ASCE 41 contains methodologies used by practicing engineers for the assessment of existing buildings and the design of new buildings. The National Institute of Standards and Technology recently completed a study investigating the relationship between ASCE 41 and traditional design standards (e.g., ASCE 7 and AISC 341). The results indicated there are many inconsistencies between the two approaches, with some unwarranted conservatism in ASCE 41. To further investigate this relationship, this paper presents the results of a collapse assessment of a set of four steel special moment frames. The goal is to verify that the design intent is being met (i.e., no greater than 10 % probability of collapse given a risk-targeted maximum considered earthquake). The effects of modeling assumptions, such as using default ASCE 41 backbone curves versus experimentally-derived backbone curves, is discussed. The results are used to scrutinize the performance indicated by the ASCE 41 assessment. In general, the performance indicated by an ASCE 41 assessment aligns with the collapse performance indicated by a FEMA P695 assessment.
Proceedings of the 11th National Conference in Earthquake Engineering
June 25-29, 2018
Los Angeles, CA
PBSD, seismic, Earthquake Engineering, steel