Response History Analysis for the Design of New Buildings in the NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 Standard: Part III - Example Applications Illustrating the Recommended Methodology

Zimmerman, Reid B.; Baker, Jack W.; Hooper, John; Bono, Stephen; Haselton, Curt B.; Engel, A. E. J.; Hamburger, Ronald O.; Celikbas, Ayse; Jalalian, Afshar

doi:10.1193/061814eqs087m

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although there is no generally accepted value for maximum scaling factor, the use of large-scale factors in NRHA could introduce bias in the evaluation of EDPs. [22] On the other hand, Zimmerman et al [16] and Bommer and Acevedo [23] suggested a maximum scale factor of 4. Considering ASCE 7 period range for scaling, for T 1 ≈ 5.3 s, the scale factor will be as high as 11.…”

Section: Ground Motions Used In the Analysesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Haselton et al, Zimmerman et al, and Jarrett et al extensively reviewed the developments leading to ASCE 7 requirements. [14][15][16][17] To facilitate the practical application of performance-based design, ASCE 7 and LATBSDC, both have a two-stage analysis method, including a linear analysis followed by a rigorous NRHA. However, there are differences between the procedures as listed in Table 1 and are discussed in the following…”

Section: Nonlinear Response History Analysis Of Asce 7 and Latbsdcmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Application of Codes Performance‐Based Design Procedures for a Tall Building Using Recorded and Spectrally Modified Ground Motions

Rezaei

Tariverdilo

Sheidaii

et al. 2020

Structural Design Tall Build

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary There is a growing tendency toward the performance‐based design of tall buildings, where any assessment using response history analysis requires a set of ground motion (GM) records. This paper considering a tall building as a case study investigates how judgment on the seismic safety of the structure is affected by the use of recorded or spectrally matched GMs. Three model structures are developed: (a) using conventional design procedure of Chapter 12 of ASCE 7‐16; (b) adopting linear analysis requirements of Chapter 16 of ASCE 7‐16; (c) designing for service‐level design earthquake of Los Angles Tall Building Structural Design Council (LATBSDC) procedure. It is shown that all of the structures give acceptable performance when subjected to simulated GMs, although this is not the case for amplitude‐scaled GMs based on ASCE 7‐16 and LATBSDC. Finally, to have an objective assessment of performance, independent of GM types, incremental dynamic analysis is employed to derive fragility and mean annual rate of exceeding (MAR). Results show that for anticipated drifts at Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) level, the structures provide acceptable MAR at the fundamental period. However, for the higher modes including the second and third periods, MAR values become acceptable only at drifts as large as 0.085.

show abstract

Section: Ground Motions Used In the Analysesmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Nonlinear Response History Analysis Of Asce 7 and Latbsdcmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Codes Performance‐Based Design Procedures for a Tall Building Using Recorded and Spectrally Modified Ground Motions

Rezaei

Tariverdilo

Sheidaii

et al. 2020

Structural Design Tall Build

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The theory and application of ASCE 7-16 is presented in detail in references: [28,29,30,31]. In Section 16, the ground motion requirements in ASCE 7-16 contain substantial changes from the predecessor standard, ASCE 7-10 [14].…”

Section: Asce 7-16 "Minimum Design Loads For New Buildings"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ground motion input for nonlinear response history analysis

Morris¹,

Thompson²,

Dismuke

et al. 2019

BNZSEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA), or so-called "nonlinear time history analysis", is adopted by practicing structural engineers who implement performance-based seismic design and/or assessment procedures. One important aspect in obtaining reliable output from the NLRHA procedure is the input ground motion records. The underlying intention of ground motion selection and amplitude-scaling procedures is to ensure the input for NLRHA is representative of the ground shaking hazard level, for a given site and structure.The purpose of this paper is to highlight the salient limitations of the ground motion selection and scaling requirements in Sections 5.5 and 6.4 of the New Zealand (NZ) loading standard NZS 1170.5 (2004). From a NZ regulatory perspective; there is no specific framework for seismic hazard analysis and ground motion selection (thus self-regulation is the current norm). In contrast, NZS 1170.5 contains many prescriptive requirements for scaling and applying records which are challenging to satisfy in practice. Also discussed within, there are implications for more modern guidance documents in NZ, such as the 2017 "Assessment Guidelines" for existing buildings, which cite NZS 1170.5, a standard which is at least 16 years old (draft issued in 2002). To emphasize the above issues with NZS 1170.5, this paper presents a summary of the more contemporary approaches in the US standards ASCE 7-16 (new buildings) and ASCE 41-17 (existing buildings), along with some examples of the more stringent US requirements for Tall Buildings.

show abstract

“…Part I and this paper (Part II) have described the response history analysis provisions and documented the underlying framework used in developing them. Later papers in this series (Zimmerman et al 2017, Jarrett et al 2017) go on to implement the provisions and further study assumptions made in the development process.…”

Section: Conclusion and Topics For Future Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Response History Analysis for the Design of New Buildings in the NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 Standard: Part II - Structural Analysis Procedures and Acceptance Criteria

Haselton

Fry²,

Hamburger³

et al. 2017

Earthquake Spectra

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper represents the second part of a series of four publications on response history analysis for new buildings. It specifically focuses on modeling assumptions, consideration of important effects in the analysis, and interpretation of analysis results via global and local acceptance criteria. A statistical basis for development of both force- and deformation-controlled acceptance criteria consistent with the collapse probability goals of ASCE/SEI 7 is illustrated. More explicit sub-classifications of force- and deformation-controlled actions are proposed within the statistical framework. Additional philosophical discussion and simple probabilistic arguments are presented on the topic of consideration of unacceptable response, and guidance on addressing unacceptable response is given. Similarities and differences between the new requirements and those in other performance-based design guidelines are also enumerated.

show abstract

Response History Analysis for the Design of New Buildings in the NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 Standard: Part III - Example Applications Illustrating the Recommended Methodology

Cited by 23 publications

References 12 publications

Application of Codes Performance‐Based Design Procedures for a Tall Building Using Recorded and Spectrally Modified Ground Motions

Application of Codes Performance‐Based Design Procedures for a Tall Building Using Recorded and Spectrally Modified Ground Motions

Ground motion input for nonlinear response history analysis

Response History Analysis for the Design of New Buildings in the NEHRP Provisions and ASCE/SEI 7 Standard: Part II - Structural Analysis Procedures and Acceptance Criteria

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About