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

y=Vy/W
Loading Story Shear Story OTM

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

 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
Types of Models
Deterioration
P-Delta effects
Damping
Uncertainties
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
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

They wereFig.
not 12. General
intended Force-Deformation
to be used for hysteresis modeling
The sharpResponse
drop from Cof to Structural Components
D is not representative of reality
except for brittle failure modes
They may(FEMA 273/356)
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 r u

p 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
Modified backbone curve, Option 3
Mc
Initial backbone curve
0.8Mc

p=0.7p
Ultimate rotation, Option 3

Ultimate rotation, Option 4

y c c
0.5pc
p pc

Quake Summit 2010, October 8, 2010

 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