Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Response
Evaluation
Helmut Krawinkler
Professor Emeritus
Stanford University
Performance Objectives
Acceptance Criteria at
Component Level
Fu = smaller of
Acceptance Criteria at
Component Level
Acceptance Criteria at
System Level
Loading
y=Vy/W
Story Shear
Story OTM
Component Modeling
Modes of Deterioration
Basic Observation
The cyclic envelope curve is different from
the monotonic backbone curve
Resource Document
ATC-72-1
Interim Guidelines on
Modeling and
Acceptance Criteria for
Seismic Design and
Analysis of Tall Buildings
Resource Document
ATC-72-1
Types of Models
Deterioration
P-Delta effects
Damping
Uncertainties
Source: G. Deierlein
Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010
Rebar buckling?
Rebar fracture?
Bond slippage and pullout?
Shear?
Steel:
Local instabilities?
Fracture?
Joint panel zones?
Are approximate
Not available for many important failure modes
Ks
Kpc
Fr = Fy
Ke
y
c
p
r
pc
Modeling Option #3
Option 3
Option 2
Option 3
Option 4
0.8Mc
p=0.7p
c c
0.5pc
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