CEE 243B – RESPONSE AND DESIGN OF RC STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS

Review of Conventional Seismic Design

and Introduction to Performance-Based Seismic Design

NIST GCR 10-917-4

CEE 243B - Spring 2018 1

 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
(Conventional Design)
➢ “Conventional” design here refers to seismic design according to current prescriptive
code requirements (e.g. IBC, ASCE 7, ACI 318).
➢ The conventional building design process is not performance-based.
➢ In the conventional design process, design professionals select, proportion, and detail
building components to satisfy prescriptive criteria contained within the building codes.
➢ Building codes establish minimum requirements for safety through the specification of
prescriptive criteria that regulate acceptable materials of construction, identify approved
structural and nonstructural systems, specify required minimum levels of strength and
stiffness, and control the details of how a building is to be put together.
➢ Although these prescriptive criteria are intended (and were developed) to result in
buildings capable of providing certain levels of performance (e.g., 1% probability of collapse
in 50yrs for Risk Category II structures), the actual performance of individual building
designs is not assessed as part of the conventional code design process.
➢ As a result, the ability of the resulting designs to provide the intended performance is
seldom evaluated or understood.

2
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
(Conventional Design)

➢ Which are the applicable codes?

➢ What is the stated objective of current codes?

➢ How do prescriptive criteria ensure that stated objectives are met?

➢ Can we do better???

3
Building Codes and Standards

4
 IBC – International Building Code
• IBC is a model building code developed by the International Code
Council (ICC).
• It has been adopted throughout most of the United States.
• A model building code is a building code that is developed and
maintained by a standards organization independent of the jurisdiction
responsible for enacting the building code.
• The IBC is revised on a three year cycle.

5
 IBC – International Building Code
• IBC adopts by reference other codes/standards/provisions.

i102.4 Referenced Codes and Standards

“..the codes and standards referenced in this code shall be considered
part of the requirements of this code to the prescribed extent of each
such reference.”
https://codes.iccsafe.org/public/document/IBC2018

• When adopting a model code like the IBC, some jurisdictions amend the
code in the process to reflect local practices and laws.

6
 Building Codes and Standards
Seismic Provisions in IBC

2009, 2015

2010, 2016

2015, 2018

NEHRP 2015: Recommended NEHRP (National Earthquake

Provisions are submitted to the Reduction Program) is a
ASCE/SEI 7 Standard committee collaborative effort among:
for consideration of adoption. – FEMA
Most of these new changes are – National Institute of Standards &
expected to be accepted in Technology
ASCE/SEI 7-16. – National Science Foundation
The Standard is adopted by – United States Geological Survey
reference in International
Building Codes (IBC , 2018).
7
 ASCE 7 – Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
and Other Structures

• ASCE 7 is developed by the Structural

Engineering Institute (SEI), part of the
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
• It provides means for determining:
➢ Dead loads, Soil loads
➢ Live loads
➢ Flood, Snow, Rain, Ice loads
➢ Wind loads
➢ Earthquake loads
➢ Combinations of loads

ASCE 7 is developed on a six-year cycle

8
 ACI 318 – Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete

• ACI 318 is developed by ACI (American

Concrete Institute) Committee 318.
• ACI 318-14 is reorganized and grouped
into six core sections:
➢ General One-way slabs
Two-way slabs
➢ Systems Beams
Columns
➢ Members Walls
➢ Joints and Connections Diaphragms
Foundations
➢ Toolbox Plain concrete members

➢ Construction

The reorganized 318-14 Code is centered on a member chapter format. When designing a
member, such as a column, all relevant design and detailing requirements are noted within
that member chapter.

9
 ACI 318 – Building Code Requirements
for Structural Concrete

• Transition Keys (from 318-11 to 318-14

and vice versa) available.

Transition Key example: 318-11 to 318-14

https://www.concrete.org/tools/318-14portal.aspx
http://www.skghoshassociates.com/sk_publication/ACI-318-14-Changes_PCI_Journal.pdf
10
 Building Codes and Standards

model building code, IBC ASCE/SEI 7 ACI 318

Drawings - General Notes

“Governing Code: The design and construction of this
project is governed by the California Building Code (…
Edition), as adopted and modified by the City of Los
Angeles CA, understood to be the Authority Having
Jurisdiction.” 11
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
(Conventional Design)

➢ Which are the applicable codes?

➢ What is the stated objective of current codes?

➢ How do prescriptive criteria ensure that stated objective is met?

➢ Can we do better???

Page 2: “..prescriptive criteria are intended (and were

developed) to result in buildings capable of providing
certain levels of performance”

12
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
Stated Objectives of Prescriptive Code Requirements
“… to safeguard against major
structural failures and loss of
life, not to limit damage or
maintain function.”
UBC, 1997 Ed., Sec. 1626

“… purpose of this code is to

establish the minimum
requirements to safeguard the
public health, safety and general
welfare through structural
strength, means of
egress facilities,.., and safety to life
and property from fire and other
hazards .. and to provide safety to ASCE 7, 2010 Ed.,
fire fighters and emergency Commentary of Sec. 1.3.1.
responders during emergency
operations.”
IBC, 2012 Ed., Sec. 101.3 13
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
Stated Objectives of Prescriptive Code Requirements
“The NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures
presents the minimum recommended requirements necessary for the design and
construction of new buildings and other structures to resist earthquake ground motions
throughout the United States. The objectives of these provisions are to provide
reasonable assurance of seismic performance that will:
1. Avoid serious injury and life loss due to
a. Structure collapse
b. Failure of nonstructural components or systems
c. Release of hazardous materials
2. Preserve means of egress
3. Avoid loss of function in critical facilities, and
4. Reduce structural and nonstructural repair costs where practicable.

These performance objectives do not all have the same likelihood of being achieved. Additional detail on the
objectives is provided in section 1.1.1 through 1.1.6. The degree to which these objectives can be achieved
depends on a number of factors including structural framing type, building configuration, structural and
nonstructural materials and details, and overall quality of design and construction. In addition, large uncertainties
as to the intensity and duration of shaking and the possibility of unfavorable response of a small subset of
buildings or other structures may prevent full realization of these objectives. “
FEMA P-1050-1, 2015 Edition, Sec. 1.1
(NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions 14
for New Buildings and Other Structures)  ASCE 7 , 2016 Ed.
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
Stated Objectives of Prescriptive Code Requirements
Risk Category Probability of Collapse Probability of Collapse
Given MCER Shaking In 50 years *
I ** **
II 10% 1%
III 5% Less than 1%
IV 2.5% Less than 1%
*The probability of collapse in 50 years is larger in areas where the MCER ground motion is
computed from a deterministic assumption of earthquake occurrence.
**Most Risk Category I structures are designed for the same requirement as Risk Category
II, while some are exempted from any seismic design requirement.

The basic recommendation for Risk Category II structures is based upon

acceptance of substantial damage at the MCER ground motion and lesser
damage at lesser ground motions.
FEMA P-1050-1, 2015 Edition, Sec. 1.1
(NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions
for New Buildings and Other Structures)  ASCE 7 , 2016 Ed.

15
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
(Conventional Design)

➢ Which are the applicable codes?

➢ What is the stated objective of current codes?

➢ How do prescriptive criteria ensure stated objectives are met?

➢ Can we do better???

Page 2: ..”building codes establish minimum requirements for safety

through the specification of prescriptive criteria that regulate
acceptable materials of construction, identify approved structural
and nonstructural systems, specify required minimum levels of
strength and stiffness, and control the details of how a building is to
be put together” 16
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
How do prescriptive criteria ensure stated objectives are met?
Targeted Probabilities of Collapse according to FEMA P-1050-1 (ASCE 7-16)
Risk Category Probability of Collapse Probability of Collapse
Given MCER Shaking In 50 years *
I ** **
II 10% 1%
III 5% Less than 1%
IV 2.5% Less than 1%

Risk categories for structural design, are based on the number of persons whose lives
would be endangered or whose welfare would be affected in the event of failure.

 Importance factors are used to target a higher reliability against collapse for
structures in higher Risk Categories, such as those housing a function essential to the
response of a community following a disastrous event, large or less capable
populations, or hazardous materials. Additional performance goals also apply for some
of these types of structures (e.g., depending on the Seismic Design Category).
Roughly, these adjustments in the risk target reduce by half the probability of collapse
for each incremental increase in the Risk Category. 17
Risk Category, I-IV

18
 Risk Category, I-IV

(continued)

Each structure is assigned to one of the four Risk Categories above and is assigned an
Importance Factor, Ie , based on that Risk Category. The Risk Category is also used as one
of two components in determining the Seismic Design Category (SDC) and is a primary
factor in setting Drift Limits for structures under the design earthquake ground motion.
19
 Seismic Importance Factor, Ie
ASCE/SEI 7

Minimum design loads for structures shall incorporate the applicable Importance
Factors based on the Risk Category. The seismic Importance Factor Ie is generally used in
ASCE 7 as a divisor on the factor R to reduce damage for important structures and prevent
collapse in larger ground motions.
The R factors adjust the computed linear elastic response to a value appropriate
for design; the largest component of that adjustment is ductility (ability of the structure to
undergo repeated cycles of inelastic deformations without significant degradation).
For a given strength demand, reducing the effective R factor (by means of the
importance factor) increases the required yield strength, thus reducing ductility demand
and related damage. 20
 Seismic Design Category (SDC)
The Seismic Design Category depends on:
• Risk Category, S1 ,and SDS & SD1
Consequence of Seismic Hazard
failure
The Seismic Design Category is used to determine:
• Permitted seismic-force resisting systems (SFRS)
• Building height limits
• Permitted lateral analysis procedures
• Restrictions on buildings with horizontal and/or vertical irregularities
• Seismic detailing requirements
• Requirements for nonstructural components
SDCs provide a means to step progressively from simple, easily performed design and
construction procedures and minimums to more sophisticated, detailed, and costly
requirements, as both the level of seismic hazard and the consequence of failure escalate.
SDCs are used to trigger requirements that are not scalable; they are either on or off.
Examples include whether seismic anchorage of nonstructural components is required or
not, whether particular inspections will be required or not, torsional irregularities
permitted or not, and structural height limits applied to various seismic force-resisting
21
systems. FEMA P-1050-1, 2015 Edition, Sec. C11.6
 Seismic Design Category (SDC)
ASCE/SEI 7
• S1  0.75 & Risk Category I, II, III  Use SDC E
• S1  0.75 & Risk Category IV  Use SDC F
The additional design criteria imposed on
structures in SDCs E and F are intended to
provide acceptable performance under very
intense near-fault ground motions.

All other structures shall be assigned to a Seismic Design Category (SDC) based on their
Risk Category and the design spectral response acceleration parameters, SDS and SD1:

Structures shall be assigned to the more severe SDC in accordance with SDS or SD1

For a given level of ground motion, the SDC is generally one category higher for Risk Category IV structures
than for lower-risk structures. This rating has the effect of increasing the confidence that the design and
construction requirements can deliver the intended performance in the extreme event. 22
 Seismic Design Category (SDC)
The Seismic Design Category depends on:
• Risk Category, S1 ,and SDS & SD1
Consequence of Seismic Hazard
failure
In developing the ground-motion limits and design requirements
for the various Seismic Design Categories, the equivalent modified
Mercalli intensity (MMI) scale was considered.
Approximate correlation between the MMI at MCE ground motion
and the Seismic Design Category (for ordinary occupancies):
MMI V  No real damage  SDC A
FEMA P-1050-1,
MMI VI Light nonstructural damage  SDC B 2015 Edition,
MMI VII Hazardous nonstructural damage  SDC C Sec. C11.6

MMI VIII Hazardous damage to susceptible structures  SDC D

MMI IX Hazardous damage to robust structures  SDC E

So, at the MCE level, SDC A structures should not see motions that are normally
destructive to structural systems, whereas the MCE level motions for SDC D structures can
destroy vulnerable structures. The requirements by SDC are such that there are a few basic
structural integrity requirements imposed at SDC A, graduating to a suite of requirements
at SDC D based on observed performance in past earthquakes, analysis, and tests.
23
 SDCs and Permitted LFRSs
ASCE/SEI 7
Table 12.2-1 Design Coefficients and Factors for Seismic Force-Resisting Systems

……………………………………………
……………………………………………
……………………………………………

24
 SDCs and Analysis Procedures
ASCE/SEI 7
Table 12.6-1 Permitted Analytical Procedures

The 4 basic analysis procedures are the equivalent lateral force (ELF), the modal
response spectrum (MRS), the linear response history (LRH), and the nonlinear response
history (NRH) procedures.
Note nonlinear static pushover analysis is not provided as an “approved” analysis
procedure in the standard. 25
 SDCs and Analysis Procedures
ASCE/SEI 7
Table 12.6-1 Permitted Analytical Procedures

ELF procedure not allowed for buildings assigned to SDCs D, E, or F, when :

• hn > 160 ft and T > 3.5 Ts ; where Ts=SD1 / SDS
• hn > 160 ft and T ≤ 3.5 Ts but with one or more structural irregularities (Tables 12.3-1, 12.3-2)
• hn < 160 ft and with one or more of the following structural irregularities: torsion or extreme
torsion or soft story, extreme soft story, weight (mass), or vertical geometric. 26
 SDCs and Analysis Procedures
ASCE/SEI 7
Table 12.6-1 Permitted Analytical Procedures

ELF procedure is based on an assumption of gradually varying distribution of mass and

stiffness along the height and negligible torsional response. The basis for the 3.5Ts limit
is that higher modes become more dominant in taller buildings so that ELF procedure
may underestimate the seismic base shear and may not correctly predict the vertical
distribution of seismic forces in taller buildings. 27
 Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis
I, II, III, or IV A, B, C, D, E, or F Building
(Risk Category) (Site Class) Location

SS and S1

Fa and Fv
Ie

SMS and SM1

SDS and SD1

• Permitted seismic-force resisting systems (SFRS)
• Building height limits
A, B, C, D, E, or F • Permitted lateral analysis procedures
(SDC) • Restrictions on buildings with irregularities
• Seismic detailing requirements
• Requirements for nonstructural components

SFRS
Seismic Force-Resisting System 28
 Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis
SFRS
Seismic Force-Resisting System

R, o, and Ta Cd

Cs x

V = CsW 

Fx

 and QE

E = Eh  Ev (where Eh = QE and Ev = 0.2SDSD)

Element Design Force

29
Risk Category and Allowable Drift
ASCE/SEI 7
Table 12.12-1 Allowable Story Drift, Δa a,b

30
 9in

96in

Tran, 2012

• Damage is better correlated to drift compared to forces.

• Drift limits (Table 12-12-1) provide indirect control of structural and nonstructural performance.
31
 Story Drift, 

ASCE/SEI 7

Deflection is the absolute lateral displacement of any point in a structure relative to its
base, and design story drift, Δ, is the difference in deflection along the height of a story
(i.e., the deflection of a floor relative to that of the floor below). 32
 Risk Category and Allowable Drift
ASCE/SEI 7
Table 12.12-1 Allowable Story Drift, Δa a,b

The deflections and design story drifts are calculated using the design earthquake ground
motion, which is two-thirds of the risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake (MCER)
ground motion. The design base shear, V, used to calculate Δ is reduced by the response
modification coefficient, R. Multiplying displacements by the deflection amplification
factor, Cd, is intended to correct for this reduction and approximate inelastic drifts
corresponding to the design response spectrum unreduced by R.
For these reasons, the displacements calculated may not correspond well to MCER ground
motions. However, they are appropriate for use in evaluating the structure’s compliance
with the story drift limits put forth in Table 12.12-1 of the standard. 33
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
How do prescriptive criteria ensure stated objectives are met?
Performance Level
Ground
Motion RC II
RC III
protection from RC IV
life-threatening
damage at the
design
earthquake
ground motion basic objective of collapse
prevention at the MCE for
ordinary structures (RC II)

Expected Performance as Related to Risk Category and Level of Ground Motion

FEMA P-1050-1, 2015 Edition, Sec. C11.5

The figure shows the combined intent of requirements previously discussed (Risk
Categories, Importance Factors, requirements per SDCs, Drift Limits).
Vertical axis is frequency of the ground motion, with the MCE being the rarest considered.
Horizontal axis is the level of performance intended for the structure and attached
nonstructural components, which range from collapse to operational. 34
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
How do prescriptive criteria ensure stated objectives are met?
Performance Level
Ground
Motion RC II
RC III
RC IV

Expected Performance as Related to Risk Category and Level of Ground Motion

FEMA P-1050-1, 2015 Edition, Sec. C11.5

Although in Conventional Seismic Design, performance is not actually evaluated as part

of the design process, prescriptive requirements are assumed to indirectly ensure the
intended level of performance..
We discussed Risk Categories, Importance Factors, SDCs, Drift Limits..
Other key aspects include: Detailing, Capacity Design, Serviceability checks .. 35
 Building Code Procedures for Seismic Design
(Conventional Design)

➢ Which are the applicable codes?

➢ What is the stated objective of current codes?

➢ How do prescriptive criteria ensure that stated objectives are met?

➢ Can we do better???
-- Performance of buildings designed to prescriptive criteria can be variable and, for a
given building, may not be specifically known. Note code provides minimum
requirements.
-- Building owners and occupants generally believe that adherence to building codes
provides for a safe and habitable environment, and anticipated degrees of damage are
not a normal consideration.
-- Experience in recent earthquakes has forced recognition that damage, sometimes
severe, can occur in buildings designed in accordance with the code.
-- Performance-Based Seismic Design- an alternative to conventional prescriptive
Seismic Design- explicitly evaluates how a building is likely to perform, given the
potential hazard it is likely to experience. 36
 Structural Damage in Recent Earthquakes
M8.8 Chile earthquake, Feb 2010 M6.3 Christchurch earthquake Feb 2011
19% RC Buildings
50%
31%
assessment
(tagging)
in CBD

Sritharan, Beyer, Henry, Chai,

Kowalsky, Bull -Earthquake Spectra

▪ Total economic losses $30 billion
▪ 200,000 houses destroyed or
heavily damaged
Data from EERI Special Earthquake Report, June 2010
▪ Total losses over $20 billion
▪ 25% of total buildings in CBD
demolished under emergency orders
▪ 50% of RC buildings in CBD yellow
(31%) or red (19%) tagged.
Data from EERI Special Earthquake Report, May 2011

Construction types and seismic codes in Chile and NZ generally similar to US

Do current seismic codes satisfy societal building performance expectations? 37
 Performance-Based Seismic Design
Introduction
•Performance-based seismic design is a formal process for design of new buildings, or
seismic upgrade of existing buildings, to achieve defined (predictable) levels of performance
in response to specified levels of earthquake within definable levels of reliability.
•In performance-based design, identifying and assessing the performance capability of a
building is an integral part of the design process, and guides design decisions.
FEMA P-58, 2012 FEMA P-58, 2012

nonlinear
analysis

Flowchart of Performance-Based Design Process discrete Performance Levels

Performance Objectives are defined by coupling expected (or desired) Performance

Levels (e.g. Collapse Prevention) to Seismic Hazard Levels (e.g. MCE) 38
 Performance-Based Seismic Design
Introduction
•Performance Objectives are defined by coupling expected (or desired) Performance Levels
(e.g. Collapse Prevention) to Seismic Hazard Levels (e.g. MCE)
Performance Levels in SEAOC, Vision 2000 Report FEMA P-58, 2012

Seismic Hazard Levels

in SEAOC, Vision 2000
39
Report
 Performance-Based Seismic Design
Introduction
Performance Level

Seismic Performance Design

Objective Matrix,
SEAOC, Vision 2000 Report

•Performance Objectives are defined by coupling expected (or desired) Performance Levels
(e.g. Collapse Prevention) to Seismic Hazard Levels (e.g. MCE). Each Performance Objective is
an expression of the acceptable extent of damage under a specified level of seismic hazard.

•In order to assess if Performance Objectives are met, Performance Levels (e.g. Operational,
Collapse Prevention) need to be expressed in quantitative engineering terms and parameters,
that can be evaluated (e.g., strains, plastic rotations, interstory drifts).

•The selection of appropriate engineering parameters and appropriate lower/upper bounds

constitutes a fundamental step in Performance-Based Seismic Design.
40
 Performance-Based Seismic Design
Performance Levels (PL) @ Introduction
Seismic Intensity BSE-2

4.0%
3.0%
Maximum
2.0%
Drift
1.0%
Seismic Performance De
0.5% 1.5% Objective Matrix,
Express Qualitative Performance Objectives Pampanin, 2005
(e.g. Collapse Prevention @ MCE)
in Quantitative terms/parameters (e.g. Max
drift<4.0% and residual drift<1.5% @ MCE).

Residual Drift

•Once 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
different seismic intensities.

•If simulated performance meets/exceeds the Performance Objectives, design is complete. If

not, the design is revised in an iterative process until Performance Objectives are met. 41
 Performance-Based Seismic Design
Advantages
• 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.

• Design individual buildings that fall outside of code-prescribed limits with regard to
configuration, materials, and systems to meet the performance 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.

FEMA 445 (2006):

Next-Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings.
42
Performance-Based Seismic Design
Available Guidelines

43