A SEISMIC DESIGN METHOD USING TARGET DRIFT AND YIELD MECHANISM

AS PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES
(PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN)

Subhash C. Goel
Sutat Leelataviwat
Soon-Sik Lee
Shi-Ho Chao
M. Reza Bayat
Wen-Cheng Liao

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
1 2

F4=120 597

F3=60 895
INTRODUCTION
Complete Design Method
F2=40 1092
Design Forces (Energy Concept)
Member Design (PD)
F1=20 1194
Spreadsheet Calculations
MECH 2
Direct Design Method
786
No iteration (unlike current ED based practice)
F4=120 F4=120
Drift and yield mechanism control built-in from the very start
Scope of Course
F3=60 F3=60
Underlying concepts and theory
F2=40
Step-by-step procedures
F2=40
660 670 Complete design examples
F1=20
(Steel MF, CBF); (RC MF Recent)
660 F1=20 1289
Outcome Good working knowledge
MECH 3 MECH 4
803 Setting Classroom type
3 Textbook Goel/Chao 4

CURRENT DESIGN PRACTICE

Design Base Shear Base Shear

V = Ce W/R Ve

Elastic Design/Analysis
Drift Check
Vu = oV
Cd < limit
Prescribed Ductility Detailing V = Ve /R
(e.g., compactness, bracing, WB-SC,
confinement reinforcement for RC, etc.) Cd u
Displacement (Story Drift)
Requires iterations without much guidance.
Works most of the time But not always.
5 6

1
 Floor plan of the LA 20-story SAC building

7 8
Elevation view

(a) (b)
9 PH rotations at 3.5% roof drift, a) SAC frame, b) PBPD frame; Pushover Analysis10

Typical Hysteretic Loops for RC members

800

600

400
Moment (kip-in)

200

0
-0.07 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07
-200

-400

-600

-800
rotation

11 12

2
 Beam plastic
hinge

Column
plastic hinge
a) b)
PH locations at 2.5% roof drift, a) Code compliant frame, b) PBPD 13 14
frame; Pushover Analysis

15 16

PERFORMANCE-BASED PLASTIC DESIGN

Pre-Selected Yield Mechanism and Target Drift

17 18

3
 MECHANISM - EXAMPLES
COMPONENTS OF PBPD METHOD

Lateral Force-Strength Distribution

Design base Shear

Plastic Design

19 20

SUSTAINABILTY ?
ADVANTAGES
(Performance-Based Plastic Design)

Direct design method (Practically no iteration

required)
Enhanced and known performance
Ease and economy of repairs (sustainability)
Non-DYM do not need to be detailed for
stringent ductility requirements
Innovative structural solutions and systems
can be developed using variety of ductile
members and devices for DYM and ordinary
members for Non-DYM

21 22

NEW FRAMING SYSTEMS EXAMPLES

(Replaceable Yielding Elements Fuses) Plastic Design versus Elastic Design

Elastic Design

w4 = 2.35 k/ft

w3 = 2.7 k/ft

(Dusicka) w2 = 2.7 k/ft

w1 = 2.7 k/ft

(Goel, et al.)

(Hajjar - Deierlein)
23 24

4
 Plastic Design
Vult 117.5 kips 30'
w4 = 2.35 k/ft
56.6 k M p4
Base Shear (kips)

w3 = 2.7 k/ft
Vdesign 86.3 kips 29.3 k M p3

w2 = 2.7 k/ft
18.1 k M p2

w1 = 2.7 k/ft
9.0 k M p1
q q
M pc M pc

FL =
Vdesign = 113 k
Non-Yielding Members
Designated Yielding Members
(Ensures Mechanism)
(Ensures Strength)
Pushover analysis results for the elastic designed frame: base shear versus roof drift
and plastic hinge sequence 56.6k 53ft 29.3k 40ft 18.1k 27ft 9k 14ft
M p1 M p 2 M p 3 M p 4 M pc 2
25 26

