Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Tall Building Initiative Response Evaluation Helmut Krawinkler Professor Emeritus Stanford University On behalf of the Guidelines writers: Y. Bozorgnia,

Published byDarcy Lawson Modified over 8 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Tall Building Initiative Response Evaluation Helmut Krawinkler Professor Emeritus Stanford University On behalf of the Guidelines writers: Y. Bozorgnia,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Tall Building Initiative Response Evaluation Helmut Krawinkler Professor Emeritus Stanford University On behalf of the Guidelines writers: Y. Bozorgnia, C.B. Crouse, R.O. Hamburger, R. Klemencic, H. Krawinkler, J.O Malley, J.P. Moehle, F. Naeim, J.P. Stewart Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

2 Performance Objectives Demonstrate that structure will be capable of essentially elastic response and limited damage under Service-level Earthquake shaking (mean RP = 43 years = 50/30) Demonstrate, with high confidence, that structure will respond to Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) shaking without loss of gravity-load-carrying capacity without inelastic straining of important lateral-force resisting elements to a level that will severely degrade their strength; and without experiencing excessive permanent lateral drift or development of global structural instability.

3 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 MCE Level Evaluation Objective: provide, implicitly, adequate life safety protection Protection against collapse Protection against life threatening falling hazards Protection against aftershocks & condemnation Use 3-D nonlinear response history analysis – for at least 7 ground motion pairs Use a realistic model of the structural system Follow capacity design principles (enforced in acceptance criteria) Minimum base shear not required

4 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Acceptance Criteria at Component Level Force-controlled actions with severe consequences: F u ≤ F n,e F u = smaller of 1.5 times mean Mean + 1.3 but ≥ 1.2 times mean F n,e = nominal strength based on expected material properties  = resistance factor

5 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Acceptance Criteria at Component Level Deformation controlled actions: No specific limitations, but use realistic model of component behavior, including deterioration, or limit maximum deformation to a conservative (low) value  u. If  >  u in any one analysis: Strength in this action should drop to zero Effect on related strength properties should be evaluated

6 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Mean of max. transient drift in every story ≤ 3.0% Max. transient drift in every story ≤ 4.5% Mean of max. residual drift in every story ≤ 1.0% Max. residual drift in every story ≤ 1.5% Loss in story strength at max. drift should not be more than 20% Acceptance Criteria at System Level

7 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 System Modeling Issues Incorporate all components and all behavior modes (e.g., shear in RC) that “significantly” affect prediction of seismic response Might require post-analysis review and re-analysis Flexibility of floor diaphragms should be modeled if deemed important Analysis should provide information needed to quantify diaphragm forces Podium and backstay effects must be represented realistically P-Delta effects must be included Include real torsion, but no requirement for accidental torsion

8 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Wall Hinging at the Base Loading Story Shear  y =V y /W Story OTM

9 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 NRHA force demands may be very different from elastic “expectations” Maximum moment in shear wall

10 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 NRHA force demands may be very different from elastic “expectations” Maximum shear force in shear wall

11 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Component Modeling Deterioration in strength and stiffness must be considered if it significantly affects the response of the structure to the MCE ground motions Or – conservative estimates must be made of strength and deformation capacities

12 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Modes of Deterioration

13 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Basic Observation The cyclic envelope curve is different from the monotonic backbone curve

14 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Resource Document ATC-72-1 Interim Guidelines on Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings

15 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 GENERAL MODELING ISSUES Types of Models Deterioration P-Delta effects Damping Uncertainties PROPERTIES OF NONLINEAR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS Steel beams and columns Steel panel zones Axially loaded steel braces RC beams, columns, and joints PLANAR AND CORE WALL SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS Planar walls, flanged walls, core walls Coupling beams Slab-columns and connections FLOOR DIAPHRAGMS, COLLECTORS, AND PODIUM AND BACKSTAY EFFECTS Rigid, semi-rigid, and flexible diaphragms Podium and backstay effects Resource Document ATC-72-1

16 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Source: G. Deierlein

17 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Use of Strain-based Models (Fiber & Curvature Models) Argument for their use: whenever lumped plasticity models are not available Columns subjected to biaxial bending and large axial force Shear walls with (and without?) openings Spandrel beams?

