atc-63 project overview of atc-63 project “ quantification of building system and response...

ATC-63 ProjectATC-63 Project

Overview of ATC-63 ProjectOverview of ATC-63 Project

““Quantification of Building System and Quantification of Building System and Response Parameters”Response Parameters”

Charles A. Kircher, Ph.D., P.E.Charles A. Kircher, Ph.D., P.E.

Kircher & AssociatesKircher & Associates

Palo Alto, CaliforniaPalo Alto, California

January 19, 2007January 19, 2007

2007 PEER Annual Meeting2007 PEER Annual Meeting


ATC -63 Project ObjectivesATC -63 Project Objectives• Primary Primary – Create a methodology for determining – Create a methodology for determining

Seismic Performance Factors (SPF’s) Seismic Performance Factors (SPF’s) “that, when “that, when properly implemented in the design process, will result properly implemented in the design process, will result in the equivalent earthquake performance of buildings in the equivalent earthquake performance of buildings having different structural systems”having different structural systems” (i.e., different (i.e., different lateral-force-resisting systems)lateral-force-resisting systems)

• Secondary Secondary – Evaluate a sufficient number of different – Evaluate a sufficient number of different lateral-force-resisting systems to provide a basis for lateral-force-resisting systems to provide a basis for Seismic Code committees (e.g., BSSC PUC) to develop Seismic Code committees (e.g., BSSC PUC) to develop a simpler set of lateral-force-resisting systems and a simpler set of lateral-force-resisting systems and more rational SPF’s (and related design criteria) that more rational SPF’s (and related design criteria) that would more reliably achieve the inherent earthquake would more reliably achieve the inherent earthquake safety performance objectives of building codessafety performance objectives of building codes


Project OrganizationProject OrganizationFEMA

Applied Technology Council

TOP Management CommitteeProject Executive Director (Chair)

Project Technical MonitorProject Quality Control Monitor

ATC-63 Project Management CommitteeProject Technical Director (Chair)

Five Members

Working GroupsTechnical Consultants

ATC StaffTechnical Support

Administration

Project Review PanelTwelve Members

PMC Members

Charels Kircher (Chair)Greg Deierlein – StanfordM. Constantinou – Buffalo

John Hooper - MKA James Harris – HAAllan Porush - URS

Working Groups

Stanford – NDASUNY – NSA/NCAFiliatrault – WoodKrawinkler - AAC

PRP Members

Phipps (Chair)Elnashai - MAEGhosh - SKGAGilsanz- GMS

Hamburger - SGHHayes - NIST

Holmes – R&CKlingner - UTLine - AFPA

Manley - AISIReinhorn - UBRojahn - ATC

Sabelli - DASSE

FEMA

Michael MahoneyRobert Hanson (Adv.)

TOP Management

Chris Rojahn (PED)Jon Heintz (PTM)

William Holmes (PQC)


Project Tasks and ScheduleProject Tasks and Schedule MONTHS 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Task 1: Development of Project Work Plan Task 2: Project Management and Oversight Task 3: Review Relevant Research- Task 4: Development of a Recommended

Seismic Performance Factor Methodology

Task 5: Conduct Benchmark Evaluations of

Recommended Seismic Performance Factor Methodology

Task 6: Sample Evaluation of Selected Structural

Systems (Verification Process) Task 7: Development of a Draft Guidance

Document Task 8: Plan and Conduct Workshop (deferred until year 3) Task 9: Preparation of Project Report and

Related Outreach Materials (deferred until year 3)

ATC-63 Project Management Committee Meetings: X X X X X X ATC-63 Project Review Panel Meetings Y Y

: Task milestone/completion


Seismic-Force-Resisting Systems (Tasks 5 and 6)Seismic-Force-Resisting Systems (Tasks 5 and 6)

• Reinforced-Concrete StructuresReinforced-Concrete Structures

– 4-Story SMF, IMF and OMF4-Story SMF, IMF and OMF

– 12-Story IMF/OMF and Shear 12-Story IMF/OMF and Shear Wall (Core Wall)Wall (Core Wall)

