2020. 16(2).

161–166

СТРОИТЕЛЬНАЯ МЕХАНИКА ИНЖЕНЕРНЫХ КОНСТРУКЦИЙ И СООРУЖЕНИЙ

STRUCTURAL MECHANICS OF ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTIONS AND BUILDINGS
HTTP://JOURNALS.RUDN.RU/STRUCTURAL-MECHANICS

СЕЙСМОСТОЙКОСТЬ СООРУЖЕНИЙ
SEISMIC RESISTANCE
DOI 10.22363/1815-5235-2020-16-2-161-166 RESEARCH PAPER
UDC 550.834.01

Performance-Based Seismic Design for buildings

Mathieu Gil-oulbé*, Fouad Adnan Noman Abdullah Al-Shaibani, Abass Saad Lina
Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 6 Mikluho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation
*[email protected]

Article history: Abstract

Received: December 14, 2019 Structures are designed using current seismic design codes which are most-
Revised: February 24, 2020 ly based on Force-Based Design approach. The aim of the work is to implement
Accepted: March 10, 2020 the Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) approach in concrete buildings.
PBSD, which is a new concept in seismic design of structures, is a reliable ap-
proach capable of providing more detailed information on the performance levels
of both structural and non-structural elements. Methods. In this study Perfor-
mance-Based Seismic Design has been utilized on reinforced concrete irregular
frame. In order to do this pushover analysis was done. Story drift ratios were
chosen as deformation limits to define the performance levels for specific earth-
quake hazard levels. The results of this study show that Performance-Based
For citation Seismic Design gives a structure with better seismic load carrying capacity,
Gil-oulbé M., Al-Shaibani F.A.N.A., Lina A.S. thereby achieving the objective of performance as well as economy. It is also
Performance-Based Seismic Design for buil- possible to conclude that PBSD obtained by above procedure satisfies the ac-
dings. Structural Mechanics of Engineering ceptance criteria for immediate occupancy and life safety limit states for various
Constructions and Buildings. 2020;16(2): intensities of earthquakes.
161–166. http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/1815- Keywords: Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD), pushover analysis,
5235-2020-16-2-161-166 example building

Introduction1 ceived in terms of simple mass-proportional lateral for-

Viewed through the historical prism of the past ces, resisted by elastic structural action. In the 1940’s
100 years, seismic structural design can be seen to and 50’s the influence of structural period in modi-
have been in constant evolution – much more so than fying the intensity of the inertia forces started to be
design for other load cases or actions such as gravity, incorporated into structural design, but structural ana-
wind, traffic, etc. Initially, following structural dama- lysis was still based on elastic structural response. Duc-
ge in the seminal earthquakes of the early 20th century tility considerations were introduced in the 1960’s and
(Kanto, Long Beach, Napier), seismic attack was per- 70’s as a consequence of the experimental and empi-
rical evidence that well detailed structures could sur-
vive levels of ground shaking capable of inducing
Mathieu Gil-oulbé, Candidate of Technical Science, Associate Professor inertia forces many times larger than those predicted
in Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Academy of Engi-
neering; eLIBRARY AuthorID: 613393.
by elastic analysis. Predicted performance came to be
Fouad Adnan Noman Abdullah Al-Shaibani, master's degree student in Civil assessed by ultimate strength considerations, using
Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Academy of Engineering.
Abass Saad Lina, master's degree student in Civil Engineering, Depart-
force levels reduced from the elastic values by some-
ment of Civil Engineering, Academy of Engineering. what arbitrary force-reduction factors, that differed
© Gil-oulbé M., Al-Shaibani F.A.N.A., Lina A.S., 2020 markedly between the design codes of different seis-
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License mically-active countries. Gradually this lead to a fur-
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

СЕЙСМОСТОЙКОСТЬ СООРУЖЕНИЙ 161

 Gil-oulbé M., Al-Shaibani F.A.N.A., Lina A.S. Structural Mechanics of Engineering Constructions and Buildings, 2020, 16(2), 161–166

ther realization, in the 1980’s and 90’s that strength to damage potential, and that the proper definition of
was important, but only in that it helped to reduce structural vulnerability should hence be related to de-
displacements or strains, which can be directly related formations, not strength [1].

