Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings in the Western United States

Chapter
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 13)

Abstract

Performance-based seismic design methods in the United States originated as a practical and effective means to permit the identification and mitigation of hazardous existing buildings and the development of new buildings capable of superior seismic performance. However, these methods quickly evolved into a tool to justify the development of new buildings that do not conform to building code requirements, and are not necessarily capable of superior performance, but which can be demonstrated to provide acceptable levels of safety and serviceability. This practice has become particularly prevalent in the design of very tall buildings in the Western United States. The Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, working with the tall building design community, has developed a methodology for designing tall buildings that encompasses and improves upon the procedures developed during the past 10 years of practice.

Keywords

Ground Motion Building Code Tall Building Federal Emergency Management Agency Story Drift 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    ASCE (2002) Seismic evaluation of existing buildings, ASCE-31. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ASCE (2005) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures, ASCE-7. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    ASCE (2006) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE-41. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ATC (1996) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of buildings, report no. ATC-40. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ATC (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-273. Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ATC (1997) Commentary on the guidelines for seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA-274. Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    ATC (2009) Qualification of building seismic performance factors, FEMA P695. Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    ATC (2009) Interim guidelines on modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    BSSC (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulation of buildings and other structure, FEMA 450. Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    BSSC (2009) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulation of buildings and other structure, FEMA P750. Building Seismic Safety Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    IBC (2006) International building code. International Code Council, Whittier, CAGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    LATBC (2006) An alternative procedure for seismic analysis and design of tall buildings located in the Los Angeles region. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Council, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    LATBC (2008) An alternative procedure for seismic analysis and design of tall buildings located in the Los Angeles region. Los Angeles Tall Buildings Council, Los Angeles, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    SEAONC (2007) Administrative bulletin – requirements and guidelines for the seismic design of new tall buildings using non-prescriptive seismic-design provisions AB-083. Structural Engineers Association of Northern California, City of San Francisco, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Netherlands 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc.San FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations