Performance Based Seismic

Design and Risk Analysis

Presented By:
Aritra Chatterjee
(07CE3111)

Under the Supervision of:

Professor Baidurya Bhattacharya
 OBJECTIVE SCOPE
• 2 Steel OMRF frames -- 2 bay - 2
storey and 3 bay - 3 storey
• Implement Performance
Based Seismic Design • 2 codes of practice BS EN 1998-
Criteria in the context of 1:2004 and IS 1893:2002
existing seismic codal • Semi-rigid connection based non
provisions linear model solved using Newmark’s
Algorithm with Newton-Raphson
convergence scheme
• Assess present-day codes
using these provisions • Design for seismic hazard for the
city of Mumbai

• 3 performance limit states from

FEMA-273 (Reference 1)
PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN
– Key points
Multiple performance levels
Collapse Prevention  2% in 50 years hazard
Life Safety  10% in 50 years hazard

Hazard quantification
Dynamic & Random Input Load
Represent using Intensity Measure:
Peak Ground Acceleration
Spectral Acceleration

Reliability Analysis
Probabilities of failure

Risk Analysis
Interpreting failure probabilities
HAZARD QUANTIFICATION
Spectral Acceleration
3

2
Ground Acceleration

-1

-2

-3

-4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time Displacement versus time
0.08

Peak Displacement (Sd) = 0.0688 m 0.06

0.04

Time Period = 0.6229 s 0.02

Displacement
wn = 10.0862 /s 0

2 2
Sa  S d   7.00m / s
-0.02

n -0.04

NOTES: 1) Analysis using Newton-Raphson -0.06

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
2)El-Centro earthquake record Time
 HAZARD QUANTIFICATION
Response Spectra

Spectral Acceleration (m/s/s)

6
9
5% damping
8 7% damping
5
9% damping
Spectral Acceleration (m/s/s)

7 11% damping

4
6

5 3

4
2
3

2 1

1
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time Period (s) Time Period (s)
Response Spectrum of Design Response Spectrum (BS
El-Centro Record EN 1998-1:2004)
 HAZARD QUANTIFICATION
Response Spectra

Spectral Acceleration (m/s/s)

50 25
5% damping
45 7% damping
9% damping
20
Spectral Acceleration (m/s/s)

40
11% damping

35

30 15
25

20 10
15

10 5
5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time Period (s) Time Period (s)
Response Spectrum of Design Response
Bhuj Record Spectrum (IS 1893-
2002)
CODE BASED DESIGN
2 steel frame structures

Designed with existent codal provisions

Earthquake hazard for Mumbai

 Tested
against performance levels from
FEMA 273
 CODE BASED DESIGN
4.0 m 4.0 m

25 kN/m 25 kN/m

4.0 m

50 kN/m 50 kN/m

4.0 m

Structure ‘A’
 CODE BASED DESIGN
4.0 m 4.0 m 4.0 m

25 kN/m 25 kN/m 25 kN/m

4.0 m
50 kN/m 50 kN/m 50 kN/m

4.0 m
50 kN/m 50 kN/m 50 kN/m

4.0 m

Structure ‘B’
 CODE BASED DESIGN(1):
BS EN 1998-1:2004
• Design Base Shear : Vb  Sd (Tn )m
m: Seismic mass of the frame
l: Parameter accounting for higher modes of
vibration, (1.0 for dominant first mode)
Sd(Tn): Ordinate of response spectrum at
time perion Tn
3/4
Tn  Ct H
• Tn for height H:

Ct: Parameter depending on the type of

CODE BASED DESIGN(1):
BS EN 1998-1:2004
• Displacement based design criteria (3 limit
states):

d r  0.01H , no non-structural elements attached

d r  0.0075 H , ductile non-structural elements attached
d r  0.0005 H , brittle non-structural elements attached

dr:
Design inter-storey drift obtained
n: Importance factor (0.5 for Class 2 --
ordinary structures)
P d
  tot r  0.1
• Ignore second order effects if: Vtot h
 CODE BASED DESIGN(1):
BS EN 1998-1:2004
• Parameters :
S: 1.15 Determined by ground type alone
TB: 0.2
TC: 0.6 Mumbai assumed to have Type ‘C’
ground type
TD: 2.0

ag: Site specific peak ground acceleration corresponding

to relevant hazard level (taken as 0.19 g for
Mumbai from Reference (12))
6

5
Spectral Acceleration (m/s/s)

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time Period (s)

Design Response Spectrum

 CODE BASED DESIGN(1):
BS EN 1998-1:2004
Distribute lateral forces as:

Vbsimi
Fi 
s jmj
si : Displacement coordinate of i th floor in fundamental shape
mi : Seismic mass of ith floor
 CODE BASED DESIGN(1):
IS 1893-2002
• Design Base Shear : Vb  Ah w

• Ah (Horizontal acceleration
ZISa
response spectrum factor): Ah 
2 Rg
Z: Zone factor (0.16 for moderate zone (Mumbai))
I: Importance factor (1.0)
R: Response Reduction Factor (5.0 for steel MRF)
Sa: Ordinate of response spectrum at time period Tn

Vbhi2mi
• Distribute lateral forces as: Fi 
 hi2m j
hi : Height of i th floor
mi : Seimic mass of i th floor
 CODE BASED DESIGN(1):
IS 1893-2002
• Function of Tn alone and independent of seismic hazard in an area
25
Spectral Acceleration (m/s/s)

20

15

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time period (s)

Design Response Spectrum

• Design Equation: max IDR 0.004

 FINAL CODE BASED DESIGNS

BS Limit State
BS Limit State
Frame IS Code BS Limit State 1
2 3
Columns: ISMC
Columns: Columns: ISMC
Columns: ISMB 300
ISMB 200 300
1 250 Beam: ISMB
Beam: ISMB Beam: ISMC
Beam: ISMB 250 350
200 300
Columns: ISMC
Columns: Columns: ISMC
Columns: ISMB 400
ISMB 250 350
2 300 Beam: ISMB
Beam: ISMB Beam: ISMB
Beam: ISMB 300 400
300 350
STRUCTURAL MODEL
Semi rigid connections
(initially developed by Hasan et al (16), adapted from Au et al(17))

Transition
from linear to non-linear
regime modeled with bi-linear curve
STRUCTURAL MODEL
Overall Stiffness Matrix
K semirigid  Ke Se  K g S g  K ge
Ke : Constitutive Stiffness Matrix
K g : Geometric Stiffness Matrix
Se : Correction Matrix for K e

S g : Correction Matrix for K g

K ge : External Stiffness Matrix

 EA EA  0 0 0 0 0 0 
 0 0  0 0  
L L

 12 EI 6EI 12EI 6EI



0
6P P 0  6P P 

 0 0  3   5L 10 5L 10 

L3 L2 L L2   
 0 6 EI 4 EI 6EI 2EI  0 P 2PL 0  P  PL 
0  2

Ke   L2 L L L 
Kg   10 15 10 30 

  EA 0 0
EA
0 0  0 0 0 0 0 0 
 L L  
 0  6P  P 0 6P  P 
12 EI 6 EI 12 EI 6 EI 
 0  3  0  2   5L 10 5L 10 
 L L2 L3 L   
 6 EI 2 EI 6EI 4EI  0 P  PL 0  P 2 PL 
 0 0  2   10 30 10 15 
 L2 L L L  
 STRUCTURAL MODEL
Correction Matrices

0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 1 0 0 0 0 
1

0 g32 g33 0 g35 g36 
Sg   
5(4  p1 p2 )2 0
 0 0 0 0 0 
 
0 0 0 0 1 0 

0 g62 g63 0 g65 g66 
 gij ,eij : Functions of pi and L
 


e11 0 0 0 0 0  1
  pi 
 0 e22 e23 0 0 0 1 3EI / (LdM i / dip )
 

1

 0 e32 e33 0 0 0 
Se   
4  p1 p2 0
 0 0 e44 0 0 pi  1 (Elastic)
 
 0 0 0 0 e55 e56  pi  0 (Fully plastic)


 0 0 0 0 e65 e66 
 
STRUCTURAL MODEL
External Stiffness Matrices (corrects internal
forces arising due to rigid body motions)