Step 1
Inputs from
Select performance
Owner, designer and
objectives
building officials

Inputs from
Step 2
Owner, designer and
Develop preliminary
contractors
design

Revise design
and/or Step 3
objectives Access performance
capability

Comments
Peer reviewers,
building officials

Step 4
No Does Yes
performance
meets objective?

Construction

Figure 1. Performance-Based Seismic Design flow diagram [2]

Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) is a ge- PBSD procedure:

neralized design philosophy in which design criteria are  Generally, a team of decision makers, inclu-
expressed in terms of achieving stated performance ding the building owner, design professionals, and buil-
objectives when the structure is subjected to the stated ding officials, will participate in the selection of per-
levels of seismic hazard. PBSD permits the design and formance objectives for a building.
construction of buildings with a realistic and reliable  Once the performance objectives are set, a se-
understanding of the risk to life, occupancy, and eco- ries of simulations (analyses of building response to
nomic loss that may occur because of future seismic loading) are performed to estimate the probable per-
events. PBSD is an iterative process, which begins with formance of the building under various design scena-
the selection of performance objectives (that are defined rio events.
by the owners, designers, and building officials), fol-  If the simulated performance meets or exceeds
lowed by the development of a preliminary design (con- the performance objectives, the design is complete
sidering stated set of performance objectives), an as- otherwise it has to be redesigned. Figure 1 displays
sessment of whether the design meets the performance the flowchart representing key steps in the PBSD pro-
objectives, and finally redesign and reassessment, if re- cedure.
quired, until the desired performance level is achieved.
The methodology provides a framework for determi- 1. Methods of analysis
ning the levels of safety and property protection, and
the cost acceptable to owner, designer, and building Generally, for analyzing the structure the following
officials for the project according to the specific pro- analysis methods are used depending upon the require-
ject requirement [2]. ments [3]: linear static procedure, linear dynamic pro-

162 SEISMIC RESISTANCE

 Жиль-улбе M., Аль-Шаибани Ф.А.Н.А., Лина А.С. Строительная механика инженерных конструкций и сооружений. 2020. Т. 16. № 2. С. 161–166

