INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the Copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized Copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g, maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by Sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing {from left to right in equal sections with small overtaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9° black and white Photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 USA ‘800-521-0600UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Reliability-Based Seismic Performance Evaluation of Stee! Frame Buildings using Nonlinear Static Analysis Methods A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering by Matthew John Skokan 2000UMI Number: 9973168 UMI UMI Microform9973168 Copyright 2000 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Bell & Howell information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 ‘Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346‘The dissertation of Matthew John Skokan is approved. David D. Jackson Gary C. Hart, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2000 iiTo Dad, Mom, and MikeTABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Motivation 1.2 Research Objectives 1.3. Research Approach 1.4 Organization of Dissertation CHAPTER 2 PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Performance-Based Seismic Design 2.3 New Buildings 2.4 — Existing Buildings 2.5 Steel Moment Frame Buildings CHAPTER 3 NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS METHODS 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Nonlinear Static Analysis Methods 3.3 Lateral Load Pattems 3.4 Bilinear Representation of the Capacity Curve 3.5 Target Displacement Calculation Methods 3.5.1 Coefficient Method (FEMA 273) 3.5.2 Capacity Spectrum Method (ATC-40) 3.5.3 Equivalent System Method 3.6 Summary iv aueee 31 31 34 37 4l 43 49 55 56CHAPTER 4 ESTIMATING BUILDING RESPONSE USING NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS METHODS 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Pre-Northridge Model Steel Frame Buildings 4.3 Earthquake Ground Motions 44 Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses 45 — Nonlinear Static Analyses 4.5.1 Pushover Analyses 4.5.2 Bias Factors 4.5.3. Observations 46 Summary CHAPTER 5 RELIABILITY-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN 5.1 Introduction 5.2 Sources and Types of Uncertainty 5.3 Load and Resistance Factor Design 5.4 Probabilistic Risk Assessment 5.5 Recent Developments in Reliability-Based Design 5.6 Comell Method — Demand and Capacity Factor Design 5.6.1 Seismic Hazard 5.6.2 Relationship Between Seismic Hazard and Building Response 5.6.3 Inherent Randomness in Building Response 5.6.4 Inherent Randomness in Capacity 5.6.5 Application of Demand and Capacity Factor Design 5.7 Summary CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS METHOD UNCERTAINTY 6.1 Introduction 6.2 Demand and Capacity Factor Design Method Incorporating Modeling Uncertainties 62 62 69 74 5 7 8 81 85 88 125 125 131 136 1B9 144 151 152 155 158 164 167 176 193 193 1946.2.1 Probability of Failure Incorporating Analysis Method Uncertainty 6.2.2 Confidence Bounds on the Probability of Failure 6.2.3 Performance Checking Equation 63 — Quantifying Analysis Method Uncertainty 6.3.1 Analysis Method Uncertainty Dependent on the Level of Seismic Hazard 6.3.2 Analysis Method Uncertainty Independent of the Level of Seismic Hazard 64 Probability of Failure Considering Analysis Method Uncertainty 65 Conclusions CHAPTER 7 NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS PREDICTION OF FULL-SCALE BUILDING RESPONSE TW Introduction 7.2 13-Story Steel Moment Frame Building, 7.2.1 Building Description 7.2.2 Recorded Building Response and Ground Motion 7.2.3 Comparison of Predicted and Recorded Building Response 73 6-Story Steel Moment Frame Building 73.1, Building Description 7.3.2. Recorded Building Response and Ground Motion 7.3.4 Comparison of Predicted and Recorded Building Response 77 Conclusions CHAPTER 8 MULTIPLE FAILURE MODES 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Confidence Considering Multiple Failure Modes 83 Bounds on Confidence Considering Multiple Failure Modes 84 Summary 195 202 207 210 214 215 223 226 265 265 267 267 268 269 273 214 274 275 278 300 300 305 310 313CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 9.1 Conclusions 9.2 Recommendations for Future Research APPENDIX A. DERIVATION OF UNCERTAINTY FACTORS, APPENDIX B MODEL STEEL FRAME BUILDINGS B.1 Description of Pre-Northridge Model Buildings B.1.1 3-Story Building B.1.2 9-Story Building B.1.3 20-Story Building B.2 Analytical Computer Models for Pre-Northridge Buildings B2.1 Beams B22 Columns B.2.3. Panel Zones B.2.4 Building Weights and P-Delta Effects B.2.5 Damping APPENDIX C EARTHQUAKE GROUND MOTION APPENDIX D QUANTIFYING ANALYSIS METHOD UNCERTAINTY ~ SAC METHOD APPENDIX E STEEL FRAME BUILDING DAMAGE PREDICTION USING NONLINEAR ANALYSIS METHODS El Introduction E.2 Damage Description of 13-Story Building E3 Damage Prediction E3.1 Recorded Ground Motion 318 318 324 326 331 331 332 333 334 335 337 338 339 341 342 356 385 403 403 408 408E.3.2 Nonlinear Static Analysis Method Without Recorded Ground Motion 411 E.3.3. Nonlinear Static Analysis Method With Recorded Ground Motion 412 E.3.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Method 415 E4 — Conclusions 418 REFERENCES 430 viiiLIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 SEAOC Vision 2000 methodology for performance-based seismic design (After OES, 1995) Figure 3.1 Qualitative illustration of the capacity curve Figure 3.2 General shape of the Modal and Uniform lateral load pattems Figure 3.3 Bilinear representation of the capacity curve Figure 3.4 Demand and capacity spectrum curves Figure 3.5 Effective damping calculation Figure 3.6 Composite response spectrum Figure 4.1 Median, 84th percentile, and 16th percentile 2% damped response spectra for 50% in 50 years earthquake ground motions Figure 4.2 Median, 84th percentile, and 16th percentile 2% damped response spectra for 10% in $0 years earthquake ground motions Figure 4.3 Median, 84th percentile, and 16th percentile 2% damped response spectra for 2% in 50 years earthquake ground motions Figure 4.4 Median and 84th percentile floor displacement ratio response calculated using nonlinear dynamic analysis method and M2 model Figure 4,5 Median and 84th percentile interstory drift ratio response calculated using nonlinear dynamic analysis method and M2 model Figure 4.6 Median and 84th percentile beam total rotation response calculated using nonlinear dynamic analysis method and M2 mode! Figure 4.7 Median and 84th percentile panel zone total rotation response calculated using nonlinear dynamic analysis method and M2 model Figure 4.8 Load pattems for 3-, 9-, and 20-story model buildings Figure 4.9 Pushover curve for 3-story model building Figure 4.10 Pushover curve for 9-story mode! building ix 2 37 87 38 59 59 60 100 101 102 103 104 10s 106 106Figure 4.11 Pushover curve for 20-story model building Figure 4.12 Floor displacement profiles from pushover analysis for 3-story model building, M1 model Figure 4,13 Floor displacement profiles from pushover analysis for 3-story model building, M2 model Figure 4.14 Floor displacement profiles from pushover analysis for 9-story model building, M1 mode! Figure 4.15 Floor displacement profiles from pushover analysis for 9-story model building, M2 model Figure 4,16 Floor displacement profiles from pushover analysis for 20-story model building, M1 model Figure 4.17 Floor displacement profiles from pushover analysis for 20-story model building, M2 model Figure 4.18 Flowchart illustrating procedure for calculating bias factors Figure 4.19 Smooth representation of actual response spectrum. Figure 4.20 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum roof displacement bias factors - Target displacement method sensitivity / Modal load pattern / M2 mode! Figure 4.21 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum interstory drift bias factors - Target displacement method sensitivity / Modal load pattem / M2 model Figure 4.22 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum beam total rotation bias factors - Target displacement method sensitivity / Modal load pattem / M2 model Figure 4.23 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile max. panel-zone total rotation bias factors Target displacement method sensitivity / Modal load pattem / M2 model Figure 4.24 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum roof displacement bias factors - Model sensitivity / Modal load pattem / Coefficient Method Figure 4.25 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum interstory drift bias factors - Model sensitivity / Modal load pattern / Coefficient Method 107 107 108 108, 109 109 110 110 ut Mm 112, 12 113 113 M4Figure 4.26 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum beam total rotation bias factors - Model sensitivity / Modal load pattem / Coefficient Method Figure 4.27 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum roof displacement bias factors - Load pattern sensitivity / M2 model / Coefficient Method Figure 4.28 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum roof displacement bias factors - Load pattem sensitivity / M2 model / Capacity Spectrum Method Figure 4.29 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum roof displacement bias factors - Load pattern sensitivity / M2 model / Equivalent System Method Figure 4.30 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum interstory drift bias factors - Load pattern sensitivity / M2 model / Coefficient Method Figure 4.31 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum interstory drift bias factors - Load pattem sensitivity / M2 model / Capacity Spectrum Method Figure 4.32 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum interstory drift bias factors - Load pattern sensitivity / M2 model / Equivalent System Method Figure 4.33 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum beam total rotation bias factors - Load pattem sensitivity / M2 model / Coefficient Method Figure 4.34 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum beam total rotation bias factors - Load pattem sensitivity / M2 model / Capacity Spectrum Method Figure 4.35 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum beam total rotation bias factors - Load pattern sensitivity / M2 mode! / Equivalent System Method Figure 4.36 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile max. panel-zone total rotation bias factors - Load pattern sensitivity / M2 model / Coefficient Method Figure 4.37 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile max. panel-zone total rotation bias factors - Load pattern sensitivity / M2 model / Capacity Spectrum Method Figure 4.38 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile max. panel-zone total rotation bias factors - Load pattern sensitivity / M2 model / Equivalent System Method Figure 4.39 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum roof displacement bias factors - Actual vs. Smooth spectrum sensitivity / Modal load pattem / M2 model 14 1s 1s 116 116 117 7 118 118 119 119 120 120 121Figure 4.40 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum interstory drift bias factors - Actual vs. Smooth spectrum sensitivity / Modal load pattern / M2 model Figure 4.41 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum beam total rotation bias, factors Actual vs. Smooth spectrum sensitivity / Modal load pattern / M2 mode! Figure 4.42 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile max. panel-zone total rotation bias factors - Actual vs, Smooth spectrum sensitivity / Modal load pattem /M2 model Figure 4.43 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum roof displacement bias factors - Actual vs, Smooth spectrum sensitivity / Modal load pattem /M2 model Figure 4.44 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum interstory drift bias factors - Actual vs, Smooth spectrum sensitivity / Modal load pattem / M2 model Figure 4.45 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile maximum beam total rotation bias factors - Actual vs. Smooth spectrum sensitivity / Modal load pattem / M2 mode! Figure 4.46 Median, 16th, and 84th percentile max. panel-zone total rotation bias factors - Actual vs, Smooth spectrum sensitivity / Modal load pattem /M2 model Figure 5.1 Conceptual illustration of life cycle cost (After Lee, 1996) Figure 5.2 Failure and Safe Regions Figure 5.3 Probability of failure Figure 5.4 Sources of uncertainty Figure 5.5 Qualitative illustration of Probabilistic Risk Assessment procedure Figure 5.6 Seismic hazard curve for 3-story building Figure 5.7 Seismic hazard curve for 9-story building Figure 5.8 Seismic hazard curve for 20-story building, Figure 5.9 Relationship between spectral acceleration and maximum interstory drift ratio calculated using nonlinear time history analysis for the 3-story building Figure 5.10 Relationship between spectral acceleration and maximum interstory drift ratio calculated using nonlinear time history analysis for the 9-story building 121 122 122 123 123 124 124 181 181 182 182 183 184 184 185 185 186Figure 5.11 Relationship between spectral acceleration and maximum interstory drift ratio calculated using nonlinear time history analysis for the 20-story building Figure 5.12 Illustration of Eq. (5.46) Figure 5.13 Comparison of the exact and second-order approximation of the uncertainty correction factor Figure 5.14 Sensitivity of the expected value of the annual probability of failure to the uncertainty in the collapse capacity for the 3-story building Figure 5.15 Sensitivity of the expected value of the annual probability of failure to the uncertainty in the collapse capacity for the 9-story building Figure 5.16 Sensitivity of the expected value of the annual probability of failure to the uncertainty in the collapse capacity for the 20-story building Figure 5.17 DCFD methodology flowchart for calculating the probability of failure Figure 5.18 Annual probat ty of failure for FEMA 273 performance limit states Figure 5.19 DCFD methodology flowchart for evaluating the performance checking equation, Figure 6.1 Relationship between spectral acceleration and maximum interstory drift ratio calculated using the Coefficient Method (Modal/M2) for the 3-story building Figure 6.2 Relationship between spectral acceleration and maximum interstory drift ratio calculated using the Coefficient Method (Modal/M2) for the 9-story building Figure 6.3 Relationship between spectral acceleration and maximum interstory drift ratio calculated using the Coefficient Method (Modal/M2) for the 20-story building Figure 6.4 Annual probability of failure for 3-story building Figure 6.5 Illustration of confidence Figure 6.6 Sensitivity of annual probability of failure to level of confidence level for 3-story building xiii 186 187 187 188 189 190 191 192 245 245 246 247 248, 248Figure 6.7 Sensitivity of annual probability of failure to level of confidence level for 9-story building Figure 6.8 Sensitivity of annual probability of failure to level of confidence level for 20-story building Figure 6.9 Relationship between confidence level and demand-capacity ratio Figure 6.10 Maximum roof displacement bias factors for 3-story building Figure 6.11 Maximum roof displacement bias factors for 9-story building Figure 6.12 Maximum roof displacement bias factors for 20-story building Figure 6.13 Maximum interstory drift bias factors for 3-story building Figure 6.14 Maximum interstory drift bias factors for 9-story building Figure 6.15 Maximum interstory drift bias factors for 20-story building Figure 6.16 Maximum beam rotation bias factors for 3-story building Figure 6.17 Maximum beam rotation bias factors for 9-story building Figure 6.18 Maximum beam rotation bias factors for 20-story building Figure 6.19 Maximum panel zone rotation bias factors for 3-story building Figure 6.20 Maximum panel zone rotation bias factors for 9-story building Figure 6.21 Maximum panel zone rotation bias factors for 20-story building Figure 6.22 3-story building expected value of the probability of failure for performance defined in terms of maximum interstory drift Figure 6.23 9-story building expected value of the probability of failure for performance defined in terms of maximum interstory drift Figure 6.24 20-story building expected value of the probability of failure for performance defined in terms of maximum interstory drift Figure 7.1 13-story instrumented building typical floor framing plan 249 249 250 251 252 283 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 263 264 283Figure 7.2. 13-story instrumented building typical moment-frame elevation Figure 7.3 Measured East-West acceleration response of the 13-story instrumented building Figure 7.4 Measured North-South acceleration response of the 13-story instrumented building Figure 7.5 2% damped response spectra for 13-story building base motion recorded during 1994 Northridge earthquake Figure 7.6 13-story instrumented building East-West Roof displacement time history comparison Figure 7.7. 13-story instrumented building East-West 6th Floor displacement time history comparison Figure 7.8 13-story instrumented building North-South Roof displacement time history comparison Figure 7.9 13-story instrumented building North-South 6th Floor displacement time history comparison Figure 7.10 13-story instrumented building East-West interstory drift ‘comparison Figure 7.11 13-story instrumented building North-South interstory drift comparison Figure 7.12. 6-story instrumented building typical floor framing plan Figure 7.13 6-story instrumented building typical moment-frame elevation Figure 7.14 Measured North-South acceleration response of the 6-story instrumented building Figure 7.15 Measured East-West acceleration response of the 6-story instrumented building Figure 7.16 2% damped ground motion and smooth response spectra for 6-story building Figure 7.17 6-story instrumented building North-South Roof displacement time history comparison 284 285 286 287 288 288 289 289 290 290 291 291 292 293 294 295Figure 7.18 6-story instrumented building North-South 2nd Floor displacement time history comparison Figure 7.19 6-story instrumented building East-West Roof displacement time history comparison Figure 7.20 6-story instrumented building East-West 2nd Floor displacement time history comparison Figure 721 6-story instrumented building North-South interstory drift comparison Figure 7.22 6-story instrumented building East-West interstory drift comparison Figure 7.23 Maximum roof displacement bias factors for nonlinear time history analysis Figure 7.24 Maximum interstory drift bias factors for nonlinear time history analysis Figure B.1 3-story model building typical floor framing plan Figure B.2 3-story model building typical moment-frame elevation Figure B.3_9-story model building typical floor framing plan Figure B.4 9-story model building typical moment-frame elevation Figure B.S 20-story model building typical floor framing plan Figure B.6 20-story model building typical moment-frame elevation Figure B.7 Beam-column intersection model M1 Figure B.8 Beam-column intersection model M2 Figure B.9 Beam moment-rotation relationship Figure B.10 Column moment-curvature relationship Figure B.11 Column P-M interaction diagram Figure B.12 Interior beam-column joint forces and dimensions 295 296 296 297 297 298 299 344 344 345 346 347 348 349 349 350 350 351 352Figure B.13 Panel zone shear-deformation relationship Figure B.14 Relationship between modal damping and period of vibration Figure C.1 Target response spectra Figure C.2 Acceleration spectra for 50% in 50 yr ground motions (LA41-LASO) Figure C.3 Acceleration spectra for 50% in 50 yr ground motions (LAS1-LA60) Figure C.4 Acceleration spectra for 10% in 50 yr ground motions (LAOI-LA10) Figure C.5 Acceleration spectra for 10% in 50 yr ground motions (LAI 1-LA20) Figure C.6 Acceleration spectra for 2% in 50 yr ground motions (LA21-LA30) Figure C.7 Acceleration spectra for 2% in 50 yr ground motions (LA31-LA40) Figure C.8 Displacement spectra for 50% in 50 yr ground motions (LA41-LASO) Figure C.9 Displacement spectra for 50% in 50 yr ground motions (LAS1-LA60) Figure C.10 Displacement spectra for 10% in 50 yr ground motions (LAO1- LAI0) Figure C.11 Displacement spectra for 10% in 50 yr ground motions (LAI1- LA20) Figure C.12 Displacement spectra for 2% in 50 yr ground motions (LA21-LA30) Figure C.13 Displacement spectra for 2% in 50 yr ground motions (LA31-LA40) Figure C.14 Composite spectra for 50% in 50 yr ground motions (LA41-LAS0) Figure C.15 Composite spectra for $0% in 50 yr ground motions (LAS1-LA60) Figure C.16 Composite spectra for 10% in 50 yr ground motions (LAO1-LA10) Figure C.17 Composite spectra for 10% in 50 yr ground motions (LA11-LA20) Figure C.18 Composite spectra for 2% in SO yr ground motions (LA21-LA30) Figure C.19 Composite spectra for 2% in 50 yr ground motions (LA31-LA40) 353 353 366 367 368 369 370 37 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384Figure D.1 Median 2% damped response spectra and smooth response spectra Figure D.2 Median 4.3% damped response spectra and smooth response spectra Figure D.3 Median 3.6% damped response spectra and smooth response spectra Figure D.4 Median 2.3% damped response spectra and smooth response spectra, Figure E.1_13-story instrumented building connection damage at Gridline 4 Figure E.2_13-story instrumented building connection damage at Gridline 9 Figure E.3 13-story instrumented building connection damage at Gridline B Figure E.4 13-story instrumented building connection damage at Gridline G Figure E.5 Contribution of interstory drift to total roof drift for M1 model and Uniform load pattern Figure E.6 Contribution of interstory drift to total roof drift for M1 model and Modal load pattem Figure E.7 Contribution of interstory drift to total roof drift for M2 model and Uniform load pattern Figure E.8 Contribution of interstory drift to total roof drift for M2 model and Modal load pattern xviii 420 421 422 423 424 424 42s 425LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 SEAOC Vision 2000 recommended performance objectives (After OES, 1995) Table 2.2 SEAOC Vision 2000 general damage descriptions for new buildings (After OES, 1995) Table 2.3 Description of SEAOC Vision 2000 Performance-Based Seismic Design steps (After OES, 1995) Table 2.4 ATC-40 performance objectives (After ATC, 1996) Table 2.5 ATC-40 general damage descriptions for repair and rehabilitation of buildings (After ATC, 1996) Table 2.6 FEMA 273 performance objectives (After ATC, 1997) Table 2.7 FEMA 273 general damage descriptions for repair and rehabilitation of buildings (After ATC, 1997) Table 2.8 Description of earthquake hazard levels Table 2.9 FEMA 273 damage description and acceptance criteria for steel! moment frame buildings (After ATC, 1997) Table 3.1 Values of modification coefficient Co (ATC, 1997) Table 3.2 Values of modification coefficient C; (ATC, 1997) Table 4.1 Dynamic properties of the mode! steel frame buildings Table 4.2 Maximum roof displacement bias factor statistics —3-story building Table 4.3 Maximum roof displacement bias factor statistics - 9-story building