Earthquake Resistant Design of

Buildings (Goldsworthy)

L1
Introduction
Towards Performance-based
Design

Learning objectives
By the end of this lecture students should be able to :

Give reasons for the general need for ductility

in earthquake-resistant design
Introduce the capacity design procedure that is
used to ensure ductile behaviour of structures
Describe the challenges associated with the
move towards performance-based design

Reference List

Applied Technology Council, 2006 ATC-3-06 Tentative Provisions

for the Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings, California

Krawinkler, H. & Miranda, E. 2004 Performance-Based Seismic

Engineering: Developmen and Application of a Comprehensive
Conceptual Approach to the Design of Buildings from Earthquake
Engineering- from Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based
Engineering Edited by Bozorgnia Y. & Bertero V.V. CRC Press LLC
USA

FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) 2000 Prestandard

and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA
Publication No.356 Nov. 2000

Paulay, T. & Priestley, M.J.N. 1992 Seismic Design of Reinforced

Concrete and Masonry Buildings John Wiley &Sons, Inc. USA

Reference List

Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky, 2007, Displacement-Based Seismic

Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy (PCK)

SEAOC (Structural Engineers Association of California), Seismology

Committee, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and
Commentary published at intervals from 1959 to 1999 (The Blue Book)

SEAOC 1995 Vision 2000- Performance-Based Seismic

Engineering of Buildings Structural Engineering Association of
California USA

UBC (Unified Building Code), 1997 International Conference of

Building Officials (latest edition), Whittier, California

Winchester, S. 2005 A crack in the edge of the world : America and

the great California earthquake of 1906 HarperCollins New York

(Gravity + Wind) vs (Gravity +EQ)

Buildings are routinely designed for combined
gravity(vertical) and wind loads (lateral).
To what extent is the design for combined
gravity and earthquake loads approached in
a similar manner?

Comparison of combined GW and

combined GE:
Ultimate Strength Limit State
Answer: If the so-called equivalent load method
is used to represent the applied earthquake forces,
it might superficially seem that the analyses for
combined GW and combined GE are similar.
However, the earthquake design procedure is
based on assumptions that must be well
understood, especially the need for ductility .

Comparison of combined GW and combined GE:

Ultimate Strength Limit State

Design for combined gravity and rare wind loads is based

on actions within components found using applied forces,
and ensuring that demand is < capacity. Elastic analysis is
usually conducted to find the actions, although strengths
are calculated assuming some inelastic behaviour. It is a
simple matter of checking whether strength is adequate, i.e.
it must exceed the required combined actions.

For combined gravity and rare EQs, design is based on

deformations and damage rather than strength alone.
Inelastic behaviour is generally expected, and must be
accounted for. Design usually allows the strength to be
considerably less than that required by elastic analysis.
Sufficient ductility is needed (and hence displacement
capacity). Some damage will usually occur.

Earthquake Response

Distribution of forces due to an earthquake

depends on distribution of mass throughout the
structure, and on the strength hierarchies
established within the structure. Inertia forces are
induced due to accelerations experienced by the
structure.

Magnitude of the response is dependent on the

relationship between the dynamic characteristics
of the structure and the dynamic input from the
ground motion. For a rare earthquake, the dynamic
properties of the structure will usually vary during
the earthquake itself.

Ductility: Brief Explanation

Equal displacement principle says that the
maximum seismic displacements experienced by
structural systems tend to be the same whether
they behave in an elastic or inelastic manner.
Conditions needed for this principle to hold:
Fundamental period of the system between 0.6
to 2 secs
Structures have same initial stiffness and mass.

Force-Displacement response:
Elastic and Inelastic systems

From PCK

Ductility: Brief Explanation

Displacement ductility of structure
= max/y
If considering ductility demand then
max = maximum expected displacement due to
the earthquake
If considering ductility capacity then
max = displacement capacity of the structure

Ductility: Brief Explanation

Ultimate strength level: FRi = Fel/Ri
If equal displacement principle holds: Ri = i

(Where Ri is the strength reduction factor. See later for broader definition of R)

Further Point
Strength seems less important than displacement.
Magnitude of strength (eg. FR2 or FR3) has little
influence on the final displacement, max, and hence on
the expected damage.
Perhaps should use DISPLACEMENT as the
fundamental design quantity??

History
(Also refer to Appendix A)

In California, before the San Fernando earthquake in 1971,

10% of gravity load used as the lateral force due to
earthquakes. This was a GUESS!!

Dynamic analyses and accumulated knowledge of earthquake

ground motions revealed that this level of force was
considerably lower than what many buildings would
experience in a large earthquake if they responded elastically.
Led to SHOCK!!

Hence, structural strength often exceeded in a large EQ.

Behaviour in the inelastic range needed to be considered.

Key to good behaviour: Generally considered to be ductility

or more recently displacement capacity.

History

This led to the use of capacity design principles to ensure

that under a rare to very rare earthquake the building
developed an energy dissipation mechanism that was stable
and reliable for the duration of the EQ. Much research
effort has been expended on determining the available
ductility capacity of different structural systems (large
volume of experimental data).

Capacity Design Principles (from [Paulay and Priestley,

1992] ):
1.
2.
3.

Selection of a suitable structural configuration for inelastic response.

Selection of suitable and appropriately detailed locations (plastic
hinges) for inelastic deformations to be concentrated.
Insurance, through suitable strength differentials that inelastic
deformation does not occur at undesirable locations or by undesirable
structural modes.

History

Some mechanisms of post-elastic deformation of moment

resisting frames and structural walls during severe seismic
loading [Park, 1992]

History

Even so, code design (eg. SEAOC Blue Book) in California

was typically based on elastic concepts; and inelastic
behaviour and deformation capacity were not considered
explicitly. In most aspects, designs were force-based,
with the primary objective of providing adequate strength
to all elements that are part of the lateral load-resisting
system (similar to design for wind). The Capacity Design
principles were assumed to ensure protection against
collapse, and were the means used to create viable nonlinear behaviour. Question: Was the performance as
intended?

According to [Krawinkler and Miranda, 2004], there are

many engineers today who believe that capacity design,
together with the provision of specified minimum amounts
of elastic strength and stiffness, provides adequate
protection against excessive damage and collapse. But is
this really adequate?

History

The proponents of performance-based design think that we

go further than this and aim for a higher level of accuracy
in our assessments, using multiple performance objectives,
with a probabilistic basis.

Importance of displacement has gained greater recognition

but there has been a tendency to modify the existing force
based approaches to include consideration of displacement,
rather than reworking the procedure to be based on a more
rational displacement basis. For the latter approach see
PCK.

QUOTE from PCK

Every truth passes through three stages (before it is
recognised)
In the first it is ridiculed
In the second, it is violently opposed
In the third, it is regarded as self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Questions that need to be answered

How much damage will be sustained by a given building

in a given level earthquake?
i.e. Performance when subjected to earthquakes that are
frequent
occasional
rare
very rare

How is this damage measured?

Different amounts of drift will be tolerated by different types of
structures, and by the same type of structure but with different levels of
detailing.
What about non-structural components; what drift levels can they
tolerate?
What about high levels of acceleration that could cause damage to
sensitive equipment?

Will the building be self-centring?

Performance-Based Design (PBD)

(Reasons for change in focus of EQ
Engineering practice)
1)

Improved knowledge about EQ occurrences, ground motion and

structural response characteristics, and the development of
sophisticated computational tools.

2)

Realization from recent earthquakes (such as Northridge and

Kobe) that financial losses can be much greater than previously
expected (not socio-economically acceptable).

Performance-Based Design (PBD)

(Reasons for change in focus of EQ
Engineering practice)
3)

Acknowledgement that current code design procedures are highly

experience-based and empirical and not based sufficiently on first
principles; and thus decision making by the designer, building
owner, public officials, and society as a whole about the level of
seismic protection needed is not precise. Accurate assessment
techniques are needed to determine whether a particular
performance objective is likely to be achieved.

4)

For example, owners (and insurance companies!) are concerned

about losses following moderate-to-severe EQs due to direct
losses (cost to repair damage) and indirect losses ( loss of
income due to business disruption etc). Performance expectations
changing from preventing collapse to controlling damage.

Earthquake Performance Level

Earthquake Design Level

Fully Operational

Operational

Life Safe

Frequent
(43 year)

Near Collapse

Unacceptable
Performance
(for New Construction)

Occasional
(72 year)

Rare
(475 year)

Very Rare
(970 year)

Ba
Es
sic
se
nt
Ob
ial
jec
/H
a
tiv
za
Sa
e
rd
fet
ou
yC
sO
rit
bje
ica
ct
lo
ive
bje
ct
ive

Performance Matrix for Design, recommended in SEAOC

(1995) (Krawinkler and Miranda)

Performance Level and Design Level

An earthquake performance level (or limit state) represents a

distinct band in the spectrum of damage to the structural and
non-structural components and contents, and also considers the
consequences of the damage to the occupants and functions of
the facility.

An earthquake design level (or seismic hazard) varies for

different seismic regions and from site to site within a region
because of variations in site conditions (topography and soil
profile). In the U.S., building seismic codes have become a
national endeavour, rather than California-centric as they were
until the 1980s.

Performance Level (or Limit State)

Design Level (or Seismic Hazard)

PBD: What is needed?

