See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/281965763

Progression of Structural Design Approaches: Working Stress Design to

Consequence-Based Engineering

Conference Paper · August 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 873

2 authors:

Naveed Anwar Fawad Najam

Asian Institute of Technology National University of Sciences and Technology
145 PUBLICATIONS   64 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Seismic Performance Evaluation of High-rise Buildings with RC Flag Wall Systems View project

Multidisciplinary approach to understand earthquake risk and resilience View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fawad Najam on 03 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Progression of Structural Design Approaches: Working Stress Design to Consequence-
Based Engineering
Naveed Anwar, Ph.D
Executive Director, AIT Consulting
Affiliated faculty, School of Engineering and Technology (SET)
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand

Fawad Ahmed Najam

PhD Candidate, School of Engineering and Technology (SET)
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT), Thailand

ABSTRACT: Since the start of the formal approaches and procedures for carrying out the structural design,
there have been many developments in the underlying principles, and the implicit and explicit design
objectives. Starting with putting limits in the allowable, working stresses in various materials to achieve in-
direct safety factors, to more explicit consideration of different load and capacity factors, to the limit state
design principles, to the formulation of ultimate strength concepts, based on strain and deformation
limits. Then the recognition of the difference between brittle and ductile failure, and the introduction of
capacity based design approaches, leading to the more comprehensive performance design using high level
of analysis sophistication, and more explicit linkage between demand and performance. The recent
emphasis on risk based design, and a more integrated and holistic approach towards consequence based
engineering. This paper presents a brief account of the progression of these design approaches, and their
impact on the cost, performance and the final objective of public safety, as well as the related tools and
technologies to carry out such analysis. The paper also discusses the role of various design codes in this
progression.

1. BACKGROUND convince themselves that the resulting structure

could, indeed, be built and perform the intended
Structural design is a systematic investigation of function for whole of its intended life. Hence the
the stability, strength and rigidity of structures. job of very first engineers can be think of “to
The basic objective is to produce a structure create the confidence to start building.” (Addis
capable of resisting all applied loads without 2003). Over the course of history, various
failure and excessive deformations during its scientists, mathematicians and natural
anticipated life. The very first output of any philosophers presented revolutionary ideas which
engineering design process is a description of resulted in improved understanding of structures
what is to be manufactured or built, what and built environment. With the developments in
materials are to be used, what construction different areas of practical sciences, the task of
techniques are to be employed and an account of building design was gradually divided among
all necessary specifications as well as dimensions more and more professionals depending upon
(which are usually presented in the form of aesthetic considerations, intended functions,
drawings). The second output is a rational materials, optimum utilization of space, lighting,
justification or explanation of the design proposal ventilation and acoustic preferences. The visual
developed based on either full-scale tests, appearance, sense of space and function (or the
experiments on small physical models, or the architecture) became a distinct concern during the
mathematical solution of detailed analytical 15th and 16th centuries. About a century later,
models representing the behavior of real designers first began to think about the load-
structures. bearing aspects of structures in terms of self-
Perhaps the first ever achievement in the history weight and other sources of expected loading.
of structural design was the “confidence” by Thinking separately about the role of individual
virtue of which, early builders were able to materials and resulting structures grew during the
late 17th and 18th centuries following Galileo's a phenomenon that require detailed knowledge of
work. The idea that the aesthetics should be given mathematical procedures and laws of mechanics.
proper importance independent of the materials A common misconception is that various new
and load-bearing characteristics of the structure, structural forms and shapes were first devised by
prevailed during the late 19th and early 20th mathematicians (and experts of geometry) and
centuries. later taken up by builders and engineers. In fact,
Table 1 presents a brief timeline of some of the the opposite is true, with perhaps just one
major developments which led to modern exception i.e. the hyperbolic paraboloid (whose
computational tools and methodologies for structural properties were discovered in 1930s). In
analyzing and designing structures. last few centuries, artists, sculptors and builders
have displayed a remarkable understanding and
Table 1. Important historical developments related to skill of converting materials in to structures (some
structural analysis and design. of which are still standing today remarking the
Year
(CE)
Development testimony of their expertise).
1452– Earliest contributions from Leonardo da Vinci. Engineering profession has passed through a long
1519 and still continuous phase of improvements,
1638 Galileo Galilei examined the failure of simple modifications and breakthroughs in its various
structures and published his book "Two New research areas. The structural analysis and design
Sciences".
1660 Robert Hooke presented the Hooke's law which
philosophies for new and existing buildings have a
is the basis for elastic structural analysis. fascinating history. This paper presents a review
1687 Isaac Newton published his document “Principia of how various approaches for structural analysis
Mathematica” containing the famous Newton's and design evolve over the course of time.
laws of motion.
1750 Leonhard Euler and Daniel Bernoulli developed
Euler–Bernoulli beam theory.
2. THE ROLE OF BUILDING CODES
1700– Daniel Bernoulli introduced the principle
1782 of virtual work.
A building code is a properly documented set of
1707– Leonhard Euler developed the theory of rules and guidelines specifying the minimum
1783 buckling of columns. standards for constructed facilities. The main
1826 Claude-Louis Navier published a document purpose of building codes is to protect public
analyzing the elastic behavior of structures. health, ensure safety and general welfare as they
1873 Carlo Alberto Castigliano presented his theorem
for computing displacement as partial derivative
directly govern the construction and occupancy of
of the strain energy. buildings and other structures. The building code
1874 Otto Mohr formalized the idea of a statically becomes law of a particular jurisdiction when
indeterminate structures. formally enacted by the appropriate governmental
1922 Timoshenko corrects the Euler-Bernoulli beam or private authority. The complete process of
equation and presented “Timoshenko’s Beam
planning, design, construction and operation of
Theory”
1936 Hardy Cross developed the moment distribution buildings are guided by various building
method, an important innovation in the analysis standards, guidelines, codes and design aids.
and design of continuous frames. Improving a building code quality in terms of
1941 Alexander Hrennikoff solved the discretization addressing real-life problems and enforcement
of plane elasticity problems using the lattice
framework.
would directly help cities to improve their
1942 R. Courant divided a domain into finite sub- environmental sustainability and disaster
regions. resilience.
1956 J. Turner, R. W. Clough, H. C. Martin, and L. J.
Topp's introduces the term “finite-element 2.1 Historical Development
method” and published work which is widely
recognized as the first comprehensive treatment The earliest known written building code was the