 M1  M 2 M M 

 0 0 0  1 2 2 0



L2 L 

M1  M 2 P M1  M 2
P
 
 0  0



L2 L L2 L 


K ge 

0 0 0 0 0 0


 M M M1  M 2 
 0  1 2 2 0 0 0


 L L2 

 M1  M 2 M1  M 2 
  P 0 P 0


 L2 L L2 L 


 0 0 0 0 0 0


 TYPICAL RESPONSES
Earthquake versus time
1.5 0.25

D is p la c e m e n t ( m )
0.2
1
Ground Acceleration (m/s/s)

0.15

0.5
0.1

0
0.05

-0.5 0

-0.05
-1

-0.1

-1.5
-0.15

-2 -0.2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (s) Time (s)

Responses of IS 2 storey frame to Washington (top) and Elentro (below) at S a=0.09g

Earthquake versus time
2 0.15

1.5 T o p S to re y D is p la c e m e n t (m ) 0.1

1
0.05

0.5
0
Ground Acceleration

0
-0.05

-0.5

-0.1

-1

-0.15
-1.5

-0.2
-2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time (s)
PERFORMANCE LEVELS

Structural Capacity
Limit State
(in terms of IDR)
Immediate Occupancy
0.7%
(IO)
Life Safety (LS) 2.5%
Collapse Prevention
5%
(CP)

Source: FEMA 273

(Reference 1)
 PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT
Frame Hazard Level Peak Transient IDR
El Centro: 3.51%
Washington: 3.1%
IS 2X2 2% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.19g) Los Angeles: 3.08%
Bhuj: 3.26%
Koyna: 3.96%
El Centro: 1.66%
Washington: 1.47%
IS 2X2 10% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.09g) Los Angeles: 1.46%
Bhuj: 1.54%
Koyna: 1.88%
El Centro: 1.61%
Washington: 1.23%
IS 3X3 2% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.19g) Los Angeles: 1.38%
Bhuj: 1.44%
Koyna: 1.64%
El Centro: 0.76%
Washington: 0.58%
IS 3X3 10% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.09g) Los Angeles: 0.65%
Bhuj: 0.68%
Koyna: 0.78%

Source of hazard levels: The Working Committee of Experts constituted by the National Disaster Management Authority,
Govt. of India: “Development of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map of India, Final Report) (2010)(Reference 12)
PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT
Frame Hazard Level Peak Transient IDR
El Centro: 0.76%
Washington:0.86%
BS 2X2 LS 3 2% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.19g) Los Angeles:0.74%
Bhuj: 0.81%
Koyna:0.89%
El Centro: 1.8%
Washington: 1.52%
BS 2X2 LS 1 2% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.19g) Los Angeles: 1.43%
Bhuj: 1.6%
Koyna: 2.18%
El Centro: 0.36%
Washington: 0.41%
BS 2X2 LS 3 10% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.09g) Los Angeles: 0.35%
Bhuj: 0.38%
Koyna:0.42%
El Centro: 0.85%
Washington: 0.72%
BS 2X2 LS 1 10% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.09g) Los Angeles: 0.68%
Bhuj: 0.76%
Koyna: 1.03%
PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT
Frame Hazard Level Peak Transient IDR
El Centro: 0.42%
Washington: 0.43%
BS 3X3 LS 3 2% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.19g) Los Angeles: 0.43%
Bhuj: 0.6%
Koyna: 0.46%
El Centro: 1%
Washington:0.91%
BS 3X3 LS 1 2% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.19g) Los Angeles: 0.88%
Bhuj: 1%
Koyna: 0.94%
El Centro: 0.2%
Washington: 0.2%
BS 3X3 LS 3 10% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.09g) Los Angeles: 0.2%
Bhuj: 0.28%
Koyna: 0.22%
El Centro: 0.48%
Washington: 0.43%
BS 3X3 LS 1 10% in 50 yrs (Sa=0.09g) Los Angeles: 0.42%
Bhuj: 0.48%
Koyna:0.45%
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
Load Modeling:

Pr(Sa  Sa0)  koSaok

NOTE: Valid only in the right tail
Source: Reference (4)

k0 1.032e5
k  2.208

Record-to-Record variability at same Sa

needs to be captured
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS
ANNUAL FAILURE PROBABILITIES
Earthquake
Frame Performance Level Failure Probability
Record

IS Code 2X2 Life Safety El-Centro 3e-4

Los Angeles 1.85e-4

Washington 1.51e-4

Bhuj 2.44e-4

Collapse Prevention El-Centro 6.72e-5

Los Angeles 3.36e-5

Washington 4.2e-5

Bhuj 5.05e-5

IS Code 3X3 All All <1e-6

BS Code 2X2 All All <1e-6

IS Code 3X3 All All <1e-6

RISK DIAGRAM
Meaning of reliability values in a
societal context

Existent risk of regular activities

Notion of acceptable risk

Risk Diagram -- plot between

probability and consequence
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
• Adapted from
“Evaluating Calculated
Risk in Geotechnical
Engineering”-- Robert
Whitman, The
Seventeenth Terzaghi
Lecture, ASCE 1981
convention and
exposition

• Units , relevance and

techniques fuzzy

30
UPDATED RISK DIAGRAM

Risksof real-life regular activities (mainly in India

and USA)

Research using government and agency reports,

technical papers, newspaper articles etc.

Log-Normal distribution assumed for probability and

consequence of societal risk (references in literature)

Meaningful interpretation of acceptable societal risk

ACCEPTABLE RISK
Acceptable
Reference Parameters
probability
A : Activity Factor
1.0 for buildings
10.0 for high e xposure structure s
Pf  A 105 / yr W : W arning Factor
Allen (24) W nr 0.1 for gradual failure
1.0 for sudde n failure
nr : N um be r of conse que nt deaths

Ks : Social criterion factor

(Voluntary nature of activity)

CIRIA (25) Pf  Ks p '/ nr Typically 5.0

p' : Annual acceptable individual risk of death
Typically 10-4
nr : Number of lives involved

A : Typically 0.01 or 0.1

ISO (26) Pf  A2 / yr α : Typically 2

nr N : N um ber of live s involve d
 INDIVIDUAL RISK
1

10-1 Being alive (70+/India)

Being alive (70+/USA)

Smoking (all ages/USA)

10ages/India)
-2 Being alive (all ages/India/USA)
Smoking (all
Being alive (20-39/India)
Being alive (20-39/USA)
probability

10 -3
2 wheelers(India)
Annual

Cars(USA)

Cars(India) Acceptable risk

Walking(India)
10-4

Commercial flying
Terrorism (India) Floods (India)
Lightning
10-5 strike Lightning+Storms+Floods(USA)
(India) Lightning strike (USA)

10-6

Deaths  1 10 102 103

10-7
 1

10-1
SOCIETAL RISK
Smoking (all ages/USA)
Acceptable Risk (Partial Exposure)
Smoking (all 10
-2
ages/India)

Cars (India) Commercial flying per plane NPP Post Fukushima

probability

10-3 Passenger shipping per ship

Annual

Cars (USA) L.S.

Buildings- Mumbai 2011 NPP Pre Fukushima
Merchant shipping per ship C.P.
10-4
Buildings- New Delhi 2011
Lightning strike (India) NPP Death Estimates NPP PRA Assessment
10-5
(Consequence: Evacuations)
Lightning strike (USA) Acceptable Risk (Full Exposure)
Note: NPP Consequence on
10-6 evacuation basis

Deaths  1 10 102 103 104 105

-7
10

evacuations 105 106

Cost in dollars  106 107 108 109 1010 1011 1012

 CONCLUSIONS FUTURE WORK
• IS Codal provisions satisfy • Other types of structure
Life Safety and Collapse (material and geometry) and
Prevention at 10% in 50 years complete buildings
hazard level, Collapse
Prevention at 2% in 50 years • Analysis of implications of
hazard Limit States and failure
• BS-EN Codes satisfy even
consequences
Immediate Occupancy at
extreme hazards • Other design codes and
regions
• Framework for updating
seismic codes according to • PSHA -- seismic hazard
Performance Based Design studies and verifications
methodologies
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
SriKalyan Thontepu and Atreyee
Bhaumick (2nd year students)

