AUCKLAND STRUCTURAL GROUP
2017.05.02, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND
Development of Next-Generation High-Performance Seismic Force Resisting Systems
Tony T.Y. Yang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Professor & Executive DirectorInternational Joint Research Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering
Director of Smart Structures Laboratory Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 2
ILEE – International collaboration
ILEE
TIT (Japan)
PEER(UCB)
MAE (UIUC)
MCEER(Buffalo)
SAEC (Chile)
QuakeCoRE (NZ)
Canada
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 3
ILEE facilities
20 m
70 m
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 4
ILEE facilities
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 5
ILEE facilities
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 6
ILEE facilities
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 7
ILEE facilities
• T-shape wall, 30m long 15m high
• Shear strength of 600ton (at the top level of reaction wall)
• Bending moment strength of 9000ton-m.
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 8
ILEE facilities
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 9
ILEE facilities
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 10
ILEEILEE board of directors and scientific committee:
K. Kasai(Japan)
K. Mosalam(USA)
A. Pavese(Italy)
C. Ventura(Canada)
A. Whittaker(USA)
K. Chang(Taiwan)
I. Buckle(USA)
B. Stojadinovic(Switzerland)
T. Yang(Canada)
K. Elwood(New Zealand)
X. Gu(China)
J. Li(China)
S. Mahin(USA)
Y. Zhou(China)
X. Lu(China)
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 11
ILEEObjectives of ILEE:• Achieve earthquake resilience society through international
effort using state-of-the-art experimental facilities
Strengths:• Largest international earthquake engineering research network
with the most advanced testing facilities;• Facilitate the exchange of research personal, share facilities and
publish cutting-edge research findings.
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 12
ILEE
Shanking table test of cable-stayed bridge
model
Earthquake
engineering
Numerical calculation
model of China
Pavilion
Shanking table test of
Shanghai Tower
Seismic test of super-long
immersed tube tunnel of Hong
Kong-Zhuhai-Macao BridgeSeismic isolation model of
nuclear power station
Building
Engineering
Geotechnical
Engineering
Bridge
Engineering
Lifeline
Engineering
Major Energy
Facilities
AUCKLAND STRUCTURAL GROUP
2017.05.02, AUCKLAND, NEW ZEALAND
Development of Next-Generation High-Performance Seismic Force Resisting Systems
Tony T.Y. Yang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Professor & Executive DirectorInternational Joint Research Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering
Director of Smart Structures Laboratory Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 14
1906 San Francisco Earthquake, USA
• Destroyed 80% of the “golden” city.
• Over 3,000 died and half of the population homeless.
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 15
2011 Christchurch earthquake, New Zealand
Financial loss: $35 Billion USD
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 16
2011 Tohoku earthquake, Japan
Financial loss: $235 Billion USD
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 17
Earthquake engineering
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 18
Deformation
damage threshold
collapseonset
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
Performance LevelsIO LS CP
Frequency of Design Ground Shaking Level
Frequent Rare Very rare
FEMA 356
Performance-based design approach
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 19
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
+1200 demolitions (~70% of CBD) and counting!
2011 Christchurch earthquake, New Zealand
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 20
High-performance structures
The measurement equipment shows that the building experienced as much as 23 cm of horizontal displacement. (Photo: Mori Trust Co., Ltd.)Sendai MT Building remain undamaged
during the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake.
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 21
High-performance structures
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 22
High-performance structures
Steel Link Column
Steel Link Beams
Steel Linked Column Frame
Moment Resisting Frame
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 23
High-performance structures
Y P U
PF
YF
,Y PRF
,Y SEF
F
Combined system
Main structure
Structural fuse
Immediate occupancy Rapid return Collapse prevention
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 24
Alternate design methods
Features & requirements EEDP DDBD PBPD P-spectra 𝜂-chart
Based on nonlinear SDOF responses
Pre-select yielding mechanism &
capacity design
Require structural period estimation
Require preliminary member sizes
Require nonlinear analyses
Require minimum iterations
Consider multiple shaking intensities
Achieve multiple performance
objectives
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 25
• Energy-based design procedure.
• Allows designers to select a plastic mechanism to dissipate EQ energy.
Equivalent energy design procedure (EEDP)
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 26
• Energy-based design procedure.
• Allows designers to select a plastic mechanism to dissipate EQ energy.
Equivalent energy design procedure
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 27
• Energy-based design procedure.
• Allows designers to select a plastic mechanism to dissipate EQ energy.
• Targeted to achieve different performance objectives at multiple earthquake shaking intensities.
• SLE:
• DBE:
• MCE:
• Designers can select the member sizes to satisfy both the strength and drift limits without iteration!!
• Can be applied to different structural systems. Including new systems.
• No need to assume Rd R0 values.
Equivalent energy design procedure
No or minimum damage
Only damage to the structural fuses. No damage to the main structure
Not collapse
“Immediate occupancy”.
“Rapid return”.
“Collapse prevention”.
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 28
1. Define the performance objectives of the structure, by selecting the target shaking intensities and target drifts.
2. Calculate the base shear for the whole system.
3. Calculate the yield force for the primary and secondary system.
4. Select the plastic mechanism.
5. Distribute the yield force vertically on the primary and secondary systems.
6. Size the yielding elements.
7. Capacity design the non-yielding elements.
Equivalent energy design procedure
Able to achieve the target performances without iteration!!!
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 29
Equivalent energy design procedure
Sa
T
MCE
DBE
SLE
• 1.0: Select the seismic hazards:
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 30
Equivalent energy design procedure
MCE
DBE
SLE
• 1.0: Select the seismic hazards:
Sa
Sd
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 31
Equivalent energy design procedure
F = m*Sa
=C0*Sd
MCE
DBE
SLEC0: Coefficient to
change roof drift from SDOF MDOF
MDOF
Sd
SDOF
≈C0*Sd
(Ref: FEMA 440)
• 1.0: Select the seismic hazards:
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 32
Equivalent energy design procedure
F = m*Sa
=C0*SdY
DBE
SLE
YF
0 ,d DBEC S
,a DBEmS
1EE
0 ,d SLEC S
2 d
a
ST
S
,
0
Yd SLES
C
,a SLEmS
,Y
a SLE
FS
m
0
2 Y
Y
m
C F
, , 0 ,2
a SLE a DBE d DBE Y
mS S C S
1 1E NDE E
1 1ND a NME E
T is constant, once SLE and is defined.Y
• 2.0: Calculate the base shear:
Conservation of energy:
1NME
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 33
Equivalent energy design procedure
F = m*Sa
=C0*SdY P
DBE
SLE
YF
PF
0 ,d DBEC S
,a DBEmS
1EE
0 ,d SLEC S
,a SLEmS
, , 0 ,2
a SLE a DBE d DBE Y
mS S C S
1 1E NDE E
1 1ND a NME E
• 2.0: Calculate the base shear:
Conservation of energy: 1
1 1ENM
a
EE
1NME
22
P Y
P Y
F F
12 E
P Y
a P Y
EF F
1 2
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 34
Equivalent energy design procedure
F = m*Sa
=C0*SdY P
DBE
SLE
YF
PF
0 ,d DBEC S
,a DBEmS
0 ,d SLEC S
,a SLEmS
• 2.0: Calculate the base shear:
MCE
0 ,d MCEC S
,a MCEmS
2EE 0, , , ,
2a MCE a DBE d MCE d DBE
mCS S S S
U
2 2 2E ND b NME E E
2P U PF
2 2
11NM E
b
E E
2NME
2
1E P U P
b
E F
1 2
21 EU P
b P
E
F
Conservation of energy:
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 35
Equivalent energy design procedure
• 2.0: Calculate the base shear:
F = m*Sa
=C0*SdY P U
YF
PF
12 EP Y
a P Y
EF F
21 EU P
b P
E
F
1EE , , 0 ,2
a SLE a DBE d DBE Y
mS S C S
2EE 0, , , ,
2a MCE a DBE d MCE d DBE
mCS S S S
,a SLEmS
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 36
Equivalent energy design procedure
=C0*Sd
• 3.0: Distribute the base shear:
Secondary structure
Primary structure
F = m*Sa
Y P U
YF
PF
,Y PRF
Total structure
,Y SEF
,Y SEF
1
1
YF
,1
Y PR YF F
, , 1YY PR Y SE Y
P
F F F
, , 2Y PR Y SE PF F F
Let ;P
Y
F
F ;P
Y
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 37
Equivalent energy design procedure
• 4.0: Select the plastic mechanism (system dependent):
FY
FP
Y P U
F
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 38
Equivalent energy design procedure
• 6.0: Size the yielding elements: Link beams in LC bays
intextW W
,
1
n
ext link i i p
i
W F h
int 1
1
2n
i pr p pr p
i
W V e V e
, 1
1 1
2n n
p link i i pr p i
i i
F h V e
,
1
1
1
2
n
link i i
ipr n
i
i
F h
V
e
pi i prV V
Shear demand at roof
Shear demand at ith floor
Capacity , 0.6pi capacity y b w i prV F d t V
Assume no gravity load on LC bay!
,
1.21.5 2
pi
pi capacity
MV
eCheck the link is shear controlled:
Strength hardening
F2
F1
F3
,Y PRF
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 39
Equivalent energy design procedure
• 6.0: Size the yielding elements: Beam hinges in MF bays
Moment hinges
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 40
Equivalent energy design procedure
• 6.0: Size the yielding elements: Beam hinges in MF bays
wgravity
intextW W
,
1
n
ext beam i i p
i
W F h
int '1
n
i pr p
i
LW M
L
, '1 1
n n
p beam i i i pr p
i i
LF h M
L
,
1
'1
n
beam i i
ipr n
i
i
F h
ML
L
Moment demand at roof
pi i prM M
Moment demand at ith floor
wgravity
Mpr Mpr
iMpr iMpr
wgravity
1Mpr 1Mpr
,1beamF
,beam iF
,beam nF
L L
L’
ih
P
Plastic mechanism
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 41
Equivalent energy design procedure
• 7.0: Capacity design the non-yielding elements: (Exterior column in LC bays)
e/2
**
prV
**
piV
**
piV
**
piV
**
piV
**
piV
**
piV
Support needed to be capacity designed.
n LF
i LF
1 LF
The column tree is not in equilibrium need to find the
“equivalent” lateral force profile to keep the column in equilibrium.
ih
A
0AM **
1
1 1
22
n n
i i L pr i
i i
eh F V
**
1
1
1
22
n
pr i
i
L n
i i
i
eV
F
h
1
1
1
1
; When i = n, 0;i i
i nn
i i
i
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 42
Prototype building
• 3-storey LCF building designed using EEDP
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 43
Prototype building
• 3-storey LCF building designed using EEDP
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 44
High-performance structures
Steel Linked Column Frame
y = 0.5; p = 2.0;
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 45
High-performance structures
Steel Linked Column Frame (DBE IO)
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 46
High-performance structures
Steel Linked Column Frame (MCE CP)
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 47
High-performance structures
𝐷𝐵𝐸: 𝐿𝐶 𝑀𝐹
𝑀𝐶𝐸: 𝐿𝐶 𝑀𝐹
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 48
High-performance structures
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.51
2
3
ISD [%]
Flo
or
num
ber
[-]
10/50
2/50Immediate occupancy
Rapid return
Collapse prevention
DBEMCE
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 49
High-performance structures
4 bays @ 30'=120'
14'
3@
13
'=3
9'
Buckling Restrained Knee Braced Truss MF (BRKBTMF):
Univ. of
Michigan
IIT,
KanpurKing Mongkut’s
Univ. of Tech.UBC
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 50
High-performance structures
Buckling Restrained Knee Braced Truss MF (BRKBTMF):
Univ. of
Michigan
IIT,
KanpurKing Mongkut’s
Univ. of Tech.UBC
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 51
High-performance structures
4 bays @ 30'=120'
14'
3@
13
'=3
9'
Buckling Restrained Knee Braced Truss MF (BRKBTMF):
Univ. of
Michigan
IIT,
KanpurKing Mongkut’s
Univ. of Tech.UBC
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 52
Force-deformation response of BRB
OpenSees model
Stress
Strain
max
E
E+
E-
y
+
-
+
-
+
max-
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 53
High-performance structuresLateral System – multiple performance objectives
Pse
ud
o a
cce
lera
tio
n, S
a
Roof drift ratio, Sd/H = Δ
Δy Δu
(Sa)y
(Sa)u
Δp
LifeSafety
(LS)
ImmediateOccupancy
(IO)
CollapsePrevention
(CP)
BOLTED PINFOUNDATION
(TYP.)
