Opening Slide

1
Copyright
Seismic System Factors and
System Overstrength

Patrick J. Fortney, Ph.D., P.E.

Manager and Chief Engineer
Cives Engineering Corporation
Cives Steel Company

2
 Agenda
What are Seismic System Factors/Coefficients:
•Response Modification Factor, R
•Overstrength Factor, Ω 0
•Displacement Amplification Factor, Cd
•Ductility Reduction Factor, Rd
Load Combinations
•Basic
•Seismic
•Seismic with Overstrength

LFRS Specifics
•Nonlinear response history analysis of a 20-story HCW system – Wall
overstrength
•Load Path in a CBF – Ensuring development of brace forces

3
 ELF
ASCE 7-05 form of the Equivalent Lateral Force procedure

EQ. 12.8-1, ASCE 7-05

EQ. 12.8-2, ASCE 7-05

where,

4
 The General Linear-Elastic EQ Procedure
1.Obtain the mapped MCE spectral accelerations, SS and S1
2.Modify the MCE spectral accelerations to account for site
specific soil characteristics (SMS and SM1 )

3.Convert the MCE parameters to the DBE (2/3) (SDS and SD1 )
(a specified design ground motion 1/1.5 of MCE)

4.Factor the DBE base shear based on Use and LFRS type (factor
by I/R)
(Ivaries from 1 to 1.5 presumed margin of 1.5 to
1.52)
5.Implement the ELF procedure to determine the vertical
distribution of the design base shear

Note: Judgment must be used at each step based on performance

level and analysis objectives 5
 Performance Levels
Performance Description

Immediate No significant damage to structure. Retains nearly all of its pre-event strength and stiffness
Occupancy Non-structural components operate for the most part, if utilities are available
Building can be used for intended use, under impaired conditions

Life Safety Significant damage to structural elements; substantial reduction in stiffness

However, safety margin exists against collapse
Non-structural components are secure, but not operational

Occupancy not ensured until repairs are made

Collapse Prevention Substantial structural and non-structural damage

Stiffness and strength significantly degraded

Little margin against collapse

Falling debris hazards may have occurred

Although ELF appears to be a strength-based design, it really isn’t! Although, using current
methods, we evaluate only one performance level at a single event
Minimum strength is based on a fraction of the theoretical strength demand assuming the
structure would remain elastic. AND…
Assumes some level of performance based on Importance
That fraction (or coefficient) is I/R. 6
 Design Response Spectrum
Spectral Response Acceleration, Sa (%g)

SDS

SD1

0.4SDS
a v d

T0 Ts T=1sec TL
7
Period, T (sec)
 Response Spectrum Parameters
So what exactly do the terms S1, SS, SD1 , and SDS represent?
S1 and SS are the mapped ground accelerations (produced by
the USGS) for 1-second and short period motions
•Defines the MCE
Note that this
•Assumes is different
a Class from
B soil site, andthe
5%1997 UBC which
damping
used an MCE of
•Statistically 2% chance
represents a 2% of chance
exceedence in 100 years
of exceedence in 50
(1,000
years (2,500 year yearperiod)
return return period)

SD1 and SDS are “factored” ground accelerations

•Defines the DBE
•Accounts for site specific soil properties
•2/3 of the MCE
•Statistically represents a 10% chance of exceedence in 50
years (500 year return period)
8
Response Spectrum Parameters (USGS)

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/design/ 9
Response Spectrum Parameters (USGS)

10
Response Spectrum Parameters (USGS)

11
 System Seismic Factors/Coefficients
Allow us to capture nonlinear behavior using linear-elastic
model

Allow us to take advantage of decreases in force demands as

yield sequencing occurs (i.e., as structure period lengthens)

Allow us to select the performance level of our building

•Immediate Occupancy
•Life Safety
•Collapse Prevention (not considered for new buildings)

12
 Brief Background on Response Factor, R
Prior to the 1970’s, “nearly” all beam-column connections were
designed to be moment-resisting providing complete or nearly
complete frame systems
This level of high redundancy justified having “large” R-values
•At the time, building codes recommended that lower R-
values be used where such redundancy was not present, but
provided no direction how to do this

•Economic pressures eventually resulted in less redundant

systems. However, designers were still taking advantage of
the large R-factors

Current R-values remain nearly the same as was intended for the
now-gone highly redundant systems
Lack of redundancy is now accounted for through the
redundancy factor (ρ ), effectively reducing the R-factor 13
 System Seismic Factors/Coefficients (cont.)
Lateral Force
Elastic Response
Shear Developed in a
DBE VE Linear-Elastic System

Rd
Vy R Full Plasticity

Ω0
Actual Response
Design Vs Design
Cd δ x

δ xe =δ x/C
d
Lateral Displacement 14
 System Seismic Factors/Coefficients (cont.)
Response Modification Factor, R
The ratio of the level of force that would develop in a system at DBE
motions, in a linear-elastic system, to the level of force required in
design (e.g., ASCE 7 design base shear)

Overstrength Factor, Ω 0
The ratio of the maximum strength that can be developed in a system
to the design base shear

Ductility Reduction Factor, Rd

A measure of the combined effect of:
As yield sequencing progresses, the effective period of the
response decreases, resulting in a reduction in strength demand
As inelastic deformation occurs, hysteretic damping (energy
15
dissipation) occurs
 System Seismic Factors/Coefficients (cont.)
Displacement Amplification Factor, Cd
•Amplifies the lateral displacement of the linear elastic model to
account for actual displacement in the nonlinear-inelastic system
•Actual displacement, δ x, is δ xe Cd

16
 More on Overstrength, Ω 0
Introduced in the UBC in 1997
Was intended to be a rational approach to estimate the maximum
force that a system may deliver to isolated or individual members
whose loss would result in a complete loss of:

•The LFR system,

•Stability, or
•Collapse Prevention Mechanisms

Also intended for the design of elements that could fail in an

undesirable manner when subjected to loads significantly larger
than those for which they were proportioned

17
 More on Overstrength, Ω 0 (cont.)
Lateral Force
Elastic Response

VE Actual Response

ΩS

Ωm
Ω D Vd
Design

δ δ
xe =δ x/C
E 18
d
Lateral Displacement
 More on Overstrength, Ω 0 (cont.)
Ω D is the overstrength provided by the design engineer
Even in the most efficient design controlled by strength,
load and resistance factors ensure some degree of design
overstrength

When design is controlled by stiffness, the design

overstrength can be even greater

It’s also possible that architectural requirements result in

design overstrength

19
 More on Overstrength, Ω 0 (cont.)
Ω m is the overstrength provided by using specified minimum
material properties
Structural systems have inherent overstrength resulting
from actual strength values and potentially strain
hardening

Ω s is the overstrength that results from system characteristics such

as:
Redundancy

The degree to which elements not considered part of the LFR

system participating in lateral resistance after LFR elements have
yielded

20
 More on Overstrength, Ω 0 (typical ranges)
Structural Design Material System Ω 0
System Overstrength Overstrength Overstrength
Ωd Ωm Ωs

Special Steel 1.5 - 2.5 1.2 – 1.6 1.0 – 1.5 2.0 – 3.5
Moment Frames

Intermediate 1.0 – 2.0 1.2 – 1.6 1.0 – 2.0 2.0 – 3.5

Steel Moment
Frames
Ordinary Steel 1.0 – 1.5 1.2 – 1.6 1.5 – 2.5 2.0 – 3.5
Moment Frames

Braced Frames 1.5 – 2.0 1.2 – 1.6 1.0 – 1.5 1.5 – 2.0
Values reported in FEMA 369 (NEHRP 2000)

21
 More on Ductility Reduction, Rd
Lateral Force

DBE

R d(R=3)

R d(R=5)
Ω 0(R=3)
R=3

R=5
Vb (R=3)

Ω 0(R=5)
Vb (R=5)

22

Lateral Displacement
 Comparison of System Factors

Code/year If R is taken as 3 for an

OCB would special
seismic detailing be
Steel System Type required
R
Ordinary Concentric
5.60
Braced Frames
Special Concentric
6.40
Braced Frames
23
 Basic Load Combinations
ASCE 7-05, Section 2.3
LRFD ASD

What is E?

24
 Seismic Load Combinations
ASCE 7-05

For Basic Load Combination 5 For Basic Load Combination 7

25
 Seismic Load Combinations (cont.)
Substituting E into Basic Load Combinations, you get the Seismic
Load Combinations as presented in ASCE 7

26
Seismic Load Combinations w/ Overstrength

27
 Seismic Load Combinations w/ Overstrength (cont)

Substituting Emh into Basic Load Combinations, you get the

Seismic Load Combinations as presented in ASCE 7

28
 So When Do We Use What Combination?
Basic Load Combinations in Chapter 2
Always

Seismic Load Combinations

Always
Except when overstrength is used
Seismic Load Combinations w/Overstrength
Only for the following:
Except when redundancy is used

29
 So When Do We Use What Combination?
Seismic Load Combinations with Overstrength
Only for the following:
•Elements supporting discontinuous walls (12.3.3.3)
•Collectors and their connections (12.3.3.4; 12.10.2.1)

