Performance Based Design
Performance Based Design
Performance Based Design
Table of contents i
List of Figures ii
List of Tables ii
Abbreviation ii
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1
Page |i
List of Figures
Figure 1. Steps of the numerical design. .............................................................................. 4
Figure 2. Flowchart of preliminary analysis. ....................................................................... 6
Figure 3. IDI Design Spectra ............................................................................................... 9
Figure 4. DML Design spectra ............................................................................................. 9
Figure 5. Strength Design Spectra ....................................................................................... 9
Figure 6. First fundamental mode and base shear.............................................................. 11
Figure 7. Combined mechanisms for beam ....................................................................... 11
Figure 8. Design bending moments and shear for columns. .............................................. 12
Figure 9. Required and provided story stiffness. ............................................................... 12
Figure 10. Time history envelope ...................................................................................... 13
Figure 11. Push-over analysis. ........................................................................................... 14
Figure 12. IDI for push-over analysis. ............................................................................... 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Performance design objectives……………………………………………………8
Abbreviations
(P-BSE) - Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings
DM - Damage Index
P a g e | ii
Chapter 1. Introduction
The effects of the building after analysis and design considering earthquake forces
since 1980s, the seismic risks in urban areas are increasing and are hazardous and are far
from socio-economic levels. This led to the most effective way of design towards the
problem. The objectives of the design should be towards life and serviceability of the
structure.
The promising approach towards the above development has been proposed by the
SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee in 1995. The report for the same was “Performance-
Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings.” (P-BSE). Different methodologies have been
proposed for the application of such framework to the design. Emphasis made on such
type of design was called as “performancebased seismic design” (P-BSD).
After some time of the introduction to the method the following developments
should take place:
1. simple but reliable approaches and numerical procedures for the practical
application of P-BSD are developed.
2. simple but reliable guidelines, norms, standards and/or seismic provisions for the
practical applications of the P-BSD that are developed and implemented in the
next generation of standards and building codes which then should be strictly
enforced.
1. Serviceability
2. Fully Operational
3. Operational
4. Life Safety
5. Near Collapse
The above situation can be represented in the performance curves of two typical
designs,
Design A: design has been done on the basis of the life safety performance objective, does
not satisfy the operational and fully operational performance objectives.
From the above example it becomes very clear that at least two performance levels
should be considered.
1. acquisition and
2. processing of the data needed for establishing reliable design EQGMs.
The data and the problems involved in acquiring design EQGMs can be summarized as
follows:
Given the site conditions of the building (soil profile and topography), the following
are required.
a) Return periods for different levels of possible EQGMs at the site and
b) their damage potential to the entire building system and EQGM time-histories for
all the four different performance levels that have to be considered according to the
selected P-BDO matrix.
For the above requirements Conduct a reliable analysis of the site to assess its
suitability for the construction of the desired building. This will be required to identify
all the sources of EQGMs that could affect the building; define the seismic activity at
the site due to all possible earthquake sources in the form of time histories and
recurrence periods. select for at least two sets of EQGMs corresponding to the limit
states.
If there are not enough of such records, the data can be obtained either from EQGMs
recorded at sites with similar soil profile and topography, or by using numerical
synthesis to generate several probable EQGM time histories.
Given the, Function of building and desired performance design objectives; general
configuration, structural layout, structural system, structural materials and non-structural
components and contents. Gravity, wind, snow and other possible loads or excitations; and
displacement, strength and dissipated hysteretic energy due to ductility and damping ratio,
design spectra for different damping and ductility for frequent minor and rare major
EQGMs.
To establish the minimum lateral stiffness, minimum strength and toughness of the
building that are capable of controlling the design seismic forces, the critical load
combinations and the elastic and inelastic deformations are required.
The first part in the solution for the above requirements is,
To decide about the performance design objectives, the designer should discuss
with the client the severity of the expected potential sources of seismic hazards and their
corresponding frequency (return period) as well as the number of discrete PLs that should
be considered. According to the adopted definition of P-BSD, the following minimum
performance levels should be considered initially: (a) Serviceability, (b) fully operational,
(c) operational, (d) life safety and (e) near collapse.
The designer should explain to the owner that the following are the minimum design
objectives.
a) Resist minor EQGMs, which can occur frequently, without damage (service
or fully operational limit state).
b) Resist moderate EQGMs, which can occur occasionally with controlled
structural and non-structural damage (amount of damage depends on
function of facility) (operational limit state)
c) Resist expected major EQGMs, which can occur rarely, with controlled
damage that cannot endanger the life safety of its occupants or those of
adjacent facilities (life safety limit state).
d) Resist extreme EQGMs, which can occur very rarely but are probable, with
damage up to impending collapse but without collapsing and endangering
the lives of its occupants or inducing damage to surrounding facilities
(impending collapse limit state).
Already in the SEAOC Vision 2000 Committee Report (1995), Furthermore, this
report recommended that the preliminary P-BSD be conducted considering at least two of
the DO-usually those corresponding to the following PLs: 1. serviceability and life safety,
or 2. fully operational or operational and life safety or impending collapse. The details of
the above two PLs are shown in the Table 1. Performance design objectives.
Interstory Drift Index (IDI): It is the ratio of story displacement to story height. It
also indicates Beam-Column joint rotation.
Damage index (DML): These damage indices have been formulated using response
parameters of the structure that are obtained through analytical evaluation of structural
response. The Damage Index typically normalizes the damage on a scale of 0 to 1
IDI Design spectra, DML Design spectra and Strength Design Spectra are shown
in the figures, Figure 3. IDI Design Spectra, Figure 3. DML Design spectra and Figure 3.
Strength Design Spectra respectively.
From PDOs limits given in Table 1, the acceptable design zone are the rectangles
shown in Figure 3 and 4. From the above figures time period and ductility are determined.
The building structure should possess the calculated time period (lower bound) and
ductility.
To start the process, use beams and column sizes from Gravity design forces and
architectural constraints. Also, in the start select first period, T1 inside the acceptable zone.
Using T1 and the selected first mode shape obtain the preliminary sizing for stiffness to
match the assumed. Firstly, the slabs are designed, then further calculations are made.
Minimise the dead load of the slab, so that story forces will be lesser to the building
structure.
Even the stiffness of the structure as a whole depends on the amount of rotation that
occurs at the end of the members connected at joints and supports (due to slipping of rebars
at the joints), interaction with non-structural elements and soil- structure interaction (SSI)
at the foundations, the uncertainties in the effective stiffness must be considered in the
design. In general, Ib eff = 0.5 Ibgross for beams and Ic eff = Icgross for columns (assumed to
remain under compression during the response) can be used as mean values, where Ibgross
and Icgross are the gross stiffness of beams and columns.
Total base shear can be estimated from the elastic response spectra and the modal
parameters. Example for the base shear for the first fundamental mode is shown in Figure
6. First fundamental mode and base shear. After the analysis conventional design can be
recommended, but the simultaneous design for service and safety limit state using plastic
design is required. Which also minimises the required volume of flexural reinforcement.
Plastic analysis is carried out and beams are designed for plastic bending moments.
The figure explaining the plastic moment calculations of the collapse mechanisms is shown
in Figure 7. Combined mechanisms for beam. Columns are designed in such a way that the
beam-column rigid joints should satisfy the IDI values.
Bending moments and shear force calculated for columns is shown in Figure 8. Design
bending moments and shear for columns.
The required and provided story stiffness comparison is represented by graph shown in the
below Figure 9. Required and provided story stiffness.
Linear elastic Response Spectrum Analysis is done then checked with the IDI if it
were below the PL from Table 1 then the design is safe.
1. To obtain the maximum shear strength of the structure, and the mechanism
of collapse.
2. To evaluate if the structure can achieve the collapse mechanism without
exhausting the plastic rotation capacity of the members.
The example for the Sequence of plastic hinge formation for push-over analysis is
shown below in Figure 11. Push-over analysis. The IDI for different story and
frames is also checked and the response of the same is shown in Figure 12. IDI for
push-over analysis.
has been checked for maximum considered earthquake by nonlinear time history analyses
carried out using PERFORM-3D. the 3D model of the building is shown below
Chapter 4. Conclusion
1. It leads to a transparent numerical design procedure that considers and checks the
selected or desired performance objectives.
2. In spite of the great uncertainties in the quantification of some of the concepts
involved in its codification, such quantifications can be improved as new more
reliable data become available without changing the philosophy and particularly the
format of this codified methodology.
3. such formulation can be used as a basis for improving the education of architects
and engineers, as well as for the establishment of the prioritization and program of
the focused research needed to improve seismic design, and thus to attain the so
much needed reduction of the current seismic risks in our urban areas to social and
economical acceptable levels.
Chapter 5. References
[1] Y Bozorgnia and V.V. Bertero “Earthquake Engineering from Engineering Seismology
to Performance-Based Engineering” International Code Council 2006.
[2] R. Sinha and S.R. Shiradhonkar “Seismic Damage Index for Classification of Structural
Damage – Closing Loop” IIT Bombay, Mumbai, India on 15 WCEE LISBOA 2012
[3] M.D. Trifunac and M.I. Todorovska “Earthquake Design Spectra For Performance-
Based Design” Univ. of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, 90089, USA on 15 WCEE
LISBOA 2012
[4] Ali Ruzi Özuygur “Performance-based Seismic Design of an Irregular Tall Building —
A Case Study” Department of Structural Engineering, YPU Istanbul, Turkey
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2015.10.001.
[5] Yernagula. Pratap, P.V S. Neelima “Performance Based Design: Case Study” ISSN
(ONLINE): 2250-0758, ISSN (PRINT): 2394-6962