural response of slab outrigger beams

• Elements that are assumed to remain elastic were

modeled with elastic member properties.

• Nonlinear time history analysis was conducted for

seven sets of ground motions.

Nonlinear Model


Analysis Results


Mode Natural Period (sec)Modal Participating Mass Ratio (%)

(X) (Y)

1 5.57 7.3 35.8

2 3.92 35.4 7.8

3 2.73 0.0 0.0


4.1%2.9%

13.2%

8.7%

3.4%5.4%

20.0%

14.3%

10.9%

7.0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

X Y

Ba

se S

he

ar

%

Along Direction

Base Shear Percentage of Total Weight of Building

Elastic SLE Elastic DBE Wind*1.6 (RWDI)

Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE NLTHA


0

10

20

30

40

50

-5% 0% 5%

Sto

ry

Transient Drift (%)

Transient Drift in X-dir. at MCE Level

ARC

CHY

DAY

ERZ

LCN

ROS

TAB

Average

Avg. DriftLimitMax. DriftLimit

0

10

20

30

40

50

0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%

Sto

ry

Residual Drift (%)

Residual Drift in X-dir. at MCE Level

ARC

CHY

DAY

ERZ

LCN

ROS

TAB

Average

Avg. DriftLimit


Performance Evaluation of Members (SLE)


•

•

•

74


Performance Evaluation of Members (MCE)


Strain Gauge (C04)

SW 1-1

-5

5

15

25

35

45

55

-0.006 -0.001 0.004

Sto

ry

Axial Strain (mm/mm)

Wall Axial Strain (C04)

ARC

CHY

DAY

ERZ

LCN

ROS

TAB

Average

Steel YieldingStrainMax. Comp.Strain LimitStrain gauge locations in shear walls


Shear wall leg IDs -5

5

15

25

35

45

55

-200000 -100000 0 100000 200000

Sto

ry

Shear Force (KN)

Shear Wall Shear Demand vs. Capacity (SW1-1)

ARC

CHY

DAY

ERZ

LCN

ROS

TAB

AVERAGE

Capacity

Maximum LimitCapacity

SW1-1


-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04

Sto

ryRotation (radians)

Link Beam Rotation (LB-1)

ARC

CHY

DAY

ERZ

LCN

ROS

TAB

Average

Coupling beam IDs


•

•

79


0

10

20

30

40

50

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08

Sto

rySlab Beam Rotation (radians)

Moment Hinge Rotation due to Positive and Negative Moment(SB2-1)

ARC

CHY

DAY

ERZ

LCN

ROS

TAB

Average

Limit

Slab outrigger beam IDs


Tower diaphragm

Ground level diaphragm


Scenario for in-phase and out-phase

Diaphragm reinforcement


kPa

Mat foundation soil pressure


•

•

•

•

84


Some More PBD Projects

85






Thank you

Documents

Application of Performance-based Design to Naveed Anwar ...solutions.ait.ac.th/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/NA-Day-2-Workshop... · Seismic Design of Tall Buildings” •PEER/ATC 72-1,