Sei sulla pagina 1di 67

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

APPENDIX I

Revised Interim Guidelines Performance-Based Seismic Engineering

Force-Displacement Approach for Performance-Based Seismic Engineering

These tentative guidelines present a work in progress, are intended for trial use only, and require significant case studies before they can be recommended for practical use. Readers are encouraged to provide feedback to the SEAOC Seismology Committee regarding practical application of these Interim Guidelines.

Performance-Based Seismic Engineering Ad Hoc Subcommittee

Robert E. Bachman (SEAOSC), Chair Anthony B. Court (SEAOSD), Vice Chair Ronald O. Hamburger (SEAONC) Gary C. Hart (SEAOSC) Saiful M. Islam (SEAOSC) Mervyn J. Kowalsky (SEAOSD) Nico Luco (SEAONC) William Staehlin (SEAOCC) Robert C. Thacker (SEAOCC)

Observers and Corresponding Members

Matt J. Skokan (Observer)

Vilas Mujumdar (Observer) Allin C. Cornell (Corresponding Member)

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

81

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

APPENDIX I

Interim Guidelines Performance-Based Seismic Engineering

Force-Displacement Approach for Performance-Based Seismic Engineering

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

82

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Table of Contents

List of Tables

List of Figures

Table of Contents

I-1

Introduction

I-1.1 General

I-1.2

Purpose

I-1.3

Scope and Applicability

I-1.4

Significant Features

I-1.5

Statement of Limited Reliability

I-2

Performance Objectives I-2.1 General

I-2.2

Seismic Hazard Levels

I-2.3

Performance Levels

I-2.4

Basic Safety Objective (BSO)

I-2.5

Enhanced Objective 1 (EO1) (Essential Facilities Objective)

I-2.6

Enhanced Objective 2 (EO2) (Safety Critical Objective)

I-2.7

Other Enhanced Objectives

I-3

Site Suitability and Design Ground Motions I-3.1 General

I-3.2

Site Suitability and Siting Restrictions

I-3.3

Design Ground Motions

I-3.4

Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS)

I-3.5

Alternate Seismic Hazard Representations

I-4

General Design and Analysis Procedures for PBSE I-4.1 General

I-4.2

Conceptual Design

I-4.2.1

General

I-4.2.2

System Regularity

I-4.2.3

Structural System Selection and Ductile Detailing Standards

I-4.2.4

System Yield Mechanisms

I-4.2.5

Drift Compatibility

I-4.3

Structural Systems

I-4.3.1

General

I-4.3.2

Reinforced Concrete Systems

I-4.3.3

Reinforced Masonry Systems

I-4.3.4

Steel Systems

I-4.3.5

Wood Systems

I-4.3.6

Base Isolation Systems

I-4.3.7

Energy Dissipation Systems

I-4.4

Drift Limits I-4.4.1 General

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

83

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-4.5

Structural System Design

I-4.5.1

General

I-4.5.2

Capacity Design Principles

I-4.5.3

System Acceptance Criteria

I-4.6

Structural Element Design and Detailing

I-4.6.1

General

I-4.6.2

Element Acceptance Criteria

I-4.7

Soil Structure Interaction and Foundation Design

I-4.7.1

Soil Structure Interaction

I-4.7.2

Foundation Design

I-4.8

Design Verification Analysis

I-4.8.1

Inelastic Force-Deformation Characteristics of the System

I-4.8.2

System Response at Each Hazard Level

I-4.8.3

Nonlinear Verification Analysis

I-4.8.4

Linear Static Analysis

I-4.9

Nonstructural Systems

I-5

Displacement-Based Design and Analysis Procedures I-5.1 General

I-5.2

Conceptual Design Limitations

 

I-5.2.1

Structural System Selection

I-5.2.2

System Regularity

I-5.2.3

Short Period Structures

I-5.2.4

Soil Structure Interaction

 

I-5.3

Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) Procedure

I-5.4

Equal Displacement-Based Design (EBD) Procedure

I-5.5

Verification Analysis Using Nonlinear Analysis Procedures

 

I.5.5.1

Pushover Analysis Procedures

I.5.5.2

Dynamic Analysis Procedures

 

I-5.6

Final Design and Detailing Procedures

I-5.7

Nonstructural Systems

I-6

Nonstructural Systems Design I-6.1 General

I-6.2

Design Strategies

I-6.3

Nonstructural Systems Design and Analysis Procedures

 

I-6.3.1

Method 1 -

I-6.3.2

Performance specification for design-build of nonstructural systems Method 2 -

I-6.3.3

Design to accommodate structural response envelope Method 3 -

I-6.3.4

Detailed design of the nonstructural systems Method 4 - Pre-qualification of Nonstructural-systems

 

I-6.4

Drift and Acceleration Criteria for Nonstructural Design

I-7

Design and Construction Documents

I-7.1

Scope of Services and Responsibility

I-7.2

Design Documents

I-7.3

Construction Documents

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

84

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-8

Design Review Procedures

I-8.1

Project Design Peer Review

 

I-8.1.1

General

I-8.1.2

Scope of Services

I-8.1.3

Qualifications

I-8.1.4 Responsibility

 

I-8.2

Design Plan Check

 

8.2.1 General

8.2.2 Scope

8.2.3 Qualifications and Responsibility

I-9

Construction Quality Assurance Procedures

I-9.1

Structural Observation

 

I-9.1.1

General

I-9.1.2

Scope

I-9.1.3

Qualifications

 

I-9.2

I-9.1.4 Responsibility Testing and Inspection Program

I-10

Building Seismic Maintenance

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

85

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

List of Tables

Table I-1

Recommended Design Ground Motions

Table I-2

Recommended Siting Restrictions for PBSE

Table I-3

Recommended Yield Mechanisms

Table I-4

Recommended Drift Ratio Limits for Preliminary Design

Table I-5

Recommended Displacement Ductility Limits for Systems and Elements for

Table I-6

Preliminary Design Recommended Damping Design Values for Preliminary Design

Table I-7

‘k’ Factors (Shapes 1& 2 for Eqns I-5-1 and I-5-15

Table I-8

Structural wall (Shape 3) ‘k’ factors for Eqns I-5-1 and I-5-15

List of Figures

Figure I-1

Scope & Methodology for PBSE

Figure I-2

Typical Seismic Performance Objectives for Buildings

Figure I-3

Structural and Non-Structural Performance Levels

Figure I-4.1

Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra – EQI

Figure I-4.2

Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra – EQIV

Figure I-4a

Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (5% Damped)

Figure I-4b

Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (20% Damped)

Figure I-4c

Displacement Response Spectra (5% Damped)

Figure I-4d

Displacement Response Spectra (20% Damped)

Figure I-4e

Acceleration Response Spectra (5% Damped)

Figure I-5

Illustratrion of DBD and EBD Concepts

Figure I-6

Direct Displacement Based Design

Figure I-7

Equal Displacement Approximation

Figure I-8

Summary of Design-Verification Concepts

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

86

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Force-Displacement Approach for Performance-Based Seismic Engineering

I-1

I-1.1

Introduction

General

The concept of developing performance based seismic engineering guidelines to improve seismic engineering and performance of buildings was proposed by the SEAOC Seismology Committee in the early 1990s. After the 1994 Northridge earthquake, the California Office of Emergency Services retained SEAOC to prepare a conceptual framework document and the SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee was assigned that task. The resulting document was the SEAOC Vision 2000 Conceptual Framework for PBSE (1995). The preliminary guidelines presented herein are a continuation and selective development of that SEAOC initiative. An extended discussion of the background of Performance-Based Seismic Engineering and the development of these guidelines is provided in the Preface portion of the Commentary.

These guidelines provide suggested PBSE procedures for structural engineering of new buildings. PBSE, as defined in the SEAOC Vision 2000 Conceptual Framework (1995), consists of a set of engineering procedures for design and construction of structures to achieve predictable levels of performance in response to specified levels of earthquake, within definable levels of reliability. These guidelines are a focused extension of the Vision 2000 Conceptual Framework and develop selected displacement-based structural design and analysis procedures and a framework for non- structural design and verification.

These preliminary guidelines are initially intended for trial use only, pending further development and completion of validation studies. User input to the SEAOC Seismology Committee is requested. Designs resulting from the use of these guideline procedures should be rechecked using established code procedures to verify that the code-specified minimum design levels are achieved, unless otherwise approved by the Building Official.

I-1.2

Purpose

These guidelines are intended to define seismic performance in terms of quantifiable engineering parameters and to provide practical PBSE procedures for development and use in the next several years. It is intended that development of the procedures will provide the engineer with tools to both better understand and better control the seismic response of buildings.

The guidelines present a general design procedure and two displacement-based design procedures. The general design procedure is intended to outline a general PBSE conceptual approach for

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

87

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

application to a wide range of structural systems and configurations. The general procedure emphasizes use of conceptually sound seismic engineering design principles and relies on sound engineering judgment, thorough verification analysis and peer review to be effective and reliable.

The two displacement-based procedures are intended to provide useable and effective procedures for implementing PBSE for selected seismic resisting systems utilizing established ductile detailing standards. These displacement-based procedures focus on displacement, both in terms of drift and element deformation, as the key seismic response parameter for performance prediction.

With further development, these guideline procedures are intended to achieve significantly improved reliability in control and prediction of the seismic performance of buildings compared to that achieved using traditional seismic design codes.

I-1.3

Scope and Applicability

The guidelines encompass the full scope of seismic engineering procedures outlined in Figure I-1, including selection of performance objectives, design and analysis, and quality assurance procedures. The scope of the guidelines includes the engineering of both structural and nonstructural systems, but does not address assuring that external service of utilities and lifelines essential to post-earthquake operation of a facility is uninterrupted. For those facilities intended to provide post-earthquake operational capability, the service of utilities and lifelines can be critical, but is generally beyond the control of an individual building design team unless facility-specific provisions for hardened utilities is provided. Unless there is reasonable assurance that critical utilities and lifelines will remain in service after earthquake events for which it is intended to provide for post-earthquake operability, facility-specific provisions of these utilities is recommended.

