Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 30

Tall Building Initiative

Response
Evaluation
Helmut Krawinkler
Professor Emeritus
Stanford University

On behalf of the Guidelines writers:


Y. Bozorgnia, C.B. Crouse, R.O. Hamburger,
R. Klemencic, H. Krawinkler, J.O Malley, J.P.
Moehle, F. Naeim, J.P. Stewart
Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Performance Objectives

Demonstrate that structure will be capable of


essentially elastic response and limited damage under
Service-level Earthquake shaking (mean RP = 43 years
= 50/30)

Demonstrate, with high confidence, that structure will


respond to Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)
shaking

without loss of gravity-load-carrying capacity


without inelastic straining of important lateral-force resisting
elements to a level that will severely degrade their strength;
and
without experiencing excessive permanent lateral drift or
development of global structural instability.

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

MCE Level Evaluation

Objective: provide, implicitly, adequate life


safety protection

Protection against collapse


Protection against life threatening falling hazards
Protection against aftershocks & condemnation

Use 3-D nonlinear response history analysis


for at least 7 ground motion pairs
Use a realistic model of the structural system
Follow capacity design principles (enforced in
acceptance criteria)
Minimum base shear not required

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Acceptance Criteria at
Component Level

Force-controlled actions with severe consequences:


Fu Fn,e

Fu = smaller of

1.5 times mean


Mean + 1.3 but 1.2 times mean
Fn,e = nominal strength based on expected material
properties
= resistance factor

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Acceptance Criteria at
Component Level

Deformation controlled actions:


No specific limitations, but use realistic model of
component behavior, including deterioration,
or limit maximum deformation to a
conservative (low) value u.
If > u in any one analysis:

Strength in this action should drop to zero


Effect on related strength properties should be
evaluated

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Acceptance Criteria at
System Level

Mean of max. transient drift in every


story 3.0%
Max. transient drift in every story
4.5%
Mean of max. residual drift in every story
1.0%
Max. residual drift in every story 1.5%
Loss in story strength at max. drift
should not be more than 20%

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

System Modeling Issues

Incorporate all components and all behavior modes


(e.g., shear in RC) that significantly affect prediction
of seismic response

Might require post-analysis review and re-analysis

Flexibility of floor diaphragms should be modeled if


deemed important
Analysis should provide information needed to quantify
diaphragm forces
Podium and backstay effects must be represented
realistically
P-Delta effects must be included
Include real torsion, but no requirement for
accidental torsion

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Wall Hinging at the Base

Loading

y=Vy/W
Story Shear

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Story OTM

NRHA force demands may be very


different from elastic expectations
Maximum moment in shear wall

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

NRHA force demands may be very


different from elastic expectations
Maximum shear force in shear wall

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Component Modeling

Deterioration in strength and


stiffness must be considered if it
significantly affects the response of
the structure to the MCE ground
motions
Or conservative estimates must be
made of strength and deformation
capacities

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Modes of Deterioration

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Basic Observation
The cyclic envelope curve is different from
the monotonic backbone curve

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Resource Document
ATC-72-1
Interim Guidelines on
Modeling and
Acceptance Criteria for
Seismic Design and
Analysis of Tall Buildings

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Resource Document
ATC-72-1

GENERAL MODELING ISSUES

PROPERTIES OF NONLINEAR STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

Steel beams and columns


Steel panel zones
Axially loaded steel braces
RC beams, columns, and joints

PLANAR AND CORE WALL SYSTEMS AND COMPONENTS

Types of Models
Deterioration
P-Delta effects
Damping
Uncertainties

Planar walls, flanged walls, core walls


Coupling beams
Slab-columns and connections

FLOOR DIAPHRAGMS, COLLECTORS, AND PODIUM AND


BACKSTAY EFFECTS

Rigid, semi-rigid, and flexible diaphragms


Podium and backstay effects

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

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

Use of Strain-based Models


(Fiber & Curvature Models)
Argument for their use:
whenever lumped plasticity models are not
available

Columns subjected to biaxial bending and large


axial force
Shear walls with (and without?) openings
Spandrel beams?

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Use of Strain-based Models


(Fiber & Curvature Models)
Arguments against their use:
RC:

Rebar buckling?
Rebar fracture?
Bond slippage and pullout?
Shear?

Steel:

Local instabilities?
Fracture?
Joint panel zones?

Need to account for cyclic deterioration


Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Use of Concentrated Plasticity


(Spring) Models
Rotational spring models if inelastic behavior
mode is bending
Translational spring models if inelastic behavior
mode is shear
Arguments for their use

Can capture deterioration characteristics if good


calibrations are available from experimental data
Are relatively simple

Arguments against their use

Are approximate
Not available for many important failure modes

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

ASCE 41 models may be used


if deemed appropriate

They were intended to be used in conjunction with pushover analysis


Fig.
General
Force-Deformation
They were
not 12.
intended
to be used
for hysteresis modeling
The sharpResponse
drop from Cof
to Structural
D is not representative
of reality
Components
except for brittle failure modes
273/356)
They may(FEMA
not be applicable
to many new components
Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Component Models with


Deterioration (see ATC-72)
1. Monotonic (initial) backbone curve:
F
Fc
Fy

Ks
Kpc

Fr = Fy
Ke
y

c
p

r
pc

2. Cyclic deterioration parameter


3. Description of hysteresis loops
Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Modeling Option #1 ATC-72


Use of monotonic backbone curve and explicit
incorporation of cyclic deterioration
Option 1

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Modeling Option #2 ATC-72


Use of cyclic envelope curve as modified backbone
curve, and no incorporation of cyclic deterioration
limit u to max. observed in test
Option 2

Mod. B.C. from


exp. env. curve

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Modeling Option #3 ATC-72


Use of factors to generate modified backbone curve
from monotonic backbone curve, and no
incorporation of cyclic deterioration
- capping strength Fc* = 0.9 Fc
- plastic deformation capacity p* = 0.7 p
- post-capping deformation capacity pc* = 0.5 p
- residual strength Fr* = 0.7Fr
- ultimate deformation capacity u* = 1.2 c

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Modeling Option #3
Option 3

Mod. B.C. from


Monotonic B.C

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Modeling Option #4 ATC-72


No deterioration at all in analytical model
ultimate deformation capacity u* corresponding to 80% of
capping strength on descending branch of Options 2 or 3
Option 4

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Comparison of ATC-72 Modeling Options


Option 1

Option 2

Mod. B.C. from


exp. env. curve

Option 3

Option 4

Mod. B.C. from


Monotonic B.C

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

Penalties for Options 3 and 4


1.5c
pu
Mc

Modified backbone curve, Option 3


Initial backbone curve

0.8Mc
p=0.7p

Ultimate rotation, Option 3


Ultimate rotation, Option 4

c c

0.5pc

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

pc

What is new?

No radical changes
Explicit formulation of performance
objective and acceptance criteria at two
levels of ground motions (SLE & MCE)
Consideration of deterioration in
component properties if it is important
Or acceptance of penalty in component
modeling
Consistent design and performance
evaluation process

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

I think we are making progress

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010