– Parametric Study of RC FramesParametric Study of RC Frames

• 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 20 stories1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 20 stories

• Space vs. perimeter Space vs. perimeter configurationsconfigurations

• Drift Limits (1% - 4%)Drift Limits (1% - 4%)

• Weak story irregularities Weak story irregularities (Code limits: 80%, 65%)(Code limits: 80%, 65%)

Concrete – Stanford

Gregory Deierlein

Curt Haselton

Abbie Liel

Brian Dean

Jason Chou

Ashpica Chhabra

John Hooper (MKA)

Brian Morgan (MKA)


Seismic-Force-Resisting Systems (Tasks 5 and 6)Seismic-Force-Resisting Systems (Tasks 5 and 6)

• Wood Structures (CUREE):Wood Structures (CUREE):

– Townhouse – Superior, Townhouse – Superior, typical, poor qualitytypical, poor quality

– Apartment – Superior, typical Apartment – Superior, typical and poor qualityand poor quality

– Other (Japanese Home, Other (Japanese Home, Templeton Hospital)Templeton Hospital)

• Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Autoclaved Aerated Concrete (AAC) Test Structures(AAC) Test Structures

• Steel StructuresSteel Structures::

– 4-Story (RBS) SMF (IMF, OMF) 4-Story (RBS) SMF (IMF, OMF)

Steel - Stanford

Greg DeierleinAbbie Liel

Helmut KrawinklerDimitiros Lignos

Curt Haselton

Wood - Buffalo

Andre FiliatraultIoannis Christovasilis

Hiroshi IsodaMichael Constantino

AAC - Stanford

Helmut KrawinklerFarzin Zareian

Kevin HaasDimitiros Lignos


Elements of the MethodologyElements of the Methodology

Methodology

Peer ReviewRequirements

Ground Motions

Analysis Methods

Test Data Requirements

Design Information Requirements


• New BuildingsNew Buildings – Methodology applies to the seismic-force- – Methodology applies to the seismic-force-resisting system of new buildings and resisting system of new buildings and may not be appropriate for may not be appropriate for non-building structures and does not apply to nonstructural non-building structures and does not apply to nonstructural systems.systems.

• NEHRP ProvisionsNEHRP Provisions – Methodology is based on design criteria, – Methodology is based on design criteria, detailing requirements, etc. of the detailing requirements, etc. of the NEHRP ProvisionsNEHRP Provisions (i.e., (i.e., ASCE ASCE 7-057-05 as adopted by the BSSC for future as adopted by the BSSC for future NEHRP ProvisionsNEHRP Provisions development) and, by reference, applicable design standardsdevelopment) and, by reference, applicable design standards

• Life SafetyLife Safety – Methodology is based on life safety performance – Methodology is based on life safety performance (only) and (only) and does not address damage protection and functionality does not address damage protection and functionality issuesissues (e.g., I = 1.0 will be assumed) (e.g., I = 1.0 will be assumed)

• Structure CollapseStructure Collapse – Life safety performance is achieved by – Life safety performance is achieved by providing providing uniform protection against local or global collapse of uniform protection against local or global collapse of the seismic-force-resisting system for MCE ground motionsthe seismic-force-resisting system for MCE ground motions

• Ground MotionsGround Motions – MCE ground motions are based on the – MCE ground motions are based on the spectral response parameters of the spectral response parameters of the NEHRP ProvisionsNEHRP Provisions, , including site class effectsincluding site class effects

Guiding PrincipalsGuiding Principals


Methodology OverviewMethodology Overview • Conceptual FrameworkConceptual Framework – Methodology adopts the concepts and – Methodology adopts the concepts and

definitions of seismic performance factors (SPF’s) of the definitions of seismic performance factors (SPF’s) of the NEHRP NEHRP ProvisionsProvisions (e.g., global pushover concept as described in the (e.g., global pushover concept as described in the Commentary of Commentary of FEMA 450FEMA 450 ) )

• Failure ModesFailure Modes – Methodology evaluates structural collapse – Methodology evaluates structural collapse defined by system-dependent local and global modes of failuredefined by system-dependent local and global modes of failure

• Collapse ProbabilityCollapse Probability – Methodology evaluates structural collapse – Methodology evaluates structural collapse probability considering response and capacity variability (and probability considering response and capacity variability (and epistemic and aleatory uncertainty)epistemic and aleatory uncertainty)

• Archetypical SystemsArchetypical Systems – Methodology defines “archetypical” – Methodology defines “archetypical” structural systems that have configurations typical of a given type structural systems that have configurations typical of a given type or class of lateral-force-resisting systemor class of lateral-force-resisting system

• Analytical ModelsAnalytical Models – Methodology incorporates models (of – Methodology incorporates models (of archetypical systems) that have sufficient complexity to archetypical systems) that have sufficient complexity to realistically represent global performance of actual building realistically represent global performance of actual building systems considering nonlinear inelastic behavior of seismic-force-systems considering nonlinear inelastic behavior of seismic-force-resisting componentsresisting components

• Analytical Methods Analytical Methods – Methodology utilizes nonlinear analysis – Methodology utilizes nonlinear analysis methods (i.e., pushover and incremental dynamic analysis)methods (i.e., pushover and incremental dynamic analysis)


Definition of Seismic Performance Factors (SPF’s)Definition of Seismic Performance Factors (SPF’s)(from (from FEMA 450FEMA 450 Commentary) Commentary)

Roof Displacement

Ba

se

Sh

ear

Pushover Curve

0

Rd

O = System Over-strength Factor = VY/V = DY/e

DY

VY

Cd

Cd = Deflection Amplification Factor = /e

e

R = Response Modification Coefficient = VE/V

R

VE

V

DE

Design Earthquake Ground Motions


Margin

SA-BasedCollapse Fragility

Med

ian

10th P

ercentileSC1

SDC1

Collapse Level Ground Motions

T

Margin

SD-Based Collapse Fragility

Median

10th Percentile

Spectral Displacement

Sp

ectr

al A

cce

lera

tio

n

(g)

SY1

SDe

Cs

SDM1

MCE Ground Motions

SM1

1.5Cd

O

1.5R

SPF’s and MCE Collapse MarginSPF’s and MCE Collapse Margin


Example Collapse Fragility – One Data PointExample Collapse Fragility – One Data Point

-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)

1989 Loma Prieta - Corralitos (128 deg.)

Scaled Ground Motion Record

+J oe’s

Beer!Beer!Food!Food!

Building (Joe’s Bar)

Incipient Collapse

=

Evaluation of a single structure (one configuration/set of performance properties) to failure using one ground

motion record scaled to effect incipient collapse


-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=-0.6

-0.3

0

0.3

0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20Time (Seconds)

Ac

ce

lera

tio

n (

g's

)


Ground Motion

+J oe’s



Incipient Collapse

=

Example Collapse Fragility – Comprehensive Example Collapse Fragility – Comprehensive and Representative Collapse Dataand Representative Collapse Data

Comprehensive models of building configuration/performance properties evaluated with representative earthquake records

Comprehensive and representative

collapse data


Notional Collapse Fragility CurveNotional Collapse Fragility Curve

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0

1-Second Spectral Acceleration (g)

Co

llap

se

Pro

ba

bili

ty .

Comprehensive/Representative Collapse Data

Lognormal Distribution

10% probability of collapse at

SM1 = 0.9 g

Acceptably low probability of

collapse (TBD) given MCE

spectral demand

Margin

50% probability (median) of collapse at SC1 = 1.6 g


Collapse Fragility with Modeling UncertaintyCollapse Fragility with Modeling Uncertainty

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Sag.m.

(T=1.0s) [g]

Cum

mul

ativ

e P

roba

bilit

y of

Col

laps

e

Empirical CDFLognormal CDF (RTR Var.)Lognormal CDF (RTR + Modeling Var.)

Margin


ATC-63 Ground Motion Record Sets - ObjectivesATC-63 Ground Motion Record Sets - Objectives

• Code (ASCE 7-05) Consistent – Pairs of horizontal components “selected and scaled from individual recorded events.” Section 16.1.3.1 of ASCE 7-05

• Very Strong Ground motions – Ground motions strong enough to collapse new buildings

• Large Number of Records – Enough records in set to estimate median and RTR variability (collapse fragility)

• Structure-Type IndependentStructure-Type Independent – Appropriate for NDA – Appropriate for NDA (IDA) of variety structures with different dynamic (IDA) of variety structures with different dynamic characteristics and performance properties characteristics and performance properties

• Site/Hazard IndependentSite/Hazard Independent – Appropriate for evaluation – Appropriate for evaluation of structures located at different sites/hazard levelsof structures located at different sites/hazard levels


Ground Motion Record Sets (PEER NGA database)Ground Motion Record Sets (PEER NGA database)

• Far-field Record Set (Basic Set):Far-field Record Set (Basic Set):

– 22 records (2 components each)22 records (2 components each)

– 14 Events14 Events

– Mechanisms: 9 strike-slip, 5 thrustMechanisms: 9 strike-slip, 5 thrust

• Near-field Record Set:Near-field Record Set:

– 28 records (2 components each)28 records (2 components each)

– 14 Events14 Events

– Half of records with a pulse, half without a pulseHalf of records with a pulse, half without a pulse

• Scale records (consistent with Scale records (consistent with ASCE 7-05ASCE 7-05):):

– Normalize individual records by PGV Normalize individual records by PGV

– Anchor record set median spectral demand to Anchor record set median spectral demand to MCE demand (at period of structure)MCE demand (at period of structure)


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Period (seconds)

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(g

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

- L

n (

Sa)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Period (seconds)

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(g

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

- L

n (

Sa)

Median Spectrum - Far-Field Set

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Period (seconds)

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(g

)

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

Sta

nd

ard

Dev

iati

on

- L

n (

Sa)

Median Spectrum - Far-Field Set

+ 1 LnStdDev Spectrum - FF Set

+ 2 LnStdDev Spectrum - FF Set

Std Dev Ln(Sa) - Far-Field Set

Response Spectra - Far-Field Record SetResponse Spectra - Far-Field Record Set


Spectral Shape – Far-Field Record SetSpectral Shape – Far-Field Record Set

-2.0

-1.6

-1.2

-0.8

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

Period (seconds)

Sp

ectr

al A

ccel

erat

ion

(g

)

Epsilon - Median of Far-Field Record Set


Comparison of Median Response Spectra at Comparison of Median Response Spectra at Collapse – 4-Story R/C SMF Model BuildingCollapse – 4-Story R/C SMF Model Building

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Period [seconds]

Sa

(T=

0.9

4s

) [g

]

First 11 CollapsesFirst 22 CollapsesAll 44 CollapsesLast 22 CollapsesLast 11 Collapses

Fundamental period is 0.94

seconds

First 11: Mean epsilon = 0.06First 22: Mean epsilon = 0.06All 44: Mean epsilon = 0.36Last 22: Mean epsilon = 0.67Last 11: Mean epsilon = 1.10

60% increase in margin due to increase in mean epsilon (0.36 to 1.1)


Comparison of Collapse Fragility Curves – 4-Story Comparison of Collapse Fragility Curves – 4-Story R/C SMF Model BuildingR/C SMF Model Building

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0

Sa(0.94s) [g]

Pro

ba

bil

ity

First 11 CollapsesFirst 22 CollapsesAll 44 CollapsesLast 22 CollapsesLast 11 Collapses

First 11: Mean epsilon = 0.06First 22: Mean epsilon = 0.06All 44: Mean epsilon = 0.36Last 22: Mean epsilon = 0.67Last 11: Mean epsilon = 1.10

MCE is 0.96g

10-fold decrease in margin due to increase in mean epsilon (0.36 to 1.1)

60% increase in margin due to increase in mean epsilon (0.36 to 1.1)


Spectral Shape FactorSpectral Shape Factor• The NeedThe Need - Incorporation of spectral shape effect is essential to - Incorporation of spectral shape effect is essential to

accurate estimation of collapse margin required to achieve accurate estimation of collapse margin required to achieve acceptably low probability of collapseacceptably low probability of collapse

