Performance Based Design State of The Practice For Tall Buildings PDF

2014 EERI Technical Seminar Series:
Performance Based Design

State of the Practice for Tall Buildings
A technical seminar series supported by Department of Homeland Security
Trans Bay Tower, 815 Pine Street, Wilshire Grand Center,

San Francisco Seattle Los Angeles
DATES AND LOCATIONS

San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Los Angeles, CA
Co-sponsors
ASCE Metropolitan Los Angeles Branch
ASCE Seattle
EERI Regional Chapters: Northern California,
Southern California, and Washington
Structural Engineers Association of Washington - Seattle (SEAW)
Structural Engineers Association of Oregon (SEAO)
Structural Engineers Association of Southern California (SEAOSC)
Print a certificate for PDH credits for the 2014 EERI Technical Seminar Series at
https://eeri.org/2014TechSem-PDH
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute • 499 14th Street, Suite 220 • Oakland, CA 94612-1934, USA • (510) 451-0905 • F: (510) 451-5411 • www.eeri.org • eeri@eeri.org
An EERI Seminar

State of the Practice for Tall Buildings
October 29, 2014
Parc 55 Wyndham Union Square Hotel
San Francisco, California
November 6, 2014
Motif Seattle
Seattle, Washington
November 7, 2014
Embassy Suites Los Angeles International Airport
Los Angeles, California
COSPONSORS:
American Society of Civil Engineers: Metropolitan Los Angeles Branch
American Society of Civil Engineers: Seattle Branch
EERI: Northern California, Southern California, and Washington Chapters
SEAO- Structural Engineers Association of Oregon
SEAOSC- Structural Engineers Association of Southern California
SEAW- Structural Engineers Association of Washington
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
Funding for the technical seminar is provided under a cooperative agreement
(EMW-2013-CA-K00164) with FEMA/U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
EERI Technical Seminar Committee Chair

James Malley, Degenkolb Engineers
EERI Staff
Jay Berger, Executive Director
Venue coordinator: Sonya Hollenbeck, Controller/Member Relations
Publicity: My Davidson, Membership and Communications Manager
Notebook: Samy Labbouz and Alexandria Julius, Graduate Interns
Registration: Juliane Lane, Membership Coordinator
EERI
The Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) is a nonprofit professional
association with academic and professional members throughout the world who
share a common interest in reducing the effects of earthquakes on society. The
primary objective of EERI is to reduce earthquake risk by
 advancing the science and practice of earthquake engineering;
 improving understanding of the impacts of earthquakes on the physical, social,
economic, political, and cultural environment;
 advocating comprehensive and realistic measures to reduce the harmful effects of
earthquakes.
FEMA
An agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA is a partner of
the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). In fulfilling this
role, FEMA supports conferences that enhance the effectiveness of earthquake
hazard reduction science and technology, and that increase opportunities for
participation by individuals who can then contribute to the advancement and
progress of the program. With FEMA support, EERI has developed a series of
technical seminars to further the goals of NEHRP, and to provide the professional
community in the United States with innovative techniques to mitigate the risks of
earthquakes.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

499 14th Street, Suite 220, Oakland, CA 94612-1934
phone (510) 451-0905 fax (510) 451-5411
www.eeri.org
ii
An EERI Technical Seminar
Performance Based Design – State of the Practice for Tall Buildings

8:30 – 8:45 a.m. Welcome/Introduction
Jay Berger, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Jim Malley, Degenkolb Engineers
8:45 – 9:15 a.m. Introduction and History of Performance Based Design…………………………...…. 1

Ron Hamburger, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
9:15 – 10:00 a.m. Guideline Documents (LATBSDC/PEER) ……………………………………………. 15

Jack Moehle, University of California, Berkeley (Seattle)
Farzad Naeim, Farzad Naeim, Inc. (Los Angeles and San Francisco)
10:00 – 11:00 a.m. Using Ground Motions & SFSI ………………………………………………………… 59

Marshall Lew, AMEC (San Francisco)
Jonathan Stewart, University of California, Los Angeles (Los Angeles and Seattle)
11:00 – 11:15 a.m. Break
11:15 – 12:00 p.m. Structural Analyses and Modeling ….…………………………………………….… 101

Greg Deierlein, Stanford University
12:00 – 12:15 p.m. Morning Panel Discussion
12:15 – 1:00 p.m. Lunch
1:00 – 1:45 p.m. Case Study 1: Concrete Building Design……………………………………..………139

John Hooper, Magnusson Klemencic Associates (LA, SF and Seattle)
Ron Klemencic, Magnusson Klemencic Associates
1:45 – 2:30 p.m. Case Study 2: Steel and Composite Construction Design…………………………. 167
Leonard Joseph, Thorton Tomasetti, Inc. (Los Angeles and San Francisco)
Nabih Youssef, Nabih Youssef & Associates (Seattle)
2:30 – 3:15 p.m. Lessons from Performance Based Design PEER Reviews…………………………. 245
Jack Moehle, University of California, Berkeley (Seattle)
Farzad Naeim, Farzad Naeim, Inc. (Los Angeles and San Francisco)
3:15 – 3:30 p.m. Break
3:30 – 4:00 p.m. Future of Performance Based Design and ATC 58……………………………….… 263
Ron Hamburger, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
iii
4:00 – 4:15 p.m. Local Jurisdiction Applications………………………………………………………. 279
Gary Ho, San Francisco, Department of Building Inspection
Colin Kumabe, Los Angeles, Department of Building and Safety
Steve Pfeiffer, Seattle, Department of Planning and Development
4:15 – 4:45 p.m. Panel Discussion
4:45 p.m. Evaluation/Adjourn….………………………………………………………..………. 317
iv
Introduction & History of
Performance-based Seismic
Design
Ronald O. Hamburger, SE, SECB

Simpson Gumpertz & Heger
1
Ronald O. Hamburger
Ron Hamburger is a Senior Principal and Western Regional Head of Structural Engineering at
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger. Mr. Hamburger has 40 years of experience in engineering,
construction, failure investigation and research. He is a past President of the Structural
Engineers Association of California, and of the National Council of Structural Engineering
Associations, as well as the Structural Engineering Certification Board. He also is a past Vice
President of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and a fellow of the Structural
Engineering Institute.
Mr. Hamburger has been engaged in the development of building codes and standards for more
than 25 years with a particular emphasis on performance-based earthquake engineering
procedures. He was a member of the ATC-33 and ATC-40 project teams, the SEAOC Vision
2000 committee, the FEMA 356 development panel, and since 2001 has served as project
technical director for the ATC-58 project to develop next-generation performance-based design
criteria. He is a member of the ASCE 41 Committee and chair of the ASCE 7 committee. In
2014, the Structural Engineering Institute awarded Mr. Hamburger the Walter P. Moore award
for a lifetime achievement in development of building codes.
2
Introduction & History of
Performance-based Seismic
Design
Ronald O. Hamburger, SE, SECB

PBD – What is it?

• SEAOC Vision 2000 Report, 1996
– Procedures that enable the deign and
construction of buildings that will reliably be
able to attain desired seismic performance
• Potential life-safety impacts
• Potential loss of occupancy
• Potential repair costs
2014 EERI TECHNICAL SEMINAR: PERFORMANCE BASED DESIGN – STATE OF THE PRACTICE FOR TALL BUILDINGS
| Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
3
PBD – What is it?
• An approach to obtain:
– Buildings that perform better than typical code
confirming buildings?
– Buildings that don’t meet the code, but can
perform as well as a code-conforming
building?
The “Essence”
• A “Decision-maker” states a
desire that a building be able to
“perform” in a certain way-
– Protect life safety
– Minimize potential repair costs
– Minimize disruption of use
4
The “Essence”
• The “engineer” uses his or

her skill to provide a design
that will be capable of
achieving these objectives
Code-based Seismic Design
– Minimum acceptable lateral

strength and stiffness
– Minimum acceptable detailing
practices
– Required attachment strength
and displacement capacity of
nonstructural components
Presumed to provide acceptable performance

Actual performance capability never actually evaluated
5
The Past
1970s, 80s and early 90s

1971-1994: A period of unrest

• Owners began to
question how their
buildings would
perform in future
earthquakes….
and demand that
engineers design (or
upgrade) their
buildings to perform
better
6
Life Safety
“I want my existing
building to be safe- “
“Life Safety”
X 0.75
7
Immediate Occupancy
“I want to be able to use

my building, right away“
“Immediate Occupancy”
1.5 x
8
PML<20%
“I want the repair

cost to be less than
20% of replacement
value”
“Minimize Repair Cost”
x “Y”
9
1st Generation Procedures

Seismic rehabilitation
ATC-40 FEMA-273 ASCE-41
1996 1997 2006
10
The PBD Process
Select Performance Objectives
Perform Preliminary Design
Asses Performance Capability
No Revise
Acceptable?
Design
Yes
Construction
Performance Objectives
+
Ground
Motion
x% - 50 years Performance
Level
• Design Hazard (earthquake ground shaking)
• Acceptable Performance Level

(maximum acceptable damage, given that shaking occurs
11
Standard Performance Levels
Operational Immediate Life Collapse

Occupancy Safety Prevention
Structural Performance Based on Nonlinear Response

Base Shear
Structural Displacement D (earthquake intensity)

12
Structural Performance
EQ effect
dj
qj
qi
di
Force
B C
D E
A
Deformation
Acceptance Criteria
Nonstructural Performance
• Accounts for more than

70% of earthquake
economic losses
• Not really covered by
present procedures
– Simple review of
anchorage and bracing
requirements similar to
prescriptive code
– Shake table qualification
of “essential” systems
13
PBD Today
14
Guideline Documents

Farzad Naeim Jack Moehle

Farzad Naeim, Inc. UC Berkeley
15
Farzad Naeim

Farzad is the founder and President of Farzad Naeim, Inc. Prior to founding this firm, he
was the Technical Director at John A. Martin & Associates (JAMA) and it's General
Counsel. Farzad has been instrumental in development of the LATBSDC PBD
guidelines and has chaired the committee in charge of development of that series of
guidelines since 2005. He has also been a member of the task group that developed the
PEER-TBI Guideline. Dr. Naeim has served as the Chair of Seismic Peer Review Panel
for numerous tall buildings designed according to PBD methodologies.
Farzad has served as Editor-in-Chief of Earthquake Spectra, President of EERI, inaugural

Chair of the Governance Board of the U.S. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES), and the Chair of the 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
Jack Moehle
Jack Moehle is the T.Y. and Margaret Lin Professor of Engineering in the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. His
research and teaching interests are related to structural engineering, with emphasis on
reinforced concrete and earthquake engineering. A licensed Civil Engineer in the State of
California, Dr. Moehle works regularly as a consulting engineer, offering advice and
expert peer review, including high-rise building projects in Seattle, San Francisco, Los
Angeles, and San Diego. He is Honorary Member of the Structural Engineers Association
of Northern California, member of the College of Fellows of the Structural Engineers
Association of California, and elected member of the U.S. National Academy of
Engineering. He has served on the Boards of Directors of the Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, and
the American Concrete Institute. He has been a member of the ACI 318 Building Code
Committee since 1989, chair of ACI 318H (Seismic Provisions) from 1995 to 2014, and
is Chair of ACI 318 for the 2014-2019 code cycle.
16
Guideline Documents

Farzad Naeim Jack Moehle

Farzad Naeim, Inc. UC Berkeley
Why PBD for Tall Buildings?

• The traditional code-based design everywhere is built on
prescriptive rules and linear analysis.
• Using such an approach:
– We can design building that are generally life-safe during
earthquakes
– They generally have more capacity than indicated by our design
analysis
• But how much more capacity they have got?
• What level of excitation is necessary to bring them
down?
• The prescriptive code approach is incapable of
answering these questions.
17
• Tall Buildings are a special class of structures with very
particular characteristics and requirements:
– long period
– multi-mode behavior
– Significance of P-delta effects
– large occupancy
– impact of failure and/or collapse
• We have evolved: from linear static to dynamic to

nonlinear; from deterministic to probabilistic.
• Computing advances have made nonlinear analysis
practical.

• In fairness to the code-writers, codes are not generally
written with tall buildings in mind.
• Let us look at building construction statistics in the
United States:
% of Buildings
6% 1%
1 to 3 Stories
4 to 13 Stories
93%
14 Stories and
Taller
• You can not realistically expect code-writers to dedicate

a large portion of their effort to address 1% of the
buildings.
18
Example:
• 2002 Los Angeles Building Code Story Drift
Requirement:
Story Drift Ratio < 0.020/T1/3

• This provision, which was later retracted, probably did
not have a serious effect on design of low-rise buildings
but was a huge straightjacket for design of tall buildings
with long vibration periods
Example:
0.0500
0.0450
0.0400
0.0350
Drift (rad)
0.0300
0.0250
0.0200
0.0150
0.0100
0.0050
0.0000
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
T (sec)
Illustrations courtesy of
CTBUH
19
Examples of the Need
• Core Wall System
– The great majority of
tall buildings
under design or
construction in western Figure courtesy of MKA
U.S. use this system.

– But codes do not allow shear wall alone
systems to exceed 240 feet of overall height.
– How did they get around that limitation?
• How about hybrid systems or new systems
not envisioned by the code?
The Mechanism
• Alternative Methods Clause in the Codes
– Section 104.11 of 2012 IBC:
• “The provisions of this code are not intended to prevent the
installation of any material or to prohibit any design or
method of construction not specifically prescribed by this
code, provided that any such alternative has been approved.
An alternative material, design or method of construction
shall be approved where the building official finds that the
proposed design is satisfactory and complies with the intent
of the provisions of this code, and that the material, method
or work offered is, for the purpose intended, at least the
equivalent of that prescribed in this code in quality, strength,
effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety.”
20
The Mechanism
• Alternative Methods Clause in the Codes
– Section 12.6 of ASCE 7-10:
• "The structural analysis required by Chapter 12 shall consist
of one of the types permitted in Table 12.6.1, based on the
structure's seismic design category, structural system,
dynamic properties, and regularity, or with the approval of the
authority having jurisdiction, an alternative generally
accepted procedure is permitted to be used.....”
• Section 1.3 of ASCE 7-10 also permits
performance-based approaches that use analysis,
testing, or a combination thereof, as acceptable
alternative means.
There is a problem though!

• How do you establish equivalent or
superior performance?
• You need:
– An acceptable methodology
– Acceptable seismic hazard evaluation
methods
– Acceptable modeling and analysis
techniques
– Rational acceptance criteria
21
That is where guidelines come in!
Guidelines
• The two mostly used guidelines are:
– 2010 PEER-TBI
– 2014 LATBSDC
• They both refer to:
– ASCE 41and ASCE 7 Standards
– ATC-72-1
• Jurisdictional differences in adaptation:
– Los Angeles
– San Diego
– San Francisco
– Seattle
22
2010 PEER-TBI Organization 104 pages
1. Introduction
2. Design Performance Objectives
3. Design Process Overview
4. Design Criteria Documentation
5. Seismic Input
6. Preliminary Design
7. Service Level Evaluation
8. MCE Evaluation
9. Presentation of Results
10. Project Review
2014 LATBSDC Organization 51 pages
1. Introduction
2. Intent, Scope, Justification, and Methodology
3. Analysis and Design Procedure
1. General
2. Modeling Requirements
3. Serviceability Requirements
4. Collapse Prevention Evaluation
5. Specific Provisions for R/C Structures
4. Peer Review Requirements
5. Seismic Instrumentation
23
ASCE 41and the Guidelines
• ASCE41 is officially intended for seismic
rehabilitation of existing structures
• However, its component-based performance
limits for NDP are routinely referenced by
guidelines for performance based design of tall
buildings
• Engineers who believe ASCE 41limits are too
conservative, or are not applicable to their
project, have the opportunity to present and
substantiate other appropriate limits
• Peer review approval is always necessary for any
deviation from ASCE 41
| Earthquake Engineering
15 Research Institute
Performance Objectives
• 2010 TBI:
– Basic Performance Objective (BPO)
• Performance equivalent to Code design buildings
• Two Level Design
– Enhanced Performance Objective (EPO)
• Better than BPO
• Specifics and criteria not laid out
• 2014 LATBSDC:
– Serviceable performance under frequent events
– Repairable following very rare events
• Hazard Levels Considered:
– Serviceability: 43 years mean return period (50% in 30 years)
– Very Rare Event:
– PEER-TBI: ASCE 7-05, 7-10 MCE
– 2014 LATBSDC: MCER per ASCE 7-10 with clarifications
24
Analytical Procedures
• ASCE-41 permits four types of analyses:
1. Linear elastic static procedure (LSP)
2. Linear dynamic procedure (LDP) or response
spectrum analysis
3. Non-linear static procedure (NSP) commonly
referred to as the push-over analysis, and
4. Dynamic nonlinear response analysis (NDP).
• Tall Building Design Guidelines permit only two:

1. 3D LDP or NDP for serviceability check
2. 3D NDP for all checks
More About Performance Objectives

1. Serviceable behavior:
• building structural and nonstructural components retain their
general functionality during and after earthquake
• Repairs, if necessary, are expected to be minor and could be
performed without substantially affecting the normal use and
functionality of the building
2. A low probability of collapse under MCE or MCER
type events.
• Demands are checked for all structural members (lateral as
well as gravity system)
• Claddings and their connections to the structure must
accommodate MCE or MCER displacements without failure
25
Capacity Design
• Both guidelines use capacity design
principles:
– The capacity design criteria shall be described in
the project-specific seismic design criteria.
– The structural system for the building shall be
clearly demonstrated to have well defined inelastic
behavior where nonlinear action is limited to the
clearly identified members and regions.
– All other members should be stronger than the
elements designed to experience nonlinear
behavior.
Example of Capacity Design Approach

Table C.3.3.2 Zones and actions commonly designated for nonlinear behavior
Structural System Zones and Actions

· Flexural yielding of Beam ends (except for transfer
girders)
Special Moment Resisting Frames
· Shear in Beam-Column Panel Zones
(steel , concrete, or composite)
· P-M-M* yielding at the base of columns (top of
foundation or basement podiums)
· Braces (yielding in tension and buckling in
compression)
Special Concentric Braced Frames
· P-M-M yielding at the base of columns (top of
· Shear Link portion of the beams (shear yielding
preferred but combined shear and flexural yielding
Eccentric Braced Frames permitted).
· Unbonded brace cores (yielding in tension and
compression)
Unbonded Braced Frames
· Shear yielding of web plates
Special Steel-Plate Shear Walls
· Flexural yielding of Beam ends
· P-M-M yielding at the base of the walls (top of
foundation or basement podiums) and other clearly
R/C Shear Walls
defined locations throughout the height of the wall.
· Flexural yielding and/or shear yielding of link beams
· Controlled rocking
Foundations
· Controlled settlement
Source: 2014 LATBSDC * yielding caused by combined axial force and uniaxial or biaxial flexure
26
Classification of Structural Actions
• All actions must be classified as either
– Force-Controlled, or
– Deformation-Controlled
• Force-Controlled actions
must further be categorized
as either
– Critical, or
– Non-Critical
Example of Classification of Actions

Table 5. Typical Classification of Component Actions
Component Seismic Action Classification Criticality
Flexure Force Controlled Non-Critical

Below grade perimeter walls
Shear Force Controlled Critical
Flexure Deformation Controlled N/A

Parking ramp walls

Podium walls

Tower core walls
(over their entire height)
Core wall coupling beams Shear / Flexure Deformation Controlled N/A
Out of plane flexure Deformation Controlled N/A

Floor slabs
around supports

Diaphragms with major shear
transfer
Gravity columns Axial Force Controlled Critical

Foundations
Source: 2014 LATBSDC Shear Force Controlled Critical
27
Evaluation Procedures
• Both guidelines require a three-
dimensional detailed mathematical
model of the physical structure
• Realistic estimates of stiffness, strength
and damping
• Strength:
– 2014 LATBSDC uses expected material
properties and reduction factor of 1.0.
– 2010 PEER-TBI uses the same for MCE
but specified properties and code reduction
factors for serviceability evaluation.
Expected Material Strength

Material Expected Strength
Strength (ksi)
Yield Strength for
Structural steel
Hot-rolled structural shapes and bars
ASTM A36/A36M 1.5Fy
ASTM A572/A572M Grade 42 (290) 1.3Fy
ASTM A992/A992M 1.1Fy
All other grades 1.1Fy
Hollow Structural Sections
ASTM A500, A501, A618 and A847 1.3Fy
Steel Pipe
ASTM A53/A53M 1.4Fy
Plates 1.1Fy
All other products 1.1Fy
Yield Strength for 1.17 times specified fy

Reinforcing steel
Ultimate Strength for 1.3 times specified f’c

Concrete
|–Earthquake Engineering Research Institute–

– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
– –
– 28 –
– –
– –
– –
Stiffness Properties – 2010 PEER-TBI
Table 7.2 Effective component stiffness values.
Component Flexural Shear Axial
Rigidity Rigidity Rigidity
Structural steel Beams, Columns and Braces EsI G sA E sA
Composite Concrete Metal Deck Floors 0.5EcIg G cA g E cA g
R/C Beams – nonprestressed 0.5EcIg G cA g E cA g
R/C Beams – prestressed EcIg G cA g E cA g
R/C Columns 0.5EcIg G cA g E cA g
R/C Walls 0.75EcIg G cA g E cA g
R/C Slabs and Flat Plates 0.5EcIg G cA g E cA g
Notes:
Ec shall be computed per ACI 318, using expected material strength per Table 7.1.
Gc shall be computed as Ec ( 2 (1 +n ) ) , where n shall be taken as 0.2.
Stiffness Properties – 2014 LATBSDC

f’
Table 3. Reinforced Concrete Stiffness Properties

Element Serviceability and Wind MCE-Level Nonlinear Models
Structural Walls Flexural – 0.75 Ig Flexural – 1.0 Ec *, **
Shear – 1.0 Ag Shear – 0.5 Ag
Basement Walls Flexural – 1.0 Ig Flexural – 0.8 Ig
Coupling Beams Flexural – 0.3 Ig Flexural – 0.2 Ig
Diaphragms (in-plane only) Flexural – 0.5 Ig Flexural – 0.25 Ig
Moment Frame Beams Flexural – 0.7 Ig Flexural – 0.35 Ig
Moment Frame Columns Flexural – 0.9 Ig Flexural – 0.7 Ig
* Modulus of elasticity is based on the following equations:

Ec = 57000 f c¢ for f’c ≤ 6000 psi
Ec = 40000 f c¢ + 1´ 106 for f’c > 6000 psi (per ACI 363R-921)
** Nonlinear fiber elements automatically account for cracking of concrete because the concrete fibers have
zero tension stiffness.
29
PEER-TBI & LATBSDC Provisions
1. Use 2.5% damping instead of 5% damping but permit
DCR = 1.5 for deformation controlled members for
serviceability.
2. 2014 LATBSDC limits DCR to 0.70 for force controlled
members in serviceability check.
3. 2010 PEER requirements for collapse prevention are
more elaborate and detailed than 2011 LATBSDC
4. No minimum base shear capacity requirement in either
document
Analysis Methods
• Serviceability:
– Can use either
1. Linear Response Spectrum Analyses
– CQC mode combination
– 90% mass participation
2. Nonlinear Dynamic Response Analyses
• For MCE evaluation:

– Must use
• Nonlinear Dynamic Response Analyses
• Inherent torsional properties of the structural
system should always be considered.
30
Accidental Eccentricity (AE)
• 2014 LATBSDC
– Consider implications during serviceability
evaluation
– Address if significant during MCE evaluation
• 2010 PEER TBI

– Do not need to consider
• Consideration of AE in nonlinear analyses

may require multiple evaluations.
Floor Diaphragms
• Floor diaphragms shall be included in the mathematical model using
realistic stiffness properties.
• Regardless of the relative rigidity or flexibility of floor diaphragms,
flexibility of diaphragms with significant force transfer (for example
podium levels and other setback levels) shall be explicitly included
in the mathematical model.
• Diaphragm chord and drag forces shall be established in a manner
consistent with the floor characteristics, geometry, and well-
established principles of structural mechanics.
• Both shear and bending stresses in diaphragms must be
considered.
• At diaphragm discontinuities, such as openings and re-entrant
corners, the dissipation or transfer of edge (chord) forces combined
with other forces in the diaphragm shall be evaluated.
31
Load Combinations
(a) Response Spectrum Analysis
1.0D + Lexp + 1.0Ex + 0.3Ey
1.0D + Lexp + 1.0Ey + 0.3Ex
(b) Nonlinear Dynamic Response Analysis
1.0D + Lexp + 1.0E
where D is the service dead load and Lexp is the expected service live load. Lexp may be taken
as 25% of the unreduced live load unless otherwise substantiated and shall be included in all
gravity calculations and P-D analyses.
C.3.4.3. Building Code response modification factors do not apply (that is, R, W 0, r , and Cd,
are all taken as unity). Lexp need not be included in the mass calculations.
P-Δ Inclusion
• P-Δ effects must be
included in all
analyses ROOF DRIFT ANGLE vs. NORMALIZED BASE SHEAR
Pushover (NEHRP '94 k=2 pattern); LA 20-Story
0.14
P-Delta effect included
Normalized Base Shear (V/W)
0.12 P-Delta effect excluded
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Figure courtesy of Prof. Helmut Krawinkler Roof Drift Angle
32
Modeling Nonlinear Behavior
Figure courtesy of Prof. Greg Deierlein
Modeling Nonlinear Behavior

• Concentrated plasticity model for
beams and columns and fiber elements
for walls are most common
• All other elements and components that
in combination significantly contribute to
or affect the total or local stiffness of the
building should be included in the
mathematical model.
• Axial deformation of gravity
columns in a core-wall system
is one example of effects that
should be considered in the
structural model of the building
Figure courtesy of MKA
33
Modeling Strength / Stiffness Degradation
• 2010 PEER TBI

– Provides detailed guidelines on four
approved methods for modeling degradation
• 2014 LATBSDC
– Adopts the first two of the detailed
procedures contained in 2010 PEER.
2010 PEER-TBI Degradation Modeling Options
Figure courtesy of Prof. Helmut Krawinkler
34
Soil-Foundation-Structure-Interaction (SFSI)
• Naeim & Stewart (2008) demonstrated

the difficulties of realistic modeling of
SFSI in a design environment.
• 2010 PEER-TBI has two recommended
modeling techniques
• 2014 LATBSDC recommends a single
approach for this.
SFSI
2010 PEER TBI Suggested
Modeling Techniques for SFSI
2014 LATBSDC
35
Foundations
• Modeling, Rocking and Uplift:
– Foundation components that have significant
flexibility or will experience significant inelastic
behavior shall be modeled following the same
approach outlined for components of the
superstructure.
Response Modification Devices

• Seismic isolation and energy dissipation devices
shall be modeled based on data from laboratory
tests representing conditions anticipated during
MCE / MCER shaking.
• If the properties of these devices vary
significantly, lower and upper bound properties
shall be modeled.
• The consequences of attaining device limits
must be demonstrated to be tolerable to the
structure.
36
Backstay Effects
• 2010 PEER-TBI
– Refers to ATC-72 provisions
– Lower and upper bound stiffness
values for diaphragms and walls
are used to envelope the backstay
effect impact.
• 2014 LATBSDC
– Uses a similar but simplified
procedure where only lower and (Illustration from ATC-72)
upper bound stiffness of the
diaphragms are modeled.
Table 4. Stiffness parameters for Upper Bound and Lower Bound Models
“ ”
Stiffness Parameters UB LB
Diaphragms at the podium and below
Ec Ieff 0.5 0.20 to 0.25
Gc A 0.5 0.20 to 0.25
Damping “ ”
• A particularly thorny issue

– In nonlinear analyses most of the damping is represented by
hysteretic behavior of the elements
– Some small additional viscous damping may be justified for:
• Energy dissipation provided by components and systems
not explicitly modeled
• As necessary to avoid numerical instability
• 2014 LATBSDC
– Limits viscous damping to 2.5% for both
serviceability and MCE.
• 2010 PEER-TBI
– 2.5% for linear serviceability evaluation
– Refers to ATC-72 for nonlinear evaluation
37
Ground Motion Selection and Scaling
• Three General Methods:
– Code Scaling in time-domain so that the
average of spectra of records stays above
design spectrum over a range of periods
– Spectral Matching by modifying the frequency
content of the ground motion
– Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS) by scaling
at a particular period or periods
• All three methods permitted by both
guidelines
Code Scaling
Source: FEMA 451B
38
Spectral Matching
Source: Ninyo and More
CMS Scaling
From Jack W. Baker, The

Conditional Mean Spectrum:
A Tool for Ground Motion
Selection, ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering,
February 2010.
39
Ground Motion Selection and Scaling
• A minimum of 7 pairs is usually required

• If CMS is used, 2014 LATBSDC requires at
least two suites of 7 pairs.
• Attention should be paid to higher modes being
addressed by scaling (0.2T to 1.5T
• Most practicing engineers prefer matching
– One must be careful as, matched motion contains
less record to record dispersion
– This is one reason 2014 LATBSDC uses 1.5 x mean
rather than Mean + x% of SD
2014 LATBSDC R/C Specific Requirements
• Beams in Special R/C Moment Frames

– In regions where post-yield rotations are
expected, the member shall be detailed in the
vertical direction as required by ACI 318-11
Eq. (21-5).
40
f’
2014 LATBSDC R/C Specific Requirements
• High-Strength Concrete
Table 7. Intermediate and final strength values for high-strength concrete
Specified Strength (psi) Intermediate and final strength values (psi)

6,000 <f’c < 8000 · 6,000 at 28 days
· 1.0 f’c at 90 days
8,000 <f’c < 12,000 · 6,000 at 28 days

· 0.75 f’c at 90 days
· 1.0 f’c at 365 days
f’c > 12,000 · 0.50 f’c at 28 days

· 0.75 f’c at 90 days
· 1.0 f’c at 365 days
s max
Stress, s
0.5s max
e > 0.0020 e > 0.0040
Strain, e
Figure 3.6.2.1. Strain capacity requirements
Peer Review Requirements

• Both documents have extensive peer
review requirements which will be
discussed in a separate presentation.
41
Instrumentation Requirements
• 2010 PEER TBI
– No requirements
• 2011 LATBSDC
– Detailed requirements
– Consistent with CGS / CSMIP
LATBSDC Instrumentation Requirements

• Objective:
– Improve safety and reliability of building systems by providing data to
improve computer modeling and enable damage detection for post-
event condition assessment
• Plan and Review:

– An instrumentation plan shall be prepared by the EOR and submitted to
SPRP and Building Official for review and approval.
– SPRP Approved instrumentation plans shall be marked accordingly on
the structural drawings.
– If the building is intended to be included in the inventory of buildings
monitored by the California Geologic Survey (CGS) then the recorders
and accelerometers must be of a type approved by CGS.
42
Image courtesy of Mr. John Hooper, MKA
43
44
45
46
47
Acceptance Criteria
• Key differences to be aware of:
– Reduction Factors:
• In 2014 LATBSDC, ϕ = 1.0, always.
• In 2010 PEER-TBI, ϕ = 1.0 for serviceability;
ϕ = code values for MCE
– Risk Categories:
• 2014 LATBSDC considers various categories
• 2010 PEER-TBI assumes Risk Category to be II
– Modeling Dispersion:
• 2014 LATBSDC uses 1.5 x mean
• 2010 PEER-TBI uses 1.5 x mean, or
mean + 1.3 x SD > 1.2 x mean, depending on the situation.
48
Risk Category Reduction Factor
• 2014 LATBSDC
Acceptance Criteria -- Maximum Drift

• Absolute Maximum Transient Drift Angle
Limits
– Serviceability:
0.005 overall
– MCE or MCER:
0.030 x Ki max average at any story
0.045 x Ki max. interstory drift at any story

under any record
49
Acceptance Criteria -- Residual Drift
• Collapse Prevention:
0.010 x Ki average max. of time histories
0.015 x Ki maximum from any
Acceptance Criteria
• Strength Loss:
– In any nonlinear dynamic response analysis,
deformation imposed at any story shall not
result in a loss of total story strength that
exceeds 20% of the initial strength.
50
Acceptance Criteria -- Serviceability
• 2014 LATBSDC
– Force-Controlled Actions:
Strength Demand < 0.7 x Capacity
– Deformation-Controlled Actions:
• Response Spectrum Analysis
 Strength Demand < 1.50 x Capacity,
(Risk Category I, II)
 Strength Demand < 1.20 x Capacity, (Risk Category III)
 Talk to SPRP for Risk Category > III
• Nonlinear Analysis
 Can use up to IO limit of ASCE 41
Acceptance Criteria -- MCE

• 2010 PEER
– Force-Controlled Actions:
• Two Groups:
– Critical Actions
» failure mode pose severe consequences to
structural stability under gravity and/or lateral
loads
» Design for mean + 1.3 to 1.5 times SD
» Use code reduction factors, ϕ = 0.75 for shear
– Noncritical Actions
» Design for mean demand values and ϕ = 1.0.
• 2011 LATBSDC
– Essentially the same, except uses 1.5 times mean,
ϕ = 1.0, and a factor for risk category.
51
2014 LATBSDC
• Force-Controlled Actions:
– Critical Actions:
Fuc £ k if Fn,e
where
Different in PEER-TBI Fuc = 1.5 times the mean value of demand.
Fn,e = nominal strength as computed from applicable material codes but based on
expected material properties.
Different in PEER-TBI f = 1.0.
Different in PEER-TBI k i = Risk reduction factor given in Table 6.
EXCEPTION: For buildings located in the Los Angeles region if the

serviceability acceptance criteria are satisfied per requirements of Section
3.4.5.1, then k i may be taken as 1.0.

2014 LATBSDC
• Force-Controlled Actions:
– Non-Critical Actions:
Fu £ k if Fn,e
where
Fu = the mean demand obtained from the suite of analyses,
Fn,e = nominal strength as computed from applicable material codes but based on
expected material properties.
f = 1.0.
Different in PEER-TBI k i = Risk reduction factor given in Table 6.
EXCEPTION: For buildings located in the Los Angeles region if the

serviceability acceptance criteria are satisfied per requirements of Section
3.4.5.1, then k i may be taken as 1.0.
52
Upper Limit on Column Axial Forces
• Large axial forces reduce available R/C
column ductility
• 2014 LATBSDC
– MCE: P < 0.4f’cAg
• 2010 PEER-TBI
– MCE: P < balanced load
< 0.3f’cAg

• Deformation-Controlled Actions: 2014 LATBSDC
 < Ki x Primary CP limits in ASCE-41

 Larger values may be used only if substantiated
by appropriate laboratory tests.
 If exceeded, strength degradation, stiffness
degradation and hysteretic pinching shall be
considered and base shear capacity of the
structure shall not fall below 90% of the base
shear capacity at deformations corresponding to
ASCE 41Primary CP limits
– 2010 PEER-TBI is not as rigid and refers
to ASCE 41 as a source of information.
53
APPLICATION EXAMPLES
Applications
• Many tall buildings have been designed using these

guidelines in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San
Diego, and elsewhere
• Here are some examples

– Los Angeles:
– 888 Olive
– 1133 Olive
– 1212 Flower Towers
– Wilshire & Grand
– Metropolis Tower
– San Diego
– 7th & Ash
– San Francisco
– Transbay Tower
54
• 888 Olive Street
in downtown Los
Angeles
– 34 stories
– Core wall construction
– Podium
– Subterranean levels
– Basement walls
– Flat plates
– Gravity columns
2014 EERIand
Illustrations TECHNICAL SEMINAR:
drawings courtesy PERFORMANCE
of Onni Group BASED DESIGN – STATE OF THE PRACTICE FOR TALL BUILDINGS
and Glotman-Simpson
Illustrations and drawings courtesy of Onni Group and Glotman-Simpson
55
LEVEL 49 615.33'
12' - 8"
LEVEL 48 602.67'
12' - 8"
LEVEL 47 590.00'
12' - 8"
80
LEVEL 46 577.33'
12' - 8"
LEVEL 45 564.67'
HELIPAD
12' - 8"
LEVEL 41 511.33' LEVEL 41 511.33'

LEVEL 44 552.00'
12'-8"
MECH.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 40 498.67' LEVEL 40 498.67'

LEVEL 43 539.33'
12'-8"
MECH.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 39 486.00' LEVEL 39 486.00'

LEVEL 42 526.67'
12'-8"
ELEV.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 38 473.33' LEVEL 38 473.33'

LEVEL 41 514.00'
12'-8"
ELEV.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 37 460.67' LEVEL 37 460.67'

LEVEL 40 501.33'
12'-8"
ELEV.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 36 448.00' LEVEL 36 448.00'

LEVEL 39 488.67'
12'-8"
ELEV.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 35 435.33' LEVEL 35 435.33'

LEVEL 38 476.00'
12'-8"
ELEV.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 34 422.67' LEVEL 34 422.67'
12'-8"
LEVEL 37 463.33' ELEV.
LEVEL 33 410.00' LEVEL 33 410.00'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 36 450.67' ELEV. HELIPAD
LEVEL 32 397.33' LEVEL 32 397.33'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 35 438.00' ELEV. MECH.
LEVEL 31 384.67' LEVEL 31 384.67'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 34 425.33' ELEV. MECH.
LEVEL 30 372.00' LEVEL 30 372.00'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 33 412.67' ELEV. ELEV.
LEVEL 29 359.33' LEVEL 29 359.33'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
Research Institute

LEVEL 28 346.67' LEVEL 28 346.67'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 27 334.00' LEVEL 27 334.00'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 26 321.33' LEVEL 26 321.33'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 25 308.67' LEVEL 25 308.67'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 24 296.00' TOWER 1 LEVEL 24 296.00'
494' - 0"
12' - 8"
BEYOND
12'-8"
LEVEL 23 283.33' LEVEL 23 283.33'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 22 270.67' LEVEL 22 270.67'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
LEVEL 25 311.33'
ELEV. ELEV.
LEVEL 21 258.00' LEVEL 21 258.00'
12' - 8"
12'-8"
ELEV. ELEV.
LEVEL 24 298.67' LEVEL 20 245.33' LEVEL 20 245.33'
590' - 0"
12' - 8"
12'-8"
ELEV. ELEV.
12' - 8"
12'-8"
ELEV. ELEV.
12' - 8"
12'-8"
ELEV. ELEV.
56
79
12' - 8"
12'-8"
ELEV. ELEV.
12'-8"
12' - 8"
ELEV. ELEV.
12'-8"
12' - 8"
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL ELEV. ELEV.

12'-8"
12' - 8"
ELEV. ELEV.
12'-8"
12' - 8"
ELEV. ELEV.
LEVEL 12 144.00' LEVEL 12 144.00'
LEVEL 16 197.33'
12'-8"
12' - 8"
ELEV. ELEV.
LEVEL 11 131.33' LEVEL 11 131.33'
LEVEL 15 184.67'
12'-8"
ELEV. ELEV.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 10 118.67' LEVEL 10 118.67'
LEVEL 14 172.00'
12'-8"
ELEV. ELEV.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 9 106.00' LEVEL 9 106.00'
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
LEVEL 13 159.33'
12'-8"
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
ELEV. ELEV.
12' - 8"
RES. LEVEL 8 93.33' RES. LEVEL 8 93.33'
LEVEL 12 146.67' AMENITY PODIUM AMENITY
12'-8"
ELEV. ELEV.
12' - 8"
LEVEL 7 80.67' COURTYARD LEVEL 7 80.67'
LEVEL 11 134.00'
12'-8"
ELEV. PARKING PARKING ELEV. PARKING
12' - 8"
COLOR LEGEND LEVEL 6 68.00' LEVEL 6 68.00'
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
LEVEL 10 121.33'
12'-8"
ELEV. PARKING PARKING ELEV. PARKING
12' - 8"
LEVEL 5 55.33' LEVEL 5 55.33'
LEVEL 9 108.67' FLOOR AREA
12'-8"
PARKING ELEV. PARKING PARKING ELEV. PARKING
12' - 8"
LEVEL 4 42.67' LEVEL 4 42.67'
LEVEL 8 96.00' EXISTING
12'-8"
BUILDING COMMON AREA PARKING ELEV. PARKING PARKING ELEV. PARKING
12' - 8"
LEVEL 3 30.00' OFFICE BUILDING LEVEL 3 30.00'
TOWN HOUSES
LEVEL 7 83.33'
12'-8"
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL PARKING ELEV. PARKING PARKING ELEV. PARKING
12' - 8"
AMENITY AMENITY LEVEL 2 17.33' LEVEL 2 17.33'
STORE AREA
LEVEL 6 70.67'
17'-4"
W. 12TH STREET RES. LOBBY ELEV. RES. LOBBY EXISTING ALLEY W. 12TH STREET RES. LOBBY ELEV. GARBAGE ALLEY
12' - 8"
L5 PARKADE
RESIDENTIAL AMENITY
12'-0"
12' - 8"
96' - 0"
L4 PARKADE LEVEL P1 -12.00' LEVEL P1 -12.00'

LEVEL 4 45.33'
11'-11" 11'-11"
12' - 8"
L3 PARKADE SERVICE AREA LEVEL P2 -23.92' LEVEL P2 -23.92'
STAIRS
LEVEL 3 32.67'
12' - 8"
L2 PARKADE LEVEL P3 -35.84' LEVEL P3 -35.84'
LEVEL 2 20.00' STORAGE
20' - 0"
COMMERCIAL/ L1
RETAIL L1 PARKADE STORAGE ELEVATOR RESIDENTIAL
LOBBY LEVEL 1 0.00'
11' - 0" 11' - 0" 11' - 0"

BIKE STORAGE P1 PARKADE
LEVEL P1 -11.00'
2 TOWER 1 BUILDING SECTION 1 TOWER 2 BUILDING SECTION
33' - 0"
BIKE STORAGE P2 PARKADE STORAGE
LEVEL P2 -22.00' A201 1/32" = 1'-0" A201 1/32" = 1'-0"
STORAGE P3 PARKADE
LEVEL P3 -33.00'
1 Section 9
A201 1/32" = 1'-0" P5 -45.00'
FLOWER ST. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT BUILDING SECTIONS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
OLIVE ST. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT SECTION Design Development A305
CHRIS DIKEAKOS 817 - 825 Hil St. & 820 S. Olive St., Los Angeles, CA SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" August 26th, 2013 A306 CHRIS DIKEAKOS
ARCHITECTS INC.
1212 S. Flower Street, Los Angeles, CA SCALE: 1/32" = 1'-0" August 26, 2013
ARCHITECTS INC.
81
Thank you!
57
58
Ground Motions and SSI for

Jonathan P. Stewart, UCLA

and Marshall Lew, AMEC
59
Jonathan P. Stewart
Jonathan P. Stewart is Professor and Chair of the Civil & Environmental Engineering at
UCLA. His technical expertise is in geotechnical earthquake engineering and engineering
seismology, with emphases on seismic soil-structure interaction, engineering
characterization of earthquake ground motions, seismic performance of levees and other
embankments, and seismic ground failure. Results of work by his research group are
widely utilized in engineering practice, including the NEHRP Provisions, ASCE-7, and
ASCE-41. He has led major multi-investigator research efforts related to ground motion
characterization (NGA and GEM projects, via PEER center) nonlinear site response
analysis (with PEER center), soil-structure interaction (with Applied Technology
Council), and seismic ground failure (NGL project, via PEER center). He is a former
Chief Editor for the ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
and is the current Editor of Earthquake Spectra. His research team has produced 20 Ph.D.
graduates since 2001 and over 70 journal articles since 1995.

Marshall Lew

Dr. Marshall Lew is a Principal and Vice President of AMEC Environmental and
Infrastructure, Inc. and is stationed in the Los Angeles office. He is a specialist in
geotechnical and earthquake engineering. Dr. Lew is a graduate of UCLA having earned
B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. degrees, all from UCLA. Dr. Lew is a registered Professional Civil
and Geotechnical Engineer in California, and is a registered Professional Engineer 10
other states.
Dr. Lew has worked extensively in geotechnical and earthquake engineering. Dr. Lew
participated in the development of the Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design
Council’s “An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings
Located in the Los Angeles Region.” Dr. Lew has performed ground motion evaluations
for new and existing buildings using Performance Based Earthquake Engineering
principles for analysis and design; he has also been a peer reviewer for numerous PBEE
projects in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle.
60
Ground Motions and SSI for

Jonathan P. Stewart, UCLA

and Marshall Lew, AMEC
Outline
A. Ground motions
1. Conceptual issues
2. Current implementation
3. Changes in NEHRP Recommendations, Chapter 16
B. Soil-Structure Interaction (SSI)
1. Modeling of flexible-base condition
2. Kinematic effects on ground motion
3. Application in pushover analysis and response
history analysis (RHA)
61
A.1. Ground Motions: Conceptual
Issues
• Role of ground motions in Performance Based
Seismic Design (PBD)
• Explanation of processes/terms used with
ground motions developed for current PBD
applications
• Concept of scenario spectra (being added to
2015 NEHRP Recommendations, Chapter 16)
A.1.1: Ground Motions in PBD

• PBD: juxtaposition of capacity and demand
• Ground motions represent the demand
• Ground motions can be represented by Pseudo
Spectral Acceleration (PSA) or time series
– PSA used for pushover analysis (ASCE 41)
– PSA and time series required for RHA
• Objectives of PBD includes collapse prevention
and serviceability.
62
A.1. Ground Motions: Conceptual
Issues
• PBD procedures (PEER TBI and LATBSDC)
require evaluation for two conditions:
– Serviceability during ground motions due to
frequent earthquakes
– Low Probability of Collapse due to extremely rare
earthquake ground motions (MCER)
• Some jurisdictions may require evaluation for
the Design Ea th uake defined in A“CE 7
A.1.2: Processes/Terms
Earthquake Rupture
Forecast (ERF) models
Field et al., 2014
63
Earthquake Rupture
Ground motion
prediction equations
(GMPEs)
Boore et al., 2014
Earthquake Rupture
Ground motion
(GMPEs)
Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Analysis
(PSHA)
IM = ground motion intensity measure (e.g., PSA)

lIM = rate in time that target value of IM is exceeded
64
Earthquake Rupture
Ground motion
(GMPEs)
PSHA
IM = ground motion intensity measure (e.g. PSA)

Earthquake Rupture
Ground motion
(GMPEs)
PSHA
IM = ground motion intensity measure (e.g. PSA)

65
Earthquake Rupture
Ground motion
(GMPEs)
PSHA
Uniform hazard
spectra (UHS) PSA (g)
Earthquake Rupture
Ground motion
(GMPEs)
PSHA
Uniform hazard
PSA (0.2 sec) ≤ 1.0 g
PSA (g)
spectra (UHS)
PSA (1.0 sec) ≤ 0.4 g
Deterministic cap
Leyendecker et al., 2000
66
Risk-targeted ground
motion, based on
consequence analysis
Consequence analysis using fragility curve

l C   G C IM d l IM
1.0
P[C | IM] Fragility curve
for negative lC proportional to
consequence sum of thick red
lines
0.0
IM
lIM
DlIM
IM
14
Steve Kramer, Univ. of Washington
67
Risk-targeted ground Select trial building ‘strength’
motion, based on
Sets fragility curves
Evaluate lC
Adjust strength and repeat
until lC = target value
Strength is proportional to
PSA, develop MCER
spectrum
Luco et al., 2008
Risk-targeted ground
motion, based on
Maximum-component
ground motion
Huang et al., 2008

Stewart et al., 2011
68
A.1.3 : Processes/Terms
Scenario Spectra:
Conditional mean spectrum (CMS)
Conditional spectra (CS)
Motivation:
1. Spectra are more physically meaningful
2. Easier to find compatible time series
Haselton et al., 2014
Outline
A. Ground motion
B. Soil Structure Interaction (SSI)
69
A.2. Current Implementation
• By cu ent’, we ean A“CE 7-10 standard.
Chapters 11, 16, 21 (cited by 2012 IBC)
• MCER ground motions set at 1% P(collapse) in
50 years. Corresponding ground motion levels
generally near 2% PE in 50 years (MCE)
• Conservative bias applied through maximum
component factors
• Higher collapse probabilities accepted in zones
with deterministic cap

Process (Collapse Prevention)
• Develop PSA over period range of interest
– Standard code spectrum (Chap 11)
– Site specific analysis (Chap 21)
• When site-specific analysis performed:
– Apply RTE and maximum component factors
– Check for deterministic cap
• Design spectrum
• Acceleration history selection and scaling
70
Standard (prescriptive)
code spectrum
Ss & S1:
Apply for 760 m/s
code spectrum
Fa & Fv:
Adjust PSAs for
site class effects
71
Fa and Fv depend on VS30
Standard (prescriptive) Measure from:
code spectrum • Ground surface?
• Foundation depth?
• Intermediate depth?

Fa and Fv depend on VS30
Standard (prescriptive) Measure from:
code spectrum • Ground surface
• Foundation depth?
• Intermediate depth?
72
code spectrum Ss  Fa = SDS S1  Fv = SD1
Can be problematic at
SDS
long periods – may SDS
T
not descend at 1/T
SD1 SD1 TL
T2

Site specific
PSHA hazard curves and UHS developed for specific
site. Can span from 0 to 10 sec oscillator period.
Use 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years (MCE)
May include geotechnical ground response analysis, or
use of site term in GMPE
73
Benefits of site-specific analysis
Applies for specific site location (no interpolation)
More robust implementation of site factors possible
Spectrum valid at long periods – important for tall
buildings

For Site-
Specific
Analyses:
Apply RTE
factors;
not needed
with Code
approach
BSSC, 2010
28
74
Apply RTE factors
Apply max component

factors (for site-
specific analyses)
Shahi and Baker, 2014

Evaluate Mmax and R for
Apply RTE factors regional faults
Use GMPE to obtain 84th
Apply max component percentile PSA (mlnIM+slnIM)
factors Find largest such PSA, if <
adjusted MCE, apply
deterministic cap
Check for deterministic No RTE factors applied, but
cap Max Direction is required
Resulting ordinates cannot be
less than prescriptive PSA
75
Apply RTE factors
Design PSA is 2/3 of MCER
When site specific analysis
Apply max component performed, resulting design
factors PSA cannot be < 0.8
prescriptive PSA.
When 0.8 rule applies, adjust
Check for deterministic MCER so that it is
cap 1.5prescriptive PSA
Design spectrum

Time series for RHA
Required by TBI and LATBSDC for collapse analysis
Little guidance in ASCE 7-10
Requirements for 3-D analysis:
1. SRSS of each selected motion > MCER; for the
period range of T= (0.2 to 1.5)T1.
2. Special requirements for near-fault sites
3. No commentary in ASCE 7-10 on use of direct
scaling vs spectral matching
76
Time series for RHA
Problems encountered
Confusion over use of SRSS with max-
component ground motions. Alternatives:
• Match both horizontal components to MCER?
• Match one components to MCER and one to
geomean spectrum?
Even if both components matched to geomean
spectrum, their SRSS will usually exceed MCER.

Time series for RHA
Problems encountered 1. Match both horizontal
components to MCER
spectrum
2. Match one component to
MCER spectrum, other
component to the
Geomean spectrum
3. Match both horizontal
components to the
Geomean spectrum
77
Time series for RHA
Recommendations
2014 LATBSDC commentary recommends:
1. If geomean spectra are used, the target SRSS
spectrum should be taken as 130% of the risk-targeted
MCE geomean spectrum
2. If MD [maximum direction] spectra are used, the
target SRSS spectrum should be taken as 100% of the
risk-targeted MCE geomean spectrum
These recommendations were developed by LATBSDC in collaboration
with Mr. Ron Hamburger.

Process (Serviceability)
• Develop PSA over period range of interest
– Site-specific analysis to determine UHS for ground
motions having a 50% probability of being
exceeded in 30 years (return period of ~43 years)
– Do not apply RTE and maximum component
factors
– Matched time histories required only if Response
History Analyses are performed
78
Outline
A. Ground motion
A.3. Changes in 2015 NEHRP

Perform assessment at MCER (not 2/3MCER) level
MCER or scenario spectra allowed as targets
Drop SRSS-based scaling criteria. Instead:
• Compute max component spectrum for a given
motion.
• Each ground motion is scaled (identical scale
factor for all components) such that the average
of the maximum-direction spectra from all
ground motions matches target.
• Match range is TMIN to 2.0T, where TMIN captures
90% mass participation
79
A.3. Changes in 2015 NEHRP
Minimum of 11 ground motion pairs
Spectral matching: average PSA for all motions in
given horizontal direction must exceed target (more
stringent than direct scaling)
Motions applied to building model with random
orientations
Summary: Ground Motions

• Site specific analysis strongly recommended for tall
buildings
• Compared to ASCE 7-05, motions increased in ASCE
7-10, due largely to max component specification of
ground motion.
• Use of 3D RHA analysis procedures in 2015 NEHRP
mitigate the problems associated with maximum
component motions.
• Similar procedures appearing in other documents,
including ASCE 41-13 and 2014 LATBSDC Alternative
Procedure.
40
80
Summary: Ground Motions
• Modest penalty for use of spectrum compatible
motions instead of directly-scaled motions.
• A conventional code design would produce higher
lateral forces primarily because:
– Inability to account for site-specific site response and
PSHA effects
– Lack of mitigation of the max component factor
• Should provide motivation for implementation of
structure- and site-specific PBEE.
41
Outline
A. Ground motion
81
Some key points
• Required inputs can be obtained from standard
(high-quality) geotechnical/geophysical
investigation.
• Flexibility and damping at foundation/soil
interface unlikely to affect first mode of tall
buildings. However, demand profiles are
affected.
• Ground motion reductions possible from
kinematic effects, but most pronounced for T <
1.0 sec.
Foundation Modelling
• Required soil properties
• Model elements (from NIST, 2012)
• Use of distributed springs
• Limiting spring forces
44
82
Required Soil Properties
• Geotechnical and Vs
profiles.
profile.
• Soil shear strength
(undrained below
ground water table)
83
profile.
(undrained below gwt)
• “oil Poisson’s atio, 
(can be evaluated from
Vp/Vs above gwt)
profile.
(undrained below gwt) Seed & Idriss, 1970
• “oil Poisson’s atio, 
Vucetic & Dobry,
(can be evaluated from 1991
Vp/Vs above gwt)
• Soil hysteretic
damping, D
84
Model Elements
• Static stiffness, surface foundation:

Translation: Kj = GBfn(, B/L)
Rotation: Kjj = GB3fn(, B/L)
Model Elements

• Embedment modifiers, hj or hjj: fn(D/B, B/L)
85
Model Elements

• Dynamic modifiers, aj or ajj: fn(B/L, a0=wB/Vs)
Model Elements

• Dynamic modifiers, aj or ajj: fn(B/L, a0=wB/Vs)
• Radiation damping, bj: fn(B/L, aj, a0, Kj/GB);
bjj: fn(B/L, ajj, a0, Kjj/GB3)
86
Distributed springs (z-direction)
Stiffness intensity:
kz
k zi 
4 BL
Any given spring:
k z  k zi dA Figure: Vertical spring distribution used to reproduce rotational stiffness kyy. A

comparable geometry can be shown in the y-z plane (foundation dimension 2B)
to reproduce kxx.
Concentrated end spring
Take Re =0.3-0.5
Rk from Eqns 2.21 (NIST, 2012)
Distributed springs (x- or y-directions)
Single spring for surface foundation
Embedded foundation:
Component of stiffness associated
with base slab applied at slab (e.g.,
kx/hx)
Remaining stiffness distributed

over wall height [e.g., kx(1-1/hx)].
87
Limiting Spring Forces
• z-direction: based on bearing capacity (not pressure

for limiting settlement)
• Horizontal directions: base friction or passive
pressure
• These analyses should utilize shear strength (not
limiting displacements).
Outline
A. Ground motion
88
Kinematic Interaction
• Base slab averaging

• Foundation
embedment
• Expressed as transfer
functions 2L
FIML
H u w   H w  
u FIM
ug ug
Physical Basis for Base Slab Averaging
Variability expressed in terms of:

Kato et al., 1998 • Phase change
• Amplitude change
Ancheta et al., 2011
89
Plan view
Spatial variability is strongly frequency-dependent
90
Plan view
Low f e ue cy co po e ts…
uFIM (w)  ug (w)

2003 Off-Miyagi Eqk
FF, s-wave window
91
High f e ue cy co po e ts…
uFIM (w) < ug (w)

2003 Off-Miyagi Eqk
FF, p-wave window
Physical Basis for Embedment Effect
Low frequency
Long wavelength
l = Vs/f
uFIM  ug
FIM  0
92
Physical Basis for Embedment Effect
High frequency
Short wavelength
l = Vs/f
uFIM < ug
FIM > 0
Models for Base Slab Averaging
• Numerous models for wave passage only (e.g.,

Mylonakis et al., 2006)
93
• Numerous models for wave passage only

• FE analysis with incoherent input (SASSI)
• Numerous models for wave passage only

• FE analysis with incoherent input
• Semi-empirical model   0.00065  V , 200  V
a s s  500m / s
Closed form
equations. Sec 3.1
94
Models for Embedment
• Models for rigid

embedded cylinders
• Coherent, vertically
propagating s-waves
Implementation in Design Standards
Implemented as ratios of S a  FIM ( f )

 H u ( f ), f  fL
Sa ( f )
response spectra (RRS)
S a  FIM ( f )
 H u ( f L ), f  fL
Sa ( f )
fL affected by frequency
content of ground motion
95
Implementation in Design Standards
Implemented as ratios of response spectra

(RRS)
First appeared in ASCE 41: Seismic

rehabilitation of existing buildings, 2006
Updated in NIST-917-21: Soil-structure

interaction for building structures, 2012
NEHRP (2015) will permit SSI effects,

drawing upon NIST (2012) procedures
Example of foundation / free-field ground motion variations:
Rancho Cucamonga Law & Justice Center

1987 Whittier Earthquake
96
Example of foundation / free-field ground motion variations:
Rancho Cucamonga Law & Justice Center

1987 Whittier Narrows Earthquake
Rancho Cucamonga site response spectra:
97
Outline
A. Ground motion
Application in Pushover Analysis

Modifies pushover curve
Affects seismic demand (reduced short-T PSA)
Affects damping
May illustrate failure modes not apparent from fixed-base analysis
98
Application in RHA
‘e o e d athtu odel:
• Includes foundation springs
• Base motion can be reduced
for kinematic
• No spatial variability of input
motions
Deep embedment?
• Consider depth-variable
input motions
• These also control kinematic
wall pressures.
Summary
• Critical soil properties are stratigraphy, VS
p ofile, Poisson’s atio, and shea st ength
• Springs/dashpots exert strong influence on
first-mode response if h/(VST) > 0.1; seldom
true for tall buildings.
• Foundation springs essential for evaluation
of subterranean demands on walls
• Foundation modeling affects shear and
acceleration profiles in superstructure.
99
Summary
• Consideration of inertial effects (springs,
dashpots) can be critical for dual systems
(walls-frames).
• Kinematic effects most pronounced for
large footprint areas, embedded
foundations.
• Kinematic effects are most pronounced at
T < 1 sec. For tall buildings, beneficial
effects most likely for higher modes.
100
Nonlinear Structural Analysis

Gregory Deierlein
Stanford University
101
Gregory G. Deierlein
Deierlein is the John A. Blume Professor of Engineering in the Department of Civil & Environmental
Engineering at Stanford University where he directs the Blume Earthquake Engineering Center. He
holds a doctorate from the University of Texas at Austin, a master of science from the University of
California at Berkeley, and a bachelor of science from Cornell University. From 2000 to 2007, he
served as the deputy director for research of the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research (PEER)
Center. Deierlein specializes in the design and behavior of innovative steel, concrete and composite
structures, nonlinear structural analysis, computational fracture and damage mechanics, and
performance-based earthquake engineering. He is a registered professional engineer and maintains
professional activities as a structural engineering consultant, design peer reviewer, and participant in
national technical and building code standards committees.
102
Nonlinear Structural Analysis

Gregory Deierlein
Stanford University
Outline
1. Introduction and Background
2. Demand Parameters and Model Attributes
3. Modeling of Structural Components
4. Damping in NL Dynamic Analysis
5. Software and Data Processing
103
INTRODUCTION --- Guidelines and Standards
Recent Developments & Resources
• ATC 40 (1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings
• ASCE 41 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings (2013, 2007)
– FEMA 273 (ATC 33, 1997) – NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation
– FEMA 356 (2000) – Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation
– FEMA 440 (2006) – Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis
Procedures
• Guidelines for Tall Buildings (2008-2012) - PEER TBI, LATBSDC, CTBUH
– ATC 72-1 Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis of
Tall buildings (2009)
• FEMA P-58 Performance Based Seismic Design (2012)
• FEMA P-695 Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors (2010)
• NIST Tech Brief #4 Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design (2010)
• NIST GCR 14-917-27 Nonlinear Analysis Research and Development
Program for Performance-Based Seismic Engineering (2014)
• NEHRP 2015 Recommended Provisions – ASCE 7 Chapter 16 (2014)

Assessment by Static Pushover Analysis
(FEMA 273/356 and ASCE 41)
Base
Shear Joe’s
Demand Beer! Beer!
Food! Food!
Very rare events

(2%/50yrs)
Rare events
(10%/50yrs)
Occasional events Operational
(20%/50yrs)
Structurally
Frequent events Life Safe Stable
(50%/50yrs)
Lateral Deformation
Ref: R.O. Hamburger
104
Background and Motivation
Generalized Component Response Curves
Deformation Controlled Force Controlled
105
ASCE 41-13 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings
• General performance assessment framework (IO, LS, CP)
• Structural component modeling parameters and
acceptance criteria
• Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis procedure
FEMA 440 (2005) – Improved Static NL Analysis Procedures

• Evaluation of ATC-40 and FEMA 356 procedures
• Quantifying effects of degradation (in-cycle degradation)
and new stability limit
• I p o ed Coeffi ie t Method C1, C2 and C3) for
calculating target displacement
• I p o ed Capa it -“pe t u e ui ale t li ea izatio
method for calculating target displacement
• Soil-structure interaction effects
• MDOF effects
7

PEER Tall Building Initiative:
• 2010 guidelines
• supporting studies & documents
http://peer.berkeley.edu/tbi/
LA Tall Buildings Structural Design Council:

• 2011 guidelines
• annual conference
• special provisions for RC structures
Guideline Documents
• Performance Objectives
• Design Process and Documentation
• Seismic Input and Modeling Criteria
• Preliminary Design
• Service Level Evaluation
• MCE Level Evaluation
• Documentation and Peer Review
8
106
ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings

• Chapter 16 – Seismic Response History Procedures
• Provisions for linear (elastic) and nonlinear (inelastic)
• Key Points
- analyses and checks for DBE levels
- selection and scaling of records
- general provisions for relating calculated quantities to
design acceptance criteria
NEHRP 2015 Recommended Seismic Provisions

Modifications and commentary to Chapter 16 of ASCE 7
• Explicitly addresses nonlinear dynamic analysis
• Specification for MCE level (versus DBE = 2/3 MCE) checks
• Risk basis for demand and acceptance criteria:
- Deformation-controlled components
- Force-controlled components
• Guidance on selection and scaling ground motions, using
either UHS or CMS
PEER/ATC 72-1: Modeling and Acceptance

Criteria for Seismic Design and Analysis
• General Nonlinear Modeling
- overview of issues
- deterioration, P-delta, damping
- uncertainties in models and limit states
• Moment Frame Components
- steel beams, columns, panel zones
- concrete beam, columns, joints
• Shear Walls and Slab-Column Frames
- planar and flanged walls
- coupling beams
- slab-column components and connections
• Podium Diaphragms and Collectors
- podium and backstay effects
242 pages - collectors and diaphragm segments
- modeling considerations and
recommendations
10
107
NIST Seismic Design Tech Brief 4: Nonlinear

Structural Analysis for Seismic Design
• General guidance on using nonlinear analysis for
design
• Focus on high-level goals and objectives
• Overview of key concepts and assumptions
• Summary of modeling capabilities and resources
• Guidance on NL static & dynamic analysis
NIST Research & Development Roadmap for NL

Analysis in Seismic Engineering
• Benchmarking and validation
• Assess and improve modeling capabilities
• Taking stock of computational technologies
• Development of guidelines and standards
- Extend ASCE 41 technology to dynamic analysis
- Detailed guidelines for modeling specific systems
11
INTRODUCTION --- ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN
CAPACITY DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Clearly Defined Yielding Mechanisms
- Deformation-controlled components
- Force-controlled components
Advantages
• Protection from sudden failure in elements that
cannot be proportioned or detailed to provide
ductile response
• Limit the locations where expensive ductile
detailing is required
• Reliable energy dissipation by enforcing
Desirable nonlinear mechanism
deformation modes where inelastic deformations in coupled RC wall (ATC 72-1)
are distributed to ductile components
• Greater certainty in how the building will perform
under strong earthquakes and greater confidence
in how the performance can be calculated
12
108
INTRODUCTION --- ANALYSIS FOR DESIGN
MODELING REQUIREMENTS:
Deformation-Controlled Components
• Modeled Inelastically
• Deformation (or strain) demand parameters
• A epta e ite ia fo ode desig
- onset of damage/inelasticity
- onset of significant strength degradation
Force-Controlled Components
• Modeled Elastically
• Force (or stress) demand parameters
• Acceptance criteria Desirable nonlinear mechanism
- Must remain essentially elastic in coupled RC wall (ATC 72-1)
- Force demands less than expected strength
13
INTRODUCTION --- DEMAND PARAMETERS

Demand & Acceptance Criteria: Demand < Capacity
Overall Measures
• Total Drift - Peak (and Residual)
• Story Drift – Peak (and Residual)
• Peak Floor Accelerations
Deformation-Controlled Components
Deformation Measures:
• Hinge Rotation (beams, columns, wall flexure) - Peak (maximum)
• Deformation (axial, shear, sliding) - Residual ?
• Ductility (D/Dy or e/ey) - Cumulative ?
• Strain (gage lengths?)
• Generalized Strain (curvature, axial) Total vs. Inelastic (plastic)
• Velocity (e.g., for dampers)
Force-Controlled Components
• Force and/or Moment
• Stress (gage length or averaging area?)
14
109
INTRODUCTION --- MEDIAN MODEL PARAMETERS
MEDIAN MODEL PARAMETERS: Material and other model

parameters should be specified to reflect the median* (or
expected) properties:
Expected Material Properties
• steel: Fy,exp = RyFy (see AISC Seismic Provisions, LATBSDC Guidelines)
• concrete: f’c,exp = 1.3 f’c (LATBSDC Tall Building Guidelines)
Median (or Expected) Model Parameters

• effe ti e elasti stiff ess of o ete, aso , soil a plitude depe de t
• inelastic response
- yield and peak strengths
- strain hardening
- onset of degradation and softening
- unloading stiffness and pinching
- inelastic deformation
• da pi g u - odeled e e g dissipatio
* Owing to limited data and as a practical measure, the median

properties are often approximated using mean or expected values. 15
INTRODUCTION --- Illustrative Example

64 Story RC Wall System – Dynamic Analysis
Story Drift Ratio

Courtesy: Magnusson Klemencic Assoc.
110
Wall Shear Wall Segment Shear


Longitudinal Bar Coupling Beam Rotation

Tensile Strains
111
INTRODUCTION --- UNCERTAINTIES IN SEISMIC ANALYSIS
Uncertainties in Seismic Assessment: Large variability in demand

predictions, with total dispersion (coefficient of variation) on the order of 0.5 to 0.8.
• Ground Motion Hazard Intensity (bGM: 0.4 to 0.6)

%i ea mean annual frequency of exceedence
3.5
3
• Ground Motion Characteristics (bRTR: 0.4 to 0.6)
Sag.m.(T=1.0s)[g]
• frequency content and duration

2.5
• so- alled e o d-to- e o d u e tai t

1.5
0.5
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Maximum Interstory Drift Ratio
• Structure Properties, Behavior and Models (bmod: 0.2 to 0.6)

• variability in structural properties (materials, dimensions, etc.)
• variability in nonlinear behavior of structural components and
systems
• accuracy of mathematical models used in analysis
19
DRIFT DEMAND AND CAPACITY:

Assuming dispersion in MCE drift demand b =0.5 to 0.8, then
the limit on mean story drift demand Dm < 0.03 implies less
than 10% chance of exceeding D* = 0.05 to 0.06
Drift Demand
Also, when mean drift demand is estimated

from 7 records, dispersion (COV) in the
estimated demand is: s 0.5
= » 0.2
n 7
10%
Dm D*
Lognormal Probability Density of Demand
20
112
DRIFT DEMAND AND CAPACITY:

Assuming dispersion in drift demand b of 0.5 to 0.8 and dispersion in
drift capacity of 0.5; then, limit on mean story drift demand Dm < 0.03
implies less than 10% chance of D > Cm = 0.07 to 0.08
Drift Demand (< 0.03)
Drift Capacity (~0.07 to 0.08)
Dm 10%
C m
Lognormal Probability Density of Demand and Capacity
21
FORCE CONTROLLED ELEMENTS:

Assuming dispersion in MCE force demand b of 0.5 to 0.8 and dispersion in
strength of 0.3; then the Tall Building Criteria implies:
1.5 Dm < Cm (expected strength) --- 15% to 20% prob. of failure
2.0 Dm < Cm (expected strength) --- 10% to 15% prob. of failure
Force Demand, Dm
Strength, Cm > a Dm
Consequence of force-controlled failure?
Dm 10%
C m
Lognormal Probability Density of Demand and Capacity
22
113
Outline
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: Model Types
Phenomenological Fundamental
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Plastic Nonlinear Finite Length Fiber Finite

Hinge Spring Hinge Hinge Zone Section Element
Concentrated Plasticity Distributed Plasticity

Column Shear
Accuracy – Feasibility - Practicality
Drift
24
114
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: Plastic Hinge Models
Virtues:
- Computationally efficient
- Easier to relate to overall
component response
Challenges & Limitations:

- Cali atio a d alidatio of ule-
ased odels o l as do hat ou
ask them to)
Phenomenological Hinge Models
- P-M-M Interaction w/degradation - various modes of degradation
25
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: Fiber & Continuum Models
Continuum FEM
(shell or brick elements)
Fiber-Type Models
Spread of Plasticity & Fiber Hinge
26
115
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: Wall Models
Phenomenological Fundamental
Illustrative Wall Models

27
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: Response Envelopes

Monotonic versus Cyclic Envelope
28
Test Data: Gatto & Uang, ASCE JSE, Oct. 2003
116
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: Loading History Effects
Hysteretic Component Response From Earthquake Time Histories
(a) 1985 Chile record (b) 1995 Kobe record
Shin, PEER, 2005
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: Types of Degradation

Strength loss during one cycle
Types of strength degradation

Displacement
In-cycle strength degradation
Strength loss in subsequent

cycles (not during one cycle)
Time, sec
Cyclic strength degradation

Michael Scott, PEER, 2003; FEMA 440
117
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: Cyclic Degradation
Modes of Degradation in Hysteretic Response (NIST Tech Brief #4)

31
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: Backbone Curves

Backbone Curves for Alternative Model Types (after PEER TBI & ATC 72-1)
Option 1 (best):
Cyclic and in-cycle degradation explicitly modeled
during analysis; backbone curve hardens/softens as a
function of damage (e.g., Ibarra-Krawinkler)
Options 2-3:
Post-peak capping and cyclic degradation modeled
with fixed backbone curve that remains fixed during
analysis; backbone curve is defined based on
measured (data) or assumed cyclic softening (e.g.,
ASCE 41)
Option 4 (most limited):

Model captures cyclic degradation, but post-peak
softening is not modeled; an ultimate limit state is
imposed to avoid unconservative analyses in post-
peak realm.
32
118
Backbone Curves for Alternative Model Types (after PEER TBI & ATC 72-1)
Option 1 (best):
Cyclic and in-cycle degradation explicitly modeled
during analysis; backbone curve hardens/softens as a
function of damage (e.g., Ibarra-Krawinkler)
Options 2-3:
Post-peak capping and cyclic degradation modeled
with fixed backbone curve that remains fixed during
analysis; backbone curve is defined based on
measured (data) or assumed cyclic softening (e.g.,
ASCE 41)
Option 4 (most limited):

Model captures cyclic degradation, but post-peak
softening is not modeled; an ultimate limit state is
imposed to avoid unconservative analyses in post-
peak realm.
33
Generalized Component Response

• Response curves in ASCE 41 are essentially
the sa e as Optio -
– cyclic envelope fit to cyclic test data
– ASCE 41 (FEMA 273) originally envisioned for
static pushover analysis without any cyclic
deformation in the analysis
• Option 2-3/ASCE 41: reasonable for most

a al sis p og a s that t a k post peak i -
le deg adatio ut do ot si ulate
cyclic degradation of the backbone curve
• Post-Peak Response: dashed line connecting

points C-E in ASCE 41 response curve is
more reasonable representation of post-
peak (softening) response
ASCE 41 (and related models)

34
119
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: P-D Effects
Geometric Nonlinear (P-D) Effects
• Negative stiffness effect of P-D:
V
h
W = SPg
D
Kg = -W/h
• Increases internal forces associated with overturning:
V W
Mot=Vh + PD
• Key Points
– W should efle t the seis i ass that is ei g sta ilized the late al s ste
(not just the tributary gravity load)
– Li ea P-D fo ulatio s a u ate fo d ift atios up to a out -10%; for larger
d ifts, la ge otatio e.g., o- otatio al fo ulatio s should e used.
– P-D effects are can have large effect on post-peak degradation, even if they
appear negligible for the elastic structure.
Demand Parameters and Model Attributes: P-D Effects

Geometric Nonlinear (P-D) Effects
• Negative stiffness effect of P-D:
V
h
W = SPg
D
Kg = -W/h
• Increases internal forces associated with overturning:
V W
Mot=Vh + PD
• Key Points
Gravity Load Combination for NL Analysis (ASCE 7-10, Tall Building Guidelines):
1.0D + Lexp, where Lexp is 25% of the specified (unreduced) live load
(note – ASCE 41-06 applies a 1.1 multiplier to this load combination)
120
Outline
Modeling of Structural Components: Moment Frames
RC Moment Frames
• Primary Components
- beams, columns, beam-column joints
• Preferred Model: concentrated plasticity (hinge) type
• Resources
- ASCE 41, w/supplement 1 (2008)
- ATC 72-1 (2010)
- PEER RC Column Database (~400 tests)
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/
- Tall Building Guidelines (LATBSDC, PEER TBI)
• Status of Models
- considerable data on flexure-dominant beam-columns
with low to moderate axial load and beam-column joints
- more limited data on beams, columns with high shear
and/or axial load, splices
- uniaxial hinges – well developed hysteretic models that
account for degradation
- P-M hinges – basic models available but with limited
hysteretic degradation capabilities
38
121
Example: Member Parameters for RC Beam-Columns
Key Parameters:
• strength
• initial stiffness
• post-yield stiffness
• plastic rotation (capping) capacity
• post-capping slope
• cyclic deterioration rate
Calibration Process:
• 250+ columns (PEER database)
• flexure & flexure-shear dominant
• calibrated to expected values
Demand Parameter Output: hinge rotation
1.5
KEY ASSUMPTION: bond slip is incorporated in the
beam-column model parameters
Moment (M/My)
0.5
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Chord Rotation (radian x 10-2)
39

Example: Hinge Parameters for RC Beam-Columns
Qcap
200
Experimental Results
Model Prediction
K-
150
100
50
Shear Force (kN)
-50 Test 19 (kN, mm, rad):
Ke = 3.1779e+007
Kinit = 7.4024e+007
as = 0.02
-100
ac = -0.04 (ND = 1)
y = 0.0091
cap,pl = 0.069 (LB = 1)
u,mono,pl = 0.116 (LB = 1)
-150
 = 85, c = 1.20
isPDeltaRemoved = 1
-200
-100 -50 0 50 100 150
Column Top Horizontal Deflection (mm)
Semi-Empirical -- calibrated from Empirical - calibrated from tests:

tests, fiber analyses, and basic
mechanics: • Capping (peak) point
• Secant Stiffness (EIeff) • Post-peak unloading (strain

softening) stiffness
• Yield Strength (My)
• Hysteretic stiffness/strength
• Hardening Stiffness degradation
Dispersion ~0.1 to 0.3 Dispersion ~0.6 to 0.8
40
122
120
Kstf Ky
P/Po 0.1 0.3 0.6
100
Fy 0.4Py (EI/EIg) 0.30 0.60 0.80
80
Force (kN)
60 Py (EI/EIg) 0.20 0.35 0.60

40
0.4Fy
20
s(ln) = 0.36
θstf_40 θy
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
Chord Rotation (rad)
0.01 0.012 0.014
Haselton, et al. (2007)
P/Po 0.1 0.3 0.5

Py (EI/EIg) 0.30 0.50 0.70
ASCE 41 – 2008 Supplement

s(ln) = 0.35 (Elwood et al., 2007)
41

Example: Calibration of Capping Rotation of RC Beam-Columns
Median:
Key Design/Detailing Variables:

rsh – amount of steel stirrups
n – axial load ratio (P/Ag f’c)
asl – joint bond slip
sn – tie spacing
Qcap
Dispersion:
Ref: Haselton et al. (2007); ATC 72-1 (2010) 42
123
Example: Post Peak Degradation RC Beam-Columns
0.6 f’c Ag
P
M
0.15 f’c Ag
Key Parameter: P/Pbalance
Ref: Sezen and Moehle

43
 pc  (0.76)(0.031)v (0.02  40rsh )1.02  0.10
Haselton, et al. (2008)
124
ATC 72-1 (2010)

Haselton (2008)
ASCE 41-S (2008)
Column Spring
Beam Spring
Joint Panel Spring
RC Beam-Column Joints Component Springs Joint Kinematics
Recommended rigid end zone offsets for RC joints, based on relative column
and beam strengths (Elwood et al., 2007; ASCE 41-13).
46
125
Modeling of Structural Components: Steel Moment Frames
Steel Moment Frames

- beams, columns, joint panel zone
• Preferred Model: concentrated plasticity (hinge) type
• Resources
- ASCE 41-13
- ATC 72-1 (2010)
- FEMA D, “tate of A t ‘epo t o Co e tio
Pe fo a e
- NIST Tech Brief #2 – Steel Moment Frames
- considerable data on beams and beam-column joints
- more limited data on columns, particularly ones where
torsional-flexural buckling is possible
- uniaxial hinges – well developed hysteretic models that
account for degradation
- P-M hinges – basic models available but with limited
hysteretic degradation capabilities
47
Modeling of Structural Components: Steel Moment Frames

Things to be mindful of:
Inelastic Response of Deep Columns (higher L/ry):
Stocky W14 Column Deep W27 Column

Ref: Uang, UCSD
Response of Pre-Northridge Frames:
• Fracture to beam-column
connections and column splices
• Weak columns and panel zones –
tendency for story mechanisms
• ATC 58 Fragility Models & ASCE 41
Ref: Lee et al., U.Mich. 48
126
Modeling of Structural Components: RC Shear Walls
RC Shear Walls
- slender walls, squat walls, coupling beams
• Preferred Model: fiber wall panels, or in limited cases,
lumped plasticity beam-column idealizations
• Resources
- ASCE 41-13
- ATC 72-1 (2010)
- Po ell, G., Detailed E a ple of a Tall “hea Wall
Buildi g usi g PE‘FO‘M D , C“I, Be kele , CA.
- reasonable confidence for modeling coupling beams and
slender shear walls with low axial stress
- less well-developed models for squat shear walls or
slender walls that are sensitive to compressive or shear
failures
- determination of strains are sensitive fiber-element
discretization and assumed gage length
49
Uniaxial concrete model – calibrated for

Acceptance Criteria? confinement (e.g., Orakcal and Wallace
ASCE 41: 2004, Mander et al. 1988)
euc < 0.002
ec < 0.005
es,c< 0.02
es,t< 0.05
Gage length for strain?

(e = d/L)
Uniaxial steel model (e.g., Menegotto-
Pinto, from Wallace et al. 2014)
Lp - Plastic Hinge Length:
1/2 wall or pier length < story height
50
127
Model Sensitivity in RC Shear Walls
• calculated strains are sensitive to

fiber-element discretization and gage
length
Note – recommended to discretize
hinge length by one element.
Rectangular wall specimen
• influence of large inelastic cyclic
(tensile-compressive) loading on the
compressive response of wall
boundary members
Note - compressive strain at 2% drift
is on the order of 0.015.
T-shaped wall specimen
Tests and analyses by Wallace (ATC 72-1) 51
RC Shear Walls – Curvature Demand versus Model Idealization
52
128
Shear wall strength check: Vu < 1.5 Vn,exp (or 1.5f Vn,exp)
• Vexp can be larger (up to 1.5x) value calculated per ACI-318

• Vexp depends on flexural ductility demand
Wallace et al. (2013) 53
Phenomenological Models with Degradation
Wallace et al. (2014)
Inelastic Rotation & Shear Hinges Multi-axial Fiber Struts
Ongoing research to develop models to simulate coupled axial-flexural-shear

effects. In the meantime, careful consideration of shear and flexure limit
states (acceptance criteria)
54
129
Modeling of Structural Components: Braced Frames
Steel Braced Frames (SCBF)
• Primary Components: steel braces, steel frame
• Preferred Model: fiber beam-column with geometric
imperfection to simulate buckling
• Resources
- ASCE 41-13
- NIST Tech Brief #8 – Seismic Design of Steel SCBF Systems
- Fell, et al. (2006), Buckling and Fracture of Concentric Braces
Under Inelastic Cyclic Loading, Steel Tips, Structural Steel
Education Council.
- U iz, P., Mahi , “.A. 8 , To a d Ea th uake-Resistant
Design of Concentrically Braced Steel-F a e “t u tu es, PEER
Report 2008/08.
- when calibrated with appropriate imperfections, fiber
beam-column can simulate overall brace buckling
under cyclic loads
- maximum drifts and/or brace deformations should be
L/10 L/20
limited unless local buckling and fracture is considered
in the model
- Ongoing research to use continuum finite element
L/2 L/2 with fundamental 3D stress-strain fracture criteria 55
FEM Simulation of Overall & Local Buckling

HSS4x4x1/4 Standard Loading History
300
Experiment
200 Model
Force (k)
100 .
-100
.
-200
-2 -1 0 1 2
Axial Displacement (in)
56
130
Fundamental (micro)modeling of fracture
critical e critical
 R p
sm
ln 
 R0  monotonic
C 
0
exp(1.5
se
).de p
Micro-mechanics based models
fracture
Node 1
Node 2
Local Fracture Criterion Large Scale Validation
57

Buckling Restrained Braced (BRB) Frame
• Primary Components: steel B‘B s, steel f a e
• Preferred Model: uniaxial model to capture steel core
yielding and strain hardening
• Resources
- ASCE 41-13
- ANSI/AISC 341-10 – App. K Cyclic Qualification Testing Provisions
- BRB --- relatively easy to model, well developed
- Models to simulate connection failures (e.g., fracture and
degradation in gusset plates) are less well developed.
Require limits on hinge rotations (or through story drifts)
- NL analysis offers economy through more realistic
determination of column force demands
REF: ARUP and Star Seismic Inc. 58
131
Modeling of Structural Components: Response Modification Devices
Response Modification Devices
[c]i
- Energy dissipaters (viscous or hysteretic dampers)
- Seismic isolators
• Preferred Model: uniaxial models that employ the

appropriate hysteretic rule (or combination of rules)
• Resources
- ASCE 7-10 (Chp. 17 and 18)
- ASCE 41(Chp. 9)
- Idealized hysteretic spring models are generally
available that can be calibrated to data available
from manufacturers of response modification
devices
59
Outline
132
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
Nonlinear Dynamic (Response History) Analysis

Additional Considerations:
• Definition of Input Ground Motions
- Selection of Ground Motions
- Scaling, spectral matching, or simulation of Ground Motions
- Soil-Structure Interaction (?)
• Hysteretic Models and Parameters
- monotonic vs. cyclic skeleton curve
- capabilities to simulate deterioration
• Modeling of Inertial Mass
• Specification of Viscous Damping unmodeled energy dissipation
• Data Processing and Statistics
- ea s. ea + sig a de a ds
- a epta e ite ia: desig , o i al o e pe ted alues
61
Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis: Damping

Viscous Damping with Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
M x C x K x  -M xg  P

Raleigh (proportional) Damping:
a 1 b
C   a M  b K  ; n   n
2 n 2
Modal Damping:
c1 
C    T ( -1)
 c2   ( -1)
 ...

Explicit Damping Elements
C    ci [c]i
[c]i configured to represent likely

sources of viscous and other
incidental damping.
133
Viscous Damping with NLTH Analysis
Elastic Response
Definition: reduction in dynamic building response =0
due to energy dissipation of structural and  = 2%
 = 5%
nonstructural components of the building, its  = 30%
foundation, and the underlying soil/rock materials  = 10%
Inelastic Response
1 T/Tp
Complicating Factors: The interpretation and representation of damping is
complicated by –
– relationship of mathematical representation of damping to the physical
sources of damping, e.g.,
(1) artificial distinctions between energy dissipation of structural components that is
modeled by nonlinear hysteretic response versus equivalent viscous damping,
(2) modification of input motions to account for reduction in response due to SSI effects
– amplitude dependency (displacement, velocity, acceleration) of damping
effects and its effect on building performance for different overall
intensity of building response, and (b) different effects for alternative
vibration modes.
Physical Sources of Damping

– SUPERSTRUCTURE – STRUCTURAL:
• Primary Structural Components whose nonlinear behavior may be explicitly modeled
in the analysis (e.g., walls, beams, columns, beam-column joints)
• “e o da “t u tu al Co po e ts that o t i ute to espo se ut hose e e g
absorbing characteristics may not be modeled explicitly (e.g., energy dissipation
provided gravity framing, deformations to floor slab at slab-wall connections, etc).
– SUPERSTRUCTURE – NON“T‘UCTU‘AL
• Exterior Cladding – a likely source of considerable damping, depending on the
material, method of attachment, expansion joints.
• Interior Wall Partitions and Finishes (issues – materials, method of attachment of
finishes to structural walls/braces/columns, method of attachment of partitions to
sla s, de sit of pa titio s – i.e., open office versus partitioned residential)
• Mech/Electrical - piping, electrical conduit, HVAC risers, elevator rails and cables,
stairs, etc.
- SUBSTRUCTURE – FOUNDATION & SITE

– Energy dissipation at soil-foundation interface (e.g, soil yielding and gapping)) and in
surrounding soil deforms due to building motion
134
Recorded Strong Motion Data (US)
18
16
14
% Damping 12
10
8 Longitudinal
6 Transverse
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Number of Stories
REF: Chopra/Goel
Observations:
1. Measured damping in the range of 2% to 8% of critical
2. Effective damping seems to decrease with increasing buidling height
3. Difficult (impossible) to distinguish hysteretic and viscous damping
Measured Wind-Induced Damping
• Fair number of tall building measurements that demonstrate amplitude dependence of

damping. However, measured response is limited to very low acceleration and
displacement amplitudes with correspondingly small damping values.
• The plot above is a typical example, where damping during wind events is typically around
0.5% to 1% of critical.
135
Recommendations for Damping
• Assume that energy dissipation at large deformations is primarily

accounted for by hysteretic response
• Raleigh or modal damping is usually expressed as a percentage of critical

da pi g fo fi st fe odes to efle t othe sou es of u - odeled
energy dissipation:
– SAC Joint Venture (1995): 2%
– FEMA P695 (2007): 5%
– Tall Buildings – PEER TBI (2010) and LATBSDC (2011): 2.5%
– CTBUH: 1 to 2% for buildings taller than 50 meters
• Suggested values:
– 1% to 3%, depending on building height, structural and architectural
materials, and shaking amplitude (service EQ versus MCE)
– specify critical damping in first few modes (~0.2T to 1.5T)
– be aware how analysis software implements damping (check sensitivity
of results to specified damping)
Outline
136
Software Considerations
Analysis Software Attributes

• Modeling and Preprocessing
• Nonlinear Capabilities
– Geometric Nonlinear
– Material Nonlinear
• Element Library
– concentrated hinge --- fiber --- continuum
• Solution Algorithms
• Post-Processing
– Statistics from multiple ground motions
Software Considerations
Commonly Used Software
• CSI – Perform3D
• LS-DYNA (w/Oasys Suite Pre/Post Processing)
• CSI – SAP (& ETABS)
• LARSA 4D Structure
• ABAQUS
• OpenSees (research oriented)
137
Nonlinear Analysis – Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance in Nonlinear Response History Analysis
– Basic Checks of Analysis Model and Ground Motions
• Elastic modes, masses, effective masses, etc.
• Generate elastic (displacement) spectra of the input ground motions
• Perform elastic response spectra and elastic dynamic analyses
– Nonlinear Static Analysis
• Check response against elastic analysis and/or inelastic strength limits
• Equilibrium checks of selected components
• Perform model sensitivity analyses
– Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
• Check response against elastic analysis and/or inelastic strength limits
• Plot hysteresis responses of selected components
• Perform model sensitivity analyses
Above all:
1. Know the capabilities and limitations of the software
2. Use capacity design to control response
3. Exercise good judgment!
71
Thank you…
138
Design of Transbay Tower
in San Francisco, California

Ron Klemencic, P.E., S.E.

John Hooper, P.E., S.E.
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
139
John Hooper

John Hooper is a Senior Principal and the Director of Earthquake Engineering at
Magnusson Klemencic Associates, a consulting structural and civil engineering firm in
Seattle, Washington. He received his Bachelor of Civil Engineering from Seattle
University and a Master of Science from the University of California at Berkeley.
John has over 30 years of engineering experience in the fields of renovation, seismic
engineering, earthquake engineering, and structural analysis. He is Chair of the
American Society of Civil Engineer (ASCE 7’s) Seismic Subcommittee and is a member
of the Main Committee, member of the NEHRP Advisory Committee on Earthquake
Hazards Reduction (ACEHR), and a member of the Building Seismic Safety Council
(BSSC) NEHRP Provisions Update Committee.
John has been involved in the majority of MKA’s Performance-Based Seismic high-rise
designs over the past 15 years and has been part of the Project Technical Committee
responsible for developing the FEMA P-58 Seismic Performance Assessment of
Buildings Methodology.
140
Design of Transbay Tower
in San Francisco, California

Ron Klemencic, P.E., S.E.

John Hooper, P.E., S.E.
Magnusson Klemencic Associates
High-Rise Structural System Options
141
142
Floor Plan Layout
Tower and Core Wall Isometric
143
One Rincon—San Francisco
Project Overview
• San Francisco, California
• Mission Street between First and Fremont
144
Project Overview
• 1,070 feet tall
• 901 feet to top occupied floor
• Office occupancy, with
occupant load > 5,000
• Occupancy (Risk) Category III
• Permitted under 2010
San Francisco Building Code,
including AB-083
• Adjacent to new Transbay
Transit Center
Project Overview
145
Structural Systems
• Gravity: Structural steel columns and floor framing
supporting composite deck
• Lateral: Special reinforced concrete shear walls
– North cell stops at Level 50

Lx,base = 83 ft
– Walls 48” to 24” thick
Ly,base = 89 ft
– h/Lx = 12.9
– h/Ly = 12.0
Earthquake Ground Motion

• Recommended ground motions developed by Arup
North America, Ltd.
• Design response spectra for SLE & DBE
• Acceleration histories for MCER
• Motions developed for two conditions

– at-grade (vs = 215 m/s)
– at-foundation (vs = 259 m/s)
• Design based on at-foundation motions
146
Design Response Spectra
• SLE – Service Level Earthquake

– 50% probability of exceedance in 30 years
– 43 year mean recurrence interval
– 2.5% of critical damping
• DBE – Design Basis Earthquake

– 2/3 of MCER
– ~500 year mean recurrence interval
– 5% of critical damping
Design Response Spectra
147
Acceleration Histories for MCE
• Identify fundamental structural modes (~6.3s) and period
range of interest (1.2s to 9.5s)
• Deaggregate MCER hazard to identify dominant sources
at various periods
• Select two conditioning periods (7.5s & 0.75s) around
which conditional mean spectra have an envelope ≥
75%MCE for extended period range of interest (0.6s to
10s)
• Perform probabilistic and deterministic seismic hazard
analyses to establish target rock spectra for each
scenario
Conditional Mean Spectra
148
Acceleration Histories for MCE
• Select, scale, and match 11 bi-directional seed motions
(at rock) for each scenario
• Long-period conditioned motions:
– address T = 4s to 10s
– 8 of 11 motions include pulse effects with pulse periods, Tp =
5.1s to 9.4s
– 2 of 11 motions are relatively long duration
• Short-period conditioned motions:
– address T = 1s to 4s
– 2 of 11 motions include pulse effects with Tp = 1.5s to 2s (near
second mode)
Site Response Analysis

• 3-dimensional, nonlinear analysis (LS-DYNA)
• Includes kinematic soil-structure interaction
modified
free field
149
Kinematic Soil-Structure Interaction
• Base slab averaging: Spatial incoherence

• Embedment: Vertical incoherence
SSI: Base Slab Averaging
base slab averaging

• Spatial incoherence
• Reduces effective “average”
accelerations at high
frequency (low T )
150
SSI: Embedment
embedment
• Motions smaller at depth

• Vertical incoherence
Code Floor for Site-Specific Motions

• Scale motions to satisfy free-field limits
151
Floor Including Kinematic SSI
• Scale motions to satisfy adjusted limits
Orientation of Applied Ground Motions
• Select orientation (0 or 90 degrees) of individual two-

component motions such that the averages of spectra for
components in each direction closely match the average
of all single components, to minimize directional bias.
• Pulse-like motions in each direction (if used)
– are equal in number
– have at least one pulse period less than and one pulse period
greater than fundamental translational mode in that direction
• Suites applied in each direction reasonably bound mean
152
• Minimize directional bias

• Reasonably bound mean
153
Elastic Dynamic Response
• Nearly bi-symmetric response
• First two modes dominate
Lateral Loads (Wind and Seismic)

• System proportioned for SLE, Wind, DBE
– DBE controls, but wind overturning is close
• Performance assessed for MCE
– Global demands for MCE are about twice DBE
154
Occupancy / Risk Category III
• Since the occupant load exceeds 5,000, assigned to

Occupancy Category III
• Structural integrity requirements of IBC Section 1614
apply; for steel frame structures affects:
– column splices
– beam and girder end connections
• Prescriptive design requirements include importance
factors greater than 1.0
– Ie = 1.25, Iw = 1.15, Is = 1.10
Occupancy / Risk Category III
• The objective for OC III (per SFBC Table 1604.5, IBC

commentary, and ASCE 7-10 commentary) is to reduce
the “hazard to human life in the event of failure,” which is
most closely related to collapse prevention given MCE
shaking
• Prescriptive design addresses this implicitly

– requires additional strength (Ie = 1.25)
– reduces permitted drift (Da = 0.015hsx)
155
Occupancy / Risk Category III – PBD
• Implicit performance modifications for DBE

– Provide additional strength
– Reduce permitted story drift
• Explicit performance modifications for MCE
– Reduce permitted story drift
– Reduce permitted coupling beam rotation
– Reduce permitted tensile/compressive strains in shear walls
– Establish design shear strength of shear walls considering lower
probability of collapse
Yielding Hierarchy
• Select primary lateral system fuses; design and detail

for ductile behavior; favor distributed yielding
– Shear wall coupling beams
– Shear wall flexural reinforcement
• Design the rest of the lateral load path to remain
essentially elastic
– Shear wall shear; diaphragms and collectors
– Foundations; columns; basement walls
• Design gravity floor framing thus:
– Essentially elastic for SLE
– Life Safety performance for MCE
156
Results – Story Drift
Results – Core Shear & Moment
157
158
Results – Shear Wall Strain
159
Foundation System
• Mat supported by 42 rectangular deep foundation
elements (barrettes)
– 5’×10’-6” barrettes
– 185’ to 230’ long
5 ft mat
– socketed into rock: (transition)
10’ at perimeter;
25’ to 55’ at core
14 ft mat
– installed from grade,
55’ above future mat
– MCE demand up to:
22,000 kips comp
6,500 kips tension
Foundation Demands
• Consider bi-directional
demands from core
– MCE average for
barrettes and mat
flexure
– 1.5×MCE average for
mat shear
160
Barrette Design and Detailing
current grade
Fully confined hinge

bottom of mat zone at fixed head
Compression, tension;
shear and flexure from
inertial interaction
Compression; flexure
top of rock from kinematic
interaction
Structure-Soil-Structure Interaction
• Performed by Arup North America
161
SSSI Model: Level of Detail
SSSI: Assess Super- and Sub-Structure
162
SSSI: Diaphragm Interaction (Transverse)
SSSI: Diaphragm Interaction
163
Tower Top Design
• Central BMU support mast
• Perimeter braced frames
• Spokes and ring trusses
Tower Top Design

• Treated as 155-ft-tall nonstructural component
• Designed per ASCE 7-05 Chapters 13 & 15
• Ordinary steel concentrically braced frame
– ap = 2.5, Rp = 2.5, W0 = 2.0, Cd = 2.5
• Acceleration from elastic DBE modal analysis
– ai = 0.62g
• Importance factor for Occupancy Category III
– Ip = 1.25
164
Tower Top Design Acceleration
 z
Basic code equation (Eq. 13.3-1) 0.4a p S DS 1  2 
 h
DBE modal analysis (Eq. 13.3-4) ai a p Ax
2 a
3 MCE , avg
Code minimum (Eq. 13.3-3) 0.3S DS
Thank You!
Questions??
165
166
Wilshire Grand Tower
Los Angeles

Leonard Martin Joseph, SE

Thornton Tomasetti, Inc.
167
Leonard M. Joseph
In the past 39 years Mr. Joseph has analyzed, designed and reviewed projects across the US and
around the world that reflect international and local construction practices and criteria including
seismic, wind and other environmental hazards Projects have included tall buildings such as the
Petronas Towers, sports facilities such as AT&T Park, hangars, hotels, historic buildings,
factories and parking decks. Structural systems have included steel, reinforced concrete, precast
and post-tensioned concrete, masonry, wood and light gage framing. With a BS from Cornell and
MS and MBA degrees from Stanford, Mr. Joseph has been active in technical development and
teaching, He also lectures and writes articles and books on structural design for both technical
and general audiences.

168
Wilshire Grand Tower
Los Angeles

Leonard Martin Joseph, SE

Thornton Tomasetti, Inc.
Project Participants
• Owner Hanjin /Korean Air
• Architect A C Martin Partners
• Structural Engineer of Record Brandow & Johnston
• High Rise Consulting Engineer Thornton Tomasetti
• Geotechnical Consultant AMEC
• Project Manager Martin Project Management
• General Contractor Turner Construction Co.
• Peer Review Panel Jim Malley

Jack Moehle
Stephen Mahin
Paul Somerville
169
Why This Design?
• Program
• Behavior
• Strength
• Constructability
Architectural Concept in Context
170
Architectural Concept in Context
Design Reflects Programming

• 900 Hotel Rooms
• 400,00 sf Offices
• Parking
171
Design Reflects Programming
• 900 Hotel Rooms
• 400,00 sf Offices
• Parking
Separated Tower and Podium
172
Stacked Programming
Hotel Function Drives Plans
173
Outriggers for Slender Core
Outriggers for Slender Core

• Triples effective width from 38 ft
• 2.5 factor on transverse stiffness
• 1st mode period 11 sec to 7 sec
• Core length 128 ft OK on its own
174
Belt Trusses
• At low and top outrigger levels
• Engage all perimeter columns
– Column shortening strains
– Column overturning strains
– Stiffness of non-OR columns
• Expressed by glazing
– Architectural feature
Initial Design Steps

• Walls, columns sized for wind drift
– stiff outriggers
• Rebar minimum for wind strength
175
Wind Loading and Comfort
• Strength level wind
– 1700 year Mean Recurrence Interval
– Importance factor from high occupancy
– 115 mph (code) 3s gust at 33’
– Compare to LRFD capacities
• Comfort level wind

– 10 year MRI
– 63 mph 3s gust at 33’ open terrain
– Damping 1.5% of critical
– Less than 15 milli-g peak acceleration
– Meets residential (strict) comfort criteria
Seismic Hazard
• Bullet point
– Second level
• Third level
– Fourth level
» Fifth level
176
Project Parameters
• Occupancy Category: III
– >5000 persons (IBC 2006)
• Vs30 = 1640 ft/sec

– Site Class: C (between 1200 ft/sec & 2500 ft/sec)
– Soft Rock
• Seismic Parameters
– Seismic Design Category: D
– Sds = 1.41 g , Sd1 = 0.62 g
• San Francisco downtown: Sds = 1.0 g , Sd1 = 0.52 g
PBD Parameters
• Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE)
– Smaller of
• 2% probability of being exceeded
in 50 years
• Deterministic earthquake
– At least deterministic lower limit
• Serviceability Earthquake (SLE)

– 50% probability of being exceeded
in 30 years
– 43 year return period
177
Initial Design Steps
• Estimate NRHA demand
• Try midway between elastic MCE and Code

– RSA for MCE
• MCE spectrum 2% damped (tall tower)
– RSA for Code (ASCE7) spectrum
• R = 6, IE = 1.25
• Cs = 0.075 g lower bounds (Eq. 12.8-5 & 12.8-6)
• SLE run but OK by inspection
Damping Effect on MCE
178
MCE Fault Normal or Parallel
Comparing MCE, SLE, Code Demands
179
BRBs at Outriggers
• Cap forces in
– Columns
– Shear wall ‘panel zone’
– Connections
– Mat foundation
• Allow long unbraced lengths
– Efficient angles
– Dramatic architecture
Hotel Lobby at Floor 70
180
Low Outrigger
4 X 2200 kips each = 8800 kips / location

Middle Outriggers
800 kips each

181
Top Outrigger
2200 kips each

Analysis Parameters
• MCE
– Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NRHA)
– 2% damped
– 11 Ground motion pairs: AK, CA, Iran, Taiwan, Turkey
– 6 FN & 5 FP oriented NS
– 5 FP & 6 FN oriented EW
• SLE
– RSA
– 2% damped
182
NRHA Models
• Element modeling
– Walls fiber model flexure, elastic shear
– Coupling beams as shear links, most stories similar
– Outrigger diagonals bilinear
– Filled columns bilinear or fiber
• Run example time history, review displacements
• Adjust model for behavior

– ‘Phantom’ openings, trapezoidal openings
– Wall thickness variations
‘Phantom’ Openings
183
Phantom Openings Improve Story Drift
Trapezoidal Openings
South
Elevation
North
Elevation TRAPEZOIDAL
OPENINGS FOR
TRANSITIONS
184
Mat Bearing 50%X + 100%Y
58 ksf < 75 ksf
Mat Flexural Reinforcing

#11 Gr 75 @ 12”
EA WAY x2
#18 Gr 75 @ 15”
NS x7, EW x6
TYPE 2 COUPLERS
185
Mat Shear Reinforcing
RED HATCHED AREA: SHEAR REINFORCEMENT,

HEADED BARS #9 @12” EA WAY (AS IF STUD RAILS)
Buried ‘Starter Columns’
186
Tower/Basement Interaction
• Stiffness from ‘unit load’ studies
187
• ‘Dummy frames’ provide stiffness
NRHA Models
• Models foundation condition ranges
– Stand alone, rigid base
– Within basement box, rigid base
– Within basement box, spring base
188
Bracketing Possible Interactions
Base Shear Comparisons
189
Periods for Base Shears
T1 = 6.5 sec
North
T2 = 3.5 sec
190
191
192
Base Moment Comparisons
193
194
Different Demands
• Mean of MCE: Ductile beam rotations
BRB displacements
• 1.2 x mean of MCE (or mean + 1.3 x std dev):

Mat flexure
• Mean of 1.5 MCE: Wall panel zone shear

Column interactions
• 1.5 x mean of MCE: Wall shear

Mat shear
195
Displacement-Based Acceptance
• Mean MCE demands from NRHA for
– Story drifts
– Overall drift
– Wall axial strains
– Beam plastic rotations
– BRB axial strains
Mean MCE Story Drifts
1.2% << 3% LIMIT OK
0.6% OK
196
Mean MCE Wall Strains
OUTRIGGER
OUTRIGGER
STEEL
YIELD
OUTRIGGER
STEEL
YIELD
<< 0.003 OK
BASEMENT
MCE Beam Plastic Rotations

BELT
MEAN MEAN 84TH %
BELT
LIFE COLLAPSE
SAFETY PREVENTION
197
Mean MCE BRB Ductility Demands
LOW OUTRIGGERS MIDDLE OUTRIGGERS TOP OUTRIGGERS
Force-Based Acceptance
• 1.5 x mean MCE demands
– Wall shear except at panel zone
• Mean of 1.5 MCE demands (NRHA at 1.5 MCE)

– Wall shear at panel zone
– Column axial + moment
– Sail and spire
198
1.5 x MCE Wall Shear
1.5 MCE Column Interaction

BELT
BELT
199
Steel Box Column Demands
CJP or PJP Column Splices
Studies by
Dr. Amit Kanvinde, UC Davis
200
“Belts and Braces”
Schuff study model

Complex Joint Details
Schuff study model

201
Belt Demands at 1.5 MCE
D/C
0.7
0.0
D/C
0.7
0.0
Belt Demands at 1.5 Tabas MCE

0.4 STIFF DIAPH
D/C
0.0
FLEX DIAPH
0.4 STIFF DIAPH
D/C
0.0 CHORDS W14 X 311 (342 CURVES SHOWN)
FLEX DIAPH
202
BRB Connections
C T
T C
For Low BRB Connections
Tmax = 1.08 As Fy
Cmax = 1.14 As Fy
203
Diaphragm Accelerations
Sail and Spire

• NRHA spectra from top floor at 830’
• Trial 5% damped RSA
• Whiplash effect
4.5 to 6 g spectra
about 4 g reactions
• Ductility impractical, requires
excessive deformations
• Similar D/C ratios for linear RSA
and 1.5 MCE NRHA
204
Last Design Steps
• Construction staging for BRB timing effects
– ‘Squish’ stories, jack BRBs
• Long-term shortening effects
– ‘Squash’ stories between BRB levels
– Evaluate effect on MCE behaviors
Differential Shortening
• Outriggers enforce shortening
compatibility at core and columns
• Spare strength for service level

demands
• Simulated in ETABS by ‘chilled

core’
• Simulated in Nonlinear Response

History Analysis by ‘squashing
stories’
205
Conclusions
• Base first NRHA runs on demands greater
than ‘code’ but less than elastic MCE
spectrum
• The structure tells you what it needs;

it may not be what you expect
• PBD Guidelines are very useful but cannot

address all possible situations – judgment
is still required
206
Case Study 2:
Steel Plate Building Design

Nabih Youssef, S.E.

Nabih Youssef & Associates
207
Nabih Youssef

Mr. Youssef founded the firm, Nabih Youssef Structural Engineers, an internationally
recognized structural engineering firm with offices in Los Angeles, Irvine, and San
Francisco, in 1989. Some of Nabih Youssef Structural Engineers’ projects include: LA
Live Hotel and Residences, The Broad Museum, the Long Beach Courthouse, Our Lady
of the Angels Cathedral, LA City Hall Seismic Retrofit, LA Coliseum Seismic Retrofit,
The Getty Villa Museum, and The New Stanford Hospital with triple friction pendulum
base isolation. Nabih was the recipient of the 2013 SEAOC Fellowship, the 2010 AISC
Designer Special Achievement Award for LA Live, and the 2008 AIA Los Angeles
Chapter Presidential Award for Professional Achievement. Mr. Youssef chaired the
Seismic Safety Committee for the Governor’s California Building Standards
Commission, was selected to serve on the Peer Review Board for the State Seismic
Program, has written numerous technical papers, and taught classes at multiple
Universities. Nabih’s dedication to his work and respect for others are leading aspects of
his character.
208
Case Study 2:
Steel Plate Building Design

Nabih Youssef, S.E.

Nabih Youssef & Associates
LA Live Project
209
Outline
I. Project Description
II. Integrated Site
III. Architecture and Structure
IV. Structural Concept
V. Research to Practice
VI. Performance Based Design
VII. Behavior and Performance
VIII. Collaboration
IX. Construction Highlights
X. Goals and Achievements
I. Project Description
• 55 Residential Stories
– 26 Story Low-rise portion (Hotel rooms)
– 29 Stories of condominiums above
• 1.2 Million Sq. Ft.
• Tapered/Slender profile
210
II. Integrated Site
-Phased Construction
Phase 3: Truck Tunnel
Phase 2: Car Tunnel

Phase 1: Fire Lane
III. Architecture & Structure

-Challenges and Opportunities
Variable Floor
Concrete vs Steel?
Upper Tower
Pool Deck
Lower Tower
Podium
211
• Narrow Aspect ratio (20:1)

– Outriggers (10:1)
650’
70’ 35’


• Clear-Height over living spaces
– Long Spanning Deck
• Transitioning floor areas
– Sloping Columns
212

– Sloping Columns
• Dispersed Elevator Core
– Single Wall Panels (SPSW vs
Concrete Core)


– Sloping Columns
• Dispersed Elevator Core
Concrete Core)
• T-shape floor plate
– Tuned Stiffness at wings
213

• Transitioning floor areas Upper Tower
– Sloping Columns
• Dispersed Elevator Core Pool Deck
Concrete Core)
Lower Tower
• T-shape floor plate
– Tuned Stiffness at wings
• Low/High Tower transition
– Extensive Analysis!
Podium
IV. Structural Concept for Steel Plate Shear Walls
• An integration of a “First Order Fit”…that

maximizes program efficiency and seismic
performance
• Inspired by the light, smooth and elegant

form… and challenged by critical program
needs… against the height limit
• The continuity of the vertical cores became the

natural spine… with 3/8” thin plate walls… in
lieu of 36” concrete shear walls
• The yielding mechanism of the thin plates is

integrated with the BRB’s at critical locations
providing optimum building response (wind and
earthquake).
214
Steel Plates
Roof BRB Outrigger
Mid-height BRB Outrigger

-Steel Plate Shear Wall
Vertical
Boundary
Element (VBE)
1/4” to 3/8” Plate
Horizontal Boundary
Element (HBE)
STEEL PLATE SHEAR WALL

Boundary elements (HBE and VBE) are designed to allow the web plates to develop
significant diagonal tension and reach their expected yield stress across the entire panel to
dissipate the seismic energy
215
-Wall Profiles

-Outrigger
• Intended to control drift (improve system aspect ratio)

• Sizes governed by wind (elastic response)
• Strain-based Overstrength
• Capacity protected elements
• Nonlinear Modeling
– External Parametric Studies
Rotational capacity of Members directly influenced by BRBs are

beams checked directly externally analyzed using capacity based
in nonlinear model design methods.
BRB BRB
Figure 7-Overview of midheight longitudinal outrigger truss strategy
216
V. A Brief History from Research to Practice
-Steel Plate Shear Wall (SPSW): Background
Ships
Battleship 1952

Ships Stiffened
Plates
Stiffened Thick Steel Plate Wall:

-Plate Girder Analogy
Olive View Hospital
(1980’s) -Out-of-plane buckling = limit state
Hyatt Dallas
(1970’s)
217
1980’s
Ships Stiffened Research/
Plates Analysis
Research shows the beneficial

post-buckling strength of SPSW

1980’s
Ships Stiffened Research/
Plates Analysis
1980’s: Investigation into unstiffened thin steel wall behavior

• Analysis models with strip elements representing the unstiffened plates.
Research results:
• Excellent ductility
• Resistance to degradation under cyclic loading
• High initial stiffness
• Inherent redundancy with moment-resisting beam/column connections
Distributed yielding (energy dissipation) over height of wall.
218
1980’s 1990’s
Ships Stiffened Research/ Unstiffened
Plates Analysis Plates
1990’s: Un-Stiffened Thin Steel

Plate Wall:
-Tension Field Behavior
-Out-of-plane buckling = energy release
-Tension Field led to light, thin steel plates

1980’s 1990’s
Ships Stiffened Research/ Unstiffened Current Code
Plates Analysis Plates Implementation
2006
2001 2007
CBC CBC
Design Concept 2004-2005 Brief Bibliography:
Cyclic Test of Four-Story Steel Plate Shear Walls
--by Robert G. Driver and Geoffrey L. Kulak (1998)
FE and Simplified Models of Steel Plate Shear Wall
--by Robert G. Driver and Geoffrey L. Kulak (1998)
Steel Plate Shear Walls-An Overview
--by Geoffrey L. Kulak and D.J. Laurie Kennedy (2001)
Steel Plate Shear Walls
--by A. Astaneh-Asl (2000)
Plastic Analysis and Design of Steel Plate
--by Jeffrey Berman and Michel Bruneau (2003)
LACCH Hotel and Residence Tests and Analyses of Large Scale Steel Plates
(USA) --by KC Tsai, et al. (2006)
219
1980’s 1990’s
Ships Stiffened Research/ Unstiffened Current Code
Plates Analysis Plates Implementation
2006
2001 2007
CBC CBC
2006 341-05
Design
2005
DRAFT
Year
2005

-Steel Plate Shear Walls – 2 Basic Types
Stiffened Shear Walls Un-Stiffened Shear Walls

•Thick in-fill plates stiffened to •No compression capacity of
preclude shear buckling thin infill plates.
•Shear buckling prevented •Shear-buckling of in-fill plates
•Limited Tension-field •Predominately Tension-field
•Reduced energy dissipation •Increased Energy Dissipation
and usable strength. R = 3 and usable strength. R = 7
•AISC 360 Procedures for Plate •AISC 341-05 (Chapter 17)
Girders (Chapter G) SPSW
“Special Plate Shear Walls”
220
-Steel Plate Shear Walls – 2 Basic Types
Stiffened Shear Walls Un-Stiffened Shear Walls
SPSW

--Base Graphics from AISC Design Guide 20

-Steel Plate Shear Walls – Panel Behavior
Buckling of plate Frame Action
Tension Yielding of Plate Tension Yielding of Plate
Frame Action Buckling of Plate

Research shows the beneficial post-buckling
strength of SPSW
Pinched Hysteresis
(frame action and
plate yielding)
221
-Recent Publications
PEER ATC-72
LATBC AB-083
• Alternative Design Procedures was allowed by CBC 2001
• SPSW + Outrigger System - No prescriptive procedures
• Fully Embraced by LADBS
• Collaboration of Expertise – Value Added to Project
• Peer Review Panel:
- Professor Stephen Mahin, UC Berkeley - James Malley, S.E., Degekolb Engineers
- Professor Jack Moehle, UC Berkeley - Paul Somerville, URS (Seismologist)

-Criteria
Item Code Based Guidelines Performance Based Design Guidelines
Performance Based Design Procedure as allowed
ASCE 7 (2005) and AISC 360,
•
1. Standards by Section 16.29.10.1 of the 2002 City of Los
Achieve a level of 341
Angeles Building Code
safety at least 2. Ductility

R=8 for dual system or 7 for
single system under applicable
3-D nonlinear analysis explicitly modeling the post-
yield behavior of lateral force resisting elements
equivalent to code- Factor
height limits (per ASCE 7 (2005) including expected material overstrength.
based procedure Explicit modeling of P-Delta effects with post-yield

3. Drift Limits ASCE 7 Section 12.12 behavior included, with a generally accepted 3%
interstory cap at MCE level.
•
Dynamic Analysis of three different events of
Rational alternative 4. Minimum Base
Shear
ASCE 7 Section 12.8 and 12.9 varying occurrence: 43 yr, 475yr, and 2475 yr
returns.
process with global Full 3-D linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis
criteria equivalency 5. Story Force
Distribution
ASCE 7 Section 12.8 and 12.9 models with appropriate spatial distribution of
mass and stiffness explicitly modeled.
Bounding non-linear 3-D Analysis by varying

6. Redundancy
•
Per ASCE 7 Section 12.3.4.2 material properties along the height and footprint of
Explicit determination Factor
structure.
of structure Adjustment of demand levels from nonlinear
analysis through the use of standard deviations of
performance 7. Importance
Factor
ASCE 7 Table 1-1 the mean of max responses combined with or
without phi factors for capacity checks at a
component level.
All irregular geometry of seismic lateral system
• Does note completely 8. Structure
Irregularities
ASCE 7 (2005) Section 12.3 explicitly modeled and confirmed for displacement
acceptance
disregard code-based 9. Structural
ASCE 7 Requires dual system Effect of moment frame from HBE/VBE is explicitly
guidelines System
with special moment frame for
structure over 160ft.
accounted for within modeling, no height limits
enforced.
222
-Global Performance Objectives
• Acceptance: based upon global “target performance objective”
during seismic events of varying recurrence probability
Performance Performance Analysis
Design/Analysis Procedure Modeling
Level Objective Type
Immediate 1. Secondary serviceability check that uses a 50% exceedance in 30

Occupancy yr spectrum.
1. Steel plate modeled as shell
Level with minimal 2. Response Spectrum forces reduced by nominal effective
Linear elements, with rotation and
Frequent structural damage response modification factor of 1.5 to account for limited energy
Dynamic stiffness modifiers applied
(43 yr) that is repairable. dissipation.
Analysis
Possible 3. Strength Demands per LATBSDC Consensus Document (2005)
2. WUF-F moment connections
disruption of non- (D+.5L+E)
modeled as fully restrained
essential services. 4. Interstory Drift Limited to 2%
connections.
1. Site Specific response spectrum developed for 10% probability of
exceedance in 50 years. 3. 5% damping
Life Safety
2. Strength demands per load combinations of 2002 LABC CH. 16
Rare Moderate damage Linear 4. Multiple models enveloping
3. System overstrength will not be used (instead will be verified by
DBE to structure that Dynamic mass eccentricity/soil
MCE level)
(475 yr) may require Analysis interaction/base rigidity effects.
4. Capacity-based procedures used to design flexural and shear
extensive repairs
strength of the walls beyond plastic hinge region
5. Interstory Drift Limited to 2%
Collapse- 1. FEMA 356 used where
1. 7 time history pairs scaled to the MCE response spectrum
Prevention possible to develop back-bone
according to the methods contained in ASCE 7, Section 17.3.2 as
Extensive damage curves, at collapse prevention
recommended by the LATBC Consensus document(2005) Section
to the structure Nonlinear level
Very Rare 2.3.1.3. “Mean” or “mean+δ” demands applied depending on the
that may or may Time 2. Steel Plate strips modeled
MCE element.
not be History using strip method per AISC 341
(2475 yr) 2. Load Combination per LATBSDC Consensus Document (2005)
economically Analysis /Design Guide 20 Guidelines
(D+.5L+E)
feasible to repair. 3. Damping includes 5% modal
3. 5% accidental eccentricities not required
Collapse is plus a small amount of Raleigh
4. Interstory Drift Limited to 3%
prevented. stiffness proportional damping.

-Component Performance Criteria
Structural elements designed for ductile response (displacement based) are:
– The Steel Plate panels.

– Shear wall Horizontal Boundary Elements (HBE)
– Base of the shear wall Vertical Boundary Element (VBE)
– Buckling Restrained Brace (BRB) used in the outrigger trusses.
– Shear links over wall penetrations.
– Vierendel Outrigger moment connections
Structural elements designed to remain essentially elastic (force based) are:
– Vertical boundary elements (VBE) above the shear base of the wall
– Local Boundary Elements (LBE) around shear-openings.
– Gravity and Outrigger columns
– Diaphragms
– Basement walls
– Mat foundation
– Outrigger steel components beyond the BRB.
223
-Code Exceptions
• Examples of rationally verified deviations from code-based guidelines:
– Height limitations per structural system do not apply
– Ω= . e cept fo collecto s
– ρ= . fo f e uent y and a e 7 y events, calc’d pe code fo 7 y.
– Minimum base shear formulas do not apply, but Vmin limited to 0.025W.
– Period limits do not apply
– LABC Code-based drift limit of 0.02/T1/3 replaced with a limit of 0.03 at MCE
– Aspect ratio of shear wall panels may exceed the max limit of 2.5 due to
overall slender wall flexural behavior as verified by nonlinear analysis as
recommended per AISC 341.

-Streamlined Design & Peer Review Process
224
-NYA Collaboration with Researchers
Research Tests
Link Tests
(University of Texas)
(M. Englehardt)
(WUF-W)
Steel Plate Tests

(University of Alberta)
(R. Driver)
Composite Column Tests
(University of Washington)
(C. Roeder)
BRB Tests
(Star Seismic)

-From Research to Practice
Reduced Santa Ana Wind Effects

NYA Collaboration with Researchers
• EQ Ground Motions (Geopentech)
• Regional Climatic Studies (CPP)
Santa Ana Wind Effect
225
-Research Testing Calibration
• “Seismic Behaviour of Steel Plate Shear Walls”, University of
Alberta, 1997, R. Driver, G. Kulak, D. Kennedy, A. Elwi.

-Nonlinear Modeling
226
-Modeling: Strips
Tension-only
Ties
Compression-
Only Struts
Strip Modeling:
-Appropriate for dynamic nonlinear analysis
-Need to break HBE’s and VBE’s into multiple
elements
-Tension-only strips and compression-only
struts
-Equations for modeling obtained in AISC 341

-Yielding Distribution
227
-Tension Strips Yielding

-Beam Rotation
228
-VBE Usage

- nterstory Drift
229
-Interstory Drift
Transverse Drifts Longitudinal Drifts

-Story Shears
Transverse Shear Longitudinal Shear
230
-Diaphragm Design
Inertia Forces
Transfer + Inertia Forces
Transfer Forces
(Backstay Kickback)

-Upper-Level Diaphragm Transfer
Roof / L 27
Floor Transition
Inertia Forces Inertia + Transfer Forces

231
-Semi-Rigid vs Rigid
Can make a huge difference in shear

forces!
(Modeling Issue)

-Semi-Rigid vs Rigid
Backstay Kick-back!
232
-SPSW Final Design
• Connections and Other Requirements

– Web plates connected to boundary members to develop
expected yield strength of plates. (AISC-05 17.3)
– Connection design to meet OMF force requirements
(AISC-05 11.2)
– Panel zones to meet SMF requirements at top and bottom
panels only (AISC-05 9.3)
– VBE splices to meet LFRS requirements (AISC-05 8.4) –
min force and location
– HBE to be laterally braced at intervals similar to SMF
L=0.086ryE/Fy (AISC-05 17.4d)
– All HBE-VBE connections to be laterally braced
(problematic for LBE connections)

-Benefits of SPSW
• Highly efficient energy dissipation system

– R = 7 w/o Dual System
– R = 8 w/ Dual System (>160ft req’d for SDC-D )
• Taller Buildings get benefit of shear stiffness
at base and frame stiffness at the top.
• Compact footprint
– ¼” plate vs. 30” concrete walls and 14” braces
• Reduced mass compared with concrete
shear walls
• Fast construction
233
-New Developments
• No panel aspect ratio limitations

– Practical limitation effective form of control
• Allows to use single web angle (a = 40o)
• Commentary contains refined procedure for
capacity design method for VBE and HBE.
– Based on recent published papers (Berman and
Bruneau, 2008)
• Low-Yield steel material (LYS)
– Reduces overstrength and maximizes stiffnesses
(thicker plates)
• Openings at edges of Panels
– Reduces demands on gravity VBE’s
– Adds another energy dissipator (shear link)
– Early tests exhibit stable/improved behavior

PBD Beneficial Effects on System Design
• Expand the limits of what is possible and acceptable through

high level of detailed rational verification
• Examples for SPSW:

– Code-based building height limit & shear wall aspect ratio restriction
exemptions
• Nonlinear analysis used to verify that both the overall system height & larger individual
aspect ratios were acceptable
– Per AISC 341, VBE’s would be required to be capacity-designed based

upon the capacity of the steel plates
• Every wall panel over 55 stories exerting yield strength – creates infeasible demand at base
of structure
• Would require careful optimization of steel plate thickness
– Using PBD, VBE demand is explicitly determined from the nonlinear

analysis
• Sensitivity to wall thickness is relaxed, allowing for a more uniform plate thickness
• Led to only 2 different plate thicknesses being used over entire 55 stories (LACCH)
234
VIII. Collaboration with Research and Industry
-Essential for Success
On Time &
Contractor Under budget?
Software
Architect
NYA
Research
Owner

-Steel Materials
-Steel Plates: ASTM A-36 (Fy=36 ksi, Fu=58 ksi)

-Boundary Elements: ASTM A-572 Gr. 50 (Fy=50 ksi, Fu=65 ksi)
-Structural Tubing: ASTM A500, Grade B
-Pipe Columns: ASTM A53, Grade B
-Anchor Bolts: ASTM F1554, Grade 55
-High Strength Bolts: ASTM A490, A325
235
-Collaboration with Construction: VBE’s
Collaboration Essential to Success (AISC, Herrick)
• Steel VBE shape/configuration
– Optimum shape – strength and stiffness
– Minimize welding of built-up
– Splicing Configuration
– Steel availability

-Collaboration with Construction : VBE’s
– Splicing Configuration Grout Strength
• Composite action/constructability
Grout Procedure/Method
Plate
Configuration Grout Hole Size
Stiffener
Plate Gap
Plate Grade Plate Thickness
Grout
Hole
Spacing
Corner
Radius
Stiffener Plate Welding
236
-Collaboration with Construction: SPSW
• Shear Plate
– Attachments
– Material Availability

-Collaboration with Construction: Anchorage
• Shear Plate
– Attachments
• VBE anchorage/constructability
– Configuration
– Erection Stability
237
-Collaboration with Construction: BRB’s
Collaboration Essential to Success

• Shear Plate
– Attachments
• VBE anchorage/constructability
– Configuration
– Erection Stability
• BRB Connections/Capacity

-VBE Anchorage
238
-VBE Anchorage

-Steel Plate Shear Wall Foundations
239
-Transfer Beams

-Steel Plate Shear Wall Assembly
240
-Skewed Wall Panel

-SPSW/Boundary Element Connections
241
-VBE Splices

-Outrigger/BRB
242
November, 2007
Placement of Mat
December, 2008
October, 2008 Topping Off June, 2009
Frame Erection Exterior Complete
• Enhanced & Confirmed Performance

• Uncompromised Architectural Vision
– No Deep Spandrel at Perimeter
• More Sellable Floor Area for Ownership
– 20,000 sf floor space gained
• Lighter Building Weight
– 30% lighter without Concrete Walls
– Reduced Foundation Pressures
• Early Completion of Structural Frame
– 3 Floors Erected per Week
THANK YOU
243
244
Lessons from PBD Peer Reviews

Jack Moehle Farzad Naeim

UC Berkeley Farzad Naeim, Inc.
245
Farzad Naeim

Farzad is the founder and President of Farzad Naeim, Inc. Prior to founding this firm, he
was the Technical Director at John A. Martin & Associates (JAMA) and it's General
Counsel. Farzad has been instrumental in development of the LATBSDC PBD
guidelines and has chaired the committee in charge of development of that series of
guidelines since 2005. He has also been a member of the task group that developed the
PEER-TBI Guideline. Dr. Naeim has served as the Chair of Seismic Peer Review Panel
for numerous tall buildings designed according to PBD methodologies.
Farzad has served as Editor-in-Chief of Earthquake Spectra, President of EERI, inaugural

Chair of the Governance Board of the U.S. Network for Earthquake Engineering
Simulation (NEES), and the Chair of the 10th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake
Engineering.
Jack Moehle
Jack Moehle is the T.Y. and Margaret Lin Professor of Engineering in the Department of
Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of California, Berkeley. His
research and teaching interests are related to structural engineering, with emphasis on
reinforced concrete and earthquake engineering. A licensed Civil Engineer in the State of
California, Dr. Moehle works regularly as a consulting engineer, offering advice and
expert peer review, including high-rise building projects in Seattle, San Francisco, Los
Angeles, and San Diego. He is Honorary Member of the Structural Engineers Association
of Northern California, member of the College of Fellows of the Structural Engineers
Association of California, and elected member of the U.S. National Academy of
Engineering. He has served on the Boards of Directors of the Structural Engineers
Association of Northern California, the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, and
the American Concrete Institute. He has been a member of the ACI 318 Building Code
Committee since 1989, chair of ACI 318H (Seismic Provisions) from 1995 to 2014, and
is Chair of ACI 318 for the 2014-2019 code cycle.
246

Jack Moehle Farzad Naeim

UC Berkeley Farzad Naeim, Inc.
The Seismic Peer Review Panel (SPRP)
247
Peer review
• Purpose
– To provide independent, objective, technical
review of any aspects that relate to seismic
performance
• Conduct
– EOR proposes criteria and designs to satisfy it
– The SSRP reviews EOR submittals for
• Consistency with performance objectives
• Consistency with standards of practice
– A good review provides input that promotes
resolution of comments in a collegial environment
– This is not the place to force your way of doing
things
Peer review limitations

• The burden to demonstrate conformance
of the structural design resides with the
EOR.
• The responsibility for the structural design
remains solely with the EOR.
• The responsibility for plan review resides
with the Building Official.
248
SPRP membership
Selection,
Building Reporting
Official
SPRP
Consultation • SE – Tall building expertise
• Geo/Seismic Hazard
• Academic – Specific expertise
• Selected as individuals, not

companies
• No conflicts, quid-pro-quos
Project Sponsor and EOR

SPRP contracting models

Selection,
Contract,
Building Reporting
Official
SPRP

249
SPRP contracting models
Selection,
Building Reporting
Official
SPRP
Contract

Operational aspects – kick-off meeting
Building Official SPRP

Points
of
contact
Project Sponsor EOR

250
Operational aspects – detailed work
Building Official SPRP

Points
of
contact
Project Sponsor EOR

SPRP (typical) distribution of work

• SE
– Chair meetings, manage team, single point of
contact for SPRP
– In-office support team reviews computer models
and monitors comment log
– Prepares letters for approval by SPRP
• Geo/Seismic Hazard expert
– Seismic hazard representation
– Foundation modeling
• Academic
– Building-specific aspects
251
SPRP scope of services
• Review Design Criteria
– design approach
– seismic hazard
– modeling approaches
– acceptance criteria
– whatever else arises…
• Review early design concepts and details
• Review final design
– computer input and output
– analysis results in relation to design criteria
– details as expressed in drawings
• Participate in SPRP meetings
• Complete written reports/letters
Timeline and deliverables

• Peer review should facilitate the project
development, not impede it
• Peer review should start early
• Stages
– Kick-off meeting
– Basis of Design (design criteria)
– Geo report / seismic hazard representation
– Excavation / Shoring /Foundation approval
– Partial or complete structural review
– Final approval letter
252
–
–
Example of an Unrealistic
Schedule “ ”
1. Basis of Design document to be submitted to By Englekirk:

SPRP: To be submitted between September 15, 2014 and
September 30, 2014
2. Approval of Basis of Design document: By SPRP:
From September 16, 2014 to October 14, 2014
3. Submittal of response spectra to the SPRP: By AMEC:
To be submitted between September 26, 2014 and
October 7, 2014
4. Approval of response spectra: By SPRP
From September 29, 2014 to October 8, 2014
5. Submittal of time histories to the SPRP: By AMEC:
To be submitted between October 27, 2014 and
November 6, 2014
6. Approval of time histories: By SPRP
From October 30, 2014 to November 13, 2014
7. Submittal of Service Level Earthquake (SLE) By Englekirk:
design calculations and drawings to the SPRP: To be submitted between December 22, 2014 and
January 9, 2015
8. Approval of SLE design*: By SPRP:
From January 12, 2015 to February 9, 2015
9. Submittal of shoring and underpinning design: By General Contractor:
To be submitted between April 13, 2015 and
April 27, 2015
10. Approval of shoring and underpinning design: By SPRP:
From April 28, 2015 to June 8, 2015
11. Collapse Prevention Level Design and By Englekirk:
submittal for the foundation permit drawings to To be submitted between October 1, 2015 and
the City and the SPRP: October 15, 2015
12. Review process and approvals to pull By SPRP:
foundation permit: From October 2, 2015 to December 1, 2015
Design Documentation
• Basis of Design
– Should be detailed and explain
• approach to design
• details of modeling and acceptance criteria
• Computer models
– Help SPRP help you
• Member proportioning and details
– For a foundation permit you should have an
essentially completed design
– In some cases you can get a conditional excavation
permit without a complete design
• Performance verification
• Structural drawings
253
Example BOD Table of Contents
Example BOD Modeling Details
254
Example BOD Modeling Details
Example of Summarizing Results
255
The Comment Log
# Page Date Comment Response Resolution
2 2-3 x/y/z The values of Z1.0 This has been corrected Resolved
and Z2.5 listed on in the attached revised (date)
these two pages report (date)
are not consistent.
The consultant
should clarify
which set of
values were used
in the analysis.
Dispute resolution
• Differences of opinion can arise
– level of complexity required for analysis
– interpretation of results
• Disputes are rare
– Building Official is final arbiter
– Advisory panels can be consulted
256
Examples
• “The peer review process takes too long,
is too expensive, and too uncertain.”
– Example 1: The dual system that was not

– Example 2: The dual system that became one
– Example 3: Armed struggle over stress limits
– Example 4: SPRP’s suspended animation
– Example 5: Conditioning payment on
Approval
Ground motion selection and scaling

• Example 6 – Spectrum-matched versus
scaled motions
257
Ground motion selection and scaling
• Example 7 – Conditional mean spectra
– Example 7a
– Example 7b
Figure courtesy of Prof. Jack Baker
Nonlinear dynamic analysis

• Example 8a – What do you mean the
effective damping is 2.5% of critical?
• Example 8b – Rayleigh damping scaled
for T1 through T3.
• Example 8c – Modal damping
258
Demand versus capacity
• Example 9 – Strain capacity of unconfined concrete is
0.003. Therefore, no confinement should be required if ec
< 0.003.
0.015
Drift Ratio Meas. Calc.

Lateral 0.010 0.75%
loading
1.00%
1.50%
Concrete strain
0.005
0.000
-0.005
-0.010
Flange Stem
-0.015
0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
Distance along web from flange / lw
Flange in tension
Thomsen and Wallace (2004).
Structural detailing
• Example 10 – The loop-de-loop hoop.
Loop-de-loop hoop
Daisy chain of loop-de-loop

hoops as reinforcement for
wall shear, confinement,
and reinforcement support
259
Structural detailing
• Example 11 - Diagonally reinforced coupling beams –
The entire shear is carried by the diagonals, therefore
the concrete outside the diagonals is not required.
Construction details
• Example 12 – Wall-slab interfaces?
10 ksi 10 ksi 10 ksi 10 ksi
4 ksi 4 ksi 4 ksi Cold joint

4 ksi
10 ksi 10 ksi 10 ksi 10 ksi
(a) Probable (b) Puddle wall (c) Hold back (d) Slip form the
code violation concrete into slab concrete, wall
slab cast wall through
the slab
260
Foundation mats
• Example 13 – Unit shear strength of members without
shear reinforcement is known to decrease with
thickness. Should a foundation mat have shear
reinforcement?
Thank you!
261
262
PBD – The Future

Ronald O. Hamburger, SE
263
Ronald O. Hamburger
Ron Hamburger is a Senior Principal and Western Regional Head of Structural Engineering at
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger. Mr. Hamburger has 40 years of experience in engineering,
construction, failure investigation and research. He is a past President of the Structural
Engineers Association of California, and of the National Council of Structural Engineering
Associations, as well as the Structural Engineering Certification Board. He also is a past Vice
President of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute and a fellow of the Structural
Engineering Institute.
Mr. Hamburger has been engaged in the development of building codes and standards for more
than 25 years with a particular emphasis on performance-based earthquake engineering
procedures. He was a member of the ATC-33 and ATC-40 project teams, the SEAOC Vision
2000 committee, the FEMA 356 development panel, and since 2001 has served as project
technical director for the ATC-58 project to develop next-generation performance-based design
criteria. He is a member of the ASCE 41 Committee and chair of the ASCE 7 committee. In
2014, the Structural Engineering Institute awarded Mr. Hamburger the Walter P. Moore award
for a lifetime achievement in development of building codes.
264
PBD – The Future

Ronald O. Hamburger, SE
PBD – What is it?

• SEAOC Vision 2000 Report, 1996
– Procedures that enable the deign and
construction of buildings that will reliably be
able to attain desired seismic performance
• Potential life-safety impacts
• Potential loss of occupancy
• Potential repair costs
265
Present Generation – doesn’t answer these questions
Nonstructural Performance
• Accounts for more than

70% of earthquake
economic losses
• Not really covered by
present procedures
– Simple review of
anchorage and bracing
requirements similar to
prescriptive code
266
Reliability
• FEMA 273
– “Perhaps 1 out of 10 structures may
experience poorer performance than intended
by the design”
– One out of 10 is not particularly good, unless
the building owner buys into this and is willing
to accept it
– Noone even knows if we are really getting
90% reliability
Performance Prediction
267
The Process
D
Ground Structural
Motion Response Damage
Predicting Performance
• It is impossible to predict performance
precisely
• Each step of the process entails many

uncertainties
268
The Results of Next-Generation Performance Assessment
Loss Distribution
Building Performance Model

3rd E-W Curtain wall
2nd Story N-S Shear walls 3rd Story Contents

3rd Story N-S Shear walls
3rd Story N-S Curtain wall 2nd E-W Curtain wall
3rd E-W Story glazing
2nd E-W Story glazing
1st E-W Story glazing
1st Story N-S Storefront

1st Story N-S Beam-column joints
1st Story N-S Shear walls

269
Fragility Specification
B1044.000 Reinforced Concrete Shearwalls
BASIC COMPOSITION Reinforced concrete and finishes both sides
Units for basic quantities Square feet of wall area
DAMAGES STATES, FRAGILIITES, AND CONSEQUENCE FUNCTIONS

DS1 DS2 DS3
Flexural cracks < 3/16" Flexural cracks > 1/4" Max. crack widths >3/8"
DESCRIPTION
Shear (diagonal) cracks < 1/16" Shear (diagonal) cracks > 1/8" Significant spalling/ loose cover
No significant spalling Moderate spalling/ loose cover Fracture or buckling some r/f
ILLUSTRATION
(example photo or drawing)
MEDIAN DEMAND
1.5% 3.0% 5.0%
BETA 0.2 0.3 0.4

CORRELATION (%) 70%
Patch cracks each side with caulk Remove loose concrete Shore
Paint each side Patch spalls with NS grout Demo existing wall
DAMAGE FUNCTIONS
Replace
Patch cracks each side with caulk
Paint each side Patch and paint
CONSEQUENCE FUNCTION
Max. consequence up to lower quantity

$4.00 per sq ft up to 800 sq ft $10.00 per sq ft up to 800 sq ft $50.00 per sq ft up to 200 sq ft
Min consequence over upper quantity $2.00 per sq ft over 4000 sq ft $5.00 per sq ft over to 4000 sq ft $30.00 per sq ft over 2000 sq ft
Beta (consequence) 0.2 0.3 0.3
TIMEFRAME TO ADDRESS CONSEQUENCES days weeks months
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 0.1
270
Analysis
Peak Ground Drift Ratio

Acceleration
0.2g 1.0%
0.5g 2%
1.0g 5%
271
Analysis Results
• Median values of
peak transient:
– Story drift
– Floor acceleration
Analysis Results
• Logarithmic standard
deviation of:
– Peak story drift
– Peak floor acceleration
272
Analysis Results
• Covariance matrix
Calculate Performance
• Monte Carlo Process

• Hundreds to
thousands of “spins”
• For each “spin”
termed a “realization”
• Unique
– Demands
– Damage
– Consequences
273
Demand Generation
Analysis Median Demand Co-Variance

D Vector Matrix
Computing Building Performance
274
Performance Assessment Calculation Tool
Performance Assessment Calculation Tool
275
Repair Cost
1
0 | Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
/
Casualties
1
0 | Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
/
276
Downtime
Unsafe Placards
277
Benefits of this new approach
• Provides data directly useful for cost-benefit
analyses and decision making
• Inherently acknowledges and quantifies the
possible range of performance outcomes
• Recognizes the effect of nonstructural
components
• Permits engineers to conveniently explore the
effects of design modification on performance
278
Managing PBD of Tall Buildings
in San Francisco

Gary Ho, SE
Department of Building Inspection
San Francisco
279
Gary Ho
Gary Ho has been with Department of Building Inspection, San Francisco for twenty years. He
leads the plan review for the special projects that requiring Structural Design Review/Peer
Review. Gary has involved in many new high-rise construction projects, and also seismic
retrofitting and alternations of existing buildings. These projects include the new construction of
Infinity Towers, Millennium Tower, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Headquarters,
181 Fremont Tower, and the Golden State Warriors Arena projects. He also involved in the
additions of San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, and the seismic retrofitting and alternations
of 141 New Montgomery Building.
Gary is a registered Structural Engineer in California, and has received his Master Degree in
Civil Engineering from the University of California at Davis. He had practiced in private firms
for more than ten years prior to joining SFDBI.
280
Managing PBD of Tall Buildings
in San Francisco

Gary Ho, SE
Department of Building Inspection
San Francisco
overview
• Introduction of Department of Building
Inspection (DBI)
• History of PBD Tall Buildings in San
Francisco
• Governing Documents: Administrative
Bulletins AB-082 and AB-083
• Conclusions
2
| Earthquake
1
Engineering Research Institute
281
Introduction of DBI
• Purpose: To serve the City and County of
San Francisco and the general public by
ensuring that life and property within the
City and County are safeguarded, and to
provide a public forum for community
involvement in that process.
Introduction of DBI
• Mission Statement: Under the direction
and management of the seven-member
citizen Building Inspection Commission, to
oversee the effective, efficient, fair and
safe enforcement of the City and County
of San Francisco’s Building, Housing,
Plumbing, Electrical, and Mechanical
Codes, along with the Disability Access
Regulations.
4
282
History of PBD Tall Buildings in San Francisco
• Structural engineer started proposing PBD

tall buildings in early 2000’s.
• San Francisco Building Code (SFBC) does
not prescribe procedures in PBD.
5
• SFBC Sect. 104A2.8 allows Building

Official approving alternate design method
that provides equivalence of the provisions
in the Code.
• DBI approved PBD when recommended
by independent Structural Design
Reviewers (SDR)/ Peer Reviewers.
6
283
• DBI has reviewed more than 15 PBD tall

buildings in past 10 years, with heights
ranging from 160 feet to 1,000 feet.
– More than four have completed construction,
and occupied.
– Others are either under construction or
reviewing.
• Structural systems of PBD tall buildings:

– Mostly concrete buildings, with post-tensioned
slabs, and core shear walls; some with
additional outriggers
– A few hybrid of steel and concrete
construction
– One steel-framed building, with moment
frames, and mega diagonal braces.
284
• DBI issued two Administrative Bulletins

(AB) in year 2008.
– AB 082: Guidelines and Procedures for
Structural Design Review
– AB 083: Requirements and Guidelines for the
Seismic Design of New Tall Buildings using
Non-Prescriptive Seismic-Design Procedures
– These two AB apply to PBD Tall Buildings.
Governing Document: AB-082

• Guidelines and Procedures for Structural
Design Review
– Sect. 1 Structural Design Reviewer
– Sect. 2 Projects requiring Structural Design
Review
– Sect. 3 Scope of Structural Design Review
Services
– Structural Design Review Process
– Dispute Resolution
10
285
• Sect. 1 Structural Design Reviewer
– SDR provides supplemental reviews to DBI.
– EOR responsible for the structural design
11

• Sect 1 Structural Design Reviewer
– Selection of members for Structural Design
Review Panel (SDRP)
• Project sponsors, EOR and DBI jointly select
members for the SDRP.
12
286
– Members of SDRP
• Geotechnical engineers with expertise in
developing site-specific ground motions for PBD.
• Practicing structural engineers with expertise in
PBD of tall buildings, and the proposed structural
system.
• Structural engineering researchers posses
expertise in PBD tall buildings, and the proposed
structural system.
• All SDR must be registered Engineers in
California. 13

– Administration
• SDRP , EOR, and DBI work together to develop
scope of services.
• SDRP contracts with Project Sponsor.
• Project Sponsor pays the services provided by
SDRP.
14
287
• Sect. 2 Projects requiring Structural
Design Review
– Projects incorporating non-prescriptive or performance-based
design.
– Projects incorporating building heights that exceed 240 feet.
– Projects incorporating seismic response-history analyses per
Chapter 16 of ASCE 7.
– Projects incorporating seismic isolation per Chapter 17 of ASCE
7.
– Projects incorporating seismic damping per Chapter 18 of ASCE
7.
– Projects with irregular and unusual configurations or system.
15

• Sect. 3 Scope of Structural Design
Review Services
– Earthquake hazard determination
– Site specific ground motion characterization
– Seismic performance goals
– Basis of design, design methodology and
acceptance criteria
– Mathematical modeling and simulation
– Interpretation of results of analysis
– Member selection and design 16
288
• Sect. 3 Scope of Structural Design
Review Services
– Detail concepts and design
– Construction documents, including drawings
and specifications
– Other building aspects requested by DBI
• Wind loads resistance
17

• Sect. 4 Structural Design Review Process
– setting up SDRP as early as practicable.
• Establishing review schedule and milestone
– SDRP keeps logs of reviews.
• SDRP’s comments, EOR’s responses, and
resolutions
– SDRP provides letters at each phase of
review, stating the scope and conclusion.
• Site permit: design criteria
• Addendum: piling, foundation and basements, and
superstructure. 18
289
• Sect. 5 Dispute Resolution
– DBI makes final decisions, may appointing
additional outside experts.
19

• Requirements and Guidelines for the
Seismic Design of New Tall Buildings
using Non-Prescriptive Seismic Design
procedures
– Sect. 1 Scope
– Sect. 2 Structural Design Review
– Sect. 3 Submittal Requirements
– Sect. 4 Seismic Design Requirements
20
290
• Sect. 1 Scope
– For new buildings that use non-prescriptive
seismic design procedures, and
– Buildings that the roofs have heights over 160
feet above average adjacent ground.
– AB-083 applies to PBD Tall Buildings.
21

• Sect. 2 Structural Design Review
– Refers to AB-082 for guidelines and
procedures
22
291
• Sect. 3 Submittal Requirements
– Engineer of Record (EOR) submits Seismic
Design Criteria to DBI and SDRP
• Initial building plans
• Description of building and structural systems
• Analysis methodology
• Acceptance criteria
• Exceptions to the provisions of the Code
23

• Sect. 3 Submittal Requirements
– EOR submits plans, calculations,
geotechnical reports, and other required
documents to DBI and SDRP for continuation
of review.
24
292
• Sect. 4: Seismic Design Requirements
– Sect. 4.1 Code Level Evaluation
– Sect. 4.2 Service Level Evaluation
– Sect. 4.3 Maximum Considered Earthquake
(MCE) Level Evaluation
25

• Sect. 4.1 Code Level Evaluation
– Seismic structural design shall be per SFBC,
with exceptions approved in the Seismic
Design Criteria.
– Seismic Response Coefficient R, shall not be
taken greater than 8.5.
– EOR demonstrates the building satisfies the
requirements of strength and stiffness
prescribed in the Code.
26
293
• Sect. 4.2 Service Level Evaluation
– Similar to the provisions of, “ Guidelines for
Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall
Buildings, Version 1.0, November 2010 ”,
developed by Pacific Earthquake Engineer
Research Center (PEER), Report No.
2010/05
27

• Sect. 4.2 Service Level Evaluation
– Ground motion used shall have a 43-years
mean return period ( 50% probability of
exceedance in 30 years).
– EOR demonstrates the primary structural
system remaining essentially elastic.
28
294
• Sect. 4.3 MCE Level Evaluation
– Similar to Peer guidelines
29
• MCE Level Evaluation

– Ground motion used shall be per MCE
defined in ASCE/SEI 7-10, Chapter 21.
– Mathematical Model shall be per ASCE/SEI 7-
10 Sect. 12.7.3.
– Three dimensional nonlinear response
history(NLRH) analysis shall be performed.
– EOR demonstrates calculated forces and
deformation demands on all structural
elements not exceeding element force and
deformation capacities. 30
295
Conclusions
• When properly implemented, PBD will provide
buildings the equivalence or superior
performance than the Code.
• DBI will work closely, and constantly with project
sponsors, structural engineers, geotechnical
engineers, researchers, and contractors in
modifying and improving our review process.
• DBI purpose and mission – safeguards life and
property by enforcing SFBC effectively and
efficiently.
31
Questions?
gary.ho@sfgov.org
32
296
Thanks for attending!
33
297
298
City of Los Angeles
Plan Review
Colin Kumabe
Chief of Building Plan Check

City of Los Angeles
Department of Building and Safety
299
Colin Kumabe
Colin Kumabe is currently the Metro Plan Check Chief in the City of Los Angeles, Department
of Building and Safety, where he has worked for 30 years. During the past 10 years, he has
overseen the city’s review of projects with performance based design. Throughout his career, he
has participated in the SEAOSC steel and existing buildings committees and the ad hoc
committees for the development of nonductile concrete chapters of the Los Angeles Building
codes. Colin has a B.S. from the University of the Pacific, M.S. UCLA, and M.B.A. from
CSULB.
300
City of Los Angeles
Plan Review
Colin Kumabe
Chief of Building Plan Check

City of Los Angeles
Department of Building and Safety
Overview
The approval process of the City of Los

Angeles, Department of Building and Safety,
LADBS, for buildings analyzed and designed
using the Performance Based Design
methodology.
301
LADBS Involvement in Process
• LADBS is involved in all steps of the Peer
Review process.
• LADBS staff will actively participate in all
steps of the process by reviewing all
structural components along with the Peer
Reviewers.
• Prior to issuing building permits, LADBS
will use the recommendations from the
Peer Reviewers as part of the final plan
check of the structure.
Process Overview
1. Developer acknowledge benefits achieved

with performance based design
2. Request LADBS to initiate process
3. LADBS selects Peer Review Panel
4. Discuss and approve Design Criteria and
Ground Motions
5. Approve final analysis and construction
plans
302
Step 1: Developer Acknowledgement
• Why is a Peer Review required?

– Section 16.2.5 of ASCE 7-10 requires a
review by an independent team when the
non-linear time history method is used.
Step 2: Initiate Peer Review Process
• When should the Peer Review Process

begin?
– “As early as possible.”
– Normally, with a diligent design team and
Peer Review Panel, the process takes an
average of 9 months.
– Start at least 9 months before the “full building
permit” is needed.
303
Step 3: Panel Composition
• Section 16.2.5 of ASCE 7-10 require panel

members to be of appropriate disciplines and
others experienced in seismic analysis
methods and the theory….
– One academic researcher
– One structural engineer
– One geotechnical engineer
Step 4: Comment Resolution
Four Deliverables by the Peer Review Panel:

– Ground Motions
• Proposed by the Design Team
• Approved by the Peer Review Panel based on site
conditions and structure type
– Design Criteria
• Proposed by the Design Team (good to start with the
LATBSDC methodology)
• Approved by the Peer Review Panel
– Final Non-Linear Time History Analysis
• Peer Review Panel reviews final computer output
– Location of Strong Motion Recorders
304
Step 5: Final Approval
• Final Analysis is approved once the performance meets

the approved design criteria by the Peer Reviewers.
– Along with the final analysis the Strong Motion
Recording device locations need to be approved.
• Common Additional Approvals - Developers often
request intermediate steps before the final analysis is
complete:
– Shoring – approve excavation depth and width
– Foundation – approve mat slab, footings or piles
systems
– Shell Only – nearly complete Final Analysis
LADBS Information Bulletins

– P/BC 2014-048 Specifications for Strong-Motion
Accelerographs & Requirements for Installation and
Servicing
• devices used for code based design buildings
• http://ladbs.org/LADBSWeb/LADBS_Forms/InformationBulletins/
IB-P-BC2014-048StrongMotionAccelerographs.pdf
– P/BC 2014-117 Structural Monitoring Equipment in
Buildings Designed with Nonlinear Response History
Procedure
• Special seismograph specifications
IB-P-BC2014-117StrMonitoring4Non-LinearBldg.pdf
– P/BC 2014-123 Alternative Design Procedure for Seismic
Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings and Buildings
Utilizing Complex Structural Systems
• adopts the LATBSDC methodology
IB-P-BC2014-123AltProc4SeisofTallComplexBldg.pdf
305
• Thank you
• Questions?
306
The Seattle Experience

Steven Pfeiffer
Engineering and Technical Codes Manager
City of Seattle
307
Steven Pfeiffer

Steve Pfeiffer is an Engineering and Technical Codes Manager for the City of Seattle,
Department of Planning and Development. He has been with the City for 30 years and has
worked on a wide range of projects including podium buildings, high-rises, stadiums, etc. He
has managed the peer reviews on projects utilizing performance based design for over 15 years
and has worked with a wide variety of engineering teams and peer review teams to assist in
getting these projects approved and built. Steve is a licensed structural engineer in the state of
Washington and is an SEAW member actively involved with the Earthquake Engineering
Committee. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of that organization.

308
The Seattle Experience

Steven Pfeiffer
City of Seattle
Peer Review (The Seattle Experience)

• Background and History
• Process
• Technical Issues
309
History
• First peer review project in Seattle 1999
• Over 30 peer review projects
• 7 projects currently under review with
additional 7 under construction
Sample Projects
• Projects include residential, office, hotel,
etc.
• Some project have multiple structures on
the site
• Most projects are concrete cores, but may
contain BRB’s, Significant transfer
elements, seismic joints, etc.
310
Projects
Washington Mutual/Seattle Art

Museum Tower, Seattle
Olive 8 Hotel, Seattle
Projects
5th and Columbia Streets, Seattle
800 Stewart Street, Seattle
815 Pine Street, Seattle
311
Process
• Initial notification of proposed peer review
project
• Submittal of Documents
– Formal written request for peer review
– Schematic drawings
– Draft Structural BOD
– Draft Geotechnical BOD
• Kick-off Mtg.
Basis of Design
• Basis of Design (BOD)
– Frequently based on Tall Buildings Initiative
Document
– May be customized subject to Peer Reviewer
approval
– Currently Seattle requires a DBE design and
an MCE design/verification
312
Basis of Design
• Structural Basis of Design includes:
• Basic building information
• DBE and MCE design approach
• Code Exceptions and Enhancements
• Material properties
• Software Programs used for analysis and design
• Acceptance criteria for DBE and MCE
– Link beam rotations, drift, strains. Etc.
• Stiffness property assumptions
• Other
Process Time Line
313
Process
Peer Review Team

• Peer Review Team Makeup
– Structural Engineer Expert
– Geotechnical Engineer Expert
– Academic?
• Reporting Structure
– Peer review team works for the City
– City peer review costs reimbursed by the
developer
314
Technical Issues of Note
• Stiffness properties of elements
• Capacity based design or NOT?
– What is essentially elastic?
– Setbacks
• Design of transfer diaphragm(s)
• Ground Motions
• Scaled vs. Matched vs. Conditional Mean (CMS)
• Code based shear wall designs are not
adequate(?)
• Building Height
• More guidance on the above would be great!
Conclusion
• Contact the City Early in the process
• Performance based design works!
315
Steven Pfeiffer (206-233-7189)
City of Seattle, DPD
Steve.pfeiffer@seattle.gov
Report on Workshop to Incorporate Basin Response in the Design of Tall Buildings in the
Puget Sound Region, Washington By Susan W. Chang, Arthur D. Frankel, and Craig S.
Weaver http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2014/1196/
316
EERI Technical Seminar
Performance Based Design - State of the Practice for Tall Buildings

EVALUATION OF PRESENTATIONS
Using a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 as the highest rating, please rate today’s presentations.
Please include comments. Thank you.
Introduction and History of PBD Case Study 2: Steel and Hybrid Building
(Ron Hamburger) Design
(Nabih Youssef or Leonard Joseph) (please
Did this presentation contain useful information? circle)
Was the material clear? Did this presentation contain useful information?
How do you rate the quality of the visuals? Was the material clear?
Guideline Documents (LATBSDC/PEER) How do you rate the quality of the visuals?
(Farzad Naeim or Jack Moehle) (please circle)
Did this presentation contain useful information?
(Farzad Naeim or Jack Moehle) (please circle)
Using Ground Motions & SFSI How do you rate the quality of the visuals?
(Jon Stewart or Marshall Lew) (please circle)
The Future of PBD and ATC 58
Did this presentation contain useful information? (Ron Hamburger)
How do you rate the quality of the visuals?

Structural Analysis and Modeling (ATC 72-1/ASCE
41)
(Greg Deierlein) Local Jurisdiction Applications
Did this presentation contain useful information? (Colin Kumabe, Gary Ho, or Steve Pfeiffer)
(please circle)
Case Study 1: Concrete Building Design How do you rate the quality of the visuals?
(John Hooper)
Panel Discussion
Did this presentation contain useful information?
317
How do you rate the quality of the visuals?
How did you hear about this seminar? (Circle all that apply)
EERI announcement
EERI website
Other organization announcement, please specify:____________
Colleague
Online (Google) Ad
Is the printed notebook helpful? YES NO

Would you prefer an electronic notebook (i.e. a PDF provided on flash drive)? YES NO
Do you have suggestions for topics for future seminars? _______________________________________
Do you have any other comments about the seminar?
318

Performance Based Design State of The Practice For Tall Buildings PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Performance Based Design State of The Practice For Tall Buildings PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 EERI Technical Seminar Series: