A comparative study of seismic analysis, design, and collapse safety margins of tall buildings in the United States and Japan, Part I: Performance-based analysis and design

Abstract

Performance-based seismic analysis and design of tall buildings have become increasingly common in the United States and have been the standard practice in Japan for a long time. The methodologies for seismic hazard analyses, selection of earthquake records for design, and acceptance criteria, however, are widely different in the two countries. Japan experiences large earthquakes and strong shakings of buildings significantly more frequently than the United States, and the data on actual seismic performance are richer in Japan than in the United States. Comparison of performance and calibration between the two design procedures can help to improve the quantitative assessment of seismic performance of buildings in the United States. This article presents the application of US and Japanese procedures to a tall building archetype once proportioned, analyzed, and designed according to US practices and once per Japanese practices. The structural systems selected are very different; for the United States, the archetype is designed using a core reinforced concrete shear wall building with composite floor systems and steel columns as the gravity system, whereas for Japan, the archetype is designed using a steel moment frame made of square concrete-filled steel tube (CFT) columns and composite beams and installed with oil dampers. Although the design procedures followed are vastly different, the seismic performances of the systems are rather similar during serviceability, design basis, and maximum considered events. As will be presented in the second part of this article, the collapse safety margins of the two designs are significantly different.