Performance-based Structural Design of Tall Buildings

Designing for Safer Infrastructure

Innovative design that goes beyond the codes
1 – 2 June 2018
Asian Institute of Technology, Thailand

Overall Procedure of Performance-based Design

Thaung Htut Aung

1
 PERFORMANCE BASED-SEISMIC DESIGN
• More common in design of high-rise buildings in
western United States.
• To substantiate exceptions to specific prescribed code
requirements.
• To demonstrate higher performance levels for a
structure.
• An integral component is nonlinear response history
analysis.
• Involves significantly more effort in the analysis and
design stages.
• Use of seismic force-resisting systems and Innovative
designs not prescribed by code

2
3
• Description of building, structural • SPT values • Earthquake hazard determination • 10-year return period wind load
system • Soil stratification and properties • Ground motion characterizations • 50-year or 700-year return
• Codes, standards and references • Soil type for seismic loading • Recommended spectra (SLE, period wind load
• Loading criteria • Allowable bearing capacity DBE, and MCE) • Floor accelerations (1-year, 5-
• Materials • Sub-grade modulus year return periods)
• Modeling, analysis and design • Liquefaction potential • Rotational velocity (1-year return
procedures period)
• Basement wall pressure
• Performance objectives and • Natural frequency sensitivity study
acceptance criteria
Site-specific
Basis of design Geotechnical probabilistic Wind tunnel test
investigation seismic
assessment

REQUIRED INFORMATION
4
 Geotechnical investigation
 Probabilistic seismic hazard PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN
assessment
PROCEDURE
Preliminary design

Wind tunnel test

Detailed code-
based design

SLE Evaluation

MCE Evaluation

Peer review 5
 Performance Objectives
Level of Earthquake
Service Level Earthquake
(SLE): 50% probability of
exceedance in 30 years (43-
year return period), 2.5% of
structural damping
Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE): 2%
probability of exceedance in 50
years (2475-year return period)
Seismic Performance Objective
Serviceability: Structure to remain essentially elastic with minor yielding
of structural elements, minor cracking of concrete, and minor damage to
non-structural elements.
Collapse Prevention: Structure has a low probability of collapse which
will be demonstrated implicitly through analyses that indicate the
structure has stable, predictable response to MCE R shaking at response
levels which do not result in loss of gravity load carrying capacity or
substantial degradation of lateral resistance. Extensive structural damage
may occur; repairs to structural and non-structural systems are required
and may not be economically feasible.
6
Preliminary design

Structural Finite Check Preliminary

system element overall member
development modeling response sizing

• Bearing wall • Linear analysis • Modal analysis • Structural density

system models • Natural period, ratios
• Dual system • Different stiffness mode shapes, • Slab thickness
• Special moment assumptions for modal • Shear wall
resisting frame seismic and wind participating thickness
loadings mass ratios
• Intermediate • Coupling beam
• Gravity load
moment resisting response sizes
frame • Building weight • Column sizes
per floor area
• Deflections
• Lateral load
response (DBE,
Wind)
• Base shear,
story drift,
displacement
7
 • Either nominal or • Apply wind loads from • Use recommended design
Modeling

Wind design

Seismic design
expected material wind tunnel test in spectra of DBE from
properties are used based mathematical model PSHA
on strength and service • Ultimate strength design • Apply seismic load in
level design • 50-year return period principal directions of the
• Different cracked section wind load x Load factor building
properties for wind and • 700-year return period • Scaling of base shear
seismic models wind load from response spectrum
• P-delta effects • Serviceability check analysis
• Rigid zones and end- • Story drift ≤ 0.4%, • Consider accidental
length offsets Lateral displacement ≤ torsion, directional and
H/400 (10-year return orthogonal effects
period wind load) • 5% of critical damping is
• Floor acceleration (1- used for un-modeled
year and 5-year return energy dissipation
period wind load) • Design and detail
reinforcement

8
Expected Material Strengths

Source: LATBSDC 2017 9

 SLE/Wind
Component SLE/Wind (Service) DBE MCE
(Strength)
Structural walls Flexural – 0.75 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.6 EcIg Flexural – **
(in-plane) Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 0.2 GcAg

Structural walls
Flexural – 0.25 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.25 EcIg Flexural – 0.25 EcIg
(out-of-plane)

Basement walls Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.8 EcIg
(in-plane) Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 0.5 GcAg

Basement walls
Flexural – 0.25 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.25 EcIg Flexural – 0.25 EcIg
(out-of-plane)

Coupling beams Flexural – 0.07(l/h)( Flexural – 0.07(l/h)(

Flexural – 0.3 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg
(Diagonal- EcIg) ≤ 0.3EcIg EcIg) ≤ 0.3EcIg
Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg
reinforced) Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg
Coupling beams Flexural – 0.07(l/h)( Flexural – 0.07(l/h)(
Flexural – 0.3 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg
(Conventional- EcIg) ≤ 0.3EcIg EcIg) ≤ 0.3EcIg
Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg 10
reinforced) Shear – 1.0 G A Shear – 1.0 G A
 SLE/Wind
Component SLE/Wind (Service) DBE MCE
(Strength)
Non-PT transfer
Flexural – 0.5 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.25 EcIg Flexural – 0.1 EcIg
diaphragms
Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 0.5 GcAg Shear – 0.1 GcAg
(in-plane only)
PT transfer
Flexural – 0.8 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.5 EcIg Flexural – 0.1 EcIg
diaphragms
Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 0.1 GcAg
(in-plane only)
Tower
Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.5 EcIg Flexural – 0.5 EcIg
Diaphragms
Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 0.5 GcAg Shear – 0.5 GcAg
(in-plane)

PT slab Flexural – 0.5 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.5 EcIg
(out-of-plane) Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg

Non-PT slab Flexural – 0.25 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.25 EcIg Flexural – 0.25 EcIg
(out-of-plane) Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg
11
 SLE/Wind
Component SLE/Wind (Service) DBE MCE
(Strength)

Flexural – 0.5 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.35 EcIg Flexural – 0.3 EcIg
Girders
Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg

Flexural – 0.7 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.7 EcIg Flexural – 0.7 EcIg
Columns
Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg

Axial – 0.8 EcAg Axial – 1.0 EcAg Axial – 0.8 EcAg Axial – 0.5 EcAg
Mat (in-plane) Flexural – 0.8 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.8 EcIg Flexural – 0.5 EcIg
Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg

Mat (out-of- Flexural – 0.8 EcIg Flexural – 1.0 EcIg Flexural – 0.8 EcIg Flexural – 0.5 EcIg
plane) Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg Shear – 1.0 GcAg

12
DAMPING

Source: TBI Ver. 2.03

13
 Deformation-
controlled Actions

• Behavior is ductile and reliable

inelastic deformations can be
reached with no substantial
strength loss.
• Results are checked for mean
value of demand from seven sets
of ground motion records. Force-deformation relationship for
deformation-controlled actions

Source: ASCE/SEI 41-17 14

 Force-controlled
Actions
• Behavior is more brittle and reliable
inelastic deformations cannot be
reached.
• Critical action
• Failure of which is likely to lead to
partial or total structural collapse.
• Ordinary action
• Failure of which is either unlikely to
lead to structural collapse or might
lead to local collapse comprising
not more than one bay in a single
story. Force-deformation relationship for
force-controlled actions

Source: ASCE/SEI 41-17 15

Component Action Classification Criticality
Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Shear walls
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Coupling beams Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
(Conventional) Shear Force-controlled Critical
Coupling beams (Diagonal) Shear Deformation-controlled N/A
Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Girders
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Axial Force-controlled Critical
Moment frame columns
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Axial-flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Outrigger columns Axial Force-controlled Critical
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Axial-flexure Force-controlled Ordinary
Chord Force-controlled Ordinary
Collector and shear friction Force-controlled Critical
Diaphragms
Shear (Transfer diaphragms) Force-controlled Critical
Shear (Other diaphragms) Force-controlled Ordinary
Flexure Force-controlled Ordinary
Basement walls
Shear Force-controlled Ordinary
Flexure Force-controlled Ordinary
Mat foundation
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Axial Force-controlled Critical
Piles Axial-flexure Force-controlled Ordinary 16
Shear Force-controlled Critical
 SERVICE LEVEL EARTHQUAKE EVALUATION
Modeling and Analysis
• Use linear model and response spectrum
analysis. Acceptance Criteria
• Accidental eccentricities are not considered • Member strength
in serviceability evaluation. • D/C ≤ 1.5 (Deformation-controlled)
• 2.5% of critical damping • D/C ≤ 0.7 (Force-controlled)

• Load combinations • Strength calculation

• Use nominal material properties
• 1.0D + Lexp ± 1.0ESLEX ± 0.3ESLEY
• Strength reduction factor = 1
• 1.0D + Lexp ± 0.3ESLEX ± 1.0ESLEY
• Story drift ≤ 0.5%
• Lexp = Expected service live load
which is 25% of unreduced live load
• R, Ω0, ρ, and Cd are all taken as unity.

17
ASCE 7-16: Section 12.8.4.3

18
Torsional Sensitivity Check
[TBI Ver. 2.03]

[LATBSDC 2017]

19
MCE Evaluation

• Use nonlinear model and nonlinear response history analysis.

• Eleven pairs of site-specific ground motions are used.
• Generally, 2.5% of constant modal damping is used with small
fraction of Rayleigh damping for un-modeled energy dissipation.
• Average of demands from eleven ground motions approach is used.
• Capacities are calculated using expected material properties and
strength reduction factor of 1.0 for deformation-controlled actions.

20
 MATERIAL NONLINEARITY
Concrete stress-strain curves
60

50

40

Stress (MPa)
30
Unconfined
20
Fully confined
10

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Strain
21
Unacceptable Response to MCE Evaluation

• Analytical solution fails to converge.

• Predicted demands on deformation-controlled or force-controlled

elements exceed the valid range of modeling.

• Predicted deformation demands on elements not explicitly modeled

exceed the deformation limits at which the members are no longer
able to carry their gravity loads.

22
Acceptance Criteria (Force-controlled Actions)

Critical Actions
• 1.0IeQNS + 1.3Ie (QT – QNS) ≤ ØsBRn (a)
• 1.0IeQNS + 1.5Ie (QT – QNS) ≤ ØsBRnem (b)

Ordinary Actions
• 1.0IeQNS + 0.9Ie (QT – QNS) ≤ ØsBRn (c)
• 1.0IeQNS + 1.0Ie (QT – QNS) ≤ ØsBRnem (d)
23
 Acceptance Criteria (Force-controlled Actions)

Ie = Seismic importance factor appropriate to the Risk Category as defined in ASCE 7

QT = Mean of the maximum values of the action calculated for each ground motion
QNS = Non-seismic portion of QT
B = Factor to account for conservatism in nominal resistance Rn, normally taken as having a value of 1.0.
Alternatively, it can be taken as 0.9(Rne/Rn) for Eq. 4a and 4c and (Rne/Rnem) for Eq. 4b and 4d.
Rn = Nominal strength of the force-controlled action, in accordance with the applicable material standard
Øs = Resistance factor
Rnem = Nominal strength for the action, determined in accordance with the applicable material standard
using expected material properties
Rne = Expected value of component resistance determined from test results using expected material
properties

24
 Seismic Resistance Factors

Action Type Øs
Ø as specified in the applicable
Critical force-controlled element
material standard

Ordinary force-controlled element 0.9

25
 Item Value
Maximum of mean values shall not exceed 3%.
Peak transient drift
Maximum drift shall not exceed 4.5%.
Maximum of mean values shall not exceed 1%.
Residual drift
Maximum drift shall not exceed 1.5%.
Coupling beam inelastic rotation ≤ASCE 41-17 limits
Column (Axial-flexural interaction and Flexural rotation ≤ASCE 41-17 limits
shear) Remain elastic for shear response.
Shear wall reinforcement axial strain ≤0.05 in tension and ≤0.02 in compression
Unconfined concrete ≤ 0.003
Shear wall concrete axial compressive
Intermediately confined concrete ≤ 0.004 + 0.1 ρ (fy / f'c)
strain
Fully confined concrete ≤ 0.015
Shear wall shear Remain elastic
Girder inelastic rotation ≤ASCE 41-17 limits
Girders shear Remain elastic.
Mat foundation (Flexure and shear) Remain elastic.

Diaphragm (In-plane response) Remain elastic.

Piles (Axial-flexural interaction and shear) Remain elastic. 26

 Backstay Effect

BOUNDING THE RESULTS

Upper bound stiffness modifier = 0.35
Lower bound stiffness modifier = 0.1

27
 Evaluation of Analysis Results
• Results extraction, processing and
converting them into presentable
form takes additional time.

• Results interpretation i.e.

converting “numbers we have
already crunched” into
“meaningful outcome for
decision-making”.

28
 Base Shear
300,000 16.0
14.67
269,170
14.0
250,000

12.0
201,762 11.00
200,000
Base shear (kN)

10.0

Base shear (%)

160,409 8.74

150,000 8.0 7.26

133,233

6.0
100,000 4.42
81,161
4.0 3.15
57,826
50,000 39,137 2.13
30,878 2.0 1.68

0 0.0
X Y X Y
Along direction Along direction
Wind (50-yr) x 1.6 Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE-NLTHA Elastic SLE Wind (50-yr) x 1.6 Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE-NLTHA Elastic SLE

29
 Transient Drift
70

60

50

40
Story level

30

20

10

0
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Drift ratio

30
 Residual Drift
70

60

50
Story level

40

30

20

10

0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Drift ratio

31
 Lateral Displacement
70

60

50
Story level

40

30

20

10

0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Lateral displacement (m)
32
 Floor Acceleration
70

60

Story level 50

40

30

20

10

0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Absolute acceleration (g)

33
Energy dissipation (%)
Energy Dissipation

Energy dissipation (%)

Total dissipated
energy
Total dissipated
energy

Dissipated energy from conventional

reinforced coupling beams
Dissipated energy from shear walls
Time (sec) Time (sec)

Total dissipated
energy
Energy dissipation (%)

Dissipated energy from diagonal

reinforced coupling beams

34
Time (sec)
Shear Walls
• Flexure deformation
• Axial strain
• Shear capacity

35
Coupling Beams
• Conventional reinforced coupling beams
• Flexural rotation (Deformation-controlled)
• Shear (Critical force-controlled)
• Diagonal reinforced coupling beams
• Shear deformation (Deformation-controlled)
36
Moment Frames
• Beams
• Flexural rotation
• Shear capacity
• Columns
• Axial capacity
• Axial-flexure rotation (Deformation-controlled)
• Shear capacity

37
Flat Slab (Slab-column connections)
• Flexural rotation
• Punching shear

38
Diaphragms
• Collector, shear friction
• Chord
• Axial, shear

39
Mat Foundation
• Bearing capacity
• Flexure capacity
• Shear capacity

40
Basement Walls
• Flexure capacity
• Shear capacity
• In-plane
• Out-of-plane

41
Peer Review

• Helps develop confidence in design and encourages

knowledge-sharing between peer reviewer and EOR.
• Exchange of ideas has led to a significant
enhancement in the body of knowledge for firms
practicing PBD.
• Involve as early in the structural design phase
• Establish the frequency and timing of peer review
milestones
42
Peer Review Scope

• Earthquake hazard determination

• Ground motion characterizations
• Seismic design methodology
• Seismic performance goals
• Acceptance criteria
• Mathematical modeling and simulation
• Seismic design and results, drawings and specifications

43
Peer Review
• Peer reviewer provides written comments to EOR
• EOR shall provide written responses
• Peer review maintains the log that summarizes reviewer’s
comments, EOR responses to comments, and resolution of
comments
• At the conclusion of the review, peer reviewer shall submit
the references the scope of the review, includes the comment
log, and indicates the professional opinions of the peer
reviewer regarding the design’s general conformance to the
requirements and guidelines in this document
44
Thank you.