No abstract

This manuscript, the first in a four-part series, describes the response history analysis approach developed for Chapter 16 of the ASCE/SEI 7 Standard and critical issues related to the specification of ground motions. Our approach provides new procedures for demonstrating adherence to collapse safety goals for new buildings (≤10% collapse probability at the MCER shaking level), creating nonlinear structural models, selecting and applying ground motions to the structural model, interpreting computed structural responses, and enforcing acceptance criteria to achieve the collapse safety goal. The ground motion provisions provide the option of using target spectra having more realistic spectral shapes than traditional uniform hazard spectra. Ground motions are developed using a two-stage procedure emphasizing spectral shape in their selection, followed by scaling or matching them to the target, with a modest penalty for matching. Horizontal component motions are applied to the structural model with random components to avoid bias associated with the maximum-component definition of the target spectrum.

This paper represents the third part of a series of four publications on response history analysis for new buildings. Three real-building examples designed to a prior version of the building code are chosen having a range of target spectrum characteristics, tectonic settings, and structural systems to test the new procedure and document its appropriate implementation. This paper describes the process of determining both MCE R spectra and scenario spectra for all three examples. It explores selection of appropriate recorded ground motions and the procedure for scaling and spectrally matching to a maximum direction spectrum. Global results such as drift and treatment of unacceptable response, and local results such as force-and deformation-controlled acceptance criteria checks, are shown for each example. Practical guidance is given on implementing response history analysis for engineers employing the new Chapter 16.

Chapter 16 of ASCE 7 governs the selection of ground motions for analysis of new buildings and requires recordings that meet specified criteria. If a sufficient number of recordings cannot be found, it allows the use of “appropriate simulated ground motions,” but does not provide further guidance. This paper outlines a procedure for generating and selecting a set of “appropriate” hybrid broadband simulations and a comparable set of recordings. Both ground motion sets are used to analyze a building in Berkeley, California, and the predicted structural performance is compared. The structural behavior resulting from recordings and simulations is similar, and most discrepancies are explained by differences in directional properties such as orientation of the maximum spectral response. These results suggest that when simulations meet the criteria outlined for recordings in ASCE 7 and properties such as directionality are realistically represented, simulations provide useful results for structural analysis and design.

The accuracy of several assumptions made when developing the methodology for nonlinear response history analysis of Chapter 16 of ASCE/SEI 7 is investigated. The major findings of this work include: (1) Modeling the gravity system's lateral influence can have a significant effect on system behavior, but it is generally conservative to neglect its contribution. (2) Exclusion of a residual drift check is acceptable when collapse prevention is the primary objective. (3) Spectrally matched ground motions should cautiously be used for near-field sites. (4) The effects of nonlinear accidental torsion can be influential, and should be considered for the analysis of torsionally irregular buildings. (5) When analyzed using FEMA P-695, a structure designed per ASCE/SEI 7 Chapter 16 may have a probability of collapse that is different than the target value associated with the system's risk category.