cedure, nonlinear static procedure (pushover analysis, reality taking into account all structural elements that
capacity spectrum method), nonlinear dynamic proce- help to support the applied forces.
dure (time history analysis). The evaluation of existing buildings plays an im-
Pushover analysis is the one, which is suitable for portant role in earthquake evaluation projects where
the performance based seismic design, because elastic the risk of damage in a certain area is estimated in order
analyses are insufficient, therefore they cannot realis- to decide on appropriate risk reduction strategies.
tically predict the force and deformation distributions
after the initiation of damage in the building. Inelastic 3. Development of Performance-Based
analytical procedures become necessary to identify Earthquake Engineering
the modes of failure and the potential for progressive Seismic loading provisions in the existing building
collapse. codes focus on the minimum lateral seismic forces for
which the building must be designed, but don’t explicit-
2. Evaluation of Performance-Based Design ly incorporate the demand and response characteris-
tics. However, the specifications of the lateral forces
The essential difference between the design of alone is not enough to ensure the desired level of pro-
new buildings and the evaluation of existing buildings tection in a building when subjected to expected earth-
is the point of view. In design, the objective is to cre- quakes of different intensities [6].
ate a new building, which can resist the expected for- Experience shows that once an approach and
ces (horizontal and vertical) with an appropriate safe- the corresponding procedures are introduced in a stan-
ty margin. Starting from a structural model of the buil- dard and code, it is very difficult and time demanding
ding and the expected applied forces the required sec- to make any changes. It is believed that before any of
tions of the structural elements have to be determined the so-called simplified approaches for Performance-
for a chosen material. It is common practice to choose Based Seismic Design and their corresponding metho-
a slightly conservative model, i.e. to neglect the posi- dologies are implemented in a building code, they should
tive influence of some elements, firstly to simplify be thoroughly calibrated. The question then is, calibrate
the model and secondly to be on the safe side. Also, against what? There is no doubt that it would be ideal
the material strength is usually multiplied by a certain to calibrate them using the most sophisticated and re-
strength reduction factor; whereas the expected ap- liable approach and procedure for Performance-Based
plied forces are enhanced to take into account uncer- Seismic Design that can be developed. Starting about
tainties [4]. 1990, the international design community began to be
The choice of the strength reduction factors and interested in the development of performance-based
the design forces are governed by the aim for econo- design concepts. Whereas current building code pro-
mic optimization, however they are usually chosen to visions are prescriptive in nature and require that buil-
keep the risk of damage extremely low, i.e. in building dings be designed with minimum specified strength
design this compares with an accepted annual proba- and stiffness, performance based procedures permit
bility for achieving the ultimate capacity of about the designer to directly demonstrate that a design is
0.01%. In earthquake engineering a rational design capable of meeting certain standard performance ob-
becomes more important accepting a higher risk of jectives, independent of meeting prescriptive strength
damage [5; 6]. and stiffness criteria [5–7].
Here the annual probability for achieving the ul- Documents published by SEAOC (1995, 1996,
timate capacity can be as high as 1 to 3%. In evalua- 1999) (Structural Engineers Association of California,
tion the objective is to determine how an existing buil- USA), ATC-40 (1996) (Applied Technology Council,
ding will respond to given forces. This corresponds to USA) [16], FEMA-273, 274 (1997), FEMA-356 (2000),
an analysis of a building structure where the structural FEMA-350 (2000) (Federal Emergency Management
elements, the materials and the dead loads are given. Agency, USA) have given guidelines regarding how
It is not desired to calculate a worst-case scenario by to apply the concept of PBSD to new and existing con-
choosing a conservative model and making conserva- structions. Furthermore, FEMA-302, 303 (1997) and
tive assumptions on the material properties but to as- FEMA-368 (2001) cover the ‘NEHRP Recommended
sess the most probable behavior of the building sub- Provisions for Seismic Regulations for Buildings and
jected to the applied action. Thus, the real material other Structures’ (National Earthquake Hazards Reduc-
properties and the real loading have to be taken with- tion Program, USA) and recent codes such as ICC
out any safety factors as these would falsify the re- (2000 and 2003) (International Code Council) and
sults. Also the model should be as close as possible to NFPA 5000 (2003) (National Fire Protection Associa-

СЕЙСМОСТОЙКОСТЬ СООРУЖЕНИЙ 163

 Gil-oulbé M., Al-Shaibani F.A.N.A., Lina A.S. Structural Mechanics of Engineering Constructions and Buildings, 2020, 16(2), 161–166

tion, USA) contain provisions that permit use of The total height of the building is 3 m. All beams sec-
the Performance-Based Seismic Design concept. tion are 0.45×0.2 m and all columns section are
The above publications have contributed signifi- 0.5×0.2 m. 10 KN/m dead load and 10 KN/m live
cantly toward a better understanding of what perfor- load applied to all beams. Default ETABS nonlinear
mance based seismic design and particularly PBSD frame hinge properties was used. Figure 3 shows the
are, and already some of the guidelines and particular- model of the 4-story building which developed by
ly the ICC (2000) have provided specific quantifica- ETABS.
tion of the different Performance-Based Seismic De-
sign Objectives (PBSDO), and provisions for the ap-
plication of PBSD concept.
SEAOC Vision 2000 (Structural Engineers Associa-
tion of California, USA). A promising approach toward
the above development has been proposed by the Vi-
sion 2000 Committee of the structural Engineers As-
sociation of California (SEAOC) in 1995 in its report
entitled “Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of
Buildings” and which will be denominated as the “Per-
formance-Based Seismic Engineering” (PBSE), although
it is also called “Performance-Based Earthquake En-
gineering” (PBEE). The above report presents a con-
ceptual framework for PBSE, as well as the different
methodologies that have been proposed for the appli-
cation of such framework to the design, construction,
occupancy and maintenance, with particular emphasis
on the design that has been denominated as “Perfor-
mance-Based Seismic Design” (PBSD).

