PERFORMANCE-BASED EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

Performance-based earthquake engineering practice arose from the realisation that the problems in the seismic behaviour of structures had to do with the approach of designing them explicitly for life safety, Table 2.1, thus not attempting to reduce damage in a structure, and minimise economic losses. The Structural Engineers Association of California, SEAOC Vision 2000 (1995) and the US National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program Guidelines NEHRP (1997) recommended a different approach. It was suggested that performance goals should be defined in order to account for all the three previously mentioned factors, Table 2.1: structural damage, loss of life and economic losses. Table 2.1 shows that there has been an attempt to define in a clear manner the performance objectives.

The Vision 2000 document suggests that buildings should be constructed, based on their intended use, to meet the performance objectives shown in Figure 2.1. In the figure, each combination of an earthquake return period and performance level, indicated by a red diamond, represents a specific design performance objective (Hamburger, 1997). For example ordinary buildings should be constructed so that frequent earthquakes do not render them non-functional and or do not cause damage that needs extensive repairs.

Essential buildings should be designed such as to avoid damage that will not permit their use, while hazardous facilities should be able to resist even earthquakes of low probability of occurrence and still be fully operational. These performance levels are in contrast to the approach taken by current building code provisions, wherein a single performance evaluation is required, for the Life Safety performance level at a specified level of ground motion, termed the Design Basis Earthquake (Hamburger, 1997).

EC8 (2003) and the International Workshop on Performance-Based Seismic Design Concepts and their Implementation, (Fajfar and Krawinkler, 2004), have shown that performance-based seismic methodology has started gaining ground in Europe. The different performance levels are shown in Figure 2.2 as adapted from Fajfar et al. (2004).

Performance Level

NEHRP Guidelines Vision 2000

Description

Operational Fully Functional No significant damage has occurred to structural and non-structural components. Building is suitable for normal intended occupancy and use.

Immediate Occupancy

Operational No significant damage has occurred to structure, which retains nearly all its pre-earthquake strength and stiffness. Nonstructural elements are secure and most would function, if utilities were available. Building may be used for intended purpose, albeit in an impaired mode.

Life Safety Life Safe Significant damage to structural elements with substantial reduction in stiffness, however margin remains against collapse. Nonstructural elements are secured but may not function. Occupancy may be prevented until repairs can be instituted.

Collapse Prevention

Near Collapse Substantial structural and nonstructural damage.

Structural strength and stiffness substantially degraded. Little margin against collapse. Some falling debris hazards may have occurred.

Table 2-1Structural performance levels definition (taken from Antoniou 2002)

Figure 2-1 Vision 2000 Performance objectives (taken from Hamburger, 1997)

Figure 2-2 FEMA 356 Performance levels (taken from Fajfar et al. 2004)

The performance-based methodology necessitates the estimation of two quantities for assessment and design purposes. These are the seismic capacity and the seismic demand.

Seismic capacity signifies the ability of the building to resist the seismic effects. Seismic demand is a description of the earthquake effects on the building. The performance is evaluated in a manner such that the capacity is greater than the demand (ATC-40, 1996).

These quantities can be determined by performing either inelastic time-history analyses or nonlinear static ‘pushover’ analyses. The former is the most realistic analytical approach for assessing the performance of a structure, but it is usually very complex and time consuming mainly because of the complex nature of strong ground motions. This complexity has led to the adaptation of nonlinear static analysis methods as necessary assessment and design tools.

There are four analytical procedures for design and assessment purposes recommended in the guidelines of FEMA, ATC, and EC8. These are the Linear Static Procedure, LSP, Linear Dynamic Procedure, LDP, Nonlinear Static Procedure, NSP, and the Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure, NDP, with ascending order of complexity.

2.2.1 Performance-Based Methodology Tools

2.2.1.1 Linear Static Analysis Procedure, LSP

The LSP procedure uses a pseudo-lateral static load pattern in order to compute the force and displacement demands on each element of the structure resulting from strong ground motion. These demands are compared with the capacities of the structural elements. The LSP however cannot be used if the structure is irregular, in terms of stiffness, strength, mass distribution, etc, if the elements have large ductility demands or the lateral force resisting system is non-orthogonal (Gupta 1998).

2.2.1.2 Linear Dynamic Analysis Procedure, LDP

The LDP procedure involves the computation of force and displacement demands using a modal analysis, a response spectrum analysis, or a time-history analysis. Usually the response spectrum analysis is favored compared to the modal analysis because it avoids the time-history analysis of a number of SDOF systems that correspond to each mode of vibration of interest. Instead the demands are computed directly by obtaining the maximum ground acceleration from the response spectrum of the ground motion or from the response spectrum of the ensemble of the ground motions.

2.2.1.3 Nonlinear Static Analysis Procedure, NSP, or Pushover Analysis, POA

The NSP procedure normally called Pushover Analysis, POA, is a technique in which a computer model of a structure is subjected to a predetermined lateral load pattern, which approximately represents the relative inertia forces generated at locations of substantial mass. The intensity of the load is increased, i.e. the structure is ‘pushed’, and the sequence of cracks, yielding, plastic hinge formations, and the load at which failure of the various structural components occurs is recorded as function of the increasing lateral load. This incremental process continues until a predetermined displacement limit. This method will be explained in more detail later in this Chapter.

2.2.1.4 Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Procedure, NDP

The NDP procedure is the most sophisticated analysis method because it eliminates the shortcomings of the methods discussed in sections 2.2.1.1 – 2.2.1.3. It is usually considered to provide ‘exact’ solutions to assessment or design problems. The accuracy of the method depends on the modeling of the structure, the ground motion characteristics and the nonlinear material models used in the analyses, something that is true for any method of analysis.