Heintz ATC 63

ATC-63
FEMA P -695 Quantification of P-695 Building Seismic Performance Factors

LATBSDC Annual Meeting May 7, 2010
Jon A. Heintz Applied Technology Council Director of Projects
ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters
Outline
Project Context Background/Scope/Basis of Methodology Methodology Overview Example Application to Concrete Moment Frame Systems General Findings and Observations
ATC -63 Project Context ATC-63
ATC -63 Quantification of Building ATC-63 System Performance and Response Parameters
FEMA funded project Multi-year effort beginning in 2004 FEMA P695 Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (FEMA, 2009) Genesis is rooted in R-factors
But Seismic Performance Factors (0, Cd) and design requirements are covered

R-factors were first introduced in 1978
ATC 3-06 Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings
1988 NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulations for New Buildings 1988 Uniform Building Code (UBC) 1985 UBC and earlier utilized K-factors

K-factors there were essentially 4
(frame, box, dual system, ductile moment frame)
ATC 3-06 R-factors there were 21 1988 NEHRP Provisions there were 30 Today in ASCE/SEI 7-05 there are 83 Critically important to seismic design
Set seismic design base shear Account for system ductility and damping during inelastic response

But how were they determined?
R RW
3/8RW 0.7R Cd
0
I

That was then, this is now Advent of Performance Based Seismic Design
SEAOC Vision 2000 (1995) FEMA 273 NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (1997)
More than a decade of maturation and development of advanced analytical procedures We are now attempting to quantify the seismic performance of buildings

And asking the question: What performance goals do our building codes achieve?
4 3.5 3
(T=1.0s)[g] Sa
g.m.
2.5
1.5
0.5
0 0
0.05
Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio
0.1
0.15
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5
Pcollapse
2 2 2 2 + DR + TD + MDL TOT = RTR
Objective - replace the smoke with science

Background, Scope, and Basis
Project Organization
FEMA
FEMA Michael Mahoney Robert Hanson PRP Members Maryann Phipps (Chair) Amr Elnashai - MAE S.K. Ghosh - SKGA Ramon Gilsanz- GMS Ron Hamburger - SGH Jack Hayes - NIST Bill Holmes R&C Richard Klingner - UT Phil Line - AFPA Bonnie Manley - AISI Andre Reinhorn - UB Chris Rojahn - ATC Rafael Sabelli - WPM
ATC Management Chris Rojahn (PED) Jon Heintz (PQC) William Holmes (PTM) PMC Members Charles Kircher (Chair) Greg Deierlein Stanford M. Constantinou Buffalo John Hooper - MKA James Harris HA Allan Porush - URS
Applied Technology Council
ATC Management Committee Project Executive Director (Chair) Project Technical Monitor Project Quality Control Monitor
ATC-63 Project Management Committee Project Technical Director (Chair) Five Members
Project Review Panel Twelve Members
Working Groups Technical Consultants
ATC Staff Technical Support Administration
Working Groups Stanford NDA Krawinkler AAC SUNY NSA/NCA Filiatrault Wood
ATC -63 Project Objectives ATC-63

Primary Create a methodology for determining Seismic Performance Factors (SPFs) that, when properly implemented in the design process, will result in the equivalent earthquake performance for buildings different lateral-force-resisting systems Secondary Evaluate a sufficient number of different lateral-force-resisting systems to provide a basis for Seismic Code committees (e.g., BSSC PUC) to develop a simpler set of lateral-force-resisting systems and more rational SPFs (and related design criteria) that would more reliably achieve the inherent earthquake safety performance objectives of building codes
Scope and Basis of the Methodology

New Buildings Methodology applies to the seismic-force-resisting system of new buildings and may not be appropriate for nonbuilding structures and does not apply to nonstructural systems. NEHRP Provisions (ASCE 7-05) Methodology is based on design criteria, detailing requirements, etc. of the NEHRP Provisions (i.e., ASCE 7-05 as adopted by the BSSC for future NEHRP Provisions development) and, by reference, applicable design standards Life Safety Methodology is based on life safety performance (only) and does not address damage protection and functionality issues (e.g., I = 1.0 will be assumed) Structure Collapse Life safety performance is achieved by providing an acceptably low probability of partial collapse and global instability of the seismic-force-resisting system for MCE ground motions MCE Ground Motions MCE ground motions are based on the spectral response parameters of the NEHRP Provisions (ASCE 705), including site class effects
Ground Motion Record Set

