Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 505

Structural Analysis: Example 1

Twelve-story Moment Resisting Steel Frame



Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 1
Analysis of a 12-Story Steel Building
In Stockton, California
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 2
Building Description

12 Stories above grade, one level below grade

Significant Configuration Irregularities

Special Steel Moment Resisting Perimeter Frame

Intended Use is Office Building

Situated on Site Class C Soils
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 3
Analysis Description

Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis (Section 12.8)

Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (Section
12.9)

Linear and Nonlinear Response History Analysis
(Chapter 16)

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 4
Note: The majority of presentation is based on requirements provided by ASCE 7-05.
ASCE 7-10 and the 2009 NEHRP Provisions (FEMA P-750) will be referred to as applicable.
Overview of Presentation

Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis types
Overview of Equivalent Lateral Force analysis
Overview of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Overview of Modal Response History Analysis
Comparison of Results
Summary and Conclusions


Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 5
Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis
types
Overview of Equivalent Lateral Force analysis
Overview of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Overview of Modal Response History Analysis
Comparison of Results
Summary and Conclusions

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Overview of Presentation
Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 6
A
A
B
B
Perimeter Moment
Frame
Gravity-Only Columns
Plan at First Level Above Grade
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 7
Above Level 5
Above Level 9
Perimeter Moment
Frame
Perimeter Moment
Frame
Gravity-Only Columns
Plans Through Upper Levels
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 8
Thickened Slabs
Section A-A
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 9
Section B-B
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 10
3-D Wire Frame View from SAP 2000
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 11
Perspective Views of Structure (SAP 2000)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 12
Overview of Presentation
Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis
types
Overview of Equivalent Lateral Force analysis
Overview of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Overview of Modal Response History Analysis
Comparison of Results
Summary and Conclusions
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 13
Seismic Load Analysis: Basic Steps
1. Determine Occupancy Category (Table 1-1)
2. Determine Ground Motion Parameters:
S
S
and S
1
USGS Utility or Maps from Ch. 22)

F
a
and F
v
(Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2)

S
DS
and S
D1
(Eqns. 11.4-3 and 11.4-4)
3. Determine Importance Factor (Table 11.5-1)
4. Determine Seismic Design Category (Section 11.6)
5. Select Structural System (Table 12.2-1)
6. Establish Diaphragm Behavior (Section 11. 3.1)
7. Evaluate Configuration Irregularities (Section 12.3.2)
8. Determine Method of Analysis (Table 12.6-1)
9. Determine Scope of Analysis [2D, 3D] (Section 12.7.2)
10. Establish Modeling Parameters

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 14
Occupancy Category = II (Table 1-1)
Determine Occupancy Category
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 15
S
S
=1.25g

S
1
=0.40g
Ground Motion Parameters for Stockton
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 16
F
a
=1.0
F
a
=1.4
Determining Site Coefficients
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 17
Determining Design Spectral Accelerations
S
DS
=(2/3)F
a
S
S
=(2/3)x1.0x1.25=0.833

S
D1
=(2/3)F
v
S
1
=(2/3)x1.4x0.40=0.373

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 18
Determine Importance Factor,
Seismic Design Category
Seismic Design Category = D
I = 1.0
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 19
Select Structural System (Table 12.2-1)
Building height (above grade) = 18+11(12.5)=155.5 ft
Select Special Steel Moment Frame: R=8, C
d
=5.5,
0
=3

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 20
Establish Diaphragm Behavior
and Modeling Requirements
12.3.1 Diaphragm Flexibility.
The structural analysis shall consider the relative stiffness of diaphragms
and the vertical elements of the seismic forceresisting system. Unless a
diaphragm can be idealized as either flexible or rigid in accordance with
Sections 12.3.1.1, 12.3.1.2, or 12.3.1.3, the structural analysis shall
explicitly include consideration of the stiffness of the diaphragm (i.e.,
semi-rigid modeling assumption).

12.3.1.2 Rigid Diaphragm Condition.
Diaphragms of concrete slabs or concrete filled metal deck with span-
to-depth ratios of 3 or less in structures that have no horizontal
irregularities are permitted to be idealized as rigid.

Due to horizontal irregularities (e.g. reentrant corners) the diaphragms
must be modeled as semi-rigid. This will be done by using Shell
elements in the SAP 2000 Analysis.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 21
X
?
?
Determine Configuration Irregularities
Horizontal Irregularities

Irregularity 2 occurs on lower levels. Irregularity 3 is possible but need not be
evaluated because it has same consequences as irregularity 3. Torsional
Irregularities will be assessed later.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 22
X
X
X
X
Determine Configuration Irregularities
Vertical Irregularities

Irregularities 2 and 3 occur due to setbacks. Soft story and weak story irregularities
are highly unlikely for this system and are not evaluated.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 23
System is not regular
Vertical irregularities
2 and 3 exist
Not applicable
Selection of Method of Analysis (ASCE 7-05)
ELF is not permitted:
Must use Modal Response Spectrum or Response History Analysis

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 24
Selection of Method of Analysis (ASCE 7-10)
ELF is not permitted:
Must use Modal Response Spectrum or Response History Analysis

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 25
Overview of Presentation
Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis
types
Overview of Equivalent Lateral Force analysis
Overview of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Overview of Modal Response History Analysis
Comparison of Results
Summary and Conclusions
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 26
Comments on use of ELF for This System
ELF is NOT allowed as the Design Basis Analysis.
However, ELF (or aspects of ELF) must be used for:
Preliminary analysis and design
Evaluation of torsion irregularities and
amplification
Evaluation of system redundancy factors
Computing P-Delta Effects
Scaling Response Spectrum and Response History
results

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 27
Determine Scope of Analysis
12.7.3 Structural Modeling.
A mathematical model of the structure shall be constructed for
the purpose of determining member forces and structure
displacements resulting from applied loads and any imposed
displacements or P-Delta effects.
The model shall include the stiffness and strength of elements
that are significant to the distribution of forces and deformations
in the structure and represent the spatial distribution of mass
and stiffness throughout the structure.

Note: P-Delta effects should not be included directly in the analysis.
They are considered indirectly in Section 12.8.7

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 28
Determine Scope of Analysis
(Continued)

Continuation of 12.7.3:
Structures that have horizontal structural irregularity Type 1a, 1b, 4, or
5 of Table 12.3-1 shall be analyzed using a 3-D representation.
Where a 3-D model is used, a minimum of three dynamic degrees of
freedom consisting of translation in two orthogonal plan directions
and torsional rotation about the vertical axis shall be included at each
level of the structure.
Where the diaphragms have not been classified as rigid or flexible in
accordance with Section 12.3.1, the model shall include representation
of the diaphragms stiffness characteristics and such additional
dynamic degrees of freedom as are required to account for the
participation of the diaphragm in the structures dynamic response.


Analysis of structure must be in 3D, and diaphragms must be modeled
as semi-rigid
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 29
Establish Modeling Parameters
Continuation of 12.7.3:

In addition, the model shall comply with the following:

a) Stiffness properties of concrete and masonry elements
shall consider the effects of cracked sections.
b) For steel moment frame systems, the contribution of
panel zone deformations to overall story drift shall be
included.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 30
Modeling Parameters used in Analysis
1) The floor diaphragm was modeled with shell elements, providing
nearly rigid behavior in-plane.

2) Flexural, shear, axial, and torsional deformations were included in all
columns and beams.

3) Beam-column joints were modeled using centerline dimensions.
This approximately accounts for deformations in the panel zone.

4) Section properties for the girders were based on bare steel, ignoring
composite action. This is a reasonable assumption in light of the fact
that most of the girders are on the perimeter of the building and are
under reverse curvature.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 31
Modeling Parameters used in Analysis
(continued)
5) Except for those lateral load-resisting columns that terminate at
Levels 5 and 9, all columns of the lateral load resisting system were
assumed to be fixed at their base.

6) The basement walls and grade level slab were explicitly modeled
using 4-node shell elements. This was necessary to allow the interior
columns to continue through the basement level. No additional lateral
restraint was applied at the grade level, thus the basement level acts
as a very stiff first floor of the structure. This basement level was not
relevant for the ELF analysis, but did influence the MRS and MRH
analysis as described in later sections of this example

7) P-Delta effects were not included in the mathematical model. These
effects are evaluated separately using the procedures provided in
section 12.8.7 of the Standard.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 32

Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis


1. Compute Seismic Weight, W (Sec. 12.7.2)
2. Compute Approximate Period of Vibration T
a
(Sec. 12.8.2.1)

3. Compute Upper Bound Period of Vibration, T=C
u
T
a
(Sec. 12.8.2)

4. Compute Analytical Natural periods
5. Compute Seismic Base Shear (Sec. 12.8.1)
6. Compute Equivalent Lateral Forces (Sec. 12.8.3)
7. Compute Torsional Amplification Factors (Sec. 12.8.4.3)
8. Determine Orthogonal Loading Requirements (Sec. 12.8)
9. Compute Redundancy Factor (Sec. 12.3.4)
10. Perform Structural Analysis
11. Check Drift and P-Delta Requirements (Sec. 12.9.4 and 12.9.6)
12. Revise Structure in Necessary and Repeat Steps 1-11
[as appropriate]
13. Determine Design-Level Member Forces (Sec. 12.4)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 33
Notes on Computing the Period of Vibration
T
a
(Eqn.12.8-7) is an approximate lower bound period, and is
based on the measured response of buildings in high seismic
regions.

T=C
u
T
a
is also approximate, but is somewhat more accurate
than T
a
alone because it is based on the best fit of the
measured response, and is adjusted for local seismicity. Both
of these adjustments are contained in the C
u
term.

C
u
T
a
can only be used if an analytically computed period,
called T
computed
herein, is available from a computer analysis
of the structure.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 34
From Table 12.8.2:
C
t
=0.028
x=0.80
h
n
=18+11(12.5)=155.5 ft

Applies in Both Directions
Using Empirical Formulas to Determine T
a

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 35
Applies in Both Directions
T = 1.4(1.59) = 2.23sec
S
D1
=0.373

Gives C
u
=1.4
Adjusted Empirical Period T=C
u
T
a

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 36
Building has n Levels
Use of Rayleigh Analysis to Determine T
computed

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 37
F
i
i
T
computed
=
2

computed

computed
=
g
i
F
i
i =1
n

i
2
W
i
i =1
n

W
i
Use of Rayleigh Analysis to Determine T
computed

X-Direction T
computed
= 2.85 sec.
Y-Direction T
computed
= 2.56 sec.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 38
K = M
2
=
Diagonal matrix containing circular frequencies

Periods Computed Using Eigenvalue Analysis


Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 39
Mode Shape Matrix
Range of Periods Computed for This Example
T
a
=1.59 sec

C
u
T
a
=2.23 sec

T
computed
= 2.87 sec in X direction
2.60 sec in Y direction


Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 40
Periods of Vibration for Computing
Seismic Base Shear
(Eqns 12.8-1, 12.8-3, and 12.8-4)

if T
computed
is not available use T
a

if T
computed
is available, then:
if T
computed
> C
u
T
a
use C
u
T
a
if T
a
<= T
computed
<= C
u
T
a
use T
computed
if T
computed
< T
a
use T
a


Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 41
Area and Line Weight Designations
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 42
Area and Line Weight Values
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 43
Total Building Weight=36,912 k. Weight above grade = 30,394 k.
Weights at Individual Levels
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 44

V = C
S
W

C
S
=
S
DS
R/I
=
0.833
8/1
= 0.104
(12.8-2)
(12.8-3)
(12.8-5)
Controls
kips
(12.8-1)
Calculation of ELF Base Shear
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 45

C
S
=
S
D1
T(R/I)
=
0.373
2.23(8/1)
= 0.021

C
S
= 0.044S
DS
I = 0.044(0.833)(1) = 0.0307

V = 0.037(30394) =1124
C
u
T
a
=2.23 sec
C
s
=0.044S
DS
I=0.037 (controls)
C
s
=0.021 from Eqn. 12.8-3
R
effective
= (0.021/0.037) x 8 = 4.54
Concept of R
effective

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 46
Issues Related to Period of Vibration and Drift
12.8.6.1 Minimum Base Shear for Computing
Drift
The elastic analysis of the seismic force-resisting
system for computing drift shall be made using the
prescribed seismic design forces of Section 12.8.
EXCEPTION: Eq. 12.8-5 need not be considered for
computing drift

12.8.6.2 Period for Computing Drift
For determining compliance with the story drift limits
of Section 12.12.1, it is permitted to determine the
elastic drifts, (xe), using seismic design forces based
on the computed fundamental period of the structure
without the upper limit (CuTa) specified in Section
12.8.2.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 47
C
u
T
a
=2.23 sec
T=2.60 sec T=2.87 sec
Use DONT Use
Using Eqns. 12.8-3 or 12.8-5 for Computing ELF
Displacements
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 48

C
s
=
0.5S
1
(R/I)
Eqn. 12.8-6, applicable only when S
1
>= 0.6g
What if Equation 12.8-6 had
Controlled Base Shear?
This equation represents the true response
spectrum shape for near-field ground motions.
Thus, the lateral forces developed on the basis of
this equation must be used for determining
component design forces and displacements used
for computing drift.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 49
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
0.044S
DS
I
e
Seismic Base Shear
Drift
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
0.044S
DS
I
e
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
0.044S
DS
I
e
When Equation 12.8-5 May Control
Seismic Base Shear (S
1
< 0.6g)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 50
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
S
DS
/(R/I
e
)
Seismic Base Shear
Drift
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
S
DS
/(R/I
e
)
S
DS
/(R/I
e
)
When Equation 12.8-6 May Control
Seismic Base Shear (S
1
>= 0.6g)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 51

F
x
= C
vx
V

C
vs
=
w
x
h
k
w
i
h
i
k
i=1
n

(12.8-11)
(12.8-12)
k
T
0 0.5 2.5
1.0
2.0
T=2.23
k=1.86
Calculation of ELF Forces
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 52
Calculation of ELF Forces (continued)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 53
Inherent and Accidental Torsion
12.8.4.1 Inherent Torsion. For diaphragms that are not
flexible, the distribution of lateral forces at each level shall
consider the effect of the inherent torsional moment, M
t
,
resulting from eccentricity between the locations of the
center of mass and the center of rigidity. For flexible
diaphragms, the distribution of forces to the vertical
elements shall account for the position and distribution of
the masses supported.

Inherent torsion effects are automatically included in 3D
structural analysis, and member forces associated with such
effects need not be separated out from the analysis.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 54
Inherent and Accidental Torsion
(continued)
12.8.4.2 Accidental Torsion. Where diaphragms are not flexible, the
design shall include the inherent torsional moment (M
t
) (kip or kN)
resulting from the location of the structure masses plus the accidental
torsional moments (M
ta
) (kip or kN) caused by assumed displacement
of the center of mass each way from its actual location by a distance
equal to 5 percent of the dimension of the structure perpendicular to
the direction of the applied forces.

Where earthquake forces are applied concurrently in two orthogonal
directions, the required 5 percent displacement of the center of mass
need not be applied in both of the orthogonal directions at the same
time, but shall be applied in the direction that produces the greater
effect.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 55
Inherent and Accidental Torsion
(continued)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 56
Determine Configuration Irregularities
Horizontal Irregularities
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 57
Forces in Kips
Application of Equivalent Lateral Forces
(X Direction)

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 58
Forces in Kips
Application of Torsional Forces
(Using X-Direction Lateral Forces)

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 59
Stations for Monitoring Drift for
Torsion Irregularity Calculations
with ELF Forces Applied in X Direction
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 60
Results of Torsional Irregularity Calculations
For ELF Forces Applied in X Direction
Result: There is not a Torsional Irregularity for Loading in the X Direction
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 61
Results of Torsional Irregularity Calculations
For ELF Forces Applied in Y Direction
Result: There is a minor Torsional Irregularity for Loading in the Y Direction
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 62
Results of Torsional Amplification Calculations
For ELF Forces Applied in Y Direction
(X Direction Results are Similar)

Result: Amplification of Accidental Torsion Need not be Considered
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 63
Drift and Deformation
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 64
Not strictly
Followed in this
Example due to very
minor torsion
irregularity
Drift and Deformation (Continued)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 65
ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 7-10) Similar
ASCE 7-10
Drift and Deformation (Continued)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 66
C
d
Amplified drift based on forces
from Eq. 12.8-5
Modified for forces based
on Eq. 12.8-3
Computed Drifts in X Direction
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 67
C
d
Amplified drift based on forces
from Eq. 12.8-5
Modified for forces based
on Eq. 12.8-3
Computed Drifts in Y Direction
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 68

