Performance Expectations and Codifying Efforts in the US ...neesclt.mines.edu/content/ppt4.pdf ·...

Performance Expectations and

Codifying Efforts in the U.S.

John W. van de Lindt

M. Omar Amini

Colorado State University

Engineering Resilient Tall CLT Buildings in Seismic Regions, January 24, 2014; Seattle, WA, USA

3D View of 4-Story Test Building

First Story

Upper Stories

3D View

John van de Lindt, PI

Colorado State Univ.

Michael Symans, Co-PI

RPI Weichiang Pang,

Co-PI

Clemson Univ.

Xiaoyun Shao, Co-PI

W. Michigan Univ.

Michael Gershfeld, Co-PI

Cal-Poly Pomona

Steve Pryor, Collab.

Simpson Strong-Tie

Gary Mochizuki, Collab.

Structural Solutions Inc.

Gabriel, REUSandra, REU

Rocky, REU

Connie, REU

Faith, REU

Pouria Bahmani, Ph.D. Candidate

Colorado State Univ.

Jingjing Tian,

Ph.D. Candidate

RPI

The NEES-Soft 4-story Team

The lifecycle of the test buildingConstruction

Ready for testing

Collapse Testing

Viscous damping devices +

WSP (PBSR)

Steel SMF + WSP (PBSR)

Steel SMF (FEMA P807)

Cross laminated

timber rocking

walls

Recycling and

Disposal

¾” oak flooring

1x6 DFL Plank floor boards

2x10 DFL joists at 16” oc

Cross Laminated TimberRetrofit design steps

Data

0.61m x 2.44m panel hysteresis

(UA Testing)

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

-10 -5 0 5 10

For

ce (

kips

)

Displacement (in)

CLT rocking panel

locations from weak story tool

Weak story tool data input

CLT Retrofit Location

3 CLT panels

4 CLT panels

Ceiling sheathed;

strapping

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.40

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Period, (sec.)

Spe

ctra

l Acc

eler

atio

n, (

g)

LP - 0.2g RIO - 0.2g

LP - 0.9g

RIO - 0.9g Phase 1

Test 1Test 2Test 3Test 4

Average Inter-Story Drifts (Rio)x

y

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-101 1.26

-1.45

Story 1

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1

01 0.63

-0.71

Story 2

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-101 0.44

-0.54

Story 3

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1

01

0.21

-0.17

Story 4

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-0.2

0

0.20.09

-0.12

Story 1

Y-Dir

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-0.2

0

0.20.06

-0.06

Story 2

Y-Dir

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-0.2

0

0.20.08

-0.06

Story 3

Y-Dir

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-0.2

0

0.2

0.03

-0.03

Story 4

Y-Dir

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

Shake

Direction

Transverse

Direction

SE Corner Inter-Story Drifts (LP)

x

y

SE Corner

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1012

1.71

-1.3

Story 1

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1012

0.28

-0.31

Story 2

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1012

0.47

-0.41

Story 3

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1012

0.18

-0.13

Story 4

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1

0

1 1.15

-1.17

Story 1

Y-Dir

Time (sec)

Dri

ft R

atio

(%)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1

0

10.10

-0.17

Story 2

Y-Dir

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1

0

1 0.18

-0.19

Story 3

Y-Dir

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

-1

0

10.06

-0.08

Story 4

Y-Dir

Time (sec)

Drif

t Rat

io (%

)

Transverse

Direction

Shake

Direction

Scaled 12-story Shaking Table Test for Collapse Mechanism of

Tall CLT BuildingsShiling Pei and John W. van de Lindt

Basic Building properties

• 50x 80 ft floor plan

• 1:15 scale

• Designed per-ASCE7 Lateral Force Procedure with R=3.0

(Based on Pei et al. 2013 (Jof Architectural Eng.), CLT

Handbook, U.S. version)

• Constructed using current CLT construction configurations

(No special resilient systems, No PBSD)

• Prototype Seismic Mass: close to 200 kips/floor

• Constructed with ½” plywood, metal bracket, 18 gauge

staples, Similitude rule followed based on Staple to

Prototype bracket strength.

• Testing plan: Shaking in short direction, 50%/50, DBE,

MCE, Collapse

• Phase II: implementing New Resilient mechanism (Spring

2014)

Test Scheduled February 2014 at


Performance Expectations from Past LF Efforts

Performance Expectations Corresponding Peak

Inter-story Drift (%)

Wood Framing and OSB/Plywood Sheathing Gypsum Wall Board (GWB)

Level AL 0.1-1.0% Minor Splitting and cracking of sill plates (some

propagation)

Slight sheathing nail withdraw

Slight cracking of GWB

Diagonal propagation from

door/window openings

Partial screw withdraw

Cracking at ceiling-to-wall interface

Level BL 1.0-2.0% Permanent differential movement of adjacent

panels

Corner sheathing nail pullout

Cracking/splitting of sill/top plates

Crushing at corners of GWB

Cracking of GWB taped/mud joints

Level CL 2.0-4.0% Splitting of sill plates equal to anchor bolt

diameter

Cracking of studs above anchor bolts

Possible failure of anchor bolts

Separation of GWB corners in ceiling

Buckling of GWB at openings

Level DL 4.0-7.0% Severe damage across edge nail lines,

separation of sheathing

Vertical posts uplifted

Failure of anchor bolts

Large pieces separated from framing

Entire joints separated and dislodged

Filiatrault et al. (2007)

Performance Expectations Corresponding Peak

Inter-story Drift (%)

Wood Framing and OSB/Plywood Sheathing Gypsum Wall Board (GWB)

Level AM 0.1-1.0% No damage. Hairline cracks at corners of openings.

Level BM 1.0-2.5% No damage Slight cracking of GWB

Diagonal propagation from window/door

openings

Level CM 2.5-4.5% Sheathing nail loosening; slight sill plate

damage if anchor bolts used.

Diagonal cracks extend from corner of

openings to adjacent wall

Buckling of GWB near openings

Level DM 4.5-7.0% Partial crushing of sill plates where anchor

rod bearing plates are located

Corner and edge nail withdraw

Crushing of corners

Spalling in significant pieces

Shear separation at taped/mud joints

Level EM >7.0% Local and/or global instability possible. Severe damage; replacement of panels

needed.

van de Lindt et al. (2010)

Performance Expectation

Resiliency ?

Performance

Expectations

Description Force Resistance Stability

What the

stakeholders

select

Level 3

Severe damage

No residual

displacements.

Yielded but with

limited strength

reduction

Stable

1. Seismic intensity

2. PNE

3. Loss limits ?

4. Occupancy ?Level 2

Repairable damage

and self re-centering

Some softening

but maintain

positive stiffness

Stable

Level 1 Damage Free and self

re-centering

No softening. Stable

High level of resiliency

Performance

Expectations


What the stakeholders

select

This is one of the areas we need

your help in the breakout!

Level 3

Severe damage

No residual

displacements.

Yielded but with

limited strength

reduction

Stable 1. 150% MCE Sa / NFE

2. 90% PNE

3. Loss < 5% current valuation

4. Un-interrupted occupancy

Level 2

Repairable damage

and self re-

centering

Some softening

but maintain

positive stiffness

Stable

1. MCE Sa

2. 90% PNE

3. Very Minor Loss


1. DBE Sa

2. 90% PNE

3. No Loss


Level 1 Damage Free and

self re-centering


Average level of performance

Performance

Expectations


What the stakeholders

select

This is one of the areas we need

your help in the breakout!

Level 3

????. Yielded but with

limited strength

reduction

Stable 1. 150% MCE Sa

2. 90% PNE


4. ???? but continued occupancy

Level 2

Repairable damage

and self re-

centering

Some softening

but maintain

positive stiffness

Stable

1. MCE Sa

2. 90% PNE



1. DBE Sa

2. 90% PNE

3. No Loss


Level 1 Damage Free and

self re-centering


Breakout Questions

• How do we want to define resiliency targets (expectations) for tall CLT ?

• Do we focus on damage and loss or include contents as next generation methodologies are moving toward ? Design based on life cycle costs ?

• How does/can this be made to be cost effective for engineers ?

• How (does) it tie into current force-based techniques ?

• LEED cert. Would there be any benefits to designing with CLT ?

Overview of a Project to Quantify Seismic

Performance Factors for Cross Laminated

Timber Structures in the United States

M. Omar Amini & John W. van de Lindt


Shiling Pei, Colorado School of Mines

Douglas Rammer, Forest Products

Laboratory

Phil Line, American Wood Council

Marjan Popovski, FPInnovations

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Maximum Story Drift(%)

ST (

g)

Project Team and Review Panel MembersProject Team

Member Expertise Role

John W. van de Lindt, Ph.D.

George T. Abell Distinguished

Professor in Infrastructure


Seismic reliability analysis

Earthquake engineering

Extreme loading on structures

Structural dynamics

Project

Team Leader

Douglas R. Rammer, P.E.

Research General Engineer

Engineering Properties of

Wood, Wood Based Materials,

and Structures - RWU4714

Engineering Design Criteria

Mechanical Connection Behavior

Seismic and Wind Response of Wood

Structures

Condition Assessment

Project

Member

Marjan Popovski, Ph.D.

Principal Scientist and Quality

Manager

Advanced Building Systems

Department

FPInnovations

Cross laminated timber

Seismic behavior of wood systems

Wood connections

Project

Member

Philip Line, P.E.

Director, Structural

Engineering

American Wood Council

Codes and Standards

Seismic behavior of wood

Project

Member

Shiling Pei, Ph.D. P.E.

Assistant Professor

Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering

Colorado School of Mines

Mechanistic models and non-linear

structural dynamics

Structural reliability

Earthquake engineering

Project

Member

M. Omar Amini

Ph.D. Student


Student Project

Member

Peer Review Panel

Member Expertise Role

Charlie Kircher, Ph.D., P.E.

Principal and Owner

Charles Kircher & Associates

Structural and earthquake

engineering, focusing on

vulnerability assessment,

risk analysis and innovative

design solutions

Panel

Chair

J. Daniel Dolan, Ph.D., P.E.

Professor

Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering

Washington State University

Dynamic Response of Light-

Frame Buildings

Full-Scale Static, Cyclic, and

Dynamic Testing of

Structural Assemblies

Numerical Modeling of

Structural and Material

Response to Static and

Dynamic Loading

Panel

Member

Kelly Cobeen, S.E.

Associate Principal

Wiss, Janney, and Elstner

Associates, Inc.

Peer Review

Wood Seismic Design and

Detailing

Seismic Performance

Evaluation

Structural Evaluation

Earthquake Engineering

Panel

Member

Methodology Overview

Ref: Quantification of Building Seismic

Performance Factors, FEMA P695

Sources of Uncertainty

Archetype Development

Archetypes

Residential

Single family

dwelling

Multi-family

dwelling

Commercial

(mixed use)

Configuration Design Variables Seismic Behavioral Effects

Occupancy and Use Strength

Elevation and Plan Configuration Stiffness

Building Height Inelastic-deformation Capacity

Structural Component Type Seismic Design Category

Seismic Design Category Inelastic-system Mobilization

Gravity Load

Residential single

family dwelling

1-3 stories

25 ‘ x 40 ‘

Residential Multi-

family dwelling

2-10 stories

40’ x 80’

Commercial 1-5 stories

40’ x 80’

High Seismic

Design

Low Seismic

Design

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3x 10

4

Roof Drift (in.)

Bas

e S

hear

(lb

s)

Static Pushover and Dynamic Analysis

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Fragility parameters (lognormal)µLn=0.78492

σLn=0.64026

Pro

babi

lity

Sa

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 70

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Maximum Story Drift(%)

ST (

g)

Collapse

Margin Ratio

Overstrength factor

Period based ductility

Performance Evaluation

Sources of Uncertainty-Four Contributors

• Record-to-Record Variability

(βRTR = 0.4)

• Design Requirements

• Quality of Test Data

• Quality of Analytical Model

Adjusted Collapse Margin Ratio

Spectral Shape Factor

Collapse Margin Ratio

SSF to account for rare ground motions in the

Western United States with distinctive spectral shape

different from design spectrum in ASCE/SEI 7-05

Baker and Cornell (2006)

Current Progress… Archetype developmentDesign Space

Archetype Configurations

Archetype Designs

Archetype Models

Mathematical idealization of the

proposed system

Index archetype configurations

design and detailed using the

design requirements

Prototypical representation of a

seismic-force-resisting system

Representative of typical

residential and commercial

structures in the U.S.

Current Progress… CLT Design MethodologyShear Wall

• Overturning is resisted by the overturning

anchors (tie rods or holddowns)

• Angle brackets resist shear

• Generic Angle Bracket

• CLT panel aspect ratio, h/b, shall not be greater

than 4:1 nor less than 1:1

• Fasteners shall have sufficient embedment to

develop Mode III or Mode IV yielding

Member Resistance

• CLT shall be designed for limit states of net

section tension rupture, row tear-out, group

tear-out as defined in NDS Appendix E, and

shear in accordance with NDS Section 3.4.3.3

Diaphragm Design

• The design strength of the CLT diaphragm shall

be determined in accordance with principles of

mechanics using values of fastener and member

strength in accordance with NDS.

Current Progress… CLT wall Modeling

• Using CLT wall test data, Connector parameters can be calibrated to produce accurate wall response using the simplified kinematics model (wall data: Popovski et al, 2010)

• A simplified Kinematics model is used to

determine lateral response of CLT wall under

cyclic loading

• Assumptions

• Rocking behavior

• Limitations

• Inter-story drift

• Wall aspect ratio

Pei et al, 2013

Current Progress… Planned testsHeight, h Length, b h/b # Plys Thickness Number of

tests

Isolated wall tests

10’ 0” 2’ 6” 4.0 5 5.5” 2

10’ 0” 5’ 0” 2.0 5 5.5” 2

10’ 0” 2’ 6” 4.0 7 10 3/16” 2

10’ 0” 5’ 0” 2.0 7 10 3/16” 2

8’ 0” 2’ 0” 4.0 5 3.75” 2

8’ 0” 4’ 0” 2.0 5 3.75” 2

8’ 0” 8’ 0” 1.0 5 3.75” 2

8’ 0” 2’ 0” 4.0 5 5.5” 2

8’ 0” 4’ 0” 2.0 5 5.5” 2

8’ 0” 8’ 0” 1.0 5 5.5” 2

8’ 0” 2’ 0” 4.0 7 7.25” 2

8’ 0” 4’ 0” 2.0 7 7.25” 2

Two wall tests 8’ 0” 8’ 0” 1.0 5 5.5” 2

Box type configuration 8’ 0” 8’ 0” 1.0 5 5.5” 2

8’ 0” 2’ 0” 4.0 5 5.5” 2

3-sided wall configuration

with a diaphram

8’ 0” 2’ 0” 4.0 5 5.5” 2

Current Progress… Planned tests

Isolated wall test setup (out-of-plane bracing not shown) Wall with multiple panels test setup (out-of-plane bracing not shown)

Two wall assemblies with a diaphragm (weight will be placed on the

diaphragm in lieu of force controlled actuators)Box type configuration with a diaphragm (cloverleaf loading)

Box type configuration with a diaphragm using 0.6 m x 2.4 m (2’x 8’)

panels

Box type configuration with an opening

Tests Performed at CSU

Fig. Current test setup at CSU

(Out of plane bracing not shown)Fig. CLT specimens

Test specimens

Height Length # Plys Thickness Specimens

7’4” 2’ 5 3.5” 2

Horizontal actuator: displacement controlled

Vertical actuator: force controlled


-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Displacement, in.

For

ce,

kip

-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Displacement, in.

For

ce,

kip

Planned tests at CSU…

Fig. Shake Table in Structures Lab at CSU

Reminder - Breakout Questions

• How do we want to define resiliency targets (expectations) for tall CLT ?

• Do we focus on damage and loss or include contents as next generation methodologies are moving toward ?

• How does/can this be made to be cost effective for engineers ?

• How (does) it tie into current force-based techniques ?

AcknowledgementsSome of the material presented in this presentation is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.

CMMI-0529903 (NEES Research) and CMMI-0402490 (NEES Operations). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations

expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The

presenter is grateful to the overall NEESWood project team made up of David V. Rosowsky, Andre Filiatrault, Rachel A. Davidson, and

Michael D. Symans. Thank you also to Weichang Pang of Clemson University for his participation in the design portion of the Capstone

test specimen. Thank you to NSF REU’s Doug Allen and Kathryn Pfrefzschner, researchers Chun Ni, Hidemaru Shimizu, Professor H. Isoda,

Izumi Nakamura, Chikahiro Minowa, N Kawai, and Mikio Koshihara . Two graduate students, Kazaki Tachibana and Tomoya Okazaki,

contributed to the construction and instrumentation of the test specimen. Thank you also to Steve Pryor and Tim Ellis of Simpson Strong

Tie Co. and David Clyne of Maui Homes USA. Edward Matsuyama and colleagues at AF&PA, APA, and Canadawood. Technical

collaborators beyond the authors affiliation included the Simpson Strong Tie, U.S. Forest Product Laboratory, FP Innovations-Forintek

Division, Maui Homes U.S.A, and Structural Solutions Inc Financial and in-kind product and personal donations were provided by

Simpson Strong Tie, Maui Homes, B.C. Ministry of Housing and Social Development, Stanley Bostitch, Strocal Inc., Structural Solutions

Inc., Louisiana Pacific Corp., Natural Resources Canada, Forestry Innovation Investment, APA-The Engineered Wood Association,

American Forest and Paper Association, Howdy, Ainsworth, and Calvert Glulam.

Some of the material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. CMMI-1041631 (NEES

Research) and NEES Operations. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of

the investigators and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

The authors kindly acknowledge the Co-Principal Investigators of the NEES-Soft project: Michael D. Symans at Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute, WeiChiang Pang at Clemson University, Xiaoyun Shao at Western Michigan University, Mikhail Gershfeld at Cal Poly – Pomona,

and senior personnel David V. Rosowsky at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Andre Filiatrault at University of Buffalo, Gary Mochizuki at

Structural Solutions Inc., Shiling Pei at South Dakota State University, Douglas Rammer at U.S. Forest Products Lab., David Mar at

Tipping Mar, and Charles Chadwell at Cal Poly – SLO. Thank you to Tim Ellis, Asif Iqbal, Russell Ek, and the site staff at UCSD and UB.

For NEES-Soft, again thank you to Simpson Strong-Tie, SEAOSC, Forest Products Lab, NEES@UCSD, NEES@UB.

Workshop Acknowledgments

• A special thank you to the ARUP Seattle Office for

providing the venue and organizing assistance for this

workshop.

• This workshop is supported by the National Science

Foundation under George E. Brown Jr. Network for

Earthquake Engineering Simulation Research (NEESR)

Program. (Awards CMMI: 1344617; 1344646; 1344798;

1344590; 1344621). The financial support is greatly

appreciated. The views and conclusions resulted from the

workshop do not necessarily reflect the view of the

sponsors.

Closing remarks

• Go Broncos!

Performance Expectations and Codifying Efforts in the US ...neesclt.mines.edu/content/ppt4.pdf ·...

Documents

Transcript of Performance Expectations and Codifying Efforts in the US ...neesclt.mines.edu/content/ppt4.pdf ·...