For reference, the Uniqueness Theorem as applied Vdesign 113 kips Vult 115.7 kips
to plastic analysis of frames consisting of flexural
members can be stated as follows (Neal, 1977):

If for a given frame and loading at least one safe

(strength greater than moment demand condition)
and statically admissible bending moment
distribution (equilibrium condition) can be found,
and in this distribution the bending moment is equal
to the fully plastic moment at enough cross-sections
to cause failure of the frame as a mechanism due to
rotations of plastic hinges at these sections
(mechanism condition), the corresponding load will
be equal to the collapse (ultimate) load Wu.
Pushover analysis results for the PD frame: base shear versus roof drift
27 and plastic hinge sequence 28

DESIGN BASE SHEAR

7
s =6
6
s =5
5
s =4
4
s =3
R 3
s =2
2 DuctilityReductionFactors
1 ProposedbyNewmarkandHall
Ref: Housner (1956, 1960) 0
Acceleration
Region
Velocity, Displacement Region
[1973]
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (sec)

1.2

1 ModificationFactorforEnergy
0.8 s =2 EquationversusPeriod
s =3
0.6
s =4
0.4 s =5

s =6
0.2 Acceleration Velocity, Displacement Region
Region
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period (sec)
29 30

5
 Housner (1960) observed that during strong ground shaking
structures may fail in one of several ways: One possibility is
that the vibrations will cause approximately equal plastic
straining in alternate directions and that this will continue until
the material breaks because of a fatigue failure. Another
possibility is that all of the plastic straining will take place in
one direction until the column collapses because of excessive
plastic drift. These two possibilities are extreme cases, and
the probability of their occurrence is small. The most probable
failure is collapse due to greater or lesser amount of energy
having been absorbed in plastic straining in the opposite
direction. In this case collapse occurs when some fraction of
the total energy pE is just equal to the energy required to
produce collapse by plastic drift in one direction. In what
follows, the factor p will be taken equal to unity as a matter of
convenience,
31 32

MDOFSYSTEM Work-Energy Equation,

(nT m 1) 2 un n n Dn Dn
Vbn V M n* Vn
nT m n n
1
2

Vbny uny Vbny unm

uny n 12 M n Svn2 For the given system,

1
2 V1 y u1*y + V1 y (u1*T - u1*y ) = g1* ( 12 M 1* ) Sv21

Solution of Work-Energy Equation gives Design Base Shear

33 34

1.2 q p =0.000
1.0
Elastic
0.8
V/W

0.6
V/W

0.005
0.4 0.010
0.015
0.2 0.020
0.0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Period (T)

EffectofTargetInelasticDrift ComparisonoftheDesignBaseShearCoefficientsat
UltimateStrengthLevel
35 36

6
 F4=120 597
MECH 1 Max. Story Drift (10% in 50 years) MECH 2 Max. Story Drift (10% in 50 years)

4 4
LA01 LA01
F3=60 895 LA05 LA05
LA09 LA09
LA12 LA12
LA13 LA13
3 3
F2=40 1092 LA16
LA17 mean except LA12
LA16
LA17

Story

Story
mean except LA12 LA19 LA19

2
F1=20 1194 2

MECH 2
786 1
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0%
1
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0%
Story Drift, % Story Drift, %
F4=120 F4=120
MECH 3 Max. Story Drift (10% in 50 years) MECH 4 Max. Story Drift (10% in 50 years)

4 4

F3=60 F3=60
LA01
LA05
LA01
LA05
LA09 LA09
mean except LA12
LA12 LA12
mean except LA12
3 LA13 3 LA13

F2=40 F2=40 LA16 LA16

Story
LA17 LA17
660 670

Story
LA19 LA19

2
F1=20 660 F1=20 1289
2

MECH 3 MECH 4 1
803 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0% 1
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% 10.0%