The guidelines are written specifically to apply to new building design, though they may be adapted to design of other structures. Performance-based engineering guidelines developed specifically for existing structures can be found in reference documents FEMA 356 and ATC 40. The force- displacement procedures presented in this document are intended primarily for the design of ductile building structures with rigid floor diaphragms and with elastic periods greater than T s , typically about 0.5 seconds. The guidelines also provide procedures for the determination of ground motions and performance levels, design of non-structural components, information to be presented on design and construction documents, design review, peer review, special inspection and on going maintenance.

These guidelines and performance-based engineering in general, are most effectively applied to structures having regular framing systems, because the behavior of regular structures is inherently more predictable than that of irregular structures. However, the guidelines can also be applied to irregular structures, with appropriate enhancements in the level and rigor of the analysis and design procedures.

I-1.4

Significant Features

Several significant features of the guidelines distinguish them from the traditional SEAOC Blue Book provisions and similar seismic design code documents. These features including the following:

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

88

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

1. Tentative nature of the guidelines. These guidelines are not recommended for immediate adoption into the building codes, but only for provisional use.

2. Quantitatively defined performance levels and objectives (adapted from Vision 2000).

3. Quantified definitions of structural performance levels, in terms of global response.

4. Multilevel seismic design, for multiple seismic hazard levels.

5. Explicit incorporation of capacity design or similar yield-control design procedures.

6. Design focus on the full inelastic response rather than reduced elastic response.

7. Emphasis on displacement-based rather than force-based design procedures.

8. Focus on drift and element deformation as key seismic response parameters.

9. Recommended system drift limits and component displacement/rotation limits to be based on test data for selected framing systems.

10. Design verification using nonlinear analysis procedures.

11. Recommendations for nonstructural component performance levels and procedures for achieving nonstructural design verification.

I-1.5

Statement of Limited Reliability

Appropriate use of these guidelines is intended to provide greater reliability in predicting and controlling seismic performance than is currently achieved using the Blue Book provisions or other current seismic design codes. It is intended that most structures designed in accordance with these guidelines will meet their respective design performance objectives in a given seismic event. Due to the uncertainties inherent in ground motion prediction and in seismic engineering of buildings, it can not be expected that all structures will meet their performance objectives in a given seismic event. It must be recognized that the reliability of PBSE is limited and that design performance objectives can not be achieved with certainty.

In the future, it is envisioned that procedures for measuring the reliability of PBSE designs will be developed. Thereafter, predictions of seismic performance can be accompanied by statements of the associated levels of reliability.

I-2

I-2.1

PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

General

Performance objectives are defined in terms of performance levels to be achieved at several specified seismic hazard levels (design earthquake levels). In these guidelines, three typical performance objectives are defined based on common occupancy considerations, as illustrated in Figure I-2. Other enhanced performance objectives that exceed code minimums can be defined by the engineer in consultation with the client/owner.

The performance objective for a given project should be selected by the engineer and owner prior to design. In addition to meeting selected performance objectives, the design must meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the applicable building code unless otherwise permitted by the building offical.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

89

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-2.2

Seismic Hazard Levels

A set of seismic hazard levels, or ground motion levels, should be established for design. In these guidelines, four hazard levels, equivalent to frequent, occasional, rare, and maximum considered events, are defined in Section I-3.3 and are designated as EQ-I, EQ-II, EQ-III, and EQ-IV, respectively.

I-2.3

Performance Levels

System performance levels can be defined to describe the desired structural and nonstructural performance of a building at specified hazard levels. A set of performance levels is defined in Figure I-3. Structural performance (SP) levels are defined in terms of the structural system displacement response as measured by the inelastic displacement demand ratio (IDDR). The IDDR is the ratio of total inelastic displacement of the structure to the inelastic displacement at which collapse would be anticipated to initiate and has a value of 0 at incipient yielding of the structure and 1 at incipient collapse. Corresponding nonstructural performance (NP) levels are defined in terms of expected loss-to-value ratios for the nonstructural systems. Building performance can be described in terms of combinations of the structural performance levels and nonstructural performance levels. For example, a building performance target may be specified as SP1-NP3, meaning Structural Performance Level 1 and Nonstructural Performance Level 3, for a given seismic hazard level.

The design process starts with configuring a structure such that ultimate behavior consists of collapse in a well-defined mechanism, termed herein the admissible collapse mechanism. The structural performance is said to meet an SP level if the structural system IDDR is less than or equal to the specified ratio for that performance level. A substantial portion of the elements required for the admissible collapse mechanism should meet the limiting criteria defined for that performance level. Similarly, the nonstructural performance is said to meet an NP level if the damage to the nonstructural system falls within the indicated loss-to-value range for that level.

Structural Performance Levels

SP1

Structural response at this level corresponds to the effective yield point, or yield limit state, of the structural system; the system yield mechanism is partially developed but the inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is substantially unused (IDDR=0 approx.); approximately half of the hinges required to form the admissible collapse mechanism have reached yield (maximum strains at hinges should not exceed 150% yield). Structural damage is expected to be minimal and should not require repair, for other than cosmetic reasons.

SP2

Up to 30% of the usable inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is used (IDDR=0.3). Damage is minor to moderate; some structural repair is required

SP3

For structural systems, up to 60% of the usable inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is used (IDDR=0.6). Damage is moderate to major; extensive structural repairs are required.

SP4

Up to 80% of usable inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is expended (IDDR=0.8). Damage is major; residual strength and stiffness of the structure and margin

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

90

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

against collapse are significantly reduced. Extensive repairs are required and may not be economically feasible.

SP5

Up to 100% of usable inelastic displacement capacity of the structure is used (IDDR=1.0). As a result, collapse is imminent.

Nonstructural Performance Levels

NP1

The response of nonstructural systems results in negligible to light damage. Economic loss- to-value ratio to the nonstructural systems is expected to be in the range of 0% to 10%. Mechanical and electrical equipment is expected to continue to function provided utilities are also operable.

NP2

Nonstructural damage is light to moderate. Expected loss-to-value in the nonstructural systems is 10% to 30%. Mechanical and electrical equipment may continue to function if utilities are available but continued operation should not be expected.

NP3

Nonstructural elements are secure but may be extensively damaged. Economic loss-to-value ratios are expected to be in the 20% to 50% range.

NP4

Nonstructural elements are extensively damaged but are generally restrained to prevent collapse. Loss-to-value ratios in the nonstructural systems are expected to be in the 40% to 80% range.

NP5

Nonstructural elements have lost restraint against collapse or have collapsed.

Building Performance

Building performance can be defined in terms of combinations of the structural performance levels and nonstructural performance levels. Any SP-NP combination can be specified; however, for economic reasons, it is expected that the structural performance levels will typically be specified to meet or exceed the specified nonstructural performance.

Generally, buildings that meet performance levels SP1-NP1 (Level 1) remain operational; buildings that meet at least SP2-NP2 (Level 2) are structurally safe but are not operational and will require some level of repair, though this repair may not be extensive and could potentially occur rapidly; buildings that meet at least SP3-NP3 (Level 3) are life safe may need to be evacuated for repairs; buildings at SP4-NP4 (Level 4) have a substantially reduced margin against collapse and should be evacuated for shoring and repairs; and buildings at SP5-NP5 (Level 5) may be a total loss.

Again, note that building performance can be targeted for different levels of structural versus nonstructural performance, such as SP1-NP3, for a specific level of ground motion. In the following sections, specific design performance objectives are recommended by coupling series of structural and nonstructural performance levels with specific hazard levels. For each of these performance objectives, multiple such pairs are provided. It should be noted that the design of most buildings will be controlled by the specified performance for a single earthquake hazard level, even though performance for other hazard levels are also stated. Typically the controlling hazard level will be a function of the seismicity in a region and the type of structure being designed. For example, the requirement that a structure provide SP1-NP1 performance at EQ-I may control the design in areas of high seismicity, while a requirement that a structure provide SP4-NP4 performance at EQ-IV may

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

91

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

govern in regions of low seismicity. It is anticipated that designers using these provisions will quickly become familiar with the controlling design objectives in a given region.

I-2.4

Basic Safety Objective (BSO)

The BSO is the performance objective recommended for PBSE design of standard occupancy structures. The BSO exceeds traditional code level design objectives. In terms of structural systems, it is similar to the implied performance objective in traditional seismic codes, as articulated in the Blue Book Commentary. In terms of nonstructural systems, it exceeds the implied objective of the code by systematically addressing the nonstructural systems. The BSO is similar to the implied performance objectives for school buildings in the State of California. It encompasses SP1-NP1 performance in the EQ-I, SP2-NP2 performance in the EQ-II, SP3-NP3 performance in the EQ-III, and SP4-NP4 performance for EQ-IV.

I-2.5

Enhanced Objective 1 (EO1) (Essential Facilities Objective)

Enhanced Objective 1 is a higher objective than the BSO, providing for operational performance (SP1-NP1) in EQ-II, SP2-NP2 performance in EQ-III, and SP3-NP3 performance in the EQ-IV. This objective is comparable to the one for acute care hospital facilities and non-base-isolated emergency command and control centers. It may be considered for higher occupancy facilities such as large assembly spaces or other facilities where the owner expects greater than code level protection for a facility.

I-2.6

Enhanced Objective 2 (EO2) (Safety Critical Objective)

Enhanced Objective 2 is similar to the one typically considered for mission- or safety- critical facilities such as emergency command and control centers, liquefied natural gas terminals or plutonium processing facilities. This objective encompasses SP1-NP1 performance in EQ-III, and SP2-NP2 performance for EQ-IV.

I-2.7

Other Enhanced Objectives

Other enhanced objectives include any objective higher than the BSO and may consist of any combination of performance levels and seismic hazard levels for structural and/or nonstructural systems.

I-3

I-3.1

Site Suitability and Design Ground Motions

General

The suitability of the site should be evaluated for each project. This section defines siting restriction guidelines with respect to occupancy types, structural systems, and geologic hazard conditions. The seismic hazard level for each site should be represented in terms of design ground motions with specified probability of exceedance or similar measures. This section also defines the recommended design level ground motions and procedures for developing generalized design response spectra in acceleration-displacement (ADRS) format.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

92

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-3.2

Site Suitability and Siting Restrictions

The project site should be evaluated for its suitability with respect to the proposed structure and the selected performance objectives. Project siting should be restricted in accordance with Table I-2 unless adverse site effects are mitigated in the design, as substantiated by analysis.

