Design Verification

INTEGRATED
using Nonlinear
Dynamic Analysis
INNOVATIVE
based on
SOLUTIONS
ACI 318-19
General Concepts & Case Studies
The goal is to get useful information for design, not
to calculate "exact" response.

Pramin Norachan, PhD.

Head of Engineering
[email protected]

March 29, 2025

Presentation Outlines

1. General Concepts

2. Sample Real Projects

PBSD
Performance-based seismic design 3. Modeling
(PBSD) is a framework (set of rules
and procedures) for designing new
buildings
4. Analysis

5. Design or Evaluation

NRHA 6. ACI 318-19, Appendix A, Design

NRHA is used in the
performance based-design
Verification using Nonlinear
method for verification in a final
stage of a design projects. Analysis
Pramin Norachan 2
Mar 28, M7.7 Myanmar Earthquake

≈ 1,000 km

Google

Structural Engineering, AIT and Line Group: Retirement Event for Prof. Pennung Warnitchai (AIT) 3
 Sagaing Fault
8.0 Richter scale

Kanchanaburi
7.5 Richter scale

Andaman
8.5-9.0 Richter scale

Source: Prof. Pennung Warnitchai (AIT)

 Mar 28, M7.7 Myanmar Earthquake

Source: Celebiet al. 1987, Source: Prof. Nakhorn Poovarodom,

Structural Dynamics in Design Seismic Standards Thammasat University

Line Group: Retirement Event for Prof. Pennung Warnitchai (AIT) 5

Mar 28, M7.7 Myanmar Earthquake
Design

Source:
Prof. Pennung Warnitchai
≈ 1/3 times (AIT) and Dr.Teraphan
Ornthammarath (Mahidol
University)

15 22 30 Story 50 Story

Peak

4 times

PGA
T ≈ 0.8 – 3.2s
13 to 55 Story

Line Group: Retirement Event for Prof. Pennung Warnitchai (AIT) 6

Mar 28, M7.7 Myanmar Earthquake (Effects in Bangkok)

Thailand Structural Engineering Association, TSEA OpenChart 7

Mar 28, M7.7 Myanmar Earthquake (Effects in Bangkok)

Thailand Structural Engineering Association, TSEA OpenChart 8

Mar 28, M7.7 Myanmar Earthquake (Effects in Bangkok)
30-Story RC Building

Thailand Structural Engineering Association, TSEA OpenChart 9

Mar 28, M7.7 Myanmar Earthquake (Effects in Bangkok)

Sources from Internet 10

Mar 28, M7.7 Myanmar Earthquake (Effects in Myanmar)

Thailand Structural Engineering Association, TSEA OpenChart 11

Mar 28, M7.7 Myanmar Earthquake (Effects in Myanmar)

Thailand Structural Engineering Association, TSEA OpenChart 12

www.bangkok-tickets.com/mahanakhon-skywalk

General Concepts
 Seismic Force-Resisting System Pramin Norachan

• Wind
• Earthquake Gravity Lateral
Load-Resisting system Load-Resisting system

Systems Types Functions Components

Gravity Load- Horizontal Elements Transfer gravity loads to vertical elements Slabs, Beams
Resisting System
Vertical Elements Transmit gravity loads from the upper Columns, etc.
levels to the foundation
Lateral Load- Horizontal Elements Transfer lateral loads to vertical elements Floor Diaphragms
Resisting System of the lateral load-resisting system (Slabs)
Vertical Elements Transmit lateral forces from the upper Shear Walls,
levels to the foundation Columns, Bracings
14
The Evolution of Building Design
Tall buildings are defined as those with the height, h, greater than 160 feet
(48 m ≈ 16 stories) above average adjacent ground surface, LATBSDC 2022.

Tube system Braced core

Built to defy severe quakes, the New Wilshire Grand is seismically chic, THOMAS CURWEN, LORENA IÑIGUEZ ELEBEE, MEL MELCON 15
 What are the Common Structural Systems?
Lateral Lateral Lateral Lateral
Gravity Gravity Gravity Gravity+Lateral

Gravity frame Moment-resisting Moment-resisting

frame (100%) frame (>25%)

Bearing wall Building frame Moment-resisting Dual system

frame

• Supports all gravity and • Frame carries gravity • Specially detailed • Similar to building
lateral loads (i.e. gravity frame frame to support both frame system except
• Lack redundancy • Shear walls or braced gravity and lateral loads the gravity frame also
• R-value varies from frames carry lateral • High level of ductility provide secondary
3.0 to 5.5 load and redundancy lateral force resistance.
• Need to consider • R-value varies from • R-value varies from
deformation 3.5 to 8.0 3.5 to 8.0
compatibility
• R-value varies from
3.5 to 5.0

Earthquake Design Using 1997 Uniform Building Code, Dr. Hathairat Maneetes 16
General Design Concepts 

I I
V = VE   = S aW  
R R

Big
Section

Design against linear Rd = Response Modification

responses, Not economical
Factor for Ductility
Small Section +
Ductile Details Rd R

Allow inelastic responses, reduce seismic force and structural sizes results in
more economical, but need enough Ductility to survive the shaking events.
Ductile
Details

FEMA P695 17
Structural System
One Rincon Hill (Tower 1), San Francisco, US

Performance-Based Seismic Design: Best Practices, Ron Klemencic, MKA 18

Structural System
Wilshire Grand Center, Los Angeles, US

Pramin Norachan Performance-Based Seismic Design for Tall Buildings, CTBUH, Thornton Tomasetti 19
Structural System

13.2 m.