Table 4.4 Maximum roof displacement bias factor statistics - 20-story building Table 4.5 Maximum interstory drift bias factor statistics — 3-story building Table 4.6 Maximum interstory drift bias factor statistics — 9-story building Table 4.7 Maximum interstory drift bias factor statistics — 20-story building 22 23 24 2s 26 27 28 29 30 61 61 a1 91 92 93Table 4.8 Maximum beam total rotation bias factor statistics ~ 3-story building Table 4.9 Maximum beam total rotation bias factor statistics ~ 9-story building Table 4.10 Maximum beam total rotation bias factor statistics — 20-story building Table 4.11 Maximum panel-zone total rotation bias factor statistics — 3-story building Table 4.12 Maximum panel-zone total rotation bias factor statistics — 9-story building Table 4.13 Maximum panel-zone total rotation bias factor statistics ~ 20-story building Table 4.14 Recommended bias factors for Coefficient and Equivalent System Method Table 4.15 Recommended bias factors for Capacity Spectrum Method Table 5.1 Shape parameters for relationship between spectral acceleration and building demands calculated using the nonlinear time history analysis method Table 5.2 Performance checks and demand-capacity ratios for 3-story building Table 5.3 Performance checks and demand-capacity ratios for 9-story building Table 5.4 Performance checks and demand-capacity ratios for 20-story building Table 6.1 Recommended shape parameters for relationship between spectral acceleration and building demands calculated using the Coefficient Method Table 6.2 Recommended shape parameters for relationship between spectral acceleration and building demands calculated using the Capacity Spectrum Method Table 6.3 Recommended shape parameters for relationship between spectral acceleration and building demands calculated using the Equivalent System Method Table 6.4 Recommended values of the first- and second-order statistics of the bias factor for building demands calculated using the Coefficient Method 94 95 95 97 98 178 179 179 180 227 228 229 230Table 6.5 Recommended values of the first- and second-order statistics of the bias factor for building demands calculated using the Capacity Spectrum Method Table 6.6 Recommended values of the first- and second-order statistics of the bias factor for building demands calculated using the Equivalent System Method Table 6.7 Bias parameters for relationship between “exact” and approximate values of maximum roof displacement Table 6.8 Bias parameters for relationship between “exact” and approximate values of maximum interstory drift Table 6.9 Bias parameters for relationship between “exact” and approximate values of maximum beam rotation Table 6.10 Bias parameters for relationship between “exact” and approximate values of maximum panel zone rotation Table 6.11 Recommended bias parameters for relationship between “exact” building demands and building demands calculated using the Coefficient Method Table 6.12 Recommended bias parameters for relationship between “exact” building demands and building demands calculated using the Capacity Spectrum Method Table 6.13 Recommended bias parameters for relationship between “exact” building demands and building demands calculated using the Equivalent System Method Table 6.14 Building response quantities assumed in this research for the FEMA 273 performance levels Table 6.15 Performance objective confidence levels - 3-Story Building and Coefficient Method Table 6.16 Performance objective confidence levels - 3-Story Building and Capacity Spectrum Method Table 6.17 Performance objective confidence levels - 3-Story Building and Equivalent System Method Table 6,18 Performance objective confidence levels - 9-Story Building and Coefficient Method 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 240 241 241 242Table 6.19 Performance objective confidence levels - 9-Story Building and Capacity Spectrum Method Table 6.20 Performance objective confidence levels - 9-Story Building and Equivalent System Method Table 6.21 Performance objective confidence levels - 20-Story Building and Coefficient Method Table 6.22 Performance objective confidence levels - 20-Story Bi Capacity Spectrum Method g and Table 6.23 Performance objective confidence levels - 20-Story Building and Equivalent System Method Table 7.1 Smooth spectral parameters for recorded building base motions Table 7.2 Dynamic properties of the 13- and 6-story buildings Table 7.3 Tributary frame weights and masses Table 7.4 Maximum roof displacement bias factors for the nonlinear dynamic analysis method Table 7.5 Maximum interstory drift angle bias factors for the nonlinear dynamic analysis method Table 8.1 Lower and upper bound levels of confidence for 3-story building performance Table 8.2 Lower and upper bound levels of confidence for 9-story building performance Table 8.3 Lower and upper bound levels of confidence for 20-story building performance Table B.1 Dynamic properties of the mode! buildings Table B.2 Tributary frame weights and masses Table B.3 Rayleigh damping coefficients Table C.1 Ground motions having a 10% probability of exceedence in SO years xxii 242 243, 243 244 244 281 281 282 282 282 315, 316 317 354 354 355 360Table C.2 Ground motions having a 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years Table C.3 Ground motions having a 50% probability of exceedence in $0 years Table C.4 Smooth spectral parameters for ground motions having a 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years Table C.5 Smooth spectral parameters for ground motions having a 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years Table C.6 Smooth spectral parameters for ground motions having a 50% probability of exceedence in 50 years Table D.1 Smooth response spectrum parameters —2% Damping Table D.2 Smooth response spectrum parameters - 4.3% Damping Table D.3. Smooth response spectrum parameters — 3.6% Damping Table D.4 Smooth response spectrum parameters - 2.3% Damping Table D.5 Nonlinear static analysis methods bias factors for maximum interstory drift based on Pre-Northridge building designs Table D.6 Nonlinear static analysis methods bias factors for maximum interstory drift based on 3-story Post-Northridge building design Table 6.7 Nonlinear static analysis methods bias factors for maximum interstory drift based on 9-story Post-Northridge building design Table D.8 Nonlinear static analysis methods bias factors for maximum interstory drift based on 20-story Post-Northridge building design Table D.9 Recommended median bias factors for nonlinear static analysis methods Table E.1 Damage categories for analyses based on M1 models Table E.2 Damage categories for analyses based on M2 models Table E.3 Comparison of the categorization of actual damage and damage predicted using the Coefficient Method with Modal load pattem wwii 361 362 363 364 365 397 397 397 397 398 399 400 401 402 426 426 427Table E.4 Comparison of the categorization of actual damage and damage predicted using the Coefficient Method with Uniform load pattern 428 Table E.5 Comparison of the categorization of actual damage and damage predicted using the nonlinear time history analysis, 429 xxivACKNOWLEDGEMENTS T want to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to Professor Gary Hart for his encouragement and support throughout my graduate studies and my professional career. The opportunities he has provided to learn and work in my areas of interest have been invaluable. I want to thank Dr. Sampson Huang for the endless hours of enlightening and thought-provoking discussions and his patience during my studies. 1 extend my appreciation to the members of my doctoral committee, Professors Joe! Conte, John Wallace, and David Jackson for their time and suggestions for my research. I want to thank the SAC Joint Venture for funding a portion of my research and providing the opportunity to work with a number of knowledgeable people. In particular, I want to thank Professor Doug Foutch for his encouragement and guidance. I want to thank all of my family and friends for being extremely patient and understanding throughout the writing of this dissertation. In particular, I want to thank my parents and my brother for their love, patience, encouragement, and understanding.VITA November 28, 1972 Born, Whittier, California 1994 BSS., Civil Engineering University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 1994 Engineer Wong Hobach Lau Los Angeles, California 1994-1995 Teaching Assistant Department of Civil Engineering University of California, Los Angeles 1995 Research Assistant, SAC Steel Research Project — Phase I Department of Civil Engineering University of California, Los Angeles 1995-Present Engineer Hart Consultant Group Santa Monica, Califomia 1995 MSS., Civil Engineering University of California, Los Angeles Los Angeles, California 1997-1999 Research Assistant, SAC Steel Research Project — Phase II Department of Civil Engineering University of California, Los Angeles PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Skokan, M.J. (2000). “Reliability of Nonlinear Static Methods for the Seismic Performance Prediction of Steel Frame Buildings.” Paper presented at the Twelfth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, February. Skokan, M.J., Hart, G.C., Huang, S.C., and Lobo, RF. (1997). "Influence of Vertical Ground Motion on Special Moment-Resisting Frames,” Northridge Earthquake Research Conference, Los Angeles, Califomnia, August 20-22. xxviABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Reliability-Based Seismic Performance Evaluation of Steel Frame Buildings using Nonlinear Static Analysis Methods by Matthew John Skokan Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering University of California, Los Angeles, 2000 Professor Gary C. Hart, Chair Performance-based seismic design enables the structural engineer to quantify the probability that a building design will satisfy specified seismic performance objectives. A probabilistic assessment of seismic building performance requires the quantification of all of the uncertainties associated with the building design. The research inthis dissertation focuses on quantifying the uncertainty in the nonlinear static analysis method to predict building demands. The nonlinear static analysis method was investigated using three different methods for calculating the target roof displacement: (1) Coefficient Method, (2) Capacity Spectrum Method, and (3) Equivalent System Method. These methods were used to predict seismic demands on 3-, 9-, and 20-story Pre-Northridge welded steel moment frame buildings using sixty earthquake ground motion records, 2ro0viicorresponding to 50%, 10%, and 2% in 50 years seismic hazard levels. The uncertainty in the nonlinear static analysis method was investigated for the following response quantities: (1) maximum roof displacement, (2) maximum interstory drift, (3) maximum beam rotation, and (4) maximum panel zone rotation. The nonlinear time history analysis method was used as the benchmark for evaluating the uncertainty in the nonlinear static analysis method because it does not require the assumptions involved with linear analytical models and the static application of force. In addition, the accuracy of the nonlinear time history analysis method itself was evaluated by studying the measured full-scale response of two instrumented buildings. The uncertainty in these methods was incorporated into a performance-based seismic design framework. In general, it was found that estimates of building response from the nonlinear static analysis are generally insensitive to the pattern of lateral load used to perform the pushover analysis and the assumptions made in the analytical model of the beam-column joint panel zone region. On the other hand, it was found that the accuracy of the nonlinear static analysis method tends to decrease with an increase in the level of seismic hazard. It was found that the maximum displacement response was generally overestimated by the nonlinear time history analysis method. xxviiiCHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Research Motivation Starting in the early 1990's, the direction of building design in seismic regions has been towards Performance-Based Seismic Design. The objective of this building design method is to accurately predict, in definable terms, the performance of a building during any intensity of earthquake ground motion that may occur at the building site during the design life of the building. Definable building performance can be accomplished by designing the building to meet a range of performance objectives. A single performance objective consists of a clear definition of a level of building performance, quantified in terms of damage, and a level of earthquake hazard. For example, a building may be designed to be at the brink of collapse during an earthquake that is expected to occur once every 2,500 years. Predictable building performance can be established if the engineer can quantify the reliability of the final design to meet the stated performance objectives. Building design and construction is carried out in a world of uncertainties, In addition, the estimate of the earthquake ground motion at the building site has considerable uncertainty. Therefore, the reliability of a building design to meet a desired level of performance can only be stated in probabilistic terms. Using the examplepreviously discussed, a Performance-Based Seismic Design methodology must provide the tools necessary to state that the building has a 2-percent in 50 years probability that it will be on the verge of collapsing. Stated in different terms, the building will be on the verge of collapsing during an earthquake that occurs once every 2,500 years. Performance-based design offers the building owner the opportunity to make informed decisions about the future performance of the building. These decisions involve the consideration of the social and economic implications of each possible performance objective. Consider for example, an owner that wishes to consider a performance objective for a new building where the building would experience a moderate level of damage during an earthquake that is expected to occur once every 50 years. The owner can now weigh the probability of damage occurring, the cost of damage repair, and the cost of business interruption losses against the cost of initially designing and constructing the building to a higher level of performance. Presently, building codes and provisions recommended for the design and evaluation of new and existing buildings fail to offer structural engineers, building owners, and building officials, the necessary guidelines to predict the perfomance of buildings subjected to earthquake ground motions. Design and evaluation guidelines following the true spirit of a Performance-Based Seismic Design methodology will enable the structural engineer to quantify the probability that a building design will satisfy specified seismic performance objectives. A probabilistic assessment of seismic building performance requires the quantification of all of the uncertainties associated with the building design. For example, the uncertainty associated with the analysismethods and analytical models used to estimate the building response must be quantified. ‘As part of any seismic building design or evaluation procedure, the structural engineer must perform an analysis of the building. This analysis incorporates the seismic hazard at the building site and an analytical model of the building to calculate the values of the building response quantities. Building performance is deemed acceptable if the values of these response quantities are within defined limits of acceptable building response. Nonlinear analysis methods have now been recognized as essential tools for accurately evaluating building performance. In particular, nonlinear static “pushover” analysis methods are widely accepted as convenient methods for estimating building response quantities and predicting building performance in a Performance-Based Seismic Design framework. The underlying assumptions of any nonlinear static analysis method result in uncertain calculations of the building response quantities. The quantification of this uncertainty must be made in order to determine the probability that a building design will meet specified performance objectives. 12 Research Objectives The objectives of this research are: (1) Analyze the uncertainty in steel moment frame building response calculated using nonlinear static analysis methods, (2) Incorporate analysis method uncertainties into a building performance evaluation framework,(3) Analyze the uncertainty in the nonlinear time history analysis method by comparing the predicted and measured seismic response of steel moment frame buildings, (4) Develop a building performance evaluation method that can account for multiple failure modes. The research in this dissertation builds upon over thirty years of research in design and reliability-based evaluation methods. However, it especially builds upon the research recently conducted by C.A. Comell and his students as part of the SAC Joint Venture’ research program. Comell’s goal was to develop an evaluation method that can enable a structural engineer to calculate the probability that a building design will meet a specified level of performance. The research described in this dissertation presents a new ‘method to quantify the uncertainty associated with nonlinear static analysis methods and rationally incorporates the research into the newly developed Comell evaluation procedure. The research in this dissertation was also funded by the SAC Joint Venture because of the need to establish a rational method for incorporating analysis method uncertainties. The resulting reliability-based evaluation method provides a clear incentive to the structural engineer who wishes to use more sophisticated analytical models to compute building demands and capacities. If adopted, the proposed method will extend current building codes and guidelines to enable the building owner to realize * SAC is a joint venture of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), the Applied ‘Technology Council (ATC), and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe)a direct benefit, in the form of a more economical design, of using more sophisticated analysis methods that reduce uncertainties. 13 Research Approach To achieve the above-stated objectives, the following tasks were performed: qa) Q) @) @) The nonlinear response of a 3-, 9-, and 20-story steel frame building was calculated using nonlinear static analysis methods and the results compared to the response calculated from a nonlinear time history analysis. Three earthquake hazard levels were considered with each hazard level having 20 earthquake ground motion records. ‘A method was proposed for incorporating analysis method uncertainty into the reliability-based evaluation procedure developed by C.A. Comell. This method is based on observed relationships between building demands calculated using the nonlinear time history and nonlinear static analysis methods. The uncertainty in the nonlinear time history analysis method was investigated by predicting the performance of two instrumented buildings with response recordings from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. The reliability-based evaluation procedure developed by C.A. Comell was1.4 Organization of Dissertation The motivations and objectives for the research in this report are described in Chapter 1. A detailed description of the performance-based design methodology is presented in Chapter 2. A review of state-of-the-art code provisions and recommended guidelines for the design of new buildings and rehabilitation of existing building is presented. A review of nonlinear static “pushover” analysis methods used to quantify the demands on buildings subjected to earthquake ground motions is presented in Chapter 3 ‘The results of a comparison between the response of the model buildings calculated using the nonlinear static analysis methods and the nonlinear time history analysis method are presented in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 introduces the foundations of reliability-based seismic design. In particular, this chapter describes a reliability-based seismic performance evaluation method called the Comell Demand and Capacity Factor Design method. Chapter 6 describes the extension of the Comell method that properly treats the uncertainties associated with approximate analysis methods used to estimate building demands. A method for rationally incorporating analysis method uncertainty into the Demand and Capacity Factor Design methodology is developed. Chapter 7 presents comparisons between the predicted and recorded response of two instrumented buildings. The response comparisons are used to quantify the uncertainty in the nonlinear time history analysis method to predict building demands. In Chapter 8, the Cornell method is extended to incorporate the possibility of multiple failure modes. ‘The conclusions from this research are given in Chapter 9. Appendix A describes the derivation of the uncertainty factors required as part of the Comell seismic performance evaluationmethod. Appendix B describes the mode! buildings used to study the uncertainty in the nonlinear static analysis methods. A description of the earthquake ground motion time histories used to study the uncertainty in the nonlinear static analysis method is provided in Appendix C. The method for incorporating analysis method uncertainty into the Demand and Capacity Factor Design methodology used as part of research for the SAC Joint Venture is presented in Appendix D. The accuracy of nonlinear analysis methods to predict the locations of welded steel moment connection damage in buildings is evaluated in Appendix E.CHAPTER 2 PERFORMANCE-BASED SEISMIC DESIGN 2.1 Introduction This chapter provides a description of the Performance-Based Seismic Design methodology and the state-of-the-art guidelines and code provisions for the design of new buildings and the rehabilitation of existing buildings. Section 2.2 describes the Performance-Based Seismic Design methodology. Section 2.3 describes the state-of-the- art guidelines and code provisions for the design of new buildings. Section 2.4 describes the state-of-the-art recommended guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing buildings. Current performance-based design guidelines and acceptance criteria for steel moment frame buildings are discussed in Section 2.5. 