I-3.3

Design Ground Motions

Recommended design ground motions for use in high seismic regions include the frequent, occasional, rare, and maximum considered events as identified below. Alternate seismic hazard levels can be used where appropriate, considering the local hazard environment and the owner’s objectives.

TABLE I-1 Recommended Design Ground Motions

EQ

Description

Probability

Other

Mean Return

of Exceedance

Definition

Period (yrs)

EQ-I

Frequent

87%/50yrs

---

25

EQ-II

Occasional

50%/50yrs

---

72

EQ-III

Rare

---

2/3 MCE

250 to 800

EQ-IV

Max. Considered

---

MCE

800 to 2500

Design ground motions should be defined based either on a site specific seismic hazard analysis or using national seismic hazard maps which can be accessed via the USGS web site. Advice on use of these maps is provided in the Commentary.

I-3.4

Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectra (ADRS)

The design ground motions can also be represented by generalized acceleration-displacement response spectra as illustrated in Figures I-4a through I-4e for Zone 4 sites (MCE map plateau sites) located away from the sources of large earthquakes where a displacement transition period of 4 seconds is currently consider valid. It should be noted that current NEHRP proposals are indicating that the displacement transition period may be 8 seconds or more for the MCE. It is however also likely that the displacement transition period is sensitive to the probability of exceedance with the transition period becoming shorter with higher probabilities. At other sites or at the discretion of the engineer, site-specific response spectra should be developed or the USGS Uniform Hazard Spectra should be used.

I-3.5

Alternate Seismic Hazard Representations

Ground shaking intensity at various design seismic hazard levels may also be represented by displacement response spectra (DRS) as illustrated in Figures I-4c & I-4d, acceleration response spectra (ARS) as illustrated in Figure I-4e, appropriate time-histories or other measures, as determined by the structural and geotechnical engineers and as appropriate for the design and analysis methodologies.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

93

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-4

I-4.1

General Design and Analysis Procedures for PBSE

General

Performance-based seismic engineering design and analysis procedures should account for the inelastic force-deformation behavior of the structure and should predict the seismic performance of the structural and nonstructural systems with a measurable and acceptable level of reliability. The procedures should quantify the structural seismic response in terms of force, displacement, and inelastic deformation demands on elements and systems in order to compare the design capacity of the structure to the expected seismic demand for the considered seismic hazard levels.

I-4.2

Conceptual Design

I-4.2.1 General. The design should follow good seismic engineering principles and minimize the structural irregularities and other potential sources of uncertainty in the structural system, materials, and elements in order to improve the predictability of the seismic response and performance. To the extent that irregularities and uncertainties are included in the design, the reliability of the design in achieving the predicted performance objectives may be diminished. Some of these limitations may be unnecessary if alternate approaches such as base isolation are used to dissipate the earthquake energy allowing the supported structure to remain elastic resulting in more predictable and reliable performance.

I-4.2.2 System Regularity. More stringent limitations should be placed on the conceptual design in terms of system regularity, system selection and detailing quality for designs intended to achieve better performance and/or greater reliability.

I-4.2.3 Structural System Selection and Ductile Detailing Standards. Structural systems selected should have established ductile detailing standards for which inelastic force-deformation characteristics and useable ductility limits have been established by testing. Recommended lateral force-resisting systems and detailing standards that meet this criteria are listed in Section I-4.3.

I-4.2.4 System Yield Mechanisms. The structure should be configured such that predictable system yield mechanisms can be designated and designed to provide controlled and acceptable inelastic deformation patterns in the global structural response. Capacity design principles or similar yield- control design approaches should be used to control and design for the inelastic response. Typical system yield mechanisms are illustrated in Table I-3.

I-4.2.5 Drift Compatibility. Structural systems and nonstructural systems should be selected considering drift compatibility. Structural systems should be capable of providing sufficient deformation control, principally through stiffness and damping to be compatible with the deformation tolerance or detailing accommodation of the nonstructural systems selected for the design. Characteristic drift limits for typical structural systems are described in Section I-4.4 and are tabulated in Table I-4.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

94

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-4.3

Structural Systems

I-4.3.1 General. The structural system should conform to one of the several selected systems

recommended in this section, for which appropriate ductile detailing provisions are documented and

for which performance test data is available. This section identifies selected systems for which some

data is available and refers to appropriate ductile detailing standards. (Note: For many of these systems and detailing standards, particularly where noted below, insufficient test data is currently available to quantitatively predict inelastic performance with good reliability. Additional research and testing is needed. Within this document those systems for which the Committee believes

insufficient data is currently available have been identified with

data is currently available have been identified with shading.) Components detailed in accordance with the

shading.)

Components detailed in accordance with the referenced detailing standards should be able to achieve the ductility limits specified in Table I-5. These ductility limits and associated system drift limits are discussed further in Section I-4.4. If alternate systems or detailing standards are used for design, measures of the useable ductility of the resulting elements should be established by testing.

I-4.3.2 Reinforced Concrete Systems. Concrete lateral force-resisting systems should consist of one of the following:

1.

Special reinforced concrete moment frames - detailed in accordance with ASCE 7-02 Section A9.9 and ACI-318-02.

2.

Reinforced concrete shear walls - detailed in accordance with ASCE 7-02 Section A9.9 and ACI 318-02.

3.

Coupled shear walls - detailed in accordance with ASCE 7-02 Section A9.9 and ACI 318-02.

 

I-4.3.3 Reinforced Masonry Systems. Masonry lateral force-resisting systems should consist of one

of the following:

1. Shear walls - detailed in accordance ACI 530-02.

2.

Wall frames - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC as revised by the 1999 Blue

Wall frames - detailed in accordance with 1997 UBC as revised by the 1999 Blue Book strength provisions (or 1997 NEHRP guidelines). (Additional testing is required to establish

inelastic behavior characteristics).

provisions (or 1997 NEHRP guidelines). (Additional testing is required to establish inelastic behavior characteristics).

I-4.3.4 Steel Systems. Steel lateral force-resisting systems should consist of one of the following:

1.

EBFs - detailed in accordance with AISC Seismic Design Provisions - 2003.

 

2.

SCBFs - detailed in accordance with AISC Seismic Design Provisions - 2003.

3.

SMRFs - detailed in accordance with SAC Joint Venture latest guidelines or AISC Seismic Design Provisions - 2003.

4.

UBFs (unbonded braced frames) detailed in accordance with in accordance with the 2003

 

NEHRP Provisions.

 

I-4.3.5 Wood Systems. Wood-framed lateral force-resisting systems should consist of the following:

1.

Plywood shear walls - designed in accordance with recommendations of the CUREE CalTech

Plywood shear walls - designed in accordance with recommendations of the CUREE CalTech

Woodframe Project

Plywood shear walls - designed in accordance with recommendations of the CUREE CalTech Woodframe Project

I-4.3.6 Base Isolation Systems.

isolation systems, provided that the superstructure is designed to remain essentially elastic under EQ-

III motion and does not exceed 150% of the elastic capacity for EQ-IV motion. Base isolation

systems should be designed and detailed in accordance with in accordance with the 2000 NEHRP

Provisions.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

Any structural system may be used in combination with base

95

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-4.3.7 Energy Dissipation Systems. Energy dissipation systems, including viscous dampers, hysteretic dampers, friction dampers and similar systems may be used in combination with other systems permitted by this guideline, maintaining inelastic response of these other systems within the same criteria as if energy dissipation systems were not utilized. Energy Dissipation Systems should be designed and detailed in accordance with the 2000 NEHRP Provisions.

I-4.4

Drift Limits

I-4.4.1 General. Each of the recommended lateral systems has a characteristic range of interstory drift limits associated with each structural performance level. These drift limits can be derived from the cyclic inelastic deformation behavior of the selected framing systems detailed in accordance with the recommended standards.

Table I-4 summarizes the recommended interstory drift limits for use in preliminary design, based on typical framing and detailing characteristics for each lateral system type. The drift limits are intended to serve as design targets for both the structural and the nonstructural systems but must be verified for each design based on analysis of the structural system. Alternate design drift limits may be used when substantiated by analysis and should be used for a typical building geometries and framing arrangements. The drift capacity of the final design should meet or exceed the expected maximum drift demand.

I-4.5

Structural System Design

I-4.5.1 General. The global structural system should be designed to meet the selected seismic performance objectives, as measured by appropriate global response parameters including acceleration and interstory drift. Any force-based or displacement-based design procedures may be used as long as the seismic response behavior is analyzed in accordance with Section I-4.7 to verify that the seismic performance objectives are met within acceptable levels of reliability.

I-4.5.2 Capacity Design Principles. The overall system design should follow sound capacity design principles (Paulay-Priestley) to assure that an admissible system yield mechanism is designed and detailed. This yield mechanism is designed to accommodate the full inelastic displacement demand on the structure through a set of appropriately detailed plastic “hinges” while protecting the non- hinge portions of the structure. The purpose of this guideline recommendation is to control the inelastic behavior and improve the seismic performance and reliability of the structure.

I-4.5.3 System Acceptance Criteria. The overall structural system response should meet the IDDR limits indicated in Section I-2.3, consistent with the performance objectives. Other measures of the system response may be used as acceptance criteria when rationally established and agreed to by the Engineer of Record and the peer reviewer.

I-4.6

Structural Element Design and Detailing

I-4.6.1 General. Structural elements should be designed to meet identified performance criteria consistent with the selected performance objectives. Capacity design and detailing procedures or other yield-control procedures are recommended for design and detailing to provide control of the inelastic behavior in the structure. Other design procedures may be used as long as comparable control of the inelastic behavior is achieved and as long as sufficient ductility capacities are provided to exceed ductility demands.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

96

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-4.6.2 Element Acceptance Criteria. Yielding (deformation controlled) elements of the yield mechanism should be designed to meet the IDDR criteria in Section I-2.3. Not every yielding element needs to meet the criteria for the structure to meet a given performance level. Typically, approximately 80% of the elements should meet the acceptance criteria to provide an appropriate margin of safety for the structural system to meet the criteria for a specified performance objective. The designated non-yielding (force-controlled) elements, those outside the yield mechanism, should generally remain near or below yield levels.

I-4.7 Soil Structure Interaction and Foundation Design

I-4.7.1 Soil Structure Interaction. For stiffer buildings and for other buildings where SSI issues are

significant, soil-structure interaction (SSI) can significantly affect both the demands on a structure

and its response and should be explicitly accounted for in the design and analysis.

effects including a lengthening of the effective period of structural response; providing a compliant

base at which seismic deformation can be accommodated without structural damage; increase in the effective damping of the structure, and filtering out of short period ground shaking input to the structure. Guidelines for modeling the period lengthening and foundation compliance effects can be found in FEMA 356. It is anticipated that ATC-55 will provide practical guidance for modeling the damping and filtering effects.

SSI has several

I-4.8

Design Verification Analysis

I-4.8.1 Inelastic Force-Deformation Characteristics of the System. Design verification analysis should quantify the inelastic force-deformation characteristics of the structural system design in order to compare the seismic demands to the capacities of the structural systems and elements and to verify that the acceptance criteria for the performance objectives are met. Analysis procedures should account for the full nonlinear response with appropriate accuracy considering the performance objectives and the acceptable risk levels.

I-4.8.2 System Response at Each Hazard Level. As illustrated in Figure I-8, the structural system seismic response at each considered seismic hazard level should be analyzed as necessary to verify that the global and local element seismic response is consistent with the seismic performance objective. Typically, a single hazard level can be shown by preliminary analysis to govern the design, then only the response at that hazard level need by analyzed further. The governing seismic response should be measured by response parameters, such as force, displacement, rotation, curvature, strain or other appropriate measures, which can be related to the selected performance levels for the considered ground motions. It should be noted that nonstructural performance may be governed by different seismic hazard levels than structural performance.

I-4.8.3 Nonlinear Verification Analysis. Verification analysis procedures should follow the nonlinear dynamic analysis (nonlinear time history) procedures or, at a minimum, the nonlinear static (pushover) procedures documented in FEMA 356 or Section I-5.5, or by other rational analysis procedures capable of predicting nonlinear seismic response. Pushover techniques should not be relied upon for structures having fundamental periods of vibration that exceed twice the period at which the response spectrum for the site transitions from a regime of constant response acceleration

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

97

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

to constant response velocity, unless it can be demonstrated that higher mode effects are insignificant or are otherwise accounted for.

Studies prepared in support of FEMA 440 (still in development as of November 2003) suggest that

higher mode effects can result in story shear and overturning forces than are significantly higher than

predicted by pushover analysis techniques.

extending the pushover analysis to a target displacement of approximately 1.5 to 2.0 times the target displacement predicted by the FEMA 356 or the EBD procedure. The same studies indicate that the

pushover analysis techniques are reasonably accurate for predicting total and interstory drifts, without this amplification factor.

These higher forces can typically be accounted for by

I-4.8.4 Linear Static Analysis. Linear static analysis procedures should be not be used except for those performance objectives in which elastic or essentially elastic behavior of the structure is required and in which higher mode effects are negligible.

I-4.9

Nonstructural Systems

The nonstructural systems and elements should be designed and analyzed to verify that the performance is consistent with the selected performance objectives. Design and analysis procedures are outlined in Section I-6.

I-5

I-5.1

Displacement-Based Design and Analysis Procedures

General

Consistent with the General Procedures of Section I-4, displacement-based or other simplified design and analysis procedures can be used, provided that seismic performance can be predicted with an acceptable level of reliability. In this section, two displacement based design procedures, the direct displacement-based (DDBD) procedure and the equal displacement-based (EBD) procedure are outlined for use in preliminary design. Design verification analysis of the preliminary design should be performed using non-linear analysis procedures, as outlined in Section I-5.5.

Where specific guidelines are not provided, refer to ASCE 7-02 for design and analysis requirements.

I-5.2

Conceptual Design Limitations

Considering that the displacement design procedures outlined in Sections I-5.3 and I-5.4 are relatively new and unproven, several additional limitations at the conceptual design level are recommended. The design procedures can be applied to structures not meeting the criteria listed but the effectiveness of the procedures may be reduced. The recommended limitations are noted in Sections I-5.2.1, I-5.2.2 and I-5.2.3.

I-5.2.1 Structural System Selection. The procedures are recommended for application to the selected systems indicated in Section I-4.3. The effectiveness of the procedures for other systems is expected to be limited.

I-5.2.2 System Regularity. The procedures are recommended for relatively regular structures. The effectiveness of the procedures for irregular systems is expected to be limited.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

98

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-5.2.3 Short Period Structures. The displacement procedures are expected to be most effective for structures with periods in the constant velocity portion of the design spectra, with effective periods greater than T s , typically about 0.5 seconds

I-5.2.4 Soil Structure Interaction. See requirements of Section I-4.6.2.

I-5.3

Direct Displacement-Based Design (DDBD) Procedure

The DDBD is a procedure that can be used for sizing the members of the lateral force resisting system based on an assumed yield mechanism, an estimated global displacement demand, termed herein the target displacement and the effective inelastic system properties. The DDBD approach has been shown to be effective for certain concrete structures. However, the procedure is still undergoing development and validation studies, and, therefore, alternative procedures may be appropriate for many structures.

The DDBD approach utilizes the response spectra in ADRS or DRS format (Figures I-4a through I- 4e or site-specific spectra) and a substitute elastic structure, having “effective” stiffness and damping properties, to approximate the expected inelastic response of the actual structure. As such, this method, is one of a family of methods, including the capacity-spectrum method that rely on such substitute structures to predict inelastic response. The procedure includes selection of target drifts based on the selected performance objectives and structural system, determination of required effective stiffness (based on the system ductility, effective equivalent viscous damping and the displacement response spectrum), and concludes with determination of the required strength to meet the intended performance level.

After selecting performance objectives, structural systems, and yield mechanisms, the structural system can be designed utilizing the DDBD procedure as follows:

Step 1 - Estimate Target Displacements: The target displacement for each selected performance level (limit state) is estimated based on the interstory drift limits (Table I-4) for the selected structural system, considering the expected inelastic displaced shape. In effect, this target displacement is the amount of displacement that an equivalent single degree of freedom oscillator, having the effective stiffness and damping properties of the real structure would experience in response to the design ground motion. In lieu of more detailed analysis, the target system displacement (drift) can by estimated by Equation I-5-1:

T = I ) (h E ) (k 2 ) = I ) (h R ) (k 1 )(k 2 )

(Eqn. I-5-1)

Where:

the

equivalent SDOF system. δ I = interstory drift ratio limit from Table I-4.

h E = effective height for the equivalent SDOF system = (h R )(k 1 ), length units

h R =

k 1 = factor to relate the height at the roof to the effective height, calculated based on

the equivalence of work between the real structure and the equivalent SDOF structure. In lieu of more detailed analysis, see Tables I-7 and I-8. For a structure with limited higher mode effects and essentially elastic response, this is the modal participation factor.

T = target

displacement

for

the

global

system,

at

the

effective

height

for

height at roof level, length units.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

99

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

k 2 = factor to relate the expected displaced shape function to a linear displaced shape function. In lieu of more detailed analysis, see Tables I-7 and I-8.

Note that:

RF =I ) (h R )(k 2 ) = Target displacement measured at the roof level.

Step 2 - Determine Required Maximum Effective Period: The required maximum effective period at each limit state under consideration can be determined using the DRS (Figure I-6) with an appropriate system equivalent damping value (including both hysteretic damping and viscous damping), which can be taken from Table I-6 in lieu of more detailed analysis. The effective period (T eff ) is determined by entering the DRS with T and reading across to the displacement response spectrum curve based on appropriate system damping and down to T eff , as illustrated in Figure I-6c.

Alternatively, the required maximum effective period (T eff ) can be determined by entering the ADRS with Sd = T , and reading up to the spectral curve and across to Sa, then utilizing the following relationship:

T eff 2

=

(4 π 2 Sd/Sa)

(Eqn. I-5-2)

Step 3A - Determine Required Effective Stiffness: The required effective stiffness at each selected performance level can be determined from Equation I-5-3.

Where:

K eff =

4 π 2 M eff / T eff 2

K eff = effective stiffness M eff = effective mass (weight/g) = M k 3

k 3

T eff

= ratio of effective mass / total mass, see Tables I-7 and I-8.

= effective period per Step 2.

(Eqn. I-5-3)

The effective mass is calculated based on the target displaced shape and the equivalence in work between the real structure and the equivalent SDOF structure. For a structure with limited higher mode response and essentially elastic response, the effective mass is equal to the modal mass participation factor times the structure’s mass.

Step 3B - Determine Required Initial Stiffness: The required initial stiffness at the effective yield point can be approximated from the effective stiffness and the expected system ductility from Equation I-5-4, which provides a conservative estimate based on an elastoplastic model.

Where:

K i = µ K eff

K i =

µ =

K eff = effective stiffness.

required initial stiffness.

usable system ductility factor for the selected performance level.

(Eqn. I-5-4)

Alternatively, the initial stiffness can be more precisely calculated using Equation I-5-5, considering a positive post-yield stiffness:

K i =

K eff / (r µ -r +1)].

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

(Eqn. I-5-5)

100

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Where:

r

=

(post-yield stiffness)/(initial stiffness).

µ

=

Typically equal to 0.05 to 0.10 but may reach 0.50, depending on the structural system system displacement ductility factor for the selected performance level.

Step 4 - Determine Required Strength: The required strength at development of the yield mechanism can be determined based on the effective stiffness and the target displacement.

Where:

V base = K eff T .

V base = design base shear.

K eff

T

= effective stiffness. = target displacement at the effective height per Equation I-5-1.

(Eqn. I-5-6)

Step 4A -

Determine Required Yield Strength: The required yield strength can be derived based

on the displacement ductility demand, µ, and the second slope stiffness, r, as shown in Eqn. I-5-7. Values for displacement ductility may be selected from Table I-5, and values for r are typically between 0 and 0.1 and are to be selected at the discretion of the engineer.