of the method.
Babylonian law of ancient Mesopotamia (also
known as the code of King Hammurabi who ruled
It is worth noting that historically, an Babylon from 1792 BC to 1750 BC). It was found
understanding of how structures work, was never in 1901 in what is now Khuzestan, Iran.
Consisting of 282 laws, with scaled punishments, Technology Council (ATC), Federal Emergency
adjusting "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a Management Agency (FEMA) and National
tooth", this code is one of the oldest deciphered Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
writings of significant length in the world. It is (NEHRP).
currently on display in the Louvre Museum in
France, with exact replicas at the University of 2.2 Disaster Resilience and Environmental
Chicago in USA, Theological University of the Sustainability in Building Codes
Reformed Churches in The Netherlands,
Pergamon Museum in Germany and National Buildings constructed today are likely to govern
Museum of Iran in Tehran. It contains detailed future cities and consumption patterns for the next
accounts of laws pertaining to builders as well as 2 to 3 decades. The way buildings are designed,
construction conflicts. Similar accounts can also built and maintained now will influence the
be found in other historical texts including the sustainability of cities and the health as well as
Bible book of Deuteronomy and works of ancient safety of its residents for decades to come.
Greek philosophers. Therefore, a lot of problems cities are coping with
The modern era for development of building can be addressed by enforcing and improving the
regulations started with “Rebuilding of London building codes. Disaster resilience, energy
Act” which was passed after the “Great Fire of efficiency and prevention of diseases are all issues
London” in 1666 AD. In 1680 AD, “The Laws of that are influenced by building codes.
the Indies” were passed by the Spanish Crown to Resilience to earthquakes, for example, is an
regulate the urban planning for colonies important issue linked to construction which has a
throughout Spain's worldwide imperial direct impact on human life. Earthquakes of
possessions. The first systematic national building approximately the same intensity may result in
standard was established with the London very dissimilar amount of loss of life and property
Building Act of 1844. Various regulations in different cities depending upon the standards of
regarding the thickness of walls, height of rooms, earthquake safety being adopted. Similar applies
the materials used in repairs, the division of to extreme weather events e.g. cyclones and
existing buildings and the design of chimneys, hurricanes, which are likely to occur more often
fireplaces and drains were included. In USA, the with climate change; a lot of damage can be
City of Baltimore passed its first building code in prevented by constructing safer buildings.
1859. In 1904, a Handbook of the Baltimore City Environmental and energy consumption issues are
Building Laws was published which served as the also among the most important considerations in
building code for four years. In 1908 AD, a formal building design. Designing and constructing
building code was drafted and adopted. Currently, buildings utilizing resources efficiently is one of
The International Building Code (IBC) has been the best ways to achieve sustainability goals in a
adopted throughout most of the United States. It is city. By incorporating disaster resilience and
a model building code developed by the environmental design in the building codes, future
International Code Council (ICC) (Rossberg and buildings can be made more people and
Leon 2013). environment friendly, thus decreasing the carbon-
In European Union, the European Committee for footprint of cities and other negative impacts on
Standardization developed a set of harmonized the environment.
technical rules for the structural design of
construction works, known as Eurocodes. More 2.3 Shortcomings of Traditional Building Codes
recently, various international organizations, With the advent of innovative structural systems,
research agencies and educational institutions complex geometries and advanced construction
have developed standards and guidelines techniques, the requirement from building codes
pertaining to specialized areas of building design. to handle various new aspects is also increasing.
The most famous among such organizations are Currently the traditional codes govern the design
American Concrete Institute (ACI), American of general, low- to medium-rise and relatively
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Applied regular buildings built with traditional
construction materials. They are not specifically should be in equilibrium with the actions due to
developed for tall buildings (having total height > loads. An alternative way of looking at the same
50 m). Moreover they are prescriptive in nature linkage is that the actions cause stresses in the
with no explicit check on intended outcome. They member cross-sections. These stresses cause
are also not expected to cover new structural strains, which can be summed-up to determine
systems and shapes. Mostly, the prescribed deformations. So the relationships between
analysis and design procedures are based on actions, deformations, strains, and stresses can be
elastic theory neglecting some of the key aspects used in many ways to solve the particular
of nonlinearity e.g. realistic demand distribution problems at hand. Figure 1 illustrates this whole
etc. The intention to propose simplest and cook- process starting from loads and ending on stress
book type procedures doesn’t provide the resultants. However it is worthwhile to note here
opportunity to exploit the potentials of recent that there is an alternate (in fact reverse) approach
computing tools. also, which starts with known materials response
An important shortcoming of traditional building at hand and ends up in determination of load
codes (for seismic design) is that the performance capacity (as illustrated in figure 2). The design
objectives are considered implicitly. The structure process can proceed in any one of the two ways.
is expected to resist minor earthquake without The first one starting from the loads and ending at
damage, which is anticipated to occur several the determination of stresses and strains and
times during the life of a building, without complying with certain limit imposed on these and
damage to structural and non-structural other response quantities determined during the
components. For design level earthquake, some process. The second approach is to start with the
damage is allowed without causing loss of life and known limits and capacities of the material
for strongest earthquake, substantial damage is stresses, strains and workout the capacities of
allowed with a very low probability of collapse. sections, members and the structure and determine
There is no explicit verification specified or the load carrying capacities. These calculated
required in traditional building codes whether load carrying capacities can then be compared
these performance objectives are achieved or not. with applied loading directly with the provision of
an adequate factor of safety. This first process is
3. TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO typically used in the traditional design of new
STRUCTURAL DESIGN structures while the second one is used in
evaluation of existing structures, or for the
Loads are the actual physical excitations that may verification of design (especially in capacity-
act on the structure e.g. gravity, wind pressure, based design). Each of the step in figure 2 is in
dynamic and inertial effects, retention of liquids, fact a sub-process comprising of several steps. For
etc. Loads and its effects can lead to actions, example, the determination of the “Actions” for
(which are basically the idealized forces acting on member design from loads requires definition of
the members) e.g. bending moment, shear force several load cases, load combinations, result
etc. Actions can lead to deformations, which again envelopes, actions sets etc.
are idealized into various components such as Figure 3 illustrates various levels of structural
rotation, shortening, shearing angle etc. design based on the order of rigor used or
Deformations cause strains which are basically depending upon degree of sophistication in
normalized deformation at the cross-section computations, starting from rigorous analytical to
material or fiber level. Strains may lead to stresses simplified empirical procedures including shortcut
in material fibers, which generally have a methods using convenient-to-use design aids. The
correspondence with the strain through material theoretical structural response can often be
stress-strain model. The stresses can be summed described through partial or complete differential
up in any particular manner to determine the equations, and considerations for equilibrium.
internal stress resultants. These, procedures are however complex and
In general, for a structure to be in static or limited in applications, hence leading to the
dynamic equilibrium, the internal stress resultants development of semi-analytical, closed form
equations and solutions, developed and simplified 3.1 Working Stress Design
for particular applications. However, with the
advent of computers and latest computational Working Stress Design (WSD) or also known as
tools, rigorous numerical procedures were Allowable Stress Design (ASD) is the traditional
developed using full three dimensional analysis method of structural design not only for reinforced
capabilities. These were implemented in various concrete structures but also for steel and timber.
forms, some simplified for adoption to early The method primarily assumes that the structural
computers with limited capabilities, and some for material behaves as a linear elastic manner, and
specific applications. The design codes and that an adequate safety can be ensured by suitably
guidelines have traditionally provided equations, restricting the material stresses induced by the
charts, tables, graphs etc. derived from analytical expected “working loads” on the structure. As the
as well as physical tests to aid the structural specified permissible stresses are kept well below
engineers in their routine design work. Moreover, the material ultimate strength, the assumption of
advance software tools are allowing practicing linear elastic behavior is considered justifiable.
engineers to simulate the structural behavior as The ratio of the strength of the material to the
close as the actual physical structures however, permissible stress is often referred to as the factor
there is always a quest to develop simplified of safety (or the margin of safety). There are some
procedures for wider applicability and obvious issues with this assumption of linear
convenience. A typical structural design process elastic behavior and also the assumption that the
(as shown in figure 4) comprises of 3 phases. stresses under working loads can be kept within
a) Conceptual Design the “permissible stresses”. A lot of other factors
may be responsible for inadequacy of these
b) Modeling and Analysis
assumptions e.g. long term effects of creep and
c) Design and Detailing shrinkage, the effects of stress concentrations, and
other secondary effects. All such phenomena
The process starts with conceptual design result in significant local increase in redistribution
involving primary shape and form of structural as of stresses. The design usually results in relatively
well as selection of gravity and lateral load large sections of structural members, thereby
structural systems. Complete architectural (being conservative) provides better serviceability
functional plan is developed in this phase. The performance under the usual working loads.
next stage is to determine the expected response
of structure under all kinds of loadings. Trial 3.2 Ultimate Strength Design
sections are assumed to start the process and an
idealized model is prepared using commercially With the growing realization of the short comings
available computer software. The level of of Working Stress approach in reinforced concrete
sophistication in development of computer model design, and with increased understanding of the
is a major consideration starting from fully behavior of reinforced concrete at ultimate loads,
idealized elastic finite element model to a the ultimate strength emerged as an improved
complicated nonlinear model with specialized alternative to Working Stress. Here, the stress
inelastic components. The selection of analysis condition at the site of impending collapse of the
procedure is another important decision to make. structure is analyzed, and the full nonlinear stress-
Various codes and standards guide the practicing strain curves of concrete and steel (or other
engineers about both modeling and analysis in materials) is considered. The safety measure is
terms of do’s and don’ts. The last phase comprises introduced by an appropriate choice of the load
of detailing and connection design in the light of factor (defined as the ratio of the ultimate load to
results obtained from analysis. Construction the working load and may vary from 1.2 to 2).
drawings and complete plan are prepared for The ultimate load method makes it possible t
sending to site engineers for proper on-site assign different load factors to different types of
implementation. In this section, 3 design loads under combined loading conditions. It
approaches will be discussed as follows. generally results in more slender sections, and
often economical designs of beams and columns,
particularly when high strength reinforcing steel Serviceability • Excessive deflections
and concrete are used. However, the satisfactory limit states • Excessive crack width
strength performance at ultimate loads does not • Undesirable Vibration
guarantee satisfactory serviceability performance Special limit Due to abnormal conditions and
at the normal service loads. The designs states abnormal loading such as
sometimes may result in excessive deflections and • Damage or collapse in extreme
earthquakes
crack widths under service loads, due to the • Structural effects of fire, explosion
slender sections resulting from the use of high • Corrosion or deterioration
strength materials.
The basic idea involves the identification of all
3.3 Limit State Design Concept potential modes of failure (i.e. identify significant
Limit State Design concept is an advancement limit states and determination of acceptable levels
over both Working Stress and Ultimate Strength of safety against occurrence of each limit state.
design approaches. This approach, unlike Factors of safety (figure 5) are applied at each step
Working Stress Design (which is based on starting from characteristic values of both material
calculations at service load conditions only) and strength as well as applied loading up to the full
Ultimate Load design (which is based on member design level. To account for uncertainty
calculations at ultimate load conditions only), in the loading, the expected loads are multiplied
aims for a comprehensive and rational solution to by load factors that increase the force demands.
the design problem, by ensuring safety at ultimate For example, the gravity load for demand
loads and serviceability at working loads. This calculation might be 1.2 times the calculated dead
philosophy uses more than one safety factors load plus 1.6 times the expected live load. To
attempting to provide adequate safety at ultimate account for uncertainty in component strength, the
loads as well as satisfactory serviceability estimated strength capacities are multiplied by
performance at service loads, by considering all capacity reduction factors (or resistance factors),
possible failure modes. The term “Limit State” typically between about 0.75 and 0.9. Components
refers to a state of impending failure, beyond that are especially important to the integrity of a
which a structure ceases to perform its intended structure may be assigned smaller capacity
function satisfactorily, in terms of either safety or reduction factors. In some cases the calculated
serviceability (i.e. it either collapses or becomes demand on a component may be multiplied by a
unserviceable). So there are two types of limit demand increase factor. The details can be found
states, (a) Ultimate limit states (which deal with in design codes, standards and guidelines. Figure
strength, overturning, sliding, buckling and 6 shows a summary of all three approaches
fatigue fracture etc.) and (b) Serviceability limit discussed above. It should be noted that the
states (which deals with discomfort to occupancy traditional approach is to make the structure
and/or malfunction, caused by excessive strong enough to resist the external loads with
deflection, crack width, vibration leakage and loss essentially elastic behavior. It is also important to
of durability etc.). Table 2 below presents some of satisfy serviceability requirements, which usually
the commonly used limit states in design of steel means providing enough stiffness to control
and reinforced concrete structures. deflections and vibrations. This whole process is
essentially “strength-based” or “force-based”
Table 2: Some Common Limit States where the structural analysis can be elastic, and its
Types of
main purpose is to calculate force demands on the
Description structural components. However if the force
Limit State
demand in a substantial proportion of the
Ultimate • Loss of equilibrium components in a structure are close to their force
Limit states • Rupture
• Progressive Collapse
capacities, there could be significant inelastic
• Formation of plastic mechanism deformation of the structure as a whole. Hence,
• Instability the behavior of a structure could be significantly
• Fatigue inelastic under the design loads, and elastic
analysis is not necessarily accurate. Next section 5. PERFORMANCE-BASED DESIGN
discusses a transition from this force-based
approach to a rather reverse notion known as As mentioned in section 2.3, an important
“Displacement-based Design”. shortcoming of traditional building codes (for
seismic design) is that the performance objectives
4. FROM FORCE-BASED DESIGN TO are considered implicitly. It should be noted that
DISPLACEMENT-BASED DESIGN satisfying one design level does not ensure that
other design levels will be satisfied as well.
For structural design against lateral dynamic Serviceability design only ensures that deflections
loading (earthquakes and strong winds), there is a and vibrations etc. for service loads are within
high probability that a small earthquake will occur limits but provides no information whatsoever
during the life of the structure, and a low about strength. Similarly strength design ensures
probability of a large earthquake. For a small that a certain factor of safety against overload is
earthquake, it seems reasonable to design the available within a member or a cross-section but
structure to remain essentially elastic. However, says nothing about what will happen if load
for a high intensity earthquake it is uneconomical exceeds the design level (figure 7). Practicing
to design the structure to remain elastic and a engineers started to realize the importance of a
common practice is to allow substantial inelastic methodology focusing rigorously on achieving the
behavior. Hence, for a large earthquake, the intended performance instead of fulfilling definite
elastic strength demand on a structure is likely to rules to implicitly account for desired
exceed its strength capacity. However, the functionality.
maximum displacement of the structure may still This realization has led to a relatively recent
be acceptable, and although some structural paradigm shift in current approach towards
components become inelastic, the structure can analysis and design of building structures, termed
perform satisfactorily. For those components that in latest guidelines and standards as
become inelastic the concern for design is “Performance-based Design (PBD)”. It refers to
deformation, not strength. For satisfactory the methodology in which structural design
performance, the deformation demand on an criteria are expressed in terms of achieving a set
inelastic component must usually be smaller than of performance objectives. It ensures that the
its ductility limit (Powell 2010). In “Direct structure as a whole reaches a specified demand
Displacement-based Design”, a practicing level including both service and strength design
engineer starts with displacement as a basic input levels. It is the practice of thinking and working in
(not forces) and determines back the maximum terms of ends rather than means. Here, owners and
allowable forces and capacities. However, in engineers can work together to achieve the best
“Capacity Design”, the force demands must be possible balance between construction costs and
calculated for those components that are required structure’s ultimate performance (figure 8). The
to remain elastic. Demand-to-capacity (D/C) basic idea is to relate the level of structure’s
ratios for those components which are allowed to damage to measurable engineering demand
yield are determined in terms of displacements (or parameters. It is similar to associating “numbers,
deformations). which can be crunched” with “physical extent of
damage”. For example, the performance
With the advent of all these ideas, the objectives set for a building can be related to the
deformation-based approach gained popularity as level of its damage, which in turn, can be related
it provides a clear interpretation of structure’s to its displacements and drift values. Although it
condition and the results are physically more is not always possible to quantify the damage as it
meaningful. The quest of explicitly achieving the is greatly influenced by a lot of other factors,
design goals soon led the profession to what is mostly displacements and drifts serve as a
now called “Performance-based design” and is reasonable indicators. That’s why sometimes
discussed in next section. engineers also use the term “displacement-based
design” in place of PBD (which ideally should be
thought of as a subset of PBD because the earthquake, time step of analysis and structure’s
performance target can be any response parameter complexity. The process of results extraction,
attached to a certain threshold). Since the processing and converting them in to presentable
approach gained popularity among engineering form takes additional time. The last stage of the
community around a decade ago, there have been process is results interpretation i.e. converting
a lot of attempts to develop procedures to “numbers we have already crunched” in to
correlate damage of various structural systems to “meaningful outcome for decision-making”.
response quantities taking into account possible ASCE 41-06 provides acceptance criteria in terms
uncertainties and ground motion characteristics. of plastic rotations and other demand parameters
This approach requires the structural designers to for each member type, analysis type and for each
go beyond code’s cook-book prescriptions and performance level (Immediate Occupancy, Life
make them able to predict structure’s response in Safety and Collapse Prevention). Since each of
case of future extreme events. This also requires these performance levels are associated with a
sophisticated structural modeling and simulation physical description of damage, obtained results
using state-of-the-art computer software, and are compared and evaluated based on this criteria
sometimes laboratory testing also. While to get performance insight.
earthquake engineers are sufficiently contributing
and exploiting the potentials of this design 6. CONSEQUENCE-BASED DESIGN
philosophy, it can also be applied to floods,
hurricane and other natural disasters. Consequence-based design is nowadays gaining
Usually the process starts with analyzing a linear popularity and is being seen as a natural extension
elastic model for code-based design loadings. The of the performance-based design approach. It has
structure is initially designed to remain elastic been applied in engineering design in different
under a lower level of intended loading termed as contexts. Porter (2003) has defined structural
design-basis load. Then a nonlinear computer consequences in terms of repair costs, casualties
model is prepared representing a real building and loss of use duration (dollars, deaths and
capable of going in to nonlinear range depending downtime). Bos (2007) has considered the
upon given inelastic behavior. A nonlinear finite consequence-based approach for structural design
element model requires far more expertise, using brittle materials by categorizing members
engineering judgment and skills compared to into consequence classes on the basis of their role
linear elastic model. Special modeling within a structure. There are few other types of
considerations and their justifications for each consequences which result from the inherent
structural component are necessary to simulate function of a structure. These consequences are
actual behavior of buildings under expected loads. addressed using importance factors for various
For earthquake analysis, ground motion occupancy categories in design codes (Yuxian
accelerograms are selected based on predefined 2013).
criteria (site conditions, magnitude, source-to-site The term “consequence” for structural engineers
distance, soil-type and fault-type etc.) and scaled refers to “structural consequence” determined
to MCE level spectrum (which is taken as 1.5 entirely from the analysis of structural member as
times DBE level spectrum, as recommended by well as overall system behavior. The
Tall Buildings Initiative (TBI) guidelines). A full consequence-based structural design approach
nonlinear response history analysis (NLRHA) is represents another paradigm shift, from the code
performed for a suit of 7 ground motions and an specified uniform reliability for different members
average of peak response quantities from all (Nafday 2011). It proceeds through the analysis of
ground motions are extracted. This is the most expected system consequences, irrespective of the
cumbersome part in whole process which may event triggering these consequences. Contrary to
take several days for a tall building. The analysis the general code-based design in which members
itself may take more than 10 hours to complete for are designed for uniform reliabilities, this
one ground motion (on a 3.10 GHz processor with philosophy requires the structural members to be
8 GB RAM) depending upon total duration or designed for variable reliability levels, depending
upon their contribution in causing adverse system advancements in computational and technological
consequences. The aim is to ensure general fields. It is ready to transform the art of living and
system integrity and prevent structural collapse in to shape the future of human civilization. The
case of any unforeseen causal event. The story which started with Hammurabi’s code still
consequence factors ranging between 0 and 1 are has a long way to go. It is a never ending story, of
used for determining a member’s contribution our survival against disasters, of our great
towards adverse system response. Global safety civilizations and collective intellect, and to say the
depends on the safety of all members against local least, of our daily lives.
failures as well as on the system response or
consequences resulting from local failures. While
the probabilistic demand oriented member designs 8. REFERENCES
in current codes deal with the primary design, the Bill Addis. 2003. Inventing a history for structural
consequence-based approach implements the engineering design. In Proceedings of the First International
secondary design for the system using member Congress on Construction History, Madrid, 20th-24th
consequence factor as an additional partial factor January 2003, ed. S. Huerta, Madrid: I. Juan de Herrera,
SEdHC, ETSAM, A. E. Benvenuto, COAM, F. Dragados.
on the resistance side of the member design
equations (Nafday 2011). Jim Rossberg, Roberto T. Leon. 2013. Evolution of Codes in
the USA. Accessed at http://www.nehrp.gov/. USA.
7. CONCLUSIONS
Powell, G. H. 2010. Modeling for structural analysis:
This paper presents a brief overview and evolution behavior and basics. Computers and Structures. USA.
of various structural design approaches and
Porter Keith A. 2003. An overview of PEER’s performance-
philosophies starting from Working Stress Method based earthquake engineering methodology. In Ninth
to Performance-based and Consequence-based international conference on applications of statistics and
approaches. These latest design philosophies may probability in civil engineering (ICASP9). San Francisco.
not be a guarantee (of structural safety) in itself,
but are a successful attempt to answer “What will P.P. Bos. 2007. Towards a combined probabilistic or
consequence-based safety approach of structural glass
happen if…???” type questions. These novel members, HERON, 52 (1/2)
ideas coupled with advance computational tools
have taken structural engineering practice to an Hu Yuxian. 2003. Application of consequence-based design
advance level of creating optimized, reliable and criteria in regions of moderate seismicity. Earthquake
cost- effective structures. The long asked question Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Vol. 2, No. 1,
Article ID: 1671-3664(2003)01-0035-04
of “Is my structure safe?” can now suitably
transformed into an optimization problem which Avinash M. Nafday. 2011. Consequence-based structural
can be answered with the help of smart decision- design approach for black swan events. Structural Safety,
making tools and techniques for consequence Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 108-114, ISSN 0167-4730,
evaluation and assessment of large systems of http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2010.09.003.
structures subjected to damaging loading. The
profession is ready to embrace rapid
 Figure 1: Loads and Stress Resultants

Applied Loads Material Response

From Materials to Load Capacity

From Loads to Materials

Building Analysis Section Response

Member Actions Member Response

Cross-Section Actions Building Response

Material Stress/Strain Load Capacity

Figure 2: The Response and Design

Full 3D,
Partial Closed Form 2D/3D Linear Equations,
Nonlinear,
Differential with Static Charts, Tables,
Inelastic
Equations Approximations FEA/Matrix Rules, Limits
Dynamic FEA

Rigorous Semi Rigorous Simplified Specified

Analytical Analytical Numerical Numerical Procedures

Figure 3: Various Design Levels

 Architectural

Conceptual
Final Design
Functional Plan

Design Structural System Detailing

Connection Design

Design and
Detailing
Trial Sections
Modeling and

YES
Analysis

Modeling Revise Sections NO Acceptable

Analysis Member Design

Figure 4: An Overview of Structural Design Process

Characteristic value of Design member

Design Strength
material basic strength capacity
Ym Yb
Material safety Factor Member Factor Verification
Structure

Structural Analysis
Factor Yi
Load Factor Factor
Characteristic value of Design member
Design load
Load capacity
Yf Ya
Figure 5: Safety Factors

S>A
S
A S  A  FOS
FOS
S Load Factor Design
Working Strength Design  A  FOS L
FOSs
• A = Actions due to loads •Ultimate Strength Design
• S = Strength of member •Limit State Design
• FOS = Factor of safety •Partial FOS Design

Figure 6: Proportioning for Safety

 Performance
Strength Design
Design
 Ductility
Serviceability considerations
Ability  Material failure
criteria  Deformation
 Section capacity capacity
 Load Capacity at
 Allowable for factored
loads large
material
deformations
 Control on
 Extraordinary
deformation
load
limits for design
considerations
loads

Figure 7: From Serviceability to Performance

Client Designer

Independent Engineer

Guidelines:
PEER, TBI, ATC, FEMA, CTBUH, etc.

What to expect?

How to achieve this kind of approach?

Knowledge – Skills – Tools

Figure 8: Performance-based Design Approach

View publication stats