4. Case study
Figure 3. ETABS model of first ideal building
In order to develop the application conception of
pushover analysis, ideal regular building will studied. The building analyzed under the following cases:
4-story building with the following specifications is static linear analysis for dead, live, earthquake loads;
modeled as shown in Figure 2. static nonlinear analysis for dead load; and static non-
linear (pushover) analysis for lateral forces starts from
the static nonlinear analysis for dead load. Lateral forces
apply by ground acceleration for both sides (X, Y).
Results show that y direction is the critical direc-
tion, which reasoned by small dimension of columns
section in this direction. From the static linear analy-
sis results, base shear V = 190.14 KN.

C
B

C
I L E
Force

Figure 2. Plan of ideal buildings A

Displacement
A reinforcement concrete with Structural Frame
System building with square plan 12×12 m is used. Figure 4. Load – deformation curve

164 SEISMIC RESISTANCE

 Жиль-улбе M., Аль-Шаибани Ф.А.Н.А., Лина А.С. Строительная механика инженерных конструкций и сооружений. 2020. Т. 16. № 2. С. 161–166

Under incrementally increasing loads some ele-

ments may yield sequentially. Consequently, at each
event, the structures experiences a stiffness change as
shown in Figure 4, where IO, LS and CP stand for
immediate occupancy, life safety and collapse preven-
tion respectively.
ETABS results develop pushover curves show
the resultant base shear vs. monitored displacement as
Figure 5.
Results show that pushover acceleration leads to
generate hinges in structure which work towards to
lose the stability of the structure.
ETABS identify the performance point indicated
to base shear of V = 422.99 KN, and target displace- Figure 5. ETABS output of pushover curve
ment value D = 0.091 m. (resultant base shear (KN) vs. monitored displacement [m])

Figure 6. First six steps of pushover analysis and sequence of hinges formation (ETABS output)

Conclusion by achieving the objective of performance as well as

Based on the present study, the following conclu- economy.
sions can be drawn:
1) the Performance-Based Seismic Design obtained References
by above procedure satisfies the acceptance criteria 1. Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., Kowalsky M.J. Dis-
for immediate occupancy and life safety limit states placement-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Structures.
for various intensities of earthquakes; Sixth National Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
2) Performance-Based Seismic Design gives a struc- 16–20 October 2007, Istanbul, Turkey (pp. 113–137).
ture with better seismic load carrying capacity, there- Available from: http://istanbul.imo.org.tr/

СЕЙСМОСТОЙКОСТЬ СООРУЖЕНИЙ 165

 Gil-oulbé M., Al-Shaibani F.A.N.A., Lina A.S. Structural Mechanics of Engineering Constructions and Buildings, 2020, 16(2), 161–166

2. Zameeruddin M., Sangle K.K. Review on Recent Available from: https://www.alacero.org/sites/default/files/u16/

developments in the performance-based seismic design of ci_23_-_24_the_pushover_analysis_explained.pdf
reinforced concrete structures. Structures. 2016;6:119–133. 9. ATC-40. Seismic Analysis and Retrofit of Concrete
3. Bashetty D.S. Performance Based Design Presen- Buildings (vol. I). Applied Technology Council, Redwood
tation by Deepak Bashetty. 2015. Available from: https:// City, CA, USA; 1996.
www.slideshare.net/DeepakBashetty/performance-based- 10. FEMA-440. Improvement of nonlinear static seismic
design-presentation-by-deepak-bashetty analysis procedures. Federal Emergency Management Agen-
4. Al-Safi S., Alameri I., Badhib R., Kuleib M. Evalua- cy, Washington, DC, USA; 2005.
tion of Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering in Yemen. 11. EN 1998-1. Eurocode 8. Design of structures for
Challenge Journal of Structural Mechanics. 2020;6(1):10–22. earthquake resistance. Part 1. General rules, seismic actions
5. AlMunifi A.A., Alameri I.A. The impact of de- and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardi-
sign approach and contracting practices on cost and exe- zation, Management Centre, Brussels; 2003.
cution period of school buildings. Challenge. 2019;5(3): 12. FEMA-349. Action plan for performance based
85–95. seismic design. Federal Emergency Management Agency,
6. Kasimzade A., Tuhta S., Atmaca G., Alameri I., Washington, DC, USA; 2009.
Abrar O. Novel approach on performance based aseismic 13. SEAOC Vision 2000. Available from: http://peer.
design based on FEMA requirements. IJTSRD. 2018;3(1): berkeley.edu/course_modules/eqrd/index.htm?c227top.htm
812–816. &227cont.htm&DesPhil/desphil5.htm (accessed: 29.03.2018).
7. Ulomov V.I. Seismic Hazard Assessment and Actua- 14. FEMA-273. NEHRP guidelines for the seismic re-
lization of Engineering Decisions. Earthquake engineering habilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management
constructions safety. 2008;(3):16–21. (In Russ.) Agency, Washington (DC), USA; 1996.
8. Leslie R. The Pushover Analysis, explained in its 15. Kokate P.P. Performance Based Seismic Design.
Simplicity. Proceedings of 2nd National Conference – RACE’13 International Journal of Current Engineering and Techno-
at SAINTGITS College of Engineering, Kottayam. 2013. logy. 2015;5(2):692–699.

НАУЧНАЯ СТАТЬЯ

Сейсмическое проектирование зданий

на основе эксплуатационных характеристик1
M. Жиль-улбе*, Ф.А.Н.А. Аль-Шаибани, А.С. Лина
Российский университет дружбы народов, Российская Федерация, 117198, Москва, ул. Миклухо-Маклая, 6
*[email protected]

История статьи Аннотация

Поступила в редакцию: 14 декабря 2019 г. Строительные конструкции, спроектированные с учетом современных
Доработана: 24 февраля 2020 г. норм сейсмостойкого строительства, в основном получены при применении
Принята к публикации: 10 марта 2020 г. силового метода проектирования сейсмостойких конструкций (Force-Based
Design). Цель данного исследования – применить «характеристический метод»
сейсмического проектирования (Performance-Based Seismic Design, PBSD) к бе-
тонным строениям. Новая концепция сейсмического проектирование на основе
характеристик PBSD является надежным подходом, способным обеспечить бо-
лее детальную информацию об уровнях работоспособности как конструктивных,
так и неструктурных элементов при землетрясении. Методы. В исследовании
PBSD был применен к несимметричной железобетонной раме, для чего исполь-
зовался нелинейный статический метод. Коэффициенты подошвы были выбра-
ны в качестве предельных деформаций при определении характеристик для кон-
Для цитирования кретных уровней сейсмической опасности. Результаты. Показано, что PBSD
позволяет получить несущую конструкцию, более устойчивую к сейсмическим
Gil-oulbé M., Al-Shaibani F.A.N.A., Lina A.S. нагрузкам, таким образом повышая характеристики эффективности и экономич-
Performance-Based Seismic Design for buil- ности. Опираясь на полученные данные, можно заключить, что сейсмический
dings (Сейсмическое проектирование зда- расчет на основе эксплуатационных характеристик, выполненный по описанной
ний на основе эксплуатационных харак- методике, удовлетворяет критериям безопасности жизнедеятельности при раз-
теристик) // Строительная механика ин- личной интенсивности землетрясений.
женерных конструкций и сооружений. Ключевые слова: эксплуатационно-ориентированное сейсмическое проек-
2020. Т. 16. № 2. С. 161–166. http://dx.doi.org/ тирование, сейсмическое воздействие, эксплуатация сооружений, нелиней-
10.22363/1815-5235-2020-16-2-161-166 ные статические методы, анализ толчков

Жиль-улбе Mатье, кандидат технических наук, доцент департамента строительства Инженерной академии; eLIBRARY AuthorID: 613393.
Аль-Шаибани Фуад Аднан Номан Абдулла, магистрант департамента строительства Инженерной академии.
Лина Абасс Саад, магистрант департамента строительства Инженерной академии.

166 SEISMIC RESISTANCE