Tall Buildings Initiative (TBI) & TBI Design Guidelines Jack - PDF document

Tall Buildings Initiative (TBI) & TBI Design Guidelines Jack Moehle Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley PBEE and Its Application to Tall Building Design – Long Beach – 10 September 2011 1979-1994: A period of unrest Earthquakes ≥ M5.8 1992 Cape Mendocino 1984 Morgan Hill 1989 Loma Prieta 1983 Coalinga 1994 Northridge 1986 North Palm Springs Whittier-Narrows 1987 1992 Landers 1992 Big Bear 1987 Superstition Hills 1979 Imperial Valley 1

Seismic rehabilitation 1996 1997 2006 Performance objectives Building Performance Level Operational Occupiable, Life Safe, Near Damaged Major Damage Collapse Frequent a b c d Design Shaking Level (50%/50yr) Occasional e f g h (20%/50yr Rare i j k l (~10%/50yr) MCE m n o p (~2%/50yr) Most commonly selected performance objective 2

Performance objectives O O O P P P E E E N N N Collapse Damage Onset Threshold Deformation FEMA 356 Levels IO LS CP Rare (10%/50yr) MCE (~2%/50yr) EQ effect Details d j q j q i d i Component Model Global Model Force B C D E A Deformation Acceptance Criteria Component Tests 3

Seismic rehabilitation New buildings Lateral TonyCB - CyclicTest1 3000 Analytical Link beam Experimental 2000 system 1000 Moment 0 Gravity-only -1000 -2000 system -3000 -4000 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 Rotation Total rotation [-] 4

Tall buildings guidelines 2007 2008 2010 Seismic performance objectives after SEAOC Vision 2000 5

Performance objectives O O O P P P E E N N E N Collapse Damage Onset Threshold Deformation First generation ASCE 41 IO LS CP Performance Levels Next 0 25% 50% 100% $, % replacement generation 0.0 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.25 Casualty rate 0 1 7 30 180 Downtime, days Conceptual damage calculation Performance Group i EDP 1.0 Probability y 0 y 1 y 2 0.5 y 3 0.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 EDP = story drift 6

Conceptual repair quantities calculation Performance Group i Damage State Quantities y 1 y 0 y 2 y 3 0 0 0 0 concrete 0 0 0 0 steel 0 0 100 10,000 wallboard paint 0 100 1000 10,000 electrical 0 0 0 0 … Conceptual repair cost calculation Quantity i (e.g., running Total repair cost feet of wallboard partition) Unit Cost, $ C i Total cost = S C i Q i (plus contractor's OH and profit (~12%) and Quantity Q i general project costs (design, admin etc, at 20-50%). 7

Conceptual repair cost calculation Hazard level 5/50 10/50 50/50 Total Cost Annual frequency of exceedance Summary repair costs 1.0 P(Total Repair Cost ≤ $C) 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Return period = 36 yrs Return period = 72 yrs 0.2 Return period = 475 yrs Return period = 975 yrs 0.1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 6 x 10 $C (dollar) 8

9

Tall Buildings Initiative (TBI) & TBI Design Guidelines Jack Moehle Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER), University of California, Berkeley TBI Partners Applied Technology Council  California Geological Survey  California Emergency Management Agency  California Seismic Safety Commission  FEMA  Los Angeles Dept. of Buildings & Safety  Los Angeles Tall Buildings Council  National Science Foundation  Pankow Foundation  PEER  San Francisco Building Department  SCEC  SEAOC  USGS  10

TBI thanks Sponsors  TBI Project Advisory Committee (TPAC)  N. Abrahamson, Y. Bozorgnia, R. Hamburger, H. Krawinkler, J. Moehle, and F. Naeim  P. Somerville (SCEC), M. Lew (LATBSDC), M. Moore, N. Rodriguez (SEAOC), R. Lui  (SFDBI) Task 2 – Performance Objectives  W. Holmes (Chair), C. Kircher, L. Kornfield, W. Petak, N. Youssef, K. Telleen  Various Technical Studies  N. Abrahamson, Y. Bozorgnia, B. Chiou, C.B. Crouse, G. Deierlein, D. Dreger, M. Gemmill,  R. Hamburger, J. Heintz, J. Hooper, S. Freeman, C. Kircher, H. Krawinkler, M. Lew, N. Luco, J. Maffei, S. Mahin, J. Malley, N. Mathias, C. McQuoid, A. Mikami, J. Moehle, M. Moore, Y. Moriwaki, F. Naeim, F. Ostadan, M. Pourzanjani, P. Somerville, J. Stewart, E. Taciroglu, J. Taner, T. Visnjic, J. Wallace, T. Yang, Y. Zeng TBI Guidelines Development Team  R. Hamburger, J. Moehle, Y. Bozorgnia, C.B. Crouse, R. Klemencic, H. Krawinkler, J.  Malley, F. Naeim, J. Stewart Case Studies  Designers  MKA – A. Fry, B. Morgen, J. Hooper, R. Klemencic  REI – T. Ghodsi, J.S. Flores Ruiz, R. Englekirk, C. Massie, Y. Chen, E. Hoda, M.  Bravo, K. Lee SGH – A. Dutta, R. Hamburger  Analysts  URS/SCEC – P. Somerville  UCB/UBC – T. Yang, J. Moehle, Y. Bozorgnia  UCLA – J. Wallace, Z. Tuna  UCI – F. Zareian, P. Zhong, P. Jones  Loss Studies  ATC 58 – R. Hamburger, J. Hooper, P. Morris, T. Yang, J. Moehle  RMS – N. Shome, M. Rahnama, P. Seneviratna; H. Aslani  Tall Buildings Initiative (TBI)  Purpose  Develop design criteria and guidance for the seismic design and review of tall buildings in high seismicity regions  Tasks  Develop consensus on performance objectives  Ground motion selection and scaling  Soil-foundation-structure interaction modeling  Benchmark studies of building dynamic response  Model building designs  Case studies: comparison of seismic performances  Development of performance-based design Guidelines  Modeling and acceptance criteria (ATC-72) 11

Building Design and Modeling Three Building Systems 42-story reinforced 42-story reinforced concrete 40-story steel special concrete core wall dual system moment-frame Building Design and Modeling Three Building Systems 42-story reinforced 42-story reinforced concrete 40-story steel special concrete core wall dual system moment-frame Performance-based design guideline for tall buildings 12

TBI Guidelines  Key Sponsor  Charles Pankow Foundation  Development team  R. Hamburger, J. Moehle (Co-chairs)  Y. Bozorgnia  C.B. Crouse  R. Klemencic  H. Krawinkler  J. Malley  F. Naeim  J. Stewart TBI Guidelines Chapters Introduction 1. Performance objectives 2. Design process 3. Design criteria documentation 4. Seismic input 5. Preliminary design 6. Service level evaluation 7. MCE level evaluation 8. Presentation of results 9. 10. Project review 13

Jack Moehle Overview of PBEE and TBI Performance Objectives, Design Criteria, Andy Fry & Conceptual Design Seismic Input, Soil-Structure Interaction, and Ground Motions developed for the Yousef Bozorgnia Case Study Buildings Service Level and MCE Analysis Ron Hamburger Design & Iteration Process for Case Studies: Core Wall & Dual System Andy Fry Buildings Farzin Zareian Analysis of the Case Study Buildings Ron Hamburger Performance Analysis (Loss Estimation) Wrap Up and Q & A Jack Moehle 14