33 m.
Irregular Structures
Structural System

Hybrid (Precast & RC) Building

Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) of Tall Buildings

• Code provisions are intended to provide a Goals of PBSD

minimum level of safety for all types of (developers and structural engineers)
buildings, ranging from small one and two
story dwellings to the tallest structures. • The ability to make exceptions to
specific code requirements, such
• The provisions contain many requirements as high limits for selecting seismic
that are not specifically applicable to tall force-resisting system.
buildings, and which may result in designs
that are less than optimal, both from a cost • The use of seismic force-resisting
and safety perspective. systems and innovative designs
not prescribed by code; outrigger.
• Performance-based seismic design
(PBSD) is a framework for designing new • The use of high-strength materials
buildings. and mechanical devices; base
isolation, tuned mass damper.
• The performance-based approach is an
alternate design with predictable and safe • The reduction of structural and
performance when subjected to non-structural damage through
earthquake ground motions but involves enhanced seismic damage
significantly more effort in the analysis and performance objectives.
design stages.
22
PBSD Codes & Guidelines

TBI 2010, 2017 LATBSDC 2011, 2014, 2017, ACI 318-19

(PBSD) 2020, 2023 (PBSD) (Appendix A: NRHA)

23
Other Codes & Guidelines

ASCE 7-16 ASCE 41-17 ATC 72-1

(Chapter 16) (Modeling & Acceptance Criteria) (Modeling)

24
 “If a structure experiences a level of ground
Sample Earthquake Levels motion (MCE) 1.5 times the design level
(DBE), the structure should have a low
Response Spectra likelihood of collapse.”
1.1
MCE
1.0 Maximum Considered 2% of probability of exceedance in
2
S DS = S MS Earthquake (MCE) 50 years (2,500-year return period)
0.9 3 Design Basic Earthquake
2/3 of MCE
(2/3)MCE 2 (DBE)
0.8 S D1 = S M 1 Basic Safety Earthquake 20% of probability of exceedance in
3
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)

0.7 DBE (BSE) 50 years (225-year return period)

Service Level 50% of probability of exceedance in
0.6 Earthquake (SLE) 30 years (43-year return period)

0.5 Why 2,475 Years and Not 10,000 Years?

• 10,000-year earthquake would significantly increase construction costs without
proportionate safety benefits.
• Economic Considerations to balance between safety and cost.
0.4 • Ground motion with very high return periods have much greater uncertainty, making
them unreliable for practical design.

0.3
0.2
SLE
0.1
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Natural Period (s)
MCE-2500 DBE-1000 DBE-500 BSE-225 SLE-43

Pramin Norachan 25
 Structural Performance Levels Pramin Norachan

Very little Any repairs Damage to Near collapse

damage are minor partitions (Structural stability)

0% 99 %
Damage
or Loss
Service Level Design Basic Maximum Considered
Earthquake Earthquake Earthquake
(SLE = 43 yrs.) (DBE = 2/3MCE) (MCE = 2500 yrs.)

Frequent Earthquake Extremely Rare Earthquake

(20% occurring in 50 years) (2% occurring in 50 years)
26
 Very Little Damage Near Collapse
Performance
Level Concepts
Performance Level

Earthquake Immediate Collapse

Operational Life Safety
Intensity Occupancy Prevention
Small Earthquake Drift = 0.5% Drift = 2.0% Drift = 3.0%

Service Level
Earthquake (SLE)

Design Basic
Earthquake (DBE)

Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE)

I e = 1.5 I e = 1.25 I e = 1.0

Large Earthquake

Risk Category

Pramin Norachan IV Performance objectives, SEAOC

III (1995) I & II
Linear and Nonlinear analysis

Linear Response
Vlinear

Vnonlinear Nonlinear Response

  linear  nonlinear 

Pramin Norachan 28
 Steps Items Serviceability Evaluation Collapse Prevention Evaluation
Design Performance Performance Level: IO Performance Level: CP
Criteria objective Earthquake Level: SLE Earthquake Level: MCE
(LATBSDC (Return period of 43 years, (Return period of 2,475 years,
2023) 50%, 30 years) 2%, 50 years)

Modeling Material Expected strengths Expected strengths

Model Linear or Nonlinear Nonlinear
Damping ζ = 0.36/√H ≤ 0.05 (5.0%), H in ft 2.5 - 5.0%
Analysis Analysis & (a) Response spectrum Nonlinear time-history analysis
Load 1.0DL + 0.25 LL + 1.0 Ex + 0.3 Ey 1.0DL + 0.25 LL ± 1.0 E
combinations 1.0DL + 0.25 LL + 0.3 Ex + 1.0 Ey - 11 pairs of ground motions (Mean value)
(b) Linear or Nonlinear time-history analysis Research on Probabilistic Basis shows that 11 records strike a balance between
1.0DL + 0.25 LL ± 1.0 E accuracy and computational effort while maintaining low variability in median
estimates.
- 3 pairs of ground motions (LHA, Max) Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-
History Analyses, C.B. Haselton, et al.
- 7 pairs of ground motions (NRHA, Mean)
Design Load & Fu = 1.0 x F Force controlled action: Fu = (1.3-1.5) x F
(Evaluation) Reduction Ø = 1.0 Deformation controlled action: Fu = 1.0 x F
factors Ø = ACI 318
Evaluation, (a) Response spectrum Nonlinear time-history analysis
DCR = D/C - Deformation-controlled action: DCR ≤ 1.5 - Deformation-controlled action: DCR ≤ 1.0
- Force-controlled action: DCR ≤ 0.7 - Force-controlled action : DCR ≤ 1.0
(b) Nonlinear time-history analysis
- Deformation-controlled action: DCR ≤ 1.0
- Force-controlled action: DCR ≤ 0.7
Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) Procedure
Initial Information
• Architectural drawings
• Geotechnical instigation (Soil report)
• Seismic design loads or probabilistic seismic hazard assessment (PSHA, Ground motion records)
• Wind design loads or wind tunnel test (Wind report)

Code-Based Design First proportions of the building using

• Life Safety (LS) – DBE linear analysis methods (typical RSA)

Performance-Based Selection of Performance Objectives • First proportions of the building using

linear analysis methods (typical RSA)
Seismic Design • Immediate Occupancy (IO) - SLE
including wind design
• Collapse Prevention (CP) - MCE • Then verifies the design using NRHA

Structural Modeling, Analysis & Design

1. Modeling
2. Analysis
3. Evaluation/Design

Dose Performance Meet the Selected Objective?

No Yes

Peer Review

Prepare report & Construction Documents

Pramin Norachan 30
 Structural Design Approaches Pramin Norachan

Code-Based Design Performance-Based Design

Title Types
(DBE - LS) (MCE - CP)
General • A minimum level of safety • An alternate design with
Concepts for all types of buildings predictable and safe performance

• High limits for selecting • No limits for selecting seismic

seismic force-resisting force-resisting system, such as
system outrigger, base isolation
Demand (D) Load 1.4DL 1.0DL + 0.25 LL ± 1.0 EQ
Combinations 1.2DL + 1.6LL
1.2DL + 0.5LL + 1.6WL Ductile – the mean demands
0.9DL + 1.6WL Brittle – 1.3 to 1.5 times the
Fu 1.2DL + 0.5LL + 1.0EQ mean value of demand
0.9DL + 1.0EQ

Capacity (C) Reduction Ø = 0.65 to 0.90 Ø = 1.0 (critical force-controlled

Factor action following ACI 318)

 Fn Material Specified (nominal) strengths Expected strengths

Properties Concrete strength = f’c f'ce = 1.3 x f’c
Steel yield strength = fy f'ye = 1.17 x fy

DCR = D/C D / C = Fu /  Fn  1.0 D / C = Fu /  Fn  1.0

Material Properties

fy = 60 ksi (414.7 Mpa) 1.17fy

fy = 70 ksi (517.1 Mpa) 1.09fy

Expected compressive strength is strength expected at

approximately one year or longer.

Pramin Norachan LATBSDC 2023 32

Reinforced Concrete Stiffness Modification
SLE DBE MCE

33
Capacity Design Concepts
(Flexure)

(Shear)
M

• The chain has both ductile and brittle elements.

• To ensure ductile failure, we must ensure that the ductile link yields before any
of the brittle links fails.
• The capacity design method is commonly used to proportion the structure.
Pramin Norachan 34
Component Classifications

(Ductile Actions)

DCR = D C =  u  limit  1.0

(Brittle Actions)

Flexure: Deformation-controlled action

DCR = D C = Fu  Fn  1.0

Shear: Force-controlled action

Pramin Norachan LATBSDC 2023 35

MCE (Force-Controlled Actions) D Fu
DCR = =  1.0
C s BFn
(Demand over Capacity Ratio)

(Nominal strength) Most structures are not

sensitive to the effects of
(Expected strength) response to vertical
ground shaking, and there
(Transfer girder, Outrigger) is little evidence of the
failure of structures in
earthquakes resulting
from vertical response.

(Nominal strength) In many cases the

elements sensitive to
vertical earthquake
response (transfer girders)
are not part of the seismic
(Expected strength)
force-resisting system.

In typical cases, the effect

of vertical response can
be approximated through
use of the term 0.12SMSD.
(Nominal strength)
(Expected strength)

Pramin Norachan LATBSDC 2023, ASCE 7-16 36

MCE (Force-Controlled Actions) 1.0 D + 0.25L + 1.0 Ex + 1.0 E y
Qns
3.6.3.2.1 Force-Controlled Actions
(a) Critical Action Not Sensitive to Vertical Accelerations QT
1.3 assumed as a coefficient of variation in calculated record-to-record demand

(Nominal) 1.0Qns + 1.3I e ( QT − Qns )  s BRn 1.3I eQT  s BRn

( Qns = 0 )
(Expected) 1.0Qns + 1.5 I e ( QT − Qns )  s BRnem 1.5 I eQT  s BRnem

Ie is the seismic importance factor

QT is the mean of the maximum values of the action calculated for each ground motion
Qns is the non-seismic portion of QT

B is a factor to account for conservatism as B = 0.9 ( Rne Rnem )

Rn is the nominal strength using the applicable material standard
s is the resistance factor
Rnem is the nominal strength using expected material properties Rnem  1.15 Rn
Rne is the actual strength achieved by experimental tests which is only used to determine B

LATBSDC 2023 37
 B-Values

Vne
= 1.5
Vnem

Vne
= 1.0
Vne/Vnem

Vnem Slender Wall hw lw  2

 R 
B = 0.9  ne  , Rnem  1.15 Rn
 Rnem 
Wall shear strength: ACI 318-19

Vnem = Acv  c f ce' + t f ye 

 