18 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Use of Strain-based Models (Fiber & Curvature Models) Arguments against their use: RC: Rebar buckling? Rebar fracture? Bond slippage and pullout? Shear? Steel: Local instabilities? Fracture? Joint panel zones? Need to account for cyclic deterioration

19 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Use of Concentrated Plasticity (Spring) Models Rotational spring models if inelastic behavior mode is bending Translational spring models if inelastic behavior mode is shear Arguments for their use Can capture deterioration characteristics if good calibrations are available from experimental data Are relatively simple Arguments against their use Are approximate Not available for many important failure modes

20 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 ASCE 41 models may be used if deemed appropriate They were intended to be used in conjunction with pushover analysis They were not intended to be used for hysteresis modeling The sharp drop from C to D is not representative of reality except for brittle failure modes They may not be applicable to many “new” components

21 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Component Models with Deterioration (see ATC-72) Q-HYST Degrading Stiffness Flag-Shaped Bi-Linear Hysteresis 1. Monotonic (initial) backbone curve: 2.Cyclic deterioration parameter 3.Description of hysteresis loops F  F c F r =  F y  y  c  r  u K e  p  pc F y K s K

22 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Modeling Option #1 – ATC-72 Use of monotonic backbone curve and explicit incorporation of cyclic deterioration Option 1

23 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Modeling Option #2 – ATC-72 Use of cyclic envelope curve as modified backbone curve, and no incorporation of cyclic deterioration – limit  u to max. observed in test Option 2 Mod. B.C. from exp. env. curve

24 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Modeling Option #3 – ATC-72 Use of factors to generate modified backbone curve from monotonic backbone curve, and no incorporation of cyclic deterioration - capping strength F c * = 0.9 F c - plastic deformation capacity  p * = 0.7 p - post-capping deformation capacity  pc * = 0.5 p - residual strength F r * = 0.7F r - ultimate deformation capacity  u * = 1.2 c

25 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Modeling Option #3 Option 3 Mod. B.C. from Monotonic B.C

26 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Modeling Option #4 – ATC-72 No deterioration at all in analytical model ultimate deformation capacity  u * corresponding to 80% of capping strength on descending branch of Options 2 or 3 Option 4

27 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 Comparison of ATC-72 Modeling Options Option 1 Option 4 Option 2 Mod. B.C. from exp. env. curve Option 3 Mod. B.C. from Monotonic B.C

28 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010  y  c  p 0.5  pc   ’ c  ’ p =0.7  p 1.5  c M c 0.8M c Initial backbone curve Modified backbone curve, Option 3 Ultimate rotation, Option 4  pu Ultimate rotation, Option 3 Penalties for Options 3 and 4

29 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 What is new? No radical changes Explicit formulation of performance objective and acceptance criteria at two levels of ground motions (SLE & MCE) Consideration of deterioration in component properties – if it is important Or acceptance of “penalty” in component modeling Consistent design and performance evaluation process

30 Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010 I think we are making progress

Download ppt "Tall Building Initiative Response Evaluation Helmut Krawinkler Professor Emeritus Stanford University On behalf of the Guidelines writers: Y. Bozorgnia,"

Similar presentations

Design of Steel and Composite-Structures for Seismic Loading – Safety Requirements, Concepts and Methods – Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ekkehard Fehling, University.

Design of Steel and Composite-Structures for Seismic Loading – Safety Requirements, Concepts and Methods – Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ekkehard Fehling, University.
Design of Seismic-Resistant Steel Building Structures

Design of Seismic-Resistant Steel Building Structures
CALCULATED vs MEASURED ENERGY DISSIPATION.

