Application of Performance-based Design to Naveed Anwar...
Transcript of Application of Performance-based Design to Naveed Anwar...
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Application of Performance-based Design to
actual projects (Case Studies)Naveed Anwar, PhD
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Performance-based DesignAn Introduction
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
• The Gravity Load Resisting System
•
• The Lateral Load Resisting System
•
• The Floor Diaphragm
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Source: NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 3
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
• PEER 2010/05, “Tall Building Initiative,
Guidelines for Performance Based
Seismic Design of Tall Buildings”
• PEER/ATC 72-1, “Modeling and
Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of Tall Buildings”
• ASCE/SEI 41-13, “Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Existing Buildings”
• LATBSDC 2014, “An Alternative
Procedure for Seismic Analysis and
Design of Tall Buildings Located in the
Los Angeles Region”
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Required Information
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
• Service Level Earthquake (SLE)
• 50% of probability of exceedance in 30 years (43-year
return period)
• Design Basis Earthquake (DBE)
• 10% of probability of exceedance in 50 years (475-year
return period)
• Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE)
• 2% of probability of exceedance in 50 years (2475-year
return period)0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0SP
EC
TR
AL
AC
CELE
RA
TIO
NNATURAL PERIOD (SEC)
Response Spectra
SLE (g)
DBE (g)
MCE (g)
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
• 10-year
• 50-year 700-year
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Performance-based DesignThe Procedure
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Preliminary design
Detailed code-
based design
SLE Evaluation
MCE Evaluation
Geotechnical investigation
Probabilistic seismic hazard
assessment
Peer review
Wind tunnel test
Performance-based Design Procedure
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Structural
system
development
• Bearing wall
system
• Dual system
• Special moment
resisting frame
• Intermediate
moment resisting
frame
Finite
element
modeling
• Linear analysis
models
• Different stiffness
assumptions for
seismic and wind
loadings
Check overall
response
•Modal analysis
• Natural period, mode
shapes, modal
participating mass
ratios
• Gravity load response
• Building weight per
floor area
• Deflections
• Lateral load response
(DBE, Wind)
• Base shear, story drift,
displacement
Preliminary
member
sizing
• Structural density
ratios
• Slab thickness
• Shear wall thickness
• Coupling beam sizes
• Column sizes
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
• Modeling
•
•
•
• Gravity load design
•
•
• Wind design
•
••
•
••
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
• Seismic design (DBE)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Source: FEMA P695 | June 2009
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Source: LATBSDC 2014
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
Force-deformation relationship for deformation-controlled actions
Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
• Critical actions
•
•
• Non-critical actions
•
•
Force-deformation relationship for force-controlled actions
Source: ASCE/SEI 41-13
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Component Action Classification Criticality
Shear wallsFlexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Coupling beams (Conventional)
Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Shear Force-controlled Non-critical
Coupling beams (Diagonal) Shear Deformation-controlled N/A
GirdersFlexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Shear Force-controlled Non-critical
ColumnsAxial-Flexure Deformation-controlled N/A
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Diaphragms
Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Shear (at podium and basements) Force-controlled Critical
Shear (tower) Force-controlled Non-critical
Basement wallsFlexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Mat foundationFlexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Shear Force-controlled Critical
PilesAxial-Flexure Force-controlled Non-critical
Shear Force-controlled Critical
Classification of Actions
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Item Value
Peak transient drift Maximum of mean values shall not exceed 3%.Maximum drift shall not exceed 4.5%.
Residual drift Maximum of mean values shall not exceed 1%.Maximum drift shall not exceed 1.5%.
Coupling beam inelastic rotation ≤0.05 radian for both conventional and diagonal reinforced beams
Column (Axial-flexural interaction and shear)Flexural rotation ≤ASCE 41-13 limitsRemain elastic for shear response.(Column shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Shear wall reinforcement axial strain ≤0.05 in tension and ≤0.02 in compression
Shear wall concrete axial compressive strainIntermediately confined concrete ≤ 0.004 + 0.1 ρ (fy / f'c)Fully confined concrete ≤ 0.015
Shear wall shear Remain elastic (Check for 1.5 times mean value)
Girder inelastic rotation ≤ASCE 41-13 limits
Girders shear Remain elastic.
Mat foundation (Flexure and shear)Remain elastic.(Mat foundation shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Diaphragm (In-plane response)Remain elastic.(Podium diaphragm shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Piles (Axial-flexural interaction and shear)Remain elastic.(Pile shear will be checked for 1.5 times mean value.)
Acceptance Criteria (MCE)
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Concrete Element SLE/Wind DBE MCE
Core walls/shear wallsFlexural – 0.75 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.6 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – **
Shear – 0.2 Ag
Basement wallsFlexural – 1.0 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.8 Ig
Shear – 0.8 Ag
Flexural – 0.8 Ig
Shear – 0.5 Ag
Coupling beams(Diagonal-reinforced)
Flexural –0.3 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural –0.2 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.2 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Coupling beams(Conventional-reinforced)
Flexural –0.7 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural –0.35 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.35 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Ground level diaphragm(In-plane only)
Flexural – 0.5 Ig
Shear – 0.8 Ag
Flexural – 0.25 Ig
Shear – 0.5 Ag
Flexural – 0.25 Ig
Shear – 0.25 Ag
Podium diaphragmsFlexural – 0.5 Ig
Shear – 0.8 Ag
Flexural – 0.25 Ig
Shear – 0.5 Ag
Flexural – 0.25 Ig
Shear – 0.25 Ag
Tower diaphragmsFlexural – 1.0 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.5 Ig
Shear – 0.5 Ag
Flexural – 0.5 Ig
Shear – 0.5 Ag
GirdersFlexural – 0.7 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.35 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.35 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
ColumnsFlexural – 0.9 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.7 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Flexural – 0.7 Ig
Shear – 1.0 Ag
Stiffness Assumptions in Mathematical Models
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Evaluation of Results
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
30,878
81,161
269,170
201,762
160,409
133,233
57,826
39,137
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
X Y
Base s
hear
(kN
)
Along direction
Wind (50-yr) x 1.6 Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE-NLTHA Elastic SLE
1.68
4.42
14.67
11.00
8.74
7.26
3.15
2.13
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
X Y
Base s
hear
(%)
Along direction
Wind (50-yr) x 1.6 Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE-NLTHA Elastic SLE
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Sto
ry level
Drift ratio
Transient Drift
GM-1059
GM-65010
GM-CHY006
GM-JOS
GM-LINC
GM-STL
GM-UNIO
Average
Avg. Drift Limit
Max. Drift Limit
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Sto
ry level
Drift ratio
Residual Drift
GM-1059
GM-65010
GM-CHY006
GM-JOS
GM-LINC
GM-STL
GM-UNIO
Average
Avg. Drift Limit
Max Drift Limit
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
Sto
ry level
Lateral displacement (m)
Lateral Displacement
GM-1059
GM-65010
GM-CHY006
GM-JOS
GM-LINC
GM-STL
GM-UNIO
Average
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Sto
ry level
Absolute acceleration (g)
Floor Acceleration
GM-1059
GM-65010
GM-CHY006
GM-JOS
GM-LINC
GM-STL
GM-UNIO
Average
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Total dissipated
energy
Dissipated energy from shear walls
Dissipated energy from conventional reinforced coupling beams
Total dissipated
energy
Total dissipated
energy
Dissipated energy from diagonal reinforced coupling
beams
Time (sec)
Energ
y
dis
sip
ati
on (%
)
Time (sec)
Energ
y
dis
sip
ati
on (%
)
Energ
y
dis
sip
ati
on (%
)
Time (sec)
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Component Response
Pile foundation Bearing capacity, pullout capacity, PMM, shear
Mat foundation Bearing capacity, flexure, shear
Shear wall Flexure (axial strain), shear
Column PMM or flexural rotation, axial, shear
Beams Flexural rotation, shear
Conventional reinforced coupling beam Flexural rotation, shear
Diagonal reinforced coupling beam Shear rotation, shear
Flat slab Flexural rotation, punching shear
Basement wall In-plane shear, out-of-plane flexure and shear
Diaphragm Shear, shear friction, tension and compression
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Peer Review
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
CASE STUDY 1
44
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
45
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
MODELING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
46
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 47
Elastic models (ETABS)
• Analyze
• Wind (Linear static analysis)
• SLE (Response spectrum analysis)
• DBE (Response spectrum analysis)
• Includes shear walls, columns, coupling beams,
girders, beams, slabs, and foundation
• Shell elements were used to model the floor
slabs, considering the diaphragm flexibility
Nonlinear model (Perform 3D)
• Nonlinear response verification for MCE
(Nonlinear time history analysis)
• Includes inelastic member properties for
elements that were anticipated to be loaded
beyond their elastic limits (flexural response of
shear walls, coupling beams, girders, and slab-
outrigger beams)
• Elements that were assumed to remain elastic
were modeled with elastic member properties.
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 48
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sp
ect
ral A
cce
lera
tio
n (
g)
Natural Period (sec)
Response Spectra
SLE MCE
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
49
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Item Limit
Story drift 0.5%
Coupling beam Remain elastic
Shear wall Remain elastic
Girder Remain elastic
Column Remain elastic
• Demand to capacity of the primary structural members shall not exceed 1.5, in which the capacity is computed by nominal strength multiplied by the corresponding strength reduction factor in accordance with ACI 318.
• It is anticipated that the demand to capacity ratio of 1.5 based on design strengths can be expected to result in only minor inelastic response.
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Item Limit
Peak transient driftMean value shall not exceed 3%.Maximum drift shall not exceed 4.5%.
Residual driftMean value shall not exceed 1%.Maximum drift shall not exceed 1.5%.
Column Remain elastic
Coupling beam rotation ≤ 0.05 radians
Girder rotation ≤ASCE 41limits
Shear wall reinforcement strain≤ 0.05 in tension≤ 0.02 in compression
Shear wall concrete strainIntermediately confined concrete ≤ 0.004 + 0.1 ρ (fy / f'c)Fully confined concrete ≤ 0.015
Force-controlled action demand shall be 1.5 times the mean if it is not limited by well defined yield mechanism. If itis limited by well-defined yield mechanism, use the mean plus 1.3 times standard deviation but not less than 1.2times the mean. The capacity is determined based on expected material properties with corresponding strengthreduction factor.
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
OVERALL RESPONSE
52
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 53
Mode Period (sec)Modal Participating Mass Ratio
X (%) Y (%)
1 8.81 0.1 54.3
2 8.08 53.1 0.1
3 6.96 1.3 0
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 54
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
X Y
Bas
e S
he
ar (
%)
Along Direction
Base Shear in terms of Percentage of Weight of Building at Ground Level
SLE (Elastic) DBE (Elastic) MCE (Elastic) MCE (Inelastic)
Weight of the building = 2,255,500 kN
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 55
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Sto
ry
Transient drift
Transient drift (X-direction)
Drift-A
Drift-B
Drift-C
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-0.04 -0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04
Sto
ry
Transient drift
Transient drift (Y-direction)
Drift-ADrift-BDrift-CAvg Limit
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 56
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
Sto
ry
Residual drift
Residual drift (X-direction)
Drift-A
Drift-B
Drift-C
Avg Limit
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015
Sto
ry
Residual drift
Residual drift (Y-direction)
Drift-A
Drift-B
Drift-C
Avg Limit
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Evaluation of Components at MCE Level
57
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 58
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
59
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
60
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 61
4-DB28 4-DB254-DB25
4-DB28 4-DB28
Diaphragm chord reinforcement In-plane forces
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Conclusion
62
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
63
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
CASE STUDY 2
64
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
•
65
Tower 1
Tower 2
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 66
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 67
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
SP
EC
TR
AL
AC
CE
LE
RA
TIO
N (g
)
PERIOD (sec)
RESPONSE SPECTRA SLE 2.5% Damping MCE 5% Damping
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 68
Elastic Model
• Used for DBE, SLE and wind analysis
• Used ETABS 9.7.4
• All components were modeled as elastic.
• Response spectrum analysis was conducted for
DBE and SLE earthquakes.
• Used for MCE analysis
• Used Perform 3D V4.0.4
• Inelastic member properties
• Flexural response of shear walls
• Flexural response of coupling beams
• Flexural response of slab outrigger beams
• Elements that are assumed to remain elastic were
modeled with elastic member properties.
• Nonlinear time history analysis was conducted for
seven sets of ground motions.
Nonlinear Model
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Analysis Results
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 70
Mode Natural Period (sec)Modal Participating Mass Ratio (%)
(X) (Y)
1 5.57 7.3 35.8
2 3.92 35.4 7.8
3 2.73 0.0 0.0
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 71
4.1%2.9%
13.2%
8.7%
3.4%5.4%
20.0%
14.3%
10.9%
7.0%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
X Y
Ba
se S
he
ar
%
Along Direction
Base Shear Percentage of Total Weight of Building
Elastic SLE Elastic DBE Wind*1.6 (RWDI)
Elastic MCE Inelastic MCE NLTHA
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 72
0
10
20
30
40
50
-5% 0% 5%
Sto
ry
Transient Drift (%)
Transient Drift in X-dir. at MCE Level
ARC
CHY
DAY
ERZ
LCN
ROS
TAB
Average
Avg. DriftLimitMax. DriftLimit
0
10
20
30
40
50
0.0% 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0%
Sto
ry
Residual Drift (%)
Residual Drift in X-dir. at MCE Level
ARC
CHY
DAY
ERZ
LCN
ROS
TAB
Average
Avg. DriftLimit
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Performance Evaluation of Members (SLE)
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
74
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Performance Evaluation of Members (MCE)
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 76
Strain Gauge (C04)
SW 1-1
-5
5
15
25
35
45
55
-0.006 -0.001 0.004
Sto
ry
Axial Strain (mm/mm)
Wall Axial Strain (C04)
ARC
CHY
DAY
ERZ
LCN
ROS
TAB
Average
Steel YieldingStrainMax. Comp.Strain LimitStrain gauge locations in shear walls
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 77
Shear wall leg IDs -5
5
15
25
35
45
55
-200000 -100000 0 100000 200000
Sto
ry
Shear Force (KN)
Shear Wall Shear Demand vs. Capacity (SW1-1)
ARC
CHY
DAY
ERZ
LCN
ROS
TAB
AVERAGE
Capacity
Maximum LimitCapacity
SW1-1
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 78
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Sto
ryRotation (radians)
Link Beam Rotation (LB-1)
ARC
CHY
DAY
ERZ
LCN
ROS
TAB
Average
Coupling beam IDs
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
79
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 80
0
10
20
30
40
50
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Sto
rySlab Beam Rotation (radians)
Moment Hinge Rotation due to Positive and Negative Moment(SB2-1)
ARC
CHY
DAY
ERZ
LCN
ROS
TAB
Average
Limit
Slab outrigger beam IDs
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 81
Tower diaphragm
Ground level diaphragm
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 82
Scenario for in-phase and out-phase
Diaphragm reinforcement
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 83
kPa
Mat foundation soil pressure
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
•
•
•
•
84
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Some More PBD Projects
85
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 87
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 88
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 89
Naveed Anwar, AIT Solutions 90
Thank you