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
 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
2
Historical Development of
Seismic Loadings Codes

3
 Basic Load Combinations (ASCE 7)
•

• E: Probably the Most Mysterious “Load” 4

Seismic Loadings: Historical Perspective

Design Base Shear Ratio

UBC ZIKS
Cw  8
(19611985) 15T 1 / 2 Rw 
UBC 1.25ZIS K
Cw 
(19881994) RwT 2 / 3
Rw
UBC Cs 
Cv I R 
(1997) RT 1 1.4
IBC S D1 I
Cs 
(2009) RT 1
5
Design Base Shear: Historical Perspective

Design Base System Story Drift

Shear Ratio Factor Limit

UBC ZIKS K = 0.671.33 0.5%(K)

(19611985) Cw 
15T 1 / 2
UBC 1.25ZIS Rw = 412 0.04
(19881994) Cw   0.5%
RwT 2 / 3 Rw
UBC Cv I R = 2.88 2.5%
(1997) Cs 
RT 1
IBC S D1 I R = 1.258 2.5%
(2009) Cs 
RT 1
6
 Seismic Design Philosophy

SEAOC Blue Book (1959):

Nonstructural Structural
Damage Damage

Minor No No
Earthquake
Moderate Yes No
Earthquake
Major Yes Yes
Earthquake (But No Collapse)

7
 Earthquake Observation

Ductility Helps.
Vb

E
F3

F2

F1

Story Drift, 
8
Building Standard Law (BSL) of Japan
Two-Level Seismic Design Procedure:
Nonstructural Structural Structural
Damage Damage Response

Minor No No Elastic
Earthquake (0.5% Story Drift) (Independent
of Ductility

Major Yes Yes Inelastic

Earthquake (No Collapse) (Dependent
on Ductility)

9
 Building Standard Law (BSL) of Japan
• Level 2 Earthquake (PGA = 0.340.4 g)
for Safety Consideration
• Level 1 Earthquake (PGA = 0.070.1 g)
for Serviceability Consideration
Ve

Level 2 EQ
1 / 5

Level 1 EQ
T 10
 BSL Level 1 Serviceability Design
Vb/W

Ce E

×1/5

Cser

/h
(ser/h) ≤ 0.5%

Observation: Required Lateral Stiffness is Independent of

11
System (or Ductility) Factor.
 BSL Level 2Safety Design
Vb/W

Ce E

×Ds
×1/5
Cy

Cser

/h
(ser/h) ≤ 0.5%

12
 US Approachup to 1985 UBC
Cb

Ce = ? E

Cy = ?

S
Cw = ZIKCS 1st Significant Yield

/h
(w/h) ≤ 0.5%(K) 1.5%
3

K 13
 1988 UBC
Cb
8
Ce 
1.25ZIS
E Rw 
T 2/3 K

×1/Rw 3Ce
Cy 
8
3Rw

S 8
Cw
/h
 0.04  1.5%
(  w / h)    0.5%
 Rw 
3  3Rw 
   14
K 8 
Comparison of BSL and UBC Drift Limits

Design Seismic Limit of Story

Force Drift Ratio
BSL Level 1 Ce/5 0.5% Independent of
System Factor
(Serviceability)
UBC 1985 K 0.5%(K) Dependent on
System Factor
1988  1/Rw 0.04/Rw

Observation: Required Lateral Stiffness is Independent of

Ductility-Related System Factor for both BSL and UBC!

15
 Implication of UBC Drift Limit
Cb

Ce E

×1/Rw
Ce
6
B

C A
Cw  e
Rw
/h
0.04 0.005
Rw
16
 1997 UBC
Cb
Rw
Ce E R 
1 .4

×1/R

 o
S
Cs
1st Significant Yield
/h
s / h (  M / h )  2 . 5%
 0.7 R

Observation: Serviceability Check Is Abandoned

17
 ASCE 7-05
Cb

Ce E

×1/R

 o
S
Cs
1st Significant Yield
/h
s / h  / h  2.5%
 Cd

Observation: Serviceability Check Is Abandoned.

18
 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)
19
 Tall Buildings PBD Guidelines

• Still Use Capacity Design Principles

• Require Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
• Check at Least Two Seismic Hazard Levels

20
Los Angeles Tall Buildings Structural Design Council
(2005 vs. 2008)

Target Building Performance Levels

Operational Immediate Life Collapse
Occupancy Safety Prevention

50%/5030 yr a b c d
(7243-yr)
Earthquake 20%/50 yr e f g h
Hazard (225-yr)
Level 10%/50 yr i j k l
(475-yr)
2%/50 yr m n o p
(2475-yr)

21
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

22
 Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center

Target Building Performance Levels

Operational Immediate Life Collapse
Occupancy Safety Prevention

50%/30 yr a b c d
(43-yr)
Earthquake 20%/50 yr e f g h
Hazard (225-yr)
Level 10%/50 yr i j k l
(475-yr)
2%/50 yr m n o p
(2475-yr)

23
 Seismic Serviceability Design

Seismic Damping Story Drift

Hazard Level Limit
Level
LATBSDC 43-yr 5.0% 0.5%

PEER 25-yr 2.5% 0.51.0%

24
Design Basis Earthquake (ASCE 7)

Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)

SDS
SD1

S D1TL
Sa 
S D1
Sa 
T
T2

To TS 1.0 TL
Period (sec)
25
 “1g” Building

Vb = W

W = 1g  M

26
 Resort to DUCTILITY
(or Trade Ductility for Strength)

27
 Ductility Factor

Base Shear, V

Ve = W(Sa)
 Ductility Factor
M m

1/R K y
K

Vy


y e m
28
 Newmark-Hall Ductility Reduction Rule

Base Shear, V

Ve Equal Displacement Rule

1/R Ductility Reduction Factor:

R  
Vy

y m 
 29
 Multistory Frames
Pushover Analysis
Vb

F3 E
1/R
F2

F1

S

Vb   Fi

30
 BSL Level 2Safety Design
Vb/W

Ce E

×Ds
×1/5
Cy

Cser

/h
(ser/h) ≤ 0.5%

31
 US Approach
Vb/W
R = Ro
Ce E

R
R
Y
Cy
o
S
CS


S y M

Cd
32
 Feature of ASCE 7

• Simplicity Nonlinear Analysis not Required

Ultimate Structural Strength not Known
• Empirical Seismic Performance Factors (R, Cd,
and o)
• Design Focuses on Life Safety at One Design
Earthquake (475-year) Level
• The Design Procedure Serves Well in General

33
Seismic Design Concept 1Ductility 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)

34
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!

35
Example (EBF)

• Links as Structural Fuse

• Shear Yielding Preferred

36
Example (SMF)

• Mainly Beams as
Structural Fuse through
Plastic Hinge Formation
• PZ and Column Base
Also Expect to Yield
• Strong Column-Weak
Beam Concept

37
Seismic Design Concept 2Capacity Design

• Remaining Part of the Structure Is Designed to

Remain Elastic, i.e., Design These Elements as
Force-Controlled Elements (FCE).

38
Two Key Concepts in AISC Seismic Provisions

Ductility Design Requirements

+
Capacity Design Requirements

39
 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)

40
 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.

41
Sample Section (§13 on SCBF)

42
 Ductility vs. Capacity Design

Ductility Design Capacity Design

(Deformation-Controlled (Force-Controlled
Elements) Elements)
Research More
Effort

Design Easier Requires Good

Effort (Straightforward) Understanding/Judgment

43
Ductility Design Concept

44
 Target Yield Mechanism
Concentrically Eccentrically
Moment Frame
Braced Frame Braced Frame
F

Target Yield Mechanism

Flexural Yielding Tensile Yielding/Buckling Shear Yielding 45

 2010 AISC Seismic Provisions

• Definition of Highly Ductile Members and

Moderately Ductile Members
– Seismic Compactness Requirement
– Lateral Bracing Requirement

46
 Ductility Requirements

Code Implementation Example 1:

Special Moment Frame (SMF) Design

(Courtesy:
M.D. Engelhardt)
47
RBS Moment Connection

48
RBS Moment Connection

49
BFP Moment Connection

50
Dynamic Testing of Pre-Northridge Moment
Connection

51
Local Buckling Control

52
Local Buckling Control (2005 SP)

53
Local Buckling Control (2010 SP)

54
Lateral-Torsional Buckling
AISC SP §9.8:
Lb  0.086ry E / Fy

55
Lateral-Torsional Buckling

(Courtesy: Steven C. Ball,

John A. Martin & Associates, Inc.)

56
Lateral-Torsional Buckling

57
Panel Zone
AISC SP §9.3:
t  (d z  wz ) / 90

58
Protected Zone
(AISC SP §9.3)

59
 Ductility Requirements
Code Implementation Example 2:
Special Concentrically Braced Frame (SCBF) Design

60
Target Yield Mechanism

(Courtesy: K.C. Tsai, NCREE) 61

 Bracing Ductility Requirements

• Bracing Buckling (SP §13.2a)

 KL  Es
  4
 r  max Fy

2010 AISC SP Section F:

 KL  E
  4 (OCBF)
 r  max Fy
 200 (SCBF)
62
 Bracing Ductility Requirements
• Local Buckling (SP §8.2b): Seismically Compact

(Courtesy: K.C. Tsai, NCREE) 63

 Gusset “2t” Requirement
SCBF

t
>2
OCBF

(Courtesy: K.C. Tsai, NCREE) 64

Gusset “2t” Requirement

>2t

65
 Ductility Requirements

Code Implementation Example 3:

Eccentrically Braced Frame (EBF) Design

66
EBF Configuration

Structural Fuse:
Links

67
 Link Ductility Requirement

L  p 
 p   
e h 
e p

L
Plastic Deformation Demand

68
 Link Ductility Requirements

• Link Deformation Capacity Depends on

 (Seismic) Compactness
 Length
 Link Stiffeners

69
 Link Length Effect
(AISC SP §15.2c)

(Courtesy: M.D. Engelhardt) 70

 Link Web Stiffeners

(AISC SP §15.2c)

71
Capacity Design Concept

72
 Ductility vs. Capacity Design

Ductility Design Capacity Design

(Deformation-Controlled (Force-Controlled
Elements) Elements)
Research More
Effort

Design Easier Requires Good

Effort (Straightforward) Understanding/Judgment

73
ASCE 7 Seismic Performance Factors

3 System Factors: R, Cd, and o

74
 Capacity Design Seismic Forces
Vb

Ve E I (DBE Level)

R
III
o
S II
VS


S

75
 Seismic Load Combinations (IBC)

• §16.5.2.1 Basic Seismic Load Combination:

1.2D + f1L + f2S + 1.0E
Seismic Force Level II Force
for Deformation-Controlled
Elements (Ductility Design
Needed)
• §1605.4 Special Seismic Load Combination:
1.2D + f1L + 1.0Em
Seismic Force Level III Force
for Force-Controlled
Elements (Capacity Design
Needed)
76
 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

77
 Example
Check as Check as Beam-
Compressive Member Column
F o F

(a) Seismic Force Level II (b) Seismic Force Level III

78
 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
79
 Expected Material Strength

• AISC SP §6.2
• Expected Yield Stress, Fye  R y Fy

80
 Method 1”Local” 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

81
Example 1: SCBF Bracing Connection

• Bracing is Structural
Fuse
• AISC SP §13.3 Bracing
Connection Design

T  R y Fy Ag Don’t Oversize
Structural Fuse!
C  1.1R y Pn
82
Example 1: SCBF Beam Design
Check as Beam-Column
• AISC SP §13.4a
Beam Design for
V-Type Bracing

T C
T  R y Fy Ag
C  0.3Pn

83
Example 1: SCBF Beam Design

Pu=?

84
 Example 2: EBF Column Design
1.1R yVn

• Links Are
Structural Fuse
• AISC SP §15.8 for
Column Design Pbr
Pu
85
 Example 2: EBF Brace Design

• Links Are e
Structural Fuse
• AISC SP §15.6 for
Beam/Bracing 1.25RyVn
Design

Don’t Oversize Links

86
 Example 3: SMF
M *pb • AISC 358-05

Mf
M pr  C pr R y Fy Z e

87
 Example 3: SMF

• Strong Column-Weak Beam Condition (AISC

SP §9.6):

 M *pc
 1.0
M *
pb

88
 Method 2”Global” Approach

• An Approximate (or “Lazy”) Method:

o  (Seismic Force Level II)

ASCE 7 Elastic Analysis

• Use It When Method 1 Cannot Be Applied Easily
• Usually Applied at the “Global” (or System)
Level
• Can Be Dangerous If Not Properly Applied

89
 Example 1SCBF
Check as Check as Beam-
Compressive Member Column
F o F

(a) Seismic Force Level II (b) Seismic Force Level III

(Method 2 Will not Work)

90
 SCBF: 2010 AISC SP
Required Strength for Force-Controlled Elements (Columns,
Beams, Connections) Is the Larger of Two Cases:

• Case 1
– All Tensile Braces: T = Ry Fy Ag
– All Compressive Braces: P = min{Ry Fy Ag, 1.14FcreAg}
• Case 2
– All Tensile Braces: T = Ry Fy Ag
– All Compressive Braces: 30% of P in Case 1

91
Example 1SCBF Column Design

oF3

P
oF2

P
oF1
Pu = ? Pu = ?

Method 1 Method 2
92
Example 2SCBF Column Design

oF3

oF2

oF1

Method 2 Pu  0!
93
Example 2SCBF Column Design

oF3
0.3P T
oF2

0.3P T
oF1

Method 2 Uplift
Force 94
 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

95