CALCULATED vs MEASURED ENERGY DISSIPATION.
1 LESSLOSS Sub Project 7 Techniques and Methods for Vulnerability Reduction Barcelona 18 th May 07 – Lisbon 24 th May 07 LESSLOSS Dissemination Meeting.

1 LESSLOSS Sub Project 7 Techniques and Methods for Vulnerability Reduction Barcelona 18 th May 07 – Lisbon 24 th May 07 LESSLOSS Dissemination Meeting.
Seismic Performance Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Bridges

Seismic Performance Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Bridges
Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings SPEAR International Workshop Joint Research Centre, Ispra, 4 th -5 th April 2005.

Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings SPEAR International Workshop Joint Research Centre, Ispra, 4 th -5 th April 2005.
Mechanics Based Modeling of the Dynamic Response of Wood Frame Building By Ricardo Foschi, Frank Lam,Helmut Prion, Carlos Ventura Henry He and Felix Yao.

Mechanics Based Modeling of the Dynamic Response of Wood Frame Building By Ricardo Foschi, Frank Lam,Helmut Prion, Carlos Ventura Henry He and Felix Yao.
Beam-Columns.

Beam-Columns.
Development of Self-Centering Steel Plate Shear Walls (SC-SPSW)

Development of Self-Centering Steel Plate Shear Walls (SC-SPSW)
STESSA 2012 Santiago, Chile Design Considerations for Braced Frames With Asymmetrical Friction Connections - AFC By J. Chanchi, G.A. MacRae, J.G. Chase,

STESSA 2012 Santiago, Chile Design Considerations for Braced Frames With Asymmetrical Friction Connections - AFC By J. Chanchi, G.A. MacRae, J.G. Chase,
PCI/NSF/CPF PART 2: 1 of 30 NEES/EERI Webinar April 23 2012 Outline Introduce PCI/NSF/CPF DSDM Research Effort Review Key Behaviors of Precast Diaphragms.

PCI/NSF/CPF PART 2: 1 of 30 NEES/EERI Webinar April Outline Introduce PCI/NSF/CPF DSDM Research Effort Review Key Behaviors of Precast Diaphragms.
Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of.

Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of.
UNBONDED PRE- STRESSED CONNECTIONS Prof. John F. Stanton University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA The ROSE School, Pavia. June 2009.

UNBONDED PRE- STRESSED CONNECTIONS Prof. John F. Stanton University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA The ROSE School, Pavia. June 2009.
Seismic Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings Ronald O. Hamburger Senior Principal Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Quake Summit 2010 October 8, 2010.

Seismic Design Guidelines for Tall Buildings Ronald O. Hamburger Senior Principal Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc. Quake Summit 2010 October 8, 2010.
Performance-based guidelines and regulations

Performance-based guidelines and regulations
Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.

Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.
Compression Members. Compression Members: Structural elements subjected only to axial compressive forces Stress:Uniform over entire cross section.

Compression Members. Compression Members: Structural elements subjected only to axial compressive forces Stress:Uniform over entire cross section.
Experimental & Analytical Studies of Drilled Shaft Bridge Columns Sandrine P. Lermitte, PhD Student Jonathan P. Stewart, Assistant Professor John W. Wallace,

Experimental & Analytical Studies of Drilled Shaft Bridge Columns Sandrine P. Lermitte, PhD Student Jonathan P. Stewart, Assistant Professor John W. Wallace,
Seismic Performance of Dissipative Devices Martin Williams University of Oxford Japan-Europe Workshop on Seismic Risk Bristol, July 2004.

Seismic Performance of Dissipative Devices Martin Williams University of Oxford Japan-Europe Workshop on Seismic Risk Bristol, July 2004.
2o Ciclo de Palestras em Engenharia Civil-2003 12 de Novembro de 2003 Universidade Nova de Lisboa-Centro de Investigaçao em Estruturas e Construção-UNIC.

2o Ciclo de Palestras em Engenharia Civil de Novembro de 2003 Universidade Nova de Lisboa-Centro de Investigaçao em Estruturas e Construção-UNIC.

Similar presentations

Ads by Google