Assessment of First Generation Performance-Based Seismic Design Methods: Case Study of a 4-Story Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frame Building

Abstract

The anticipated performance of a 4-story reinforced concrete (RC) building designed in accordance with ASCE/SEI 7, is assessed using ASCE/SEI 41. Engineering practitioners employing the performance-based seismic engineering philosophy are increasingly using ASCE/SEI 41, as the "first generation" performance-based seismic design principle, to justify the adequacy of the seismic performance of new buildings. However, ASCE/SEI 41 was developed to assess the structural performance of existing buildings. In order to compare the anticipated structural performance between ASCE 7 and ASCE 41, the seismic performance of an ASCE/SEI 7 codecompliant 4-story special RC moment frame building is assessed based on the four evaluation methodologies defined in the Tier 3 analysis of ASCE/SEI 41 for the collapse prevention structural performance level. The assessment results show that the ASCE/SEI 7 code-compliant building does not meet the collapse prevention performance level requirements in ASCE/SEI 41 for the columns in the first story when linear analyses are employed.

ASCE/SEI 41 assessment of reinforced concrete buildings: Benchmarking linear procedures and FEMA P-2018 with empirical damage observations

“…With all ASCE/SEI 41 linear procedures, the predicted performance is generally intended to be more conservative than that of nonlinear procedures, since linear models do not simulate strength and stiffness degradation due to spalling, yielding, fracture, and other damage mechanisms. Indeed, previous studies have indicated that the linear procedures are more conservative for modern steel and concrete moment frames (Harris and Speicher, 2018; Sattar, 2018; Sattar and Hulsey, 2015), due in part to conservatism in acceptance criteria and linear assessments’ overestimation of demands in deformation-controlled elements that are protected by yielding or failure of other components. However, other studies have suggested they may be less conservative than nonlinear procedures for modern steel braced frames (Speicher and Harris, 2016a, 2016b, 2018) because of the concentration of damage in the nonlinear assessment that is not identified in linear assessment.…”

ASCE/SEI 41 assessment of reinforced concrete buildings: Benchmarking nonlinear dynamic procedures with empirical damage observations

“…Maison et al (2009) compared an ASCE/SEI 41 assessment of a 4-story welded steel moment frame building with full-scale shake-table tests and found that the component-based CP acceptance criteria was exceeded when the shaking intensity was about half of the experimental collapse intensity. A series of studies evaluated the performance of new buildings using the ASCE/SEI 41 standard and found that modern code-conforming (ASCE/SEI 7) structures may not “pass” a linear (and in some cases a nonlinear) ASCE/SEI 41 evaluation (Buniya et al, 2017; Harris and Speicher, 2018; Sattar, 2018; Sattar and Hulsey, 2015; Speicher and Harris, 2016a, 2016b). Harrington and Liel (2020) also showed that retrofits designed according to ASCE/SEI 41 had highly variable performance outcomes, with some buildings retrofit to meet CP criteria maintaining significant residual strength and stiffness after a design-level event.…”