•Batter Piles (12.13.6.4)

•Pile Anchorage (12.13.6.5)
•Pile Splices (12.13.6.6)

30
 Example of Using Overstrength, Ω 0
Consider a 20-story coupled core wall

31
 Coupled Core Wall System

TW CW

M
V V

M
L
V
0
Shear
V

Note that T and C are M

Σ (Vb) M om ent 0

M
TW CW
Coupled Core Wall L /2 L /2
32
System - Elevation LFRS Mechanism CB Shear & Moment Dist.
 Beam Design
Design shear demand versus Beam Shear Distribution
nominal shear capacity gives
rise to contributing to the
Ω d portion of Ω 0

Note that beam is desired

to be “shear-critical”

Floor Level

Thus, significantly
flexural overstrength

Beam Shear (kips)

33
Demand (C) Nominal (C) Factored
 Example of Using Overstrength, Ω 0 (cont.)
Currently, US model codes/specifications do not require
overstrength for wall piers in CCW systems

CSA has required this overstrength since mid ’90’s

34
 Normalized Beam Hysteresis

1 .5
Normalized ratio accounts for measured material properties
Overstrength attributed to
•Strain hardening
•Stress interaction phenomena (shear-moment uncoupled
in strength calculations)
This would contribute to the Ω m portion of Ω 0
Note very little, if no, strength or stiffness degradation 35
 How is this Helpful?
So, who cares about beam hysteretic characteristics?
Who cares about available strength versus required
strength?

Why should we concern ourselves with such things?

What does this mean in terms of evaluating system
overstrength?

Do we need to consider the axial load beams are

capable of delivering to wall piers?
36
 Design Wall Piers for Beam Overstrength
Wall design axial forces calculated as:

Tension Wall:

Compression Wall: P = 1.2 D + 0.5 L + 0.2 S DS D + ∑Vn

Wall pier design forces increased by wall overstrength factor

calculated as:
where,
Vn is nominal capacity of the coupling beam;
Vf is the design beam shear demand.
γ wall is analogous to Ω 0

37
Design Wall Piers for Beam Overstrength

Cap
Floor Beam
Level 38
 Nonlinear Analysis – Evaluate Need for Overstrength
2.25
Equivalent 2-D North Ridge
2.00
Frame
1.75 2% in 50
1.50
Rigid Spring Rigid

Sa (%g)
1.25 Design SCB: T=2.31sec
Beam Beam DCB: T=2.63sec
1.00
Properties of Springs and

Wall Pier

Wall Pier
0.75
Wall Piers Vary Over 10% in 50
The Height of the Building 0.50
Rigid Spring Rigid 0.25
Beam Beam
0.00 El Centro
Wall Pier

Wall Pier
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Typical
2743

Period (seconds)

Location of "Column"
Representing Wall Pier,
Typical
“Link” modeled as spring with
Rigid Rigid
Beam Spring Beam hysteresis model based on measured
Core Wall,
hysteretic characteristics
Typical

Note that the DBE correlates well

with the Design Response Spectrum
1231 2427 1829 2427 1231

6683
39
Fortney, P.J., Shahrooz, B.M., Rassati, G.A., (2008) “Seismic Performance Evaluation of Coupled Core Walls with Concrete and Steel
Coupling Beams,” Steel and Composite Structures Journal, V. 7, No. 4, pp. 279-301
 Response History – Wall Piers
80,000 NL Response (LW)
80,000 NL Response (LW)
NL Response (RW)
NL Response (RW)
60,000
60,000

40,000 40,000
CW: Elastic CW: Elastic
Axial (kN)

Axial (kN)
Analysis Demand Analysis Demand
20,000 20,000

0 0

-20,000 -20,000

-40,000 -40,000
TW: Elastic TW: Elastic
-60,000 Analysis Demand
-60,000 Analysis Demand
-200,000 -100,000 0 100,000 200,000
-200,000 -100,000 0 100,000 200,000
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kN-m)
(a) Base wall demands - El Centro (b) Base wall demands - Northridge
80,000 NL Response (LW)
80,000 NL Response (LW) NL Response (RW)
NL Response (RW) 60,000
60,000
40,000
40,000 CW: Elastic
CW: Elastic Axial (kN)
Analysis Demand
Axial (kN)

20,000 Analysis Demand 20,000

0 0

-20,000 -20,000

-40,000 -40,000
TW: Elastic
-60,000
TW: Elastic
Analysis Demand
-60,000 Analysis Demand
-200,000 -100,000 0 100,000 200,000
-200,000 -100,000 0 100,000 200,000
Moment (kN-m)
Moment (kN-m) 40
(c) Base wall demands - ASCE 7 (10%) (d) Base wall demands - ASCE 7 (2%)
Wall Overstrength Compared to System Overstrength

Floor B
Level 41
 Recommendations Coming Soon
Wall pier design axial forces will be:

•Recommendations made in HCW report;

•Adopted by AISC Seismic Specification
committee for the soon-to-be-released supplement
to the 14th Ed.