V y = V base /rµ-r+1

(Eqn. I-5-7)

Step 5 – Structural Analysis and Design :

The lateral load-resisting elements can be sized based on the governing performance level to provide the strength and stiffness determined in steps 3 and 4. The governing performance level can be identified by comparing the results of steps 1 through 4 for each performance level comprising the selected performance objective. Typically, the seismic hazard level resulting in the largest Vy governs the design.

Step 5A – Distribution of Base Shear:

Base shear forces from Eq. I-5-7 should be distributed according to the displaced shape. The displaced shape can be simplified to a linear displaced shape using the code redistribution formula in Eq. I-5-8:

F x =

(V - F t ) w x h x

Σ w i h i

(Eqn. I-5-8)

or by a displaced shape derived from a more detailed analysis in which case Eqn. I-5-9 below should be used. Equations for displaced shapes for various systems can be found in the commentary.

F

x

=

m

i

δ

i

m

i

δ

i

V

b

(Eqn. I-5-9)

Step 5B Structural Analysis:

Using the lateral force distribution from Step 5a, conduct a structural analysis where the effective stiffness of each member in the system is selected as the secant stiffness to maximum expected response level for the member. Member effective stiffnesses can be approximated using Eqn. I-5-10 where K eff is the member effective stiffness, K y , is the member stiffness evaluated at the member

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

101

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

yield point, and µ is the expected member displacement ductility. For concrete and masonry structures, the stiffness at member yield, K y , should reflect that the section is cracked. In lieu of more detailed analysis, µ may be taken as 1.0 for members expected to behave in an elastic manner, such as all columns above the first story. For all other members, in liu of more detailed analysis, the system ductility values in Table I-5 may be assumed. Members should be proportioned such that the structural stiffness at yield is within 10% of the initial structural stiffness obtained from Step 3b. The following sections provide detailed recommendations for various structural types.

K

eff

K

y

= µ

(Eqn. I-5-10)

Structural Analysis for RC Moment Frames:

(1) Column section stiffness should be calculated based on the cracked section. This can be calculated utilizing a moment-curvature analysis. However, for most cases, the column cracked section stiffness can be assumed to be 50% of the gross section stiffness.

(2) Beam section stiffness should be the effective beam stiffness at maximum response which can be estimated by dividing the stiffness of the cracked section by the expected member displacement ductility.

(3) At each base column location, a pin connection should be assumed and a moment equal to M b = 0.7hV c applied where V c represents the portion of the base shear resisted by the column under consideration (approximated as the total base shear divided by the number of columns in the frame) and h represents the base story height.

(4) The lateral force should be distributed vertically in accordance with Eqn I-5-8 or I-5-9.

Structural Analysis for Steel Frames:

(1) For Steel Frames, column section stiffness should be calculated based on the gross section.

(2) For Steel Frames, beam section stiffness should be the effective beam stiffness at maximum response which can be estimated by dividing the gross stiffness by the expected member displacement ductility.

(3) At each base column location, a pin connection should be assumed and a moment equal to M b = 0.7hV c applied where V c represents the portion of the base shear resisted by the column under consideration (approximated as the total base shear divided by the number of columns in the frame) and h represents the base story height.

(4) The lateral force should be distributed vertically in accordance with Eqn I-5-8 or I-5-9.

Structural Analysis for RC Walls:

In the case of structural wall buildings, the portion of the total base shear resisted by each wall can be calculated by Eqn. I-5-11. Once the wall shear force Vwall i , is obtained for wall i, the wall base moment is obtained by Eqn. I-5-12 where h e is the effective wall height given by Eqn. I-5-13 where k 1 is taken from Tables I-7 and I-8.

Vwall

i

=

V

b

l wi

2

l

2

wi

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

(Eqn. I-5-11)

102

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Mwall

i

=

h

e

=

h

wall

k

Vwall h

ie

1

(Eqn. I-5-12)

(Eqn. I-5-13)

Step 6 - Verify Design Using Nonlinear Analysis Procedures: The lateral system design per step 5 may be verified using nonlinear dynamic (time history) analysis or pushover analysis procedures per Section I-5.5 to confirm that, when the structure is pushed to reach the target displacement at the effective height, the interstory drift limits are not exceeded and the element ductility demands are less than the achievable element ductility capacities. The system performance design-verification concept is illustrated in Figure I-8.

Step 7 - Modify Design if Required: If the preliminary design verification in step 6 indicates that the drift limits are not maintained or that the ductility demand exceeds the achievable ductility capacity at the design earthquake levels, the design should be modified and step 6 repeated.

Step 8 – Prepare Final Design and Detailing: Once design closure is achieved in steps 6 and 7, the final design and detailing proceeds, following capacity design principles to assure that the yielding elements possess the design ductility and that the remaining elements possess sufficient strength to develop the overstrength of the yielded elements. See Section I-5.6.

I-5.4

Equal Displacement-Based Design (EBD) Procedure

The EBD procedure mirrors the DDBD procedure but with several differences. Whereas the DDBD procedure uses a substitute structure design approach, using secant stiffnesses, the EBD procedure uses an elastic design approach and relates the elastic response to the inelastic response based on the equal displacement approximation. According to that approximation, as documented by Newmark- Hall, the displacement of an inelastically responding system is approximately equal to the displacement of an equivalent elastically responding system with equal initial stiffness, for a given ground motion, as illustrated in Figure I-7. The EBD is an adaptation of the traditional force-based code procedures, but it uses the ADRS or the DRS rather than the acceleration response spectrum and focuses on displacements rather than forces.

The equal-displacement approximation is generally applicable to buildings with a fundamental period greater than 0.5 seconds. For short period buildings, period less than 0.5 seconds, the procedure can be modified by utilizing the following relationship proposed by Newmark-Hall.

Where:

inelastic

µ

Inelastic

Elastic

=

µ∆ elastic 2µ −1
µ∆
elastic
2µ −1

(Eqn. I-5-14)

= utilized system displacement ductility

= Displacement of an inelastically responding short period structure

= Displacement of an equivalent elastically responding structure

The EBD utilizes the 5% damped ADRS (Figure I-4), the equivalent elastic structure and the expected system ductility factor, µ, to model the inelastic displacement response. The procedure includes estimation of target drifts; determination of required initial stiffness based on the design ductility limits and the ADRS; determination of required strength based on the target displacement,

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

103

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

initial stiffness, and system ductility. Members are designed based on required stiffness, strength, and ductility.

For structures with a fundamental period greater than 0.5 seconds, the structural system can be designed utilizing the EBD procedure as follows:

Step 1 - Selection of Target Displacements: (Same as DDBD). The target displacement at a selected performance level (limit state) is estimated based on the interstory drift limits (Table I-4) for the selected structural system and on the expected inelastic displaced shape. In lieu of more detailed analysis, the target system displacement (drift) can by estimated using Equation I-5-15.

Where:

Note that:

T =

I ) (h E ) (k 2 ) = I ) (h R ) (k 1 )(k 2 )

(Eqn. I-5-15)

target displacement for the global system, at the effective height for the equivalent SDOF system. interstory drift ratio limit from Table I-4. effective height for the equivalent SDOF system = (h R )(k 1 ), in inches. height at roof level, in inches.

δ

= h E = h R = k

factor to relate the height at the roof to the effective height, calculated based on the equivalence of work between the real structure and the equivalent SDOF structure. In lieu of more detailed analysis, see Tables I-7 and I-8. For a structure with limited higher mode effects and essentially elastic response, this is the modal participation factor. k 2 = factor to relate the expected displaced shape function to a linear displaced shape function. In lieu of more detailed analysis, see Tables I-7 and I-8.

T =

I

1

=

RF =I ) (h R )(k 2 ) = Target displacement measured at the roof level.

Step 2 - Determine Initial Period: The initial period at the yield limit state (SP-1) can be determined using the ADRS (Figure I-4) with 5% of critical damping (considering traditional viscous damping). The initial period (T i ) is determined by entering the ADRS with T = Sd, reading up to the spectral curve and across to Sa, then utilizing the following relationship.

T i 2

=

(4 π 2 Sd/Sa)

(Eqn. I-5-16)

Step 3 - Determine Initial Stiffness: The initial stiffness at the effective yield point can be determined from Eqn. I-5-17:

Where:

K i

K i

=

=

M eff =

k 3

T i

=

=

4 π 2 M eff

/ T i 2

initial stiffness. effective mass (weight/g) = M (k 3 ). ratio of effective mass/mass, see Table I-7 and I-8. initial period per Step 2.

(Eqn. I-5-17)

The effective mass is calculated based on the target displaced shape and the equivalence in work between the real structure and the equivalent SDOF structure. For a structure with limited higher

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

104

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

mode response and essentially elastic response, the effective mass is equal to the modal mass participation factor times the structure’s mass.

Step 4 - Determine Required System Yield Strength: The required yield strength can be determined based on the initial stiffness, the target displacement and the system ductility value:

Where:

V y

=

V y

=

=

µ =

T

K i

=

K i T / µ

design base shear at effective yield. initial stiffness at effective yield point. target displacement.

system ductility factor per Table I-5.

(Eqn. I-5-18)

Step 5 - Preliminary Design: System Element Sizes: The lateral load-resisting elements can be sized based on the governing performance goal to provide the strength and stiffness determined in steps 3 and 4. The governing performance goal can be identified by comparing the results of steps 1 through 4 for each performance goal comprising the selected performance objective. Typically, the seismic hazard level resulting in the largest V y governs the design.

Distribute the base shear obtained from Equation I-5-18. Forces should be distributed

Step5A.

according to the displaced shape. The displaced shape can be simplified to a linear displaced shape

using the code redistribution formula:

F x =

(V - F t ) w x h x

Σ w i h i

(Eqn. I-5-19)

or by a displaced shape derived from a more detailed analysis in which case Eqn. I-5-20 below should be used. Equations for displaced shapes for various systems cn be found in the commentary.

F

x

=

m

i

δ

i

m

i

δ

i

V

b

(Eqn. I-5-20)

Member strengths should be proportioned so that the selected yield mechanism is

uniformly developed at an equivalent base shear not less than that obtained from Equation I-5-11. Generally, the stresses at the yield points comprising the yield mechanism should be between 0.8Fy and 1.25Fy at this base shear:

Step 5B.

