PERFORMANCE BASED SEISMIC DESIGN OF A BUILDING

Sanjeev Kumar Sah1

1. Engineer, Department of Urban Development and building construction, Nepal

ABSTRACT

Performance Based Seismic Design (PBSD) approach is the modern approach to

design the buildings with predictable seismic performance. It is an iterative process that

begins with the selection of performance objectives, followed by the development of a

preliminary design and an assessment whether or not the design meets the performance

objectives. Finally redesign and reassessment is carried out if required, until the desired

performance level is achieved.

In the present paper a R.C building, ten storey RCC framed building, symmetrical in

plan is initially analysed and designed (as per IS456:2000) by equivalent static seismic

analysis and further its performance parameters (as per PBSD approach) are checked using

Pushover Analysis. It is further redesigned and checked for the performance objective

through three cases (i) Changing the reinforcement of beams and columns, (ii) Increasing the

sizes of beams and columns and (iii) Inserting the shear wall. The performance objective for

the analysis is to design the buildings whose damage is limited to Grade 2 (slight structural

damage, moderate non-structural damage) in order to enable Immediate Occupancy after

Design Basis Earthquake (DBE). The performance of the buildings are measured in terms of

lateral storey drift, inter storey drift ratios, base shear force and performance point. The

pushover analysis has been carried out using SAP2000.

KEYWORDS:PBSD approach,Performance Objective, Performance levels, Pushover

Analysis, Roof displacement, Inter storey drift ratio.

1.0 PBSD APPROACH

In performance-based design, identifying and assessing the performance capability of a

building is an integral part of the design process, and guides the many design decisions that

must be made. Figure 1 shows a flow chart that presents the key steps in the performance-

based design process. It is an iterative process that begins with the selection of performance

objectives, followed by the development of a preliminary design, an assessment as to whether

or not the design meets the performance objectives, and finally redesign and reassessment, if

required, until the desired performance level is achieved.

Figure 1. Performance-Based Design Flow Diagram (FEMA 273)

The performance-based seismic design (PBSD) process evaluates how a building is likely to

perform for the given potential hazard.It has been recognized that, for the performance

assessment of structure, the important parameters that need to be evaluated are:

1) Vertical load carrying capacity of structure,

2) Lateral strength,

3) Inter storey drift ratios (IDRs),

4) Lateral drifts ratios (LDRs)

2.0 PUSHOVER ANALYSIS (NPTEL)

Pushover analysis is of two types, (i) force controlled or (ii) displacement controlled.

In the force control, the total lateral force is applied to the structure in small increments. In

the displacement control, the displacement of the top storey of the structure is incremented

step by step, such that the required horizontal force pushes the structure laterally. The

distance through which the structure is pushed, is proportional to the fundamental horizontal

translational mode of the structure.

Figure 2. Static Approximations in the Pushover Analysis(NPTEL)

In both the types of pushover analysis, for each increment ofthe load or displacement,

the stiffness matrix of the structure may have to be changed, once the structure passes from

the elastic state to the inelastic state. The displacement controlled pushover analysis is

generally preferred over the force controlled one because the analysis could be carried out up

to the desired level of the displacement.

3.0 PERFORMANCE LEVELS AND RANGES (NPTEL)

Structural Performance Level, Immediate Occupancy (S-1), means the post

earthquake damage state in which only very limited structural damage is occurred. In the

primary concrete frames, there will be hairline cracking. There may be a few locations where

the rebar will yield, but the crushing of concrete is not expected. The transient drift will be
about 1% with negligible permanent drift. In the brick infill walls, there will be minor

cracking and minor spalling of plaster. The risk of life-threatening injury as a result of

structural damage is very low, and although some minor structural repairs may be

appropriate, these would generally not be required prior to re-occupancy.

Damage Control Performance Range (S-2) means the continuous range of damage

states between the damage defined for the Life Safety level and Immediate Occupancy level.

Design for Damage Control performance may be desirable to minimize repair time and

operation interruption as a partial means of protecting valuable equipment and contents or to

preserve important historic features when the cost of design for Immediate Occupancy is

excessive. Acceptance criteria for this range may be obtained by interpolating between the

values provided for the Immediate Occupancy (S-1) and Life Safety (S-3) levels.

Life Safety Performance Level (S-3) means the post-earthquake damage state in

which significant damage to the structure has occurred, but some margin against either partial

or total structural collapse remains. Some structural elements and components are severely

damaged, but this has not resulted in large falling debris hazards, either within or outside the

building. In the primary concrete frames, there will be extensive damage in the beams. There

will be spalling of concrete cover and shear cracking in the ductile columns. The transient

drift will be around 2%, with 1% being permanent. In the brick infill walls, there will be

extensive cracking and some crushing. But the walls are expected to remain in place. The

transient drift will be about 0.5%, with 0.3% being permanent. Injuries may occur during the

earthquake however, it is expected that the overall risk of life threatening injury as a result of

structural damage is low. It should be possible to repair the structure however, for economic

reasons this may not be practical. While the damaged structure is not an imminent collapse

risk, it would be prudent to implement structural repairs or install temporary bracing prior to

re-occupancy.
 Structural Limited Safety Performance Range (S-4)# means the continuous range of

damage states betweenthe Life Safety and Collapse Prevention levels. Design parameters for

this range are obtained byinterpolating between the values provided for the LifeSafety (S-3)

and Collapse Prevention (S-5) levels.

Collapse Prevention Performance Level (S-5) means the building is on the verge of

experiencing partial or total collapse. Substantial damage to the structure has occurred,

potentially including significant degradation in the stiffness and strength of the lateral-force-

resisting system, large permanent lateral deformation of the structure and to more limited

extent degradation in vertical-load-carrying capacity. However, all significant components of

the gravity load-resisting system must continue to carry their gravity load demands. In the

primary concrete frames, there will be extensive cracking and formation of hinges in the

ductile elements. There will be about 4% inelastic drift, transient or permanent. There will be

extensive cracking and crushing in the brick infill walls. Walls may dislodge due to out-of-

plane bending. There will be 0.6% inelastic drift, transient or permanent. Significant risk of

injury due to falling hazards from structural debris may exist. The structure may not be

technically practical to repair and is not safe for re-occupancy, as aftershock activity could

induce collapse. Figure 3 depicts various performance levels and damage functions.

Figure 3. Performance Levels and Damage Functions (NPTEL)

4.0 INTER STOREY DRIFT AND LATERAL DISPLACEMENT RATIO

Inter storey drift is defined as the ratio of relative horizontal displacement of two

adjacent floors and corresponding storey heights (h).

Inter storey drift = δ/h = (δi – δi-1)/ h

Inter storey drift and lateral drift is one of the most important design parameters in

all the seismic design codes as the performance of the structural as well as non-structural

components of the building is controlled by the inter storey drift. Inter storey drift also

controls the P-Δ effects and governs the member sizes in many cases, particularly in tall

buildings. IS 1893-2002 provides the drift control limit as 0.4 % directly on the elastic

displacement at the design load, without any amplification for the ductility demand. ASCE 7

limits the total storey drift within 1.5–2.5% depending on the occupancy category for the

multi storey RC frame buildings. For this reason, the guidelines given by FEMA-273 are

followed in the present study for maximum allowable drift limits corresponding to various

occupancy categories. Lateral Displacement Ratio (LDR) for Life Safety level is 2.5%.

Table 1. Allowable inter storey drift ratio (IDR) as per FEMA 273

Structural System OP* IO* DC* LS* CP*

Masonry shear wall System 0.005 0.007 0.007 0.007 0.009

Others 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025

OP-Operational, IO-Immediate Occupancy, DC-Damage Control, LS- Life Safety, CP-Collapse Prevention

Table 2. Target Roof Lateral Displacement Ratio as per FEMA 273.

Performance Operational Immediate Life-Safety Collapse

level Occupancy Prevention

Lateral Drift 0.5 1.0 2.0 4

ratio (δ/h) %

Where, δ is Lateral Roof Displacement and h is total height of building

5.0 ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In the present study a ten storey symmetrical building is considered for analysis and

performance based design.

5.1 Performance Objectives

The following two-level performance objective is suggested for new ordinary

structures.

•Under Design Basis Earthquake (DBE), damage must be limited to Grade 2 (slight

structural damage, moderate non-structural damage) in order to enable Immediate

Occupancy after DBE.

•Under Maximum Considered earthquake (MCE), damage must be limited to Grade 3

(moderate structural damage, heavy non-structural damage) in order to ensure Life

Safety after MCE.

From table 2 for Grade 2 the target roof displacement ratio should be within the 0.7%

i.e.210 mm and for Grade 3 it should be within 2.0% i.e. 600 mm. Similarly inter

storey drift ratio for grade 2 is limited to 0.01 and for grade 3 it is limited to 0.02.

5.2 Symmetrical Building

A ten storied reinforced concrete framed building standing on hard soil situated in Zone

V, is taken for the purpose of study. The plan area of the building is 24 m x 24 m with 3

m as height of each typical storey. It consists of 4 bays of 6m each in both X and Y-

directions. Building is symmetrical about both the axes. The total height of the building is

30 m.
 Figure 4. 3D View of Symmetrical Building

Loads Considered

Total dead load (all floor levels except roof) = 6 kN/m2

Total dead load for roof = 4 kN/m2

Live load at all floor levels except roof = 3 kN/m2

Sectional Properties of Frame Elements

Initially following section properties were assigned for analysis.

Columns = 850 X 850 mm

Beams = 600 X 400 mm

Thickness of Slab = 150 mm thick

5.2.1 Basic Structure

Table 3. Floor Displacements with Reinforcement Details for Basic Structure.

Floor Beams R R% Columns R R% Floor Inter Storey Remarks

(mm2) = (mm2) = Displacement Drift ratio

100R/BD 100R/BD (mm)

10 2864 1.19 608.9 0.0147 Allowable

9 2864 1.19 BC – 7392 1.02 564.8 0.0160 Inter

8 4830 2.01 515.4 0.0189 Storey

7 4830 2.01 IC – 7392 1.02 458.7 0.0210 Drift Ratio

6 6212 2.58 395.4 0.0220 for

5 6212 2.58 CC – 6372 0.88 327.0 0.0238 IO – 0.01

4 6892 2.87 255.4 0.0241 LS – 0.02

3 6892 2.87 MFC – 0.88 183.0 0.0234

2 7052 2.93 6372 112.5 0.0216

1 7052 2.93 47.7 0.0159

0 0

BC-Base Columns, IC-Inner Columns, CC-Corner Columns, MFC-Mid Face Columns

R- Reinforcement, IO-Immediate Occupancy, LS-Life Safety

Basic Structure with reinforcement details shown in table 3 draws the roof

displacement of 608.9 mm which is more than 210 mm and IDRs greater than 0.01. Thus

required performance objective is not achieved.

To meet the performance criteria the iterative process of pushover analysis is done by

following three cases:

Case-1 Change of Reinforcement in Beams and Columns.

Case-2 Change of Sizes of Beams and Columns along with their reinforcement.

Case-3Introducing the Shear Wall.

5.2.2 Case 1. Change of Reinforcement in Beams and Columns

Performance of the building is checked by altering the reinforcementof beams and columns

as shown in table 4. Stiffness of the building is increased so that the maximum roof

displacement is decreased to 462.4 mm but still higher than 210 mm. Thus performance

objective is not yet achieved.

Table 4.Floor Displacement with Reinforcement Details in Frame Element for Case 1.

Floor Beams R R%= Columns R R%= Floor Inter Remarks

(mm2) 100R/BD (mm2) 100R/BD Displacement Storey

(mm) Drift ratio

10 4250 1.77 BC– 27104 3.75 451 0.0036 Allowable

9 4250 1.77 440.2 0.0052 Inter Storey

8 7100 2.95 IC– 6372 0.88 424.6 0.0135 Drift Ratio

7 7100 2.95 384.1 0.0135 for

6 8516 3.54 CC – 6372 0.88 322.7 0.0204 IO – 0.01

5 8516 3.54 251.8 0.0236 LS – 0.02

4 9006 3.75 MFC– 0.88 177.2 0.0248

3 9006 3.75 6372 102.6 0.0248

2 9176 3.82 37.5 0.0217

1 9176 3.82 11.23 0.0087

0 0.0 0.0037

BC-Base Columns, IC-Inner Columns, CC-Corner Columns, MFC-Mid Face Columns

R- Reinforcement, IO-Immediate Occupancy, LS-Life Safety

5.2.3 Case 2. Change of Sizes of Beams and Columns along with their reinforcement.

When the size of base columns with reinforcement quantities of beams and columns are

increased as shown in table 5, the stiffness of the building is increased. Hence the

performance of the building is improved. Size of base column is increased to 1200 mm x

1200 mm and size of beam is increased to 750 mm X 550 mm. Maximum roof displacement
is reduced to 131.2 mm which is less than 210 mm and inter storey drift ratio is less than

0.01. Thus in this case 2, the required performance objective is achieved.

Table 5. Floor Displacement with Reinforcement Details in Frame Elements for Case 2.

Floor Beams R%= Columns R%= Floor Inter Remarks

R 100R/BD R 100R/BD Displacement Storey

(mm2) (mm2) (mm) Drift ratio

10 8016 1.94 BC – 2.39 131.2 0.0019 Allowable

9 8016 1.94 34496 125.4 0.0030 Inter

8 10695 2.59 116.4 0.0040 Storey

7 10695 2.59 IC – 6372 0.88 104.3 0.0049 Drift

6 12532 3.04 89.4 0.0057 Ratio for

5 12532 3.04 CC – 0.88 72.1 0.0064 IO – 0.01

4 13552 3.28 6372 52.9 0.0067 LS – 0.02

3 13552 3.28 32.6 0.0061

2 13552 3.28 MFC – 1.17 14.4 0.0032

1 13552 3.28 8496 4.6 0.0015

BC-Base Columns, IC-Inner Columns, CC-Corner Columns, MFC-Mid Face Columns

R- Reinforcement, IO-Immediate Occupancy , LS-Life Safety

5.2.4 Case 3. Introducing Shear Wall

When a shear wall of plus (+) shape is inserted at the centre of building as shown in Figure 7,

the performance of the building is improved. Stiffness of the building is increased such that

the maximum roof displacement is reduced to 157.3 mm which is less than 210 mm and inter

storey drift ratio is also within 0.01. Hence required performance objective is achieved. The

reinforcement details with performance properties are given in table 6.

Table 6. Floor Displacement with Reinforcement Details in Frame Elements for case 3.

Floor Beams R R%= Columns R R%= Floor Inter Remarks

(mm2) 100R/BD (mm2) 100R/BD Displacement Storey

(mm) Drift ratio

10 10408 2.97 BC – 3.07 157.2 0.0047 Allowable

9 10408 2.97 22176 142.9 0.0055 Inter Storey

8 10578 3.02 126.5 0.0059 Drift Ratio

7 10578 3.02 IC – 12320 1.70 108.7 0.0062 for

6 10833 3.09 90.0 0.0063 IO – 0.01

5 10833 3.09 CC – 8496 1.17 71.1 0.0061 LS – 0.025

4 11088 3.16 52.6 0.0057

3 11088 3.16 MFC – 1.17 35.4 0.0051

2 11088 3.16 8496 20.0 0.0042

1 11088 3.16 7.4 0.0024

0 0

BC-Base Columns, IC-Inner Columns, CC-Corner Columns, MFC-Mid Face Columns

R- Reinforcement, IO-Immediate Occupancy, LS-Life Safety

Shear wall of 200 mm thick is inserted through the height of building. Beam size is increased

to 700 x 500 mm. Columns size are kept same 850 x 850 mm. The force displacement curve

5.2.5 Comparison between Various Cases

Figure 10 shows the floor displacements characteristics of the symmetrical building. It is

clearly seen that the floor displacement values for case 2 and case 3 are decreased in large

quantity than for basic structure and case 1.

 Figure 10. Floor – Displacement Characteristics

The increase in the size of beams and columns, increase in reinforcement and its

arrangements have made the beams and columns stiffer. Thus the floor displacement values

are decreased and hence results the increase in performance of the building.

Table 7. Comparison of Reinforcements in Various Cases

Floor Basic Case 1 % Case 2 % Case 3 % Remarks

2 2
Structure R change R (mm ) change R (mm ) change
(mm2) (mm2) in R in R in R

(BEAM)
10 2864 4250 48.39 8016 179.89 11470 300.48 Beam
9 2864 4250 48.39 8016 179.89 11470 300.48 Reinforcem
8 4830 7100 46.99 10695 121.43 9898 104.92 ent is
7 4830 7100 46.99 10695 121.43 9898 104.92 limited to
6 6212 8856 42.56 12532 101.74 11088 78.49 4% of cross
5 6212 8856 42.56 12532 101.74 11088 78.49 section area
4 6892 9176 33.14 13552 96.63 11088 60.88 of beam.

3 6892 9176 33.14 13552 96.63 11088 60.88

2 7052 8114 15.06 13552 92.17 11088 57.23
 1 7052 8114 15.06 13552 92.17 11088 57.23
Size 600 x 400 600 x 750 x 700 x
400 500 500
( COLUMN)
Base 7392 27104 266.67 34496 366.67 22176 200 BC Size-
Column 1200x1200
Inner 7392 6372 -13.8 6372 -13.8 12320 66.67 for case 2.
Column Column
Mid 6372 6372 0 6372 0 8496 33.33 Reinforcem
Face ent is
Column limited to
Corner 6372 6372 0 8496 33.33 8496 33.33 6% of cross
Column section of
column.
R – Reinforcement
Table 8. Comparison of Performance Properties

Particulars Basic Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Remarks

Structure
Roof 608.9 462.4 131.2 157.3 Increase in
Displacement size of frame
(mm) elements in
% change in -24.06 -78.45 -74.16 case 2 and
Roof Insertion of
Displacement shear wall as
Maximum 16567.41 20757.72 30973.685 75726.82 in case 3
Base Shear * increases the
(kN) performance
Lateral Drift 0.0203 0.0154 0.0043 0.0052 of the building
Ratio (LDR) with sufficient
Δ/H decrease in
Acceptable LS - 0.02 LS - 0.02 LS - 0.02 LS - 0.02 roof
LDR IO - 0.007 IO - 0.007 IO - 0.007 IO - 0.007 displacement.
 Performance (15166.95, (18077.52, (26424.397, (48000.87,
Point ( Base 172.4) 180.5) 105.1) 97.1)
Shear (kN),
Displacement
(mm))
*Base shear after Pushover Analysis
The lateral strength (base forces) of the building for different cases are shown in figure 11.

From figure 11 it is clearly seen that the lateral strength of the building is continuously

increased in different cases. In case 3 where shear wall is inserted, the value of the base force

is increased in large quantity. This shows that the insertion of shear wall in building improves

its lateral strength and hence increases its performance making the building stiffer.

Figure 11. Lateral Strength (Base Forces) for Symmetrical Building

The reinforcement details in beams and columns and the performance properties of various

cases after analysis are compared with those of basic structure in table 7 and table 8

respectively.
6.0 Conclusions

Based on the present study, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The performance objective for both the buildings is achieved when the beams and

columns size are increased along with reinforcement in case 2 and when shear wall is

introduced with increase in beam size and reinforcement in case 3. Damage control is within

Grade II, Lateral roof displacement and inter storey drift ratio are within the limit of 0.1.

2. In symmetrical building, the roof displacement reduces to 131.2 mm in case 2 and

157.3 mm in case 3. Roof displacement is less than 0.7% of height of building ie 210 mm.

3. The inter storey drift ratio is less than 0.01 for case 2 and case 3.

4. Only change in reinforcement in beams and columns are not enough to increase their

performance.

5. Increase in reinforcement in random manner never increase the performance of

building. A suitable combination of reinforcements in beams and columns are necessary.

6. Building designed with IS 1893:2002 found to have performance as follows:

a. Operational under MCE

b. Elastic under DBE

7. Performance of building increases on increasing the size of beams and columns and

their reinforcement resulting into an appreciable decrease in the maximum roof

displacement both for symmetrical as well asasymmetrical building.

8. The increase in size and reinforcement of beams and columns results into a nominal

increase in base shear also for symmetrical building.

9. Performance of the building decreases when the sectional sizes of beams and columns

are reduced while keeping the same reinforcement.

Thus it is conformed that performance based seismic design gives a structure with better

seismic load carrying capacity, thereby achieving the objective of performanceas well as

economy and there is certainly room for further improvement in the above mentioned method.

REFERENCES

• ASCE, 2000, Pre standard 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• ATC 40(1996), Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings: Vol. 1,Applied

Technology Council, USA.

• Computers and Structures SAP2000: Three Dimensional Static and Dynamic Finite

Element Analysis and Design of Structures‖, Computers and Structures Inc., Berkeley,

California, U.S.A.

• NPTEL , Chapter 7- Introduction to Earthquake Engineering, (nptel.ac.in)

• SEAOC, 1995, Vision 2000: Performance-Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings,

Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, California.