Title:
SP-339-09: Assessment of a 12-Story Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame Building Using Performance-Based Seismic Engineering Standards and Guidelines: ASCE 41, TBI, and LATBSDC
Author(s):
Mustafa K. Buniya, Andre R. Barbosa, and Siamak Sattar
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
339
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
134-154
Keywords:
ASCE/SEI 41, LATBSDC, nonlinear modeling, performance-based design, reinforced concrete, special moment frame, TBI
DOI:
10.14359/51724700
Date:
3/1/2020
Abstract:
A 160-foot (≈ 49 m) tall 12–story reinforced concrete special moment frame building is designed following ASCE 7-16 and ACI 318-14, and assessed using three Performance-Based Seismic Engineering (PBSE) standards and guidelines including ASCE/SEI 41, the Tall Buildings Initiative (TBI) guidelines for performance-based design of tall buildings, and the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) procedures. The assessments are performed at the combination of two performance and hazard levels including Collapse Prevention (CP) at the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER) hazard level and Immediate Occupancy (IO) at a frequent ground motion level with 50 percent probability of exceedance in 30 years, i.e. serviceability performance level. Based on the recommendations of each of the three PBSE documents, nonlinear finite element models are implemented in OpenSees. Through nonlinear time-history response analyses, the finite element models are subjected to eleven ground motions that are selected following the ground motion selection recommendations in ASCE 7-16. Assessment results indicate that for the serviceability performance level, the code-compliant building meets the design requirements of the three PBSE documents for the inter-story drift ratio and inelastic deformation of the structural components. At the MCER hazard level, although the building essentially satisfies the design requirements for the peak inter-story drift ratios and inelastic deformation, the mean of the residual inter-story drift ratios as well as the envelope of the residual drift ratios do not meet the limits of the TBI and LATBSDC guidelines. The results indicate that the newly designed building meets the ASCE 41 acceptance criteria but does not meet the design requirements set in TBI and LATBSDC guidelines.
Related References:
ACI Committee 369.1, 2017, “Standard Requirements for Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Concrete Buildings and Commentary” Version for Public Discussion Draft, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI Committee 374.3, 2016, “Guide to Nonlinear Modeling Parameters for Earthquake-Resistant Structures” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI Committee 318-14, 2014, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete ACI 318-14 and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI
Alam, M.S. and Barbosa, A.R., 2018, “Probabilistic seismic demand assessment accounting for finite element model class uncertainty: Application to acode-designed URM infilled reinforced concrete frame building.” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, Vol. 47 Issue 15, pp 2901-2920, DOI: 10.1002/eqe.3113
ASCE 7-16, 2016, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures Including Supplement 1, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASCE/SEI 41-17, 2017, “Seismic Evaluation and Upgrade of Existing Buildings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. Public Comment Edition available through the American Society of Civil Engineers.
PEER/ATC-72-1, 2010, “Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA, and Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA,
CSI, 2013, ETABS User Manual (v13.1.5). Computer and Structures, Berkeley, CA.
LATBSDC, 2014, “An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region,” Los Angeles Tall Building Structural Design Council, Los Angeles, CA.
Haselton, C. B.; Baker, J. W.; Stewart, J. P.; Whittaker, A. S.; Luco, N.; Fry, A.; Hamburger, R. O.; Zimmerman, R. B.; Hooper, J. D.; Charney, F. A.; and Pekelnicky, R. G., 2017a, “Response history analysis for the design of new buildings in the NEHRP provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 standard: Part I - Overview and specification of ground motions,” Earthquake Spectra V. 33, No. 2, pp. 373–395.
Haselton, C.B.; Fry, A.; Hamburger, R.O.; Baker, J.W.; Zimmerman, R.B.; Luco, N.; Elwood, K.N.; Hooper, J.D.; Charney, F.A.; Pekelnicky, R.G.; and Whittaker, A.S., 2017b, “Response History Analysis for the Design of New Buildings in the NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 Standard: Part II - Structural Analysis Procedures and Acceptance Criteria. Earthquake Spectra,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 33, No. 2, pp. 397-417.
Haselton, C. B.; Liel, A. B.; Taylor-Lange, S. C.; Deierlein, G. G., 2016, “Calibration of Model to Simulate Response of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Columns to Collapse,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 113, No. 6, pp.1141.
Haselton, C.B.; Liel, A.B.; Taylor Lange, S.; and Deierlein, G.G., 2008. “Beam-Column Element Model Calibrated for Predicting Flexural Response Leading to Global Collapse of RC Frame Buildings”, PEER Report 2007/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Ibarra, L. F.; Medina, R. A.; and Krawinkler, H., 2005, “Hysteretic Models that Incorporate Strength and Stiffness Deterioration,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 34, No. 12, pp. 1489-1511.
McKenna, F., Scott, M. H., and Fenves, G. L. 2009, “Nonlinear finite-element analysis software architecture using object composition,” Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, V.24, No. 1, pp. 95-107.
Moehle, J. P.; Hooper, J. D.; and Lubke, C. D., 2016, “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames: A Guide for Practicing Engineers” National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Tall Buildings Initiative, 2010, “Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings,” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.