PEER

Tall Building
Seismic Design
Guidelines

Ronald O. Hamburger
Senior Principal
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.

Jack P. Moehle
University of California at Berkeley

PEER Annual Meeting October 15, 2009

The PEER Tall Buildings Initiative
  A focused program of research and
development to:
  Explore the seismic behavior of very tall
buildings
  Identify appropriate performance goals
  Identify methods of characterizing the
seismic hazard
  Improve analytical procedures to predict
performance
  Improve the codes, standards and guidelines
implemented in practice
The TBI Partners
  Applied Technology Council
  California Geologic Survey
  California Office of Emergency Services
  California Seismic Safety Commission
  Federal Emergency Management Agency
  Los Angeles Dept. of Buildings & Safety
  Los Angeles Tall Buildings Council
  National Science Foundation
  Pankow Foundation
  PEER
  San Francisco Building Department
  Southern California Earthquake Consortium
  Structural Engineers Association of California
  United States Geologic Survey
Lead Investigators
  Academia   Practice
  Yousef Bozorgnia
  William Petak
  Greg Deierlein
  Helmut Krawinkler
  Stephen Mahin
  Jack Moehle
  Jonathan Stewart
  John Wallace
  Farzan Zaerian
  Government
  Brad Aagard
  Laurence Kornfield
  Nico Luco
  Raymond Lui
  Norm Abrahamson
  C.B. Crouse
  Anthony Ghodsi
  Rob Graves
  Ronald Hamburger
  William Holmes
  John Hooper
  Charles Kircher
  Ron Klemencic
  Joe Maffei
  James Malley
  Mark Moore
  Farzad Naeim
  Paul Sommerville
The new breed of tall buildings

  Designed without dual moment-resisting

frames
  Justified using nonlinear analyses and
“performance-based” procedures
adapted from ASCE 41
The motivation -
  Design to achieve better performance
  Design to be more certain that target
performance can be achieved
  Enable use of new and innovative
systems
  Reduce cost of seismic protection
  Permit unobstructed floor to ceiling
window walls while maintaining short
ceiling heights
They started simple -
Design approach was also simple
  Design per the building code with
  a few exceptions
  Exceed height limits for structural systems
  Use different R values
  Neglect redundancy requirements
  Develop nonlinear analytical model
  MCE (2%-50 year) shaking
  Conservative values on acceptable
parameters
  Rigorous Peer Review
But became more complex
Cities developed ad hoc criteria
PEER Tall Buildings Initiative
  Purpose: Develop design criteria that will
ensure safe and useable tall buildings
following future earthquakes
  Performance intent is similar to that
historically contained in SEAOC Blue Book,
and presently contained in NEHRP Provisions
Commentary
  Small risk of collapse (perhaps 10%) in MCE
shaking
  Limited risk (50%) of loss of cladding in MCE
shaking
  Negligible risk to life for design shaking
  Negligible risk of occupancy loss for Service level
shaking
TBI Tasks
  Develop consensus on Performance Objectives
  Baseline assessment of Tall Building Dynamic
Response
  Synthetically generated ground motions
  Selection and modification of ground motions
  Modeling and acceptance (ATC-72)
  Ground motion input to buildings with subgrade
levels
  Quantification of Tall Building Perfomance
Scope -
  Design of tall buildings:
  Fundamental periods >> 1
second
  Slender aspect ratio
  Large portion of drift due to flexural
behavior as opposed to shear
behavior
  Significant mass participation and
response in higher modes
Performance Objectives
  Limited discussions with stakeholders
indicated many would prefer “better”
performance for these important
buildings
  Primary Objectives
  MCE - Low probability of collapse
  Service Level – Low probability of loss of use
  Other Objectives
  Possible
  Need to modify these criteria on project
-specific basis
Design Process
1.  Confirm approach acceptable
  Building official
  Development team
2.  Establish performance objectives
3.  Seismic input
4.  Conceptual design
5.  Design Criteria Document
6.  Service Level Design
7.  MCE Level Design
8.  Final Design
9.  Peer Review
 Service Level Design

  50% - 30 years (43 year return)

  Response Spectrum analysis – 2.5% damped
  Maximum DCRs 150% of expected strength
  Nonlinear analysis permitted
  Story drift limited to 0.005
  May not provide same protection as code
Maximum Considered Level
  3-D nonlinear response history analysis
  Ground motion input at structure base
  SSI Permitted – but not required

Desired Typical Optional

 Maximum Considered Level

  Cyclic Degradation
  4 Methods
  Explicit incorporation of
hysteretic effects
  Use of cyclic envelope
curve
  Modified monotonic data
  Deterioration not
considered
Maximum Considered Level
  Acceptance Criteria
  Deformation controlled – behavior modes
associated with slow deterioration
  Force controlled
  Elements the failure of which could result in partial
or total collapse
  Elements the failure of which have minor
consequences
  Story strength loss
  Peak transient drift
  Residual drift
Deformation Controlled Elements
  No criteria other than deformation
demand in any analysis can not exceed
valid range of modeling or δu.
Force-controlled elements

  φ = 1 for inconsequential failures

  φ = applicable resistance factor from
material standards otherwise
Story strength loss
  Deformation imposed on any story
should not result in story shear strength
loss of more than 20%
Transient and residual drift
  Transient story drift
  Mean of 7 runs < 0.03
  Maximum of any run < 0.045
  Residual story drift
  Mean of 7 runs < 0.01
  Maximum of any run < 0.015
Model Building Studies
  3 alternative design criteria
  Modified code approach
  Performance-based - LATBC criteria
  Performance + - PEER TBI criteria
Model Building Studies

Steel Braced Concrete Concrete

Frame Core Dual
Summary
  Successful multi-disciplinary effort
  Geotechnical engineers & Seismologists
  Structural engineers
  Building Officials
  Project has had positive impact on the
design of real structures
  Has also affected design practice
internationally