NA Day 2 Workshop Application of Performance Based Design To Actual Projects Case Studies PDF

Naveed Anwar, PhD
Application of Performance-based Design to

actual projects (Case Studies)
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Performance-based Design
An Introduction

•
•
•
•

• The Gravity Load Resisting System
•
• The Lateral Load Resisting System

•
• The Floor Diaphragm

•

Source: NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 3

• PEER 2010/05, “Tall Building Initiative,
Guidelines for Performance Based
Seismic Design of Tall Buildings”
• PEER/ATC 72-1, “Modeling and
Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design
and Analysis of Tall Buildings”
• ASCE/SEI 41-13, “Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Existing Buildings”
• LATBSDC 2014, “An Alternative
Procedure for Seismic Analysis and
Design of Tall Buildings Located in the
Los Angeles Region”

Required Information

•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

• Service Level Earthquake (SLE) Response Spectra
2.5
• 50% of probability of exceedance in 30 years (43-year
return period)
2.0
SPECTRAL ACCELERATION
• Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)
1.5
return period)
1.0 SLE (g)
• Maximum Considered Earthquake DBE (g)
MCE (g)
(MCE) 0.5

0.0
return period)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
NATURAL PERIOD (SEC)

•
• 10-year
• 50-year 700-year

Performance-based Design
The Procedure

 Geotechnical investigation
 Probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment
Preliminary design
Wind tunnel test
Detailed code-
based design
SLE Evaluation
MCE Evaluation
Performance-based Design Procedure

Peer review

Structural Finite Preliminary
Check overall
system element member
response
development modeling sizing
• Bearing wall • Linear analysis • Modal analysis • Structural density

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

• Modeling
•
•
•
• Gravity load design
•
•
• Wind design
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

• Seismic design (DBE)
•

Source: FEMA P695 | June 2009

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•

Source: LATBSDC 2014

•
Force-deformation relationship for

deformation-controlled actions
Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13

•
• Critical actions
•
• Non-critical actions
•
Force-deformation relationship for

force-controlled actions
Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13

Classification of Actions
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 Non-critical
Coupling beams (Diagonal) Shear Deformation-controlled N/A
Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Girders
Shear Force-controlled Non-critical
Axial-Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Columns
Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Diaphragms Shear (at podium and basements) Force-controlled Critical
Shear (tower) Force-controlled Non-critical
Basement walls
Mat foundation
Axial-Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Piles

Acceptance Criteria (MCE)
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
Coupling beam inelastic rotation ≤0.05 radian for both conventional and diagonal reinforced beams
Flexural rotation ≤ASCE 41-13 limits
Column (Axial-flexural interaction and shear) Remain elastic for shear response.
(Column shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Shear wall reinforcement axial strain ≤0.05 in tension and ≤0.02 in compression
Intermediately confined concrete ≤ 0.004 + 0.1 ρ (fy / f'c)
Shear wall concrete axial compressive strain
Fully confined concrete ≤ 0.015
Shear wall shear Remain elastic (Check for 1.5 times mean value)
Girder inelastic rotation ≤ASCE 41-13 limits
Girders shear Remain elastic.

Remain elastic.
Mat foundation (Flexure and shear)
(Mat foundation shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Remain elastic.
Diaphragm (In-plane response)
(Podium diaphragm shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Remain elastic.
Piles (Axial-flexural interaction and shear)
(Pile shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Stiffness Assumptions in Mathematical Models
Concrete Element SLE/Wind DBE MCE
Flexural – 0.75 Ig Flexural – 0.6 Ig Flexural – **
Core walls/shear walls
Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 0.2 Ag
Flexural – 1.0 Ig Flexural – 0.8 Ig Flexural – 0.8 Ig
Basement walls
Coupling beams Flexural –0.3 Ig Flexural –0.2 Ig Flexural – 0.2 Ig
(Diagonal-reinforced) Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag
Coupling beams Flexural –0.7 Ig Flexural –0.35 Ig Flexural – 0.35 Ig
(Conventional-reinforced) Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 1.0 Ag
Ground level diaphragm Flexural – 0.5 Ig Flexural – 0.25 Ig Flexural – 0.25 Ig
(In-plane only) Shear – 0.8 Ag Shear – 0.5 Ag Shear – 0.25 Ag
Podium diaphragms
Tower diaphragms
Girders
Columns
Evaluation of Results

•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

300,000 16.0
14.67
269,170
14.0
250,000
12.0
201,762 11.00
200,000
10.0
Base shear (kN)
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

Transient Drift
70
GM-1059
60 GM-65010
GM-CHY006
50
GM-JOS
Story level
40 GM-LINC
GM-STL
30
GM-UNIO
20
Average
Avg. Drift Limit

10
Max. Drift Limit

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

Residual Drift
70
GM-1059
60 GM-65010
GM-CHY006
50
Story level GM-JOS
40 GM-LINC
GM-STL
30
GM-UNIO
20 Average
Avg. Drift Limit

10
Max Drift Limit
0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Drift ratio

Lateral Displacement
70
GM-1059
60
GM-65010
50 GM-CHY006
Story level
GM-JOS
40
GM-LINC
30
GM-STL
20 GM-UNIO
Average
10
0
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Lateral displacement (m)

Floor Acceleration
70
GM-1059
60
GM-65010
50 GM-CHY006
GM-JOS
Story level
40
GM-LINC
30
GM-STL
20
GM-UNIO
10 Average
0
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Absolute acceleration (g)

dissipation (%)
dissipation (%)
Energy
Energy
Total
Total dissipated
dissipated energy
energy
Dissipated energy from conventional
Dissipated energy from shear walls reinforced coupling beams
Time Time
(sec) (sec)
Total
dissipated
dissipation (%)
energy
Energy
Dissipated energy from

diagonal reinforced coupling
beams
Time
(sec)
Component Response
Pile foundation Bearing capacity, pullout capacity, PMM, shear
Mat foundation Bearing capacity, flexure, shear
Shear wall Flexure (axial strain), shear
Column PMM or flexural rotation, axial, shear
Beams Flexural rotation, shear
Conventional reinforced coupling beam Flexural rotation, shear
Diagonal reinforced coupling beam Shear rotation, shear
Flat slab Flexural rotation, punching shear
Basement wall In-plane shear, out-of-plane flexure and shear
Diaphragm Shear, shear friction, tension and compression

Peer Review

•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•

CASE STUDY 1
44
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 45

MODELING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
46
Elastic models (ETABS) Nonlinear model (Perform 3D)
• Analyze • Nonlinear response verification for MCE

• Wind (Linear static analysis) (Nonlinear time history analysis)
• SLE (Response spectrum analysis) • Includes inelastic member properties for

• DBE (Response spectrum analysis) elements that were anticipated to be loaded
• Includes shear walls, columns, coupling beams, beyond their elastic limits (flexural response of
shear walls, coupling beams, girders, and slab-
girders, beams, slabs, and foundation
outrigger beams)
• Shell elements were used to model the floor
• Elements that were assumed to remain elastic
slabs, considering the diaphragm flexibility
were modeled with elastic member properties.

Response Spectra
2.5
Spectral Acceleration (g)

1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Natural Period (sec)
SLE MCE

ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
49
Item Limit
Story drift 0.5%
Coupling beam Remain elastic
Shear wall Remain elastic
Girder Remain elastic
Column Remain elastic
• Demand to capacity of the primary structural members shall not exceed 1.5, in which the capacity is
computed by nominal strength multiplied by the corresponding strength reduction factor in accordance
with ACI 318.
• It is anticipated that the demand to capacity ratio of 1.5 based on design strengths can be expected to
result in only minor inelastic response.

Item Limit
Mean value shall not exceed 3%.
Peak transient drift
Mean value shall not exceed 1%.
Residual drift
Column Remain elastic
Coupling beam rotation ≤ 0.05 radians
Girder rotation ≤ASCE 41limits
≤ 0.05 in tension
Shear wall reinforcement strain
≤ 0.02 in compression
Intermediately confined concrete ≤ 0.004 + 0.1 ρ (fy / f'c)
Shear wall concrete strain
Fully confined concrete ≤ 0.015
Force-controlled action demand shall be 1.5 times the mean if it is not limited by well defined yield mechanism. If it
is limited by well-defined yield mechanism, use the mean plus 1.3 times standard deviation but not less than 1.2
times the mean. The capacity is determined based on expected material properties with corresponding strength
reduction factor.
OVERALL RESPONSE
52
Modal Participating Mass Ratio
Mode Period (sec)
X (%) Y (%)
1 8.81 0.1 54.3
2 8.08 53.1 0.1
3 6.96 1.3 0

Base Shear in terms of Percentage of Weight of Building
at Ground Level
16.0
14.0
12.0
Base Shear (%)
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
X Y
Along Direction
SLE (Elastic) DBE (Elastic) MCE (Elastic) MCE (Inelastic)
Weight of the building = 2,255,500 kN
Transient drift (X-direction) Transient drift (Y-direction)
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
Story
Story
20 20
Drift-A Drift-A
10 Drift-B 10 Drift-B
Drift-C
Drift-C
Avg Limit
0 0
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
-10 -10
Transient drift Transient drift

Residual drift (X-direction) Residual drift (Y-direction)
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
Story
Story
Drift-A
20 Drift-A 20
Drift-B
Drift-B
10 10 Drift-C
Drift-C
Avg Limit Avg Limit
0 0
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
-10 -10
Residual drift Residual drift

Evaluation of Components at MCE Level
57
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

4-DB28 4-DB28
4-DB25 4-DB28 4-DB25
Diaphragm chord reinforcement In-plane forces

Conclusion
62
•

CASE STUDY 2
64
•
• Tower 1
•
•
Tower 2

RESPONSE SPECTRA
SLE 2.5% Damping MCE 5% Damping
1.6
1.4
SPECTRAL ACCELERATION (g)
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
PERIOD (sec)

Elastic Model Nonlinear Model
• Used for DBE, SLE and wind analysis • Used for MCE analysis
• Used ETABS 9.7.4 • Used Perform 3D V4.0.4
• All components were modeled as elastic. • Inelastic member properties

• Flexural response of shear walls
• Response spectrum analysis was conducted for • Flexural response of coupling beams
DBE and SLE earthquakes. • Flexural response of slab outrigger beams
• Elements that are assumed to remain elastic were

modeled with elastic member properties.
• Nonlinear time history analysis was conducted for

seven sets of ground motions.
Analysis Results

Modal Participating Mass Ratio (%)
Mode Natural Period (sec)
(X) (Y)
1 5.57 7.3 35.8
2 3.92 35.4 7.8
3 2.73 0.0 0.0

Base Shear Percentage of Total Weight of Building
25%
20.0%
20%
Base Shear %
15% 14.3%
13.2%
10.9%
10% 8.7%
7.0%
5.4%
5% 4.1% 3.4% 2.9%
0%
X Along Direction Y
Elastic SLE Elastic DBE Wind*1.6 (RWDI)

Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE NLTHA

Transient Drift in X-dir. at MCE Level Residual Drift in X-dir. at MCE Level
ARC
50 50 ARC
CHY
CHY
DAY 40
40 DAY
ERZ
ERZ
30
Story
30 LCN
Story
LCN
ROS
20 ROS
20 TAB
TAB
Average
10
10 Average
Avg. Drift
Limit Avg. Drift
Max. Drift 0 Limit
0 Limit 0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
-5% 0% 5%
Residual Drift (%)
Transient Drift (%)

Performance Evaluation of Members (SLE)

•
•
•

Performance Evaluation of Members (MCE)

Wall Axial Strain (C04)
55 ARC
CHY
45
DAY
ERZ
35
LCN
Story
25 ROS
Strain Gauge (C04)
SW 1-1 TAB
15 Average
Steel Yielding
5 Strain
Max. Comp.
Strain Limit
Strain gauge locations in shear walls
-0.006 -0.001 0.004
-5
Axial Strain (mm/mm)

Shear Wall Shear Demand vs. Capacity (SW1-1)
55
ARC
CHY
45
DAY
35
ERZ
LCN
Story
25
ROS
SW1-1 15 TAB
AVERAGE
5
Capacity
-5 Maximum Limit
Shear wall leg IDs Capacity
-200000 -100000 0 100000 200000
Shear Force (KN)

Link Beam Rotation (LB-1)
60
ARC
50
CHY
40
DAY
30
ERZ
Story
20 LCN
10 ROS
0 TAB
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
-10 Average
Coupling beam IDs Rotation (radians)

•

Moment Hinge Rotation due to Positive and Negative
Moment(SB2-1)
50
ARC
40 CHY
DAY
30 ERZ
Story
LCN
20 ROS
TAB
Slab outrigger beam IDs 10 Average
Limit
0
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Slab Beam Rotation (radians)

Tower diaphragm
Ground level diaphragm

Diaphragm reinforcement
Scenario for in-phase and

out-phase

kPa
Mat foundation soil pressure

•
•
•

Some More PBD Projects

Thank you

NA Day 2 Workshop Application of Performance Based Design To Actual Projects Case Studies PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

NA Day 2 Workshop Application of Performance Based Design To Actual Projects Case Studies PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NA Day 2 Workshop Application of Performance Based Design To Actual Projects Case Studies PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Naveed Anwar, PhD

Application of Performance-based Design to

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

• The Lateral Load Resisting System

• The Floor Diaphragm

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

• 2% of probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475-year

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Wind tunnel test

Performance-based Design Procedure

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

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

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Force-deformation relationship for

Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Force-deformation relationship for

Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Girder inelastic rotation ≤ASCE 41-13 limits

Girders shear Remain elastic.

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Base shear (%)

150,000 8.0 7.26

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Avg. Drift Limit

Max. Drift Limit

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Avg. Drift Limit

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Absolute acceleration (g)

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Dissipated energy from

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions

Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions