Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 -- Methodology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1 – Methodology Second Edition FEMA P-58-1 / December 2018 FEMA P-58-1 / December 2018 Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings Volume 1 – Methodology Second Edition Prepared by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 240 Redwood City, California 94065 www.ATCouncil.org Prepared for FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Michael Mahoney, Project Officer Robert D. Hanson, Technical Monitor Washington, D.C. SECOND EDITION PROJECT TEAM APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL STAKEHOLDER PRODUCTS TEAM Christopher Rojahn Laura Samant (Team Leader) Jon A. Heintz (Project Executive) David Mar Ayse Hortacsu (Project Manager) Lori Peek Maryann T. Phipps PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Sharyl Rabinovici Ronald O. Hamburger (Project Technical Director) L. Thomas Tobin John Gillengerten William T. Holmes PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS TEAM John D. Hooper John Gillengerten (Team Leader) Stephen A. Mahin David R. Bonneville Jack P. Moehle Dominic Campi Khalid Mosalam Vesna Terzic Laura Samant Steven R. Winkel PRODUCTS UPDATE TEAM John D. Hooper (Team Leader) PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE Russell Larsen William T. Holmes (Chair) Peter Morris Lucy Arendt Deborah Beck Christopher Deneff H. John Price Jonathan C. Siu Jeffrey R. Soulages Eric Von Berg Williston Warren (ATC Board Contact) STAKEHOLDER PRODUCTS PRODUCTS UPDATE CONSULTANTS CONSULTANTS Sandra L. Grabowski Robert Bachman Taline Mitten Jack Baker Stacia Sydoriak Dustin Cook Jennifer Tobin-Gurley Scott Hagie Angie Harris PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS Curt Haselton CONSULTANTS Wyatt Henderson Shreyash Chokshi Monica Huang Travis Chrupalo Gilberto Mosqueda Erica Hays Farzad Naeim Nirmal Kumawat Barbara Rodriguez Abe Lynn Kathrina Simonen Daniel Saldana Siavash Sorooshian Vinit M. Shah Katherine Wade Udit S. Tambe Farzin Zareian Duy Vu To Peny Villanueva FIRST EDITION PROJECT TEAM APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL RISK MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS Christopher Rojahn (Project Executive) TEAM Jon A. Heintz (Project Manager) John D. Hooper (Co-Team Leader) Ayse Hortacsu Craig D. Comartin (Co-Team Leader) Mary Comerio PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE C. Allin Cornell Ronald O. Hamburger (Proj. Tech. Director) Mahmoud Hachem John Gillengerten Gee Heckscher William T. Holmes (ex-officio) Judith Mitrani-Reiser Peter J. May Peter Morris Jack P. Moehle Farzad Naeim Maryann T. Phipps (ATC Board Contact) Keith Porter Hope Seligson STEERING COMMITTEE William T. Holmes (Chair) STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE Roger D. Borcherdt PRODUCTS TEAM Anne Bostrom Andrew S. Whittaker (Team Leader) Bruce Burr Gregory Deierlein Kelly Cobeen John D. Hooper Anthony B. Court Yin-Nan Huang Terry Dooley Laura Lowes Dan Gramer Nicolas Luco Michael Griffin Andrew T. Merovich R. Jay Love David Mar Steven McCabe Brian J. Meacham William J. Petak NONSTRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE NONSTRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS TEAM PRODUCTS AND FRAGILITY Robert E. Bachman (Team Leader) DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS Philip J. Caldwell Richard Behr Andre Filiatrault Greg Hardy Robert P. Kennedy Christopher Higgins Helmut Krawinkler Gayle Johnson Manos Maragakis Paul Kremer Eduardo Miranda Dave McCormick Gilberto Mosqueda Ali M. Memari Keith Porter William O’Brien John Osteraas RISK MANAGEMENT PRODUCTS Elizabeth Pahl CONSULTANTS John Stevenson Travis Chrupalo Xin Xu D. Jared DeBock Armen Der Kiureghian FRAGILITY REVIEW PANEL Scott Hagie Bruce Ellingwood Curt Haselton Robert P. Kennedy Russell Larsen Stephen Mahin Juan Murcia-Delso Scott Shell VALIDATION/VERIFICATION TEAM P. Benson Shing Charles Scawthorn (Chair) Mohamed Talaat Jack Baker Farzin Zareian David Bonneville Hope Seligson STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS AND FRAGILITY SPECIAL REVIEWERS DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS Thalia Anagnos Jack Baker Fouad M. Bendimerad Dhiman Basu Dan Dolan Charles Ekiert Andre Filiatrault Aysegul Gogus Kerem Gulec Dawn Lehman Jingjuan Li Eric Lumpkin Juan Murcia-Delso Hussein Okail Charles Roeder P. Benson Shing Christopher Smith Victor Victorsson John Wallace Notice Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the Applied Technology Council (ATC), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Additionally, neither ATC, DHS, FEMA, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, nor assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, product, or process included in this publication. Users of information from this publication assume all liability arising from such use. Cover photograph – Collapsed building viewed through the archway of an adjacent building, 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake (courtesy of Farzad Naeim, Farzad Naeim, Inc). Foreword The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is committed to reducing the ever-increasing cost that disasters inflict on our country. Preventing losses before they happen, by building to withstand anticipated forces, is one of the key components of mitigation, and is the only truly effective way of reducing the impact of disasters on our country. One of the most promising tools that can be used to reduce damage from an earthquake, or other similar disasters, is performance-based design. Performance-Based Seismic Design (PBSD) is a concept that permits the design and construction of buildings with a realistic and reliable understanding of the risk of life, occupancy, and economic loss that may occur as a result of future earthquakes. PBSD is based on an assessment of a building’s design to determine the probability of experiencing different types of losses, considering the range of potential earthquakes that may affect the structure. This allows a building owner or regulator to select their desired performance goal for their building. Current building codes are prescriptive in nature and are principally intended to provide a life-safety level of protection when a design-level event, such as an earthquake, occurs. While codes are intended to produce buildings that meet a life-safety performance level for a specified level of ground shaking, they do not provide designers with a means to determine if other performance levels would be achieved. During a design level earthquake, a code-designed building could achieve the goal of preventing loss of life or life-threatening injury to building occupants, but could still sustain extensive structural and nonstructural damage and be out of service for an extended period of time. In some cases, the damage may be too costly to repair, leaving demolition as the only option. FEMA’s early work in this area included the development of FEMA 349, Action Plan for Performance Based Seismic Design (FEMA, 2000). PBSD development work began in earnest in 2006, when FEMA contracted with the Applied Technology Council (ATC) to initiate Phase 1 development of a seismic performance assessment methodology. This work included development of an updated project plan, published as FEMA 445, Next- Generation, Performance-Based Seismic Design Guidelines, Program Plan for New and Existing Buildings. Phase 1 work built upon research performed FEMA P-58-1 Foreword v Second Edition by others, including the three Earthquake Engineering Research Centers and other universities, private industry, various construction materials trade associations, and individual product manufacturers and suppliers who have performed research to facilitate the use of their products and materials in a performance-based design environment. Phase 1 work was completed in 2012 with the publication of FEMA P-58, Seismic Performance Assessment of Buildings, Volume 1 – Methodology, Volume 2 – Implementation Guide, and a series of supporting electronic materials and background technical information. For practical implementation of the methodology, work included the development of an electronic tool, referred to as the Performance Assessment Calculation Tool, or PACT, to help capture building inventory data, input a given earthquake shaking probability or intensity, apply specific fragilities and consequences to each building component, and present the results of a large number of runs, or realizations, in a logical format. Unlike earlier versions of PBSD, the FEMA P-58 methodology utilizes performance measures that can be understood by decision makers. Performance objectives relate to the amount of damage the building may experience and the consequences of that damage including: potential casualties; loss of use or occupancy; and repair and reconstruction costs. They can also be used to assess potential environmental impacts. FEMA recently completed the Phase 2 development of design guidance, which used the FEMA P-58 methodology to develop performance-based seismic design guidelines and stakeholder guidelines. This five-year effort also included an update of Volume 1 and 2 products to capture improvements to the FEMA P-58 methodology. FEMA wishes to express its sincere gratitude to all who were involved in this project and in the development of the FEMA P-58 methodology. The entire development team numbered more than 200 individuals across all phases, and it is not possible to acknowledge them all here. However, special thanks are extended to: Ronald Hamburger, Project Technical Director; Robert Bachman, Nonstructural Team Leader; John Hooper, Risk Management Team Leader; Andrew Whittaker, Structural Products Team Leader; William Holmes, Steering Committee Chair; and Jon Heinz, ATC Project Manager. The hard work and dedication of these