• The ProblemThe Problem - Currently available maps of epsilon (from hazard - Currently available maps of epsilon (from hazard de-aggregation) are not directly applicable and development of de-aggregation) are not directly applicable and development of applicable maps/methods is not feasible near termapplicable maps/methods is not feasible near term

• The SolutionThe Solution - Alternatively, generically applicable - Alternatively, generically applicable site-site-independentindependent spectral shape factors (SSF’s) can be used to spectral shape factors (SSF’s) can be used to approximate “typical” epsilon effect on spectral shape (i.e., approximate “typical” epsilon effect on spectral shape (i.e., factors used to bias margin calculated using “epsilon-neutral” factors used to bias margin calculated using “epsilon-neutral” records)records)

• Trial Values (SSF)Trial Values (SSF) - Generic spectral shape factor would be a - Generic spectral shape factor would be a function of system ductile capacity: function of system ductile capacity:

– High ductility SystemsHigh ductility Systems SSF = 1.6 (e.g., R = 8)SSF = 1.6 (e.g., R = 8)

– Moderate ductility SystemsModerate ductility Systems SSF = 1.2 (e.g., R = 4)SSF = 1.2 (e.g., R = 4)

– Low SystemsLow Systems SSF = 1.0 (e.g., R = 2) SSF = 1.0 (e.g., R = 2)


Reinforced-Concrete (RC) Special Moment Reinforced-Concrete (RC) Special Moment Frame (SMF) System ExampleFrame (SMF) System Example

• PurposePurpose– Illustrate methodology for an existing seismic-force-Illustrate methodology for an existing seismic-force-

resisting (RC SMF) system (as if it were a new system resisting (RC SMF) system (as if it were a new system being proposed for the Code)being proposed for the Code)

– Demonstrate validity of the methodology (show R = 8 Demonstrate validity of the methodology (show R = 8 is reasonable for RC SMF)is reasonable for RC SMF)

• ApproachApproach– Develop comprehensive set of archetypical systems Develop comprehensive set of archetypical systems

(e.g., 18 designs) based on (e.g., 18 designs) based on ASCE 7-05ASCE 7-05 (and (and ACI 318ACI 318))

– Determine over-strength factors (Determine over-strength factors (OO) from push over) from push over

– Determine margins from IDA’s Determine margins from IDA’s

– Adjust margins for spectrum shape factor (epsilon)Adjust margins for spectrum shape factor (epsilon)

– Evaluate margin acceptability (considering total Evaluate margin acceptability (considering total uncertainty (RTR + modeling + design + testing)uncertainty (RTR + modeling + design + testing)


Notional Flowchart of ProcessNotional Flowchart of Process

Establish Design Provisions

Characterize BehaviorDevelop System

Develop Archetype Models

Evaluate Collapse Performance

P[C] < LimitNo

Yes

Peer Review


Archetype Design Configurations (18)Archetype Design Configurations (18)• Basic Set - High Seismic (SDC D) designs (6)Basic Set - High Seismic (SDC D) designs (6)

– Low gravity (perimeter frame) configurationLow gravity (perimeter frame) configuration

– 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 20-story heights1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 20-story heights

– 20-foot bay size20-foot bay size

• Basic Set - High Seismic (SDC D) designs (6)Basic Set - High Seismic (SDC D) designs (6)– High gravity (space frame) configurationHigh gravity (space frame) configuration

– 1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 20-story archetypes1, 2, 4, 8, 12 and 20-story archetypes

– 20-foot bay size20-foot bay size

• Check Low Seismic - Low Seismic (B/C) designs (4)Check Low Seismic - Low Seismic (B/C) designs (4)– 8, 12, and 20-story heights – Low gravity (perimeter)8, 12, and 20-story heights – Low gravity (perimeter)

– 20-story height – high gravity (space frame)20-story height – high gravity (space frame)

• Check Bay Size - 30-foot bay designs (2)Check Bay Size - 30-foot bay designs (2)– High Seismic (SDC D) designsHigh Seismic (SDC D) designs

– 4-story – low gravity (perimeter frame)4-story – low gravity (perimeter frame)

– 4-story – high gravity (space frame)4-story – high gravity (space frame)


Index Archetype Configuration (4-Story)Index Archetype Configuration (4-Story)

beam-column joint

column

beam

foundation

MWtrib

Wlean

bay size

H1

st-s

tory

n-s

torie

s a

t H

leaning (P-D)

column


Summary of Archetype Design Properties Summary of Archetype Design Properties Initial Design Initial Design ASCE 7-05ASCE 7-05))

SDC R T (sec.) V/W (g)

2069 1 P D 8 0.26 0.125 1.50

2064 2 P D 8 0.45 0.125 1.50

1003 4 P D 8 0.81 0.092 1.11

1011 8 P D 8 1.49 0.050 0.60

5013 12 P D 8 2.40 0.035 0.38

5020 20 P D 8 3.77 0.022 0.24

2061 1 S D 8 0.26 0.125 1.50

1001 2 S D 8 0.45 0.125 1.50

1008 4 S D 8 0.81 0.092 1.11

1012 8 S D 8 1.49 0.050 0.60

5014 12 S D 8 2.18 0.035 0.41

5021 20 S D 8 3.45 0.022 0.26

High Seismic and High Gravity (Space Frame) Designs

High Seismic and Low Gravity (Perimeter Frame) Designs

No. of Stories

Key Archetype Design Parameters

Gravity Loads

Seismic Design Criteria SAMCE [T]

(g)

Arch. Design ID

No.


Example IDA Results and MarginExample IDA Results and Margin(4-story, SDC D, space frame with 30-foot bays)(4-story, SDC D, space frame with 30-foot bays)

0 0.05 0.1 0.150

2

4

6

8S

a(T

=0.

81s)

[g]

Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio

Median Collapse Sa = 2.77g

MCE Sa = 1.11g

2.5 Margin (2.77/1.11)


Acceptable Collapse Margin Acceptable Collapse Margin ((based on composite uncertainty and collapse goal)based on composite uncertainty and collapse goal)

5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

0.55 2.47 2.02 1.77 1.59 1.45

0.6 2.68 2.16 1.86 1.66 1.50

0.65 2.91 2.30 1.96 1.73 1.55

0.7 3.16 2.45 2.07 1.80 1.60

0.75 3.43 2.61 2.18 1.88 1.66

0.8 3.73 2.78 2.29 1.96 1.72

0.85 4.05 2.97 2.41 2.05 1.77

0.9 4.40 3.16 2.54 2.13 1.84

0.95 4.77 3.37 2.68 2.23 1.90

1 5.18 3.60 2.82 2.32 1.96

Target Collapse ProbabilityComposite Uncertainty


Initial Results – RC SMF (Initial Results – RC SMF (ASCE 7-05ASCE 7-05))


Re-design to Improve Collapse Margin of Re-design to Improve Collapse Margin of Tall Buildings (12 and 20-story heights)Tall Buildings (12 and 20-story heights)

• Restore minimum base shear provision removed Restore minimum base shear provision removed from from ASCE 7-02ASCE 7-02 (Eq. 9.5.5.2.1-3): (Eq. 9.5.5.2.1-3):

CCss 0.044 0.044 SSDS DS I I ( (I I = 1.0)= 1.0)

SDC Reff1 T (sec.) V/W (g)

1013 12 P D 6.4 2.13 0.044 0.42

1020 20 P D 4.1 3.36 0.044 0.27

1014 12 S D 6.4 2.13 0.044 0.42

1021 20 S D 4.1 3.36 0.044 0.27

Arch. Design ID No.

Re-Design - High Seismic and Low Gravity (Perimeter Frame) Designs

Re-Design - High Seismic and High Gravity (Space Frame) Designs

No. of Stories

Key Archetype Design Parameters

Seismic Design Criteria SAMCE [T]

(g)Gravity Loads

1. Effective value of R due to limits on the seismic coefficient, Cs.


Revised Results – RC SMF (Revised Results – RC SMF (ASCE 7-02ASCE 7-02))

atc-63 project overview of atc-63 project “ quantification of building system and response...

Documents

project atc

project project tasks

project seismicforce

project overview of

project objectives primary

systems tasks

different structural

members project review