2.2 Performance-Based Seismic Design The objective of Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) is to accurately predict, in definable terms, the performance of a building during any intensity of earthquake ground motion that may occur at the building site over the lifetime, or design life, of the building. Definable performance can be accomplished by designing the building to meet a wide range of performance objectives. A single performance objectiveconsists of a level of performance in terms of damage, coupled with a level of earthquake hazard. As an example, a building may be designed to be at the brink of collapse during an earthquake that is expected to occur once every 2,500 years. Performance-based design offers the building owner the opportunity to make informed decisions about the future performance of the building. These decisions involve the consideration of the social and economic implications of each possible performance objective. The owner can weigh the probability of damage occurring, the cost of repair, and the cost of business interruption losses against the cost of initially designing and constructing the building to a higher level of performance. The 1989-1990 SEAOC Seismology Committee took the first step in the development of a PBSD methodology for new buildings when it created a Vision 2000 Sub-Committee. This sub-committee was charged with the task of defining the conceptual framework for PBSD. As a demonstration of support for PBSD, this sub- committee was replaced in 1992 with a SEAOC Vision 2000 committee. This committee further defined the research needs and framework for PBSD. The product of this SEAOC effort is the SEAOC Vision 2000 report (OES, 1995). This groundbreaking document outlines for the first time the general procedure for the design of buildings based on multiple performance objectives. The Vision 2000 matrix of performance objectives is shown in Table 2.1. The earthquake hazard is probabilistically defined and divided into four categories: (1) Frequent, (2) Occasional, (3) Rare, and (4) Very Rare earthquakes. These categories cover a range from 70% to 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Buildingperformance is separated into four categories: (1) Fully Operational, (2) Operational, (3) Life Safety, and (4) Near Collapse. A description of the general damage expected for each of these performance levels is given in Table 2.2. Damage for each performance level is described for vertical load-carrying elements, lateral load-carrying elements, and architectural elements. Table 2.1 also defines a minimum set of recommended performance objectives. The Basic Objective is recommended for “typical” or non- essential buildings and defines performance objectives that range from Fully Operational performance during a 43-year earthquake and Near Collapse performance during a 970- year earthquake. As the importance of the building and its contents or occupants increases, the building is designed to have less damage. As an example, for safety- critical buildings, such as hospitals, the building is expected to provide Fully Operational performance during a 475-year earthquake and Operational performance during a 970- year earthquake. The Vision 2000 performance-based design methodology addresses each step of the design process, from the selection of performance objectives to the construction and maintenance of the building. A flowchart illustrating the methodology is shown in Figure 2.1 and a detailed description of each step in the PBSD methodology is provided in Table 2.3. A crucial part of the design process is the Initial Design Phase involving the first three steps of the PBSD methodology. These steps involve the selection of the performance objectives, the development of ground motions, and the conceptual design. These three steps will dictate the scope of the remaining tasks and ultimately, the performance of the building. Selecting the performance objectives is a decision to be 10made by the building owner, in consultation with the structural engineer and architect, ‘who must consider the economic and social implications of the future performance of the building. The earthquake ground motions developed for the site must consider the selected performance objectives and the location of the building, including the soil type and the seismic characteristics of the surrounding region. During the conceptual design phase, a structural system is selected that is the most efficient and effective in meeting the desired performance goals. Each of the aforementioned tasks will influence the design approach and the verification procedures. For example, a building whose structural system is composed of base isolators will require that design and verification methods account for the nonlinear behavior of the isolators. ‘An important part of the performance-based design method is the Design Verification process. Three design verification steps are incorporated in the PBSD methodology and are new elements that are not traditionally found in building design procedures. Following the conceptual, preliminary, and final design steps, an analysis must be performed to verify that the building design will meet the selected performance objectives. Depending on the selected performance objectives and the type and configuration of the structural system, the verification process will involve performing linear and/or nonlinear analyses to obtain structural response quantities. These quantities are then measured against acceptable values that have been defined for the selected levels of performance. The final stages of the PBSD methodology involve assuring the building owner that the building will perform as specified in the performance objectives. The designreview stage, which may be performed by the local building department or another agent selected by the building department, ensures that the final building design meets the applicable code requirements and intended performance objectives. For safety critical buildings, such as hospitals, it may be necessary to perform an independent third-party “peer” review of the final design. Once the final design is approved, the building must be constructed as intended by the structural engineer, with the appropriate control measures taken to assure the quality of the construction, In addition, the building department and building owner must manage the usage of the building to prevent loads and modifications that may result in detrimental building performance. 23° NewBi es New buildings designed in accordance with current design standards satisfy a limited set of performance objectives. The 1996 Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC) Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary (SEAOC, 1996), also known as the 1996 SEAOC Blue Book, requires buildings to be designed to meet only a single performance objective. The earthquake hazard is quantified as the ground motion that occurs once every 475 years, i.e. 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. For this level of earthquake hazard, the objective of the building design is to “safeguard against major failures and loss of life, not to limit damage, maintain function, or provide for easy repair” (SEAOC, 1996). Building design using the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) (ICBO, 1997) is almost identical to the recommendations of the SEAOC Blue Book and, therefore, buildings designed in 12accordance with the 1997 UBC requirements are also designed for a single performance objective. In 1997, the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC) developed the NEHRP Recommended Provisions (BSSC, 1997). The NEHRP Provisions take new building design one step closer to the Vision 2000 PBSD method, by offering a dual-performance objective approach. Buildings designed in accordance with the 1997 NEHRP Provisions are expected to provide life-safety performance during the design earthquake, and for seismic events greater than the design earthquake, there will be a “low likelihood of structural collapse” (BSSC, 1997). Previous editions of the NEHRP Provisions (BSSC, 1994) are similar to the 1996 SEAOC Blue Book and the 1997 UBC in that the design earthquake ground motion is defined as an earthquake with a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years. It was the opinion of the BSSC that buildings designed in accordance with previous editions of the NEHRP Provisions provide a minimum margin against collapse of 1.5 times the 10% in SO years design earthquake. Although the margin against collapse is a function of the building type, material, and detailing, it was their opinion, that 1.5 is a conservative estimate of the margin against collapse Therefore, rather than defining the design earthquake in terms of a uniform likelihood of earthquake occurrence, such as 10% in 50 years, the design earthquake in the 1997 NEHRP Provisions was defined based on a uniform margin against collapse. The design earthquake in the 1997 NEHRP Provisions is defined as an earthquake whose response spectrum is two-thirds (1/1.5) of the Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) response spectrum. The MCE is defined by ground motion maps provided along with the 1997 BNEHRP Provisions. These maps were developed by combining probabilistic ground motion maps developed by Frankel, et al. (1996) and deterministic ground motion maps, as described in the 1997 NEHRP Provisions (BSSC, 1997). Although higher levels of earthquake ground motion could occur at a building site, for most regions of the United States, the maximum considered earthquake is defined as a 2475-year earthquake, which is an earthquake with a 2% probability of being exceeded in 50 years. Since the intent of the provisions is to have a low-likelihood of collapse during seismic events greater than the design earthquake, the BSSC felt that this definition of the maximum considered earthquake provided an adequate margin against collapse and an economically practical design. 24 Exi 1g Buildings Recently, the PBSD methodology has been applied to the evaluation, retrofit, and rehabilitation of existing buildings in a framework that captures the spirit of the Vision 2000 PBSD methodology. The first of these documents was published in 1996 by the Applied Technology Council (ATC), under contract from the California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC), as a report entitled Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings (ATC, 1996), also referred to as the ATC-40 report. The funding for this report was part of California Proposition 122 that was passed in 1990 and established the Earthquake Safety and Public Buildings Rehabilitation Fund of 1990. The report is focused primarily at the number of pre-1970's California government buildings that are of nonductile concrete construction and is just one of the products proposed by the 1991 14Seismic Safety Commission (SSC) report, Breaking the Pattern: A Research and Development Plan to Improve Seismic Retrofit Practices for Government Buildings (CSSC, 1991). The basis for the development of the methodology and commentary in the ATC-40 document is provided in SSC reports 94-02 and 94-01 (CSSC, 1994a; CSSC, 1994b). The methodology presented in the ATC-40 report is cast in a framework that offers the building owner and design engineer the flexibility to select multiple performance objectives for the building evaluation. The ATC-40 matrix of commonly selected performance objectives, shown in Table 2.4, is similar to the Vision 2000 matrix. The notable differences between the ATC-40 and Vision 2000 performance objectives, include the absence of the Frequent (43-year) earthquake level in the ATC-40 matrix, and the difference in performance level names, such as Collapse Prevention (Vision 2000) and Structural Stability (ATC-40). A general description of the damage expected for each of the ATC-40 performance levels is given in Table 2.5. Damage is categorized according to structural and non-structural damage for each performance level. As in Vision 2000, ATC-40 defines a level of minimum performance to be investigated for all buildings. This is termed the Basic Safety Objective and is indicated in Table 2.4. Buildings satisfying the Basic Safety Objective will provide Life Safety performance during a 475-year earthquake and Structural Stability performance during a 970-year earthquake. Note that the Maximum earthquake hazard level in the ATC-40 report is defined as an earthquake with a 5% probability of exceedance in 50 years, which is different from the MCE defined in the 1997 NEHRP Provisions. 15In 1997, a second document implementing a PBSD methodology for the evaluation, retrofit, and rehabilitation of existing buildings was published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This document and its supporting commentary is entitled NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (ATC, 1997), and is referred to as the FEMA 273 report. The work in this report involved the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and ATC under project management provided by the Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC). The Development of Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, Phase I: Issues Identification and Resolution (ATC, 1992) and the Proceedings of the Workshop To Resolve Seismic Rehabilitation Sub-Issues (ATC, 1993) documents provided recommendations and direction for the FEMA 273 report. FEMA 273 covers a broad range of building materials, including steel, concrete, masonry, and wood construction The predecessor of the FEMA 273 report, the NEHRP Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Existing Building (BSSC, 1992), referred to as the FEMA 178 report, was developed by ATC in 1992 to evaluate existing buildings. However, the FEMA 178 report considers only a single-performance objective, which is life-safety performance for 10% in 50 years earthquake The matrix of available performance objectives presented in FEMA 273 and the recommended Basic Safety Objective are shown in Table 2.6. Buildings satisfying the Basic Safety Objective will provide Life Safety performance during the Basic Safety Earthquake 1 (BSE-1), which is approximately a 475-year earthquake, and Collapse Prevention performance during the Basic Safety Earthquake 2 (BSE-2), which is 16approximately a 2475-year earthquake. Note that the BSE-2 earthquake is the same as the MCE earthquake defined in the 1997 NEHRP Provisions. The BSE-1 earthquake is the same as the design earthquake in the 1997 NEHRP Provisions, which is defined as two-thirds of the BSE-2 earthquake. A description of the general and non-structural damage expected for each of the FEMA 273 performance levels is given in Table 2.7. FEMA 273 and ATC-40 offer the building owner and design engineer the opportunity to select multiple performance objectives for the seismic rehabilitation of a building. An obvious discrepancy between ATC-40 and FEMA 273 is the definition of the Basic Safety Objective. The ATC-40 document recommends the structure remain stable during a 5% in SO year earthquake, while the FEMA 273 report recommends structural stability during a 2% in 50 year earthquake. The difference between 2% and 5% seems small, however, the building demands calculated using a 2% in 50 year earthquake can be very different from the demands calculated using a 5% in 50 year earthquake. The difference between the two hazard levels can be appreciated by comparing the corresponding return periods. Table 2.8 lists the earthquake hazard definitions from Vision 2000, ATC-40, and FEMA 273. For each earthquake hazard definition, the table shows the return period and the probability of exceedance in 50 and 100 years. Clearly, there needs to be a consensus opinion developed, if possible, that defines performance levels, earthquake hazard levels, and the Basic Safety Objective, for both new design and rehabilitation of existing buildings. ATC-40 and FEMA 273 represent significant steps towards implementing the PBSD method. However, these reports agree that rehabilitation of a building according 17to either set of guidelines does not guarantee satisfactory performance. These documents do not address the randomness in the variables affecting demands and capacities, and the uncertainty in the analysis methods used to estimate demands and capacities. Therefore, the building owner and structural engineer do not have a means of assessing the real expectation that the design will satisfy the performance objectives. In addition, the effect of uncertainty on building performance has not been expressed in quantifiable terms and thus, these guidelines do not provide a framework for addressing and reducing uncertainties. 2.5 Steel Moment Frame Buildings Buildings that use a system of steel beam and columns, with connections capable of transferring bending moments, for the primary lateral force resisting system are called steel moment frame buildings. Steel moment frames are those frames that develop their seismic resistance through bending of beams and columns and shearing of the beam- column panel zones (ATC, 1997). Steel moment frames classified as special moment resisting frames (SMRF) by the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions for Structural Steet Buildings (AISC, 1997) are designed to provide ductile performance during strong earthquake ground motions. SMRF’s designed according to the 1997 AISC Seismic Provisions must satisfy strong column-weak beam requirements at all of the beam- column intersections which is intended to ensure ductile building performance. By designing the beams to yield before other frame members, the input energy from earthquake ground motions is dissipated through inelastic bending of the beams. In orderto ensure that the beams will yield first, the columns and beam-to-column connections are designed to develop the full strength of the beams. After the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, it was discovered that many of the buildings in the Los Angeles metropolitan area suffered severe damage to their welded beam-column moment connections. Therefore, the beams were not able to yield as intended and dissipate energy through inelastic deformations. The significance of this discovery is that the connection fractures occurred in buildings that otherwise, showed no signs of distress. This discovery sparked the organization of the SAC Joint Venture, a partnership between SEAOC, ATC, and the California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREe). The purpose of the SAC Joint Venture is to investigate the causes of these premature connection fractures, to develop methods to predict the probable earthquake performance, and to develop methods to design and construct more reliable steel moment frame buildings (FEMA, 1995). FEMA 273 was published after the Northridge Earthquake. Therefore, it recognizes the deficiencies in current steel moment frame building design. Table 2.9 provides a description of steel moment frame building damage that is expected to occur for each performance level defined by FEMA 273. Connection fractures are expected to occur only for the Life Safety and Collapse Prevention performance levels, which for the Basic Safety Objective, correspond to earthquake hazard levels of 10% in 50 years and 2% in SO years, respectively. These damage descriptions only apply to steel moment to-column frame buildings constructed using pre-Northridge connections details. B connections prior to the Northridge Earthquake were typically constructed with full 19penetration groove welds between the beam flanges and the column flanges, and a shear plate welded to the column flange and bolted to the beam web. Since the Northridge earthquake, several connection details have been proposed (FEMA, 1995) that effectively force the inelastic bending of the beam away from the vulnerable beam-to-column connection, thereby reducing the demands on the connection. Table 2.9 also provides guidelines for acceptable performance in terms of building response quantities, such as building drift, connection plastic rotation, and panel zone plastic rotation. The SAC Joint Venture is now in the final stages of developing a seismic design criteria (FEMA, 2000) for steel moment frame buildings. During these final stages, part of the research described in this dissertation will be used in the development of the seismic design criteria. The SAC design criteria is cast in the same framework as the 1997 NEHRP Provisions with the intent of supplementing the requirements of the locally applicable building codes. The seismic design criteria will be the first building design criteria that includes guidelines that will enable the structural engineer to evaluate the probability that a new or existing WSMF building design will meet specified performance objectives. These reliability evaluation guidelines are intended to satisfy the purpose of the Design Verification steps contained in the Vision 2000 PBSD framework. 20-——+| __ Select Performance Objective + Estabish Ste Sutabilty ‘and Design Ground Motions — Select Structural System ‘and Confguration Design Review ¥ ‘Qualfy Assurance During Construction Bag Rartenane ‘and Function Initial Design Phase ‘Steps Not Traditionaly Found in Buikting Codes Figure 2.1 SEAOC Vision 2000 methodology for performance-based seismic design (After OES, 1995) 21Table 2.1 SEAOC Vision 2000 recommended performance objectives (After OES, 1995) Earthquake Performance Levels i eel ee ce ae | en [cme | cm | Frequent (43 years)” ‘Occasional (72 years)" Rare (475 years)’ Earthquake Design Level Very Rare (970 years)" * Indicates the earthquake retum period. Basic = Basic Objective Essential = EssentiaMazardous Objective Critical = Safety Critical Objective Unacceptable = Unacceptable Performancesouewoyeg Suiping ($661 ‘Sd0 49yy) suBtsap Suipying mou 309 suonduasap aewep [esUa8 90 UOISIA JOWAS 7'Z a192L7 8 rr {eu euevs 6 pun queue Cupp mi Jo Lope PUR LoRalcO wena o| NoTUR eu ELE UL JoUnO | “sojeOUR! 1 Hep, en une paste ou | Waele gma eyenbypNO oy YAU UL YREWO CUpING pu No Bupa a ‘cue mg) a BANC “wopco Cup eneare og gpa eovepoo>8 pee pun papedey ‘papnqwiD Aidan pelos Aveda! 9 ue LOnop ay) ey seeue esoad souEnede Auerb OU. Ep—ACO 1 pun weuebe Cue ‘ucpedeL (Hpede YeRyO BapynG eKOMa! 10d jeUOREA LEED 8 BeNHL LoRIRUCD Eu SOLERNNE KEE ‘map 080 maa uepuadepi huo au epyaid i oye Oaping masa su 04 “eonko eormuunped | (ebatee au eau Utmep eto seeunn bays PUR ‘sehyue Suyepou Suogduneee LOpap eg eeeeeeopauRbas wa pu Mats Jed Hapundepy | ssenerue evoduy.0 ‘epauy'peryepede 04 TeO\o Bupina Aq Maal Und fue Maal ed wepuedapL og epnpAY Kau map LEED By) “arene 04 sucnmuLoy ame pus ogame au rmpeURLEZoN a parE us pauteap om mumwey uneruioN ‘sounuuajed ame aesecDN exe capone SpvoM Bru! OLIN ola ERD UO Poenoay oa rote UoRLaVe epaqied ‘seNDeKO| ‘exmuigued mou popumu ma epvexdo1pevopedad eq Pra eybape us Bu KBieus edap oped £3 wa ma woe anon ajo Rau “scumLgsed uoqlaaid cade Jo Aaj a5) pu eovmgped muoguiede 49 pepe 53 Proce utep i UnuRA By “epe4D WRep a mURER pepD pus Pare ale mHOLINe CULINY EL ‘etd Leap Kune A GND “payee og prea Move ‘ry axonbuveo ou ode pur pe a papedie oq uy Wee EUS jo OOM wy, MUR, aNprIp-UOL Jo LoRye pur mente eyepune Jo uote ‘eeve UR Bue eran Uo UopEIOyI02 ‘rake ENIO OY EeRHREIRe Dupe #0 map RseOUED ei ils |p Jan [ef fit il il! i i pone ue si, spam, Joye pun ‘xecdre junune YoUD}ed Leper o OPEYGLEp{ PUN ‘UBIO UR Seon De Jo LY LAD, Aste pu ome yu 90 uoRMURLO}ep pe ‘peZHY Oye RUAN pu eee EALNIN YR Jo LEHR RUDD eapREA SMAeUR AHERN OWS i ej evaye soumydeoe ose ange eaeuuaped | i su Spates Yu eeteove put ‘eteus opucuoce ‘aad pueTeY umoR X's LoEDAKK # OD 9G jo UOHRLAEUED Uo awed HAP | 4a e764 ¥ uoypeje i, “uoROW puree ayerbyveD ono] papad Ue YUN ok SovALLO}Od Popedxa Ue jo UoReUNRuOD maw exmolge soueLUO}ed | li (5661 ‘sao -9yy) sdas uBisag arusieg paseg-souewuoysag 0007 UOISIA JOVAS Jo UonduDseG ¢°Z9IqR4,Table 2.4 ATC-40 performance objectives (After ATC, 1996) Building Performance Levels come Tite Safety] — Structural Stability Serviceability (50%/50 year) Design (10%150 year) Maximum (5%I50 year) arthquake Ground Motion] es Basic = Basic Safety Objective 25‘?ueuyy2eu pue wouidinbo} {Rouedroce pur ‘ssa, 'ssoi6o] Powusun 10) 6s -ojq6yCou} stone sovewopg pina (9661 ‘O.LV s2yy) s8uipr 10} suonduosap alewep [e908 OF-LY S°Z 192 26Table 2.6 FEMA 273 performance objectives (After ATC, 1997) (-10%/50 year) Earthquake Hazard Level BSE-2 (-236/80 year) k + p= Basic Safety Objective k+p + anyta,e,|,morb, n= Enhanced Objectives 0= Enhanced Objective kalone or p alone = Limited Objectives ©.9.d,h = Limited Objectives 27“sopunn 7 928420 omy [eoqueypou 0) onp eyes0do] {ou Aes yng ‘aunoee Ayesoueb| ‘edewep ensueyx| ‘978 equaqu09 pue jueudinb3| ‘esdej0o se0u} ‘qerodo uop2oyoid ‘4 Ouping “einje; werdoulye] ‘043. ‘payeyse: oq ued} 410 poje) syodered pecerqun| ‘iotsA0rg “swowsyo reunsonaa| ‘(om ve eB ujoo pue ‘j9n07 eouewoyed Bupung (£661 ‘S.Lv J9yY) s8u;pying Jo uoHertTIqeyas pue sreda1 103 suonduosap oBewep jeaUad ELZ YWAA L'Z 9142Table 2.8 Description of earthquake hazard levels [Eartnquaxe Probabilty of Exceedancem | Return Hazard Level | “SOyears _[ 100years__| Period ys 70% 3 & s Ss FEMA 273 | 29(i914 9u07 joued YH) (be) uoneio anseid uoqDeULOD ‘uidog weeg x go00'0-se0'0 | uidaq weeg x eo00'0-se0'0. (oe) ee ‘sjono7 eouewuopay Oupung (Lo6t ‘O.L¥ JV) sBu1pjing suey wawoW jaaIs 107 eUDIUD doURIdas. ww uonduosap oSewep E17 VA 6'Z 2198. 30CHAPTER 3 NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS METHODS 3.1 Introduction As part of any seismic building design or evaluation procedure, the structural engineer must perform an analysis of the building, incorporating the seismic hazard at the building site, to obtain building response quantities. The building response quantities are calculated from a mathematical model of the building subjected to gravity forces and lateral earthquake forces. Building performance is deemed acceptable if these quantities are within the limits of acceptable building response. Building analysis methods can be differentiated based on whether the mathematical building model is /inear or nonlinear, and whether the earthquake forces are applied in a static or dynamic manner. Building analysis methods can be categorized as follows (ATC, 1997): Linear Static (LS) Linear Dynamic (LD) Nonlinear Static (NS) Nonlinear Dynamic (ND) 31The basic assumption in a linear building model is that the building components, e.g. beams and columns, have infinite strength and constant stiffness during the analysis. Alternately, a nonlinear building model accounts for the changes in strength and stiffness of the building components as they yield or experience damage. In a static analysis, a presumed pattem of lateral earthquake forces is applied to the mathematical building static analysis does not account for the time-varying model. Unlike a dynamic analysis, response of the building to the earthquake ground motion. The ND analysis method is the most sophisticated of the four analysis methods because it does not impose the fundamental assumptions involved with the methods utilizing linear building models and/or the static application of lateral forces. Krawinkler (1995) recognized that the ND. analysis method is the most accurate and reliable analysis method provided the structure can be realistically modeled. Past studies (e.g. Uang et al., 1995; Hart et al, 1998; Liand Jirsa, 1998) comparing calculated nonlinear dynamic building response to the building response recorded during past earthquakes have shown that the ND analysis method cannot “exactly” predict the maximum building response. Therefore, unless an accurate and realistic analytical model of the building can be constructed, the maximum response predicted by the ND analysis method is in itself an uncertain quantity. Until recently, guidelines for the design of new buildings have focused primarily on the use of linear analysis methods to predict building response. The reason for this is that nonlinear analysis methods were often viewed as overly complicated for use in new building design. In addition, the use of these methods was precluded by the limitations of computer capabilities, uncertainties in modeling the strength and stiffness of building 32components, and uncertainties in the representation of the earthquake ground motion. This has lead new building design guidelines to require that only a linear building analysis be performed, except in special cases, eg. base isolated buildings. The 1991 jing Code (UBC) (ICBO, 1991) was the first design criteria to provide Uniform Bui guidelines for the nonlinear analysis of base-isolated buildings. The 1996 SEAOC Blue Book (SEAOC, 1996) was the first design criteria to incorporate guidelines for the use of nonlinear time history analysis to design new buildings other than base.isolated buildings. These guidelines were eventually incorporated into the 1997 UBC (ICBO, 1997), ‘Nonlinear analysis methods have been found more useful for the evaluation of existing buildings. These methods provide for a more accurate calculation of the demands on the building system and its components since the behavior can be traced into the nonlinear range. The advantages of a nonlinear analysis over a linear analysis for the evaluation of existing buildings have been expressed by Krawinkler (1996) and the FEMA 273 document, and form the basis for the following: ‘* More realistic estimates of deformation demands on components that must deform inelastically to resist earthquake ground motions. ‘Identification of critical regions in which large deformation demands may occur. ‘* More realistic estimates of force demands on potentially brittle components, such as axial loads on columns and moments on beam-column connections 33© More realistic estimates of the effects of component strength and stiffness decay on the behavior of the structural system. © Identification of strength discontinuities and verification of completeness and adequacy of load path. In recent years, the NS analysis method has evolved into an attractive and popular alternative to the ND method because of its ability to address the aforementioned issues in an approximate manner without the computational and modeling effort of a ND analysis. The ATC-40 document (ATC, 1996) emphasizes the use of NS analysis methods for predicting seismic demands. The FEMA 273 document (ATC, 1997) provides a description of the methodology and modeling guidelines for both the NS and ND analysis methods. However, an assessment of the uncertainty in the NS analysis methods must be made in order to incorporate these methods into a performance-based design framework founded on structural reliability theory. 3.2 Nor ear Static Analysis Methods In an NS analysis of a building, a nonlinear analytical mode! of the building is subjected to monotonically increasing lateral forces until reaching a predetermined target displacement, The target displacement represents the maximum displacement that will be experienced by the building during a particular earthquake and can be calculated using any method that accounts for the effect of nonlinear behavior on the displacement of the building. The target displacement is measured at a control point that is generally taken at the center-of-mass of the building roof level. The lateral loads are applied incrementally 34and the strength and stiffness properties of the building components are updated after each load increment. The NS analysis method is oftentimes referred to as a “pushover” analysis. The monotonically increasing lateral forces can be characterized as “pushing” of the building, until a collapse mechanism forms and the building falls “over,” thus, the name “pushover” analysis The result of a pushover analysis is the calculation of force and deformation demands on the building at the target displacement. These demands are checked against ies, which can be evaluated at both the system acceptable force and deformation ca level, e.g. interstory drift, and at the component level, e.g. beam plastic rotation. The steps for performing a nonlinear static pushover analysis are: 1. Develop a nonlinear mathematical model of the building. 2. Apply gravity loads to the appropriate building components. 3. Perform an incremental displacement controlled “pushover” analysis using a fixed or variable pattern of lateral loads, until one of the following: a. The control roof displacement exceeds the target displacement. b. The building becomes unstable due to P-delta effects or the development of a collapse mechanism. 4. Construct a plot of base shear versus roof displacement and fit a bilinear relationship to the curve at the target displacement. The bilinear relationship is used to determine building properties such as the effective fundamental period and the yield strength of the building. 355. Calculate the target displacement. Since most methods of target displacement calculation rely on the properties of the bilinear base shear versus roof displacement relationship, the targe: displacement calculation is an iterative process. Steps 4 and 5 should be repeated until convergence. 6. Calculate the force and deformation demands from the pushover analysis at the target displacement and compare these quantities to acceptable capacities. The base shear versus roof displacement relationship, referred to as the pushover or capacity curve, is the fundamental product of a pushover analysis because it characterizes the overall performance of the building. Figure 3.1 qualitatively illustrates. the capacity curve. Properties of the building such as the initial elastic stiffness, the initiation of first yielding, the stage of rapid stiffness deterioration, and the ultimate strength can all be inferred from the capacity curve (Tso and Moghadam, 1998). In addition, the pushover analysis can help identify critical areas of the building, such as stories with strength and/or stiffness discontinuities, load path discontinuities, and failure modes. Several different procedures for implementing the nonlinear static pushover analysis to evaluate buildings have been proposed (ATC, 1996; ATC, 1997; Saiidi and Sozen, 1981; Fajfar and Fischinger, 1988; Qi and Moehle, 1991; Miranda, 1991; Collins, et al. 1995; Reinhorn, 1996). Common amongst the procedures is the pushover analysis. The various procedures differ primarily in the application of lateral loads to the building and the calculation of the target displacement. These differences will be discussed in the 36following sections. Different types of lateral load patterns will be discussed in Section 3.3 and methods for constructing the bilinear representation of the capacity curve will be described in Section 3.4. Section 3.5 will provide a detailed description of various methods that have been proposed to calculate the target displacement, and Section 3.6 provides a summary of this chapter. 3.3 Lateral Load Patterns The lateral loads applied to each building floor during a pushover analysis can regions of yielding, have a significant effect on the distribution of nonlinear behavior in the building and the prediction of system and component force and deformation demands. This pattern of lateral loads is intended to represent the vertical distribution of lateral inertia forces that act on a building during an earthquake. The lateral inertia forces acting on a building depend upon the dynamic characteristics of the building, ie stiffness, mass, and damping. As a building is subjected to an earthquake ground motion, the lateral inertia forces will vary with time and the change in dynamic characteristics of the building due to changes in stiffness of the building components. Lateral load patterns are generally classified as either fixed or variable. In the case of a fixed lateral load pattern, the relative magnitude of lateral inertia forces applied to each floor are assumed to remain unchanged during the building’s response to the earthquake ground motion. This type of lateral load pattern is unable to account for the change in distribution of lateral inertia forces that occurs when the stiffness of the building changes. Variable lateral load pattems have been used (Fajfar and Fischinger, 371988; Eberhard and Sozen, 1993; Bracci et al, 1997; Gupta and Kunnath, 1999) to overcome the underlying assumptions of the fixed lateral load pattem. The variable load pattern involves continuously updating the distribution of lateral forces throughout the pushover analysis. Past studies have suggested applying lateral forces in proportion to the displaced shape of the building (Fajfar and Fischinger, 1988; ATC, 1996) and in proportion to the mode shapes calculated using the secant stiffness at each load step (Eberhard and Sozen, 1993; Reinhom, 1996). The superiority of variable lateral load patterns over fixed load patterns has not been demonstrated (Krawinkler, 1996; ATC, 1997). Since the distribution of nonlinear behavior will vary with the pattern of lateral loads, it has been suggested (Krawinkler, 1996; ATC, 1997) that multiple patterns be investigated when performing a pushover analysis. Two common types of fixed lateral load pattems are the Uniform and Modal load pattems. The general shape of each of these lateral load patterns is illustrated in Figure 3.2. The Uniform load pattern consists of a set of lateral forces applied to each floor in proportion to the seismic floor weight. The name of this load pattem comes from the assumption that the earthquake causes a uniform, or equal, acceleration of each floor of the building. The Uniform load pattern emphasizes demands in lower stories compared to demands in upper stories and magnifies the relative importance of story shear forces compared to overturning moments (Krawinkler, 1996). During each step of the pushover analysis, the increment of force applied to floor level x, AF,, is calculated from the following, 38AF, =C,,AV en where AV is the increment of total base shear, and the coefficient, C,, is calculated from the following, G2 where w, and w, are the seismic weights of floor levels x and i, respectively, and 7 is the total number of floors. If all of the floors are of equal seismic weight, then the force applied to each floor will be the same and C,, simplifies to, G3) The Modal load pattem is a set of lateral forces applied to the building in proportion to the elastic fundamental mode shape and the seismic floor weights. The Modal load pattem reflects the distribution of lateral inertia forces expected to act on the building when the elastic building response to the earthquake ground motion is dominated by the fundamental mode. Similar to the Uniform load pattern, the lateral forces are distributed to each floor level by Eq. (3.1), except that the coefficient, C,,, is calculated from the following, 39Wabie a Uwe where $,, and $,, are the values of the fundamental mode shape at level x and i, respectively. If all of the floors are of equal seismic weight, then the value of C,, simplifies to, bx cs Cu Ha 2 O15 The Modal load pattern is an extension of the triangular distribution that is used in many building codes (ICBO, 1997; BSSC, 1997) to distribute the design seismic base shear over the height of the building in a linear static analysis of the building. The difference between the Modal and triangular distributions is that in Eq. (3.4) the value of the fundamental mode shape at level / is replaced by the height of the floor level above the base of the building. The intent of the triangular load distribution is to approximately represent the fundamental mode shape of the building and has been suggested (ATC, 1997; Tso and Moghadam, 1998) for use in pushover analyses. Other fixed load pattems have been suggested, such as a single concentrated force at the building roof (ATC, 1996; Tso and Moghadam, 1998) and a distribution proportional to the inertia forces obtained from a linear response spectrum or time history analysis (Krawinkler, 1996; ATC, 1997; Tso and Moghadam, 1998). 4034 Bilinear Representation of the Capacity Curve Typically, target displacement calculation methods are based on the seismic response of nonlinear single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) systems having bilinear force- displacement relationships. Therefore, prior to calculating the target displacement, it is necessary to approximate the capacity curve of the building with an equivalent bilinear representation. Constructing the bilinear relationship requires that two straight lines be overlaid on the capacity curve, as shown in Figure 3.3, approximating the capacity curve up to the target displacement, A,. The properties of the bilinear relationship are then used to calculate the target displacement, as described in Section 3.5. The bilinear representation of the capacity curve is used to identify important building properties, including: 1) the initial stiffness of the building, 2) the yield base shear strength of the building, and 3) the post-yield stiffness of the building. The slope of the first line in the bilinear capacity curve is the effective initial stiffness of the building, K,,, and the slope of the second line represents the effective post-yield stiffness of the building, aK... The base shear at yield, V,, is defined as the force at the intersection of the two lines. Many methods have been used by researchers to construct the bilinear representation of the capacity curve. Construction of the bilinear representation of the capacity curve starts by establishing the slope of the initial line. The FEMA 273 document (ATC, 1997) suggests that the initial line pass through the capacity curve ata base shear equal to 60% of the yield base shear. Others have suggested that the initial line be selected as the tangent to the initial portion of the capacity curve (Saiidi and Sozen, 1981; Collins et al, 1995). As suggested by Qi and Moehle (1991), Miranda 4l(1991), Reinhom (1996), and ATC-40 (1996), the slope of the second line should be constructed such that the area under the bilinear representation is equal to the area under the capacity curve up to the target displacement. This recommendation for establishing the slope of the second line is based on the notion that the area under the capacity curve is equivalent to the energy dissipated by the building in reaching the target displacement. Equating the areas under the bilinear capacity curve and the actual capacity curve assumes that a SDOF system having the force-displacement properties of the bilinear capacity curve will dissipate as much energy as the actual building during an earthquake. Collins et al. (1995) suggested that the slope of the second line be selected as the line tangent to the capacity curve at a 1% roof displacement ratio. Once the initial and second lines are established, the yield base shear and roof displacement are found from the intersection of the two lines. Saiidi and Sozen (1981) suggested drawing two lines parallel to the initial slope of the capacity curve at the 0.2% and 0.3% roof displacement ratio. The yield base shear and yield roof displacement would then be found by taking a point on the capacity curve bounded by the two lines. Saiidi and Sozen suggested that the second line be selected as the line that connects the yield roof displacement to the point on the capacity curve at five times the yield roof displacement. When the capacity curve is established based on the equal area approach, the endpoint of the bilinear representation of the capacity curve coincides with the target displacement. However, since the target displacement is not known a priori, the initial bilinear capacity curve must be constructed using an estimate of the target displacement. A target displacement estimate can be calculated by utilizing the “equal displacement” 42approximation (Veletsos and Newmark, 1960). Using this approximation, the target displacement is estimated by first calculating the spectral displacement at the fundamental period of the building. The roof displacement can then be related to the spectral displacement by a commonly used assumption that the spectral displacement is two-thirds of the roof displacement. Once the initial bilinear capacity curve is constructed, the target displacement is calculated using one of the methods described in Section 3.5. If the estimated and calculated target displacement values are sufficiently close, then the calculated value becomes the target displacement. Otherwise, a new target displacement is estimated, a new bilinear capacity curve constructed, and the process repeated until the solution converges. 3.5 Target Displacement Calculation Methods The target displacement is an estimate of the maximum displacement that will be experienced by the building during a particular earthquake and can be calculated using any method that accounts for the effect of nonlinear behavior on building displacement. The force and deformation demands on the building are extracted from the pushover analysis at the target displacement and evaluated against acceptable force and deformation capacities. The following sections describe the most commonly used target displacement calculation methods. 