INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

Dalal Sejal P1 , Vasanwala S A2, Desai A K3 1- Research Scholar, Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat, Gujarat, India. 2- Associate Professor, Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat, Gujarat, India 3- Head, Applied Mechanics Department, SVNIT, Surat, Gujarat, India sejal_purvang@yahoo.co.in doi:10.6088/ijcser.00202010067 ABSTRACT Presented in this paper is an updated literature review of the Performance-based Seismic design (PBSD) method. Performance based Seismic design is an elastic design methodology done on the probable performance of the building under different ground motions. The derivative of the PBSD method, known as the Performance-based Plastic design (PBPD) method that has been widely recognized as an ideal method for use in the future practice of seismic design has also been reviewed and discussed. Performance-based Plastic design method is a direct design method starting from the pre-quantified performance objectives, in which plastic design is performed to detail the frame members and connections in order to achieve the intended yield mechanism and behavior. The findings show that a huge scope of research work is needed for development of PBPD method for other type of structures. Keywords: Performance Based Seismic Design, Performance Based Plastic Design, Performance objectives, Seismic Evaluation. 1 Introduction In the recent major earthquakes, it is noticed that the seismic risk in urban areas is increasing and the infrastructure facility is far from socio-economically acceptable levels. There is an urgent need to reverse this situation and it is believed that one of the most promising ways of doing this is through the Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) in which the structural design is based on the predicted performance of the structure during an earthquake. The Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering (PBEE) also known as the PerformanceBased Seismic Engineering (PBSE) is a rapidly growing idea that is present in all guidelines that were recently published: Vision 2000 (SEAOC, 1995), ATC-40 (ATC, 1996), FEMA273 (FEMA, 1997), and SAC/FEMA-350 (FEMA, 2000a). PBEE implies design, evaluation, construction, monitoring the function and maintenance of engineered facilities whose performance under seismic loads responds to the diverse needs and objectives of owners, users and society. In loose terms, it requires that a building be designed to meet specific performance objectives under the action of the frequent or the rarer seismic events that it may experience in its lifetime. So, a building with a lifetime of 50 years may be required to sustain no damages under a frequent, 50% in 50 years event, e.g., one that has a probability of 50% of being exceeded in the next 50 years. At the same time it should be able to remain repairable, despite sustaining some damage, during a 10% in 50 years event and remain stable and life-safe for rare events of 2% in 50 years, although, subsequently, it may have to be demolished. Obviously such performance objectives can be better tailored to a buildings function, e.g., being stricter for a hospital that needs to remain operational even after severe events, while being more relaxed for less critical facilities, 795

Performance based seismic design of structure: A review

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

flexible and able to suit each building owners needs (respecting a minimum of safety of course). A general methodology was formulated in an effort to involve all the variables that may affect the performance, such as seismic hazard, damage measures, collapse, financial losses or length of downtime due to damage, engineering demands such as story drifts, floor accelerations, etc., (Krawinkler and Miranda, 2004). The performance evaluation of a structure is carried out by using complex probabilistic formulas and the design work proceeds by going through several iterations of this process (Hamburger, 2004). The term Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) has been widely used by the engineering and research community since the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, perhaps the most costly earthquake in U.S. history, and other major earthquakes around the world which occurred at the end of the 20th century. This PBSD of buildings has been practiced since early in the twentieth century, England, New Zealand, and Australia had performance-based building codes in place for decades. The International Code Council (ICC) in the United States had a performance code available for voluntary adoption since 2001 (ICC, 2001). The Inter-Jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration Committee (IRCC) is an international group representing the lead building regulatory organizations of 10 countries formed to facilitate international discussion of performance-based regulatory systems with a focus on identifying public policies, regulatory infrastructure, education, and technology issues related to implementing and managing these systems. In 1989, the FEMA-funded project was launched to develop formal engineering guidelines for retrofit of existing buildings started, ATC, 1989), it was recommended that the rules and guidelines be sufficiently flexible to accommodate a much wider variety of local or even building-specific seismic risk reduction policies than has been traditional for new building construction. The initial design document, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, FEMA 273, therefore contained a range of formal performance objectives that corresponded to specified levels of seismic shaking. The performance levels were generalized with descriptions of overall damage states with titles of Operational, Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety, and Collapse Prevention. These levels were intended to identify limiting performance states important to a broad range of stakeholders by measuring: the ability to use the building after the event; the traditional protection of life safety provided by building codes; and, in the worst case, the avoidance of collapse. Following the Northridge event, the Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC, 1995) developed a PBSD process, known as Vision 2000, which was more generalized than that contained in FEMA 273 but used similarly defined performance objectives. Over the 10-year period after publication of FEMA 273, its procedures were reviewed and refined and eventually published in 2006 as an American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) national standard - Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE 41. Although intended for rehabilitation of existing buildings, the performance objectives and accompanying technical data in ASCE 41 responded to the general interest in PBSD and have been used for the design of new buildings to achieve higher or more reliable performance objectives than perceived available from prescriptive code provisions. ASCE 41 is considered to represent the first generation of performance-based seismic design procedures.