Multiple performance objectives

Consensus on the Performance Levels being used

Shift towards a more scientifically oriented design and evaluation

approach with emphasis on more accurate characterization and predictions,
often based on a higher level of technology than has been used in the
past. (from Krawinkler and Miranda)

Ideally all uncertainties in the earthquake intensity, the engineering

computations and the acceptance criteria would be taken into account;
leading to a reliability-based performance assessment.

Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering in which design and

evaluation are just the first step in a process which also includes
construction, monitoring the function and maintenance of engineered
facilities.

Uncertainties in Seismic Design

Demands on the structure and its components

Engineering Seismology
Characteristics of the EQ shaking at the site in question
Characteristics of the structural system
Modelling of the structural system
Analysis and interpretation of the demand data

Capacity of the structure and its components

Strength capacity of a component (eg. Flexural strength complicated by

slab contributions, connection details, presence or shear or axial force)
Strength capacity of components at large deformations (load history
dependent, possibly rate dependent)
Prediction of deformation capacity of components
Relationship bet. component strengths and overall structural strength.
Relationship bet. component deformations and overall structural
deformations.

Questions

How can earthquake shaking be characterized and how do

different ground motions affect the response of buildings?

How can demands on framing systems be assessed by

simplified techniques?

How do different framing systems and materials behave

under extreme loadings?

How can the response of structural systems be made

somewhat insensitive to earthquake shaking?

How can new materials and technologies be used for new

and retrofit construction?

Imaginative Solutions
Earthquake Engineers have been very creative in the solutions
theyve devised for buildings in zones of high seismicity. They
have questioned whether the building elements need to go into
the inelastic range (and hence sustain damage) in a severe EQ.
Can the building can still meet the various performance
objectives even if the building elements are mostly protected
from damage?
Some examples of this are:
Base isolation (isolate the structure from the ground motion)
Energy dissipation devices, both active and passive.
Priestleys PRESS project and flag-shaped response with the
emphasis on self-centring.
New Zealand work on PRESS and steel connections
+ .

Performance Based Design

According to Krawinkler and Miranda,
PBEE promises engineered structures whose performance
can be quantified and conformed to the owners desires. If
rigorously held to this promise, PBEE will be a losing cause.
We all know that we cannot predict all important seismic
demands and capacities with perfect confidence, even in a
probabilistic format.
Legal and Professional barriers do exist!!
Nevertheless, it gives us something to strive towards.

1 minute pause for questions

See summary of points on next slide

L1: Introduction - Towards Performance-Based Design

Summary
Buildings will usually be designed to behave in an inelastic manner during a rare or
very rare earthquake event. Hence, reliance on ductility or displacement capacity.
Capacity Design assumes that by establishing suitable strength hierarchies within a
building structure, and detailing weak regions to respond in a ductile manner, the
building will be able to remain stable and reliable during a very rare earthquake.
Unacceptable damage levels in recent moderate earthquakes have led to a rethink in
the philosophy of earthquake-resistant design of buildings. Performance-based design
puts more emphasis on displacement capacity. Some practitioners advocate making
displacement the fundamental design quantity rather than force.
In Performance-Based Design, the client selects multiple performance objectives that
are to be used for a given building in consultation with the engineer; based on the clients
expectations, the seismic hazard exposure, economic analysis and acceptable risk.
risk
Many challenges must be overcome before design codes fully embrace the
performance-based design approach.

Appendix A to Lecture 1:
Key early developments in seismic analysis and design in the
U.S. (from Andrew Whittakers notes)

Re 1906 SF EQ: READ book by Simon Winchester. Highly recommended!!

Appendix B
421-612 Subject Outline

Intro to Performance-Based earthquake-resistant design.

World seismicity, and hazards to buildings due to earthquakes.
Lessons from Past Earthquakes. Leads to conclusions about
preferred layouts, things to avoid.
Specification of level of earthquake hazard at the building site.
Describe models of various levels of sophistication used to
predict the building response. Includes SDOF and MDOF, linear
and non-linear. Requires understanding of the dynamic nature of
the problem.
Outline the use of capacity design for R/C frames and structural
walls.
Discuss force-based design vs displacement-based design.
Include discussion of secant stiffness vs. initial stiffness for disp.based design. Relate this to performance-based design.
Examine various code requirements for a-seismic building design
in the U.S., Europe, Canada

Appendix B
421-612 Subject Outline

Steel and composite construction structural systems,

discussion of the various systems and some aspects of design.
Non-structural components and building contents.
Assessment and retrofit of structures. Must quantify acceptable
limits on the parameters used to determine the performance of
the structure, non-structural components, and building contents.
Design in Intraplate Regions
Explore innovative ways to design buildings by energy
dissipation within the structure itself or by using energy
dissipating devices, or base isolation.
Residential Construction
Revisit performance-based assessment and design in the light
of knowledge obtained in previous lectures.