433.5.1. Coefficient Method (FEMA 273) As the name implies, a target displacement calculated using the Coefficient Method is the product of the elastic spectral displacement at the fundamental natural period of the building and a series of coefficients that account for the nonlinear behavior of multi-degree-of-freedom buildings. The Coefficient Method, described in detail in the FEMA 273 document (ATC, 1997), was first suggested by Lawson et al. (1994). The development and foundation for the Coefficient Method is described by Krawinkler (1996). The target displacement is calculated from the equation, GS) where T, is the effective fundamental period of vibration, Sa is the elastic spectral acceleration, in g's, corresponding to T,, and g is the acceleration of gravity. The effective fundamental period of vibration is calculated by, G6) where K, is the initial elastic stiffness of the building , T, is the elastic fundamental period of vibration corresponding to K,, and K, is the effective initial stiffness of the building obtained from the bilinear representation of the capacity curve. The effective al stiffness of the building is the slope of a line tangent to the capacity curve that passes through the origin.The term in parenthesis in Eq. (3.5) is equivalent to the elastic spectral displacement at the effective fundamental period of vibration. The displacement modification coefficients in Eq. (3.5) are used to modify the elastic spectral displacement to account for the following effects © C, — Relates the spectral displacement to the roof displacement. + C, - Accounts for difference between inelastic and elastic roof displacement. * C, - Accounts for effect of the hysteresis shape on the roof displacement. © C, - Accounts for effect of dynamic P-delta effects on the roof displacement. The C, coefficient relates the elastic spectral displacement of the ground motion at the effective fundamental period of vibration of the building to the elastic roof displacement. The FEMA 273 document offers three different methods for calculating Cy Method 1: The first mode participation factor is scaled by the roof value of the first mode shape, ne, bao) arn 45Method 2: Method 3: where [M] is the diagonal seismic mass matrix, {p,} is the vector of values of the fundamental mode shape, and @,, is the value of the fundamental mode shape at the roof. The participation factor calculated using the static displaced shape of the building is scaled by the target displacement atthe roof, . yIMKe} where {4} is the vector of displacements at each floor level at the target displacement, A,. Note that if the static displaced shape is the same as the first mode shape, then Eqs. (3.7) and (3.8) will give the same result. Select C, from the values listed in Table 3.1 given the number of building stories, The C, coefficient represents the ratio between inelastic spectral displacement and elastic spectral displacement. The value of C, is, ~ 4) [f¢ } fort. T, 46where T, is the characteristic period of the earthquake ground motion response spectrum and R is the ratio of the elastic base shear demand to the yield base shear determined from the bilinear representation of the capacity curve. The value of R is calculated from the following, s. Ya . a (3.10) R (& 7W 4) oa where W is the total seismic weight of the building. The characteristic period of the earthquake ground motion response spectrum is calculated based on a smooth representation of the response spectrum from the following, sel face Gu) where Sxs is the spectral acceleration at a period of 0.2 seconds and should not be less than 90% of the peak spectral acceleration at any period. Sx/ is the spectral acceleration at a period of 1.0 seconds calculated by fitting a curve of the form Sx2/T to the response spectrum such that the curve is not less than 90% of the response spectrum at any period. The C, coefficient modifies the elastic spectral displacement to account for the effects of strength and stiffness deterioration of the building components on the dynamic response of the building, Building components that exhibit pinching, strength deterioration, or stiffness deterioration are unable to absorb as much energy as building components whose behavior can be represented by a bilinear force-deformation model. 47Since the expression for the C, coefficient in Eq. (3.9) was developed based on mean responses of inelastic SDOF systems with bilinear force-deformation models (ATC, 1997), the C, coefficient attempts to account for the larger displacements the structure may experience due to strength and stiffness deterioration of the building components. If the level of earthquake ground motion is such that building members that resist more than 30% of the story shear at any level may deteriorate in strength and stiffness, then the building is classified as having Framing Type 1. Buildings classified as having Framing Type 2 are those buildings that do not meet the definition of Framing Type 1. The value of the C, coefficient is determined from Table 3.2 and depends on the effective fundamental building period, the performance level, and whether the building is classified as having Framing Type | or Framing Type 2. The C, coefficient modifies the elastic spectral displacement to account for the effects of P-delta on the dynamic response of the building. The effect of P-delta on the static response of the building is already included, as part of the pushover analysis, in the calculation of the capacity curve. The value of the C, coefficient depends on the post- yield stiffness of the building, aK, , determined from the bilinear representation of the capacity curve. For buildings with a positive post-yield stiffness, ie, a>/, the C, coefficient is equal to 1.0. For buildings with a negative post-yield stiffness, ie. a 16.25% . The method used to calculate the inelastic demand spectrum depends on whether the elastic demand spectrum is constructed from the response of an elastic SDOF system to a particular earthquake ground motion record, or is represented by a smooth elastic $2demand spectrum. Figure 3.6 qualitatively shows an example of a smooth representation of the elastic demand spectrum. If the elastic demand spectrum is constructed from the response of an elastic SDOF system, then, the inelastic demand spectrum is simply calculated from the earthquake response of an elastic SDOF system having a damping equal to the effective damping, Byy. If a smooth elastic demand spectrum is used, then the inelastic demand spectrum is calculated by reducing the elastic demand spectrum using spectral reduction factors that are a function of the effective damping. The spectral reduction factors given in the ATC-40 document were developed based on the work of Newmark and Hall (1982). The spectral reduction factors in the ATC-40 report are given, specifically for 5% inherent damping, only for the constant acceleration and constant velocity regions of the composite spectrum. In general, the spectral reduction factors for the constant acceleration range, SR,, constant velocity range, SR,, and constant displacement range, SR, are: _3.21-0.681Bag SRa = "337-0.681nB, ED) _ 231-0410 Bay ¥ "2.31 0.411nB, a gr, = £82=027INBe o2y “7.82 -0.27 InB, 53Note that the damping values, B, and Bur, in Eqs. (3.21), (3.22), and (3.23) are expressed asa percentage. The three regions of the smooth elastic demand spectrum are multiplied by the spectral reduction factors in order to obtain the smooth inelastic demand spectrum. Once the demand spectrum and capacity spectrum curves have been calculated, the target spectral displacement is calculated from the intersection of the inelastic demand spectrum and the inelastic capacity spectrum. This value of spectral displacement is used to calculate a value of target roof displacement by reversing the operation in Eq. (3.16). Improved forms of the Capacity Spectrum Method have been proposed by several researchers including Reinhorn (1997), Chopra and Goel (1999), and Fajfar (1999). In these studies, the inelastic demand spectrum was constructed using established relationships between ductility, 1, the reduction factor, R, and period 7. Several R-11-T relationships have been proposed (e.g. Newmark and Hall, 1982; Krawinkler and Nassar, 1992; Vidic et al, 1994; Miranda and Bertero, 1994) and are used to construct the inelastic demand spectrum according to the following, Sd= »i(Z) Sa G24) The inelastic demand spectrum given in Eq. (3.24) is constructed for different levels of ductility and plotted along with the capacity spectrum. The capacity spectrum will intersect with each fixed-ductility demand spectrum at different values of displacement. The ductility corresponding to each of the displacements at the intersection points is calculated by taking the ratio of the intersection displacement to the yield displacement 54from the capacity spectrum. The correct target displacement is one that has a ductility equal to the ductility of the demand spectrum from which it was calculated 3.5.3 Equivalent System Method ‘The Equivalent System Method has been used by several researchers to estimate the target displacement of a building (Saiidi and Sozen, 1981; Fajfar and Fischinger, 1988; Qi and Moehle, 1991; Miranda, 1991; Collins et al., 1995; Reinhorn, 1996). This method is similar to the Capacity Spectrum Method in that the base shear and roof displacement values from the capacity curve are transformed into equivalent spectral acceleration and spectral displacement values using Eqs. (3.13) and (3.16). Once the capacity spectrum is defined, a bilinear representation of the capacity spectrum is constructed as discussed in Section 3.4. This bilinear capacity spectrum is used as the bilinear force-deformation relationship for a SDOF oscillator. The target spectral displacement is then found by subjecting the equivalent inelastic SDOF oscillator to an earthquake ground motion and recording the maximum displacement response. The maximum displacement response is the target spectral displacement and is used to calculate the value of target roof displacement by reversing the operation in Eq, (3.16). The relationship between the capacity curve and the capacity spectrum is given by Eqs. (3.13) and (3.16) according to the Capacity Spectrum Method. The transformation relationships depend on the values of L, and [, in Eqs. (3.14) and (3.15), respectively, which were developed using the fundamental mode shape as the shape vector. Similarly, Reinhom suggested that the fundamental mode shape be used to find the transformation 55relationships. In the work by Saiidi and Sozen, Fajfar and Fischinger, Qi and Moeble, Miranda, and Collins et al., the shape vector used to calculate the values of L, and I, is defined as the displaced shape of the building obtained from the pushover analysis when the roof displacement reaches the estimated target displacement. In this case, the capacity spectrum and consequently the properties of the inelastic SDOF oscillator will be a function of the target displacement. Therefore, the calculation of the target displacement in this manner will be iterative. 3.6 Summary In recent years, the nonlinear static analysis method has evolved into an attractive and popular altemative to the nonlinear time history analysis method because of its ability to identify critical areas of the building, such as stories with strength and/or stiffness discontinuities, load path discontinuities, and failure modes, without the computational and modeling effort of a nonlinear time history analysis. Various methods for calculating the target displacement were described in this chapter, including the FEMA 273 Coefficient Method, the ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum Method, and the Equivalent System Method. In Chapter 4, these methods will be applied to three model steel frame buildings in order to assess the accuracy of these methods to predict the building response calculated using the nonlinear time history analysis method. 56Base Shear (V) Roof Displacement (A) Figure 3.1 Qualitative illustration of the capacity curve ATED (a) Modal (b) Uniform Figure 3.2 General shape of the Modal and Uniform lateral load patterns 37by a 4 Figure 3.3 Bilinear representation of the capacity curve 58Demand Spectrum (Bi ) Demand Spectrum (et) Elastic Capacity Spectrum Spectral Acceleration (Sa) Spectral Displacement (Sd) Figure 3.4 Demand and capacity spectrum curves Sa Equivalent Viscous Damping arf SEDGE) Ga) Gd) Ep = #(Sa)r(Sd).- (Sa)(Sd)r] Figure 3.5 Effective damping calculation 59Figure 3.6 Composite response spectrumTable 3.1 Values of modification coefficient Co (ATC, 1997) 1. Linear interpolation should be used for intermediate values. Table 3.2. Values of modification coefficient C2 (ATC, 1997) Framing Framing Framing Framing ‘Type 1" Type 2? Type 1" Type 2? 1.0 0 10 1.0 1.0 1.0 Life Safety 13 Collapse Prevention 16 14 1.0 12 1.0 1. Structures in which more than 30% of the story shear at any level is resisted by components or elements whose strength and stiffness may degrade. 2. All frames not assigned to Framing Type 1. 3. Linear interpolation should be used for intermediate period values. T, is the characteristic period of the earthquake ground mation. 61CHAPTER 4 ESTIMATING BUILDING RESPONSE USING NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS METHODS 4 Introduction The design of buildings is fundamentally concemed with ensuring that the components of the building, e.g. lateral force resisting system, can adequately serve their intended function. In the case of seismic design of the lateral force resisting system, the design problem can be reduced simply to the problem of providing adequate force and deformation capacity to resist the seismic demands. However, due to the uncertainties associated with the structural materials, the demand and capacity modeling techniques, the methods of analysis used to predict demands, and the prediction of the earthquake ground motions, the seismic demands and structural capacities are not known with certainty. The uncertainties associated with the seismic building demands and structural capacities make it difficult to accurately predict the reliability of the final building design to meet the intended performance objectives. Krawinkler (1997) addressed the importance of quantifying uncertainties in demand predictions, in particular those uncertainties resulting from modeling techniques and analysis methods, and incorporating these uncertainties into a performance-based seismic design framework. The uncertainty 62in the analysis methods used to predict the seismic demands on buildings is the focus of this research. Design criteria for new buildings typically prescribe the level of seismic force to be used for the building design and the guidelines for using various analysis methods to predict building response. The 1996 SEAOC Blue Book (SEAOC, 1996), the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) (ICBO, 1997), and the 1997 NEHRP Provisions (BSSC, 1997) focus primarily on the use of linear static and linear response spectrum analysis methods to predict seismic building demands. A linear response spectrum analysis is a linear static analysis except that the distribution of lateral seismic forces is based on the dynamic properties of the building instead of a code-specified distribution. Since the response spectrum analysis incorporates additional knowledge about the dynamic characteristics of the building, it is generally considered that a response spectrum analysis will provide more accurate predictions of seismic building demands than a linear static analysis. The design guidelines recognize this additional accuracy by allowing a reduction in the total lateral seismic force, i.e. base shear, for buildings with regular distributions of strength, stiffness, and mass. The 1996 SEAOC Blue Book and 1997 UBC allow scaling the base shear from a response spectrum analysis to 90 percent of the code-specified base shear when using the code-specified response spectrum and 80 percent of the code-specified base shear when using a site-specific response spectrum, ‘The 1997 NEHRP Provisions specify that the base shear from a response spectrum analysis need not exceed the code-specified base shear calculated using a building period that is 20 percent greater than the upper limit on the building period. All of these design 63criteria for new buildings provide a clear incentive for calculating the building demands using the more sophisticated response spectrum analysis method. This incentive is presented in the form of a reduction in the design seismic forces when using a response spectrum analysis. Alternately, this reduction can be viewed as a penalty imposed on the use of the linear static analysis method by requiring the structural engineer to use increased design seismic forces. The ATC-40 (ATC, 1996) and FEMA 273 (ATC, 1997) documents provide guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing buildings in a performance-based seismic design framework, The ATC-40 document emphasizes the use of Nonlinear Static (NS) analysis methods to predict building demands, whereas, FEMA 273 addresses the use of both linear and nonlinear analysis methods. Except for the NS analysis method described in FEMA 273, the analysis methods presented in both documents do not explicitly consider the uncertainty in the demands predicted using these methods. To account for the uncertainty in the target displacement calculated using the Coefficient Method, FEMA 273 recommends a 50 percent increase to account for the variation in target displacement about the mean value. According to FEMA 273, the target displacement including a 50 percent increase corresponds to a mean plus one standard deviation value for a building with a lateral strength in excess of 25% of the elastic spectral strength. Recently, the NS analysis method has emerged as an attractive method for evaluating the performance of new and existing buildings. This is primarily because of the ability of the NS analysis method to provide estimates of the expected inelastic deformation demands and to help identify design flaws that would be otherwise obscuredin a linear analysis of the building. In addition, the features of the NS analysis method are available to the structural engineer without the modeling and computational effort of a nonlinear time history analysis. Krawinkler (1996) stressed the importance of evaluating the accuracy of demands predicted using the pushover analysis. The focus of this chapter is on the quantification of the uncertainty associated with the seismic building demands predicted using the NS analysis method. Previous research work related to the quantification of uncertainties in demands predicted using NS analysis methods primarily focus on the Equivalent System Method (ESM) for calculating target displacements, described in Section 3.5.3, Chapter 3. Saiidi and Sozen (1981) predicted the floor displacement and interstory drift response of eight 10-story reinforced concrete test structures using an equivalent single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system constructed from the displaced shape at yield from a nonlinear pushover analysis. Floor displacements predicted using the SDOF system generally showed good correlation with the results measured from small-scale tests and in all cases overestimated the floor displacements, sometimes by as much as 30%. Comparisons of interstory drifts at the time of maximum roof displacement generally overestimated the measured drifts. Miranda (1991) predicted the roof displacement time history of four reinforced concrete buildings using a SDOF system constructed using the displaced shape from a pushover analysis at the target displacement. The maximum roof displacements calculated from recorded responses during past earthquakes and nonlinear time history analyses were reasonably predicted using the equivalent SDOF systems. Collins, et al. (1995) used the ESM to predict the maximum roof displacement and maximum interstory drift response 65of six steel buildings, ranging between two and twelve stories, for thirty-two earthquake ground motion records. Sample statistics were calculated for the maximum roof displacement and maximum interstory drift bias factors, defined to be the ratio of the response from the nonlinear time history analysis to the response predicted using the SDOF system. The results show that the mean value of the maximum roof displacement bias factor ranges between 0.71 and 1.08, with a coefficient of variation between 8.1% and 19%, The mean value of the maximum interstory drift bias factors ranges between 0.67 and 1.25, with a coefficient of variation between 13% and 25%. Reinhorn (1997) demonstrated that the ESM can be used to predict the maximum roof displacement of an existing building before and after retrofit with supplemental viscous dampers. Reinhorn showed that a reasonably accurate prediction of the peak displacement of the building could be calculated using the ESM. Tso and Moghadam (1998) proposed a method for predicting seismic building demands in asymmetrical buildings using a three-dimensional pushover analysis. The demands on a symmetrical and asymmetrical 7-story moment frame building were predicted using an equivalent SDOF system and a multi-degree-of- freedom (MDOF) nonlinear time history analysis. The mean values of the maximum floor displacement, interstory drift, beam ductility, and column ductility were compared. They showed that the floor displacements were generally overestimated and the column ductility was underestimated by the equivalent SDOF. The interstory drift and beam ductility was overestimated in the lower stories and underestimated in the upper stories Few studies have focused on the uncertainty in the Coefficient Method (CM) and the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) for calculating target displacements. Lawson, etal. (1994) evaluated the accuracy of the pushover analysis to predict maximum story ductility, maximum beam plastic rotations, maximum column plastic rotations, and hysteretic energy for four steel moment frame buildings (2-, 5-, 10-, and 15-stories) and seven historical earthquakes. The building demands were extracted from the pushover analysis at the maximum roof displacement calculated from a MDOF nonlinear time history analysis, thereby removing the uncertainty associated with predicting the target displacement. Lawson et al. showed that the story ductility, beam plastic rotations, and column plastic rotations were reasonably predicted in the lower stories but showed poor correlation in the upper stories. A comparison of the dynamic hysteretic energy and the static hysteretic energy showed considerable scatter and no discernable pattern. Lawson et al. also compared the maximum roof displacements using an estimate of the maximum roof displacement from the spectral displacement at the first mode period. This method of target displacement calculation is similar to the CM but without the modification factors for inelastic displacement amplification, effect of hysteresis shape, and dynamic P-delta effects. The results show that the mean value of the ratio of the maximum roof displacement calculated using the MDOF nonlinear time history analysis to the roof displacement calculated from the spectral displacement, ranges between 0.91 and 1.12, with a coefficient of variation between 20% and 33%. Seneviratna (1995) conducted a preliminary assessment of the accuracy of demands predicted using a pushover analysis and showed that structures dominated by the response in the fundamental mode will provide good estimates of global and local inelastic deformation demands. The study showed that as the building period and building strength increases, the pushover analysis 67increasingly underestimates maximum interstory drift demands. Lew and Kunnath (2000) compared beam and column plastic rotation demands predicted by the ND analysis method and the CM for a 7-story reinforced concrete building. It was shown that the demand estimates using the CM were generally similar to the mean estimates from the ND analysis. The ATC-40 (ATC, 1996) document presents the results of four case study reinforced concrete buildings evaluated using the CSM. The maximum roof displacement was estimated using the CSM and compared to response predicted using a nonlinear time history analysis. In general, it was shown that the CSM overestimates the maximum roof displacement. Chopra and Goel (1999) compared the target displacements on SDOF systems calculated using the ATC-40 CSM and relationships between ductility, the force reduction factor, R, and period proposed by several researchers. It was shown that the ATC-40 CSM can significantly underestimate demands. It was noted that the ATC-40 CSM is computationally intensive, requiring several iterations to calculate the target displacement, and does not predict the target displacement accurately. Iwan et al. (2000) performed analyses of a SDOF system using the ND analysis method and the ATC-40 CSM for near-field ground motions. It was shown that the equivalent viscous damping calculated using the ATC-40 CSM is unconservative for buildings with long natural periods or natural periods less than the predominant period of the near-fault pulse. In this chapter, the seismic demands on three model welded steel moment resisting frame (WSMF) buildings were calculated using a nonlinear time history analysis 68and various forms of the nonlinear static analysis method for sixty earthquake ground motion records. The results from the two analysis methods were compared in order to evaluate the uncertainty in the NS analysis method. A brief description of the model steel frame buildings used in this research to quantify the uncertainty in seismic building demands predicted using NS analysis methods is provided in Section 4.2. Section 43 Provides a brief description of the earthquake ground motions used in this dissertation. The results of the nonlinear time history analyses of the three model steel building using the sixty earthquake ground motion records are presented in Section 4.4. The results of the evaluation of NS analysis method uncertainty are given in Section 4.5. Section 4.6 provides a summary of this chapter. 4.2 Pre-Northridge Model Stee! Frame Buildings Three WSMF model buildings, a low-rise (3-story), mid-rise (9-story), and high- rise (20-story) building, were designed as part of the SAC Joint Venture! research program by the Los Angeles structural engineering firm of Brandow and Jobnston (Mercado and Ungermann, 1997). The designs follow the 1994 Uniform Building Code (UBC) (ICBO, 1994) requirements for office buildings located in Los Angeles, California on a stiff soil building site, and are thus called the Pre-Northridge model WSMF buildings in this research. The primary lateral force resisting system for each building consists of special steel moment resisting frames with concrete spread footing or pile * SAC is a joint venture of the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), the Appiled ‘Technology Council (ATC), and California Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CURE¢). 69foundation systems. The steel members in the model buildings were designed using the 1994 UBC allowable stress design criteria. The frame columns are composed of ASTM AS72, Grade 50 (Fy = 50 ksi; 345 MPa) steel and the frame girders are composed of ASTM A36 steel (F, = 36 ksi; 248 MPa). The panel zone doubler plates were specified as ASTM A572, Grade 50 steel. A 3” (7.6 cm) metal deck with 2.5” (5.0 cm) of normal weight concrete fill was specified for the floors and the roof. The 3-story model WSMF building is an office building with a rectangular floor plan area measuring 180°-0” x 120’-0” (54.9 m x 36.6 m) and floor-to-floor heights ‘measuring 13’-0” (4.0 m). A mechanical penthouse and roof is located at the building roof level. The lateral force resisting system consists of special steel moment resisting frames along each side of the building perimeter. The frames are each three bays, measuring 30’-0” (9.1 m) per bay. The foundation system is comprised of concrete spread footings at each column location with concrete grade beams connecting the spread footings at the building perimeter. The 9-story model WSMF building is an office building with a square floor plan area measuring 150’-0” x 150’-0" (45.7 m x 45.7 m) with one level of subterranean basement and parking. Typical floor-to-floor heights are 137-0” (4.0 m), with the first story measuring 18’-0" (5.5 m) and the subterranean level measuring 12’-0" (3.7 m). A mechanical penthouse and roof is located at the building roof level. The lateral force resisting system consists of special steel moment resisting frames along each side of the building perimeter. The frames each have 4-1/2 bays (4 bays plus one bay with a beam moment connection at one end), measuring 30’-0 (9.1 m) per bay. The foundation system is comprised of concrete friction piles and pile caps at 70each column location. Lateral forces at the subterranean level are resisted primarily by perimeter concrete walls supported by wall footings. The 20-story model WSMF building is an office building with a rectangular floor plan area measuring 120°-0” x 100’-0” (36.6 m x 30.5 m) with two levels of subterranean basement and parking. Typical floor-to-floor heights are 13'-0” (4.0 m), with the first story measuring 18’-0" (5.5 m) and the subterranean levels measuring 12’-0” (3.7 m). A mechanical penthouse and roof is located at the building roof level. The lateral force resisting system consists of special steel moment resisting frames along each side of the building perimeter, intersecting at the building comers. The longitudinal building frames each have five bays, measuring 20°-0" (6.1 m) per bay and the transverse building frames each have six bays, measuring 20'-0” (6.1 m) per bay. The foundation system is comprised of concrete friction piles and pile caps at each column location. Lateral forces at the subterranean levels are resisted primarily by perimeter concrete walls supported by wall footings. Further information regarding the description of the model steel frame buildings, including frame elevations and plan views, can be found in Appendix B. Two-dimensional computer models of the 3-, 9-, and 20-story buildings were created by Krawinkler and Gupta (1998) using the modeling capabilities of the DRAIN- 2DX (Prakash at al., 1993; Powell, 1993) computer program. A two-dimensional analysis of these buildings is substantiated by the fact that each building has a high degree of mass and stiffness symmetry. A slight torsional irregularity is created by the presence of the mechanical penthouse at the roof of each building, the effect of which is neglected in the computer models and analyses. The floor diaphragms were assumed to nbe axially rigid, as such, the floor beams do not transfer axial force. The rigid floor diaphragm was modeled by constraining the horizontal displacements at the floor level The boundary conditions at the bases of the stee! columns in the 3-story building were modeled as fixed. For the 9- and 20-story buildings, it was assumed that the boundary conditions at the bases of the steel columns in these models were allowed to rotate freely, ie. modeled as a pinned boundary condition. ‘The perimeter concrete walls at the basement/parking levels of the 9- and 20-story buildings were assumed sufficiently stiff 1s to have a negligible contribution to the total displacement of the structure. For this reason, the floor levels were horizontally restrained in the analytical models at the basement/parking levels where the concrete walls occur. Rayleigh damping (Clough and Penzien, 1993) was included in the analytical models of the buildings 1o account for inherent structural damping. For the analyses in this research, the Ray‘eigh damping coefficients were selected to provide 2% damping in the first mode and at a 0.2 second period of vibration for the 3- and 9-story building. For the 20-story building, the coefficients were selected to provide 2% damping in the first and fifth mode periods. P- delta effects on the building response were accounted for in the analytical models. Two analytical models, denoted M1 and M2, were created for each building, representing different methods of modeling the behavior of beam-column joint panel zones. In the MI model, the ends of the beams and columns are defined at the centerline of the beam-column intersections and are flexible over the entire length of the elements. The stiffness and strength of the beams is represented by a nonlinear flexural spring at the elements ends with a bilinear moment-rotation relationship. The columns were modeled nusing the DRAIN-2DX Element Type 2 (Powell, 1993) which uses a concentrated plasticity formulation to account for the effect of axial-flexural interaction on the strength of the columa. The strength and stiffness of the beam-column joint panel zones are ignored in the M1 model. The M2 model is similar to the M1 model except that it explicitly accounts for the strength and stiffness of the beam-column joint panel zone. ‘The boundaries of the joint panel zone are modeled by rigid elements with free rotation ‘end connections, i.e. pinned connections, which restricts the deformation of the panel zone to parallelogram shapes. The strength and stiffness of the joint panel zone is represented by a trilinear shear force versus shear deformation relationship. Further information regarding the analytical models of the buildings is provided in Appendix B. ‘The dynamic characteristics of the M1 and M2 models of the three buildings are given in Table 4.1. The periods and mode shapes were calculated using an eigenvalue analysis of the elastic structure. The M2 models indicate shorter first mode periods due to the explicit representation of the beam-column joint panel zone. The values of T'4,, shown in Table 4.1 are the values of the C, coefficient calculated using Method | for the CM, as described in Section 3.5.1, Chapter 3. The C, coefficient is used to relate the displacement of a SDOF system to the roof displacement of the MDOF building. The CM prescriptive values of the C, coefficient in Table 3.1, Chapter 3, are 1.30, 1.48, and 1.50 for the 3-, 9-, and 20-story buildings, respectively. The values shown in Table 4.1 are approximately 1.27, 1.36, and 1.36 for the 3-, 9-, and 20-story buildings, respectively, thus indicating that the prescriptive values are conservative for predicting target displacement. iz4.3 Earthquake Ground Motions A total of sixty earthquake ground motion records were developed by Somerville, et al. (1997) as part of the SAC Joint Venture research project. Suites of twenty ground motion records were developed for each of three seismic hazard categories having exceedance probabilities of 50% in 50 years, 10% in $0 years, and 2% in 50 years. These exceedance probabilities correspond to 72-year, 475-year, and 2475-year return periods, respectively. The earthquake ground motion database includes both recorded (LAOI- LA30, LA41-LA60) and simulated (LA31-LA40) time histories. The ten simulated time histories were generated using the broadband simulation procedure described in Somerville, et al. (1997). For each seismic hazard category, a target response spectrum was developed for a Los Angeles building site located on firm soil. Each ground motion record was uniformly scaled to minimize the error between the actual response spectrum of the ground motion and the target response spectrum. For further description of the earthquake ground motion records and the scaling procedure, see Appendix C. A 2% damped response spectrum analysis was performed, for each of the sixty earthquake ground motion records. The damping was selected to correspond with the level of Rayleigh damping used in the nonlinear time history analyses of the three model steel frame buildings, as previously discussed. The median, 84th percentile and 16th percentile response spectra are shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.3 for the 50% in 50 year, 10% in $0 year, and 2% in SO year ground motion records. It is assumed that the spectral acceleration values have a lognormal probability distribution. The fundamental period of 74vibration for the MI and M2 models of the 3-, 9-, and 20-story buildings are indicated in each of the figures. It is clear from these figures that there is a significant amount of record-to-record scatter in the response spectra for a given level of earthquake hazard. This scatter is a result of the fact that the earthquake records were uniformly scaled to minimize the error between the actual and the target response spectra, which preserves the original frequency content of the ground motion record 4.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses ‘The nonlinear dynamic (ND) analysis method accounts for the nonlinear behavior of the building components and the dynamic response of a building to earthquake ground motions. As discussed in Chapter 3, the ND analysis method is more sophisticated than the linear static (LS), linear dynamic (LD), and nonlinear static (NS) analysis methods. ‘The ND analysis method is free of the fundamental assumptions involved with the methods utilizing linear building models and/or the static application of lateral forces. ‘Therefore, the building response predicted using the ND analysis method is considered in this research to be the “exact” building response. This response will be used as a benchmark to quantify the uncertainty in the building response predicted by the NS analysis method. Although the ND analysis method may be the most accurate analysis method, the response predicted by the ND analysis method most often will not correspond with the actual building response to a seismic event. This is a result of the sophistication and detail of the analytical model used to predict the building response. In this research, two analytical models, M1 and M2, were created for each building 15representing two levels of sophistication in modeling the beam-column joint panel zone. Since the M2 model better accounts for the stiffhess and strength of the joint panel zone, the M2 model is considered in this research to be the more accurate structural engineering computer model. Nonlinear dynamic time history analyses were performed for the 3- story, 9-story, and 20-story buildings using the sixty earthquake ground motion records and the M2 computer models (Krawinkler and Gupta, 1998). These results were used as the benchmark to evaluate the uncertainty of the results obtained using the NS analysis methods. Four building response quantities were studied in this research: 1) Maximum roof displacement ratio, 2) Maximum interstory drift ratio, 3) Maximum beam total rotation, and 4) Maximum panel zone total rotation. The maximum roof or floor displacement ratio is the displacement of the floor normalized by the total unrestrained height between the floor and the base of the building. The maximum roof displacement ratio is the absolute maximum value of the roof displacement ratio, The interstory drift ratio is the relative displacement between any two adjacent floors of the building normalized by the height between the two floors. The maximum interstory drift ratio is the absolute maximum value of the interstory drift ratio for any story of the building. The maximum beam rotation is the absolute maximum total rotation of any beam in the building Similarly, the maximum panel zone rotation is the maximum total rotation of any panel zone in the building. The median and 84th percentile ND analysis response of all three buildings is shown in Figures 4.4 to 4.7 for floor displacement ratio, interstory drift ratio, maximum beam rotation, and maximum panel zone rotation, respectively. In these 16figures, each response quantity is assumed to have a lognonmal probability distribution The solid lines shown in Figures 4.6 and 4.7 indicate values of the yield rotation for the beams and panel zones at each floor. Figures 4.5 and 4.6 show that interstory drift and beam rotation demands are correlated response quantities. The interstory drift demands and beam rotation demands are similarly distributed over the height of the building, suggesting that interstory drift is a good indicator of the demands on beam-column connections. There is a relatively uniform distribution of interstory drift over the height of the 3-story building, unlike the 9- and 20-story buildings where the interstory drif is concentrated in the lower floors of the building. Unlike the beam total rotation, there does not seem to be a similar correlation between interstory drift and panel zone rotation. 45 Nonlinear Static Analyses ‘One of the objectives of this research is to quantify the uncertainty in seismic building demands calculated using the NS analysis method. An approximate building analysis method, such as the NS method, may consistently under or overestimate the “exact” building response, which in this research is calculated using the ND analysis method. The uncertainty in the analysis method is quantified by defining a variable called the bias factor. The values of the bias factor are a measure of the accuracy of an approximate analysis method to predict building demands. The bias factor can be thought of as a variable that corrects, or multiplies, the result from the approximate analysis method to obtain the “exact” result. In this research, the uncertainty in the various forms of the NS analysis method were quantified by comparing building demands 7predicted using the NS analysis method and the ND analysis method for each of the sixty earthquake ground motion records. A value of the bias factor for each earthquake ground motion is calculated by taking the ratio of the result from the ND analysis to the result from the NS analysis, Because all of these ratios are not the same, the bias factor is a random variable. The bias factor is assumed to have a lognormal probability distribution. Therefore, the median and logarithmic standard deviation of the bias factors are first and second order statistics that can be used to quantify the uncertainty in the nonlinear static analysis method. 4.5.1 Pushover Analyses ‘A pushover analysis of the M1 and M2 models of the three model steel frame buildings was performed using the Uniform and Modal load patterns described in Section 3.3, Chapter 3. The load patterns are shown in Figure 4.8 along with the resulting distribution of story shears and overturning moments over the height of the building. The Modal load pattem depends on the dynamic characteristics of the building, but, as shown in Figure 4.8, there is little difference between the load pattem for the MI and M2 models. The capacity, or pushover, curves for the 3-, 9-, and 20-story buildings are shown in Figures 4.9, 4.10, and 4.11, respectively. The capacity curves are expressed in terms of the base shear normalized by the building weight and the roof drift ratio, which is the roof displacement normalized by the building height. The weights and heights of the buildings are shown in Table 4.1, The capacity curves show significant strength 8degrading behavior beyond the peak base shear strength for the 9-story and 20-story buildings due to the P-delta effects. In addition to the earthquake-induced shear in the building frames, the frames must also resist shear associated with the P-delta effect. The axial loads acting on a displaced building require that additional shears be resisted by the building in order to maintain equilibrium. Each frame will resist the P-delta shear resulting from the axial loads acting on the frame columns and gravity columns tributary to the frame. The P-delta induced shear is accounted for in the analytical building models by including a fictitious column with geometric stiffness only and applying one-half of the building gravity load as point loads at each floor level. The result is a column with negative stiffness acting in parallel with the building frame. After a plastic mechanism has formed in the building frame, the extent of degradation in the capacity curve will depend on the amount of reserve stiffness resulting from strain hardening of the members. If the negative stiffness of the P-delta column is greater than the reserve stiffness of the building frame, then an overall degradation of the capacity curve will be observed. In general, the capacity curves indicate that greater base shear strength is predicted when using the M2 model and the Uniform load pattem. Since the M2 model explicitly accounts for the strength of the beam-column joints it is expected that the base shear strength of the M2 models is greater than the M1 models. The cumulative effect of this added strength is observed in Figures 4.9 through 4.11 as an increased difference in the base shear strength predicted by the Mi and M2 models as the building height, and thus the number of joint panel-zones, increases. In addition, the location of the column 9and beam plastic hinges in M2 model is at the face of the panel zone, instead of the centerline of the panel zone as in the M1 model. This will result in a delayed formation of the plastic hinges in the M2 model. The transient drift limitations in Table 26, Chapter 2, for the Immediate Occupancy (10), Life Safety (LS), and Collapse Prevention (CP) performance levels identified in the FEMA 273 document, are shown as dotted vertical lines in Figures 4.9 through 4.11. The capacity curves indicate that the buildings start to form a yield mechanism at approximately 1% roof drift ratio. Therefore, based on the drift limit for 10 performance, the buildings will remain elastic. At the LS performance level drif,, the 3+ and 9-story buildings show little degradation in strength. However, the 20-story building shows a strength reduction of 20% for the analysis using the Uniform load pattern and 30% strength reduction for the Modal load pattern, Again, at the CP performance level drift, the 3- and 9-story buildings show little degradation in strength, but the pushover analyses for the 20-story building indicate that there is little reserve strength. The floor displacements calculated from the pushover analyses are shown in Figures 4.12 through 4.17 for the Uniform and Modal load patterns. For increasing values of the target roof displacement, each figure illustrates the displaced shape of the building. In the early stages of the pushover analyses, the displacement profiles are similar in shape to the load pattems shown in Figure 4.8, However, as the target roof displacement increases, building members begin yielding and displacements concentrate in the stories where yielding occurs. This is most evident in the displaced shapes of the9- and 20-story buildings where nearly all of the total displacement of the building is concentrated in the lower stories. 4.5.2 Bias Factors The sensitivity of the first and second order bias factor statistics, i.e. median and logarithmic standard deviation, to the building type and level of earthquake ground motion was investigated using the three Pre-Northridge model WSMF buildings and the sixty earthquake ground motion records. For each earthquake ground motion, the building response using the MI or M2 analytical model of the building was calculated using the NS analysis method. This requires the selection of a pattem of lateral loads for the pushover analysis and a method for calculating the target displacement. Pushover analyses were performed using the Uniform and Modal load pattems described in Chapter 3. The target displacements were calculated using the Coefficient Method, the Capacity Spectrum Method, and the Equivalent System Method, described in Chapter 3. Building demands were obtained from the results of the pushover analyses at the calculated target displacement. ‘The bias factor was calculated by taking the ratio of the demand calculated using the ND analysis method and the M2 building model to the demand predicted by the NS method. This process was repeated for each ground motion record, building, analytical model type (MI or M2), load patter, and target displacement calculation method. A flowchart illustrating this procedure for calculating the values of the bias factors for the NS analysis method is presented in Figure 4.18. 81For the Coefficient Method and the Capacity Spectrum Method, the target displacement was calculated using both the actual 2% damped response spectra of the earthquake ground motions and smooth representations of the actual response spectra. A. smooth response spectrum of the form shown in Figure 4.19 was constructed for each earthquake ground motion record. The parameters that define the shape of the response spectrum are defined according to the guidelines presented in the FEMA 273 (ATC, 1997) document with modification to include a constant displacement region. The smooth spectral parameters are defined as follows: ‘*¢ Sxs is the spectral acceleration at a period of 0.2 seconds and should not be less than 90% of the peak spectral acceleration at any period. © Sx/ is calculated by fitting a curve of the form Sx//T to the response spectrum such that the curve is not less than 90% of the response spectrum at any period, ‘© Sxd_is calculated by fitting a curve of the form Sxd/T to the response spectrum such that the curve is not less than 90% of the response spectrum at any period By requiring that the smooth spectrum not be less than 90% of the actual 2% damped response spectrum, NS analysis method demands calculated using this smooth spectrum will tend to overestimate the actual demands on the building. The spectral parameters for 82the smooth representations of the actual 2% damped response spectra for the sixty earthquake ground motion records are provided in Appendix C. ‘The median and logarithmic standard deviations of the bias factors are presented in Tables 4.2 through 4.13 for each Pre-Northridge model WSMF building and each of the following building response quantities: 1) Maximum roof displacement ratio (Tables 4.2 to 4.4), 2) Maximum interstory drift ratio (Tables 4.5 to 4.7), 3) Maximum beam total rotation (Tables 4.8 to 4.10), and 4) Maximum panel zone total rotation (Tables 4.11 to 4.13), In each of the tables, the following notation is used to identify the target displacement calculation methods: «CM - FEMA 273 Coefficient Method using actual 2% damped response spectrum for each ground motion record. The C, coefficient was calculated by Method 2. * CSM ~ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum Method using actual 2% damped response spectrum for each ground motion record. * ESM — Equivalent System Method using the elastic fundamental mode shape to transform the pushover curve to the capacity spectrum, * SCM ~ FEMA 273 Coefficient Method using smooth representation of actual 2% damped response spectrum for each ground motion record The Co coefficient was calculated by Method 2 * SCSM - ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum Method using smooth representation of actual 2% damped response spectrum for each ground motion record. 83Total rather than plastic rotation was selected to represent beam and panel zone demands in order avoid having zero values of response quantities. For example, if all of the beams in the building remain elastic when subjected to a selected earthquake ground motion, the maximum plastic rotation demand will be zero, but the maximum total rotation demand will be non-zero. Since the bias factors are defined as the ratio of the ND analysis method demand divided by the NS analysis method demand, it is clear that if the maximum plastic rotation is zero, then the bias factor is undefined. By using maximum total rotation demands, it can be assured that the bias factors will always be defined. If the structural engineer prefers to evaluate building performance in terms of plastic rotation demands, then the plastic rotation demand must be first converted to total rotation demand. The total rotation demand can be corrected using the total rotation bias factor and then converted back to a plastic rotation demand by subtracting the yield rotation of the member. ‘The sensitivity of the bias factor statistics, i.e. median and logarithmic standard deviation, is illustrated in Figures 4.20 through 4.46, In each figure, the median, 84th percentile, and 16th percentile bias factors are shown for each level of seismic hazard and for each of the three Pre-Northridge WSMF model buildings. The symbols in each figure indicate the median values and the bars above and below the symbols indicate the 84th Percentile and 16th percentile values, respectively. The sensitivity of the bias factor statistics to the target displacement calculation method using the actual 2% damped response spectra is illustrated in Figures 4.20 through 4.23 for the Modal load pattem andthe M2 building model. Figures 4.24 through 4.26 illustrate the sensitivity of the bias factor statistics to the analytical mode! type, M1 or M2, for the Modal load pattern and the Coefficient Method. The model type sensitivity is only studied for the maximum roof displacement ratio, maximum interstory drift ratio, and maximum beam total rotation since the M1 model is unable to provide estimates of the panel zone rotation demands. The sensitivity of the bias factor statistics to the lateral load pattern is illustrated in Figures 4.27 through 4.38 for the M2 model. Figures 4.39 through 4.46 show the sensitivity of the bias factors to the method used to represent the response spectrum, actual or smooth, for the Modal load pattem and the M2 model. 4.53 Observations Using the figures and tables presented in Section 4.5.2, the following observations can be made regarding the bias factors for the nonlinear static analysis method: ‘+ The median target displacement bias factors range between 0.9 and 1.1 for the ESM, and 0.8 and 1.1 for the CM, regardless of the number of building stories, the analytical model type, or the level of earthquake ground motion. The median CSM target displacement bias factors are always greater than unity, indicating that the CSM tends to under-predict the building demands. The maximum roof displacement and maximum interstory drift median bias factors for the CM and ESM typically fall within 20% of unity for the 10% in 50 year and 852% in 50 year ground motions. The FEMA 273 (ATC, 1997) document suggests scaling the target displacement calculated using the Coefficient method by 1.5 to account for the uncertainty in the analysis method. The results in this study show that in most cases, a factor of 1.2 can be used to obtain an upper bound of the 84th percentile target displacements. The ESM results in the most accurate predictions of building demands compared to the CM and CSM. This is expected since the ESM involves the direct calculation of maximum inelastic displacement by nonlinear SDOF analysis of each earthquake ground motion record. In general, the CSM tends to underestimate the target displacements for all levels of seismic hazard. This results in significant underestimates of the interstory drift ratio, beam total rotation, and panel zone total rotation from the pushover analyses. ‘Compared to the other target displacement calculation methods, the CSM is generally less accurate and results in building demand predictions that are non-conservative. For all response quantities and target displacement calculation methods, the median values of the bias factors tend to decrease with an increase in the level of seismic hazard 86‘* The median values of the bias factors are relatively insensitive to the analytical model, M1 or M2, and the load pattem, Uniform or Modal, compared to the method used to calculate the target displacement. One may expect to find that for taller structures, such as the 9- and 20-story buildings, that the Uniform load pattem would result in a better prediction of the building demands than the Modal load pattern This is only marginally true for the maximum interstory drift and beam total rotation response quantities. For the maximum roof displacement and panel zone total rotation response quantities, the Modal load pattern tends to result in slightly smaller median values of the bias factor. © As expected, the SCM and SCSM target displacement calculations result in significantly lower bias factors for all response quantities when compared to the CM and CSM bias factors. Since the smooth representations of the actual response spectra are essentially envelopes of the actual response spectra, it is expected that these methods result in larger demands than those predicted by the CM and CSM. Design and evaluation guidelines that employ approximate analysis methods to calculate building demands must consider the uncertainty in the demand predictions. Table 4.14 provides recommendations for 84th percentile bias factors for NS analyses where the target displacements are calculated using the CM and ESM. This research has shown that the bias factors are generally insensitive to the load pattern and the type of analytical model, but are sensitive to the level of seismic hazard and the height of the 87building. Therefore, the bias factor recommendations in Table 4.14 are provided for lowrise (based on the 3-story building results), midrise (based on the 9-story building results), and highrise (based on the 20-story building results) buildings and are dependent on the level of seismic hazard. The recommended bias factors are intended for use in design or evaluation guidelines where it is desired that the demands multiplied by these bias factors will have only a 16% probability of being exceeded. Table 4.15 provides similar bias factor recommendations for the NS analyses where the target displacements are calculated using the CSM. 4.6 Summary In this chapter, the uncertainty in the nonlinear static analysis method was investigated and quantified in terms of bias factor statistics, i.e. median and logarithmic standard deviation, for various building response quantities. It was found that the bias factors are generally insensitive to the pattem of lateral load used to perform the pushover analysis and the detail used to model the beam-column joint panel zone region. On the other hand, it was found that the bias factors tend to decrease with an increase in the level of seismic hazard and are building dependent. Recommendations for the 84th percentile bias factors were provided for use in design and evaluation guidelines where the intent is to ensure an 84% level of confidence that the demands calculated using the nonlinear static analysis method incorporating the bias factor will not be exceeded. It is important to note that the use of these bias factors will not result in a specified probability of failure of the building, but instead will only provide demands that will be exceeded 16 times outof 100. In a true performance-based design methodology, it is necessary for the structural engineer to be able to quantify the probability that a building will meet, or exceed, a certain level of performance. This requires that the uncertainty in the building capacity and the building demands, as predicted by an approximate analysis method such as the nonlinear static analysis method, be incorporated into a reliability framework. The development of reliability-based design and a detailed description of the reliability framework selected for study in this research are provided in Chapter 5. In Chapter 6, this reliability framework will be used to incorporate the uncertainty in the analysis method used to calculate building demands. 89Table 4.1 Dynamic properties of the model steel frame buildings Bulging] Model | Weight] Height | Penrod] ry]. | a | Ta | te Tye | ey | ctr | (see) | ce-otiny (kesthin) sStry | Mt | sess | se | tos | tar | ssi | 100 | tar | 698 ‘SStory | M2 | 3258] 30 | 101 | 130 | 536 | 098 | 127 | 699 ostry | mi | oo31 | 122 | 234 | 196 | 1576] 100 | 196 | 2047 oStory | M2 | 01 | 122 | 224 | 138 | 1525] 099 | 137 | 2100 20-Stery | wi | 12220] 265 | 398 | 134 | 1812] 100 | 134 | 2420 20-Story | M2 | 12220] 265 | 373 | 136 | 186e| 100 | 136 | 2503 b Lim fot take} © Value of 1st mode shape at ref. Table 4.2. Maximum roof displacement bias factor statistics — 3-story building fe ‘Load a [ud rem] [ew pears erf [eee] Pr A LB soso fe or [or [oat [os are | ore] i Tos es 039 | oaT | O58 oF sofas pas por pap om Ganj Ost | 128 | O57 a | ‘oe TP Tre O76 | O52 wo | oe az O78 ‘O37 [Medien] 07 | 02 [056 [ose [oz [oss [101 [is F050 [039 [oa7 [oe [026 fost [036 O22Table 4.3 Maximum roof displacement bias factor statistics - 9-story building end ram] Fesrpesepser sere ner sso a foes [015 | | Mediaal 0.50 [121 | Que vor} oe ee ae T26 | OT pee O15 | O18] O18 | O17 | Table 4.4 Maximum roof displacement bias fmPeper or om oy a [efor | oz | ozs [oar | om [oss [ont [om | aas | om | Sa eae Te aarp omy Te weep Tay Oe “EES var oar os ass oss [oat aa OFT oss o1 eT tat mT nme] eae em | paon ff e eer erf eee er raters 0.79 | 0.85 | 1.06 0.84 | 1.08 | 0.18 | 042 | 0.40 | 0.22 0.40 | 0.16 | a =r TOT os i capes for om oF ofa ae A A A aso ef gf oe [om [eae [0x1 [026 fom [032 [ot oar || [Reta one [rar [ome [iro oar [rae [ors [rir ome]Table 4.5 Maximum interstory drift bias factor statistics ~ 3-story building to 7 om nee] [eae semper or [eee Cron EY OF | Tze [Oar [Ome | wos ome | Tas | oae | Tas | OY rasfeiafert eet arte rbert ert rrt EB a FP Rd [ee feo oy Ca) Usitora — post | 126 Toss [050] epee | jsermsi0.134] 0354) 0263] 1038 [ors | = peseema ane teas] Ora Oe ae uso | cf 046 | 057 | oar [ose [oz | 047 [os7 aaa | oes [asi | nS aS eH ROS RO | nse eet] aoe ROSA Rae _L Pe Foes [os | os float oe on [oar | oss [oat [022 | 50/50 Table 4.6 Maximum interstory drift bias factor statistics - 9-story building beep eepeet i peaap oo pom pose fom [rar [ose oe [or] sep bom Lome fone [ome fone | aor [ox [on | oo] . al 1.25 [0.54 [1.06 [woe Perper fextearton ew porpont ents po] 92Table 4.7 Maximum interstory drift bias factor statistics — 20-story building so/so ft [Receal 196 | 198 = rata YO | TTT Pe fo [om Prema Ome [1] estore | meeps ea Po f030 [032 | Preamp or [1 2150 ar 7 cram] orem Venton) ee] [OO [Oe [Te TY pacprepoep ras | ee fo 082 [037 [ose Jost [062 oz | 036 | 056 | 009 | 8 | rae [ras oor var | wee Tae] OT] on [oss [om [oes | ow [ome [om [oar | ao [os [oe [oe [039 [057 [ae | | [ees [om or i on rrp or | [esr [tor [oes pars fom me [| [os [one [ose fons fast [aoe | ot [a7] P= pos oz pr] oar [ose [oar fom [oar [ost [o3z [027] Table 4.8 Maximum beam total rotation bias factor statistics 3-story building oS a fo fo2s [o2s | Unit afr ome [ear [025 [027 [03s [ozs | 025 oz a3 085 | 056 | [ sous Fle oan [ar oa7 ‘aiT ese J 10750 on O31 | 082 | O86 | O71 Gs ‘O27 | 026 | O13 | O2T ‘027 | 026 100 Uniform pa vapor] [rom yo?) 03521) | 061 | 0.78 | 0.96 | er 046 93Table 4.9 Maximum beam total rotation bias factor statistics — 9-story building O38 ‘OTe O79 [oss [re [ost | 105 [085 | oti isis5i aes] xe-z2) ko.s2i/bo.ae a3 Usiorm| tee jeOees tai i022) Oar} tat | O35 OF: O30 Tir TT Os pT Pes fos [rarer or] Picea uc 22a Ls nea ee ae) [036 [059 [02s [02s [025] 057 | Oe ‘ost | 028 | 027 aso CEs [ee [om [ox 036 a BE | 037 | 023 | 024 ‘027 Table 4.10 Maximum beam total rotation bias factor statistics - 20-story building 7 carp oa pry os var Lore ors [se Loar fo poe Tapp orp repro pte rerpemfort ot om pra oar Lor] 0.66 [0-72 1.20 | 0.56 | 0.99 | 0.62 OST 0.60 | 0.33 0.52 [ 0.49 cs es Foe as Loaef oaF cscposrp aarp or} [ss Pom Pom roar ar om Pe fox [ose [ose [ose [om [ose [om [ome [03s [030 |Table 4.11 Maximum panel-zone total rotation bias factor statistics - 3-story building [rom |_| [cm [cee scm [scsm] es J cm [ osm] sco [SCsM] ESM] (mr a A I I I 9 | na |e 121 7 7 Pt for are per poortom Picasa ae ees nea peo] 0.teypo.16} [nce |0.0) 756 TEP Te] OF | OST usiform| een Poe Tron Tor Torr] 102 | 250 | 7 eee Se ee ct | a sn LO anes] cee nee 2a) a A Table 4.12 Maximum panel-zone total rotation bias factor statistics — 9-story building EDT tad ur ve Hsard] Pate GM] CSM] SCM [SCSM] ESM] CM | CSM] SCM [SCEM] ESM Cao =al PP TP ee ey sy reo] ae TTT ost 038 To: _ Ts a [039 [ 030 Non Pet per es] Om | se | 2a = Tot oar oe | as | oa cafe peep en] re] 2 | Boe of oe | 0 | Ose | 036 | 036 0850 Median] 49-7 2.15 Lt 8 Ti = TL Le Ln ep eae 7 Tf at a0 | 039 039 | oar van eamt es] 28] 288 PB 7 mle [or [oss | oni | ome | oe Meamap Noun TEpRop ue Tsp ise z eae fost orf oar | os 95Table 4.13 Maximum panel-zone total rotation bias factor statistics ~ 20-story building Uniform} ee a pe rere ay A “Teal Ea Te P= ~~ l SIT a7 | 0350 1050 a wa I~ ont Har 052 | O51 [rion ==] PP po] ef fom oe | ns [a | 80 L_t fest fos ae J 00 | 028 | | kere =Maximum Panel Zone Rotation Bias factors are baved on resus trom Pre-Nortvidge 3-0, then the building design meets the intended performance objective. This is described as a “safe” building design. On the other hand, if the value of the performance function is less than zero, i.e. g(x) <0, then the building design does not meet the desired performance objective. This is described as a “failed” building design. Consider, for example, a building where performance is quantified in terms of the maximum interstory drift. In this case, the performance function is expressed as, B(51,5.)=5, -34 (5.2) 127In Eq. (5.2), 5, is a random variable that quantifies the maximum interstory drift capacity of the building for the desired level of performance. Similarly, 6, is a random variable that quantifies the maximum interstory drift demand on the building at the specified level of earthquake ground motion. The failure and safe regions defined by the performance function given in Eq, (5.2) are illustrated in Figure 5.2. Consider in this example the occurrence of a Rare (475-year) earthquake and the Vision 2000 performance objective called Life Safety, see Figure 2.1, Chapter 2. In this case, 8, in Eq. (5.2) comesponds to the maximum interstory drift demand from a 475-year earthquake ground motion, and 5, is the maximum interstory drift angle capacity corresponding to the Life Safety performance objective. Recall that the demand and capacity are random variables because their values cannot be estimated with certainty. If the random variables, 5, and 5, are correlated random variables, then they have a joint probability density function (PDF). Define the joint PDF of 8, and 8, to be p(6..8,) Since g(5,,8,) is a function of the random variables 5, and 6,, the performance function itself is a random variable. For a given design, the probability that g(5,,5,) is less than zero is called the probability of failure. The probability of failure, P,, is expressed mathematically as, Pr = ffs noPBur5.48,45, 63) 128If it is assumed that the maximum interstory drift demand and capacity are independent random variables, then Eq. (5.3) becomes, P= I[fpo. ws. fe, 38 oo) The probability of failure calculated using Eq. (5.4) is qualitatively illustrated in Figure 5.3. In this figure, the probability of failure is represented by the overlapping area of the PDF's. The probability of failure depends on the shape of the PDF’s, the degree of dispersion in these curves, and the relative position of these curves. In the general case where the performance function defined in Eq. (5.1) is a function of many random variables x,,x,,---,x,, the joint PDF of the variables is P(X;,2,"""sX,)- Then the equation for the probability of failure can be written as, 2 dX dx +x, (3.5) Fem fof Dtenn In a structural engineering context, performance functions can be thought of as representing different building failure modes. For the performance function expressed in Eq. (5.2), the failure of a building design to meet the specified performance objective, or failure mode, is defined to occur when the maximum interstory drift demand exceeds the interstory drift capacity. In general, a building can have more than one mode of failure. Each failure mode can be defined by performance functions expressed in terms of multiple building response quantities. In Chapter 2, Section 2.5, it was shown that the FEMA 273 document (ATC, 1997) provides guidelines for acceptable building 129performance in terms of maximum interstory drift, maximum beam plastic rotation, and maximum panel zone plastic rotation. Other measures of performance can include maximum column plastic rotation, story drift ductility, and damage indicators such as the Park and Ang (1985) damage index. In general, for failure mode i, failure is defined by the event, (x) <0] (5.6) Consider a building with & failure modes corresponding to & performance functions. Building failure is defined to occur when the design fails in any one of the & failure modes. This is written as, E=E, VE, U--UE, 67 where E, WE, denotes the union of failure events i and j. Equation (5.5) can now be generalized to represent the probability of building failure, where building performance is quantified in terms of & failure modes and & performance functions, g, (X,.X3.--".Xq)s that are a function of m random demand and capacity variables. This generalization can be written as, = Jape POI Rar a he od (5.8) Equation (5.8) states the basic problem that the structural engineer must solve in order to perform a reliability-based design and evaluation of a building. This chapter is 130devoted to the discussion of the various methods for solving Eq. (5.8). In all of the methods presented, each is considered a single failure mode method where performance is expressed in terms of one performance function only. The sources of uncertainty that must be considered in the solution of Eq. (5.8) are summarized in Section 5.2. A brief overview of reliability-based design and evaluation procedures is given in Sections 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5. Section 5.3 describes the Load and Resistance Factor design methodology. Section 5.4 describes the Probabilistic Risk Assessment procedures used for the performance evaluation of nuclear power plants and Section 5.5 describes recent developments in reliability-based design and evaluation. Section 5.6 provides a detailed discussion of the Demand and Capacity Factor Design method proposed by Jalayer and Comell (1998), and Section 5.7 provides a summary of this chapter. 5.2 Sources and Types of Uncertainty A seismic performance evaluation of a building design must incorporate all of the sources of uncertainty that significantly affect the seismic performance of the building. Various types of uncertainties have been discussed by, Thoft-Christensen and Baker (1982), Ang and Tang (1984), Der Kiureghian (1989), and Melchers (1999). As indicated by these researchers, uncertainties can be grouped into two categories: (1) Inherent Randomness and (2) Modeling Uncertainty. These uncertainties are also referred to as aleatory and epistemic uncertainties (Jalayer and Comell, 1998), respectively. A summary of the sources of uncertainty is illustrated in Figure 5.4, 131In reliability-based design and evaluation of buildings, it is essential to note the difference between inherent randomness and modeling uncertainty. Inherent randomness results from the perceived randomness of a particular state of nature. This uncertainty is irreducible and beyond the control of the structural engineer. Modeling uncertainty is within the control of the structural engineer. It results from approximate models and ‘methods, or the lack of experimental data used to estimate the probabilistic descriptors of the true state of nature. Modeling uncertainty can be reduced by collecting more data or by using more sophisticated models of structural behavior. Inherent randomness results from the perceived randomness of a particular state of nature. Examples of typical quantities with inherent randomness relevant to the performance of buildings include the tensile strength of a steel specimen or the maximum compressive strength of a concrete specimen. The probabilistic description of each of these inherently random variables can be quantified by a measure of its central value, e.g. mean, and a measure of its dispersion, e.g. standard deviation. For example, consider twenty samples taken from an ASTM A36 steel wide-flanged member and tested to measure the tensile yield strength. From these measurements, the sample mean, f,, and sample standard deviation, o,, , was calculated and found to be 47.3 ksi (326 MPa) and 8.7 ksi (60 MPa), respectively. The corresponding sample coefficient of variation (COV), Vz, is 0.18 or 18%, indicating that this structural variable is uncertain. Modeling uncertainty is introduced to the building design and evaluation process ‘when an imperfect structural mode! or analysis method is used to estimate the values of 132building performance variables. Typically, structural engineers use approximate models because they are a convenient way to predict a building performance quantity by making simplifying assumptions about the true effects and interactions of basic variables. The use of a linear response spectrum analysis instead of a nonlinear time history analysis to estimate the maximum interstory drift demand on a building is an example of such a modeling decision that results in modeling uncertainty. Another source of modeling uncertainty is the statistical uncertainty resulting from the use of a limited number of samples to calculate the central value and dispersion in a building performance quantity. For example, if @ nonlinear time history analysis is used to estimate building response to earthquake ground motions, then a single earthquake ground motion sample will result in an estimate of the maximum interstory drift. As the number of earthquake ground motion samples increases, the knowledge about this particular quantity increases, thereby reducing the uncertainty associated with the estimate of the central value and dispersion in the maximum interstory drift. Modeling uncertainty can be decomposed into two parts: (1) Systematic Uncertainty and (2) Random Uncertainty (Dietrich, 1991), as illustrated in Figure 5.4. As shown in Figure 5.4, this research will only consider the modeling uncertainty associated with estimating the central value, since within a linear first-order approximation, any errors in estimating the measure of dispersion, and higher moments, are negligible (Ang, 1973). The systematic uncertainty is called the bias and it is attributed to the simplifying assumptions or other factors that consistently result in an over-prediction or under- prediction of the true quantity. The bias is defined to be the ratio of the true quantity to 133the quantity estimated using the imperfect structural engineering model, and is sometimes called the bias factor. The random uncertainty exists when the bias factor is a random variable and is quantified by a measure of dispersion, e.g. coefficient of variation, in the bias factor. Assume that it is found that the yield strength measured from samples taken from steel wide-flanged members over-estimates the true yield strength of the steel by between 70% to 85%. This is called the bias and results from the method of sampling and the testing process. Assuming that the range of bias values has a uniform likelihood of occurrence, i.e. uniform PDF, the value of the mean bias factor is, bias) 2704085 9 78 (5.9) This mean bias factor is the systematic component of modeling uncertainty. The random component of modeling uncertainty is the variation in the bias factor and it is quantified by the coefficient of variation equal to, Secon _ V(0.85 - 0.70)? 112 0.06 (5.10) F, (bias) 0.78 Viscom = In addition, random uncertainty includes the statistical uncertainty resulting from the use of a limited number of samples to determine the central value and dispersion in a building performance quantity. For example, the mean value of the yield strength, 47.3 ksi (386 MPa), is termed the sample mean because it is based on the information from twenty observations and therefore is only an estimate of the true mean value. If all twenty samples resulted in a value of the yield strength exactly equal to 47.3 ksi (386 134Mpa), then the random uncertainty component of modeling uncertainty would be zero. However, in this example not all twenty values are the same and the uncertainty in the sample mean due to random sampling uncertainty (Ang and Tang, 1975) is, Ve, _ 0.18 _ Vi = Jes ero (1) where Vj is the coefficient of variation representing a component of the random uncertainty and mis the size of the sample space. A reliability-based seismic design and evaluation methodology must account for the inherent randomness and modeling uncertainty associated with quantifying building demands and capacities. As it relates to calculating demands on steel moment frame buildings, modeling uncertainty may result from the following: * Analysis method used to predict demands, eg. Nonlinear time history, nonlinear static, linear time history, linear response spectrum, and linear static. * Analytical model of the building, eg. selection of damping, accuracy of element models, effect of steel deck on strength and stiffness of beams, foundation flexibility, stiffness and strength of connections and joint panel zones, strength and stiffness of gravity framing, distribution and magnitude of seismic weight. ‘* Number of earthquake ground motions records used to estimate building demands. 135This research focuses on quantifying the modeling uncertainty associated with the analysis method used to predict building response. This involves calculating the values of the bias factors and variation of the bias factors associated with various analysis methods. 5.3 Load and Resistance Factor Design The fundamental objective of building design is to produce a building that will have predictable and reliable performance for the loads imposed upon it during its design life. Ideally this objective can be accomplished by sizing and detailing the structural members and connections such that they meet the design criteria intended to produce a desired level of safety. Traditionally, structural design criteria were based on deterministic approaches that sought to achieve predictable and reliable performance by using safety margins or safety factors (Ang and Tang, 1984). These safety factors have historically been based on the combination of judgement and past experience. For example, foundations designed according to the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) (ICBO, 1997) are required to have a 1.5 factor of safety against overtuming and sliding. ‘The foundation for reliability-based design and analysis of structures started with the research by Freudenthal (1956). Later, the work by Cornell (1969) and Ang and Comell (1974) helped bring Freudenthal’s ideas to fruition. They proposed a structural reliability analysis method called the first-order second-moment (FOSM) method. In this method, the reliability of the structural design is expressed in terms of the probability of failure of the structural components, and focused on the uncertainty in the demand and 136capacity variables. The FOSM method is so named because it uses only a first-order Taylor series expansion of the performance function and it uses only the second-moment statistics, ie. means and covariances, of the random variables. In the mid 1970's, the limit state design philosophy was proposed (Allen, 1976), A limit state is defined as “...a condition where a structure or a structural component becomes unfit for its intended purpose.” (Ellingwood, et al., 1982) Limit states are divided into two categories: (1) Ulimate Limit States, associated with failure or collapse, and (2) Serviceability Limit States, related to structural damage or disruption of the functional use of the structure (Ellingwood, et al., 1982). Galambos and Ravindra (1978) combined the limit state design philosophy with the FOSM method to develop a structural design method called Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). The basic LRFD design equation is, L7Q sR (8.12) where y, is a load factor corresponding to the ith load component, Q, is the ith load component, is a resistance factor, and R is the resistance corresponding to the selected limit state. As part of the development of the American National Standard AS8 (Ellingwood, et al., 1980; Galambos et al., 1982; Ellingwood et al., 1982), values of the load and resistance factors were selected to ensure that the probability of exceeding a particular limit state would be less than acceptable levels, Currently, ASCE 7-95 (ASCE, 1996) specifies load combinations and load factors as follows, 137LD 1.2(D+F+T)+1.6(L +H) +0.5(L, or SorR) 1.2D+1.6(L, or Sor R)+ (0.5L or 0.8W) co 12D +1.3W +0.5L+0.5(L, or SorR) 1.2D+10E+05L +028 0.9D + (1.3W or 1.0E) where D is dead load, L is live load, E is earthquake load, W is wind load, F is load due to fluids, T is self-straining force, S is snow load, R is rain load, H is load due to soil pressure, and L, is roof live load. Each of these load combinations should be investigated in association with the resistance provided by the building at the ultimate limit state of the material. Specifications for the ultimate limit state resistance and appropriate resistance factors are provided in ACI 318-99 (ACI, 1999) for concrete structures and LRFD-94 (AISC, 1994) for steel structures. The load and resistance factors currently used in structural design are intended to ensure that the probability of exceeding an ultimate limit state of a component of the structural system will be less than acceptable values. A building system is composed of a number of structural components, e.g. beams and columns, that contribute to the overall structural integrity of the building. Hence, the failure of one component does not necessarily result in a failure of the building system as a whole. The methods for reliability-based design and performance evaluation presented in the following sections address the probability of building failure in a global sense. 1385.4 Probabilistic Risk Assessment ‘The principles of reliability-based design have been used in the development of seismic probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) guidelines (USNRC, 1983) for nuclear power plants. The basis for the development of these guidelines is discussed by Kennedy at al. (1980), Kennedy and Ravindra (1984), and Ravindra (1988). The PRA guidelines provide a methodology for calculating the probability of structural or equipment failure during earthquake ground motions. This is accomplished as a result of three steps, (1) a seismic hazard analysis, (2) a structure and equipment fragility analysis, and (3) a calculation of the probability of earthquake induced failure. Each of these steps is described in detail in the following. The product of the seismic hazard analysis is an expression for the annual probability of exceeding a given value of a ground motion parameter. In PRA procedures for nuclear power plants, the ground motion parameter is typically defined as the peak ground acceleration. The seismic hazard analysis (Cornell, 1968) takes into account the seismic history of the region, potential sources of seismic activity, the rate of seismic activity of the potential sources, the relative likelihood of various magnitudes of events on these sources, and the relationships between site characteristics, distance and magnitude. A qualitative illustration of a seismic hazard curve is shown in Figure 5.5. The structural fragility analysis quantifies the probability of failure given a value of the peak ground acceleration. Since this probability of failure is conditional upon a given value of the peak ground acceleration, it is called the conditional probability of 139failure, The value of the peak ground acceleration that will cause failure is called the peak ground acceleration capacity, and is defined as, A=Aggey (5.14) where 4 is the peak ground acceleration capacity random variable, A is a deterministic variable representing the median peak ground acceleration capacity, and €, and ey are random variables that represent the uncertainty in the peak ground acceleration capacity due to inherent randomness and modeling uncertainty, respectively. If the modeling uncertainty is neglected, the conditional probability of failure, P;|a, for a given value of peak ground acceleration, a, can be found simply by calculating the probability that the peak ground acceleration capacity is less than a. For mathematical convenience, the random variables €, and ey are typically assumed to be random variables with lognormal PDF's and median values equal to one. Therefore, the conditional probability of failure is, (5.15) where ©( ) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and o,., is the standard deviation of the natural logarithms of ¢,, also known as the logarithmic standard deviation. 140Considering the modeling uncertainty associated with the peak ground acceleration capacity, the conditional probability of failure can be solved using two different approaches. In the first approach, the modeling uncertainty is treated in the same manner as the inherent randomness. Since €, and ¢, are both independent and lognormal random variables, the product of these two random variables in Eq. (5.14) can be replaced by a single lognormal random variable with a median value of one and a logarithmic standard devi ion equal to (Gu, ) +(uc,) > where o,., is the logarithmic standard deviation of €,,. Equation (5.15) then becomes, nivoef creas (16) Tenn) 2 Cu.) As discussed in Section 5.2, inherent randomness is a state of nature that is beyond the control of the structural engineer, whereas, modeling uncertainty results from the use of approximate models and methods and can be reduced by the structural engineer. The second approach to solving for the conditional probability of failure recognizes this fundamental difference between inherent randomness and modeling uncertainty Incorporating the modeling uncertainty random variable, €,, into Eq. (5.15) results in an expression for the conditional probability of failure that is now itself a random variable, and itis, 1416.17) Equation (5.17) can be treated using a one-sided confidence bound (Ang and Tang, 1975) that expresses the probability, or confidence, that the conditional probability of failure will be less than a given value. This statement is written as follows, c=PP; [a Sa’) =k, (Sa')* (5.37) In Eq. (5.37), k and k, are shape parameters and S, is the spectral acceleration at the fundamental natural period of the building. Fitting Eq. (5.37) to the USGS mapped spectral accelerations shown in Figures 5.6 through 5.8 at a 10% in 50-year and 2% in 50-year probability of exceedance, results in the hazard curves and shape parameters shown. By taking the natural logarithm of both sides of Eq. (5.37), it follows that there is a linear relationship between the natural logarithm of the probability of exceedance and the natural logarithm of Sa, 153InHl,, = Ink, -kinSa (5.38) The seismic hazard curve shape parameters are obtained by fitting Eq. (5.38) to the mean hazard curve and thus, Eq. (5.38) defines the mean relationship between InH,, and InSa. Assuming that the probability of exceedance has a lognormal probability distribution, the geometric mean, or median, value of H,, is calculated from the exponential of the mean value of InH,, see Appendix A. Therefore, taking the exponential of both sides of Eq. (5.38) results in Eq. (5.37). Hence, the seismic hazard relationship given in Eq. (5.37) is a median relationship between H,, and Sa. It will become clear in subsequent sections that the fit of Eq. (5.38) to the seismic hazard curve must be accurate in the range of the expected probability of exceeding a specified performance level. ‘The seismic hazard relationship in Eq. (5.37) is fundamentally important to the DCFD methodology and is expressed in terms of a single ground motion parameter. Spectral acceleration is a convenient parameter to characterize the seismic hazard at the building site because, in lieu of a detailed seismic hazard analysis, the USGS mapped spectral accelerations can be used to define the hazard relationship. However, the use of a single ground motion parameter is not a limitation of the DCFD method. As additional research contributes to the understanding of earthquake ground motion characteristics, the seismic hazard curve may be expressed in terms of multiple ground motion parameters. The DCFD methodology can be adapted to accommodate a multi-parameter seismic hazard relationship. 1545.6.2 Relationship Between Seismic Hazard and Building Response The DCFD methodology is a single failure mode method and in its development Comell only considers the maximum interstory drift ratio (IDR) at any story in the building as an indicator of building performance. The IDR is a non-dimensional variable and it is defined to be the difference in floor displacement at any two adjacent floor levels. divided by the height between the floors. The DCFD methodology is applicable to any limit state used to define building performance, however, the primary focus of the illustrative example in this chapter is on the collapse level of performance. The collapse performance level is quantified in terms of IDR in the DCFD methodology. The ultimate goal is to express the annual probability of failure, i.e. collapse, for the building as a function of the IDR collapse capacity. Therefore, Comell relates spectral acceleration to maximum IDR demand to provide the bridge between the ground motion and the building response. This relationship is developed by performing nonlinear time history analyses of the building under consideration using an ensemble of earthquake ground motion time histories. The ensemble of ground motion records should be selected such that they have different values of spectral acceleration in the range of values that were used to define the seismic hazard curve in Eq. (5.37). For each ground motion record, a nonlinear time history analysis is performed and the maximum IDR demand calculated. Figure 5.9, 5.10, and 5.11 show the values of spectral acceleration and the corresponding maximum IDR demands for the 3-, 9-, and 20-story buildings, respectively, calculated using the 50%, 10%, and 2% in 50 year earthquake ground 155motion time histories described in Appendix C. The maximum IDR demand values were calculated for the 3-story model building described in Appendix B. ‘Comell proposed the following two-parameter mathematical relationship between spectral acceleration and maximum IDR, 5=aSa° (5.39) where a and 6 are shape parameters. Cornell obtains the values of the shape parameters from a linear least squares regression analysis of the natural logarithms of the spectral acceleration and maximum IDR demand data points. The shape parameters that result from the linear regression define the mean relationship between In and InS.. Assuming that the values of 6 have a lognormal probability distribution, the median of & can be found from the exponential of mean value of In5, as discussed in Appendix A. Therefore, the shape parameters from the linear regression define the median relationship between 8 and Sa. Using the values of spectral acceleration and maximum IDR demand shown in Figures 5.9 through 5.11, regression analyses were performed and each figure shows the resulting median relationship as defined by Eq, (5.39), Note that spectral acceleration is used to relate the ground motion and building response because this was the ground ‘motion parameter used to characterize the seismic hazard in Section 5.6.1. It is important to note that the relationship in Eq. (5.39) can be formulated using other building response quantities. For example, if building performance is to be quantified using maximum beam plastic rotation, then Eq. (5.39) can be used to provide a relationship between 156maximum beam plastic rotation and spectral acceleration. Table 5.1 summarizes the values of the shape parameters in Eq. (5.39) resulting from the relationships between spectral acceleration and maximum roof displacement, maximum IDR, maximum beam rotation, and maximum panel zone rotation. Equation (5.39) can be rearranged to give spectral acceleration as a function of maximum IDR demand, and so doing it follows that, (8.40) e u — elo Substituting Eq. (5.40) into the spectral acceleration hazard function in Eq. (5.37), it follows that, ($41) H,(6) = P{S28']=k, Equation (5.41) gives the annual probability of the building experiencing a maximum IDR demand greater than 6’. At this point, the seismic hazard relationship and the relationship between maximum IDR and spectral acceleration are assumed deterministic. Therefore, the probability expressed in Eq. (5.41) is also deterministic. The uncertainty due to inherent randomness in the relationship between maximum IDR and spectral acceleration will be considered in the next section. 1575.63 Inherent Randomness in Building Response Equation (5.41) enables the structural engineer to calculate the probability that for any year in the life of the building that the maximum IDR demand will exceed a specified value, Alternately, the value of the maximum IDR. demand can be calculated for any value of the annual probability of exceedance. However, to this point, no consideration has been given to the uncertainties in this equation. This section presents the development of the uncertainty factor that Comell uses to correct the IDR demand hazard relationship in Eq. (5.41) for the uncertainty in the relationship between the spectral acceleration and the maximum IDR demand given in Eq. (539) Consider the uncertainty in the relationship between the spectral acceleration and the maximum IDR demand. The relationship in Eq. (5.39) is obtained from a linear regression analysis. Therefore, the variance of the data points about this relationship represents the uncertainty in this relationship. This variance is called the conditional variance because it represents the dispersion in the maximum IDR demand conditional upon a value of spectral acceleration. This dispersion represents the uncertainty due to the inherent randomness in the maximum IDR demand resulting from the record-to- record variation in the earthquake ground motion. Assume that N data points were used to fit Eq. (5.39), Sa”, Sa",-+-,Sa",---,Sa”" 5,522,506" 158Let the random variable, €,5, represent the uncertainty associated with the inherent randomness in the maximum IDR demand, where the subscript RD stands for the randomness (R) in the demand (D). For each ground motion in the ensemble, there is a value of spectral acceleration and from each nonlinear time history analysis there is a value of the maximum IDR demand. Thus, for each data point, the random variable, Eq, has a sample value given by, (6.42) which is the ratio of the calculated maximum IDR demand and the maximum IDR demand predicted by Eq. (5.39), Note that a and b are known parameters because they were obtained from the linear regression analysis. Incorporating the random variable, €q5, into Eq. (5.39) results in, 6 =a(Sa)"e,, (5.43) Again, rearranging Eq. (5.43) and substituting into the expression for the seismic hazard given in Eq. (5.37), results in the following, H,(8) = P{528']=k, G44) Equation (5.44) is an expression for the probability that the maximum IDR demand will exceed a specified value and includes a random variable, 45, that 159