2.4 2.2 2 Spectral Acceleration (g) 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 Period (seconds) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Median Spectrum - Far-Field Set Standard Deviation - Ln (Sa) 1.0 1.2
Far-Field Record Set: R > 10 km Large Magnitude Events: Moment magnitude, M > 6.5
Equal Weighting of Events: 2 records per event Strong Ground Shaking: PGA > 0.2g /PGV > 15 cm/sec Source Type: Both Strike-Slip and Thrust Fault Sources Site Conditions: Rock or Stiff Soil Sites, Vs > 180 m/s
Technical Approach of the Methodology

Conceptual Framework Methodology incorporates cutting edge (nonlinear/probabilistic) performancebased analysis methods while remaining true to the basic concepts and definitions of seismic performance factors of ASCE 7-05 and the NEHRP Provisions (e.g., global pushover concept as described in the Commentary of FEMA 450)
Performance-Based Analysis Methods ASCE 7-05/NEHRP Design Provisions (e.g., base shear) V = CsW Probabilistic Collapse Fragility Nonlinear (Incremental) Dynamic Analysis
Overview of the Methodology
Elements of the Methodology
Ground Motions
Analysis Methods
Methodology
Test Data
Requirements
Design Information
Requirements
Peer Review
Requirements
Notional Flowchart of Process

Develop Test Data Develop Design Rules
Notes Homework phase Characterize System Behavior Design archetypes (w/trial of R Factor) Perform Pushover and NDA Evaluate CMR values (and overstrength) Trial value of the R factor acceptable? Peer Review applies to total process
Define Archetypes Develop Archetype Models Analyze Archetype Models Evaluate System Performance
No
P[Collapse] < Limit

Yes
Review and Documentation
Notional Collapse Fragility One Data Point

Building (Joes Bar) Scaled Ground Motion Record
0.6 Acceleration (g's) 0.3 0 -0.3 -0.6 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Time (Seconds) 14 16 18 20
Incipient Collapse
1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)
Joes
Beer! Food!
Evaluation of a individual structure (one configuration/set of performance properties) to failure using one ground motion record scaled to effect incipient collapse
Notional Collapse Fragility Comprehensive Data

Incipient Building Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Joes Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Joes Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Food! Building Joes Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Joes Food!Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Food! Building Joes Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Joes Food!Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Food! Building Joes Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Joes Food!Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Joes Food!Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Joes Food!Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Joes Food!Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Food! Building Joes Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Building Joes Food!Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Incipient Food! Building Joes Beer! Ground Motion Collapse (Joes Bar) Joes Food!Beer! Ground Motion Joes Food!Beer! Ground Motion Joes Food!Beer! Joes Food!Beer!
0.6 0.3 0 Acceleration (g's)
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18 20
=
20
Comprehensive collapse data
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6
8 10 12 Time (Seconds)

14 16 18
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20 18
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20 18
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
Robust analytical models of building configuration/performance properties evaluated with representative earthquake records
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20 18
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16
=
20
Acceleration (g's)
0.6 6 0.3 0
-0.3 -0.6

14 16 18
=
20
Food! Beer! Food!
-0.3 -0.6
14
16
18
Notional Collapse Fragility

4
36 records
3.5 3
Sag.m. (T=1.0s)[g]
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Notional Collapse Fragility

Order collapse data from least to greatest Plot as a cumulative distribution function
Probability versus collapse intensity
4 3.5 3
Sa g.m. (T=1.0s)[g]
2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Notional Collapse Fragility Curve

1.0 0.9 Collapse Probability . 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 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 Collapse Spectral Acceleration (g)
Comprehensive Collapse Data Lognormal Distribution
50% probability of collapse at SCT = 1.6g
CMR
Collapse Margin Ratio CMR = 1.6g / 0.9g
10% probability of collapse at SCT = 0.9g (SMT)
Acceptably low probability of collapse given MCE spectral acceleration
Performance Evaluation
Simply
Verify that calculated CMR < acceptable CMR
But
What is an acceptable probability of collapse? How many data points are enough? What is an appropriate analytical model? How do we address uncertainty? Ground motion, Design, Modeling, Testing
Illustrative Example
Example RC SMF System

Develop Test Data Develop Design Rules
Define Archetypes Develop Archetype Models Analyze Archetype Models Evaluate System Performance
No
P[Collapse] < Limit

Yes
Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame System
Review and Documentation

System Conception
Typical Frame Members Beams: 32 to 40 deep Columns: 24x28 to 30x40 Governing Design Parameters - Beams: minimum strength - Column size: joint strength - Column strength: SCWB - Drift: just meets limit Office occupancy Frame System High seismic regions Design Code: IBC / ACI / ASCE 7 8 inch PT slab
27
System Configuration
Space Frame Perimeter Frame
Bay Width (e.g., 20 or 30 feet)

System Design Space

20-story
Number of Stories
12-story
Story Height
4-story 2-story 1-story
3 bays @ 20' 3 bays @ 20' 3 bays @ 20'
8-story
13' (typ.) 15' 3 bays @ 20' 3 bays @ 20' 3 bays @ 20'
Performance Groups
20-foot bays Space frame
Performance Group Summary Grouping Criteria Group No. PG-1 PG-2 PG-3 PG-4 PG-5 PG-6 PG-7 PG-8 Type 1 Max SDC Low Min SDC High Min SDC Basic
Configuration
High seismic design
Design Load Level Gravity Seismic Max SDC
Period Domain Short Long Short Long Short Long Short Long
Number of Archetypes 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Repeat for 30-foot bays Perimeter frame Low seismic design

Deterioration Modes and Collapse Scenarios
1. Deterioration Modes of RC Elements - Shear, flexure, joint degradation 2. Building System Collapse Scenarios - Sidesway Collapse (SC) - Loss in Vertical Load Carrying Capacity (LVCC) 3. Likelihood of Collapse Scenarios
Deterioration Modes
A Flexural hinging of
beam-column elements
B Column compressive C Beam-column shear

failure failure
J oint shear failure
E Pull-out and bondslip of rebar at connections
F Slab-column
connection punching shear
Nonlinear Analysis Models

Joints with both bond-slip springs and shear springs Column bondslip springs
Lumped plasticity beam-columns
2D multistory model to capture likely sidesway collapse scenarios and component behavior
Concrete Hinge Model Calibration

Identify and Test Key Parameters:
strength initial stiffness post-yield stiffness plastic rotation (capping) capacity post-capping slope cyclic deterioration rate
300 200 Experimental Results Model Prediction
Example Data Set:

250+ columns (PEER database) flexure & flexure-shear dominant calibrated to median (characteristic) values
0 0.05 0.1
Shear Force (kN)
100
0 -100 -200
-300 -0.1
-0.05
Column Drift (displacement/height)
Simulation Results
4 36 records 3.5 3
Sag.m. (T=1.0s)[g]
2.5
2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Simulation Results: Collapse Modes
3.5
40% of collapses
27% of collapses
Sa g.m . (T = 1.0s )[g]
2.5
1.5
17% of collapses **Predicted by Static Pushover

0.05 0.1 0.15
12% of collapses
0.5
0 0
Incremental Dynamic Analysis

5% of collapses 2% of collapses
Simulation Results: Collapse Data

4 3.5
Capacity Stats.: Median = 2.2g LN = 0.36
(T=1.0s)[g] Sa
g.m.
2.5
Mediancol = 2.2g
1.5
MCE = 0.8 g
0.5
0 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters
Effect of Uncertainties
FOUR CONTRIBUTORS:
1. Record-to-Record Variability (RTR = 0.4) 2. Design Requirements 3. Quality of Test Data 4. Quality of Analytical Model
2 2 2 2 + DR + TD + MDL TOT = RTR
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5
= 0.4 > 0.4
CMR Sa/SMT
Collapse Probability at MCE?
Greater uncertainties will require larger median collapse margins ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters to satisfy maximum collapse probability at MCE
Quality Ratings
Table 3-1 Quality Rating for Design Requirements
Completeness and Robustness High. Extensive safeguards against poor behavior. All important design and quality assurance issues are addressed. M edium . Reasonable safeguards against poor behavior. Most of the important design and quality assurance issues are addressed. Low. Questionable safeguards against poor behavior. Many important design and quality assurance issues are not addressed. Confidence in Basis of Design Requirements High Medium Low
(A) Superior
(B) Good
(C) Fair
(B) Good
(C) Fair
(D) Poor
(C) Fair
(D) Poor
--
Total Collapse Uncertainty

Design Requirements: Test Data: Nonlinear Model:
Uncertainty - Nonlinear Model
A-Superior B-Good A-Superior

A - Superior
Uncertainty - Quality of Uncertainty - Quality of Design Requirements Test Data A - Super. B - Good C - Fair D - Poor A - Superior B - Good C - Fair D - Poor 0.55 0.55 0.65 0.80 0.55 0.60 0.70 0.85 0.65 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.80 0.85 0.90 1.00
Adjusted Collapse Fragility Curve

1 0.9
4
Cummulative Probability of Collapse
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 Empirical CDF Lognormal CDF (RTR Var.) Lognormal CDF (RTR + Modeling Var.) 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
g.m.
3.5
CMR = ??
Sa g.m . (T = 1.0s )[g]
2.5
1.5
Median = 2.2g LN, Total = 0.36
0.5
0 0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Incremental Dynamic Analysis Results
3.5
4.5
Sa
(T=1.0s) [g]
MCE = 0.8g
Acceptable Collapse Margin Ratios

Total System Collapse Uncertainty 0.275 0.300 Collapse Probability 5% 1.57 1.64 10% (ACMR10%) 1.42 1.47 15% 1.33 1.36 20% (ACMR20%) 1.26 1.29 25% 1.20 1.22
0.500 0.525 0.550 0.575
2.28 2.37 2.47 2.57
1.90 1.96 2.02 2.09
1.68 1.72 1.77 1.81
1.52 1.56 1.59 1.62
1.40 1.42 1.45 1.47
On average per performance group
For any one archetype
Example Results RC SMF System

Design Configuration Arch. Design ID No. of Framing / Seismic Static Number Stories Gravity SDC Loads 2069 2064 1003 1011 1013 1020 Computed Collapse Margin CMR c SSF ACMR Acceptance Check Accept. ACMR Pass/Fail
Maximum Seismic (Dmax) and Low Gravity (Perimeter Frame) Designs, 20' Bay Width 1 P Dmax 1.6 1.18 16.1 1.34 1.58 1.59 Near Pass 2 P Dmax 1.8 1.50 19.5 1.34 2.01 1.59 Pass 4 P Dmax 1.6 1.61 9.2 1.42 2.29 1.59 Pass 8 P Dmax 1.6 1.25 7.9 1.62 2.02 1.59 Pass 12 P Dmax 1.7 1.45 10.0 1.62 2.35 1.59 Pass 20 P Dmax 1.6 1.66 7.2 1.59 2.64 1.59 Pass -S S S S S S --Dmax Dmax Dmax Dmax Dmax Dmax -1.7 4.0 3.5 2.7 2.3 2.1 2.0 2.8 -1.96 2.06 1.78 1.63 1.59 1.98 -16.1 14.3 9.6 6.2 5.8 9.1 -1.34 1.34 1.42 1.55 1.53 1.62 -2.15 2.62 2.76 2.53 2.52 2.44 3.21 2.68 2.02 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 1.59 2.02 Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Pass Maximum Seismic (Dmax) and High Gravity (Space Frame) Designs, 20' Bay Width
Mean/Acceptable: 2061 1001 1008 1012 1014 1021 1 2 4 8 12 20
Mean/Acceptable:
RC SMF Example - Conclusions

A value of R=8 provides an acceptable level of collapse safety The Methodology is reasonably wellcalibrated to current design provisions
RC SMF systems didnt fail miserably RC SMF systems didnt pass easily
This was true of all systems tested
Peer Review Considerations

Implementation involves:
Uncertainty Judgment Potential for variation
Ground Motions Analysis Methods
Methodology
Test Data
Requirements
Design Information
Requirements
Peer Review is critical for:

Testing Archetype development Analytical modeling Quality rating assessment
Peer Review
Requirements
Observations and Findings

Methodology was developed considering:
special concrete moment frames ordinary concrete moment frames special steel moment frames wood shear walls
Some trends in our current design process have become apparent

Performance assessment is a difficult challenge fraught with much uncertainty Buildings located in the near-field have higher collapse probabilities Short period buildings have higher collapse probabilities Collapse performance varies by Seismic Design Category Secondary systems influence collapse capacity There is no practical difference in performance between R=6 and R=6.5
Summary
Recommended Methodology provides a rational basis for establishing global seismic performance factors (e.g., R factors) Intended to support and improve Seismic Codes:
Adoption of new systems that must be assigned values of seismic performance factors Improvement of current values of seismic performance factors of existing systems Collapse evaluation of a specific building designed using alternative performance-based methods (App. F)
FEMA P-695 is now available online and in print

Thank you!

Heintz ATC 63

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Heintz ATC 63

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

ATC-63

FEMA P -695 Quantification of P-695 Building Seismic Performance Factors

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

ATC -63 Project Context ATC-63

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

ATC -63 Project Context ATC-63

ATC -63 Project Context ATC-63

ATC -63 Project Context ATC-63

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

ATC -63 Project Context ATC-63

ATC -63 Project Context ATC-63

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5

2 2 2 2 + DR + TD + MDL TOT = RTR

Objective - replace the smoke with science

Background, Scope, and Basis

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

Project Review Panel Twelve Members

Working Groups Technical Consultants

ATC Staff Technical Support Administration

ATC -63 Project Objectives ATC-63

Scope and Basis of the Methodology

Ground Motion Record Set

Technical Approach of the Methodology

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

Overview of the Methodology

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

Elements of the Methodology

Notional Flowchart of Process

P[Collapse] < Limit

Review and Documentation

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

Notional Collapse Fragility One Data Point

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

Notional Collapse Fragility Comprehensive Data

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

Comprehensive collapse data

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

Food! Beer! Food!

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

Notional Collapse Fragility

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

ATC-63 Quantification of Building System Performance and Response Parameters

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio

Notional Collapse Fragility

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio