Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Collapse of Buildings in Past Earthquakes

An assessment, design, and implementation system Column failures

in which resulting performance is compatible with the
degree of loading.

Intensity of
earthquake
shaking

Degree of damage

Collapse of Buildings in Past Earthquakes Collapse of Buildings in Past Earthquakes

Beam-column Slab-column connections
joint failures

Traditional Approach –
Collapse of Buildings in Past Earthquakes still used today

• Linear analysis model

100
• Simplified design base
80 shear
Percentage Joe’s
60 • Prescriptive details
Beer!
Food! • Uncertain outcomes
40
Kobe, 1995 • Owners informed of
20
Erzincan, 1992 code conformance,
0
Luzon, 1990 but not building
Mexico City, 1985 ZICS performance
Operational
Heavy Collapse V= W
R
Joe’s Bar and Grill, a fictitious college campus hangout, courtesy of Ron Hamburger
Otani, 1999
 Explaining PBEE to Stakeholders
Implicit Performance Objectives (owners, lenders, insurers, ….)

According to SEAOC commentary since Base

1960s, the intended performance is as follows: Shear Joe’s Joe’s
Demand Beer! Beer!
Food! Food!

Event Performance Very rare events

(2%/50yrs)
Minor No Damage Rare events
(10%/50yrs)
Moderate Some Nonstructural Damage Occasional events Operational
(20%/50yrs)
Structurally
Major Some Structural Damage Frequent events Stable
Life Safe
(50%/50yrs)

Lateral Deformation

USGS Hazard Assessing Structural Performance –

Maps two different methods are used for different purposes

Component-Based
Approach (FEMA 273, System-Based Approach
(SEAOC, 1999 – new buildings)
1996 – existing buildings)
Peak acceleration
in percent of
gravity δj
EQ effect Glo
b
acceleration with θj disp al
lace
2% probability of θi men
t, δ
exceedance in 50 δi
years
Life Safety limit
Force
B C
Global model
D E
A
Deformation

Relating Earthquake Demand and Case Study:

System Performance – Secant stiffness University of California, Berkeley
approximation

Tinitial = Teffective /õ USGS projections:

„ 80% chance in 30 years of
Acceleration Teffective M6.5 or greater in Bay
Area
5% damping „ 30% chance in 30 years of
M6.5 or greater on
increased Hayward
damping pushover curve
consistent with UC
performance Berkeley

level
Displacement
∆T = Target Displacement
Seismic Performance Objectives Example 1: Hildebrand Hall
• 1966 construction
EQ-III • 3 stories tall
(10%/100yr) •CA Building Code
• Vertical system
3.00 for minimum
• flat plate
Spectral Acceleration (g)

(10%/50yr)
strength • interior columns
2.50
EQ-II •EQIII - Collapse • bearing walls
2.00 (10%/50yr with cap)
Prevention • Lateral system
'97 UBC, Soil Type Sb
• light shear walls
1.50 •EQII – Life Safety • Foundation
1.00 EQ-I •Cost efficient
• spread footings
(50%/50yr)
( • Deficiencies
0.50
performance • flexure/shear critical
enhancements walls
0.00 • deficient columns
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
• punching at slab-column
Period ( sec) connection

Hildebrand Tower Plan

Concrete wall, typ.

Steel braced
frame, typ.

Hildebrand Longitudinal Retrofit Hildebrand Retrofit

Vertical
reinforcement
continuous
through floor.

Horizontal
reinforcement
epoxy-anchored
to columns

Concrete placed
from one side by
shotcrete
method.

Foundation details not shown

 Hildebrand
Hildebrand Transverse Retrofit Retrofit
Installation of
unbonded
braces

Slab punching
limit

Stanford University
Stanford seismic performance
objectives

Collapse Life Safety Damage Functional Applications

Prevention Control

A EQ-I
EQ-II
New and existing
facilities critical to
disaster response
Stanford
University

B EQ-I
EQ-II
New facilities and
existing facilities critical
to academic program

C EQ-I
EQ-II
All other
existing facilities
Example 2: Escondido Village
Midrises Typical Floor Plan
• 1961-64 construction D1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

• 8 stories tall
• Vertical system Concrete columns
• columns H
6'-3"
• bearing walls G
6'-3"
• Lateral system F

• walls controlled by 10'-7"

flexure E

• Foundation
• spread footings
Concrete shear walls 18'-4"

• Deficiencies
D
10'-7"
• shear-critical columns C
6'-3"
• inadequate boundary B
6'-3"
steel in walls A

• punching at slab-column 12' 12' 12'-7" 12' 12' 12' 12'-7" 12' 12'

connection

Escondido Village
(before retrofit) Retrofit Measures
Base
shear 2000

(k) Steel collars all

interior columns,
all floors
1500

Strengthen shear Jacket first-floor

wall boundary columns
Column shear reinforcement
1000
failures splices
Floor beam 3rd
shear failures
500 Capacity curve before 2nd
Shear wall
retrofit
boundary splice 1st
failure
Basement
5 10 15

Roof displacement (in.)

Reinforce basement walls
at some locations

Escondido Village
after retrofit Boundary Steel
Capacity curve after retrofit
Base Time history (max.)
shear 2000

(k) Equal displacement approx.

Time history (ave.) Capacity
1500
spectrum
Displacement
Column shear coefficient
1000
failures
Floor beam
shear failures
500 Capacity curve before
Shear wall
retrofit
boundary splice
failure

5 10 15

Roof displacement (in.)

 Example 3:
Column Collars and Fiber Wrap Wurster Hall
• 1960’s construction
• 10 – 12 story tall towers
• Vertical system
• interior slab on columns
• precast perimeter frame
• Lateral system
• miscellaneous walls
• Foundation
• piers
• Deficiencies
• shear-critical interior
columns
• eccentric beam-column
connections at perimeter

Existing RC column
Pipe column to
2
A6.1

catch floor if
24
A6.1

3
A6.1

24
A6.1
existing column
10
A6.5
fails
3
A6.1

13 14 13
A6.5 A6.5 A6.5

12
A6.2

(E) GRADE

5
A7.1

1 S O U T H E LE VA T IO N / S E C T IO N
A4.3

∆ Large

Large
displacements
cause frame
damage

Foundation Rocking

Global modification of the

Typical frame details structural system

vulnerable Base target displacement

symm. Shear rehabilitated
element of rehabilitated
20 bar structure
dia. structure
#3U @ x in. #3U @ d/2
existing
structure original
target
displacement
new
elements Roof Displacement
h Column Beam
h typ.
Local modification of structural
components Infill wall

vulnerable original and rehab

element Base target displacement
Shear
rehabilitated
structure

existing
structure
Roof Displacement

Epoxy dowels Shear transfer

retrofit column lap Wing-wall

splices retrofit.

angles and straps

welded splices with
additional tie
actual yield strength of bars
fully grouted external ties

additional internal ties

unstrengthened
 Precast wall
retrofit. Note PT Steel bracing retrofits.
for boundary
reinforcement.

Drift at Collapse of Columns Axial Load Capacity versus Shear Damage

Drift at shear failure

Axial Load Failure

Tasai, 2000

Shear-Friction Model for Axial Failure Shear-Friction Model for Axial Failure
P

Shear

θ
Aswfy
s
Drift Ratio N Vsf
Aswfy

Friction
Coefficient

Drift Ratio Elwood, 2002

 Model for Column
Failure Flexure
Shear failure
Failure of Beam-Column Joints
strength
envelope
Column
Shear

σy
Axial failure τcr
point

Dy Ds Dp
Column Lateral Displacement
τcr
Axial failure
Column envelope
Axial
Load
σy
τ cr = 0.5 f c' 1 − , MPa
Column Lateral Displacement 0.5 f c'

see web site of Ken Elwood

Deformation Capacity of Beam-Column Deformation Capacity of Beam-Column

Joints Without Hoops Joints Without Hoops

Lateral Deflection, mm 0.1

}
0.08

0.03 - 0.06
0.12 - 0.18
0.20 - 0.22
Drift ratio
Range of γ values
Lateral Load

0.06
Interior
0.04 Exterior, hooks bent in
Exterior, hooks bent out
0.02 Corner

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
One test with
Drift at “tensile failure” Axial load ratio
axial load failure
Drift at axial failure
Priestley and Hart, 1994

Local modification of structural

components Steel jacket retrofit of column laps

vulnerable original and rehab

element Base target displacement
Shear
rehabilitated
structure

existing
structure
Roof Displacement
 Steel jacket retrofit for shear

Welded
Bolted Partial
Jacket

Collars
Basic

Welded

Partial Jacket

Basic

composite fiber
retrofits Column jackets

Column jackets Concrete encasement of columns

Retrofit to add column flexural
strength Jacketed beam-column joints

Deformation capacity of flat-plate construction Retrofit of slab-column

connections
Lateral Drift Ratio at Failure

0.06

Measured

0.04
PT Slabs

0.02

0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Gravity Shear / Nominal Punching Shear

Column retrofit by carbon FRPC