796

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

2. Applications and advantages of the PBSD method In contrast to prescriptive design approaches, performance-based design provides a systematic methodology for assessing the performance capability of a building. It can be used to verify the equivalent performance of alternatives, deliver standard performance at a reduced cost, or confirm higher performance needed for critical facilities. It also establishes a vocabulary that facilitates meaningful discussion between stakeholders and design professionals on the development and selection of design options. It provides a framework for determining what level of safety and what level of property protection, at what cost, are acceptable to stakeholders based upon the specific needs of a project. Performance-based seismic design can be used to: Design individual buildings with a higher level of confidence that the performance intended by present building codes will be achieved. Design individual buildings that are capable of meeting the performance intended by present building codes, but with lower construction costs. Design individual buildings to achieve higher performance (and lower potential losses) than intended by present building codes. Assess the potential seismic performance of existing structures and estimate potential losses in the event of a seismic event. Assess the potential performance of current prescriptive code requirements for new buildings, and serve as the basis for improvements to code-based seismic design criteria so that future buildings can perform more consistently and reliably.

Performance-based seismic design is both efficient and effective to avoid future earthquake losses. Further, the technology used to implement performance-based seismic design is transferable, and can be adapted for use in performance-based design for other extreme hazards including fire, wind, flood, snow, blast, and terrorist attack. The advantages of PBSD over the methodologies used in the current seismic design code are summarized as below 1. Multi-level seismic hazards are considered with an emphasis on the transparency of performance objectives. 2. Building performance is guaranteed through limited inelastic deformation in addition to strength and ductility. 3. Seismic design is oriented by performance objectives interpreted by engineering parameters as performance criteria. 4. An analytical method through which the structural behavior, particularly the nonlinear behavior is rationally obtained. 5. The building will meet the prescribed performance objectives reliably with accepted confidence. 6. The design will ensure the minimum life-cycle cost. 3. Design procedure of the PBSD method and evolution of the PBPD method

797

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

Performance-based design begins with the selection of design criteria stated in the form of one or more performance objectives. Once the performance objectives are set, a series of simulations (analyses of building response to loading) are performed to estimate the probable performance of the building under various design events. In the case of extreme loading, as would be imparted by a severe earthquake, simulations may be performed using nonlinear analysis techniques. If the simulated performance meets or exceeds the performance objectives, the design is complete. If not, the design is revised in an iterative process until the performance objectives are met. In some cases it may not be possible to meet the stated objective at reasonable cost, in which case, some relaxation of the original objectives may be appropriate. After the conceptual design phase is completed, the numerical design phase is proceeded to determine the structural detailing, which satisfy the pre-quantified performance objectives. Preliminary design can be conducted through two different approaches: 1. Traditional force-based design method followed by the check of performance objectives and 2. Direct design method starting from the pre-quantified performance objectives. The results obtained by the direct design method are believed to be closer to the final design and require less computational effort. Thus, this finding leads to evolution of the Performance Based Plastic Design (PBPD) method which is a direct design method that uses pre-selected target drift and yield mechanisms as key performance objectives that determine the degree and distribution of expected structural damage. It is based on the formulations derived from the capacity-spectrum method using Newmark Hall reduction factors (Newmark and Hall, 1982 ) for the inelastic demand spectrum.

Target Drift

Capacity Curve

Demand Curve

Figure 1: Procurement of the Target Drift The design base shear for a specified hazard level is calculated by equating the work needed to push the structure monotonically up to the target drift to the energy required by an 798

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

equivalent EPSDOF to achieve the same state. Also, a new distribution of lateral design forces is used that is based on relative distribution of maximum storey shears consistent with inelastic dynamic response results (Chao et al., 2007 ). Plastic design is performed to detail the frame members and connections in order to achieve the intended yield mechanism and behavior. This target drift is obtained by intersecting the demand diagram and the capacity diagram of the structure as shown in figure 1. And the Yield mechanism is chosen to be a plastic hinge formation in the beams and at the base column as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: The Formation of Plastic Hinges for the yield mechanism Results of extensive inelastic static and dynamic analyses have proven the validity of the method (Goel and Leelataviwat, 2008). The method Comparisons of responses with corresponding baseline frames designed by current practice have consistently shown superiority of the proposed methodology in terms of achieving the desired behavior. The method is especially advantageous for tall frames, where cumbersome and lengthy iterative design work in current practice can be completely eliminated, while leading to excellent performance as targeted. Since the numerical phase of performance-based design is an iterative procedure between design and verification, in order to save computational effort, it is suggested to select fewer performance objectives in the preliminary design and check all performance objectives in the final design. The decision as to how many and which performance objectives need to be selected depends on if that performance objective is the main concern of the users and owners and if quantification of the performance acceptable limit is reliable. PBPD design has been successfully applied to Steel Moment Resisting Frame (Lee and Goel , 2001) , buckling restrained braced frame, Eccentrically Braced Frame (Chao and Goel ,2006), Special Truss Moment Frame (Chao and Goel , 2008), concentric braced frames(Chao and Goel , 2006) and composite buckling restrained braced frame (Dasgupta et al, 2004). In all cases, the frames developed the desired strong columnweak beam yield mechanisms as intended, and the storey drifts/ductility demands were within the selected design values, thus meeting the selected performance objectives(Goel et al , 2010). A draft code for Taiwan has also been recently developed by Xue (Xue et al, 2008) based on the PBPD method of design for implementation.

799

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

PBPD design has also been applied to Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Structures by Liao (Liao and Goel, 2010).Development of the PBPD methodology for Reinforced Concrete structures with degrading hysteretic behavior is currently in progress. Seismic design of Reinforced Concrete structures to achieve targeted response presents special challenge mainly due to their complex hysteretic behavior. This study is primarily analytical in nature and focuses on Reinforced Concrete moment frames. It is expected that findings from this study will be incorporated in the next generation of performance-based design codes and practice. 4. Summary and Discussion Several approaches for the PBSD method proposed by researchers have been briefly reviewed in this paper and it is observed that more research work is needed especially for development of PBPD method for various other different types of structures. It is important to note that in the PBPD method, control of drift and yielding is built into the design process from the very start, eliminating or minimizing the need for lengthy iterations to arrive at the final design. Other advantages include the fact that innovative structural schemes can be developed by selecting suitable yielding members and/or devices and placing them at strategic locations, while the designated non-yielding members can be detailed for no or minimum ductility capacity. All of these would translate into enhanced performance, safety and economy in life-cycle costs. As the PBPD accepts damage in seismic events, and proves to be the most economical solution, and the performance can be quantified and confirmed to the owners desires, it is quite possible that it can be misused by the owner for personal profits. List of Abbreviations ASCE ATC EPSDOF FEMA ICBO ICC NEHRP PBEE PBPD PBSD SEAOC UBC References 1. ASCE, 1998, Handbook for the Seismic Evaluation of Buildings, a Prestandard, FEMA 310 Report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. American Society of Civil Engineers Applied Technology Council Elasto Plastic Single Degree of Freedom Federal Emergency Management Agency International Conference of Building Officials International Code Council National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Programme Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Performance Based Plastic Design Performance-based Seismic design Structural Engineers Association of California Uniform Building Code

800

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

2. ASCE, 2000, Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356 Report, prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 3. ASCE, 2002, Standard Methodology for Seismic Evaluation of Buildings. Standard No. ASCE-31. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. 4. ATC, 1997a, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 5. ATC, 1997b, NEHRP Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 274 Report, prepared by the Applied Technology Council, for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 6. ATC, 2006, Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines: Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings, FEMA 445, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, D.C. 7. Chao S-H, Goel SC, Lee S-S. : 2007. A seismic design lateral force distribution based on inelastic state of structures. Earthquake Spectra Vol 23: 3, 547569. 8. Chao S-H, Goel SC. : 2006a. Performance-based design of eccentrically braced frames using target drift and yield mechanism. AISC Engineering Journal Third quarter: 1732006. 9. Chao S-H, Goel SC. : 2006b. A seismic design method for steel concentric braced frames (CBF) for enhanced performance. In Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Taipei, Taiwan, 1213 October, Paper No. 227. 10. Chao S-H, Goel SC. : 2008. Performance-based plastic design of seismic resistant special truss moment frames., AISC Engineering Journal Second quarter ,pp 127 150. 11. Dasgupta P, Goel SC, Parra-Montesinos G. 2004. Performance-based seismic design and behavior of a composite buckling restrained braced frame (BRBF). In Proceedings of Thirteenth World Conference on EarthquakeEngineering, Vancouver, Canada, 16 August 2004, Paper No. 497. 12. Goel, S. C., Leelataviwat, S., Lee, S.-S., and Chao, S.-H. 2008, Theoretical Justification of Performance-Based Plastic Design and Evaluation Method for Earthquake-Resistant Structures, Earthquake Spectra (under review). 13. Goel, S. C., Lioa, W.C.,Chao S. H, Bayat, M.R., ,2010,Performance-based plastic design (pbpd) Method for earthquake-resistant structures: An overview ,The

801

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

structural design of tall and special buildings ,Wiley Interscience , Vol. 19 pp 115137. 14. Hamburger, R. O. 2004, Development of Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines, Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and Implementation, Proceedings of The International Workshop, Bled, Slovenia, 28 June-1 July, 2004 and PEER Report 2004/05, pp. 89-100. 15. ICBO 1997. Uniform Building Code - 1997 Edition, Vol. 2: Structural Engineering Design Provisions, International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, California, U.S.A. 16. ICC, 2001, International Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities, International Code Council, Whittier, California. 17. Krawinkler, H., and Miranda, E.2004, Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering : from Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering, Edited by Bozorgnia, Y. and Bertero, V. V., CRC Press. 18. Lee, S.-S., and Goel, S. C.2001, Performance-Based Design of Steel Moment Frames Using Target Drift and Yield Mechanism, Report No. UMCEE 01-17, Department of Civil and Environmental ngineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. 19. Lee, S.-S., Goel, S. C., and Chao, S.-H.2004, Performance-Based Design of Steel Moment Frames Using Target Drift and Yield Mechanism, Proceedings, 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No. 266, Vancouver, B. C., Canada. 20. Leelataviwat, S., Goel, S. C., and Stojadinovi, B 1999., Toward Performance-Based Seismic Design of Structures, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 435- 461. 21. Leelataviwat, S., Saewon, W., and Goel, S.C.,2007 An Energy Based Method for Seismic Evaluation of Structures. Proceedings of Structural Engineers Association of California Convention SEAOC, Lake Tahoe, California, 21-31. 22. Liao, W.-C. and Goel S. C. 2010, Performance-Based Plastic Design (PBPD) of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame Structures, The 3rd Congress of the International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), Washington DC, 2010a 23. NEHRP, 2009, Research Required to Support Full Implementation of PerformanceBased Seismic Design, prepared by The Building Seismic Safety Council of The National Institute of Building Sciences Washington, D.C. 24. Newmark NM, Hall WJ: 1982. Engineering Monographs on Earthquake Criteria, Structural Design, and Strong Motion Records, Earthquake Spectra and Design, Vol 3, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA. 25. SEAOC, 1995, Vision 2000: Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.

802

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING Volume 1, No 4, 2011

Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

26. SEAOC, 1999, Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary, Structural Engineers Association of California-Seismology Committee. 27. Xue Qiuang et al, :2008,The draft code for performance-based seismic design of buildings in Taiwan, Engineering Structures, Elsevier publications , pp 1535-1547. 28. Agrawal and Shrikhande,: Earthquake Resistant design of Structures , Eastern Economy Edition, New Delhi. 29. Chopra, A.K. : Dynamics of Structures, Prentice Hall India, New Delhi. 30. Goel and Chao.: Performance Based Plastic Design Earthquake Resistant Steel Structures,NCSEA Publication Committee and International Code Council.

803