Mainak Bhattacharya (M-Tech Batch of

2011)

Puneet Patra (current PhD Student, B-

Tech 2009 passout)
 References
(1) Federal Emergency Management Agency: “NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings”, FEMA 273 (1997)
(2) Bommer, J.J.: "Using real earthquake accelerograms for dynamic analysis of nuclear facilities: defining
spectral targets, selecting records and adjusting for consistency", Transaction, SMiRT 21, New Delhi (2011)
(3) Federal Emergency Management Agency: “Recommended seismic design criteria for new steel moment
frame buildings”, FEMA 350 (2000)
(4) Cornell, C.A. et al.: "Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel
Moment Frame Guidelines", Journal of Structural Engineering 128-4 (2002)
(5) Yun, S.Y. et al.: "Seismic Performance Evaluation for Steel Moment Frames", Journal of Structural
Engineering 128-4 (2002)
(6) Luco, N. and Cornell, C.A.: "Structure-Specific Scalar Intensity Measures for Near-Source and Ordinary
Earthquake Ground Motions", Earthquake Spectra 23 (2007)
(7) Baker, J.W. and Cornell, C.A.: "A vector-valued ground motion intensity measure consisting of spectral
acceleration and epsilon", Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 34-10 (2005)
(8) Patra, P. and Bhattacharya, B.: "An assessment of IS codal provisions for the design of low rise steel
moment frames through incremental dynamic analysis", Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 9-2 (2010)
(9) Baker, J.W. et al.: "Disaggregation of seismic drift hazard", Proceedings of ICOSSAR 2005
(10) Raghu Kanth, S.T.G. and Iyengar, R.N.: "Seismic hazard estimation for Mumbai city", Current Science
91-11 (2006)
(11) Vipin, K.S. et al.: "Estimation of peak ground acceleration and spectral acceleration for South India with
local site effects: probabilistic approach", Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9 (2009)
(12) The Working Committee of Experts constituted by the National Disaster Management Authority, Govt.
of India: “Development of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map of India, Final Report) (2010)
(13) BS EN 1998-1:2004: "Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance — Part 1: General
rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings" (2004)
 References (contd.)
(14) IS 1893(Part 1):2002: "Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures part 1: general provisions
and buildings ( Fifth Revision )" Indian Standard (2002)
(15) Chopra, A.K.: "Dynamics of structures: Theory and applications to earthquake engineering", 3rd
Edition, Pearson Publishers (2009)
(16) Hasan, R.et. al.: “Pushover analysis for performance based seismic design”, Computers and
Structures 80 (2002)
(17) Au, F. T. K and Yan, Z. H.: “Dynamic analysis of frames with material and geometric nonlinearities
based on the semirigid technique”, International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, Vol. 8, No. 3
(2008)
(18) Monforton, G. R. and Wu, T. S.: “Matrix Analysis of semirigidly connected frames”, Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE 89(6) (1963)
(19) Xu, L. et al.: “Nonlinear analysis of steel frameworks through direct modification of member stiffness
properties”, Advanced Engineering Software 36 (2005)
(20) Matthies, H. G. and Bucher, C.: “Finite elements for stochastic media problems”, Computer methods
in applied mechanics and engineering, 168 (1999)
(21) Waarts, P. H. and Vrouwenvelder, A. C. W. M. (1999): “Stochastic finite element analysis of steel
structures”, Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 52 (1999)
(22) Bhattacharya, B. et al.: “Developing target reliability for novel structures: the case of the Mobile
Offshore Base”, Marine Structures 14 (2001)
(23) Lisbona, D. et al.: “Societal risk assessment of major hazard installations using QuickRisk”, Process
Safety and Environment Protection 89 (2011)
(24) Allen, D. E.: “Criteria for design safety factors and quality assurance expenditure”, Proceedings of
the Third International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability, Kyoto, Japan (1997)
(25) CIRIA: “Rationalization of safety and serviceability factors in structural codes” CIRIA Report 63
(1977)
(26) International Organization for Standardization: “General principles on reliability for structures”, ISO
THANK YOU!