Story Drift, % Story Drift, %

37 38

250
Epc2
DEGRADING (Non-EP)
200
HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR
150
Epc4
E (kip-ft)

Modified Energy Method

100
Epc1
C2 Factor Method
50
Epc3

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
V (kips)

GRAPHICAL SOLUTION OF WORK-ENERGY EQUATION

39 40

A typical one-story braced

ModifiedEnergyMethod frame was modeled by
SNAP-2DX:
HSS 4 4 3/8
HSS

41 42

7
 FEMA 440 C2 Factor Method
Typical Hysteretic Loops for RC members * = s/C2

800

600

400
Moment (kip-in)

200

0 _____ R=3.0 ~ 6.0

-0.07 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 _____ R=2.0
-200

-400

-600

-800
rotation

43 44

Comparison of three story shear distributions with the maximum story shear
distributions obtained from nonlinear dynamic analyses (PPD-frame)
10
la01
la02
9 la09
la12
la13
8 Chao and Goel, 2005
la16
la17
7 la19

DESIGNLATERALFORCE 6
DISTRIBUTION 5
IBC 2003

Lee and Goel, 2001

4

2
10-Story EBF
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

45 Relative Distribution of Story Shear Vi / Vn 46

10
10-Story SMF
10 10
9 (Goel, 1967)
LA01 Earthquake LA09 Earthquake
9 9 Elastic Analysis
8
8 Inelastic Analysis
8

7 7
7
Story Level

IBC 2003 IBC 2003

Story Level

6 6

5
IBC 2003
5
6
4 4

3 10-Story EBF 3 10-Story EBF 5

2 Elastic Analysis Elastic Analysis
2
Inelastic Analysis Inelastic Analysis
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
4
Relative Distribution of Story Shear Vi / Vn Relative Distribution of Story Shear Vi / Vn
3

2
Taft Event (1952)
Relative story shear distributions from elastic and inelastic dynamic analysis, 1
code formulas, and proposed equation for study 10-story EBF. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Relative Distribution of Story Shear Vi / Vn
47 48

8
 Comparison with IBC 2003 Lateral Force Distribution
49 50

Design Moment
20 20
19 Design Moment 19
18 (UBC Distribution) 18
17 El Centro 17
16 16
15 New hall 15
14 14
13 Synthetic 13
12 12
Sylmar
11 11
Story
Story

10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
00

00

00
00

0
00

00

00
0

0
00

00

20

40

60
10

20

30

-2
-2

-1

Moment (kip-ft) Moment (kip-ft)

(a) Exterior (b) Interior

51

DESIGNOFMEMBERS
(PlasticMethod)

54

9
 Design of Beams (Yielding Members)
Design of Columns (Non-Yielding Members)

Work Equation ~ Mpb

Equilibrium ~ FL

55 56

Figure 5-7 Figure 5-8

1 1 2 2 1 1
Exterior Interior Interior Interior Interior Exterior

pin connection ( Pu ) n
( Pu )n
an FR an FR
(M B )n ( M C ) n + (DM ) n
Beam Segment

Column (Vu ) n (Vu ) n

Brace

( Pu ) i ( Pu ) i
ai FR wiu
( M B )i ( M C ) i + (D M ) i ai FR

hi (Vu )i (Vu ) i hi
Bending moment diagrams of (a) exterior columns; (b) interior columns M pc
M pc

57 L-e 58

COMPONENTS OF PBPD METHOD

Lateral Force-Strength Distribution

Design base Shear

Plastic Design

59 60

10
 EVALUATION

ur
V E

Pushover Curve Ec

ur ur
V (a) (b)
E E

Ed 12 MSv2 Ec
Ed

ur ur
umax
61 (c) (d) 62

NONSEISMICLOADING

63 64

Design of Columns
1. Use of Moment Amplification factors (B2)
2. Direct P-Delta Consideration in Column Tree Analysis
3. Pushover Analysis of the Frame

Pi
FL i M pbi Column tree with Gravity column
Fi
in Direct P-Delta Method
Vi

M pc
Comparing column design moments of interior column tree by different methods
65 66

11
 SELECTEDEXAMPLES
ANDRESULTS

Comparison of interior column moments from inelastic dynamic analysis with different design methods 67 68

El Centro Newhall

Sylmar Synthetic
(a) 3-Story

PlasticHingeDistributionin PlasticHingeDistributionin
El Centro Newhall
3StorySMRFand9Story 20StorySMRF
SMRF

El Centro Newhall

Sylmar Synthetic Sylmar Synthetic

(b) 9-Story
69 Rotational Ductility Demands : 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0 70
Rotational Ductility Demands: 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 2.0-2.5 2.5-3.0

El Centro Newhall El Centro Newhall Synthetic Sylmar

Sylmar Synthetic
4 20 20
3- Story
18 18
3
16 16
2
Target Drift

Target Drift

20 14 14

1 20- Story 12 12
Story
Story

10 10
0 8 8
0 1 2 3 4 6 6
15 4 4
10 9- Story 2 2
Maximum Story Drifts of Four 20-
9 0 0
Story Frames Designed with (a) 1.5% 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
8
10 Target Drift, (b) 2.0% Target Drift, Story Drift (%) Story Drift (%)
7 (c) 2.5% Target Drift, and (d) 3.0% (a) 1.5% Target Drift (b) 2.0% Target Drift
6 Target Drift under Four Earthquakes
5 20 20
18 18
4 5 16 16
3
Target Drift
Target Drift

14 14
2 12 12
Story
Story

1 10 10
8 8
0 0
6 6
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 4 4

Story Drift (%) Story Drift (%) 2 2

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
Story Drift (%) Story Drift (%)
Maximum Story Drift due to Selected Earthquake Records (c) 2.5% Target Drift (d) 3.0% Target Drift
71 72

12
 DistributionofInelasticityinIBCframesubjectedtola09record(Landers,1992,Yermo) DistributionofInelasticityinPPDframesubjectedtola09record(Landers,1992,Yermo)

Yielding in shear link Plastic hinge Pinned end Yielding in shear link Plastic hinge Pinned end

73 74

Comparison of Base shear-Roof drift curves of two frames

3000
10-Story IBC Frame
Overstrength = 1.74

2500 10-Story PPD Frame

Story Level

Overstrength = 1.81

2000
Base Shear (Kips)

Design Base Shear according to

IBC 2000 Approach V=1600 kips

1500

Design Base Shear according to

Proposed Approach V=1358 kips
1000

500

0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
ComparisonofmaximuminterstorydriftbetweenEBFsdesignedbyusingthe
Roof Drift (%) proposedandcodedesignlateralforcedistributions
75 76

PlasticHingeDistributioninSTMFdesignedbasedonproposedmethodsubjectedto
la17record(Northridge,1994,Sylmar)

Comparison of the material weight between two frames

IBC PPD PPD/IBC
Beam Weight (lb) 108,150 89,700 0.83
Column Weight (lb) 113,668 137,966 1.21 Plastic hinge

Brace Weight (lb) 59,951 57,963 0.97

Total Weight (lb) 281,769 285,629 1.01

Weak Axis Strong Axis

77 78

13
79 80

81 82

83 84

14
 Design of Columns (Non-Yielding Members)

Equilibrium ~ FL

85 86

87 88

89 90

15
91 92

93 94

95 96

16
 a) SAC Frame

b) PBPD Frame

97 98

Typical Hysteretic Loops for RC members

800

600

RCFRAMES 400
Moment (kip-in)

200

0
(Recent) -0.07 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07
-200
WenChengLiao,DoctoralDissertation(2010)
-400

-600

-800
rotation

99 100

101 102

17
 FEMA 440 C2 Factor Method
* = s/C2

_____ R=3.0 ~ 6.0

_____ R=2.0

103 104

Beam plastic
hinge

Column
plastic hinge
a) b)
105 PH locations at 2.5% roof drift, a) Code compliant frame, b) PBPD 106
frame; Pushover Analysis