Tests on slender walls failing in shear show that shear V 

strength decreases with increasing inelastic flexure B = 0.9  ne  = 0.9 (1.5 ) = 1.35
(Wallace et al, 2013; Moehle, 2014; Kim 2016).  Vnem 
LATBSDC 2023 38
 s BVnem = (0.75)(1.35)Vnem
MCE (Force-Controlled Actions)  1.0Vnem = 1.3Vn = 1.14Vn (f '
= 1.3 f c' )
ce

1.35

Pramin Norachan LATBSDC 2023 39

MCE (Deformation-Controlled Actions)

Story
hi hn

lp

lw

Plastic hinge zone

D 
DCR = = u  1.0
C  limit
Pramin Norachan LATBSDC 2023 40
Structural Responses

Local Responses
(Elements)

Global Responses
(Structure)

Pramin Norachan 41
Structural Responses

Global Responses (Structure)

1. Base shear/Base moment
2. Story shear/Story moment
Responses - Demand(D)
3. Story displacements
4. Inter-story drift (IO=0.5%, CP=3.0%)
5. Floor acceleration Evaluation (Comparison)
DCR
Local Responses (Components) D Fu
Force =  1.0
Force & Deformation Controlled Actions C  Fn
1. Columns (PMM, column rotation, shear)
D 
2. Beams (plastic hinge rotation, shear) Deformation = u  1.0
3. Shear walls (axial strain, shear wall C  limit
shear)
4. Coupling beams (plastic hinge rotation, Acceptance Criteria
shear hinge displacement) (based on performance
levels) – Capacity (C)

Pramin Norachan 42
 Acceptance Criteria ─ SLE

Global Responses
0.6
(0.5%)
0.5
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)

0.4 SLE

0.3

0.2

0.1
Local Responses

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Natural Period (s)

Performance based seismic design of tall timber buildings, Jack Moehle 43

 Acceptance Criteria ─ MCE

Global Responses (3.0%)

0.6

0.5
Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)

0.4 MCE
Local Responses
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Natural Period (s)

Performance based seismic design of tall timber buildings, Jack Moehle 44

www.bangkok-tickets.com/mahanakhon-skywalk

Sample Real Projects

Application of PBSD in USA Ron Klemencic, MKA
Application of PBSD in USA Ron Klemencic, MKA
Application of PBSD in Philippines

AIT Solutions 48
Application of PBSD in Thailand

TPV
(17 Story)

APS APW APL

(40 Story) (20 Story) (33 Story)

https://www.obayashi.co.jp/en/works/detail/work_2453.html 49
Application of PBSD in Thailand

APL
(33 Story)

APW
(20 Story)

TPV LPV APS

(17 Story) (15 Story) (40 Story)

Pramin Norachan 50
Application of PBSD in Thailand
Precast & RC Building (37-Story) 140 Wireless Building (23-Story)
Application of PBSD in Thailand

Precast & RC Building Wireless Building

(37 Story) (23 Story)

Pramin Norachan 52
www.bangkok-tickets.com/mahanakhon-skywalk

Structural Modeling
Linear and Nonlinear Models Pramin Norachan

Y
Y
X X

SLE/DBE ─ ETABS (Linear) MCE ─ PERFORM 3D (Nonlinear)

Structures Tested On Earthquake Shaking Tables

YouTube: Houses Tested On Earthquake Simulation Tables From Around The World, Bay Area Retrofit
Force-Deformation Relationship
Crushing

F
Cracking, Yielding

V Backbone Curve
Hysteresis Loop


Seismic Retrofitting of Rectangular Bridges Piers with Deficient Lap Splices using Ultra High
Performance Fiber Reinforced Concrete (UHPFRC)
Ph.D student: Marc-André Dagenais Professor: Bruno Massicotte
Force-Deformation Relationship Pramin Norachan

1 2

ASCE 41-17

57
Material Nonlinearity

Perfect
Linear plasticity or Strain hardening Necking
region yielding
Concrete Reinforcing Steel

Pramin Norachan 58
Idealized Nonlinear Modeling

Material Level Component Level

Reinforcing steel
Moment hinge

1) Stress-strain relationship (Backbone) 1) Force-deformation curve (Backbone)

2) Cyclic degradation 2) Cyclic degradation

Pramin Norachan Experimental load-deflection hysteretic cycles (Zeynalian and Ronagh 2011) 59
Idealized Nonlinear Modeling
Lumped Plastic Hinge Fiber Layered Shell

Frame Component level Frame Material level Shell Material level

Force Steel rebar

Steel rebar

Concrete
Deformation

Concrete

Shell Material level

Steel rebar

Concrete

Pramin Norachan Experimental load-deflection hysteretic cycles (Zeynalian and Ronagh 2011) 60
Nonlinear Modeling – Equivalent Slab Beam

Pramin Norachan ASCE 41 Update PEER Report 02, ATC-72-1 61

1) Gravity
shear ratio
(V g Vo )

2) Progressive
collapse

Pramin Norachan ASCE 41-17 62

Nonlinear Modeling – Equivalent Slab Beam

Equivalent slab beam (Frame element)

Pramin Norachan 63
Nonlinear Modeling Pramin Norachan

Plastic hinge
Elastic beam
(modified stiffness)
Shear wall fiber section

Moment under
lateral load
Column fiber section

Shear Wall
Fiber (modified
section out-of-plan
stiffness)
Elastic Fiber section
Column
(modified
stiffness)
Beam plastic hinge
64
Geometric Nonlinearity

P-δ effect, or P-"small-

delta", associated with
deformations along the
members, measured relative
to the member chord
(Local).


P-Δ effect, or P-"big-delta",

measured between
member ends and
commonly associated with
story drifts in buildings
(Global).

In buildings subjected to earthquakes, P-Δ effects are much more of a concern than P-δ
effects. On the other hand, P-Δ effects must be modeled as they can ultimately lead to loss
of lateral resistance.
Pramin Norachan Matrix Structural Analysis, 2nd, William Mcguire, Richard H. Gallagher, Ronald D. Ziemian 65
www.bangkok-tickets.com/mahanakhon-skywalk

Analysis
Target Response Spectrum (UHS vs CMS)

(UHS)
(CMS)
Target Spectrum (ASCE 7-16)
• Method 1: Typical MCE spectrum - UHS
• Method 2: Multiple “scenario” spectra
(typically two) - CMS

DPT 1301/1302-61
Thailand Seismic Code
• Conditioned periods: 0.2, 0.5, 1.0,
1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 s.
• Section 4.3.3.3, select CMS at least
3 groups (0.2, 3.0, and the critical
conditioned period to the structures)

Pramin Norachan NISTGCR 11-917-15, 2011 67

Scaling and Matching Ground Motions
Response Spectrum

Ground Motion Records

Conditional Mean
Spectrum (CMS)
Matching Ground
Motions
Uniform Hazard Spectral (UHS)
Matching Ground Motions

68
 Uniform Hazard Spectrum vs Conditional Mean Spectrum
Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS)
• UHS has the same probability of exceedance at all periods from consideration of many
scenarios of earthquakes
• The spectral shape of the UHS may not resemble the spectral shape of a real ground motion.
• The UHS is a conservative target spectrum for seismic analysis of buildings, especially for
very rare levels of ground motion
• Only a single set of UHS spectral matching ground motions is used to compute design force
and displacement demands

Conditional Mean Spectrum (CMS)

• The CMS will match the ordinate of the UHS only at the interested periods
• CMS can yield a more realistic spectral shape of earthquakes
• Multiple sets (two or more) of CMS ground motions at different periods are required to capture
the inelastic dynamic responses (design force and displacement demands) of the buildings
• The design demand values are obtained by enveloping the mean values of peak demands
from analysis using CMS conditioned at different periods

Code Updates, ACI Releases ACI318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete by Jack P. Moehle, Ph.D., P.E. 69
Damping

175 m

 = 0.025 (2.5%)

 = 0.015 (1.5%)

Damping in tall buildings is less than that in low-rise buildings. Reasons for the lower damping are
mainly attributed to smaller relative damping contributions from foundations in tall buildings.

Pramin Norachan LATBSDC 2023 70

Analysis Types

External Level of
No. Procedure Analysis Structure Accuracy
Force Modeling
Equivalent
Linear Static Least
1 Static Linear Static Easy
Procedure (LSP) Accurate
Analysis
Response (SLE─IO)
Response
Spectrum Linear
Linear Dynamic Spectrum
2 Analysis
Procedure (LDP)
Time-History
Linear Dynamic
Analysis

Nonlinear Static Pushover

3 Nonlinear Static
Procedure (NSP) Analysis
(MCE─CP)
Nonlinear Dynamic Time-History Most
4 Nonlinear Dynamic Complex
Procedure (NDP) Analysis Accurate

Pramin Norachan 71
www.bangkok-tickets.com/mahanakhon-skywalk

Structural Evaluations ─ Global Responses

 Sample Results
Nonlinear
Response History
Analysis

Elastic

Inelastic
Yielding of vertical
rebars in Core Wall
Core Wall

x y
Pramin Norachan
Dynamic Responses of Tall Buildings

Pramin Norachan Performance based seismic design of tall buildings, Jack Moehle, Presentation at University of Auckland 74
 Output Data Processing Sample Results

0.15
0.10
Sa (g)

0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

1000
M 1,max Force M max =
(M 1,max + M 2,max + + M 11,max )
Moment-M (KN-m)

500 11
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-500

-1000 M 1,min
0.001
1,max ( +  2,max + + 11,max )
Total Rotation
Deformation  max =
1,max

0.0005 (Fiber Model) 11

Rotation (rad)

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
-0.0005
The average of the peak values from the suite
-0.001
of the analyses (11 pairs of ground motions)
-0.0015
1,min
Time (s) 75
Story Shear Sample Results

Story Shear (X) Story Shear (X)

50

45

40

35

30
Story Level

25

20

15

10

0
-80,000 -40,000 0 40,000 -80,000
80,000 -40,000 0 40,000 80,000
Shear Force (KN) Shear Force (KN)
G1-Kitami G2-Sakata G3-Sumatra
G4-Tohoku G5-Hector Mine G6-Kobe Average
G7-Northridge Average
76
Interstory Drifts Sample Results

Transient Drift (X) Transient Drift (Y)

50 50

45 45

40 40

35 35
Floor Level

Floor Level
30 30

25 25
Maximum drift (4.5%)

Averaged drift (3.0%)

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
-5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
Inter -Story Drift (%) Inter -Story Drift (%)

G1-Kitami G2-Sakata G1-Kitami G2-Sakata

G3-Sumatra G4-Tohoku G3-Sumatra G4-Tohoku
G5-Hector Mine G6-Kobe G5-Hector Mine G6-Kobe
G7-Northridge Average G7-Northridge Average
Average Limit Maximum Limit Average Limit Maximum Limit
77
www.bangkok-tickets.com/mahanakhon-skywalk

Structural Evaluations ─ Local Responses

 Evaluation of Local Responses

No. Component Action Modeling Classification Response Acceptance

Inelastic behavior Deformation Yielding = 0.002

Axial-Flexure Axial strain
(Fiber section) controlled Crushing = 0.003
1 Shear Wall
Elastic behavior Force
Shear Shear ACI 318
(Modified stiffness) controlled
Inelastic behavior Deformation
Axial-Flexure Rotation ASCE 41
(Fiber section) controlled
2 Column
Elastic behavior Force
Shear Shear ACI 318
(Modified stiffness) controlled
Inelastic behavior Deformation
Flexure Rotation ASCE 41
(Moment hinge) controlled
3 Beam
Elastic behavior Force
Shear Shear ACI 318
(Modified stiffness) controlled
Inelastic behavior Deformation
Flexure Rotation ASCE 41
Coupling (Moment hinge) controlled
4
Beam Inelastic behavior Deformation
Shear Rotation ASCE 41
(Shear hinge) controlled
Slab (EQ Inelastic behavior Deformation
5 Flexure Rotation ASCE 41
Slab Beam) (Moment hinge) controlled
Shear Walls
Evaluation of Structural Components
SW ─ Axial & Bending Action (Axial Strain)
P1
Wall Axial Strain (P1) Core Wall
50
G1-Kitami
45
G2-Sakata
40
G3-Sumatra

35 G4-Tohoku

30 G5-Hector Mine

Floor Level
G6-Kobe
25
G7-Northridge
20
Average
15
Tens=1.0Avg

10 Comp=2.0Avg

5 Concrete Crushing
Strain
Steel Yielding Strain
0
-0.004 -0.003 -0.002 -0.001 0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004

Crushing in concrete Axial Strain Yielding in reinforcing steel

P1 P2 (  c =0.003)  
( y =0.002 ≤ u= 0.01)
- Increase confined reinforcement - Increase vertical reinforcement
- Increase SW thickness
Pramin Norachan 81
SW ─ Confinement Reinforcement

0.003 0.005 (Full Confinement)

Pramin Norachan NIST GCR 11-917-11REV-1, ACI 318-14 82

SW ─ Shear 1.5 I eVu  s BVn
Vn = 0.83 Acw f ce'
- Increase SW section
Wall Shear
50

45 G1-Kitami

G2-Sakata
40
G3-Sumatra
35
G4-Tohoku
30
Floor Level
G5-Hector Mine

25 G6-Kobe

G7-Northridge
20
Average
15
1.5Average
10
Capacity

5 Limit

0
-40000 -30000 -20000 -10000 0 10000 20000 30000 40000

V Wall Shear (KN)

( )
- Increase shear reinforcement
Vn = Acv  c  f + t f ye
'
ce

Pramin Norachan 83
SW ─ Shear Sample Results

SW1-X2 SW1-X2
(Before Revision) (After Revision)
45

40

35

30

25
Floor Level

20

15

10

0
-60,000 -40,000 -20,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 -60,000 -40,000 -20,000 0 20,000 40,000 60,000
Wall Shear (KN) Wall Shear (KN)

1.5Average Capacity Limit 1.5Average Capacity Limit

SW1-X2

[email protected] [email protected]
84
Columns
Evaluation of Structural Components
 Column ─ Rotation

50

45

40

35

30
Floor Level

25

20

15

10
D u
=  1.0
5 C limit
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Demand over Capacity Ratio (DCR)

Rotation-2 (Minor) Rotation-3 (Major)

 Column Shear DCR
Column ─ Shear 50
45
40
35
30

Floor Level
25
20
15 Before revision
10
5
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4

50 Demand over Capacity Ratio (DCR)

45 DC-V2

40
D Vu
=  1.0 Vn = Vc + Vs
35
C s BVn 30

Floor Level
25
Shear demand is greater than shear capacity (DC > 1.0)
20
2
Increase shear 15 After revision
reinforcement 10
56DB20mm 5
[email protected]
3 0
@0.25 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
Demand over Capacity Ratio (DCR)
DC-V2 DC-V3 Shear Capacity Limit
Coupling Beams
Evaluation of Structural Components
Coupling Beams

Conventionally Coupling Beams

Diagonally Coupling Beams

Pramin Norachan Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Jack Moehle 89

Coupling Beams ─ Rotation DCR Sample Results

Shear Hinge - Chord Rotation DCR

50

45

40

35  0.06
u = = = 0.04 1.5 m
L 1.5
30
Floor Level

D u 0.04
25 = = = 0.80
C CP 0.05
20

15

10
Substantial loss of gravity
5 load-carrying capacity

0 Inelastic
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 CP
Demand over Capacity Ratio (DCR)

Chord Rotation DCR Rotation Limit

Elastic 90
Slab System
Evaluation of Structural Components
Equivalent Slabs ─ Rotation
 EQ Slab Beam
Plastic Rotation DCR Column
50
Plastic Rotation DCR
45
R3
Criteria
40 No. %
DC <0.5 1857 99.3%
D u
35
0.028 0.5<DC<1.0
= = = 0.68 13 0.7%
30 C CP 0.041 1.0<DC<1.5 0 0.0%
Story Level

DC>1.5 0 0.0%
25
Accepted 1870 100.0%
20 Overstressed 0 0.0%
15 Total 1870 100.0%
Max DC 0.68
10 Average 0.03
5

0 Substantial loss of gravity

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 load-carrying capacity

Demand over Capacity Ratio (DCR)

CP
D  Plastic Rotation DCR Rotation Limit
DCR = = u  1.0
C limit
92
Slabs (Flat-Plate System) ─ Rotation

Locations of large rotation demands

93
 Slabs (Flat-Plate System) ─ Rotation D u
=  1.0
C limit

0.063

0.055

Continuity (C)

No Continuity (NC) SNP POST TENSION

0.029
Khaled Soudki, et al.

1.0% Yield

Pramin Norachan Nonlinear Modeling of Flat-Plate Systems, Thomas H.-K. Kang and John W. Wallace, 2006 94
Advantages and Disadvantages of using PBSD
Advantages
• More reliable attainment (the most accurate) of intended seismic performance
• Building complexes that include irregular structures and multiple towers on a
single podium
• Elimination of some code prescriptive design requirements
• Accommodation of architectural features that may not otherwise be attainable
• Use of innovative structural systems and materials
Disadvantages
• Significant computational effort due to complicated procedures, such as
nonlinear modeling, selection and scaling of ground motions, data processing
and result interpretation
• Require preliminary design, such as code-based design
• Time consuming
• Require large computer space
Code Updates, ACI Releases ACI318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete by Jack P. Moehle, Ph.D., P.E. 95
www.bangkok-tickets.com/mahanakhon-skywalk

ACI 318-19, Appendix A

Design Verification using Nonlinear
Dynamic Analysis
Design Verification using Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis
• The use of nonlinear dynamic analysis methods for design of earthquake-
resistant buildings has been increasing recently, especially for design of high-
rise buildings. To respond to this change in design practice, ACI 318-19 includes
provisions for application of these methods to concrete buildings.
• A new Appendix A in ACI 318-19 sets parameters for design verification of
earthquake-resistant concrete structures using nonlinear response history
analysis (NRHA).
• With the release of ACI 318-19, ACI becomes the primary resource for nonlinear
dynamic analysis as it pertains to tall concrete buildings.
Goals of Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NRHA)
• For design of new tall buildings, NRHA is used in the performance based-
design method for verification in a final stage of a design projects.
• Designing new buildings, especially those equipped with seismic isolators or
energy dissipation devices.
• For existing buildings, NRHA is used to evaluate performance, design seismic
upgrades, and retrofit of existing buildings.
Code Updates, ACI Releases ACI318-19, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete by Jack P. Moehle, Ph.D., P.E. 97
Design Verification using Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

• Section A.2: Scope

• Section A.3: General
• Section A.4: Earthquake Ground Motions
• Section A.5: Load Factors and Combinations
• Section A.6: Modeling and Analysis
• Section A.7: Action Classification and Criticality
• Section A.8: Effective Stiffness
• Section A.9: Expected Material Strength
• Section A.10: Acceptance Criteria for Deformation-Controlled Actions
• Section A.11: Expected Strength for Force-Controlled Actions
• Section A.12: Enhanced Detailing Requirements
• Section A.13: Independent Structural Design Review
ACI 318-19 98
Section A.2─Scope
A.2.1 Supplement of Chapter 16 of ASCE/SEI 7 when performing nonlinear
response history analysis to determine the design of earthquake-resistant
concrete structures.
A.2.3 This appendix shall be used in conjunction with Chapter 16 of ASCE 7.
RA.2.3 For additional analysis and modeling requirements that are not
specific to concrete members, refer to Chapter 16 of ASCE/SEI 7, TBI (2017),
and LATBSDC (2017).
A.2.5 It shall be permitted to use the provisions of Appendix A to demonstrate the
adequacy of a structural system as required by 18.2.1.7.
18.2.1.7 A reinforced concrete structural system not satisfying this
chapter (Chapter 18─Earthquake-Resistant Structures) shall be permitted if it is
demonstrated by experimental evidence and analysis that the proposed system
will have strength and toughness equal to or exceeding those provided by a
comparable reinforced concrete structure satisfying this chapter.
A.2.6 Independent structural design review consistent with A.13 shall be required
for use of Appendix A.
ACI 318-19 99
Overview of ACI 318-19, Appendix A
RA.3.1 Due to inconsistencies between ACI 318 and Chapter 16 of ASCE 7-16 in the
approach to Action Classification and Acceptance Criteria for concrete members, the
requirements are closely aligned with those in TBI (2017) and LATBSDC (2017).
RA.4.1 Nonlinear response history analysis commonly is performed using two horizontal
components of earthquake ground motion applied to a three-dimensional model of the
building.
RA.4.3 The analysis procedures are based on ground motion selection and scaling
consistent with Chapter 16 of ASCE 7, which includes scaling to a Maximum
Considered Earthquake (MCE) ground acceleration.
RA.5.1 Load combinations for response history analysis are intended to be similar to
those of Chapter 16 of ASCE 7-16, TBI (2017), or LATBSDC (2017).
A.6.2 Modeling of member nonlinear behavior, including effective stiffness, expected
strength, expected deformation capacity, and hysteresis under force or deformation
reversals, shall be substantiated by applicable physical test data and shall not be
extrapolated beyond the limits of testing.
RA.6.2 ASCE 41, ACI 374.3R, ACI 369.1M, and NIST GCR 17-917-46 provide
guidance on modeling and defining model parameters.
ACI 318-19 100
Section A.7─Action Classification and Criticality
A.7.2.1 Deformation-controlled actions shall satisfy the requirements of A.10.
A.7.2.2 The following shall be designated as deformation-controlled actions:
(a) Moment in beams, structural walls, coupling beams, and slab-column
connections
(b) Shear in diagonally reinforced coupling beams
(c) Moment in columns when combined with axial force.
A.7.3.1 Force-controlled actions shall satisfy the requirements of A.11.
A.7.3.2 The following shall be designated as ordinary force-controlled actions:
(a) Shear and moment in perimeter basement walls
(b) In-plane shear in non-transfer diaphragms
(c) In-plane normal forces in diaphragms other than collectors
(d) Moment in shallow foundation members including spread footings and mat
foundations
(e) Moment in deep foundation members.
ACI 318-19 101
Section A.8─Effective Stiffness
TBI (2017) & LATBSDC (2017)
MCE Level Nonlinear Model

ACI 318-19 102

Generalized Force-Deformation Relations

RA.8.3 The model should also be capable of representing

stiffness reduction past the yield point. Degradation in
element strength or stiffness should be included in the
analytical model unless it can be demonstrated that the
demand is not sufficiently large as to produce these
effects.

(Expected
strength)

ACI 318-19 103

Section A.9─Expected Material Strength

f ye fue

1.14 1.52
1.13 1.38

1.07 1.30

ACI 318-19 104

Section A.10─Acceptance Criteria for Deformation-
Controlled Actions Enhanced detailing requirement (A.12)
Special moment frames & special structural walls

CP

0.5Du

RA.10.2 Ultimate deformation capacity, Du, is typically obtained from statistical

analysis of the available test data and can be closely related to Collapse
Prevention (CP) Acceptance Criteria in ACI 369.1M and ASCE 41. Du is based on
the deformation where substantial loss of gravity load-carrying capacity occurs or,
if tests do not progress to this deformation, the limiting deformation for which
testing was performed.
ACI 318-19 105
Section A.11─Expected Strength for Force-Controlled
Actions
A.11.1 Force-controlled actions shall be evaluated in accordance with the general
building code, with expected strength taken as ϕsBRn. 1.5 I eQT  s BRn
(Demand) (Capacity)

A.11.2 ϕs shall be in accordance with Table A.11.2, with ϕ determined in

accordance with Chapter 21, except that 21.2.4.1 shall not apply.

A.11.3 Bias factor, B, shall be taken as 1.0. Alternatively, it shall be permitted to

calculate B using Eq. (A.11.3): B = 0.9Rne/Rn ≥ 1.0, For structural wall shear, hw/lw > 2

Vne = 1.5 Acv 0.17 f ce' + t f ye  V 

  B = 0.9  ne  = 0.9 (1.5 ) = 1.35
 Vn 
Vn = Acv 0.17 f ce' + t f ye 
  LATBSDC (2020)
ACI 318-19 106
Overview of ACI 318-19, Appendix A
A.12.1 If the mean maximum deformation from the set of response history
analyses exceeds 0.5Du, members shall be subject to the added detailing
requirements of this section.
RA.12.2.3 These enhanced details are provided to improve inelastic response
ductility and are appropriate when using Appendix A for designs beyond
prescriptive code limits.
A.13.1 The analysis and design shall be reviewed by an independent structural
design reviewer. The independent structural design reviewer shall act under the
direction of the building official.
RA.13.1 The independent structural design reviewer provides an independent,
objective, technical review of those aspects of the structural design of the building
that relate to earthquake-performance and advises the building official whether
the design meets the acceptance criteria and the expected building performance.
Review by the independent structural design reviewer is not intended to replace
quality assurance measures ordinarily exercised by the licensed design
professional. Responsibility for the structural design remains solely with the
licensed design professional in responsible charge of the structural design.
ACI 318-19 107
 Summary
Key Concepts in Earthquake
Resistant Engineering

• Lateral Strength (Force-controlled actions)

• Lateral Deformability (Deformation-controlled actions + Ductility Detailing)

108
Summary • Estimating the inelastic properties for a real
component is not a simple task.

• It may be tempting to argue that since the

inelastic properties are so uncertain, there
is little point in using inelastic analysis, and
elastic analysis should be sufficient.

• If there is substantial inelastic behavior in

an actual structure, the results of an elastic
analysis may be of uncertain value for
making design decisions and may even be
misleading.

• As a tool for obtaining information for

design, even a crude inelastic model can
PERFORM-3D is an ideal tool for nonlinear be more useful than an elaborate elastic
performance-based analysis and design,
created by
model.
Dr. Graham H. Powell, University of California
at Berkeley Professor Emeritus of Civil
Engineering.
• Please keep in mind that the goal is to
get useful information for design, not to
calculate "exact" response.
 Summary
TBI 2010,
2017
LATBSDC 2011,
2014, 2017,
2020, 2023

Jack P. Moehle, Professor of Civil

and Environmental Engineering at the
University of California, Berkeley and
Director of the Pacific Earthquake
Engineering Research (PEER)
Center, was chosen as EERI’s 2005

110
The Future of Tall Building Design
 www.bangkok-tickets.com/mahanakhon-skywalk

Thank You and Have a Good Day