1 

CHAPTER C16 NONLINEAR RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS

2 

3  C16.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

4  C16.1.1 Scope

5  Response history analysis is a form of dynamic analysis in which response of the structure to a

LY
6  suite of ground motions is evaluated through numerical integration of the equations of motions.
7  In nonlinear response history analysis, the structure’s stiffness matrix is modified throughout the

N
8  analysis to account for the changes in element stiffness associated with hysteretic behavior and

O
9  P-delta effects. When nonlinear response history analysis is performed, the R , Cd , and Ω 0
10  coefficients considered in linear procedures are not applied because the nonlinear analysis
11  n
directly accounts for the effects represented by these coefficients.
io
12  Nonlinear response history analysis is permitted to be performed as part of the design of any
at

13  structure and is specifically required to be performed for the design of certain structures
m

14  incorporating seismic isolation or energy dissipation systems. Nonlinear response history
analysis is also frequently used for the design of structures that use alternative structural systems
or

15 
16  or do not fully comply with the prescriptive requirements of the standard in one or more ways.
nf

17  Before this edition, ASCE 7 specified that nonlinear response history analyses be performed
using ground motions scaled to the design earthquake level and that design acceptance checks be
rI

18 
19  performed to ensure that mean element actions do not exceed two-thirds of the deformations at
Fo

20  which loss of gravity-load-carrying capacity would occur. In this edition of ASCE 7, a complete
21  reformulation of these requirements was undertaken to require analysis at the Risk-Targeted

22  Maximum Considered Earthquake ( MCER ) level and also to be more consistent with the target

23  reliabilities indicated in Section 1.3.1.3.

24  The target collapse reliabilities given in Table 1.3-2 are defined such that when a building is

25  subjected to MCER ground motion, not greater than a 10% probability of collapse exists for

1 
 
 1  Risk Category I and II structures. For Risk Category III and IV structures, these maximum
2  collapse probabilities are reduced to 5% and 2.5%, respectively.

3  There are additional performance expectations for Risk Category III and IV structures that go
4  beyond the collapse safety performance goals (e.g., limited damage and postearthquake
5  functionality for lower ground motion levels). These enhanced performance goals are addressed

6  in this chapter by enforcing an Ie 1.0 in the linear design step (which is consistent with the

7  approach taken in the other design methods of Chapter 12) and also by considering I e in

LY
8  acceptance checks specified in Section 16.4.

9  It is conceptually desirable to create a Chapter 16 response history analysis (RHA) design

N
10  process that explicitly evaluates the collapse probability and ensures that the performance goal is

O
11  fulfilled. However, explicit evaluation of collapse safety is a difficult task requiring (a) a
12  structural model that is able to directly simulate the collapse behavior, (b) use of numerous
13  n
nonlinear response history analyses, and (c) proper treatment of many types of uncertainties.
io
14  This process is excessively complex and lengthy for practical use in design. Therefore, Chapter
at

15  16 maintains the simpler approach of implicitly demonstrating adequate performance through a
m

16  prescribed set of analysis rules and acceptance criteria. Even so, this implicit approach does not
17  preclude the use of more advanced procedures that explicitly demonstrate that a design fulfills
or

18  the collapse safety goals. Such more advanced procedures are permitted by Section 1.3.1.3 of
nf

19  this standard. An example of an advanced explicit procedure is the building-specific collapse
20  assessment methodology in Appendix F of FEMA P-695 (FEMA 2009b).
rI

21  C16.1.2. Linear Analysis

Fo

22  As a precondition to performing nonlinear response history analysis, a linear analysis, in

23  accordance with the requirements of Chapter 12, is required. Any of the linear procedures
24  allowed in Chapter 12 may be used. The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that structures
25  designed using nonlinear response history analyses meet the minimum strength and other criteria
26  of Chapter 12, with a few exceptions. In particular, when performing the Chapter 12 evaluations,

27  it is permitted to take the value of Ω 0 as 1.0 because it is felt that values of demand obtained
28  from the nonlinear procedure is a more accurate representation of the maximum forces that will

2 
 
 1  be delivered to critical elements, considering structural overstrength, than does the application of
2  the judgmentally derived factors specified in Chapter 12. Similarly, it is permitted to use a value
3  of 1.0 for the redundancy factor,  , because it is felt that the inherent nonlinear evaluation of

4  response to MCER shaking required by this chapter provides improved reliability relative to the
5  linear procedures of Chapter 12. For Risk Categories I, II, and III structures, it is permitted to
6  neglect the evaluation of story drift when using the linear procedure because it is felt that the
7  drift evaluation performed using the nonlinear procedure provides a more accurate assessment of
8  the structure’s tolerance to earthquake-induced drift. However, linear drift evaluation is required

LY
9  for Risk Category IV structures because it is felt that this level of drift control is important to
10  attaining the enhanced performance desired for such structures.

N
11  As with other simplifications permitted in the linear analysis required under this section, it is also

O
12  permitted to use a value of 1.0 for the torsional amplification, Ax , when performing a nonlinear
13 
n
analysis if accidental torsion is explicitly modeled in the nonlinear analysis. Although this does
io
14  simplify the linear analysis somewhat, designers should be aware that the resulting structure may
at
15  be more susceptible to torsional instability when performing the nonlinear analysis. Therefore,

16  some designers may find it expedient to use a value of Ax consistent with the linear procedures
m

17  as a means of providing a higher likelihood that the nonlinear analysis will result in acceptable
or

18  outcomes.
nf

19  C16.1.3 Vertical Response Analysis

rI

20  Most structures are not sensitive to the effects of response to vertical ground shaking, and there
Fo

21  is little evidence of the failure of structures in earthquakes resulting from vertical response.
22  However, some nonbuilding structures and building structures with long spans, cantilevers,
23  prestressed construction, or vertical discontinuities in their gravity-load-resisting systems can
24  experience significant vertical earthquake response that can cause failures. The linear procedures

25  of Chapter 12 account for these effects in an approximate manner, through use of the 0.2SDS D
26  term in the load combinations. When nonlinear response history analysis is performed for
27  structures with sensitivity to vertical response, direct simulation of this response is more
28  appropriate than the use of the approximate linear procedures. However, in order to properly

3 
 
 1  capture vertical response to earthquake shaking, it is necessary to accurately model the stiffness
2  and distribution of mass in the vertical load system, including the flexibility of columns and
3  horizontal framing. This effort can considerably increase the complexity of analytical models.
4  Rather than requiring this extra effort in all cases where vertical response can be significant, this
5  chapter continues to rely on the approximate approach embedded in Chapter 12, for most cases.
6  However, where the vertical load path is discontinuous and where vertical response analysis is
7  required by Chapter 15, Chapter 16 does require explicit modeling and analysis of vertical
8  response. Since in many cases the elements sensitive to vertical earthquake response are not part

LY
9  of the seismic force-resisting system, it is often possible to decouple the vertical and lateral
10  response analyses, using separate models for each.

N
11  Appropriate accounting for the effects of vertical response to ground shaking requires that

O
12  horizontal framing systems, including floor and roof systems, be modeled with distributed
13  masses and sufficient vertical degrees of freedom to capture their out-of-plane dynamic
14  n
characteristics. This increased fidelity in modeling of the structure’s vertical response
io
15  characteristics will significantly increase the size and complexity of models. As a result, the
at
16  chapter requires direct simulation of vertical response only for certain structures sensitive to
17  those effects and relies on the procedures of Chapter 12 to safeguard the vertical response of
m

18  other structures.

or

19  C16.1.4 Documentation

nf

20  By its nature, most calculations performed using nonlinear response history analysis are
rI

21  contained within the input and output of computer software used to perform the analysis. This
Fo

22  section requires documentation, beyond the computer input and output, of the basic assumptions,
23  approaches, and conclusions so that thoughtful review may be performed by others including
24  peer reviewers and the Authority Having Jurisdiction. This section requires submittal and review
25  of some of these data before the analyses are performed, in order to ensure that the engineer
26  performing the analysis/design and the reviewers are in agreement before substantive work is
27  performed.

28  C16.2 Ground Motions

4 
 
 1  C16.2.1 Target Response Spectrum

2  The target response spectrum used for nonlinear dynamic analysis is the maximum direction

3  MCER spectrum determined in accordance with Chapter 11 or Chapter 21. Typical spectra,
4  determined in accordance with those procedures, are derived from uniform hazard spectra
5  (UHSs) and modified to provide a uniform risk spectrum (URS), or alternatively, a deterministic
6  MCE spectrum. Since the 1980s, UHSs have been used as the target spectra in design practice.
7  The UHS is created for a given hazard level by enveloping the results of seismic hazard analysis

LY
8  for each period (for a given probability of exceedance). Accordingly, it is generally a
9  conservative target spectrum if used for ground motion selection and scaling, especially for large

N
10  and rare ground motions, unless the structure exhibits only elastic first-mode response. This
11  inherent conservatism comes from the fact that the spectral values at each period are not likely to

O
12  all occur in a single ground motion. This limitation of the UHS has been noted for many years
13 
n
(e.g., Bommer et al. 2000; Naeim and Lew 1995; Reiter 1990). The same conservatism exists for
io
14  the URS and deterministic MCE spectra that serves as the basis for Method 1.
at
15  Method 2 uses the conditional mean spectrum (CMS), an alternative to the URS that can be used
16  as a target for ground motion selection in nonlinear response history analysis (e.g., Baker and
m

17  Cornell 2006, Baker 2011, Al Atik and Abrahamson 2010).

or

18  To address the conservatism inherent in analyses using URSs as a target for ground motion
nf

19  selection and scaling, the CMS instead conditions the spectrum calculation on a spectral
acceleration at a single period and then computes the mean (or distribution of) spectral
rI

20 
21  acceleration values at other periods. This conditional calculation ensures that the resulting
Fo

22  spectrum is reasonably likely to occur and that ground motions selected to match the spectrum
23  have an appropriate spectral shape consistent with naturally occurring ground motions at the site
24  of interest. The calculation is no more difficult than the calculation of a URS and is arguably
25  more appropriate for use as a ground motion selection target in risk assessment applications. The
26  spectrum calculation requires disaggregation information, making it a site-specific calculation
27  that cannot be generalized to other sites. It is also period-specific, in that the conditional response
28  spectrum is conditioned on a spectral acceleration value at a specified period. The shape of the
29  conditional spectrum also changes as the spectral amplitude changes (even when the site and

5 
 
 1  period are fixed). Figure C16.2-1 provides examples of CMSs for an example site in Palo Alto,
2  California, anchored at four different candidate periods. The UHS for this example site is also
3  provided for comparison.

LY
N
4 

O
5 

6  FIGURE C16.2-1. Example conditional mean spectra for a Palo Alto site, anchored for 2%
7  n
in 50-year motion at T  0.45s , 0.85s, 2.6s, and 5s.
io
Source: NIST (2011).
at
8 

As previously discussed, the URS is a conservative target spectrum for ground motion selection,
m

9 

10  and the use of CMS target spectra is more appropriate for representing anticipated MCER
or

11  ground motions at a specified period. A basic CMS-type approach was used in the analytical
nf

12  procedures of the FEMA P-695 (FEMA 2009b) project, the results of which provided the initial
rI

13  basis for establishing the 10% probability of collapse goal shown in Table 1.3-2. Therefore, the
14  use of CMS target spectra in the Chapter 16 RHA design procedure is also internally consistent
Fo

15  with how the collapse probability goals of Table 1.3-2 were developed.

16  The URS (or deterministic MCE) target spectrum is retained in Section 16.2.1.1 (as a simpler
17  and more conservative option) as the specified target spectrum, and the CMS is permitted as an
18  alternate in Section 16.2.1.2. Whereas CMS appropriately captures the earthquake energy and
19  structural response at a particular period resulting from a particular scenario earthquake, it is not

20  capable of capturing the MCER level response associated with other scenarios that are

21  component to the MCER spectrum. Therefore, when using CMS, it may be necessary to use

6 
 
 1  several conditioning periods and associated targets to develop conditional mean spectra, in order
2  to fully capture the structure’s response to different earthquake scenarios. The recommended
3  procedure includes the following steps for creating the site-specific scenario response spectra.

4  1. Select those periods that correspond to periods of vibration that significantly contribute to
5  the building’s inelastic dynamic response. This selection includes a period near the
6  fundamental period of the building, or perhaps a slightly extended period to account for

7  inelastic period lengthening (e.g., 1.5T1). In buildings where the fundamental response

LY
8  periods in each of two orthogonal axes is significantly different, a conditioning period
9  associated with each direction is needed. It also likely requires periods near the
translational second-mode periods. When selecting these significant periods of response,

N
10 
11  the elastic periods of response should be considered (according to the level of mass

O
12  participation for each of these periods), and the amount of first-mode period elongation
13  caused by inelastic response effects should also be considered.
n
2. For each period selected above, create a scenario spectrum that matches or exceeds the
io
14 

15  MCER value at that period. When developing the scenario spectrum, (a) perform site-
at

16  specific disaggregation to identify earthquake events likely to result in MCER ground
m

17  shaking, and then (b) develop the scenario spectrum to capture one or more spectral
or

18  shapes for dominant magnitude and distance combinations revealed by the
disaggregation.
nf

19 

20  3. Enforce that the envelope of the scenario spectra not be less than 75% of the MCER
rI

21  spectrum (from Method I) for any period within the period range of interest (as defined in
Fo

22  Section 16.2.3.1).

23  After the target spectra are created, each target response spectrum is then used in the remainder
24  of the response history analyses process and the building must be shown to meet the acceptance
25  criteria for each of the scenarios.

26  The primary purpose of the 75% floor value is to provide a basis for determining how many
27  target spectra are needed for analysis. For small period ranges, fewer targets are needed, and
28  more target spectra are needed for buildings where a wider range of periods are important to the
29  structural response (e.g., taller buildings). When creating the target spectra, some spectral values

7 
 
 1  can also be artificially increased to meet the requirements of this 75% floor. A secondary reason
2  for the 75% floor is to enforce a reasonable lower bound. The specific 75% threshold value was
3  determined using several examples; the intention is that this 75% floor requirement will be
4  fulfilled through the use of two target spectra, in most cases. From the perspective of collapse

5  risk, the requirement of being within 75% of the MCER at all periods may introduce some
6  conservatism, but the requirement adds robustness to the procedure by ensuring that the structure

7  is subjected to ground motions with near- MCER -level intensities at all potentially relevant

periods. Additionally, this requirement ensures that demands unrelated to collapse safety, such as

LY
8 
9  higher mode-sensitive force demands, can be reasonably determined from the procedure.

N
10  C16.2.2 Ground Motion Selection

O
11  Before this edition of ASCE 7, Chapter 16 required a minimum of three ground motions for
12 
n
nonlinear response history analysis. If three ground motions were used, the procedures required
io
13  evaluation of structural adequacy using the maximum results obtained from any of the ground
14  motions. If seven or more motions were used, mean results could be used for evaluation. Neither
at

15  three nor seven motions are sufficient to accurately characterize either mean response or the
m

16  record-to-record variability in response. In the 2016 edition of the standard, the minimum
number of motions was increased to 11. The requirement for this larger number of motions was
or

17 
18  not based on detailed statistical analyses, but rather was judgmentally selected to balance the
nf

19  competing objectives of more reliable estimates of mean structural responses (through use of
rI

20  more motions) against computational effort (reduced by using fewer motions). An advantage of
21  using this larger number of motions is that if unacceptable response is found for more than one
Fo

22  of the 11 motions, this indicates a significant probability that the structure will fail to meet the
23  10% target collapse reliability for Risk Categories I and II structures of Section 1.3.1.3. This
24  advantage is considered in the development of acceptance criteria discussed in Section C16.4.

25  All real ground motions include three orthogonal components. For most structures, it is only
26  necessary to consider response to horizontal components of ground shaking. However,
27  consideration of vertical components is necessary for structures defined as sensitive to vertical
28  earthquake effects.

8 
 
 1  Section 11.4.1 defines near-fault sites as sites located within 9.3 mi (15 km) of the surface
2  projection of faults capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 7.0 or greater and within 6.2
3  mi (10 km) of the surface projection of faults capable of producing earthquakes of magnitude 6.0
4  or greater, where the faults must meet minimum annual slip rate criteria. Such near-fault sites
5  have a reasonable probability of experiencing ground motions strongly influenced by rupture
6  directivity effects. These effects can include pulse-type ground motions (e.g., Shahi et al. 2011)
7  observable in velocity histories and polarization of ground motions, such that the maximum
8  direction of response tends to be in the direction normal to the fault strike. The issue of pulse-

LY
9  type ground motions affects the manner by which individual ground motions are selected for the
10  site and applied to the structure.

N
11  Selection of Ground Motions for Sites That Are Not Near-Fault. The traditional approach has

O
12  been to select (and/or simulate) ground motions that have magnitudes, fault distances, source
13  mechanisms, and site soil conditions that are roughly similar to those likely to cause the ground
14  n
motion intensity level of interest (e.g., Stewart et al. 2002) and not to consider the spectral shape
io
15  in the ground motion selection. In many cases, the response spectrum is the property of a ground
at
16  motion most correlated with the structural response (Bozorgnia et al. 2009) and should be
17  considered when selecting ground motions. When spectral shape is considered in the ground
m

18  motion selection, the allowable range of magnitudes, distances, and site conditions can be
or

19  relaxed so that a sufficient number of ground motions with appropriate spectral shapes are
20  available.
nf

The selection of recorded motions typically occurs in two steps, as explained in the following
rI

21 
22  illustration. Step 1 involves preselecting the ground motion records in the database (e.g.,
Fo

23  Anchenta et al. 2015) that have reasonable source mechanisms, magnitude, site soil conditions, a
24  range of usable frequencies, and site-to-source distance. In completing this preselection, it is
25  permissible to use relatively liberal ranges because Step 2 can involve selecting motions that
26  provide good matches to a target spectrum of interest (and matching to a target spectrum tends to
27  implicitly account for many of the above issues). Step 2 in the selection process is to select the
28  final set of motions from those preselected in Step 1.

29  In the first step, the following criteria should be used to filter out ground motions that should not
30  be considered as candidates in the final selection process:

9 
 
 1   Source Mechanism: Ground motions from differing tectonic regimes (e.g., subduction
2  versus active crustal regions) often have substantially differing spectral shapes and
3  durations, so recordings from appropriate tectonic regimes should be used whenever
4  possible.
5   Magnitude: Earthquake magnitude is related to the duration of ground shaking, so using
6  ground motions from earthquakes with appropriate magnitudes should already have
7  approximately the appropriate durations. Earthquake magnitude is also related to the
8  shape of the resulting ground motion’s response spectrum, though spectral shape is

LY
9  considered explicitly in Step 2 of the process, so this is not a critical factor when
10  identifying ground motions from appropriate magnitude earthquakes.

N
11   Site Soil Conditions: Site soil conditions (Site Class) exert a large influence on ground
motions but are already reflected in the spectral shape used in Step 2. For Step 1,

O
12 
13  reasonable limits on site soil conditions should be imposed but should not be too
14 
n
restrictive as to unnecessarily limit the number of candidate motions.
io
15   Usable Frequency of the Ground Motion: Only processed ground motion records
should be considered for RHA. Processed motions have a usable frequency range; in
at
16 
17  active regions, the most critical parameter is the lowest usable frequency. It is important
m

18  to verify that the usable frequencies of the record (after filtering) accommodate the range
or

19  of frequencies important to the building response; this frequency (or period) range is
20  discussed in the next section on scaling.
nf

21   Period/Frequency Sampling: Ground motion recordings are discretized representations

rI

22  of continuous functions. The sampling rate for the recorded data can vary from as little as
23  0.001 s to as much as 0.02 s, depending on the recording instrument and processing. If
Fo

24  the sampling rate is too coarse, important characteristics of the motion, particularly in the
25  high-frequency range, can be lost. On the other hand, the finer the sampling rate, the
26  longer the analysis will take. Particularly for structures with significant response at
27  periods less than 0.1 s, caution should be used to ensure that the sampling rate is
28  sufficiently good to capture the motion’s important characteristics. As a general
29  guideline, discretization should include at least 100 points per decade of significant
30  response. Thus, for a structure with significant response at a period of 0.1 s, time steps
31  should not be greater than 0.001 s.

10 
 
 1   Site-to-Source Distance: The distance is a lower priority parameter to consider when
2  selecting ground motions. Studies investigating this property have all found that response
3  history analyses performed using ground motions from different site-to-source distances,
4  but otherwise equivalent properties, produce practically equivalent demands on
5  structures.
6  Once the preselection process has been completed, Step 2 is undertaken to select the final set
7  of ground motions according to the following criteria:

8   Spectral Shape: The shape of the response spectrum is a primary consideration when

LY
9  selecting ground motions.
10   Scale Factor: It is also traditional to select motions such that the necessary scale factor is

N
11  limited; an allowable scale factor limit of approximately 0.25 to 4 is not uncommon.

O
12   Maximum Motions from a Single Event: Many also think it important to limit the
13  number of motions from a single seismic event, such that the ground motion set is not
14  n
unduly influenced by the single event. This criterion is deemed less important than
io
15  limiting the scale factor, but imposing a limit of only three or four motions from a single
at
16  event would not be unreasonable for most cases.
Further discussion of ground motion selection is available in NIST GCR 11-917-15 (NIST
m

17 
18  2011), Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History
or

19  Analyses.
nf

20  Near-fault sites have a probability of experiencing pulse-type ground motions. This probability is
rI

21  not unity, so only a certain fraction of selected ground motions should exhibit pulselike
22  characteristics, while the remainder can be nonpulse records, selected according to the standard
Fo

23  process as described. The probability of experiencing pulselike characteristics is dependent

24  principally on (1) distance of site from fault, (2) fault type (e.g., strike slip or reverse), and (3)
25  location of hypocenter relative to site, such that rupture occurs toward or away from the site.

26  Criteria (1) and (2) are available from conventional disaggregation of probabilistic seismic
27  hazard analysis. Criterion (3) can be computed as well in principle, but is generally not provided
28  in a conventional hazard analysis. However, for the long ground motion return periods associated

29  with MCER spectra, it is conservative and reasonable to assume that the fault rupture is toward

11 
 
 1  the site for the purposes of evaluating pulse probabilities. Empirical relations for evaluating pulse
2  probabilities in consideration of these criteria are given in NIST GCR 11-917-15 (2011) and in
3  Shahi et al. (2011).

4  Once the pulse probability is identified, the proper percentage of pulselike records should be
5  enforced in the ground motion selection. For example, if the pulse probability is 30% and 11
6  records are to be used, then 3 or 4 records in the set should exhibit pulselike characteristics in at
7  least one of the horizontal components. The PEER Ground Motion Database can be used to
8  identify records with pulse-type characteristics. The other criteria described in the previous

LY
9  section should also be considered to identify pulselike records that are appropriate for a given
10  target spectrum and set of disaggregation results.

N
C16.2.3 Ground Motion Modification

O
11 

12  Two procedures for modifying ground motions for compatibility with the target spectrum are
n
available: amplitude scaling and spectral matching. Amplitude scaling consists of applying a
io
13 
14  single scaling factor to the entire ground motion record, such that the variation of earthquake
at

15  energy with structural period found in the original record is preserved. Amplitude scaling
m

16  preserves record-to-record variability; however, individual ground motions that are amplitude
17  scaled can significantly exceed the response input of the target spectrum at some periods, which
or

18  can tend to overstate the importance of higher mode response in some structures. In spectral
nf

19  matching techniques, shaking amplitudes are modified by differing amounts at differing periods,
20  and in some cases additional wavelets of energy are added to or subtracted from the motions,
rI

21  such that the response spectrum of the modified motion closely resembles the target spectrum.
Fo

22  Some spectral matching techniques are incapable of preserving important characteristics of
23  velocity pulses in motions and should not be used for near-fault sites where these effects are
24  important. Spectral matching does not generally preserve the record-to-record response
25  variability observed when evaluating a structure for unmodified motions, but it can capture the
26  mean response well, particularly if the nonlinear response is moderate.

27  Vertical response spectra of earthquake records are typically significantly different to the
28  horizontal spectra. Therefore, regardless of whether amplitude scaling or spectral matching is
29  used, separate scaling of horizontal and vertical effects is required.

12 
 
 1  C16.2.3.1 Period Range for Scaling or Matching
2  The period range for scaling of ground motions is selected such that the ground motions

3  accurately represent the MCER hazard at the structure’s fundamental response periods, periods
4  somewhat longer than this to account for period lengthening effects associated with nonlinear
5  response and shorter periods associated with a higher mode response. Before the 2016 edition of
6  the standard, ground motions were required to be scaled between periods of 0.2T and 1.5T . The
7  lower bound was selected to capture higher mode response, and the upper bound, period
8  elongation effects. In the 2016 edition, nonlinear response history analyses were performed at the

LY
9  MCER ground motion level. Greater inelastic response is anticipated at this level compared to
10  the design spectrum, so the upper bound period has accordingly been raised from 1.5T to 2.0T ,

N
11  where T is redefined as the maximum fundamental period of the building (i.e., the maximum of

O
12  the fundamental periods in both translational directions and the fundamental torsional period).
This increase in the upper bound period is also based on recent research, which has shown that
13 
n MCER motions
io
14  the 1.5T limit is too low for assessing ductile frame buildings subjected to

(Haselton and Baker 2006).

at
15 
m

16  For the lower bound period, the 0.2T requirement is now supplemented with an additional
17  requirement that the lower bound should also capture the periods needed for 90% mass
or

18  participation in both directions of the building. This change is made to ensure that when used for
nf

19  tall buildings and other long-period structures, the ground motions are appropriate to capture
20  response in higher modes that have significant response.
rI

21  In many cases, the substructure is included in the structural model, and this inclusion
Fo

22  substantially affects the mass participation characteristics of the system. Unless the foundation
23  system is being explicitly designed using the results of the response history analyses, the above
24  90% modal mass requirement pertains only to the superstructure behavior; the period range does
25  not need to include the very short periods associated with the subgrade behavior.

26  C16.2.3.2 Amplitude Scaling

27  This procedure is similar to those found in earlier editions of the standard, but with the following
28  changes:

13 
 
 1  1. Scaling is based directly on the maximum direction spectrum, rather than the square root
2  of the sum of the squares spectrum. This change was made for consistency with the

3  MCER ground motion now being explicitly defined as a maximum direction motion.
4  2. The approach of enforcing that the average spectrum “does not fall below” the target
5  spectrum is replaced with requirements that (a) the average spectrum “matches the target
6  spectrum” and (b) the average spectrum does not fall below 90% of the target spectrum
7  for any period within the period range of interest. This change was made to remove the
8  conservatism associated with the average spectrum being required to exceed the target

LY
9  spectrum at every period within the period range.
10  The scaling procedure requires that a maximum direction response spectrum be constructed for

N
11  each ground motion. For some ground motion databases, this response spectrum definition is

O
12  already precomputed and publicly available (e.g., for the Ancheta 2012). The procedure basically
13  entails computing the maximum acceleration response to each ground motion pair for a series of
14  n
simple structures that have a single mass. This procedure is repeated for structures of different
io
15  periods, allowing construction of the spectrum. A number of software tools can automatically
at
16  compute this spectrum for a given time–history pair.
m

17  Figure C16.2-2 shows an example of the scaling process for an example site and structure. This
18  figure shows how the average of the maximum direction spectra meets the target spectrum (a)
or

19  and shows more detail for a single Loma Prieta motion in the scaled ground motion set (b).
nf
rI
Fo

20 

21 

14 
 
 1  FIGURE C16.2-2. Ground motion scaling for an example site and structure, showing (a)
2  the ground motion spectra for all 11 motions and (b) an example for the Loma Prieta,
3  Gilroy Array #3 motion.

4  C16.2.3.3 Spectral Matching

5  Spectral matching of ground motions is defined as the modification of a real recorded earthquake
6  ground motion in some manner, such that its response spectrum matches a desired target
7  spectrum across a period range of interest. There are several spectral matching procedures in use,
8  as described in the NIST GCR 11-917-15 report (NIST 2011). The recommendations in this

LY
9  report should be followed regarding appropriate spectral matching techniques to be applied.

N
10  This section requires that when spectral matching is applied, the average of the maximum
11  direction spectra of the matched motions must exceed the target spectrum over the period range

O
12  of interest; this is intentionally a more stringent requirement compared to the requirement for
scaled unmatched motions, because the spectral matching removes variability in the ground
13 
n
io
14  motion spectra and also has the potential to predict lower mean response (e.g., Luco and
15  Bazzurro 2007, Grant and Diaferia 2012).
at

16  The specific technique used to perform spectral matching is not prescribed. It is possible to
m

17  match both components of motion to a single target spectrum or to match the individual
or

18  components to different spectra, as long as the average maximum direction spectra for the
19  matched records meets the specified criteria.
nf

Spectral matching is not allowed for near-fault sites, unless the pulse characteristics of the
rI

20 
21  ground motions are retained after the matching process has been completed. This is based on the
Fo

22  concern that when common spectral matching methods are used, the pulse characteristics of the
23  motions may not be appropriately retained.

24  C16.2.4 Application of Ground Motions to the Structural Model

25  This section explains the guidelines for ground motion application for both non-near-fault and
26  near-fault sites.

15 
 
 1  Sites That Are Not Near-Fault. In this standard, the maximum direction spectral acceleration is
2  used to describe the ground motion intensity. This spectral acceleration definition causes a
3  perceived directional dependence to the ground motion. However, the direction in which the
4  maximum spectral acceleration occurs is random at distances beyond 5 km (3.1 mi) from the
5  fault (Huang et al. 2008), does not necessarily align with a principal direction of the building,
6  and is variable from period to period. Accordingly, for the analysis to result in an unbiased
7  prediction of structural response, the ground motions should be applied to the structure in a
8  random orientation to avoid causing a biased prediction of structural response. True random

LY
9  orientation is difficult to achieve. Instead, the standard specifies that the average of the spectra
10  applied in each direction should be similar to each other, such that unintentional bias in the

N
11  application of motion, with one building axis experiencing greater demand than the other, is
12  avoided.

O
13  Near-Fault Sites. Some recorded ground motions obtained from instruments located near zones
14  n
of fault rupture have exhibited motions of significantly different character in one direction than
io
15  compared to the other. When this effect, known as directionality, occurs, it is common for the
at
16  component of motion perpendicular to the fault to be stronger than that parallel to the fault and
17  also for the fault-normal component to exhibit large velocity pulses. Sites located close to faults
m

18  that can experience motion having these characteristics are termed near-fault in this standard. For
or

19  such sites, the fault-normal and fault-parallel components of recorded ground motions should be
20  maintained and applied to the corresponding orientations of the structure.
nf

It is important to note that not all near-fault records exhibit these characteristics and also that
rI

21 
22  when records do have these characteristics, the direction of maximum motion is not always
Fo

23  aligned perpendicular to the fault strike. If the appropriate selection of records is performed,
24  some of the records used in the analysis should have these characteristics and some should not.
25  For those records that exhibit directionality, the direction of strong shaking is generally aligned
26  at varying azimuths, as occurred in the original recordings. It is also important to note that
27  because ground motions have considerable variability in their characteristics, it is specifically not
28  intended that buildings be designed weaker in the fault-parallel direction than in the fault-normal
29  direction.

16 
 
 1  ASCE 7-16 required all ground motions to be rotated to the fault-normal and fault-parallel
2  directions for near-fault sites regardless of whether the selected motions were representative of a
3  nearby fault source or a distant fault source. This provision only applied to sites where the hazard
4  was solely from nearby faults; however, it was subsequently recognized that in some areas, the
5  hazard is controlled by both near-fault and non near-fault seismic sources. For these areas, the
6  suite of selected ground motions will generally consist of a combination of records from near-
7  fault and non near-fault seismic sources. Therefore, the current version of the standard requires
8  that for ground motions that have been selected to be representative of a nearby fault source, the

LY
9  fault-normal and fault-parallel components of recorded ground motions should be maintained and
10  applied to the corresponding orientations of the structure. For ground motions selected to be

N
11  representative of a distant fault source, the standard specifies that the average of the spectra
12  applied in each direction should be similar to each other, such that unintentional bias in the

O
13  application of motion, with one building axis experiencing greater demand than the other, is
14  avoided.
n
io
15 
at

16  C16.3 Modeling and Analysis

m

17  C16.3.1 Modeling

or

Nonlinear response history analysis offers several advantages over linear response history
nf

18 
19  analysis, including the ability to model a wide variety of nonlinear material behaviors, geometric
rI

20  nonlinearities (including P-delta and large displacement effects), gap opening and contact
behavior, and nonlinear viscous damping, and to identify the likely spatial and temporal
Fo

21 
22  distributions of inelasticity. Nonlinear response history analysis has several disadvantages,
23  including an increased effort to develop the analytical model, increased time to perform the
24  analysis (which is often complicated by difficulties in obtaining converged solutions), sensitivity
25  of computed response to system parameters, large amounts of analysis results to evaluate, and
26  the inapplicability of superposition to combine live, dead, and seismic load effects.

27  While computation of collapse probability is not necessary, it is important to note that
28  mathematical models used in the analysis should have the capability to determine if collapse

17 
 
 1  occurs when the structure is subjected to MCER level ground motions. The ability to predict
2  collapse is important because the global acceptance criteria in Section 16.4.1.1 allow collapse (or
3  unacceptable response) to occur for only one of the 11 ground motions for Risk Categories I and
4  II buildings and allows no such responses for Risk Categories III and IV buildings. Development
5  of models with the ability to predict collapse requires attributes such as cyclic loss of strength
6  and stiffness, low cycle fatigue failure, and geometric nonlinearity.

7  Although analytical models used to perform linear analysis, in accordance with Chapter 12,

LY
8  typically do not include representation of elements other than those that compose the intended
9  lateral-force-resisting system, the gravity-load-carrying system and some nonstructural
components that can add significant stiffness and strength. Because the goal of nonlinear

N
10 
11  response history analysis is to accurately predict the building’s probable performance, it is

O
12  important to include such elements in the analytical model and also to verify that the behavior of
13  these elements will be acceptable. This inclusion may mean that the contribution of stiffness and
n
strength from elements considered as nonparticipating elements in other portions of this standard
io
14 
15  should be included in the response history analysis model. Since structures designed using
at

16  nonlinear response history analysis must also be evaluated using linear analyses, this analysis
m

17  ensures that the strength of the intended seismic force-resisting system is not reduced relative to
18  that of structures designed using only the linear procedures.
or

19  Expected material properties are used in the analysis model, attempting to characterize the
nf

20  expected performance as closely as possible. It is suggested that expected properties be selected
rI

21  considering actual test data for the proposed elements. Where test data are not readily available,
22  the designer may consider estimates as found in ASCE 41 and the PEER TBI Guidelines
Fo

23  (Bozorgnia et al. 2009). Guidance on important considerations in modeling may also be found in
24  Nonlinear Structural Analysis for Seismic Design, NIST GCR 10-917-5 (NIST 2010).

25  Two-dimensional structural models may be useful for initial studies and for checking some
26  specific issues in a structure; however, the final structural model used to confirm the structural
27  performance should be three-dimensional.

28  For certain structures, the response under both horizontal and vertical ground motions should be
29  considered. NIST GCR 11-917-15 (NIST 2011) provides some guidance to designers

18 
 
 1  considering the application of vertical ground motions. To properly capture the nonlinear
2  dynamic response of structures where vertical dynamic response may have a significant
3  influence on structural performance, it is necessary to include vertical mass in the mathematical
4  model. Typically, the vertical mass must be distributed across the floor and roof plates to
5  properly capture vertical response modes. Additional degrees of freedom (e.g., nodes at quarter
6  points along the span of a beam) need to be added to capture this effect, or horizontal elements
7  need to be modeled with consistent mass. Numerical convergence problems caused by large
8  oscillatory vertical accelerations have been noted (NIST 2012), where base rotations caused by

LY
9  wall cracking in fiber wall models are the primary source of vertical excitation. See also the
10  Commentary on Chapter 22.

N
11  Consideration of the additional vertical load of (0.2SDS )* D , as per Section 12.4.2, is

O
12  inappropriate for response history analysis. Response history analyses are desired to reflect
13  actual building response to the largest extent possible. Applying an artificial vertical load to the
n
analysis model before application of a ground motion results in an offset in the yield point of
io
14 
15  elements carrying gravity load because of the initial artificial stress. Similarly, applying an
at

16  artificial vertical load to the model at the conclusion of a response history analysis is not
m

17  indicative of actual building response. If vertical ground motions are expected to significantly
18  affect response, application of vertical shaking to the analysis model is recommended. It should
or

19  be noted that vertical response often occurs at higher frequencies than lateral response, and
nf

20  hence, a finer analysis time-step might be required when vertical motions are included.
rI

21  For structures composed of planar seismic force-resisting elements connected by floor and roof
22  diaphragms, the diaphragms should be modeled as semirigid in plane, particularly where the
Fo

23  vertical elements of the seismic force-resisting system are of different types (such as moment
24  frames and walls). Biaxial bending and axial force interaction should be considered for corner
25  columns, nonrectangular walls, and other similar elements.

26  Nonlinear response history analysis is load path-dependent, with the results depending on
27  combined gravity and lateral load effects. The MCE shaking and design gravity load
28  combinations required in ASCE 7 have a low probability of occurring simultaneously. Therefore,
29  the gravity load should instead be a realistic estimate of the expected loading on a typical day in

19 
 
 1  the life of the structure. In this chapter, two gravity load cases are used. One includes an
2  expected live loading characterizing probable live loading at the time of the MCE shaking, and
3  the other, no live load. The case without live load is required to be considered only for those
4  structures where live load constitutes an appreciable amount of the total gravity loading. In those
5  cases, structural response modes can be significantly different, depending on whether the live
6  load is present. The dead load used in this analysis should be determined in a manner consistent
7  with the determination of seismic mass. When used, the live load is reduced from the nominal
8  design live load to reflect both the low probability of the full design live load occurring

LY
9  simultaneously throughout the building and the low probability that the design live load and
10  MCE shaking will occur simultaneously.

N
11  The reduced live load values of 0.8L0 for live loads that exceed 100 lb / ft 2 ( 4.79 kN / m2 ) and

O
12  0.4L0 for all other live loads, were simply taken as the maximum reduction allowable in
13  Sections 4.7.2 and 4.7.3.
n
io
14  Gravity loads are to be applied to the nonlinear model first and then ground shaking simulations
at

15  applied. The initial application of gravity load is critical to the analysis, so member stresses and
m

16  displacements caused by ground shaking are appropriately added to the initially stressed and
17  displaced structure.
or

18  C16.3.3 P-Delta Effects

nf
rI

19  P-delta effects should be realistically included, regardless of the value of the elastic story

20  stability coefficient   PIe / (Vh) . The elastic story stability coefficient is not a reliable
Fo

21  indicator of the importance of P-delta during large inelastic deformations. This problem is
22  especially important for dynamic analyses with large inelastic deformations because significant
23  ratcheting can occur. During these types of analyses, when the global stiffness starts to
24  deteriorate and the tangent stiffness of story shear to story drift approaches zero or becomes
25  negative, P-delta effects can cause significant ratcheting (which is a precursor to dynamic
26  instability) of the displacement response in one direction. The full reversal of drifts is no longer
27  observed, and the structural integrity is compromised. To ascertain the full effect of P-delta

20 
 
 1  effects for a given system, a comparison of static pushover curves from a P-delta model and non-
2  P-delta model can be compared.

3  When including P-delta effects, it is important to capture not only the second-order behavior
4  associated with lateral displacements but also with global torsion about the vertical axis of the
5  system. Additionally, the gravity load used in modeling P-delta effects must include 100% of the
6  gravity load in the structure. For these reasons, the use of a single “leaning column,” where much
7  of a structure’s vertical weight is lumped at a single vertical coordinate, is discouraged, and
8  instead, the structure’s vertical load should be distributed throughout the structure in a realistic

LY
9  manner, either through direct modeling of the gravity system or by appropriately distributed
10  “leaning columns.”

N
11  In some structures, in addition to considering P-delta effects associated with global structural

O
12  deformation, it is also important to consider local P-delta effects associated with the local
deformation of members. This is particularly important for slender elements that are subject to
13 
n
io
14  buckling.
at
15  C16.3.4 Torsion
m

16  Inherent torsion is actual torsion caused by differences in the location of the center of mass and
or

17  center of rigidity throughout the height of the structure. Accidental torsion effects, as per Section
18  12.8.4.2, are artificial effects that attempt to account for actual variations in load and material
nf

19  strengths during building operation that differ from modeling assumptions. Some examples of
rI

20  this difference would be nonuniformity of the actual mass in the building, openings in the
21  diaphragm that are unaccounted for, torsional foundation input motion caused by the ground
Fo

22  motion being out of phase at various points along the base, the lateral stiffness of the gravity
23  framing, variation in material strength and stiffness caused by typical construction tolerances,
24  and incidental stiffness contribution by the nonstructural elements.

25  When the provision for accidental torsion was first introduced, it was to address buildings that
26  have no inherent torsion but are sensitive to torsional excitation. Common examples of this type
27  of configuration are cruciform core or I-shaped core buildings. In reality, many things can cause
28  such a building to exhibit some torsional response. None of the aforementioned items are

21 
 
 1  typically included in the analysis model; therefore, the accidental torsion approach was
2  introduced to ensure that the structure has some minimum level of resistance to incidental
3  twisting under seismic excitation.

4  The accidental torsion also serves as an additional check to provide more confidence in the
5  torsional stability of the structure. During the initial proportioning of the structure using linear
6  analysis (as per Section 16.1.1), accidental torsion is required to be enforced in accordance with
7  Section 12.8.4.2. When there is no inherent torsion in the building, accidental torsion is a crucial
8  step in the design process because this artificial offset in the center of mass is a simple way to

LY
9  force a minimum level of twisting to occur in the building. The accidental torsion step (i.e., the
10  required 5% force offsets) is also important when checking for plan irregularities in symmetric

N
11  and possibly, torsionally flexible buildings. Where there is already inherent torsion in the

O
12  building, additional accidental torsion is not generally a crucial requirement (though still
13  required, in accordance with Section 12.8.4.2) because the building model will naturally twist
14  n
during analysis, and no additional artificial torsion is required for this twisting to occur.
io
15  However, for buildings exhibiting either torsional or extreme torsional irregularities, inclusion of
at
16  accidental torsion in the nonlinear analysis is required by this standard to assist in identification
17  of potential nonlinear torsional instability.
m
or

18  C16.3.5 Damping

nf

19  Viscous damping can be represented by combined mass and stiffness (Rayleigh) damping. To
20  ensure that the viscous damping does not exceed the target level in the primary response modes,
rI

21  the damping is typically set at the target level for two periods, one above the fundamental period
Fo

22  and one below the highest mode frequency of significance. For very tall buildings, the second
23  and even third modes can have significant contributions to response; in this case, the lower

24  multiple on T1 may need to be reduced to avoid excessive damping in these modes.

25  Viscous damping may alternatively be represented by modal damping, which allows for the
26  explicit specification of the target damping in each mode.

27  Various studies have shown that the system damping may vary with time as the structure yields,
28  and in some cases, damping well above the target levels can temporarily exist. Zareian and

22 
 
 1  Medina (2010) provide recommendations for the implementation of damping in such a way that
2  the level of viscous damping remains relatively constant throughout the response.

3  The level of structural damping caused by component-level hysteresis can vary significantly
4  based on the degree of inelastic action. Typically, hysteretic damping provides a contribution
5  less than or equal to 2.5% of critical damping.

6  Damping and/or energy dissipation caused by supplemental damping and energy dissipation
7  elements should be explicitly accounted for with component-level models and not included in the

LY
8  overall viscous damping term.

9  C16.3.6 Explicit Foundation Modeling

N
O
10  The PEER TBI guidelines (Bozorgnia et al. 2009) and NIST GCR 12-917-21 (NIST 2012) both
11  recommend the inclusion of subterranean building levels in the mathematical model of the
12 
n
structure. The modeling of the surrounding soil has several possible levels of sophistication, two
io
13  of which are depicted below in (b) and (c) of Figure C16.3-1, which are considered most
at
14  practical for current practice. For a MCER -level assessment, which is the basis for the Chapter
m

15  16 RHA procedure, the rigid bathtub model is preferred by PEER TBI (Bozorgnia et al. 2009)
16  and NIST (2012) (Figure C16.3-1c). This model includes soil springs and dashpots, and identical
or

17  horizontal ground motions are input at each level of the basement. Such a modeling approach,
nf

18  where the soil is modeled in the form of springs and/or dashpots (or similar methods) placed
19  around the foundation, is encouraged but is not required. When spring and dashpot elements are
rI

20  included in the structural model, horizontal input ground motions are applied to the ends of the
Fo

21  horizontal soil elements rather than being applied to the foundation directly. A simpler but less
22  accurate model is to exclude the soil springs and dashpots from the numerical model and apply
23  the horizontal ground motions at the bottom level of the basement (Figure C16.3-1b), which is
24  fixed at the base. Either the fixed-base (Figure C16.3-1b) or bathtub (Figure C16.3-1c)
25  approaches are allowed, but the bathtub approach is encouraged because it is more accurate.

23 
 
 1 

2 

LY
3  FIGURE C16.3-1. Illustration of the method of inputting ground motions into the base of
4  the structural model.

N
5  Source: NIST (2011).

O
6  For the input motions, the PEER TBI (Bozorgnia et al. 2009) guidelines allow the use of either
7  n
the free-field motion, which is the motion defined in Section 16.2.2, or a foundation input motion
io
8  modified for kinematic interaction effects. Guidelines for modeling kinematic interaction are
at
9  contained in NIST (2012).
m

10  More sophisticated procedures for soil–structure interaction modeling, including the effects of
11  multisupport excitation, can also be applied in RHA. Such analyses should follow the guidelines
or

12  presented in NIST (2012).

nf

13  Approximate procedures for the evaluation of foundation springs are provided in Chapter 19 of
rI

14  this standard.

Fo

15  C16.4.1 Global Acceptance Criteria

16  C16.4.1.1 Unacceptable Response

17  This section summarizes the criteria for determining unacceptable response and how the criteria
18  were developed. It must be made clear that these unacceptable response acceptance criteria are
19  not the primary acceptance criteria that ensure adequate collapse safety of the building; the
20  primary acceptance criteria are the story drift criteria and the element-level criteria discussed
21  later in Section C16.4. The unacceptable response acceptance criteria were developed to be a

24 
 
 1  secondary protection to supplement the primary criteria. Unacceptable responses result in
2  instabilities and loss of gravity load support. Consequently, if it can be shown that after a
3  deformation-controlled element reaches its (collapse prevention) limit, the model is able to
4  redistribute demands to other elements, this would not constitute unacceptable response. The
5  acceptance criteria were intentionally structured in this manner because there is high variability
6  in unacceptable response (as described in this section) and the other primary acceptance criteria
7  are much more stable and reliable (because they are based on mean values of 11 motions rather
8  than the extreme response of 11 motions).

LY
9  When performing nonlinear analysis for a limited suite of ground motions, the observance of a
10  single unacceptable response (or, conversely, the observance of no unacceptable responses) is

N
11  statistically insignificant. That is, it is reasonably probable that no collapses will be observed in a

O
12  small suite of analyses, even if the structure has a greater than 10% chance of collapse at MCER
13  shaking levels. It is also possible that a structure with less than a 10% chance of collapse at
n
MCER shaking levels will still produce an unacceptable response for one ground motion in a
io
14 

small suite. In order for statistics on the number of unacceptable responses in a suite of analyses
at
15 
16  to produce a meaningful indication of collapse probability, a very large suite of analyses must be
m

17  performed. Furthermore, the observance or nonobservance of an unacceptable response depends

or

18  heavily on how the ground motions were selected and scaled (or spectrally matched) to meet the
19  target spectrum.
nf

20  Since the observance or nonobservance of an unacceptable response is not statistically

rI

21  meaningful, the standard does not rely heavily on the prohibition of unacceptable responses in
Fo

22  the attempt to “prove” adequate collapse safety. The many other acceptance criteria of Section
23  16.4 are relied upon to implicitly ensure adequate collapse safety of the building. If one desired
24  to expand the unacceptable response acceptance criteria to provide true meaningful collapse
25  safety information about the building, a more complex statistical inference approach would need
26  to be used. This is discussed further below.

27  The statistical insignificance of unacceptable response in a small suite of analyses leaves a large
28  open question about how to interpret the meaning of such responses when they occur. Even
29  though occurrence of a single unacceptable response is statistically meaningless, the occurrence

25 
 
 1  of many unacceptable responses (e.g., 5 of 11) indicates that the collapse probability is
2  significantly in excess of 10%. Additionally, a conscientious structural designer is concerned
3  about such occurrence, and the occurrences of unacceptable responses may provide the designer
4  with some insight into possible vulnerabilities in the structural design.

5  Some engineers presume that the acceptance criteria related to average response effectively
6  disallow any unacceptable responses (because you cannot average in an infinite response), while
7  others presume that average can also be interpreted as median, which could allow almost half of
8  the ground motions to cause an unacceptable response.

LY
9  The statistics presented below are provided to help better interpret the meaning of observance of

N
10  a collapse or other type of unacceptable response in a suite of analyses. These simple statistics
11  are based on predicting the occurrence of collapse (or other unacceptable response) using a

O
12  binomial distribution, based on the following assumptions:

13   n
The building’s collapse probability is exactly 10% at the MCER level.
io
14   Collapse probability is lognormally distributed and has a dispersion (lognormal standard
at

15  deviation) of 0.6. This value includes all sources of uncertainty and variability (e.g.,
m

16  record-to-record variability, modeling uncertainty). The value of 0.6 is the same value
17  used in creating the risk-consistent hazard maps for ASCE 7-10 (FEMA 2009a) and is
or

18  consistent with the values used in FEMA P-695 (FEMA 2009b).
nf

19   The record-to-record variability ranges from 0.25 to 0.40. This is the variability in the
20  collapse capacity that would be expected from the analytical model. This value is highly
rI

21  dependent on the details of the ground motion selection and scaling; values of 0.35 to
Fo

22  0.45 are expected for motions that do not fit tightly to the target spectrum, and values of
23  0.2 to 0.3 are expected for spectrally matched motions (FEMA 2009b).
24  Figure C16.4-1 shows collapse fragility curves for a hypothetical building that has a 10%

25  collapse probability conditioned on MCER motion ( P[C| MCER ] 10%), with an assumed
26  record-to-record collapse uncertainty of 0.40 and a total collapse uncertainty of 0.60. The figure

27  shows that the median collapse capacity must be a factor of 2.16 above the MCER ground

28  motion level, that the probability of collapse is 10% at the MCER when the full variability is

26 
 
 1  included (as required), but that the probability of collapse is only 2.7% at the MCER when only
2  the record-to-record variability is included. This 2.7% collapse probability is what would be
3  expected from the structural model that is used in the RHA assessment procedure.

LY
N
O
n
io
4 
at
5 
m

6  FIGURE C16.4-1. Collapse fragilities for a building with P[C| MCER ]  10% and
COL,RTR  0.40
or

7 
nf

8  Table C16.4-1 shows the probability of observing n collapses in a suite of 11 ground motions for
rI

9  a structure that has different values of P[C| MCER ].

Fo

10  Table C16.4-1. Likelihood of Observing Collapses in 11 Analyses, Given Various MCER
11  Collapse Probabilities and a Record-to-Record Uncertainty of 0.4.

Number of Collapses Likelihood for Various P[C| MCER ] Values

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30

0 of 11 0.93 0.74 0.51 0.30 0.07

27 
 
 1 of 11 0.07 0.23 0.36 0.38 0.21

2 of 11 0 0.03 0.11 0.22 0.29

3 of 11 0 0 0.02 0.08 0.24

4 of 11 0 0 0 0.02 0.13

5 of 11 0 0 0 0 0.05

LY
1  Table C16.4-1 shows that for a building meeting the P[C| MCER ] 10% performance goal,
there is a 74% chance of observing no collapses, a 23% chance of observing one collapse, a 3%

N
2 
3  chance of observing two collapses, and virtually no chance of observing more than two

O
4  collapses. In comparison, for a building with P[C| MCER ]  20% , there is a 30% chance of

5 
n
observing no collapses, a 38% chance of observing one collapse, a 22% chance of observing two
io
6  collapses, and a 10% chance of observing more than two collapses.
at

7  This table illustrates that

m

8   Even if no collapses are observed in a set of 11 records, this does not, in any way, prove
or

9  that the P[C| MCER ] 10% performance goal has been met. For example, even for a

building with P[C| MCER ]  20% , there is still a 30% chance that no collapses will be
nf

10 

observed in the analysis. Therefore, the other noncollapse acceptance criteria (e.g.,
rI

11 
12  criteria for drifts and element demands) must be relied upon to enforce the 10% collapse
Fo

13  probability goal.

14   If the P[C| MCER ] 10% performance goal is met, it is highly unlikely (only a 3%
15  chance) that two collapses will be observed in the set of 11 records. Therefore, an
16  acceptance criterion that prohibits two collapses is reasonable.
17  The collapse likelihoods shown in Table C16.4-1 are based on a relatively large record-to-record
18  variability value of 0.40. Table C16.4-2 illustrates similar statistics for the case when the record-
19  to-record variability is suppressed in ground motion selection and scaling, such as occurs with

28 
 
 1  spectral matching. This table shows that, for a building meeting the P[C| MCER ] 10%
2  performance goal and with record-to-record variability taken as 0.25, the likelihood of observing
3  a collapse response is very low. This is why no unacceptable responses are permitted in the suite
4  of analyses when spectral matching is used.

5  Table C16.4-2. Likelihood of Observing Collapses in 11 Analyses, Given Various MCER

6  Collapse Probabilities and a Record-to-Record Uncertainty of 0.25.

LY
Number of Collapses Likelihood for Various P[C| MCER ] Values

0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.30

N
O
0 of 11 1.00 0.99 0.93 0.79 0.30

1 of 11 0
n
0.01 0.07 0.19 0.38
io
2 of 11 0 0 0 0.02 0.22
at

3 of 11 0 0 0 0 0.08
m
or

4 of 11 0 0 0 0 0.02
nf

5 of 11 0 0 0 0 0
rI

7  For Risk Categories I and II structures, if more than 11 ground motions are used for analysis,
Fo

8  then additional unacceptable responses may be permissible. Two unacceptable responses would
9  be permissible if 20 or more motions are used, and three unacceptable responses would be
10  permissible if 30 or more motions are used. For Risk Categories III and IV structures, the

11  collapse probability goals are 6% and 3%, respectively, at the MCER level. When the above
12  computations are redone using these lower collapse probability targets, this shows that the
13  acceptance criteria should require that no motions of the 11 produce an unacceptable response
14  for these categories.

29 
 
 1  Typically, mean building response values (story drifts, element deformations, and forces) are
2  used in acceptance evaluations, where the “mean” is the simple statistical average for the
3  response parameter of interest. When an unacceptable response occurs, it is not possible to
4  compute a mean value of the building response values because one of the 11 response quantities
5  is undefined. In this case, rather than the mean, the standard requires use of the counted median
6  response multiplied by 1.2 but not less than the mean response from the remaining motions.

7  To compute the median value, the unacceptable response is assumed as larger than the other
8  responses and then, assuming that 11 analyses were performed, the counted median value is

LY
9  taken to be the 6th largest value from the set of 11 responses. The 1.2 factor is based on a
10  reasonable ratio of mean to median values for a lognormal distribution (   0.4 results in

N
11  mean / median  1.08 ,   0.5 results in mean / median  1.13 ,   0.6 results in

O
12  mean / median  1.20 , and   0.7 results in mean / median  1.28 ).

13 
n
The requirement to also check the mean of the remaining 10 response results is simply an added
io
14  safeguard to ensure that the 1.2 × median value does not underpredict the mean response values
at
15  that should be used when checking the acceptance criteria.
m

16  Although currently the purpose of this acceptance criterion is not to quantify the structure’s

collapse probability under MCER ground motions, the acceptance criterion can be recast to do
or

17 

18  so in future provisions. The collapse probability can be inferred from analysis results and
nf

19  compared to the target value (e.g., 10% for structures in Risk Category I or II). In this alternate
rI

20  light, existing statistical inference theories can be used to determine the number of acceptable
21  responses, and the number of ground motions required to conclude that the proposed design may
Fo

22  have an acceptable collapse probability.

23  As discussed in the previous section, analysis results can be thought of as following a binomial
24  distribution. Based on this distribution, one could use the observed counts of collapsed and
25  noncollapsed responses (indicated by unacceptable and acceptable responses) to estimate the
26  collapse probability of the proposed design in a manner that accounts for the uncertainty in the
27  estimated collapse probability. This uncertainty depends on the total number of ground motions.
28  If few ground motions are used, there is a large uncertainty in the collapse probability. If many

30 
 
 1  ground motions are used, there is a small uncertainty. For example, compare a set of 11 ground
2  motions with one unacceptable response to a set of 110 ground motions with ten unacceptable
3  responses. Both sets most likely have a unacceptable response probability of 9.1%. The design
4  with one unacceptable and ten acceptable responses has only a 34% chance that its unacceptable
5  response probability is 10% or less. The design with ten unacceptable and 100 acceptable
6  responses has a 56% chance that its unacceptable response probability is 10% or less.

7  In the current acceptance criterion, the choice to require 11 ground motions follows from the
8  need to have confidence in the average values of the resulting element-level and story-level

LY
9  responses (Section C16.2.3.1). These element-level and story-level responses are then used to
10  implicitly demonstrate adequate collapse safety. If future provisions seek to explicitly ensure that

N
11  the proposed design has an acceptable collapse probability, then this unacceptable response

O
12  acceptance criterion should be revised using statistical inference theory to establish the number
13  of required ground motions and the maximum number of unacceptable responses, as well as the
14  element- and story-level response limits. n
io
15  C16.4.1.2 Transient Story Drift
at

16  The limit on mean story drift was developed to be consistent with the linear design procedures of
m

17  this standard. To this end, the basic Table 12.12-1 story drift limits are adopted with the 
or

18  following adjustments:
nf

19   Increased by a factor of 1.5, to reflect the analysis being completed at the MCER ground
MCER level, and
rI

20  motion level rather than at 2/3 of the

 Increased by another factor of 1.25, to reflect an average ratio of R/ Cd .

Fo

21 

22  These two increases are the basis for the requirement that the mean story drift be limited to 1.9
23  (which was rounded to 2.0) of the standard Table 12.12-1 limits.

24  The masonry-specific drift limits of Table 12.12-1 are not enforced in this section because the
25  component-level acceptance criteria of Section 16.4.2 are expected to result in equivalent
26  performance (i.e., a masonry building designed in accordance with Chapter 16 is expected to
27  have similar performance to a masonry building designed using linear analysis methods and the
28  more stringent drift limits of Table 12.12-1).

31 
 
 1  For tall structures, more restrictive drift limits are adopted than permitted under Table 12.2.1.
2  When performing nonlinear response history analysis, the model is required to include all
3  elements that significantly affect the stiffness and strength of the structure to resist lateral
4  forces. This is in stark contrast to the intent of Chapter 12 analysis procedures, which consider
5  only the seismic force-resisting system in the analysis. As a result, nonlinear response history
6  analyses will include elements normally considered to carry only gravity loads, but which,
7  particularly in tall buildings, add substantial stiffness to the analytical model. Analysis of
8  these models will result in lower predictions of drift than the typical models used for linear

LY
9  analysis. If the same drift limits were applied, the effect would be to permit more flexible
10  structures than permitted by Chapter 12. The drift limit applied for buildings over 240 ft is the

N
11  same as that in the 2017 PEER Tall Buildings Initiative, Guidelines for Performance-Based
12  Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, which is commonly used for the design of tall structures in

O
13  the U.S. For buildings with heights between 100 ft (30m) and 240 ft (73m), Equation (16.4-1)
14 
n
applies and allows for a smooth transition between the requirements for tall buildings and
io
15  doubled limits of Table 12.12-1 requirement, as applied to Risk Category I and II mid-rise
16  structures, other than masonry. For building heights above 240 ft (73m), the story drift limit of
at

17  0.03hsx controls over the value calculated per Equation (16.4-1).
m

18 
or

19  C16.4.1.3 Residual Story Drift

20  The standard does not require checks on residual drift for structures less than 240 ft (73m) in
nf

21  height. Residual drift is the unrecoverable portion of transient drift that commonly occurs
rI

22  when a structure undergoes inelastic response. It is computed as the absolute value of the
23  largest difference of the deflections of vertically aligned points at the top and bottom of the
Fo

24  story under consideration along any edge of the structure, following completion of the
25  structure’s response to earthquake motion. Residual drifts are an indicator of incipient
26  dynamic instability, and the prudent engineer checks for this instability. Limiting residual
27  drifts is an important consideration for post-earthquake operability and for limiting financial
28  losses, but such performance goals are not included in the scope of the ASCE 7 standard. For
29  Risk Category I and II buildings, the ASCE 7 standard is primarily meant to ensure the
30  protection of life safety.
31  However, design practice for tall buildings has routinely included limits on residual drift. One

32 
 
 1  important reason for this is that many tall buildings are located in dense urban areas. Residual
2  drift is commonly used to judge the post-earthquake safety of damaged buildings. If tall
3  buildings exhibit large residual drifts after an earthquake and consequently appear to be
4  unstable, this could prompt building officials to cordon off large areas, imposing hardship on
5  many people and businesses. The tall building community therefore designs to reduce the
6  probability of such occurrence. ASCE 7 adopted the acceptance directly from the recent
7  practice for tall buildings exceeding 240 ft (73m) in the 2022 edition to be compatible with
8  common design practice for these structures.

LY
9 

10  C16.4.2 Element-Level Acceptance Criteria

N
O
11  The element-level acceptance criteria require classification of each element action as either
12  force-controlled or deformation-controlled, similar to the procedures of ASCE 41. Note that this
13  n
is done for each element action, rather than for each element. For example, for a single column
io
14  element, the flexural behavior may be classified as a deformation-controlled action, whereas the
at
15  axial behavior may be classified as a force-controlled action.
m

16  Deformation-controlled actions are those that have reliable inelastic deformation capacity. Force-
17  controlled actions pertain to brittle modes where inelastic deformation capacity cannot be
or

18  ensured. Based on how the acceptance criteria are structured, any element action that is modeled
nf

19  elastically must be classified as being force-controlled.

rI

20  Some examples of force-controlled actions are

Fo

21   Shear in reinforced concrete (other than diagonally reinforced coupling beams).
22   Axial compression in columns.
23   Punching shear in slab–column joints without shear reinforcing.
24   Connections that are not explicitly designed for the strength of the connected component,
25  such as some braces in braced frames.
26   Displacement of elements resting on a supporting element without rigid connection (such
27  as slide bearings).
28   Axial forces in diaphragm collectors.

33 
 
 1  Some examples of deformation-controlled actions are

2   Shear in diagonally reinforced coupling beams.

3   Flexure in reinforced concrete columns and walls.
4   Axial yielding in buckling restrained braces.
5   Flexure in special moment frames.
6  Section 16.4.2 further requires categorization of component actions as critical, ordinary, or
7  noncritical based on the consequence of their exceeding strength or deformation limits. Because
8  of the differences in consequence, the acceptance criteria are developed differently for each of

LY
9  the above classifications of component actions. An element’s criticality is judged based on the
10  extent of collapse that may occur, given the element’s failure, and is also judged on whether the

N
11  effect of the element’s failure on seismic resistance is substantive. An element’s failure could be

O
12  judged to have substantial effect on the structure’s seismic resistance if analysis of a model of the
13  building without the element present predicts unacceptable performance, while analysis with the
14  element present does not. n
io
15  Limits placed on response quantities are correlated to building performance and structural
at

16  reliability. In order for compliance with these limits to meaningfully characterize overall
m

17  performance and reliability, grouping of certain component actions for design purposes may be
or

18  appropriate. For example, while symmetrical design forces may be obtained for symmetrical
19  structures using equivalent lateral force and modal response spectrum analysis procedures, there
nf

20  is no guarantee that component actions in response history analysis of symmetrical models will
rI

21  be the same—or even similar—for identical components arranged symmetrically. Engineering
22  judgment should be applied to the design to maintain symmetry by using the greater demands
Fo

23  (that is, the demands on the more heavily loaded component determined using the appropriate
24  factor on its mean demand) for the design of both components. For this purpose, using the mean
25  demands of the pair of components would not be appropriate because this method would reduce
26  the demand used for design of the more heavily loaded component.

27  Though this point is perhaps trivial in the case of true symmetry, it is also a concern in
28  nonsymmetrical structures. For these buildings, it may be appropriate to group structural
29  components that are highly similar either in geometric placement or purpose. The demands
30  determined using the suite mean (the mean response over all ground motions within a suite) may
34 
 
 1  be very different for individual components within this grouping. This is a result both of the
2  averaging process and the limited explicit consideration of ground motion to structure orientation
3  in the provisions. Although the analysis may indicate that only a portion of the grouped
4  components do not meet the provisions, the engineer ought to consider whether such
5  nonconformance should also suggest redesign in other similar elements. Thus, response history
6  analysis places a higher burden on the judgment of the engineer to determine the appropriate
7  methods for extracting meaningful response quantities for design purposes.

8  C16.4.2.1 Force-Controlled Actions

LY
9  The application of the load combinations and resistance factors in Equations 16.4-1, 16-4-2,
10  16.4-3, and 16.4-4 are limited to load effects determined using NLRHA for structures subject to

N
11  an MCER level event. These load and resistance factors should not be used for structural design

O
12  with the design earthquake effects, E, determined in accordance with Chapter 12 of the standard.
13  When evaluating earthquake effects in accordance with Chapter 12 of the standard, the load
14  combinations of Chapter 2 apply. n
io
15  The acceptance criteria for force-controlled actions (Equations 16.4-1 and 16.4-2) follow the
at

16  same framework that underlies the load combinations contained in Chapter 2 of the standard, 

m

17  except that both the load factors and the capacity (resistance) factors have been adjusted for 
or

18  consistency with the NLRHA approach and to maintain compatibility with the target reliability in 
19  Table 1.3‐2.  The load factor of 1.3Ie on seismic demands was determined assuming a demand 
nf

20  dispersion associated with record‐to‐record variability of 0.3, based on values observed for 
rI

21  several real buildings and additional modeling uncertainty of 0.2, which was selected based on 
22  engineering judgment consistent with approaches used in FEMA P695.  Based on data 
Fo

23  presented in National Bureau of Standard Special Publication SP 577, the typical bias in 
24  resistance, i.e. the ratio of the expected strength of an element to the nominal strength, was 
25  taken as 1.1, while a 0.15 coefficient of variation on resistance was assumed.  The materials 
26  standards have resistance factors that generally vary from values of approximately 0.7 to 0.9.  
27  An average value of 0.85 was used in computing the 1.3 load factor on seismic demand. 

28  Exception 2 to the Section permits the use of an alternative set of load combinations (16.4‐3 
29  and 16.4‐4) to evaluate force‐controlled actions when demands are limited by the development 

35 
 
 1  of a plastic mechanism.  For example, shear in a column in a moment frame cannot exceed the 
2  sum of the plastic moments at the ends of the column, divided by the free height of the 
3  column.  A load factor of unity is used on the capacity‐limited earthquake demand in this case, 
4  recognizing the very low probability that demand can exceed the computed value and also for 
5  consistency with similar criteria in ACI 318 and AISC 341. 

6  To determine appropriate values of  , we begin with the collapse probability goals of Table 1.3-

7  2 (for Risk Categories I and II) for MCER motions. These collapse probability goals include a

LY
8  10% chance of a total or partial structural collapse and a 25% chance of a failure that could result
9  in endangerment of individual lives. For the assessment of collapse, we then make the somewhat

N
10  conservative assumption that the failure of a single critical force-controlled component would

O
11  result in a total or partial structural collapse of the building.

12  Focusing first on the goal of a 10% chance of a total or partial structural collapse, we assume that
13  n
the component force demand and component capacity both follow a lognormal distribution and
io
14  that the estimate of Fn,e represents the true expected strength of the component. We then
at

15  calibrate the  value required to achieve the 10% collapse probability goal. This value is
m

16  depicted in Figure C16.4-2, which shows the lognormal distributions of component capacity and
component demand.
or

17 
nf
rI
Fo

18 

36 
 
 1  FIGURE C16.4-2. Illustration of component capacity and demand lognormal distributions
2  (normalized to a mean capacity of 1.0); the mean component capacity is calibrated to

3  achieve P[C| MCER ] 10%.

4 

5  The calibration process is highly dependent on the uncertainties in component demand and

6  capacity. Table C16.4-3a shows typical uncertainties in force demand for analyses at the MCER
7  ground motion level, for both the general case and the case where the response parameter is

LY
8  limited by a well-defined yield mechanism. Table C16.4-3b shows typical uncertainty values for
9  the component capacity. The values are based on reference materials, as well as the collective

N
10  experience and professional judgment of the development team.

O
11  Table C16.4-3a. Assumed Variability and Uncertainty Values for Component Force
12  Demand.
n
io
Demand Dispersion (  D ) Variabilities and Uncertainties in the Force Demand
at
m

General Well-Defined
Mechanism
or

0.40 0.20 MCER ground motions)

nf

Record-to-record variability (for

rI

0.20 0.20 Uncertainty from estimating force demands using structural

Fo

model

0.13 0.06 Variability from estimating force demands from mean of only 11
ground motions

0.46 0.29 βD-Total

13  Table C16.4-3b. Assumed Variability and Uncertainty Values for Component Force
14  Capacity.

37 
 
 Capacity Dispersion ( C ) Variabilities and Uncertainties in the Final As-Built Capacity of
the Component

Well-Defined
General Mechanism

0.30 0.30 Typical variability in strength equation for Fn,e (from available

data)

LY
0.10 0.10 Typical uncertainty in strength equation for Fn,e (extrapolation

beyond available data)

N
O
0.20 0.20 Uncertainty in as-built strength because of construction quality
and possible errors
n
io
0.37 0.37 βC-Total
at

1  In the calibration process, the  and  values both directly affect the required component
m

2  strength. Therefore, the calibration is completed to determine the required value of  /  needed
or

3  to fulfill the 10% collapse safety objective. This calibration is done by assuming a value of  /  ,
nf

4  convolving the lognormal distributions of demand and capacity and iteratively determining the
5  capacity required to meet the 10% collapse safety objective by adjusting  /  . Table C16.4-4
rI

6  reports the final  /  values that come from such integration.

Fo

7  Table C16.4-4. Required Ratios of  /  to Achieve the 10% Collapse Probability

8  Objective.

Dispersion Required Ratios of  / φ

General 2.1

Well-Defined Mechanism 1.9

38 
 
 1  It should be clearly stated that this approach of calibrating the  /  ratio means that the final
2  acceptance criterion is independent of the  value specified by a material standard. If it is
3  desirable for the acceptance criteria to be partially dependent on the value of  , then the
4  uncertainty factors of Table C16.4-3b would need to be made dependent on the  value in some
5  manner.

6  Since the values in Table C16.4-4 are similar, for simplicity, the acceptance criterion is based on
7   /   2.0 for all cases, and a separate case for the existence of a well-defined mechanism is not

LY
8  included. Additionally, the strength term is defined slightly differently. For Risk Categories III
9  and IV, this full calculation was redone using the lower collapse probability goals of 6% and 3%,

N
10  respectively, and it was found that scaling the force demands by I e sufficiently achieves these

O
11  lower collapse probability goals.

This statistical calculation was then repeated for the goal of 25% chance of a failure that could
12 
n
result in endangerment of individual lives. This resulted in a required ratio of 1.5 for such force-
io
13 
14  controlled failure modes; deemed as “ordinary.”
at

15  Force-controlled actions are deemed noncritical if the failure does not result in structural collapse
m

16  or any meaningful endangerment to individual lives; this occurs in situations where gravity
or

17  forces can reliably redistribute to an alternate load path and no failure will ensue. For noncritical
18  force-controlled components, the acceptance criteria allow the use of   1.0 .
nf
rI

19  Where an industry standard does not define expected strength, expected (or mean) strength, Fe ,
20  is computed as follows. First, a standard strength-prediction equation is used from a material
Fo

21  standard, using a strength reduction factor,  , of 1.0; the expected material properties are also

22  used in place of nominal material properties. In some cases, this estimate of strength ( Fn,e ) may

23  still be conservative in comparison with the mean expected strength shown by experimental tests

24  ( Fe ) caused by inherent conservatism in the strength equations adopted by the materials

25  standards. If such conservatism exists, the Fn,e value may be multiplied by a “component

26  reserve strength factor” greater than 1.0 to produce the estimate of the mean expected strength (

39 
 
 1  Fe ). This process is illustrated in Figure C16.4-3, which shows the Fe / Fn,e ratios for the shear
2  strengths from test data of reinforced concrete shear walls (Wallace et al. 2013). This figure

3  shows that the ratio of Fe / Fn,e depends on the flexural ductility of the shear wall, demonstrating

4  that Fe  1.0 Fn,e is appropriate for the shear strength in the zone of high flexural damage and

5  Fe  1.5 Fn,e may be appropriate in zones with no flexural damage.

LY
N
O
n
io
at
m

6 
or

7 
nf

8  FIGURE C16.4-3. Expected shear strengths (in terms of Fe / Fn,e ) for reinforced concrete
rI

9  shear walls when subjected to various levels of flexural ductility.

Fo

10  Source: Courtesy of John Wallace.

11  For purposes of comparison, Equation (C16.4-1) is comparable to the PEER TBI acceptance

12  criteria (Bozorgnia et al. 2009) for the case that   0.75 and Fe  1.0 Fn,e .

13  The exception allows for the use of the capacity design philosophy for force-controlled
14  components that are “protected” by inelastic fuses, such that the force delivered to the force-
15  controlled component is limited by the strength of the inelastic fuse.

40 
 
 1 

LY
2 

3  FIGURE C16.4-4. Plan view of sample building showing arrangement of concrete shear

N
4  walls.

O
n
io
at
m
or

5 
nf

6  FIGURE C16.4-5. Plan view of sample building showing components of a reinforced

rI

7  concrete core shear wall.

Fo

8  The following are some examples of force-controlled actions that are deemed to be critical
9  actions:

10   Steel Moment Frames (SMF):

11   Axial compression forces in columns caused by combined gravity and overturning
12  forces
13   Combined axial force, bending moments, and shear in column splices

41 
 
 1   Tension in column base connections (unless modeled inelastically, in which case
2  it would be a deformation-controlled component)
3   Steel Braced Frames (BRBF - Buckling Restrained Braced Frame, SCBF - Special
4  Concentrically Braced Frames):
5   Axial compression forces in columns caused by combined gravity and overturning
6  forces
7   Combined axial force, bending moments, and shear in column splices
8   Tension in brace and beam connections

LY
9   Column base connections (unless modeled inelastically)
10   Concrete Moment Frames:

N
11   Axial compression forces in columns caused by combined gravity and overturning
forces

O
12 
13   Shear force in columns and beams
14   Concrete or Masonry Shear Walls:
n
io
15   Shear in concrete shear wall, in cases when there is limited ability for the shear force
16  to transfer to adjacent wall panels. For cases of isolated shear walls (i.e., wall #1 in
at

17  Figure C16.4-4), the shear force in this isolated wall is deemed as a critical action. In
m

18  contrast, the shear force in a one-wall pier that is in a group of wall piers (e.g., panel
or

19  #2 of Figure C16.4-5) need not be deemed a critical action (especially when
20  determining whether an analysis is deemed to represent an unacceptable response).
nf

21  For this case of a group of wall piers, it may be appropriate to consider the sum of the
rI

22  wall shears to be the critical action (e.g., the sum of wall shears in panels #1, #2, and
23  #3 of Figure C16.4-5).
Fo

24   Axial (plus flexural) compression in concrete shear wall (for most cases)
25   Axial compression in outrigger columns
26   Axial (plus flexural) tension in outrigger column splices
27   Other Types of Components:
28   Shear forces in piles and pile cap connections (unless modeled inelastically)
29   Shear forces in shallow foundations (unless modeled inelastically)
30   Punching shear in slabs without shear reinforcing (unless modeled inelastically)
31   Diaphragms that transfer a substantial amount of force (from more than one story)

42 
 
 1   Elements supporting discontinuous frames and walls
2  The following are some examples of force-controlled actions that are deemed to be ordinary
3  actions:

4   Steel Moment Frames (SMF):

5   Shear force in beams and columns
6   Column base connections (unless modeled inelastically)
7   Welded or bolted joints (as distinct from the inelastic action of the overall
8  connection) between moment frame beams and columns

LY
9   Steel Braced Frames (BRBF, SCBF):
10   Axial tension forces in columns caused by overturning forces (unless modeled

N
11  inelastically)

O
12   Concrete Moment Frames:
13   Splices in longitudinal beam and column reinforcement
14   Concrete or Masonry Shear Walls: n
io
15   An ordinary classification would only apply in special cases where failure would not
at
16  cause widespread collapse and would cause minimal reduction in the building seismic
resistance.
m

17 
18   Other Types of Components:
or

19   Axial forces in diaphragm collectors (unless modeled inelastically)

nf

20   Shear and chord forces in diaphragms (unless modeled inelastically)

21   Pile axial forces
rI

22  The following are some examples of force-controlled actions that could be deemed noncritical
Fo

23  actions:

24   Any component where the failure would not result in either collapse or substantive loss of
25  the seismic resistance of the structure.

26  C16.4.2.2 Deformation-Controlled Actions

27  ASCE 7-16 included requirements to evaluate the adequacy of deformation-controlled actions
28  against limiting deformation levels at which laboratory testing suggested either that element
29  behavior was unpredictable or that loss of vertical load-carrying ability would occur. While

43 
 
 1  substantive data exist to indicate the capacity of force-controlled actions, there are relatively few
2  laboratory data to indicate the deformation at which a deformation-controlled element action
3  reaches a level where loss of vertical load-carrying capacity occurs. There are a number of
4  reasons for this, including the following: (1) the deformation at which such loss occurs can be
5  very large and beyond the practical testing capability of typical laboratory equipment; (2) many
6  researchers have tested such components with the aim of quantifying useful capacity for
7  elements of a seismic force-resisting system and have terminated testing after substantial
8  degradation in strength has occurred, even though actual failure has not yet been experienced;

LY
9  and (3) testing of gravity-load-bearing elements to failure can be dangerous and destructive of
10  test equipment. In ASCE 7-22, this requirement was dropped in favor of an approach in which

N
11  the demand imposed on deformation-controlled actions is evaluated against the valid range of
12  modeling for that element in each analysis. The valid range of modeling is defined as that

O
13  limiting deformation at which the model used in the analysis can be benchmarked against
14 
n
suitable laboratory test data. This approach has been successfully used in the design of tall
io
15  buildings, using the procedures specified in the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
16  Guidelines for Performance-based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings, and was found to produce
at

17  acceptable designs compared with prior practice. In addition, this approach will be facilitated
m

18  with the adoption of data indicating the valid range of nonlinear modeling for deformation-
controlled elements by both ACI and AISC in their standards.
or

19 

22 
nf
rI

23  C16.4.2.3 Elements of the Gravity Force-Resisting System

24  The basic deformation-compatibility requirement of ASCE 7-10, Section 12.12.5, is imposed for
Fo

25  gravity-system components, which are not part of the established seismic force-resisting system,

26  using the deformation demands predicted from response history analysis under MCER -level
27  ground motions, as opposed to evaluation under linear analysis.

28  If an analyst wanted to further investigate the performance of the gravity system (which is not
29  required), the most direct and complete approach (but also the most time-consuming) would be
30  to directly model the gravity system components as part of the structural model and then impose
31  the same acceptance criteria used for the components of the seismic force-resisting system. An

44 
 
 1  alternative approach (which is more common) would be to model the gravity system in a
2  simplified manner and verify that the earthquake-imposed force demands do not control over the
3  other load combinations and/or to verify that the mean gravity system deformations do not
4  exceed the deformation limits for deformation-controlled components.

5 

6  REFERENCES

LY
7 

8  Al Atik, L. , and Abrahamson, N. (2010). “An improved method for nonstationary spectral

N
9  matching.” Earthq. Spectra 26(3), 601–617.

O
10  Ancheta, T. D. , Darragh, R. B. , Stewart, J. P. , Seyhan, E. , Silva, W. J. , Chious, B. S. J. , et al.
11 
n
(2012). “PEER NGA-West 2 database.” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
io
12  Berkeley, CA.
at

13  Baker, J. W. (2011). “Conditional mean spectrum: Tool for ground motion selection.” J. Struct.
m

14  Eng. , 137(3), 322–331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000215.

or

15  Baker, J. W. , and Cornell, C. A. (2006). “Correlation of response spectral values for multi-
component ground motions.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 96(1), 215–227.
nf

16 
rI

17  Bommer, J. J. , Scott, S. G. , and Sarma, S. K. (2000). “Hazard-consistent earthquake scenarios.”

18  Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng . 19(4), 219–231.
Fo

19  Bozorgnia, Y. , Crouse, C. B. , Hamburger, R. O. , Klemencic, R. , Krawinkler, H. , Malley, J. O.

20  , et al. (2009). Guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings , Pacific
21  Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

22  Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2009a). NEHRP recommended provisions
23  for seismic regulation for buildings and other structures , FEMA P-753, FEMA, Washington,
24  DC.

45 
 
 1  FEMA. (2009b). Quantification of building seismic performance factors , FEMA P-695, FEMA,
2  Washington, DC.

3  Grant, D. N. , and Diaferia, R. (2012). “Assessing adequacy of spectrum-matched ground

4  motions for response history analysis,” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 42(9), 1265–1280.
5  http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2270.

6  Haroun, M. A. , and Housner, G. W. (1981). “Seismic design of liquid storage tanks.” J. Techn.
7  Coun. . ASCE, New York 107(1), 191–207.

LY
8  Housner, G. W. (1963). “The dynamic behavior of water tanks.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am . 53(2),

N
9  381–387.

O
10  Huang, Y. N. , Whittaker, A. S. , and Luco, N. (2008). “Maximum spectral demands in the near
11  fault region,” Earthquake Spectra , 24, 319–341.
n
io
12  Jacobsen, L. S. (1949). “Impulsive hydrodynamics of fluid inside a cylindrical tank and of fluid
at
13  surrounding a cylindrical pier.” Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 39(3), 189–203.
m

14  Luco, N. , and Bazzurro, P. (2007). “Does amplitude scaling of ground motion records result in
biased nonlinear structural drift responses?” Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 36, 1813–1835.
or

15 
nf

16  Naeim, F. , and Lew, M. (1995). On the use of design spectrum compatible time histories.
17  Earthquake Spectra 11(1), 111–127.
rI

18  National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2011). Selecting and scaling
Fo

19  earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses . GCR 11-917-15. NEHRP
20  Consultants Joint Venture, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

21  NIST. (2012). Soil-structure interaction for building structures , GCR 12-917-21. NEHRP
22  Consultants Joint Venture, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

23  NIST. (2010). Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design . NIST GCR 10-917-5, NIST,
24  Gaithersburg, MD.

46 
 
 1  NIST (National Institute of Standards, and Technology). (2011). Selecting and scaling
2  earthquake ground motions for performing response-history analyses , NIST GCR 11-917-15,
3  NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.

4  Reiter, L. (1990). Earthquake hazard analysis: Issues and insights . Columbia University Press,
5  New York.

6  Schnabel, P. B. , Lysmer, J. , and Seed, H. B. (1972). “SHAKE—A computer program for

7  earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites.” Report EERC 72-12 , Earthquake

LY
8  Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

N
9  Shahi, S. K. , Ling, T. , Baker, J. W. , and Jayaram, N. (2011). New ground motion selection
10  procedures and selected motions for the PEER transportation research program , Pacific

O
11  Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.

12  n
Stewart, J. P. , Chiou, S. J. , Bray, J. D. , Graves, R. W. , Sommerville, P. G. , and Abrahamson,
io
13  N. A. (2002). “Ground motion evaluation procedures for performance-based design.” J. Soil
at

14  Dyn. Earthq. Eng. , 22, 9–12.

m

15  Wallace, J. W. , Segura, C. , and Tran, T. (2013). “Shear design of structural walls,” Proc., 10th
or

16  International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology,

17  Tokyo.
nf
rI

18  Zareian, F. , and Medina, R. (2010). “A practical method for proper modeling of structural
19  damping in inelastic plane structural systems,” J. Comput. Struct. 88(1–2), 45–53.
Fo

20  OTHER REFERENCES (NOT CITED)

21  ASCE. (2014). “Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings.” ASCE/SEI Standard 41-
22  13, ASCE, Reston, VA.

23  Haselton, C. B. , and Deierlein, G. G. (2007). Assessing seismic collapse safety of modern
24  reinforced concrete frame buildings , PEER Report 2007/08, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
25  Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA.

47