Energy Evaluation- Code Compliant Frame

450
80000
Rmax (ATC 62, 90% Draft)
400 Code Compliant:5.3 70000
PBPD Frame Ed 2/3MCE (Sa=0.352g)

PBPD: 10.8 Ed MCE (Sa=0.528g)

60000
Ec Code Compliant Frame
energy (kip-in)

350
50000
Code Compliant Frame
40000
300
30000
Base shear (kips)

20000 Energy Evaluation- PBPD Frame

250 PBPD Frame Design Base Shear=255 kips
10000 60000
Ed 2/3MCE ( Sa=0.3g)

0 50000
200 Code Compliant Frame Design Base Shear=204 kips
Ed MCE (Sa=0.45g)
Ec PBPD Frame
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
energy (kip-in)

40000 0.08

roof drift 30000

150
20000

10000
100 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
roof drift
50

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Roof drift
107 108

18
 ConcentricBracedFrames

ModifiedEnergyMethod

C2FactorMethod
109 110

A typical one-story braced

ModifiedEnergyMethod frame was modeled by
SNAP-2DX:
HSS 4 4 3/8
HSS

111 112

FEMA 440 C2 Factor Method

* = s/C2
YieldandTargetDrift

_____ R=3.0 ~ 6.0

_____ R=2.0
Story Flexural Shear f s
Drift Deformation Deformation

avg 0.42 y
avg h 0.42 y h 0.42 46 h h
YD flex 0.000761
E L E L 29000 L L
113 114

19
 115 116

117 118

a) Gusset Plate Connection Type I b) Gusset Plate Connection Type II (proposed)

119 120

20
 (Bruneau, et al.)

121 122

123 124

125 126

21
 2
2
1st Story
1.5
1.5 10/50 Event; Target Drift=1.25% 2nd Story

Story Drift (%)

1 3rd Story
1

0.5
0.5
0
0
-0.5
-0.5
-1
-1
-1.5
-1.5
-2
-2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
3
1st Story
2 2/50 Event; Target Drift=1.75% 2nd Story
2

Story Drift (%)

3rd Story
1
1

0
0

-1
-1

-2
-2

-3
-3
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (sec)
127 128

129 130

131 132

22
 133 134

135 136

INNOVATIVE TRUSS GIRDER FRAMES

(Performance, Economy, Sustainability)
AN INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM

PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INNOVATIVE

STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS FOR ENHANCED PERFORMANCE, SAFETY,
ECONOMY AND SUSTAINABILITY UNDER SEVERE LOADING

RESEARCH TEAM

S. Goel, S-H Chao, M. Bayat (US)

T. Yang (UBC, Canada)
S. Leelataviwat (KMUTT, Thailand)
W-C Liao (NTU, Taiwan)
D. Rai - IITK, BARC, SERC (India)
B. Stojadinovic (ETH, Switzerland)

137 138
(Two Years Now - Own Resources - Weekly Web Meetings)

23
 139 140

3@13
=39

14
BRB

4@30 = 120

141 142

143 144

24
 145 146

1400

1200

1000

BaseShear(kips)
4.0% Roof Drift
800

600

400

200

0
0.00% 0.50% 1.00% 1.50% 2.00% 2.50% 3.00% 3.50% 4.00%
RoofDrift(%)

147 148

4 1.0
0.9
0.8
Median Spectral Acceleration (g)

3
0.7
Probability of Collapse

0.6
2 0.5
SCT = 1.5g
0.4
SCT= 1.5g
0.3
1 SMT= 0.96g
0.2
0.1
SMT = 0.96g
0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Maximum Interstory Drift (%) Median Spectral Acceleration (g)

149 150

25
151 152

153 154

STUDY FRAME

155 156

26
SUBASSEMBLAGE TESTS

157

27