Where:

0.80 < D/C y < 1.25

D = C y =

calculated seismic demand on yielding element. nominal yield capacity of yielding element.

(Eqn. I-5-21)

Other elements in the structural system, not designated as yield points, should be sufficiently below yield to provide sufficient strength to develop the overstrength in the yielding elements.

If the requirements of Equation I-5-21 are not met, then more detailed verification analysis will be required and greater redundancy will be required in the LFRS.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

105

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Step 5C.

approximately equal to that obtained from Equation I-5-17. Initial effective stiffness can be measured

in terms of the applied seismic force divided by the displacement at the effective height, (taking into

account cracked section properties for concrete or masonry structures, and gross sections for steel and yield stiffness for plywood).

stiffness

Member

sizes

should

be

proportioned

to

provide

the

initial

effective

K y

=

V base /y = 0.9Ki to 1.1 Ki

(Eqn. I-5-22)

Where:

K y

=

V base =

y

=

stiffness of structure at the effective yield point. seismic force causing effective yielding of the designed structure.

deflection of the structure measured at the effective height (Eqn. I-5-15) with δI

equal to the SP-1 drift in Table I-4).

Step 6 - Verify Design Using Nonlinear Analysis Procedures: The lateral system design per step 5 may be verified using nonlinear dynamic (time history) analysis or pushover analysis procedures per Section I-5.5 to confirm that, when the structure is pushed to reach the target displacement at the effective height, the interstory drift limits are not exceeded and the element ductility demands are less than the achievable element ductility capacities. The system performance design-verification concept is illustrated in Figure I-8.

Step 7 - Modify Design if Required: If the preliminary design verification in Step 6 indicates that the interstory drift limits or achievable ductility limits are not maintained at the design earthquake levels, the design should be modified and Step 6 repeated until the design criteria are met.

Step 8 – Complete Final Design and Detailing: Once design closure is achieved in steps 6 and 7, the final design and detailing should proceed, following "capacity design" principles to ensure that the yielding elements are detailed to provide the required design ductility and that the remaining elements provide sufficient strength to develop the overstrength of the yielded elements.

I-5.5

Verification Analysis Using Nonlinear Analysis Procedures:

A nonlinear static or dynamic analysis of the structure should be performed once the members are

sized for strength and stiffness. The nonlinear analysis should be used to verify the interstory drift ratios, the yield mechanisms, and the element ductility demand/capacity ratios. The system performance design-verification concept is illustrated in Figure I-8.

I.5.5.1 Pushover Analysis Procedures

Pushover analysis procedures are briefly outlined below and are described in detail in FEMA 356 and ATC 40. It is anticipated that the ATC-55 project will publish an extensive series of recommendations for improving the implementation of the procedures presented in both FEMA-356 and ATC-40.

The pushover analysis should include the following steps.

Step 1 - Develop Pushover Curve for the Structure: Analyze structural design by applying incremental displacements. Using the elastic mode shape from a modal combination analysis, or other rational displaced shape, amplify the displacements until the first significant element yielding

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

106

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

occurs. Place a first set of plastic hinges at the yield points in the structural model to represent the initial hinges and rerun the modal analysis to determine a new deformed shape. Amplify the deformed shape and sum the element stresses and deformations for the first two runs until a second set of hinges forms, and repeat the procedure until system instability occurs. The summed structural displacement to the point of instability represents the collapse point on the pushover curve. Alternatively, the analysis may be performed as recommended in either ATC-40 or FEMA-356. Regardless, the analysis should include the P-delta effects and should be conducted to a sufficient displacement to produce incipient instability or collapse. For structures with effective periods greater than two times the spectral acceleration to velocity transition period an additional deformed shape of constant displacement with height shall also be assume to account for higher mode effects and the results enveloped.

Step 2 - Establish an Effective Yield Point for the Structural System:

point on the pushover curve based on established rational procedures. Typically, at the effective yield point, approximately 25% to 50% the hinges in the yield mechanism are developed.

Establish an effective yield

Step 3 - Plot the Performance Levels on the Pushover Curve: Plot the performance level lines on the pushover curve based on the IDDR=0 at Level 1 (the effective yield point) and IDDR =1 at Level 5 (the collapse point). See Figure I-5 for an illustration.

Step 4 - Plot the Performance Points on the Pushover Curve for Each Design Earthquake: Determine the expected system displacement at each EQ level, using DDBD or EBD procedures or capacity spectrum procedures (ATC 40), and add these performance points to the pushover curve.

Step 5 - Verify Story Drifts: Verify that at each EQ level the maximum interstory drifts are below the target drifts.

Step 6 - Verify Ductility Demand/Capacity Ratios: Verify that the maximum cumulative-ductility- demand-to-designable-ductility-capacity ratios at the hinges meet the performance criteria at each performance level and EQ level.

Step 7 - Reiterate the Design and Analysis: If the structure does not meet the performance criteria, revise the design and rerun the verification analysis.

I.5.5.2 Dynamic Analysis Procedures Analogous to the pushover analysis procedure outlined above, a nonlinear dynamic analysis procedure for design verification is briefly outlined below, with references to FEMA 350-352. Considering the earthquake record-to-record variability in structural response, this procedure should be repeated for multiple accelerograms (not less than three). The larger the number of accelerograms used, the higher will be the implied confidence that the intended performance objective has been met.

For each accelerogram, the dynamic analysis should include the following steps:

Step 1 – Develop an Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) Curve for the Structure: Follow the second through fifth steps of the IDA technique detailed in Section A.6 of FEMA 350-352. An IDA results in a curve relating interstory drift to the spectral response of an incrementally scaled accelerogram. This technique is used to estimate the interstory drift capacity associated with global stability of a structure, which is the collapse point on the IDA curve. Note that it is important that the

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

107

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

nonlinear analytical model of the structure be as accurate as possible. Particularly important are an accurate representation of the hysteretic behavior of the elements and of P-effects.

Step 2 – Establish an Effective Yield Point for the Structural System: Establish an effective yield point on the IDA curve. This could be the "incipient yield" point determined in the second step of the FEMA 350-352 IDA technique followed in Step 1 above, or the point of largest interstory drift that is consistent with the definition of SP1 in Section I-2.3 (i.e., "up to roughly half of the hinge elements of the system yield mechanism have reached yield (maximum hinge deformations should not exceed 150% yield)").

Step 3 –Plot the Performance Levels on the IDA Curve: Plot the performance level lines on the pushover curve based on the IDDR=0 at Level 1 (the effective yield point) and IDDR=1 at Level 5 (the collapse point).

Step 4 – Plot the Performance Points on the IDA Curve for Each Design Earthquake: Determine the expected system displacement at each EQ level using nonlinear dynamic analysis. Scale (in amplitude) the accelerogram in order to match, for each EQ level, the 5%-damped spectral response acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure obtained from Table I-6e. Add these dynamic performance points to the IDA curve. Note that these performance points may have already been computed in developing the IDA curve (i.e., Step 1), or they could simply be interpolated between the points of the IDA curve.

Step 5 – Verify Story Drifts: Verify that at each EQ level the maximum interstory drifts are below the target drifts.

Step 6 – Verify Ductility Demand/Capacity Ratios: Verify that the maximum cumulative-ductility- demand-to-designable-ductility-capacity ratios at the hinges meet the performance criteria at each performance level and EQ level.

Step 7 – Reiterate the Design and Analysis: If the structure does not meet the performance criteria, revise the design and rerun the verification analysis.

I-5.6

Final Design and Detailing Procedures

The final design and detailing procedures should follow capacity design procedures (Paulay- Priestley) or similar yield-control procedures to ensure that the designated yielding elements (displacement controlled) possess the required design ductility and that the remaining elements (force controlled) possess sufficient strength to develop the overstrength of the yielded elements.

Yielding

detailing

requirements per standards referenced in Section I-4.3 to provide the ductility capacities listed in Table I-5 or as established by testing.

elements

(displacement

controlled):

Detail

in

accordance

with

ductile

Non-yielding elements (forced controlled): Detail to provide strength to develop overstrength of yielding elements (1.3Fy, unless other overstrength ratios are appropriate).

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

108

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-5.7

Nonstructural Systems

The nonstructural systems and elements should be designed and analyzed to verify that the performance is consistent with the selected performance objectives. Design and analysis procedures are outlined in Section I-6.

I-6

I-6.1

Nonstructural Systems Design

General

The nonstructural systems and elements should be designed and analyzed to verify that their seismic performance is consistent with the selected performance objectives. A checklist of such potential elements should be developed at the early stages of design. Those elements and systems critical to seismic life safety in the building (e.g., potential falling hazards and elements potentially obstructing egress from the building) and those critical to the performance objective of the design should be addressed.

The nonstructural elements to be seismically protected should be designed to accommodate the drift and in-structure accelerations expected in the structural frame without being damaged beyond defined limits, in accordance with the selected performance objectives.

I-6.2

Design Strategies

Nonstructural systems should be designed to accommodate drift and in-structure accelerations by one of the following strategies.

1. Drift Accommodation by:

a. Separation joints

b. Elastic deformations

c. Inelastic deformations consistent with the selected performance objective

d. Articulating connections

2. Acceleration Accommodation by:

a. Elastic response

b. Inelastic response, in either connecting components or the element itself, consistent with anticipated performance

c. Inherent ruggedness demonstrated by shake table testing or experience data

When inelastic response is designed into the nonstructural systems, significant participation of the nonstructural systems should be accounted for in the structural system design and analysis.

I-6.3

Nonstructural Systems Design and Analysis Procedures

The design of the nonstructural systems should follow one of the methods outlined below or an equivalent rational procedure.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

109

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

I-6.3.1 Method 1 - Performance specification for design-build of nonstructural systems: The engineer-of-record should specify the design loading criteria and the performance criteria for the nonstructural design by a design-build contractor. The design loading criteria should identify the appropriate in-structure design accelerations and inter-story drifts at each seismic hazard level, as determined by analysis of the structural response or as otherwise established. The performance requirements should be stated to specify the acceptable damage state for each element at each seismic hazard level. The design-build contractor/engineer should then prepare design documents for review by the engineer-of-record in accordance with Sections 7, 8, and 9. Where operating equipment is required to continue functioning during or following a specified seismic hazard level, operability should be demonstrated by shake table testing or experience data for the specified instructure response spectra. Equipment should be seismically qualified by testing using testing and accepting procedures such as AC-156.

I-6.3.2 Method 2 – Design to accommodate structural response envelope: The nonstructural systems should be designed to accommodate the maximum in-structure accelerations and displacements expected at each seismic hazard level, while performing within the expected performance levels, with an appropriate factor of safety. Design criteria should be determined in accordance with Section I-6.4.

I-6.3.3 Method 3 - Detailed design of the nonstructural systems: The nonstructural systems can be designed by explicit modeling of nonstructural systems acting in combination with the primary structural system in response to seismic actions.

I-6.3.4 Method 4 - Pre-qualification of Nonstructural-systems: The nonstructural systems can be pre-qualified by the manufacturer to meet specific drift and acceleration criteria. The systems can then be selected based on the expected drift and in-structure accelerations, considering the selected performance objectives for the project.

I-6.4

Drift and Acceleration Criteria for Nonstructural Design

The nonstructural elements should be designed to accommodate the maximum drift and in-structure acceleration response expected in the structural frame. Conceptual design can be based on the default drift and in-structure acceleration design values specified below in this Guideline. Final design should be based on or checked against envelope drift and acceleration response parameters determined by analysis of the structural response to the specified seismic hazard levels.

In lieu of more detailed engineering procedures, the following procedures may be used to determine the structural response parameters for nonstructural design:

1. Drift: The maximum inter-story drifts for use in design of nonstructural elements can be taken as 1.5 x drift values determined by pushover analysis (1.5 factor is to account for a possible underestimation of drift response by pushover analysis).

2. In-Structure Accelerations: The design acceleration for nonstructural elements can be calculated from the elastic response for elastically responding structures or as the maximum acceleration limited by yielding for inelastically responding structures. Also in-structure accelerations may be taken equal to those specified in Equation 9.6.1.3-1 of ASCE 7-02 with R p

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

110

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

taken equal to 1.0. Appropriate reduction in design forces may be made consistent with the performance level desired.

7 Design and Construction Documents

7.1 Scope of Services and Responsibility

In order to achieve enhanced performance and improved reliability in PBE design and construction, it is essential that responsibility and scope of services for the seismic design of all structural and nonstructural systems be clearly defined and understood by all design professionals involved in the project. The lead design professional should prepare a matrix of design responsibility. The scope of services of the design professional should clearly indicate who has responsibility for preparing seismic bracing and anchorage detail drawings and calculations those items and systems that the supplier is responsible for designing and installing. The scope of services should also clearly indicate when these documents need to be submitted to the lead professional for review. The lead professional needs to indicate clearly how to coordinate installation details and how to avoid or resolve physical conflicts.

7.2 Design Documents

Design criteria documents should be prepared for structural and nonstructural design. These criteria documents should indicate the design objectives, design ground motions levels, design criteria, assumptions, and design concepts.

Drawings and supporting calculations should be prepared that satisfy the design criteria. These documents will have sufficient detail to be used to review the design for adequacy. Documents may be prepared for different stages of the project. At any early stage, peer review level documents may be required for reviewing design objectives, criteria, and design concept. At the plan submittal stage, full documentation is required to allow independent review by building officials and/or other checkers.

When the nonstructural components are designed by the supplier, sufficient documentation should be provided in the design documents to allow the concepts for continued functioning, seismic anchorage and bracing to be independently reviewed during the plan check process.

7.3 Construction Documents

Construction documents consist of the construction scope of work, drawings, and specifications. The scope of work should clearly describe all work that the contractor is to perform, including design and installation of seismic bracing for nonstructural components. It should also clearly indicate whether the contractor's submittal must include design calculations. The design drawings should clearly identify the nonstructural components that require seismic bracing as well as typical bracing details. Specific requirements should be provided in the specifications.

The construction documents should have sufficient detail to adequately define the work of the contractor and subcontractors for bidding purposes and to allow inspectors and others to determine whether the seismic design components have been adequately constructed and installed. Items designed, supplied, and installed by the subcontractor should be subject to the same requirements for

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

111

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

preparation of construction documents. These documents must be adequate to allow installers and inspectors to verify that the seismic anchorage and bracing have been properly located, constructed and installed.

8 Design Review Procedures

8.1 Project Design Peer Review

8.1.1 General. The purpose of PDPR is to provide independent review of the basis of design and

the execution of the design. By independently evaluating the design objectives, criteria, assumptions, conceptual design, final design, and design verification, the PDPR increases the likelihood that

design performance objectives will be achieved.

8.1.2 Scope of Services. The PDPR should be initiated in the schematic design phase to allow

evaluation of major engineering decisions. The scope and responsibility should be identified in a written agreement between the owner and the peer reviewer. The scope, timing and schedule of the peer review should be made available to the Engineer of Record. The scope should include review, discussion with the Engineer of Record, resolution of differences, and a written report to the owner at the concept review stage summarizing the design objectives, the design criteria, assumptions, and design concepts, and at the design development stage confirming the design resolution, identifying the critical elements and connections, and confirming the construction quality assurance program.

8.1.3 Qualifications. The peer reviewer(s) shall satisfy the qualification requirements of the

Section 1631.6.3.2 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code. The peer reviewer(s) should be independent of the Engineer of Record and should have no conflict of interest related to the project being reviewed. The Engineer of Record should be consulted in the selection of the peer reviewer,

and the two should be able to work cooperatively. The peer reviewer should be a registered engineer in the state where the project is to be constructed and should have demonstrated knowledge and experience of the type of project being reviewed. The peer reviewer should also be knowledgeable of the construction practices and regulations applicable to the project.

8.1.4 Responsibility. Since the responsibility for the structural design remains with the Engineer

of Record, the written agreement should include an appropriate indemnification clause.

8.2 Design Plan Check

8.2.1 General. Consistent with the purpose of these provisions to provide greater reliability in

achieving predicted performance, additional plan checking should be provided beyond that required

to ensure compliance with the building code. The purpose of this additional plan checking is to confirm that the design as presented in the construction documents conforms to the design assumptions, concepts and criteria that have been confirmed in the PDPR. The additional plan checking may be done by the peer reviewer. The scope and responsibility should be defined in a written agreement with the owner.

8.2.2 Scope. The additional plan checking beyond that required to assure compliance with the

building code should be specific in order to confirm that the construction documents are consistent with the design criteria, concepts, and assumptions. The plan checker should also review and confirm

that the proposed structural observation and testing and inspection program will provide the

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

112

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

construction quality assurance necessary to reasonably ensure conformance with the construction documents.

8.2.3 Qualifications and Responsibility. The qualifications and responsibilities of the plan

checker will be similar to those of the peer reviewer, although he will be limited to checking whether the construction documents and proposed construction quality assurance are consistent with what has already been agreed to by the Engineer of Record and the peer reviewer. The plan checker does not have the responsibility to examine the appropriateness of the project design objectives and criteria,

but must confine the scope of his review to whether the construction documents effectively meet the project design objectives and criteria.

9 Construction Quality Assurance Procedures

9.1

Structural Observation

9.1.1

General .To ensure general conformance to the construction documents, structural

observation should be performed by the Engineer of Record at significant construction stages and at the completion of construction of the structural system and significant nonstructural systems. Structural observation does not supplant any necessary continuous inspections or the building inspector's progress inspections.

The significant construction stages and the structural elements and connections to be observed should be determined by the Engineer of Record, confirmed by the peer reviewer and plan checker, and identified on the construction documents. The elements to be observed should include the elements of the yield mechanism, major nonstructural system connections and bracing, and other significant elements as identified.

The construction documents must provide for and allow the structural observer to perform his observations in a responsible manner. There can be no interference with the structural observer.

9.1.2 Scope. As discussed above, the owner should employ the Engineer of Record to provide

structural observation at significant construction stages and at the completion of construction of the structural system and significant nonstructural systems. The scope should be specified in a written agreement and should include that the structural observer will visit the project at each significant construction stage as defined on the construction documents and will observe those elements and connections specified on the construction documents including the elements of the yield mechanism. The structural observer is to identify all significant errors or deficiencies in the specified elements

and connections. The observer should report in writing on the same to the owner, contractor and building inspector and should revisit the project to observe the correction of those errors and deficiencies in a timely manner. He should submit a final written observation report at completion of the structural system and significant nonstructural systems when all work is in general conformance with construction documents and any approved changes.

9.1.3 Qualifications. The structural observer should be the Engineer of Record, or an engineer

designated by the Engineer of Record, registered in the state of the project. The structural observer should have demonstrated knowledge and experience of the type of construction proposed for the

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

113

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

project. He should be independent of the contractor and have no conflicts of interest related to the project for which he providing structural observation.

9.1.4 Responsibility. The structural observer is responsible for verifying general conformance of

those specific elements and connections identified in the construction documents, including, but not limited to, elements of the yield mechanism and the major nonstructural components, at the indicated significant construction stages and at the completion of the structural system. The structural observer is not responsible to certify, guarantee, or assure conformance with all of the specific requirements of

the construction documents.

9.2 Testing and Inspection Program. The Engineer of Record should specify the requirements

for material testing and continuous special inspection of those elements of the construction critical to

achieving the design objectives, including but not limited to the yielding elements of the yield mechanism and the critical connection details of the nonstructural systems. The testing and inspection program should be reviewed and confirmed by the peer reviewer and the plan checker. The program should be administered by the Engineer of Record or the structural observer. The responsibilities for administering the testing and inspection program should be clearly indicated by written agreement with the Engineer of Record or the structural observer.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

114

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

10 Building Seismic Maintenance

The Engineer of Record should develop maintenance guidelines to specifically address the long-term maintenance of the more seismically significant structural and nonstructural systems. These maintenance guidelines should, at a minimum state the seismic performance objectives, identify the key components of the seismic resisting system, identify nonstructural systems designed for performance, and identify elements requiring special maintenance. These guidelines should be briefly stated on the construction drawings as a reference for the owner, future owners, future remodel designers, and the building official.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

115

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Table I-2. Recommended Siting Restrictions For PBSE (1)

 

Restrictions related to Performance Objectives

 

Potential Site Hazard

Basic Safety Objective

Essential/Hazardous

Safety Critical

- BSO -

Objective

Objective

- EO1 -

- EO2 -

Distance to Active Fault Traces

     

Class A

d

> 200 ft.

d

> 500 ft.

d

> 1000 ft.

Class B

d

> 100 ft.

d

> 200 ft.

d

> 500 ft.

Soil Types/Profiles

SA, SB, SC, SD

SA, SB, SC, SD

SA, SB, SC, SD

Liquefaction Potential

Low to negligible

Very low to negligible

Negligible

Landslide Potential

Low to negligible

Very low to negligible

Negligible

Tsunami/Inundation Potential

Low to negligible

Very low to negligible

Negligible

1. It is recommended that projects with the above specified performance objectives be restricted to sites with not greater than

the tabulated hazard potentials. If the site hazard exceeds the tabulated level, the structural design should be shown by specific analysis to account for or mitigate the hazard.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

116

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Table I-3 Recommedned Yield Mechanism

 

RECOMMENDED YIELD MECHANISMS

System

Mechanism

Commentary

1. SMRF, CMRF

1. SMRF, CMRF Strong column/weak beam

Strong column/weak beam

Flexural yielding in beams

Prevent shear failure or yielding in beams & columns.

Flexural yielding @ base of columns.

2. EBF

2. EBF Shear and/or flexural yielding of link beam.

Shear and/or flexural yielding of link beam.

Elastic behavior in columns, braces and non-link beams.

3. SCBF

3. SCBF Flexural yielding at ends and middle of braces.

Flexural yielding at ends and middle of braces.

Elastic response in connections, columns and beams.

4. Shear Wall - Slender

4. Shear Wall - Slender Flexural yielding at base of shear wall.

Flexural yielding at base of shear wall.

5. Coupled Shear Wall

5. Coupled Shear Wall Flexural yielding at base of shear walls.

Flexural yielding at base of shear walls.

Flexural yielding at ends of link beams.

6. Squat Shear Wall

 

Rocking on foundation.

Localized soil yielding.

Localized soil yielding.

7. Base Isolation

7. Base Isolation Yielding in isolators.

Yielding in isolators.

Elastic response in structure above isolators.

8. Passive Energy

8. Passive Energy Energy absorption in dampers.

Energy absorption in dampers.

Dissipaters

Elastic response in structural frame.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

117

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Table I-4. Recommended Drift Ratio Limits for Preliminary Design (1)

   

Drift Ratio According to Performance Level

 

Structural Systems

SP-1

SP-2

SP-3

SP- 4

Concrete

       

Shearwall:

H/L = 1.5

0.003

0.006

0.009

0.011

H/L = 2

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.015

H/L = 5

0.010

0.019

0.028

0.035

H/L = 10

0.020

0.028

0.033

0.040

Coupled Shearwall

0.005

0.015

0.030

0.040

SCMRF

0.005

0.015

0.030

0.040

Steel

       

SCBF

0.004

0.008

0.012

0.015

EBF

0.004

0.013

0.022

0.032

SMRF

0.005

0.018

0.032

0.040

Masonry

       

Shearwall:

H/L = 1.5

0.003

0.005

0.0075

0.009

H/L = 2

0.004

0.007

0.010

0.012

H/L = 5

0.010

0.017

0.024

0.028

H/L = 10

0.020

0.025

0.029

0.032

MMRF

0.005

0.011

0.022

0.030

Wood

       

Plywood Shearwall

0.005

0.015

0.024

0.03

Special Technologies (2) (3)

       

Base Isolated Systems

0.010

0.010

0.010

00.015

PED Systems

0.005

0.014

0.022

0.030

1. Tabulated drift limits are intended as design targets for both the structural and nonstructural systems for use with the displacement design approaches. Alternate limits may be used where substantiated by analysis.

2. Drift limits for base isolated systems are guideline values for structure above isolator system

3. Drift limits for passive energy dissipation systems are guideline values based on generic "flexible" bracing system.

4. H/L refers to total height divided by total length. For concrete and masonry walls linear interpolation is suggested for aspect ratio other than those shown. For concrete and masonry structural walls with aspect ratio less than 1.5, wall behavior will be expected to be shear dominated, and the wall should be designed based on strength considerations rather than deformation considerations.

5. Tables APPIB4, 5, and 6 as they are currently structured are consistent with each other, and the engineer should ensure that if values other than those in the tables are utilized, then those values must be made to be consistent with each other. For example, changes in the drift ratio result in changes in ductility and damping.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

118

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Table I-5. Recommended Displacement Ductility Limits For Systems And Elements For Preliminary Design (1)

 

Ductility Capacity Related to Performance Level

Structural Systems

SP- 1

SP- 2

SP- 3

SP-4

Concrete

       

Shearwall:

H/L = 1.5

1.0

2.5

4.0

5.0

H/L=2

1.0

2.5

4.0

5.0

H/L=5

1.0

2.5

4.0

5.0

H/L = 10 (2)

1.0

1.6

2.1

2.7

Linked Shearwall

1.0

3.0

5.1

6.5

SCMRF

1.0

3.6

6.2

8.0

Steel

       

SCBF

1.0

2.5

4.0

5.0

EBF

1.0

3.6

6.2

8.0

SMRF

1.0

3.6

6.2

8.0

Masonry

       

Shearwall:

H/L = 1.5

1.0

2.1

3.3

4.0

H/L = 2.0

1.0

2.1

3.3

4.0

H/L = 5.0

1.0

2.1

3.3

4.0

H/L = 10 (2)

1.0

1.4

1.8

2.0

MMRF

1.0

2.8

4.8

6.0

Wood

       

Plywood Shearwall

1.0

2.9

4.8

6.0

Special Technologies

       

Base Isolated Systems (3)

1.0

1.5

2.0

N.A.

PED Systems (4)

1.0

1.5

2.0

N.A.

1. Tabulated - values are recommended displacement ductility limits for selected structural systems and their yielding elements. Alternate limit may be used where substantiated by analysis. At this time, equal ductility limits are recommended for systems and elements; it is expected that with further research different values will be used.

2. The maximum useable drift ratio is assumed to be about 4% for the purposes of these recommendations. Therefore, for high H/L ratio walls, where the elastic drift is relatively large, the useful displacement ductility of these walls is limited by the limiting drift

ratio (TOTAL - ELASTIC = PLASTIC ).

3. Values for base isolated systems are guideline values for structure above isolator system.,

4. Values for passive energy dissipation systems are guideline values based on generic “flexible” bracing system.

5. For all tables, H/L refers to total height divided by total length. For concrete and masonry walls linear interpolation is suggested for aspect ratio other than those shown. For concrete and masonry structural walls with aspect ratio less than 1.5, wall behavior will be expected to be shear dominated, and the wall should be designed based on strength considerations rather than deformation considerations.

6. Tables I-4, 5, and 6 as they are currently structured are consistent with each other, and the engineer should ensure that if values other than those in the tables are utilized, then those values must be made to be consistent with each other. For example, changes in the drift ratio result in changes in ductility and damping.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

119

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

Table I-6. Recommended System Damping Design Values For Preliminary Design (1)

Systems

 

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Concrete

         
 

Shearwall

H/L = 1.5

7%

15%

18%

20%

 

H/L = 2

7%

15%

18%

20%

H/L = 5

7%

15%

18%

20%

H/L = 10

7%

10%

13%

15%

 

Coupled Shearwall

 
7%
7%
16%
16%
22%
22%
24%
24%

Steel

SCBF

5%

10%

15%

20%

EBF

7%

12%

18%

25%

SMRF

7%

12%

18%

25%

BRBF
BRBF
7%
7%
12%
12%
18%
18%
25%
25%

Masonry

         
 

Shearwall

H/L = 1.5

5%

12%

14%

16%

 

H/L = 2

5%

12%

14%

16%

H/L = 5

5%

12%

14%

16%

H/L = 10

5%

8%

10%

12%

 

MMRF

5%

14%

18%

20%

Wood

       

Special Technologies

         
 

Base Isolated Systems (2)

 

See footnote 2 -

See footnote 2

See footnote 2

See foonote 2

PED Systems (2)

See footnote 3

See foonote 3

See footnote 3

See footnote 3

1. Tabulated systems damping values are estimates for use in design based on currently available test data for the selected systems. These values are based on the ductility values in Table I-5. If lower ductility demands than are shown in Table I-5 are expected, then the appropriate damping values should be calculated (see Commentary).

2. Damping values for base isolation systems and passive damping systems should be based on the values of the devices being used and consistent with the displacment levels to which they are subjected. The value of damping should substantiated by testing.

3. H/L refers to total height divided by total length. For concrete and masonry walls linear interpolation is suggested for aspect ratio other than those shown. For concrete and masonry structural walls with aspect ratio less than 1.5, wall behavior will be expected to be shear dominated, and the wall should be designed based on strength considerations rather than deformation considerations.

4. Tables I-4, 5, and 6 as they are currently structured are consistent with each other, and the engineer should ensure that if values other than those in the tables are utilized, then those values must be made to be consistent with each other. For example, changes in the drift ratio result in changes in ductility and damping.

Nov. 5, 2003; Seismology Committee Review Copy

120

SEAOC Blue Book

Appendix I

SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I Table I-7. ‘k’ factors (Shapes 1 and 2) for Eqns. I-5-1
SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I Table I-7. ‘k’ factors (Shapes 1 and 2) for Eqns. I-5-1
SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I Table I-7. ‘k’ factors (Shapes 1 and 2) for Eqns. I-5-1
SEAOC Blue Book Appendix I Table I-7. ‘k’ factors (Shapes 1 and 2) for Eqns. I-5-1

Table I-7. ‘k’ factors (Shapes 1 and 2) for Eqns. I-5-1 and I-5-15

# of Stories

‘k1’ Effective Height Factor

‘k2' Shape Factor

‘k3’ Effective Mass Factor = Mef / M

Shape 1

Shape 2

Shape 1

Shape 2

Shape 1

Shape 2

 

1

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

 

2

0.83

0.83

1.0

1.0

0.90

0.90

3

0.78

0.78

1.0

1.0

0.86

0.86

4

0.75

0.75

1.0

1.0