1.1Ry accounts for material overstrength (including

strain hardening), Ω M

Σ Vn accounts for design overstrength, Ω d

42
 How Can This be Applied to CBFs

AISC requires connections in SCBFs to transfer RyFyAg

This is a relatively “huge” demand on the connections

However, the braces and columns, and supports are not

required to transfer this force
2

2
F BR,
13'

F
1

1
F BR,
13'

R R,x

25' 43
 How Can This be Applied to CBFs

Let’s evaluate this a couple of different ways.

First, we’ll look at the support reactions if the AISC

connection requirement is satisfied (i.e., transfer RyFyAg)

Second, we’ll look at the support reactions if the connections

are detailed using the seismic load combinations with
overstrength (i.e., Ω 0QE)

44
 How Can This be Applied to CBFs (RyFyAg)

Assume a frame laterally loaded as shown

225 kips

s
.6 kip Brace Size Pu φ Pnt φ Pnc RyFyAg
253

Upper W8x48 253.6 634 288 775.5

150 kips

Lower W10x54 422.7 711 423 869

s
. 7 kip
422

375 kips

312 kips 312 kips

45
 How Can This be Applied to CBFs (RyFyAg)
688 kips

Brace Size Pu φ Pnt φ Pnc RyFyAg

s
kip
.5
775 Upper W8x48 253.6 634 288 775.5

83 kips
Lower W10x54 422.7 711 423 869

k ips
869

771 kips
Column axial forces 2.4 times larger
Base horizontal reactions 2.1 times larger
758.7 kips 758.7 kips

46
 How Can This be Applied to CBFs (Ω 0QE)
450 kips
Brace Size Pu φ Pnt φ Pnc Ω 0 QE

s Upper W8x48 253.6 634 288 507.2

2 kip
.
507

Lower W10x54 422.7 711 423 845.4

300 kips

k ips
45.4
8

Column axial forces 2.0 times larger

750 kips
Base horizontal reactions 2.0 times larger

624 kips 624 kips

47
 Support Reactions at Connection Strength Transfer
225 kips 688 kips
4 5 0k ip s

ip s s
6k .5 kip
.
253 775

kips
2
507.
150 kips 83 kips

s s
.7 kip kip
422 869 3 0 0k i p s

375 kips 771 kips

kips
312 kips 312 kips 758.7 kips 758.7 kips 8 45.4

Main Frame Design Forces at RyFyAg Forces s Ω 0QE

7 5 0k ipat

ØColumns not sized to develop overstrength loads

ØConnection to supports not designed to transfer overstrength
6 2 4k ip s
loads
6 2 4k ip s

ØNote that when using the RyFyAg method, the applied lateral loads get
a little “goofy” when trying to keep the system in equilibrium.
ØShould philosophy used for wall piers in CCWs be used in main
48
members of SCBFs? Should overstrength equations be used?
FYI ATC/FEMA P269

49
 References
AISC, 2005. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings (a supplement to AISC Manual of Steel Construction,
13’rd Edition), American Institute of Steel Construction.
ASCE 7, 2005. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia 20191-440
ASCE 7, 2010. Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers,
Reston, Virginia 20191-440

El-Tawil, S., Harries, K.A., Fortney P.J., Shahrooz, B.M., Kurama, Y., Hasson, M., Tong, S. (2009).
“Recommendations for Seismic Design of Hybrid Coupled Wall Systems,” ASCE Special Publication, American
Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA 20191.

FEMA-356 (2000), Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 356/November
2000, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.

FEMA-450 (2003), NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures, FEMA 450/2003, Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C.
Fortney, P.J., Shahrooz, B.M., Rassati, G.A., (2008) “Seismic Performance Evaluation of Coupled Core Walls with
Concrete and Steel Coupling Beams,” Steel and Composite Structures Journal, V. 7, No. 4, pp. 279-301

ICC, 2003. International Building Code 2003, International Codes Council.

ICC, 2009. International Building Code 2009, International Codes Council.

ICBO, 1997. Uniform Building Code 2009, International Conference of Building Officials

FEMA-P369, 2009, Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors, FEMA 356/November 2000, Building
Seismic Safety Council, Washington, D.C. 50
 Closing Slide

51
Copyright