Underlying Concepts in Seismic Design Codes:

Application to Steel Building Structures

Chia-Ming Uang
Professor
University of California, San Diego

SEAW September Dinner Meeting
2010
2
Outline
Seismic Loadings Codes
Historical Development
Intent of Seismic Performance Factors
Seismic Materials Codes
Ductility vs. Strength
Ductility Design
Examples of Code Implementation (SMF, BFs)
Capacity Design
Examples of Code Implementation (SMF, BFs)
Summary
3
Historical Development of
Seismic Loadings Codes
4
Basic Load Combinations (ASCE 7)











E: Probably the Most Mysterious Load
5
Seismic Loadings: Historical Perspective
Design Base Shear Ratio
UBC
(19611985)
UBC
(19881994)
UBC
(1997)
IBC
(2009)
K
R
w
8
~
4 . 1
w
R
R ~
2 / 1
15T
ZIKS
C
w
=
3 / 2
25 . 1
T R
ZIS
C
w
w
=
1
RT
I C
C
v
s
=
1
1
RT
I S
C
D
s
=
6
Design Base Shear: Historical Perspective
2 / 1
15T
ZIKS
C
w
=
3 / 2
25 . 1
T R
ZIS
C
w
w
=
1
RT
I C
C
v
s
=
1
1
RT
I S
C
D
s
=
Design Base
Shear Ratio
System
Factor
Story Drift
Limit
UBC
(19611985)
K = 0.671.33 0.5%(K)
UBC
(19881994)
R
w
= 412
UBC
(1997)
R = 2.88 2.5%
IBC
(2009)
R = 1.258 2.5%
% 5 . 0
04 . 0
s
w
R
7
Seismic Design Philosophy
SEAOC Blue Book (1959):
Nonstructural
Damage
Structural
Damage
Minor
Earthquake
No No
Moderate
Earthquake
Yes No
Major
Earthquake
Yes Yes
(But No Collapse)
8
Earthquake Observation
F
1

F
2

F
3

Story Drift, A
V
b

E
S
Ductility Helps.
9
Building Standard Law (BSL) of Japan
Two-Level Seismic Design Procedure:
Nonstructural
Damage
Structural
Damage
Structural
Response
Minor
Earthquake
No
(0.5% Story Drift)
No Elastic
(Independent
of Ductility
Major
Earthquake
Yes Yes
(No Collapse)
Inelastic
(Dependent
on Ductility)
10
Building Standard Law (BSL) of Japan
Level 2 Earthquake (PGA = 0.340.4 g)
for Safety Consideration
Level 1 Earthquake (PGA = 0.070.1 g)
for Serviceability Consideration
5 / 1
Level 2 EQ
Level 1 EQ
T
V
e

11
BSL Level 1 Serviceability Design
C
ser

E
(A
ser
/h)

0.5%
A/h
C
e

1/5
V
b
/W


Observation: Required Lateral Stiffness is Independent of
System (or Ductility) Factor.
12
BSL Level 2Safety Design
C
ser

E
(A
ser
/h)

0.5%
A/h
C
e

1/5
V
b
/W


D
s

C
y

13
US Approachup to 1985 UBC
E
S
(A
w
/h)

0.5%(K)
A/h
C
b

1.5%
K
3

C
w
= ZIKCS
C
y
= ?
C
e
= ?
1
st
Significant Yield
14
1988 UBC
8
3
w
R

E
S
A/h
C
b

1.5%
C
w

3 / 2
25 . 1
T
ZIS
C
e
=
1/R
w
|
.
|

\
|
=
8
3 3
w
R
K
8
3
e
y
C
C =
K
R
w
8
~
(

s s A % 5 . 0
04 . 0
) / (
w
w
R
h
15
Comparison of BSL and UBC Drift Limits
Design Seismic
Force
Limit of Story
Drift Ratio
BSL Level 1
(Serviceability)
C
e
/5 0.5%
UBC 1985 K 0.5%(K)
1988 1/R
w
0.04/R
w

Observation: Required Lateral Stiffness is Independent of
Ductility-Related System Factor for both BSL and UBC!
Dependent on
System Factor
Independent of
System Factor
16
Implication of UBC Drift Limit
w
e
w
R
C
C =
E
A/h
C
b

e
C
1/R
w
w
R
04 . 0 0.005
6
e
C
A
B
17
1997 UBC
o
O
R 7 . 0
E
S
A/h
C
b

C
s

e
C
1/R

4 . 1
w
R
R ~
h
s
/ A
1
st
Significant Yield
% 5 . 2 ) / ( s A h
M
Observation: Serviceability Check Is Abandoned
18
ASCE 7-05
o
O
d
C
E
S
A/h
C
b

C
s

e
C
1/R

h
s
/ A
1
st
Significant Yield
% 5 . 2 / s A h
Observation: Serviceability Check Is Abandoned.
19
Performance-Based Design
Two-Level Seismic Design Including Seismic Serviceability
Check Is Back Again!

Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council (2005,
2008):
An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall
Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region

City of San Francisco (2007)
Recommended Administrative Bulletin on the Seismic Design
and Review of Tall Buildings Using Non-prescriptive Procedure

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (2009+)
Guidelines for Seismic Design of Tall Building (draft)

20
Tall Buildings PBD Guidelines
Still Use Capacity Design Principles
Require Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
Check at Least Two Seismic Hazard Levels
21
Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council
Target Building Performance Levels
Operational Immediate
Occupancy
Life
Safety
Collapse
Prevention



Earthquake
Hazard
Level
50%/5030 yr
(7243-yr)
a b c d
20%/50 yr
(225-yr)
e f g h
10%/50 yr
(475-yr)
i j k l
2%/50 yr
(2475-yr)
m n o p
(2005 vs. 2008)
22
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Definition of Tal Buildings
Not Height Dependent
Period > 1 Second
Significant Higher Mode Effects
Significant Story Drift Component due to Chord
(Column, Shear Wall) Deformation

23
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center
Target Building Performance Levels
Operational Immediate
Occupancy
Life
Safety
Collapse
Prevention



Earthquake
Hazard
Level
50%/30 yr
(43-yr)
a b c d
20%/50 yr
(225-yr)
e f g h
10%/50 yr
(475-yr)
i j k l
2%/50 yr
(2475-yr)
m n o p
24
Seismic Serviceability Design
Seismic
Hazard
Level
Damping
Level
Story Drift
Limit
LATBSDC 43-yr 5.0% 0.5%
PEER 25-yr 2.5% 0.51.0%
25
Design Basis Earthquake (ASCE 7)
T
S
S
D
a
1
=
T
o
T
S
1.0 T
L

Period (sec)






















S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

S
a

(
g
)






































S
D
1



















S
D
S

2
1
T
T S
S
L D
a
=
26
1g Building
W = 1g M
V
b

=

W

27
Resort to DUCTILITY
(or Trade Ductility for Strength)
28
Ductility Factor
A

M

K
A
A
e

V
e
= W(S
a
)
A
y
A
m

V
y

y
m
A
A
=
Factor Ductility
Base Shear, V
K
1/R

29
Newmark-Hall Ductility Reduction Rule
A
A
m
A
y

V
y

Base Shear, V
V
e


1/R

Equal Displacement Rule
Ductility Reduction Factor:
=

R
30
Multistory Frames
F
1

F
2

F
3

i b
F V =
A
V
b

E
S
Pushover Analysis
1/R

31
BSL Level 2Safety Design
C
ser

E
(A
ser
/h)

0.5%
A/h
C
e

1/5
V
b
/W


D
s

C
y

32
US Approach
A
y

A
M

C
S

E
S
A
S

C
y

A
C
e

Y
O
o

R

R
R = R

O
o

C
d

V
b
/W


33
Feature of ASCE 7
Simplicity Nonlinear Analysis not Required
Ultimate Structural Strength not Known
Empirical Seismic Performance Factors (R, C
d
,
and O
o
)
Design Focuses on Life Safety at One Design
Earthquake (475-year) Level
The Design Procedure Serves Well in General




34
Seismic Design Concept 1Ductility Design
A Reduced Design Seismic Force Can Be Used
IF Sufficient Ductility Is Built into the Structure
But Only Certain Elements Are Strategically
Designated to Serve as Structural Fuse, i.e.,
Deformation-Controlled Elements (DCE)

35
Example (SCBF)
Diagonal Braces as
Structural Fuse
Braces Generally
Designed to Buckle Out-
of-Plane
To Achieve This, More
Effort Is Needed to Make
It Happen!

36
Example (EBF)
Links as Structural Fuse
Shear Yielding Preferred


37
Example (SMF)
Mainly Beams as
Structural Fuse through
Plastic Hinge Formation
PZ and Column Base
Also Expect to Yield
Strong Column-Weak
Beam Concept

38
Seismic Design Concept 2Capacity Design
Remaining Part of the Structure Is Designed to
Remain Elastic, i.e., Design These Elements as
Force-Controlled Elements (FCE).

39
Two Key Concepts in AISC Seismic Provisions
Ductility Design Requirements
+
Capacity Design Requirements
40
2005 AISC Seismic Provisions
Moment Frames (Sections 9, 10, 11)
Special Truss Moment Frames (Section 12)
Concentrically Braced Frames (Sections 13,14)
Eccentrically Braced Frames (Section 15)
Buckling-Restrained Braced Frames (Section 16)
Special Plate-Shear Walls (Section 17)
41
2010 AISC Seismic Provisions
Section A: General Requirements
Section B: General Design Requirements
Section C: Analysis
Section D: General Member and Connection Design
Requirements
Section E: Moment-Frame Systems
Section F: Braced-Frame and Shear-Wall Systems
Sections G, H: Composite Systems
etc.
42
Sample Section (13 on SCBF)
43
Ductility vs. Capacity Design
Ductility Design
(Deformation-Controlled
Elements)
Capacity Design
(Force-Controlled
Elements)
Research
Effort
More
Design
Effort
Easier
(Straightforward)
Requires Good
Understanding/Judgment
44


Ductility Design Concept
45
Target Yield Mechanism
Moment Frame
Concentrically
Braced Frame
Eccentrically
Braced Frame
F
Target Yield Mechanism
Flexural Yielding Tensile Yielding/Buckling Shear Yielding
46
2010 AISC Seismic Provisions
Definition of Highly Ductile Members and
Moderately Ductile Members
Seismic Compactness Requirement
Lateral Bracing Requirement
47
Ductility Requirements
Code Implementation Example 1:
Special Moment Frame (SMF) Design
(Courtesy:
M.D. Engelhardt)
48
RBS Moment Connection
49
RBS Moment Connection
50
BFP Moment Connection
51
Dynamic Testing of Pre-Northridge Moment
Connection
52
Local Buckling Control
53
Local Buckling Control (2005 SP)
54
Local Buckling Control (2010 SP)
55
Lateral-Torsional Buckling
y y b
F E r L / 086 . 0 =
AISC SP 9.8:
56
Lateral-Torsional Buckling
(Courtesy: Steven C. Ball,
John A. Martin & Associates, Inc.)
57
Lateral-Torsional Buckling
58
Panel Zone
90 / ) (
z z
w d t + =
AISC SP 9.3:
59
Protected Zone
(AISC SP 9.3)
60
Ductility Requirements
Code Implementation Example 2:
Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF) Design
61
Target Yield Mechanism
(Courtesy: K.C. Tsai, NCREE)
62
Bracing Ductility Requirements
Bracing Buckling (SP 13.2a)




y
s
F
E
r
KL
4
max
=
|
.
|

\
|
(SCBF) 200
(OCBF) 4
max
=
=
|
.
|

\
|
y
F
E
r
KL
2010 AISC SP Section F:
63
Bracing Ductility Requirements
Local Buckling (SP 8.2b): Seismically Compact
(Courtesy: K.C. Tsai, NCREE)
64
Gusset 2t Requirement
(Courtesy: K.C. Tsai, NCREE)
SCBF
OCBF
65
Gusset 2t Requirement
>2t
66
Ductility Requirements
Code Implementation Example 3:
Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) Design
67
EBF Configuration
Structural Fuse:
Links
68
Link Ductility Requirement
e
L
A
p

|
|
.
|

\
|
A
=
h e
L
p
p
h
Plastic Deformation Demand
69
Link Ductility Requirements
Link Deformation Capacity Depends on
+ (Seismic) Compactness
+ Length
+ Link Stiffeners
70
Link Length Effect
(Courtesy: M.D. Engelhardt)
(AISC SP 15.2c)
71
Link Web Stiffeners
(AISC SP 15.2c)
72


Capacity Design Concept
73
Ductility vs. Capacity Design
Ductility Design
(Deformation-Controlled
Elements)
Capacity Design
(Force-Controlled
Elements)
Research
Effort
More
Design
Effort
Easier
(Straightforward)
Requires Good
Understanding/Judgment
74
ASCE 7 Seismic Performance Factors
3 System Factors: R, C
d
, and O
o

75
Capacity Design Seismic Forces
V
S

V
b

E
S
A
S

A
V
e

O
o

R
III
I
II
(DBE Level)
76
Seismic Load Combinations (IBC)
16.5.2.1 Basic Seismic Load Combination:
1.2D + f
1
L + f
2
S + 1.0E


1605.4 Special Seismic Load Combination:
1.2D + f
1
L + 1.0E
m


Seismic Force Level II Force
for Deformation-Controlled
Elements (Ductility Design
Needed)
Seismic Force Level III Force
for Force-Controlled
Elements (Capacity Design
Needed)
77
Internal Force Distribution
At Seismic Force Level II (Basic Seismic Load
Combination)Use Elastic Structural Analysis to
Determine Internal Force Distribution
At Seismic Force Level III (Special Seismic Load
Combination)Internal Force Re-distribution
Occurs due to Nonlinear Response

78
Example
F
Check as
Compressive Member
Check as Beam-
Column
(a) Seismic Force Level II
(b) Seismic Force Level III
O
o
F
79
Capacity Design
Think beyond Elastic Response Mentality
Use Expected Material Strength to Estimate
Maximum Force Developed in Structural Fuse
(Note: Structural Fuse Material Strength too
High Is not Desirable for Seismic Design)
Two Methods to Calculate Seismic Force Level
III for Capacity Design
Local Approach
Global Approach
80
Expected Material Strength
AISC SP 6.2
Expected Yield Stress, y y ye
F R F =
81
Method 1Local Approach
When the Structural Fuse Is Next to Force-
Controlled Element
Apply Statics at Local Level
Seismic Force Level II not Needed
An Upper-Bound Estimate of Seismic Force
Level III
82
Example 1: SCBF Bracing Connection
Bracing is Structural
Fuse
AISC SP 13.3 Bracing
Connection Design

n y
g y y
P R C
A F R T
1 . 1 =
= Dont Oversize
Structural Fuse!
83
Example 1: SCBF Beam Design
AISC SP 13.4a
Beam Design for
V-Type Bracing
n
g y y
P C
A F R T
3 . 0 =
=
T C
Check as Beam-Column
84
Example 1: SCBF Beam Design
Pu=?
85
Example 2: EBF Column Design
Links Are
Structural Fuse
AISC SP 15.8
for Column Design
n y
V R 1 . 1

P
br

P
u

86
Example 2: EBF Brace Design
Links Are
Structural Fuse
AISC SP 15.6
for Beam/Bracing
Design
1.25R
y
V
n
e
Dont Oversize Links
87
Example 3: SMF
AISC 358-05
e y y pr pr
Z F R C M =
f
M
*
pb
M
88
Example 3: SMF
Strong Column-Weak Beam Condition (AISC
SP 9.6):
0 . 1
*
*
>

pb
pc
M
M
89
Method 2Global Approach
An Approximate (or Lazy) Method:
O
o
(Seismic Force Level II)


Use It When Method 1 Cannot Be Applied Easily
Usually Applied at the Global (or System)
Level
Can Be Dangerous If Not Properly Applied
Elastic Analysis ASCE 7
90
Example 1SCBF
F
Check as
Compressive Member
Check as Beam-
Column
(a) Seismic Force Level II
(b) Seismic Force Level III
(Method 2 Will not Work)
O
o
F
91
SCBF: 2010 AISC SP
Case 1
All Tensile Braces: T = R
y
F
y
A
g
All Compressive Braces: P = min{R
y
F
y
A
g
, 1.14F
cre
A
g
}
Case 2
All Tensile Braces: T = R
y
F
y
A
g
All Compressive Braces: 30% of P in Case 1
Required Strength for Force-Controlled Elements (Columns,
Beams, Connections) Is the Larger of Two Cases:
92
Example 1SCBF Column Design
P
u
= ?
Method 1
O
o
F
3

O
o
F
2

O
o
F
1

P
u
= ?
Method 2
P
P
93
Example 2SCBF Column Design
O
o
F
3

O
o
F
2

O
o
F
1

P
u
~ 0!
Method 2
94
Example 2SCBF Column Design
O
o
F
3

O
o
F
2

O
o
F
1

Uplift
Force
Method 2
T
T
0.3P
0.3P
95
Summary
Seismic Provisions Trade Strength with Ductility
AISC Seismic Provisions Centered on Two Concepts.
A Target Yield Mechanism Is Aimed for Each Lateral Force-
Resisting System
Deformation-Controlled Elements (Structural Fuse):
Design for Reduced Seismic Forces
Ductility Design Is Relatively Straightforward
Force-Controlled Element:
Design for Amplified Seismic Forces
Use Either Local or Global Approach
Capacity Design Requires Good Judgment and Experience