Association of Structural Engineers of the

Philippines, Inc. (ASEP)

Performance Based Design

Concepts and Practices

Dr. Naveed Anwar

Executive Director, AIT Consulting
Affiliated Faculty, Structural Engineering
Director, ACECOMS
 • All slides and information taken from various sources is
acknowledged
• Specially material referred from
– Presentations from Dr. Pennung Warnitchai
– Presentations from Computers and Structures Inc., USA
– Work done by AIT Master and Doctoral students
– Work done by ACECOMS and AIT Consulting Staff
– Class lectures notes by Dr. Naveed Anwar

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Kashmir Earthquake (Oct 8, 2005)
Magnitude = 7.7
Death Toll > 80,000

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

Haiti Earthquake (2010)
Magnitude = 7.0
Death Toll: 100,000 ~ 200,000
 Northridge (1994) Earthquake

Bourmedes (2003) Earthquake

Bhuj (2001) Earthquake Kobe (1995) Earthquake

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Collapsed residential buildings in the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey)
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Primarily designed and detailed for gravity loads
• The codes provisions may not be adequate
• Non-ductile detailing of reinforcement, both in columns and
beams which can cause many possible brittle failures.
• Dominated by strong beam-weak column behavior which can
cause soft story mechanism.
• The irregularities of the buildings which make it difficult to
predict the behavior of the buildings when subjected to
earthquake.
• Most of the time, these irregularities make the seismic
performance become worse.
Turkey Algeria
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Why do we need Performance Based Approach (PBA)
• What is Performance Based Approach
– Performance Based Design (PBD)
– Performance Based Evaluation (PBE)
• When do we need to use PBA
• What is needed to carryout PBA
• How do we carryout PBA
• What is the outcome of PBA
• What are the advantages of PBA
• What are the disadvantages of PBA

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 12

• Why do we need to carryout Performance Based Design
Evaluation when we have the building and design codes
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 14
 Client/Owner General Building Codes

Architect Structural Design Codes

Structural Designer Law Makers

Geotech Consultants Building Officials

Peer Reviewer Legal and Justice System

Builder/Contractor

Public/ Users/ Occupants

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 15

 • Public
– Will the building be safe?
• Owner
– Will the building collapse/ will it be damaged ?
– Can I use the building after a given earthquake? (blast, hurricane..)
– How much will repair cost?
– How long will it take to repair?
– Can I make building that will not be damaged and will not collapse
• Public Officials
– Who is responsible if loss of life occurs?

Who should have all the answers?

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Can not answer most of the these questions explicitly
• Answers are always qualified
• There is no warranty for the structure

• There are too many unknowns

• Public understanding and engineers understanding of safety is
different
•
• Has to hide behind the design codes

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 17

 • Main concerns
– Safety, Serviceability, Durability >> Collectively called “Performance”
• For effects of
– Loads from self weight, occupants
– Wind
– Earthquake
– Special loads (blast, flooding, tsunami, hurricane, fire, ..)
• Some effects to be handled without damage, for some effects
some damage may be allowed

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 18

 • High gravity stresses in the vertical elements
• High base overturning moment and foundation design (wind, seismic)
• High shear capacity needed near base (seismic)
• Development of ductility in elements at the base of structure under high
compressive gravity stress (seismic)
• Controlling lateral accelerations (wind)
• Controlling story drift (wind and seismic)
• Controlling damage so as to permit repair (seismic)
• Ductile energy dissipation mechanisms and preventing brittle failures
(seismic)

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Traditional codes govern design of general, normal buildings
– Over 95% buildings are covered, which are less than about 50 m
• Not specifically developed for tall buildings > 50 m tall
• Prescriptive in nature, no explicit check on outcome
• Permit a limited number of structural systems
• Do not include framing systems appropriate for high rise
• Based on elastic methods of analysis
• Enforce uniform detailing rules on all members
• Enforce unreasonable demand distribution rules
• Do not take advantage of recent computing tools

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 20

 • Implicit Performance Objective
– Resist minor earthquake without damage, which is anticipated to occur
several times during the life of a building, without damage to structural
and non-structural components

– Resist the design level of earthquake with damage without causing loss
of life

– Resist strongest earthquake with substantial damage but a very low

probability of collapse.

• Explicit verification not specified or required

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Lack of explicit performance in design codes is primary
motivation for performance based design
• Performance based methods require the designer to assess
how a building is likely perform under earthquake shaking and
other extreme events and their correct application will help to
identify unsafe designs.
• At the same time this approach enables arbitrary restrictions
to be lifted and provides scope for the development of safer
and more cost-effective structural solutions.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Applied Technology Council (ATC-72)
• Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER)
• Building Seismic Safety Council Research Center (BSSCR)
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 356)
• Basic ASCE Documents (ASCE 7, ASCE 3, ASCC 4)
• Structural Engineering Association of California (Blue Book and
SEAOC PBD Framework)

• Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC)

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 23

 Performance based design
can be applied to any type
of loads, but is typically
suitable and targeted for
earthquake loads

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 24

 Mass-Acceleration Stiffness-Displacement External Force

  Cu  Ku  FNL  F
Mu
Damping-Velocity
Nonlinearity

  Cu  Ku
Mu

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Acceleration Records
Mu  Cu  Ku  Mug Time History Analysis

  Cu  Ku  FNL  F
Mu
Free Vibration Equivalent
  Ku  0 Ku  FEQ Static Analysis
Mu
Pushover
Ku  FNL  FEQ Analysis

Ku  FEQ Response Spectrum

Analysis
Response Spectrums
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 2
S MS  Fa S S
V  CsW
S DS  S MS
3

S DS
CS  Fa = Site coefficient short period (
R Ss = Spectral accelerations for short periods, Maps
  R = The response modification factor
Cs need not be  IE  IE = The occupancy importance factor
greater than
2 SM 1  FV S1
S DI S D1  SM1
CS  3
R
 T
 IE  FV = Site coefficient, 1 sec period
T = Fundamental period (in seconds) of the structure
Cs must be greater than
S1 = Spectral accelerations for a 1-second period, Maps
0.5S1
CS  CS  0.01
R
 
IE 

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • R is dependent on structural system and ranges from 3 to 8
(bad to good)
• Fa is site modification for short period spectrum and ranges
from 0.8 to 2.5 (good to bad)
• Fv is a site modification for 1 sec period spectrum and ranges
from 0.8 to 3.5 (good to bad)
• IE Ranges from 1.0 to 1.5 (Normal to important)

• Total variation can be up to 16 times for buildings in the same

Seismic Zone

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

29
 • Multiple performance levels are checked.
• Multiple seismic events are applied.
• May utilize nonlinear analysis.
• Detailed local acceptance criteria
– For structural elements
– For nonstructural elements
• Detailed local acceptance criteria indicates element-by-
element checking, rather than an overall system R factor such
as is used in the conventional design of new buildings.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Whereas traditional code procedures attempt to satisfy
implicitly all three objectives by designing to prescriptive rules
for a single (design) level of seismic hazard, performance
based design of high rise buildings investigates at least two
performance objectives explicitly
• 1) Service-level Assessment
– Negligible damage in once-in-a-lifetime earthquake having a return
period of about 50 years(30 years to 72 years depending on the
jurisdiction and building importance)
• 2) Collapse-level Assessment
– Collapse prevention under the largest earthquake with a return period
of 2500 years

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Earthquake Hazard must be specified/ identified

• For performance-based design to be successful, both the client

and engineer must be satisfied
• Engineer
– Hazard must be quantifiable and performance must be quantifiable
• Owner
– Hazard must be understandable and performance must be
understandable and useful

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Hazard:
– The intensity and characteristics of ground
shaking that design is developed to resist.

• Deterministic
– Magnitude “x” earthquake on “y” fault
– Easy to understand but there is considerable uncertainty as to how
strong the motion from such an event actually is.
• Probabilistic
– “x” % probability of exceedance in “y” years for design event
– Low intensity shaking occurs frequently.
– Moderate intensity shaking occurs occasionally.
– Severe shaking occurs rarely
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Earthquake Hazard Levels

BSE – Basic Safety Earthquake

MRI- Maximum Recurrence Interval
*NEHRP Maximum Considered Earthquake

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Level of Earthquake Performance Objective

Serviceability: Negligible damage in once-in-a-lifetime

Frequent/Service: 50% probability of
earthquake. Structure to remain essentially elastic
exceedance in 30 years
with minor damage to structural and non-structural
(43-year return)
elements

Design Basis Earthquake (DBE): 10%

Code Level: Moderate structural damage; extensive
probability of exceedance in 50 years
repairs may be required
(475-year return)

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE): 2% Collapse Prevention: Extensive structural damage;

probability of exceedance in 50 years repairs are required and may not be economically
(2500-year return) feasible

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 The permissible amount of
damage, given that design
hazards are experienced.

Ref: FEMA 451 B

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Engineer
– amount of yielding, buckling, cracking, permanent deformation that
structure experiences

• Owner
– Will the building be safe?
– Can I use the building after the earthquake?
– How much will repair cost?
– How long will it take to repair?

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Restaurant Restaurant nt
ura
sta
Re

Operational Immediate Life Safety Collapse

Occupancy Prevention

0% Damage or Loss 99 %

Ref: FEMA 451 B

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Negligible structural and
nonstructural damage
• Occupants are safe during event
• Utilities are available
• Facility is available for immediate Restaurant

re-use (some cleanup required)

• Loss < 5% of replacement value

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Negligible structural damage
• Occupants safe during event
• Minor nonstructural damage
• Building is safe to occupy but
may not function Restaurant

• Limited interruption of
operations
• Losses < 15%

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Significant structural
damage
• Some injuries may occur
• Extensive nonstructural
damage ura
nt
a
R est
• Building not safe for re-
occupancy until repaired
• Losses < 30%

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Extensive (near complete)
structural and nonstructural
damage
• Significant potential for
injury but not wide scale
loss of life
• Extended loss of use
• Repair may not be practical
• Loss >> 30%

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Acceptance criteria are indicators of whether the predicted
performance is adequate for
• Local (component based)
– Example: Drift ratio, structural component deformation

• Global (overall structure-based)

– Example: Roof drift , base shear

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Primary and Secondary Parts
Slab as diaphragm
(Secondary)

Slab and Columns

(Interior frame)
(Secondary)

Plan
Shear wall (Primary)

Primary- Main lateral resisting elements

Secondary- non lateral resisting elements,
used for gravity load resistance
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
Elevation
 • Acceptance Criteria for primary components

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Acceptance Criteria for Secondary components

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Definition of D/C: It is an index that gives an overall relationship between
affects of load and ability of member to resists those affects.

• This is a normalized factor that means D/C ratio value of 1 indicates that
the capacity (strength, deformation etc) member is just enough to fulfill
the load demand.

• Two types of D/C ratio

– Members with brittle behavior D/C is checked by Strength (Elastic)
– Members with ductile behavior D/C is checked by deformation (Inelastic)

• Total D/C ratio of the member is combined of these two.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • The answer depends on:
– What performance level you are hoping to achieve.
– The configuration of the structure.
• How accurate you need to be
– Depends on the importance the structure
– Hazard level, available tools et.
• A wide range of choices are available
– Linear Static Analysis
– Linear Dynamic Analysis
– Non Linear Static Analysis (Pushover Analysis)
– Non Linear Dynamic Analysis

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • If Behavior will be essentially elastic
– Regular structures with short periods
• Linear static procedures are fine
– For Regular structures with long periods and all irregular structures
• Linear dynamic procedures are better
• Response spectra are accurate enough

Restaurant
Restaurant

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • If Inelastic behavior is significant (elastic analyses are the
wrong approach!)
• For Structures dominated by first mode response
– Non Linear Static Analysis (Pushover Analysis)
• Structures with significant higher mode response
– Nonlinear dynamic time history necessary

Restaurant

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

• What is needed and needs to be done to carry out an
effective Performance Based Design and Evaluation
 • To enhance the structural performance
– Improved serviceability, safety and reliability
– Explicit check on various performance indicators
• To improve cost effectiveness
– Achieve efficient use of materials, resources and time
– Direct reduction cost through reduction of structural material
quantities
• Objectives to be achieved through
– Better structural system selection and its proportions
– Use of advanced design methodologies and tools

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 52

 • Enhancement of • Cost Effectiveness
Performance – Capacity utilization ratio
– Dynamic response – Reinforcement ratios
parameters – Reinforcement volume ratios
– Lateral load response – Concrete strength and
– Vertical load response quantity
– Demand and capacity ratios – Rebar quantity
– Response irregularity, – Constructability, time and
discontinuity accommodation of other
– Explicit Performance constraints
Evaluation at Service, DBE
and MCE

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 53

 Level of Earthquake Seismic Performance Objective

Frequent/Service (SLE): 50% probability of Serviceability: Structure to remain

exceedance in 30 years essentially elastic with minor damage to
(43-year return period) structural and non-structural elements

Design Basis Earthquake (DBE): 10%

Code Level: Moderate structural damage;
probability of exceedance in 50 years
extensive repairs may be required
(475-year return period)

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE): Collapse Prevention: Extensive structural

2% probability of exceedance in 50 years damage; repairs are required and may not
(2475-year return period) be economically feasible

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 54

 • Seven site specific ground motions records are used.
• Determined by qualified geotechnical and geological
consultant, for the site located near by building.
• For the evaluations, “Average of 7 ground motions” approach
is used to determine the overall response and vulnerability of
the building.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 55

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 56
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 57
 Service Level

MCE Level
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 58
 Element Action Type Classification Expected
Behavior
RC column Axial-flexure Ductile Linear
Shear Brittle Linear
RC shear wall Flexure Ductile Nonlinear
Shear Brittle Linear
RC coupling beams Shear Ductile Nonlinear
(Deep beam, ln/d<4.0)
RC coupling beams Flexure Ductile Nonlinear
(slender beam, Shear Brittle Linear
ln/d≥4.0)

Classification of Actions

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 59

 Item Limit
Story Drift 0.5 percent
Coupling Beams Shear strength to remain essentially elastic
Core Wall Flexure Remain essentially elastic
Core Wall Shear Remain essentially elastic
Columns Remain essentially elastic
BRB Remain elastic (no yielding permitted)

• Essentially elastic behavior is defined as no more than 20% of the elements with
ductile actions having a D/C between 1.0 and 1.5. No elements will be allowed to
have a D/C >1.5
• Brittle actions are limited to D/C of 1.0

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 60

Element Action Type Classification Expected Acceptance Limit
Behaviour
Plastic hinge
Ductile Nonlinear Hinge rotation ≤ ASCE limit
Beams rotation
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity
Axial-Flexural
Ductile Nonlinear Hinge rotation ≤ ASCE limit
Columns interaction
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity
Axial-Flexural Tensile strain in rebar rotation ≤ 0.050
Shear Ductile Nonlinear
interaction Compressive strain in concrete ≤ 0.004
Walls
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity

Acceptance Criteria (DBE Level)

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 61

 Item Limit
Story Drift 3 percent
Coupling Beam Rotation (Diagonal
0.06 radian rotation limit
Reinforcement)
Coupling Beam Rotation (Conventional
0.025 radian rotation limit
reinforcement)
Rebar strain = 0.05 in tension and 0.02 in
Core Wall Reinforcement Axial Strain
compression
Concrete Compression Strain = 0.004 + 0.1 ρ(fy
Core Wall Concrete Axial Strain
/ f’c)

BRB 9 times yield strain

• Brittle actions are checked against 1.3 times the average MCE demand using
expected material strength and code specified strength reduction factors.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 62

63
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 64
 • Over 95% of the buildings are less than 10 floors in most cities
• Low-Mid rise buildings receive less attention to design,
detailing and construction compared to tall buildings
• Due to smaller natural period, typically generate greater base
shear during an earthquake
• Often lack a properly designed/designated seismic resisting
system
• Easier to induce structural irregularities

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Structural un-symmetry can be of many types
– Soft story
– Weak Story
– Plan Torsional irregularity
– Vertical Torsional Irregularity
• Simple masonry walls can cause buildings to become
unsymmetrical
• Unsymmetrical buildings produces unpredictable response and
are a major cause of damage and collapse

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 66

 A Typical Building Algeria
CE 72.32 - Design of Tall Buildings - January 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar
 Northridge (1994) Earthquake

Bourmedes (2003) Earthquake

Bhuj (2001) Earthquake Kobe (1995) Earthquake

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Collapsed residential buildings in the 1999 Kocaeli (Turkey)
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Primarily designed and detailed for gravity loads
• Non-ductile detailing of reinforcement, both in columns and
beams which can cause many possible brittle failures.
• Dominated by strong beam-weak column behavior which can
cause soft story mechanism.
• The irregularities of the buildings which make it difficult to
predict the behavior of the buildings when subjected to
earthquake.
• Most of the time, these irregularities make the seismic
performance become worse.

Turkey Algeria
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Turkey Algeria
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Pennung Warnitchai

Soft/Weak Story Interruption of Columns T-shaped Plan Torsionally Irregular

Abrupt Changes in Interruption of Vertical- Large Openings in Drastic Changes in

Size of Members Resisting Elements (walls) Diaphragm (Floor) Mass/Stiffness Ratio

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 73

 Pennung Warnitchai
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 VULNERABILITY FACTORS

 Non-seismic Detailing
 Strong Beam–Weak Column
 Soft/Weak First Story
 Torsional Irregularity
 Frame-Infill Interaction

3D-view generated by SAP2000

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 1 A
Which Frame Represents the
building Performance?

Torsion and Weak Story Combined!

2 B
A B C

3 C
2

Typical Floor Plan

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • For new buildings
– Use Performance Based Design (PBD) right from start
– Provide proper detailing, improve construction technology
• For exiting buildings
– Use Performance Based Evaluation (PBE)
– To avoid future disaster-either re-built or Retrofit
– Retrofitting can be done based on global retrofit approach or local
retrofit approach .
• One of the most important developments in earthquake
engineering in recent years is the introduction of the concept
of designing ‘damage controlled structures’

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Solid walls should be Shear walls are added
of nonstructural at or near the open
cladding face

Strength and stiff

Torsion is accepted,
moment-resisting or
and building is
braced frame is
designed to resist the
designed for soft
forces and minimize
front wall
the distortion they
cause
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Example: Use Column Jacketing

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Example: Use Braces, Walls

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • For buildings in high seismic zones:
– Code based approach not sufficient
– Explicit performance evaluation for structure level, member level,
section level, material level
– Seismic performance of buildings is governed by different
considerations for Tall and Low rise buildings
– Total risk and loss of life more due to low-rise then tall buildings
– Use Performance Based Design (PBD) for new buildings
– Use Performance Based Evaluation (PBE) for exiting buildings

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 83

 • Terminology used to define earthquake:
– Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE)
– Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE)
– Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)
– Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE)
– Ductility Level Earthquake (DLE)
– Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)
– Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE)
– Sstrength Level Earthquake (SLE)

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Code based, Equivalent Static Methods
– Uses single mode, single DOF approach
• Modal Analysis
– Determine the basic, inherent dynamic response indicators
• Response Spectrum Methods
– Linear, using modal combination and “Response Reduction Factor”
– Nonlinear Static Pushover Methods
• Time History Methods
– Linear Time History method and “Response Reduction Factor”
– Nonlinear Time History Analysis

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 86

 Acceleration Records
Mu  Cu  Ku  Mug Time History Analysis

  Cu  Ku  FNL  F
Mu
Free Vibration Equivalent
  Ku  0 Ku  FEQ Static Analysis
Mu
Pushover
Ku  FNL  FEQ Analysis

Ku  FEQ Response Spectrum

Analysis
Response Spectrums

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 2
S MS  Fa S S
V  CsW
S DS  S MS
3

S DS
CS  Fa = Site coefficient short period (
R Ss = Spectral accelerations for short periods, Maps
  R = The response modification factor
Cs need not be  IE  IE = The occupancy importance factor
greater than
2 SM 1  FV S1
S DI S D1  SM1
CS  3
R
 T
 IE  FV = Site coefficient, 1 sec period
T = Fundamental period (in seconds) of the structure
Cs must be greater than
S1 = Spectral accelerations for a 1-second period, Maps
0.5S1
CS  CS  0.01
R
 
IE 

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • The modal analysis determines the inherent natural
frequencies of vibration
• Each natural frequency is related to a time period and a mode
shape
• Time Period is the time it takes to complete one cycle of
vibration
• The Mode Shape is normalized deformation pattern
• The number of Modes is typically equal to the number of
Degrees of Freedom
• The Time Period and Mode Shapes are inherent properties of
the structure and do not depend on the applied loads

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Definition
– Natural vibration of a structure released from initial condition and
subjected to no external load or damping
• Main governing equation -Eigenvalue Problem
  
M  u   c  u   K  ut  Pt
 t  t

• Solution gives
– Natural Frequencies
– Associated mode shapes
– An insight into the dynamic behavior and response of the structure

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • The Modal Analysis should be run before applying loads any
other analysis to check the model and to understand the
response of the structure
• Modal analysis is precursor to most types of analysis including
Response Spectrum, Time History, Push-over analysis etc.
• Modal analysis is a useful tool even if full Dynamic Analysis is
not performed
• Modal analysis easy to run and is a fun to watch the
animations

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • The Time Period and Mode Shapes, together with
animation immediately exhibit the strengths and
weaknesses of the structure
• Modal analysis can be used to check the accuracy of
the structural model
– The Time Period should be within reasonable range, (Ex: 0.1 x number
of stories seconds)
– The disconnected members are identified
– Local modes are identified that may need suppression

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • The symmetry of the structure can be determined
– For doubly symmetrical buildings, generally the first two
modes are translational and third mode is rotational
– If first mode is rotational, the structural is un-symmetrical
• The resonance with the applied loads or excitation can be
avoided
– The natural frequency of the structure should not be close
to excitation frequency

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Unsymmetrical Mass
and Stiffness

Symmetrical Mass
and Stiffness

Mode-1 Mode-2 Mode-3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Translation in Minor

• T6=1.28 sec • T9=5.32 sec

• T1=5.32 sec
• 18% in Minor • 6.5% in Minor
• 60% in Minor
direction direction
direction

direction
Translation in Major

• T2=4.96 sec • T4=1.56 sec • T7=0.81 sec

• 66% in Major • 15% in Major • 5.2% in Major
direction

direction direction direction

T3=4.12 sec T5=1.30 sec T8=0.65sec

Tortional

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 95

 u  2u   u  ug 2

• For a ground acceleration at particular time, for a given time

period and damping ratio, a single value of displacement, velocity
and acceleration can be obtained

• Output of the above (u, v, a) equation are the dynamic response

to the ground motion for a structure considered as a single DOF

• A plot of the “maximum” response for different ground motion

history, different time period and damping ratio give the
“Spectrum of Response”

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • The construction of response spectra plots requires the solution of single
degree of freedom systems for a sequence of natural frequency and of the
damping ration in the range of interest.

• Every solution provides only one point (the maximum value) of the
response spectrum.

• Since a large number of systems must be analyzed in order to fully plot

each response spectrum, the task is lengthy and time consuming even with
the use of computer.

• Once these curves are constructed and are available for the excitation of
interests, the analysis for the design of structures subjected to dynamic
loading is reduced to a simple calculation of natural frequency of the
system and the use of response spectra.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Dynamic analysis of a system with n degree of freedom
can be transformed to the problem of solving n systems in
which one is a single degree of freedom system

• The understanding and mastery of the concepts and

methods of solutions for a single degree of freedom
system is quit important.

• Above methods also apply to the systems of many degree

of freedom after the problem has been transformed to
independent single degree of freedom systems.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Design Spectral Acceleration Vs Time Period

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • For each mode of free vibration, corresponding Time
Period is obtained.
• For each Time Period and specified damping ratio, the
specified Response Spectrum is read to obtain the
corresponding Acceleration
• For each Spectral Acceleration, corresponding velocity
and displacements response for the particular degree of
freedom is obtained
• The displacement response is then used to obtain the
corresponding stress resultants
• The stress resultants for each mode are then added using
some combination rule to obtain the final response
envelop
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • ABS SUM Rule
– Add the absolute maximum value from N
each mode. Not so popular and not used ro   rn 0
in practice n 1

• SRSS
– Square Root of Sum of Squares of the N

peak response from each mode. Suitable ro  r

n 1
2
n0

for well separated natural frequencies.

• CQC
N N
– Complete Quadric Combination is
applicable to large range of structural
ro   
i 1 n 1
r r
in i 0 n 0

response and gives better results than

SRSS.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Input needed for Response Spectrum Analysis
– Mass and stiffness distribution
– A Specified Response Spectrum Curve
– The Response Input Direction
– The Response Scaling Factors
– The modes to be included
• Output From Response Spectrum Analysis
– Unsigned displacements, stress resultants and stresses etc.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Fundamentals of nonlinearity
• Material nonlinearity
• Geometric nonlinearity
• Nonlinear boundary conditions
• Nonlinear analysis concepts

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Δ
Base Shear, Vb

Seismic Resistant Building

(Higher Lateral Strength + Ductile Failure)

Structural model for

Vb seismic resistant
designed buildings

GLD Building
(Lower Lateral Strength + Brittle Failure)

Lateral Drift, Δ

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 beam column beam-column joint

Shear Failure in Beam

Shear wall
Infill wall

foundation

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 beam column beam-column joint

Infill wall
Shear wall Shear Failure in Columns

foundation

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 beam column beam-column joint

Lap-Splice Failure in Columns

Shear wall
Infill wall

foundation

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 beam column beam-column joint

Infill-Failure Induced Soft/Weak Story

Shear wall
Infill wall

foundation

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 beam column beam-column joint

Infill wall
Shear wall Soil Bearing Capacity Failure

foundation

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • The moments predicted by an elastic analysis are probably
reasonably accurate, but the deflections predicted by an
elastic analysis are probably too small.

• On the other hand, if the central support of the structure

settles by 4 in (100mm) for instance, a traditional elastic
analysis of this case would overestimate the moments caused
by the support settlement.

• …Hence, the decision to use nonlinear analysis should be

based from a need that cannot be satisfied by merely linear
approximation.
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Stress-strain relationship must be linear and elastic. Most
materials exhibit a change in stiffness or modulus before
inelastic or plastic behavior starts.

• Displacements and rotations must be small such that the

assumption “plane remain plane after deformation” is still
valid. Mathematically, it is being approximated as sin(θ) = θ or
tan(θ) = 0.

• The magnitude, orientation or direction and distribution of

loads must not change.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Stress levels approach the yield point.
– Most materials exhibit a significant range of nonlinear elastic behavior
long before the yield stress is reached.
– When a material is strained beyond its proportional limit, the stress-
strain relationship is no longer linear.
– Yield stress value after 0.2% offsetting the linear slope of the stress-
strain curve may be higher or lower than the elastic limit.
• However, maximum stress approaching and/or exceeding yield
point may be highly localized, which can be redistributed and
dissipated to less stressed geometry around it, thus nonlinear
analysis may not be necessary. It needs engineering judgment
and expertise.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Large displacement.
– Excessive displacement is usually considered a failure condition,
regardless of the stress levels.
• Coupled displacements are restrained.
– the degree of nonlinearity due to displacements will be small in a
lightly constrained case and larger as the constraints restrict the
natural movement of the material.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Feature Linear problems Nonlinear problems
Load displacement Displacements are linearly The load-displacement relationships
relationship dependent on the applied loads. are usually nonlinear.

Stress-strain A linear relationship is assumed In problems involving material

relationship between stress and strain. nonlinearity, the stress-strain
relationship is often a nonlinear
function of stress, strain and/or
time.
Magnitude of Changes in geometry due to Displacements may not be small,
displacement displacement are assumed to be hence an updated reference state
small and hence ignored, and the may be needed.
original (undeformed) state is always
used as the reference state.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Material Linear elastic material properties Nonlinear material properties may be
properties are usually easy to obtain difficult to obtain and may require
additional experimental testing
Reversibility The behaviour of the structure is Upon removal of the external loads, the
completely reversible upon final state may be different from the initial
removal of the external loads state.
Boundary Boundary conditions remain Boundary conditions may change, e.g. a
Conditions unchanged throughout the change in the contact area.
analysis
Loading Sequence Loading sequence is not The behaviour of the structure may
important, and the final state is depend on the load history
unaffected by the load history
Iterations and The load is applied in one load The load is often divided into small
increments step with no iterations increment with iterations performed to
ensure that equilibrium is satisfied at
every load increment

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Computation time Computation time is relatively Due to the many solution steps
small in comparison to nonlinear required for load incrementation and
problems iterations, computation time is high,
particularly if a high degree of
accuracy is sought
Robustness of A solution can easily be obtained In difficult nonlinear problems, the FE
solutions with no interaction from the user code may fail to converge without
some interaction from the user

Use of results Superposition and scaling allow Factoring and combining of results is
results to be factored and not possible
combined as required
Initial state of The initial state of stress and/or The initial state of stress and/or strain
stress/strain strain is unimportant is usually required for material
nonlinearity problems.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Material Nonlinearity
– Due to inelastic behavior of constituent materials such as concrete and
steel when strained beyond proportional limit resulting to cracking,
crushing, sliding, yielding, fracture, etc.
• Geometric Nonlinearity
– Due to Due to change in shape of the structure.
– Includes P-Δ and large displacement/rotation effects.
• Nonlinear boundary conditions
– Due to contact such as constraints and restraints
• In many cases, if material nonlinearity is encountered, one or
both of the other types will be required as well.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Bilinear material model

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • With RSB and structural steel

Source: El-Tawil et al.

(1994)
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • The P-Delta effect refers specifically to the nonlinear geometric effect of a
large tensile or compressive direct stress upon transverse bending and
shear behavior.
• A compressive stress tends to make a structural member more flexible in
transverse bending and shear, whereas a tensile stress tends to stiffen the
member against transverse deformation.
• This option is particularly useful for considering the effect of gravity loads
upon the lateral stiffness of building structures, as required by certain
design codes (ACI 2002; AISC 2003).

• It can also be used for the analysis of some cable structures, such as
suspension bridges, cable-stayed bridges, and guyed towers. Other
applications are possible.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Contact
– contact conditions such as constraints and restraints which allow parts
or portions of the same part to touch or lift off each other.
– model the interactions of certain systems.
• Forces
– represent loads that can be defined as displacement or velocity based
such as earthquakes and soil conditions

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Nonlinear analysis takes time and patience
• Each nonlinear problem is different
• Start simple and build up gradually.
• Run linear static loads and modal analysis first
• Add hinges gradually beginning with the areas where you
expect the most non-linearity.
• Perform initial analyses without geometric non-linearity. Add
P-delta effects, and large deformations, much later.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 P

My Mx
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 130
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Relationship between action and corresponding deformation
• These relationships can be obtained at several levels
– The Structural Level: Load - Deflection
– The Member Level: Moment - Rotation
– The Cross-section Level: Moment - Curvature
– The Material Level : Stress-Strain
• The Action-Deformation curves show the entire response of
the structure, member, cross-section or material

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • By actual measurements
– Apply load, measure deflection
– Apply load, measure stress and strain
• By computations
– Use material models, cross-section dimensions to get
Moment-Curvature Curves
• By combination of measurement and computations
– Calibrate computation models with actual measurements
– Some parameters obtained by measurement and some by
computations

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Probably the most important action-deformation curve for
beams, columns, shear walls and consequently for building
structures
• Significant information can be obtained from Moment
Curvature Curve to compute:
– Yield Point
– Failure Point
– Ductility
– Stiffness
– Crack Width
– Rotation
– Deflection
– Strain
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Ductility can be defined as the

Load
“ratio of deformation and a
given stage to the maximum Yield/ Design
deformation capacity” Strength

• Normally ductility is measured Dy Du

from the deformation at
design strength to the
Deformation
maximum deformation at
Ductility = Du / Dy
failure

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • For a structure, F = load, D = deflection.
• For a component, F depends on the component type, D is the
corresponding deformation.
• The component F-D relationships must be known.
• The Structure F-D relationship is obtained by structural
analysis.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Main Aspects of F-D Relationship

CE 72.32 - Design of Tall Buildings - January 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar

 Complication – Cyclic Degredation

CE 72.32 - Design of Tall Buildings - January 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar

 Complication – Cyclic Strength Gain

CE 72.32 - Design of Tall Buildings - January 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar

 Strength in opposite
direction may or may not
reduced.
Complication – Effect of Strength Loss

CE 72.32 - Design of Tall Buildings - January 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 141
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 142
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 143
 • Types
– Truss – Yielding and Buckling
– 3D Beam – Major direction Flexural and Shear Hinging
– 3D Column – P-M-M Interaction and shear Hinging
– Panel Zone – Shear Yielding
– In-Fill Panel – Shear Failure
– Shear Wall – P-M-Shear Interaction!
– Spring – for foundation modeling

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 145
 • Five points labeled A, B, C, D,
and E are used to define the
force deflection behavior of
the hinge
• Three points labeled IO, LS and
CP are used to define the
acceptance criteria for the
hinge
• IO- Immediate Occupancy
• LS- Life Safety
• CP-Collapse Prevention
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Point A is always the origin
• Point B represents yielding. No deformation occurs in the hinge up to point
B, regardless of the deformation value specified for point B. The
displacement (rotation) at point B will be subtracted from the
deformations at points C, D, and E. Only the plastic deformation beyond
point B will be exhibited by the hinge
• Point C represents the ultimate capacity for Pushover analysis
• Point D represents a residual strength for Pushover analysis
• Point E represents total failure. Beyond point E the hinge will drop load
down to point F (not shown) directly below point E on the horizontal axis.
To prevent this failure in the hinge, specify a large value for the
deformation at point E

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 beam column beam-column joint

Infill wall Shear wall

foundation

M u  Cu  Ku   M (ru g )
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 149
 • Seismic energy dissipation mechanism of well-designed cast-
in-place RC frames is usually relied on plastic flexural-
deformation of beams and 1-st story columns (Plastic Hinge,
PH).

Rotation
Moment

Plastic Hinge in Beams

1) reliable predicted behavior
2) most ductile plastic deformation
Energy Dissipation Mechanism 3) highest equivalent damping

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 RC Frame Subjected to EQ Motions Lumped Plasticity Model

location of plastic hinge plastic hinge spring

(nonlinear rotational spring)
elastic frame member elastic frame element

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 uniaxial nonlinear rotational spring
2 elastic frame element 6

1 4
3 zero length
5
clear span (Ln)
This model was first proposed by Giberson. The model was later named “Giberson One Component Beam Model”.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 uniaxial nonlinear rotational spring
2 elastic frame element 6

1 4
3 zero length
5
clear span (Ln)

Elastic Frame Element Uniaxial Nonlinear Rotational Spring

1 2

2 5 6
3
1
E, G, A, I 4

Rotation
Moment

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 plastic hinge length, LPH Kspring

= +
EI/LPH

2-Hinge beam element frame element rotational spring

subjected to moment deformation deformation

for springs in parallel

KPH = 1/Kspring + 1/Kframe
Calculation of Kspring
for KPH = fEI/LPH , Kframe = EI/L

EI f
Kspring =
LPH 1-f

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 uniaxial nonlinear rotational spring
2 elastic frame element 6

1 4
3 zero length
5
clear span (Ln)

uniaxial nonlinear
rotational spring
rigid link
2 7 8 6

1 4
3
5
zero length
elastic frame element
LPH
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 MAIN STEEL= energy dissipater
Core Concrete (Confined Zone)
CGy

fc
crushing and
disintegrate
residual y
strength Z
CGz
ε
cover spall STIRRUP = confinement +
shear capacity

Cover Concrete (Unconfined Zone)

BEAM CROSS SECTION

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Δ1 Δ2 Stress, σ (MPa)

σ σ spalling of cover concrete Tensile Strength of Concrete is

Tension +
ε= Assumed to be Zero
(Δ2+Δ1)/L

Strain, ε (mm / mm)

R x F’cc
disintegration
core concrete retains
some residual strength

crushing F’co
Confinement Effect from
Transverse Reinforcement
F’cc
Slope of Degrading Portion is crushing
Delayed due to Transverse

Compression -
Reinforcement

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Δ1 Δ2 Stress, σ (MPa)

σ σ

Tension +
ε=
(Δ2+Δ1)/L

Strain, ε (mm / mm)

R x F’cc
residual Loading/Unloading
strength from Backbone
Curve
Elastic Loading/Unloading

Inelastic Loading

F’cc
crushing

Compression -

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Stress, σ (MPa)
Δ1 Δ2 fracture
σ σ yielding
ε= Fy onset of strain hardening
(Δ2+Δ1)/L

Tension +
Es

εy εsh Strain, ε (mm / mm)

Compression -

fracture
yielding
onset of strain hardening 1 Ep

yielding

onset of buckling
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Hysteretic response of reinforcing steel
[L.L. Dodd and J.I. Restrepo-Posada, 1995]

EPP-Model Bilinear Model (Clough) Ramberg-Osgood Model

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Concept of “Equivalent Plastic Hinge Length, LPH”

 PH  
PH length
 ( x)dx max LPH

Empirical equations for Lph can be found in the literature

LPH  0.08L  0.022db Fy

[Paulay and Priestley, 1992]

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Discretized RC section Steel Layer Cover Layer Core Layer

CG
= + +
Area = A

• An RC section can be represented by sub-divided layers (fibers). Each layers is modeled using uniaxial
nonlinear springs which, in turn, classified into 3 groups according to their material hysteretic response, i.e.,
steel springs, cover-concrete springs, and core-concrete springs.
• Theoretical formulation of the fiber section model can be explained through the following equations.

N   f s ( )bdy M   f s ( ) ybdy
EA Et Afiber
n n K spring  
N  ( f ( ) A
i 1
s )
fiber i M  ( f ( ) y
i 1
s cg A fiber )i L LPH

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Lp
4

1 3

= 2

Ln

• = uniaxial nonlinear spring

• Axial stiffness of each spring is defined by area of fiber,
equivalent plastic hinge length, and tangent stiffness of the
Lp corresponding material
• To define the tangent stiffness, material hysteretic model as
discussed earlier can be directly assign to these springs

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 CASE A – [ P = 0 kN ]
600

400

Reversed cyclic

Vertical Force
200
A displacement Constant Axial
Force (P) 0

-200

(kN)
A -400

1000 mm -600
-0.012 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 0.012

Tip Displacement (m)

CASE B – [ P = 100 kN ]
600

400

Vertical Force 200

-200
(kN)

SECTION A-A
(dimension in mm) -400

-600
-0.012 -0.008 -0.004 0 0.004 0.008 0.012

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand Tip Displacement (m)
 • Fiber modeling
– Two parallel fiber sections are
used
– Shear behavior is modeled as
elastic
• Nonlinear Shell Element
– 7 layer NL shell with explicit
cover, mid portion, vertical
and horizontal bars

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 165
 • Masonry infill walls are typically used in reinforced
concrete buildings and are considered by engineers
as nonstructural components
• Even if they are relatively weak when compared with
structural components, they can drastically alter the
response of structure.
• The presence of masonry infill walls can modify
lateral stiffness, strength, and ductility of structure

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • At low level of in-plane lateral force, the frame and
infill panel will act in a fully composite fashion, as a
structural wall with boundary elements
• When lateral deformations increase, frame attempts
to deform in a flexural mode. But, infill panel
attempts to deform in a shear mode.
• These lead to separation between frame and panel at
the corners on the tension diagonal, and the
development of a diagonal compression strut on the
compression diagonal.
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Masonry infill walls are modeled using equivalent strut
concept based on recommendations of FEMA-273 (1997)
• Based on this concept, the stiffness contribution of infill wall is
represented by an equivalent diagonal compression strut

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 170
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Thickness and modulus of elasticity of strut are assumed to be
the same as those of infill wall.
• Width of equivalent strut, a, is determined by using Equations
was suggested by FEMA-273

a  0.175(1hcol ) 0.4 rinf

1

 Emtinf sin 2  4

1   
 4 E I h
c c inf 
where : Ec I c is the bending stiffnessof the columns
Em is the mod ulus of Elasticity of masonry
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • In SAP 2000, equivalent diagonal compression strut
will be modeled as an axial element having a
nonlinear axial hinge along its length.
• According to FEMA-273, idealized force-displacement
relations for infill wall are defined by a series of
straight-line segment
• These relations are plotted between normalized force
and story drift ratio.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Idealized force-displacement relation of infill wall (FEMA-273)
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • An alternate method of analysis for carrying out the
Performance Based Design
• Pushover analysis is carried out after the Linear
Analysis has been done and Serviceability and
Strength design has been completed
• Pushover analysis is most suitable for determining the
performance, specially for lateral loads such as
Earthquake or even wind

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Buildings do not respond as linearly elastic systems during
strong ground shaking
• Improve Understanding of Building Behavior
– More accurate prediction of global displacement
– More realistic prediction of earthquake demand on
individual components and elements
– More reliable identification of “bad actors”
• Reduce Impact and Cost of Seismic Retrofit
– Less conservative acceptance criteria
– Less extensive construction
• Advance the State of the Practice

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Material nonlinearity at discrete, user-defined hinges in
frame/line elements.
1. Material nonlinearity in the link elements.
• Gap (compression only), hook (tension only), uniaxial plasticity base
isolators (biaxial plasticity and biaxial friction/pendulum)..
2. Geometric nonlinearity in all elements.
• Only P-delta effects
• P-delta effects plus large displacements
3. Staged (sequential) construction.
• Members can be added or removed in a sequence of stages during
each analysis case.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Mathematically, static nonlinear analysis does not always
guarantee a unique solution.
• Small changes in properties or loading can cause large changes
in nonlinear response.
• It is Important to consider many different loading cases, and
sensitivity studies on the effect of varying the properties of the
structure
• Nonlinear analysis takes time and patience.
Don’t Rush it or Push to Hard

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Start with Gravity Loads
– Dead Load
– Some Portion of Live Load

• Select Lateral Load Patterns

– Uniform
– Code Static Lateral Load Distribution
– First Mode
– Combination of Modes

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • One Dimensional Static Loads
• No Energy Dissipation
• Inertia Forces Not Considered
• Defined One Failure Mode
• Higher Mode Effects Neglected

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Pushover Curve

Base Shear, V
Vertical Load
roof
Displacement, 
F4

F3 Performance
Point
Nonlinear Pushover

Base Shear, V
F2 Analysis
F1
Horizontal Using a response spectrum Spectral
Load estimate the “Performance Displacement

point” or “target displacement”

V

ADRS

Acceleration
Spectral
Pushover Analysis Procedures:
1) Choose loads Spectral
Displacement

2) Apply gravity Load

3) Apply horizontal load pattern- usually first mode Earthquake Response Spectra

Acceleration
Spectral
4) Determine the performance point
5) Evaluate the performance Time Period

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Pushover Advantage
– It uses a response spectrum.
– It requires less computer time than dynamic analysis
– It can provide sensitivity information on the effects of changing the
strength and stiffness
• Pushover Disadvantage
– It does not account directly for the dynamic nature of earthquake loads
– It does not account directly for the hysteretic loops- Stiffness
degradation and energy dissipation are considered only indirectly
– It work well if the structure responds in essentially a single mode of
vibration
– It is less accurate, and possibly inaccurate for tall buildings

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Global Response and Performance

sta
Re nt
u a
r

Collapse Prevention
Resta
urant
Life Safety
Loading Severity

Operation Level

Resta
urant
Immediate Occupancy Collapsed

Structural Displacement
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Evaluation Approach

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Generally the deformation pattern corresponding to the First
Mode is used as the basis for analysis
• This is acceptable for structures with time period less than or
equal to 1 second
• For more flexible structures, higher mode contribution may
become significant

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 Assuming that the building Push-Over Analysis
is primarily deformed in
fundamental mode

Capacity Curve

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 DOF
Assumed Hysteretic Rule Fundamental
M1 Mass

Damping 5%
Assumed
K1 C1

Capacity Curve

governing equation

MA  CV  KD  Peq
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 DOF Elastic Demand Curve obtained
from series of EQ ground motions

Capacity Curve
M1

spectral acceleration
C1 Inelastic Demand Curve
K1

spectral displacement

Equivalent SDOF System Performance point

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Nonlinear Dynamic Time History Advantage
– It applies to structures of all types
– It accounts directly for the dynamic nature of earthquakes loads
– It accounts directly for hysteretic loops and energy dissipation
– More accurate than pushover analysis
• Nonlinear Dynamic Time History Disadvantage
– More complex, needs more information, tools, skills
– Response spectrum cannot use. Uses ground motions.
– The Response can be sensitive to changes in the ground motion.
Analysis must be carried out for a number of earthquakes
– Requires more computer time than pushover

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Mass-Acceleration Stiffness-Displacement External Force

  Cu  Ku  FNL  F
Mu
Damping-Velocity
Nonlinearity

  Cu  Ku
Mu

The basic variable is displacement and its derivatives

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • For nonlinear direct-integration time-history analysis, all of the
available nonlinearities may be considered.

• For nonlinear modal time-history analysis, only the nonlinear

behavior of the Link/Support elements is included. If the
modes used for this analysis were computed using the
stiffness from the end of a nonlinear analysis, all other types
of nonlinearities are locked into the state that existed at the
end of that nonlinear analysis.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 r (t )   f i (t ) pi
i

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • The initial conditions describe the state of the structure at the
beginning of a time-history case. These in clude:
– Displacements and velocities
– Internal forces and stresses
– Internal state variables for nonlinear elements
– Energy values for the structure
– External loads

• The accelerations are not considered initial conditions, but are

computed from the equilibrium equation.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • For nonlinear analyses, there are two choices:
• Zero initial conditions
– the structure has zero displacement and velocity, all elements are
unstressed, and there is no history of nonlinear deforma
tion.

• Continue from a previous nonlinear analysis

– the displacements, velocities, stresses, loads, energies, and nonlinear
state histories from the end of a previous analysis are carried
forward.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Mass DOF

actual stiffness
contribution from
structural
components

Building

Governing
M A  CV  KD  Peq equation is solved
directly in NDA

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Appropriate Hysteretic Response of either Material or
Structural Components has to be Provided
(At present, there is no clear recommendations)

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 An appropriate set of ground motions is required

0.4

 Site Class (Soil Type)

Acceleration (g)

0.3

0.2
 Source Mechanism
0.1

0
 Near Fault Effect
-0.1  Design PGA or PGV
-0.2

-0.3
 etc
-0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Time (sec)

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Time History Response Force-Deformation Relations

1200

800
4
EDP

2 400

Force
0 0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-2 -400

-4
-800
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

-1200

Time
Deformation

Due to large amount of information obtained from NDA, much effort is

thus required to interpret the result

*EDP = Engineering Demand Parameters such as member force, joint displacement, and etc.
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 203
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 204
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 205
• How to carry out an effective Performance Based Design
and Evaluation so that it can provide useful outcome
 Engineer in Record
Carryout Code Based Design

Specialist Geotech Consultant or ASCE 7

Client/ Owner

Develop Site Specific Ground Motions and Demand Spectrums

PBD/ PBE Reviewers

Carry out explicit Performance Evaluation for
• Service Level for frequent earthquakes
• Design Basis Level for once-in-lifetime event
• MCE Basis for extreme earthquake

PBD/ PBE Peer Reviewers

Review the PBE carried out by

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 207
 Tools of the Trade

Design/ Evaluation Stage Analysis Type Software Used

Code based design and Response spectrum analysis ETABS V9.5

preliminary evaluation SAP 2000 V 14.2

Serviceability check Response spectrum analysis ETABS V9.5

SAP 2000 V 14.2

Collapse prevention check Nonlinear time history analysis Perform3D V4.0.4

SAP 2000 V 14.2

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 208
 • Concrete
– Confinement effect is considered
– Mander’s confinement model is used
– Tensile strength is neglected
– Use tri-linear backbone curve
– Takeda hysteresis model

• Reinforcing Steel
– Use tri-linear backbone curve
– 1% of strain hardening
– Kinematic Hysteresis model

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 209
 • Fiber modeling
– Two parallel fiber sections are
used
– Shear behavior is modeled as
elastic
• Nonlinear Shell Element
– 7 layer NL shell with explicit
cover, mid portion, vertical
and horizontal bars

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 210
 • With diagonal reinforcement
(span/depth < 4)
– Nonlinear shear hinge at mid
span of element

• With conventional reinforcement

(span/depth > 4)
– Moment curvature hinges at the
ends of element

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 211
 • Use rigid diaphragm
• Equivalent slab outrigger
beams connected the core
and columns
• Moment curvature hinges
are used

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 212
 • Check demand vs. capacity at the component level.
• If force demand at factored load < force capacity for all
components, the design is OK.
• Use linear analysis to calculate demands. This is usually OK
because the structure should remain essentially linear.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
 • Define deformation capacities for ductile components.
• Define strength capacities for brittle components(and any
other components that should remain elastic.
• Use nonlinear structural analysis to calculator the deformation
and strength demeans.
• The performance is OK is all D/C ratios are <=1.
• Simple in principle.
• Not so simple in practice

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Choose the performance level and the design loads.
• Define the demand-capacity measures.
• Drift, plastic hinge rotation, shear strength, etc.
• Get the deformation and force capacities.
• Strength :AISC, ACI, etc. codes/
• Deformation : ASCE 41(FEMA 356), experiment.
• Calculate the deformation and force demands.
• Use structural analysis.
• Calculate D/C ratios. If D/C>1:
• Change the design,
• Or sharpen the pencil on the demand side
• Or sharpen the pencil on the capacity side.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Some components in a structure can safely be allowed to yield.
• Others should remain elastic.
• If we do not know which are which, we have to rely on analysis to tell as. This can
be dangerous- we are analyzing only a model, not the actual structure.
• It is better to decide in advance which components can yield and which must
remain elastic.
• We can then design the yielding components to have sufficient ductility, and the
elastic components to have sufficient strength.
• Major advantages:
• - we can set up more reliable nonlinear models.
• - we can calculate more reliable demands and D/C ratios.
• - the final design is likely to be more forgiving.
• Capacity design is not always possible, but is is a desirable goal.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • ASCE 41 (FEMA 356) applies to performance based design for
seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings.
• However, it can be applied to new construction.
• It provides guidance on modeling for nonlinear analysis.
• It provides deformation capacities for wide range of structural
components, for the IO, lS and CP levels.
• However :
• - The modeling guidelines are rather simplistic.
• The deformation capacities may be too conservative.
• It is a useful resource, but not a definitive set of rules.
•
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand
  Specify the components that can
yield. Use deformation D/C. - Beams
in bending.
 - Columns at base and at roof.
 The remaining components should
not yield. Use strength D/C. -
Columns except at base and roof.
 - Connections.
 - Beams and columns in shear.
 - Foundations.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Specify the components that can
yield. Use deformation D/C. - -
Flexural hinging at base of wall.
• -Shear in coupling
beams.
• The remaining components
should not yield. Use strength
D/C. - -Bending in wall at
all levels except the base.
• Shear in wall at all levels,
especially in hinge region.
• - Foundations

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • It is essential to establish formal demand-capacity measures
(engineering demand parameters) and base the performance
assessment on those measures.
• All analysis results are important, and they should be
examined for consistency. However, the only important results
for performance assessment are the D/C ratios.
• There may be subjective judgments in choosing demand-
capacity measures, establishing capacity values, and
calculating demand values. However, the overall process must
be objective.
• It does not have to be perfect (and never will be).

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Structural analysis is not an end in itself. It is a tool for use in
design.
• The goal is not to get an exact simulation of behavior. This is
impossible for a real structure.
• The goal is to get D/C retio that are accurate enough for use in
decision making
• Exact is an impossible standard.
• Accurate enough is much easier

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 • Modal analysis results
• Base shear and Base Moment comparisons
• Story Shear and Story Moment comparison
• Building sway and displacement
• Story drift
• Shear wall axial strains
• Shear wall shear capacity
• Frame member rotations, D/C ratios
• Frame member shear strength and D/C ratios
• Coupling beams, in detail
• Slab diaphragm
• Damage overview, weak points etc.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand

 Mode Natural Period (s) Mode Shape
1 5.75 Translation in minor dir. Major

2 4.86 Translation in major dir. Minor

3 3.77 Torsion

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 225
 Translation in Minor
• T6=1.28 sec • T9=5.32 sec
• T1=5.32 sec
• 18% in Minor • 6.5% in Minor
• 60% in Minor
direction
direction direction
direction
Translation in Major

• T2=4.96 sec • T4=1.56 sec • T7=0.81 sec

• 66% in Major • 15% in Major • 5.2% in Major
direction

direction direction direction

T3=4.12 sec T5=1.30 sec T8=0.65sec

Torsional

Modal Analysis Results

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 226
 Base Shear
Load Cases (KN) % of Seismic Weight

DBE level (In major dir.) 21,012 3.56

DBE level (In minor dir.) 22,691 3.84

MCE level (In major dir.) 47,892 7.76

MCE level (In minor dir.) 46,462 7.53

Design base shear is larger than minimum limit of 3% set by LATBSDC-2008

Nonlinear dynamic base shear is approximately 2 times higher than design base shear

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 227
 Weak
Direction
(Y)

Strong
Direction
(X)

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 228
 Weak
Direction
(Y)

Strong
Direction
(X)

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 229
 Story Drift in Principal Story Drift in Principal
Major Direction Minor Direction

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 230
 Story Shear in Principal Story Shear in Principal
Major Direction Minor Direction

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 231
 Story Moment about Story Moment about
Principal Minor Axis Principal Major Axis

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 232
 Wall Compressive Axial Strain at Location 1-2 Wall Tensile Axial Strain at Location 1-2
Compressive Strain=2 times MCE strain Compressive Strain=2 times MCE strain
60 60

50 50

40 TAB MIN 40 TAB MAX

ARC MIN ARC MAX
30 30

Story
Story

CHY MIN CHY MAX

20 DAY MIN 20 DAY MAX
ERZ MIN ERZ MAX
10 10
LCN MIN LCN MAX
0 ROS MIN 0 ROS MAX
Average MIN Average MAX
-10 -10
-0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007

Axial Strain Axial Strain

Wall Compressive Axial Strain Wall Tensile Axial Strain

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 233
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 234
 Summary of Beams Flexural Deformation Girder Shear Design Check Summary
100% 100%

90% 90%

80% 80%

70% 70%

60% Beyond CP 60% Under demand

Between LS and CP
50% 50% Just enough
Between IO and LS
Good
40% Before IO 40%

30% 30%

20% 20%

10% 10%

0% 0%
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 1 PART 2 PART 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 235
 Summary of Column Flexural Deformation Column Shear Design Check Summary
100.00% 100%

90.00% 90%

80.00% 80%

70.00% 70%

60.00% Beyond CP 60% Under demand

Between LS and CP
50.00% 50% Just enough
Between IO and LS
Good
40.00% Before IO 40%

30.00% 30%

20.00% 20%

10.00% 10%

0.00% 0%
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 1 PART 2 PART 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 236
 Percentage of Total Base Shear Distributed to Shear Walls and Moment
Resisting Frame from Equivalent Static Analysis

100% 7 8
18 14
90% 21

80%
70%
70
60%
50% 93 92 Frame
82 86
40% 79 Shear Wall

30%
20%
30
10%
0%
% (X-dir) % (Y-dir) % (X-dir) % (Y-dir) % (X-dir) % (Y-dir)
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 237
 Part Level Maximum Displacement Check
1 89.3 mm (89.3 + 82.6) mm = 171.9 mm < 250 mm
14
2 82.6 mm
2 62.1 mm (62.1 + 59.8) mm = 121.9 mm < 250 mm
7
3 59.8 mm
Seismic gap size : 250 mm

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 238
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 239
 Items Performance Overview
Shear Walls -Good Flexural Response
Flexure deformation-100% within acceptable limit
-Fair Response in Shear
Shear Capacity-Some shear walls may be overstressed in Part 1 and Part 2
Girders -Good Flexural Response
Flexure deformation-Only 1% beyond acceptable limit in Part 2
-Fair Response in Shear
Shear capacity – Approximately 6%, 8% and 3% seems to be overstressed
in Part 1, 2, and 3 respectively
Columns -Good Flexural Response
Flexure deformation– nearly 100% within acceptable limit
-– Fair Response in Shear
Shear capacity – Approximately 8% in Part 1 and 3% in Part 2 seem to be
overstressed.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 240
 • Performance Based Design of 50-Story Building with Ductile
Core Wall System
• Performance Based Design Review of Medium-Rise Irregular
Building
• Study for Performance Based Design Review of 70-Story
Building with Mega-truss Wall Panels
• Performance Evaluation of 68 Story Building

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 242
 • Client intended to have further investigation in the design of
the building.
• Original design is done by the main consultant in accordance
with code based procedure.
• To investigate the extent of damage at different levels of
earthquake.
• To find out if any modification is needed in the design.
• To find out if retrofitting is needed.
• Performance based evaluation is checked by another peer
reviewer.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 243
 Engineer in Record (Sy^2)
Carryout Code Based Design

Specialist Geotech Consultant (Fugro) or ASCE 7

Client/ Owner

Develop Site Specific Ground Motions and Demand Spectrums

PBD/ PBE Reviewers (AIT Consulting)

Carry out explicit Performance Evaluation for
• Service Level for frequent earthquakes
• Design Basis Level for once-in-lifetime event
• MCE Basis for extreme earthquake

PBD/ PBE Peer Reviewers (MKA)

Review the PBE carried out by

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 245
 Level of Earthquake Seismic Performance Objective

Frequent/Service: 50% probability of Serviceability: Structure to remain

exceedance in 30 years (43-year return essentially elastic with minor damage to
period) structural and non-structural elements

Design Basis Earthquake (DBE): 10%

Code Level: Moderate structural damage;
probability of exceedance in 50 years (475-
extensive repairs may be required
year return period)

Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE): Collapse Prevention: Extensive structural

2% probability of exceedance in 50 years damage; repairs are required and may not
(2475-year return period) be economically feasible

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 246
 • Seven site specific ground motions records are used.
• Determined by qualified geotechnical and geological
consultant, for the site located near by building.
• For the evaluations, “Average of 7 ground motions” approach
is used to determine the overall response and vulnerability of
the building.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 247
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 248
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 249
 Service Level

MCE Level
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 250
 Item Limit
Story Drift 0.5 percent
Coupling Beams Shear strength to remain essentially elastic
Core Wall Flexure Remain essentially elastic
Core Wall Shear Remain essentially elastic
Columns Remain essentially elastic
BRB Remain elastic (no yielding permitted)
• Essentially elastic behavior is defined as no more than 20% of the elements with
ductile actions having a D/C between 1.0 and 1.5. No elements will be allowed to
have a D/C >1.5
• Brittle actions are limited to D/C of 1.0

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 251
Element Action Type Classification Expected Acceptance Limit
Behaviour
Plastic hinge
Ductile Nonlinear Hinge rotation ≤ ASCE limit
Beams rotation
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity
Axial-Flexural
Ductile Nonlinear Hinge rotation ≤ ASCE limit
Columns interaction
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity
Axial-Flexural Tensile strain in rebar rotation ≤ 0.050
Shear Ductile Nonlinear
interaction Compressive strain in concrete ≤ 0.004
Walls
Shear Brittle Linear D/C for strength capacity

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 252
 Item Limit
Story Drift 3 percent
Coupling Beam Rotation (Diagonal
0.06 radian rotation limit
Reinforcement)
Coupling Beam Rotation (Conventional
0.025 radian rotation limit
reinforcement)
Rebar strain = 0.05 in tension and 0.02 in
Core Wall Reinforcement Axial Strain
compression
Concrete Compression Strain = 0.004 + 0.1 ρ(fy
Core Wall Concrete Axial Strain
/ f’c)

BRB 9 times yield strain

• Brittle actions are checked against 1.3 times the average MCE demand using
expected material strength and code specified strength reduction factors.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 253
 • Located in Philippines
• 50-story building with 3½ -
story below grade parking
• Total height of 166.8 m
above ground level
• 34.5 x 26 meters plan
dimension

Designer : Sy^2 + Associates Inc

Performance reviewer : AIT Consulting
Peer reviewer for Performance Based Design: Magnusson Klemencic Associates

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 256
 BRBs (43rd – 47th floor)

Principal Major Direction

BRBs (19th – 23rd floor)

Principal Minor
Direction

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 257
 Principal Major Direction

Principal Minor
Direction

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 258
 Design Analysis Type Software Used

Preliminary design Response spectrum analysis ETABS V9.5

Serviceability check Response spectrum analysis ETABS V9.5

Collapse prevention check Nonlinear time history analysis Perform3D V4.0.4

Software Used

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 260
 • Concrete
– Confinement effect is considered
– Mander’s confinement model is used
– Tensile strength is neglected
– Use tri-linear backbone curve
• Reinforcing Steel
– Use tri-linear backbone curve
– 1% of strain hardening

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 261
 • Fiber modeling technique is
used
• Two parallel fiber sections
are used
• Shear behavior is modeled
as elastic

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 262
 • With diagonal reinforcement
(span/depth < 4)
– Nonlinear shear hinge at mid
span of element

• With conventional reinforcement

(span/depth > 4)
– Moment curvature hinges at the
ends of element

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 263
 • Use rigid diaphragm
• Equivalent slab outrigger
beams connected the core
and columns
• Moment curvature hinges
are used

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 264
 Element Action Type Classification Expected
Behavior
RC column Axial-flexure Ductile Linear
Shear Brittle Linear
RC shear wall Flexure Ductile Nonlinear
Shear Brittle Linear
RC coupling beams Shear Ductile Nonlinear
(Deep beam, ln/d<4.0)
RC coupling beams Flexure Ductile Nonlinear
(slender beam, Shear Brittle Linear
ln/d≥4.0)

Classification of Actions

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 265
 Mode Natural Period (s) Mode Shape
1 5.75 Translation in minor dir. Major

2 4.86 Translation in major dir. Minor

3 3.77 Torsion

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 267
 Base Shear
Load Cases (KN) % of Seismic Weight

DBE level (In major dir.) 21,012 3.56

DBE level (In minor dir.) 22,691 3.84

MCE level (In major dir.) 47,892 7.76

MCE level (In minor dir.) 46,462 7.53

• Design base shear is larger than minimum limit of 3% set by LATBSDC-2008

• Nonlinear dynamic base shear is approximately 2 times higher than design base
shear

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 268
 Story Shear in Principal Story Shear in Principal
Major Direction Minor Direction

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 269
 Story Moment about Story Moment about
Principal Minor Axis Principal Major Axis

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 270
 Story Drift in Principal Story Drift in Principal
Major Direction Minor Direction

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 271
 Wall Compressive Axial Strain at Location 1-2 Wall Tensile Axial Strain at Location 1-2
Compressive Strain=2 times MCE strain Compressive Strain=2 times MCE strain
60 60

50 50

40 TAB MIN 40 TAB MAX

ARC MIN ARC MAX
30 30

Story
Story

CHY MIN CHY MAX

20 DAY MIN 20 DAY MAX
ERZ MIN ERZ MAX
10 10
LCN MIN LCN MAX
0 ROS MIN 0 ROS MAX
Average MIN Average MAX
-10 -10
-0.005 -0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007

Axial Strain Axial Strain

Wall Compressive Axial Strain Wall Tensile Axial Strain

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 272
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 273
 • DBE base shear > minimum limit 3%
• MCE base shear two times higher than DBE base shear
• Overall response remains elastic under frequent earthquakes
• Building is under collapse prevention limit under MCE level
earthquakes
• Benefits of BRBs
– Reduces the shear and moment demands in the core wall in principal
minor direction
– Improve the story drifts in principal minor direction

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 275
 • Ensure the building is servicable under frequent earthquakes.
• Avoid the uncertainties that traditional code based design to
resist the MCE level earthquake without partial or total
collapse which is two times higher than design base shear.
• Avoid the uncertainties in the use of global force reduction
factor R for nonlinear response which is unpredictable in linear
analysis.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 276
277
 • Type of Building :
Residential Building
• Number of stories :19-story
building (plus 3 basements)
• Comprised of three
towers (19-, 14-, and 7-
story)
• Total area : 49,000 m2
Designer : Sy^2 + Associates Inc
Performance reviewer : AIT • Structural System :
Consulting Reinforced Concrete
Moment Resisting System
with Shear Walls

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 279
 • Part 1 is the tallest part and
has irregularity in plan, with
Part 3
19 floors.
Part 2
• Part 2 is the second tallest
part of the building with few
Part 1

irregularities in plan and 14

floors.
• Part 3 is the lowest part and
Layout Plan of Each Part of the generally regular in
Building geometry and stiffness with
7 floors.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 281
 • Three dimensional finite element models for each part of the
building with appropriate finite elements incorporated the
nonlinear behavior are created in SAP2000.
• The models are comprised of frame, shell and link elements to
represent structural components. All the members are
modeled with cracked section properties for elastic analysis.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 282
 Section Finite Element Model

RC Beams and columns Frame elements

RC Slabs Membrane elements

Shell elements (with nonlinear fiber

RC Walls
elements)

Foundation Systems Fixed

Finite Element Modeling

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 283
 Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 284
 PART 1 - ROS

CE 72.32 - Design of Tall Buildings - January 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar 286
 PART 2 - LCN

CE 72.32 - Design of Tall Buildings - January 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar 287
 PART 3 - TAB

CE 72.32 - Design of Tall Buildings - January 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar 288
 Natural Period Natural Period Natural Period
Mode
(Part 1) (Part 2) (Part 3)
1 1.68 (Mixed) 1.51 (Mixed) 0.79 (Translation X)
2 1.33 (Mixed) 1.23 (Mixed) 0.45 (Torsion)
3 1.31 (Mixed) 0.72 (Mixed) 0.36 (Translation Y)
4 0.45 (Torsion) 0.46 (Torsion) 0.24 (Mixed)
5 0.34 (Mixed) 0.31 (Mixed) 0.13 (Mixed)

Modal Analysis Results

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 290
 Base shear obtained from NLTHA are about 4 to 5 times higher than
those obtained from the response spectrum analysis.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 291
 Base shear obtained from NLTHA are about 5 to 5.5 times higher than
those obtained from the response spectrum analysis.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 292
 Base shear obtained from NLTHA are about 5 to 5.5 times higher than
those obtained from the response spectrum analysis.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 293
 • Percentage of Total Base Shear Distributed to Shear Walls and
Moment Resisting Frame from Equivalent Static Analysis
100% 7 8
18 14
90% 21

80%
70%
70
60%
50% 93 92 Frame
82 86
40% 79 Shear Wall

30%
20%
30
10%
0%
% (X-dir) % (Y-dir) % (X-dir) % (Y-dir) % (X-dir) % (Y-dir)
Part 1 Part 2 Part 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 294
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 295
 Summary of Beams Flexural Deformation Girder Shear Design Check Summary
100% 100%
90% 90%
80% 80%
70% 70%
Beyond CP
60% 60% Under demand
Between LS and CP
50% 50% Just enough
Between IO and LS
40% 40% Good
Before IO
30% 30%
20% 20%
10% 10%
0% 0%
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 1 PART 2 PART 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 297
 Summary of Column Flexural Deformation Column Shear Design Check Summary
100.00% 100%
90.00% 90%
80.00% 80%
70.00% 70%
Beyond CP
60.00% 60% Under demand
Between LS and CP
50.00% 50% Just enough
Between IO and LS
40.00% 40% Good
Before IO
30.00% 30%
20.00% 20%
10.00% 10%
0.00% 0%
PART 1 PART 2 PART 3 PART 1 PART 2 PART 3

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 298
 •Part 1 •Part 2
AVERAGE Shear Wall AVERAGE
Shear Wall ID
Ten. Comp. ID Ten. Comp.
ESW1-GL24 0.0016 -0.0007 DSW1 0.0021 -0.0010
ESW1-GL23 0.0013 -0.0006 DSW2 0.0016 -0.0008
ESW2 0.0017 -0.0009
•Part 3
ESW3 0.0013 -0.0008
AVERAGE
ESW4 0.0016 -0.0008 Shear Wall ID
Ten. Comp.
ESW5 0.0011 -0.0007
DSW3 (Grid E) 0.0010 -0.0005
DSW3 (Grid J) 0.0010 -0.0005
DSW4 (Grid L) 0.0009 -0.0004
DSW4 (Grid M) 0.0010 -0.0004

•maximum tensile strain in reinforcing steel is limited to 0.05

•maximum compressive strain in concrete is limited 0.004.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 299
 Items Performance Overview
Shear Walls -Good Flexural Response
Flexure deformation-100% within acceptable limit
-Fair Response in Shear
Shear Capacity-Some shear walls may be overstressed in Part 1 and Part 2
Girders -Good Flexural Response
Flexure deformation-Only 1% beyond acceptable limit in Part 2
-Fair Response in Shear
Shear capacity – Approximately 6%, 8% and 3% seems to be overstressed
in Part 1, 2, and 3 respectively
Columns -Good Flexural Response
Flexure deformation– nearly 100% within acceptable limit
-– Fair Response in Shear
Shear capacity – Approximately 8% in Part 1 and 3% in Part 2 seem to be
overstressed.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 301
 • The structural design of all three towers generally conforms to
the code-based design requirements, in terms of drift, beam,
column and shear wall capacities, general detailing and other
requirements.
• In summary, the analysis results showed that some of the
members tend to be overstressed due to shear demand,
especially some locations of shear walls in Part 1 and Part 2.
However, lateral displacements of the building, the inter-story
drifts seem to be within the acceptable limit in all parts of the
building.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 302
 • Based on the current analyses, it seems that Part 1 and Part 2
of the building may need to be retrofitted to some extent in
order to enhance the performance as well as to ensure the
public safety.
• End frames of Part 1 and Part 2 may need to be strengthened
to improve the performance of the columns in resisting the
shear demand induced by earthquakes.
• Local strengthening may be needed to improve the shear
capacity of the shear walls, which seems to be overstressed in
shear during earthquakes.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 304
 • Reinforced concrete residential building
• 70-Story building plus 5 basements
• Total height of 242m height
• Approximate floor area of 100,000 m2
• Structural system: Moment resisting
frames with shear walls
• Mega-truss wall (MTW) panels to
control the lateral deformation
• Designer : R.S Caparros Associates
Sy^2 + Associates Inc.
• Performance Reivewer : AIT Consulting
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 306
 `

Typical tower framing plan Sectional elevation of

MTW panel
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 307
 • Modeled using ETABS for DBE Response Spectrum
• Member stiffness properties are adjusted in
accordance with effective stiffness values given in
Table 6-5 of FEMA 356 provisions

Typical Floor Plan Full 3D Finite Element Model

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 309
 • 3D nonlinear model using PERFORM-3D
• Seven pairs of site ground motions used
• Shear wall modeling
– Inelastic wall element is used.
– Fiber modeling technique is used to model the
flexural behaviour.
– Out-of-plane bending and shear is kept elastic.
– Out of plane stiffness of the wall is reduced to 1/4
value to account the effect of concrete cracking.

Full 3D Finite Element Model

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 310
 • Modeling of Columns and Girders
– Modeled as the column and beam element for columns and girders
respectively.
– To model the post-yielding behaviour of the girders and columns,
plastic hinges are applied.
– Uncoupled moment hinges are assigned to both ends of the girders
whereas coupled P-M2-M3 hinges are assigned to the both ends of the
columns.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 311
 • Modeling of Coupling Beams
– Modeled as beam elements
– Two types of coupling beams are present.
– First one is with diagonal reinforcement and the second one is with
conventional reinforcement.
– For the coupling beam with diagonal reinforcement, zero length shear
hinge is assigned at the middle of the member whereas the moment
hinges are assigned at both ends for the non-diagonal coupling beams.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 312
 • Modeling of Mega-Truss Wall Panels
– Modeled as elastic wall element.
• Modeling of RC Slabs
– Modeled as elastic slab element.
• Modeling of Foundation System
– The foundation modeling is simplified by fixing the base of the columns
one level below the ground level and providing the pin support at the
base of walls.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 313
 Mode Natural period Mode shape

1 6.8 sec Translation along Y direction

2 5.6 sec Translation along X direction Y

3 4.4 sec Torsional

X

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 315
 Load Case Base Shear (KN) % of Seismic
Weight
Inelastic DBE Base Shear X - 23,912 1.94
Response Spectrum
Inelastic DBE Base Shear Y - 25,599 2.08
Response Spectrum
Average Base Shear X- NLTHA 83,875 6.80
Average Base Shear Y- NLTHA 98,514 7.99

Base shear obtained from NLTHA are about 3.5 to 4 times higher than
those obtained from the response spectrum analysis.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 316
 Average roof displacement in both directions are within acceptable
limit of H/200 (H= Total height of building)

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 317
 Average story drift in both directions are within acceptable limit

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 318
 • Axial Strain Capacity
– All shear walls axial tension strain limit are well below the tensile limit
of 0.050 mm/mm.
– All shear walls axial compression strain limit are also well below the
compression limit of 0.004 mm/mm.
• Shear Capacity
– D/C ratio of each legs are checked separately for the shear.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 319
 F G

Shear wall axial strains

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 320
 SW3B SW4B

SW4A
SW5
SW3A

SW2
SW1A

SW1B SW3C SW4C

SW6

SW7

SW8A SW8B

Shear wall labels for shear demands D/C ratio for each leg of SW
ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 321
 Summary of Flexural Deformation Capacity Summary of Shear Design Check
99.8%
100% 100% 95.7%
88.5% 91.3%
90% 90%
80% Very limited damage 80%
70% 70%
DC<1 (Good)
60% Significant damage 60%
1<DC<1.2 (Just enough)
50% without collapse 50%
40% At verge of collapse 40% DC>1.2 (Under demand)
30% 30%
20% Possibly Collapsed 20%
6.7% 4.3%
10% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 10% 2.9% 1.3% 3.3% 5.4%
0% 0%
Girder Column Girder Column

Flexural Deformation Check Shear Design Check

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 322
 F G

Rotational Demand Check of Diagonal Coupling

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT ThailandBeam 323
 • It is found that the shear capacity of mega-truss wall panels is
not enough to resist the shear demand induced by the design
basis earthquake.

Shear Demand Check for Mega-Truss Wall Panels

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 324
 Average roof displacement and inter-story drift are within
acceptable limit without MTW panels also

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 325
 • Base shear obtained from NLTHA are about 3.5 to 4 times
higher than those obtained from the response spectrum
analysis.
• Overall good response and inter-story drift within acceptable
limit.
• Almost all girders, columns and shear walls seem to be either
just reach the yield level or remain within the elastic range in
the flexural behaviour which indicates good elastic response.
• Also, these members seem to have adequate shear capacity to
resist the demand forces except few columns and girders
which are possibly overstressed in shear.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 327
 • Even though the mega truss wall panels seem to be inadequate
in shear, it will not affect the overall performance of the
building. The roof drift and inter-story drift are within the
acceptable limit.

ASEP Seminar, June 09 2011, Dr. Naveed Anwar, AIT Thailand 328