CO
LUM
NC
OLU
MN
CO
LUM
N
CO
LUM
NC
OLU
MN
CO
LUM
N
PRIMARY FUSEAXIAL HINGE(TYP.)
TRUSS (TYP.)
SECONDARY FUSEFLEXURAL HINGE
(TYP.)
0 1 2 3 4 50
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Roof drift ratio [%]
Bas
e sh
ear/
Wei
ght [
-]
1st floor BRB
2nd floor BRB
3rd floor BRB
1st floor beam
2nd floor beam
3rd floor beam
Pushover analysis
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 54
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Period [sec]
Pse
ud
o a
cce
lera
tio
, S
a [
g]
Target spectrum
Median spectrum
Individual spectrum
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Period [sec]
Pse
ud
o a
cce
lera
tio
, S
a [
g]
Target spectrum
Median spectrum
Individual spectrum
0 0.5 1 1.5 20
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Period [sec]
Pseudo a
ccele
ratio, S
a [g]
Target spectrum
Median spectrum
Individual spectrum
SLE
High-performance structuresDBE
MCE
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 55
Dynamic response
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 56
High-performance structures
1
2
3
0 2 4
Flo
or
Median strain [%]
1
2
3
0 2 4
Flo
or
Median strain [%]
1
2
3
0 2
Flo
or
Median strain [%]
1
2
3
0 0.04 0.08
Flo
or
Median rotation [rad]
1
2
3
0 0.04 0.08
Flo
or
Median rotation [rad]
1
2
3
0 0.04 0.08Flo
or
Median rotation [rad]
SLE DBE MCE
BRB
MH
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 57
Lateral System – multiple performance objectives
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Roof Drift Ratio [%]
SLE
Targ
et
DB
E Ta
rget
MC
E Ta
rget
High-performance structures
y p u
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 58
4 bays @ 30'=120'
14'
3@
13'=
39'
BRKBTMF
High-performance structures
Hybrid simulation testing
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 59
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Displacement [in.]
Fo
rce
[kip
]
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Displacement [in.]
Fo
rce
[kip
]
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
Displacement [in.]
Fo
rce
[kip
]
High-performance structures
SLE
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
Rotation [-]
Mo
me
nt
[kip
-in
.]
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
Rotation [-]
Mo
me
nt
[kip
-in
.]
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
Rotation [-]
Mo
me
nt
[kip
-in
.]
DBE
MCE
BRB MH
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 60
UBC-GTS Smart Modulus Structure
• Light weight• Fast construction• Earthquake resilient
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 61
Summary and conclusionsEarthquake is one of the most devastating natural hazards.
Advanced technologies both in simulations and experimental testing have been developed.
Novel resilient structures are being developed.
Lower initial cost:
Not significantly affected by the architecture layout.
Higher structural performance:
Lower structural demand (floor acceleration and ISD).
Lower repair cost and downtime.
Together, we can develop high performance structural systems that is more economical, efficient and robust towards future earthquake design.
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 62
Question?
Tony T.Y. Yang, Ph.D., P.Eng.Professor, Executive DirectorInternational Joint Research Laboratory of Earthquake EngineeringEmail: [email protected]; [email protected]; http://www.civil.ubc.ca/people/faculty/faculty-yang.phphttp://smartstructures.civil.ubc.ca/
Thank you for your attention!
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 63
Tony T.Y. Yang, Ph.D., P.Eng.
Professor, Executive Director
International Joint Research Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering
Email: [email protected]
Shanghai, China
ASG, Auckland, New Zealand, 2017-05-02 64
Vancouver, Canada
I look forward to welcoming you to beautiful British ColumbiaProf. Tony T.Y. Yang, Ph.D., P.Eng. Email: [email protected]