=
P
x
I
V
x
h
sx
C
d
Eq. 12.8-16*

max
=
0.5
C
d
Eq. 12.8-17
The drift in Eq. 12.8-16 is drift
from ELF analysis, multiplied by C
d
and divided by I.
The term in Eq. 12.8-17 is
essentially the inverse of the
Computed story over-strength.
*The importance factor I was inadvertently left out of Eq. 12.8-16 in ASCE 7-05. It is properly included in ASCE 7-10.
P-Delta Effects
P-Delta Effects for modal response spectrum analysis and modal response
history analysis are checked using the ELF procedure indicated on this slide.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 69
Marginally exceeds limit of 0.091 using =1.0. would be
less than
max
if actual were computed and used.
P-Delta Effects
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 70
Orthogonal Loading Requirements
12.5.4 Seismic Design Categories D through F. Structures
assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F shall, as a
minimum, conform to the requirements of Section 12.5.3.

12.5.3 Seismic Design Category C. Loading applied to
structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C shall, as a
minimum, conform to the requirements of Section 12.5.2 for
Seismic Design Category B and the requirements of this section.
Structures that have horizontal structural irregularity Type 5 in
Table 12.3-1 shall the following procedure [for ELF Analysis]:
Continued on Next Slide
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 71
Orthogonal Loading Requirements
(continued)
Orthogonal Combi nati on Procedure. The structure shall
be analyzed using the equivalent lateral force analysis
procedure of Section 12.8 with the loading applied
independently in any two orthogonal directions and the
most critical load effect due to direction of application of
seismic forces on the structure is permitted to be assumed
to be satisfied if components and their foundations are
designed for the following combination of prescribed loads:
100 percent of the forces for one direction plus 30
percent of the forces for the perpendicular direction;
the combination requiring the maximum component
strength shall be used.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 72
ASCE 7-05 Horizontal Irregularity Type 5
Nonparallel Systems-Irregularity is defined to exist where the
vertical lateral force-resisting elements are not parallel to or
symmetric about the major orthogonal axes of the seismic
forceresisting system.

The system in question clearly has nonsymmetrical lateral force
resisting elements so a Type 5 Irregularity exists, and orthogonal
combinations are required. Thus, 100%-30% procedure given
on the previous slide is used.
Note: The words or symmetric about have been removed from the
definition of a Type 5 Horizontal Irregularity in ASCE 7-10. Thus, the
system under consideration does not have a Type 5 irregularity in
ASCE 7-10.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 73
100% Eccentric
30% Centered
16 Basic Load Combinations used in ELF
Analysis (Including Torsion)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 74

1.2D+1.0E +0.5L +0.2S
0.9D+1.0E +1.6H

E = E
h
+ E
v
E
h
= Q
E
E
v
= 0.2S
DS
( = 1.0)
(S
DS
=0.833g)
Combination of Load Effects
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 75
Structure
is NOT regular
at all
Levels.
} See next slide
Redundancy Factor
12.3.4.2 Redundancy Factor, , for Seismic Design
Categories D through F. For structures assigned to
Seismic Design Category D, E, or F, shall equal 1.3
unless one of the following two conditions is met, whereby
is permitted to be taken as 1.0:

a) Each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base
shear
in the direction of interest shall comply with Table 12.3-
3.

b) Structures that are regular in plan at all levels
provided that the seismic forceresisting systems
consist of at least two bays of seismic forceresisting
perimeter framing on each
side of the structure in each orthogonal direction at
each
story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear.
The
number of bays for a shear wall shall be calculated as
the
length of shear wall divided by the story height or two
times
th l th f h ll di id d b th t h i ht f


Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 76
Redundancy, Continued
TABLE 12.3-3 REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH STORY
RESISTING MORE THAN 35% OF THE BASE SHEAR

Moment Frames Loss of moment resistance at the beam-to-
column connections at both ends of a single beam would not
result in more than a 33% reduction in story strength, nor does
the resulting system have an extreme torsional irregularity
(horizontal structural irregularity Type 1b).
It can be seen by inspection that removal of one beam in this structure will
not result in a result in a significant loss of strength or lead to an extreme
torsional irregularity. Hence = 1 for this system. (This is applicable to ELF,
MRS, and MRH analyses).

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 77
Seismic Shears in Beams of Frame 1 from ELF
Analysis
Seismic Shears in Girders, kips, Excluding Accidental Torsion
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 78
Seismic Shears in Beams of Frame 1 from ELF
Analysis
Seismic Shears in Girders, kips, Accidental Torsion Only
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 79



Overview of Presentation
Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis
types
Overview of Equivalent Lateral Force analysis
Overview of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Overview of Modal Response History Analysis
Comparison of Results
Summary and Conclusions
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 80
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Part 1: Analysis
1. Develop Elastic response spectrum (Sec. 11.4.5)
2. Develop adequate finite element model (Sec. 12.7.3)
3. Compute modal frequencies, effective mass, and mode shapes

4. Determine number of modes to use in analysis (Sec. 12.9.1)

5. Perform modal analysis in each direction, combining each
directions
results by use of CQC method (Sec. 12.9.3)
6. Compute Equivalent Lateral Forces (ELF) in each direction (Sec.
12.8.1
through 12.8.3)
7. Determine accidental torsions (Sec 12.8.4.2), amplified if necessary
(Sec. 12.8.4.3)
8. Perform static Torsion analysis
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 81
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Part 2: Drift and P-Delta for Systems Without
Torsion Irregularity
1. Multiply all dynamic displacements by C
d
/R (Sec. 12.9.2).
2. Compute SRSS of interstory drifts based on displacements at
center of
mass at each level.
3. Check drift Limits in accordance with Sec. 12.12 and Table 12.2-1.
Note: drift Limits for Special Moment Frames in SDC D and above
must be divided by the Redundancy Factor (Sec. 12.12.1.1)
4. Perform P-Delta analysis using Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
5. Revise structure if necessary

Note: when centers of mass of adjacent levels are not vertically
aligned the drifts should be based on the difference between the
displacement at the upper level and the displacement of the point on
the level below which is the vertical projection of the center of mass
of the upper level. (This procedure is included in ASCE 7-10.)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 82
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Part 2: Drift and P-Delta for Systems With
Torsion Irregularity
1. Multiply all dynamic displacements by C
d
/R (Sec. 12.9.2).
2. Compute SRSS of story drifts based on displacements at the
edge of the building
3. Using results from the static torsion analysis, determine the drifts
at the same location used in Step 2 above. Torsional drifts
may be based on the computed period of vibration (without the
C
u
T
a
limit). Torsional drifts should be based on computed
displacements
multiplied by C
d
and divided by I.
4. Add drifts from Steps 2 and 3 and check drift limits in Table 12.12-
1.
Note: Drift limits for special moment frames in SDC D and above
must be divided by the Redundancy Factor (Sec. 12.12.1.1)
5. Perform P-Delta analysis using Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
6. Revise structure if necessary
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 83
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Part 3: Obtaining Member Design Forces

1. Multiply all dynamic force quantities by I/R (Sec. 12.9.2)
2. Determine dynamic base shears in each direction
3. Compute scale factors for each direction (Sec. 12.9.4) and apply to
respective member force results in each direction
4. Combine results from two orthogonal directions, if necessary (Sec.
12.5)
5. Add member forces from static torsion analysis (Sec. 12.9.5).
Note
that static torsion forces may be scaled by factors obtained in Step
3
6. Determine redundancy factor (Sec. 12.3.4)
7. Combine seismic and gravity forces (Sec. 12.4)
8. Design and detail structural components
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 84
Mode Shapes for First Four Modes
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 85
Mode Shapes for Modes 5-8
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 86
Number of Modes to Include
in Response Spectrum Analysis
12.9.1 Number of Modes
An analysis shall be conducted to determine
the natural modes of vibration for the structure.
The analysis shall include a sufficient number
of modes to obtain a combined modal mass
participation of at least 90 percent of the actual
mass in each of the orthogonal horizontal
directions of response considered by the
model.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 87
Effective Masses for First 12 Modes
12 Modes Appears to be Insufficient
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 88
Virtually the Same
as 12 Modes
Effective Masses for Modes 108-119
118 Modes Required to Capture Dynamic Response of Stiff Basement
Level and Grade Level Slab
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 89
Effective Masses for First 12 Modes
12 Modes are Actually Sufficient to Represent the Dynamic Response of the
Above Grade Structure
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 90
C
s
(ELF)
0.85C
s
(ELF)
Inelastic Design Response Spectrum
Coordinates
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 91

0.85
V
V
t
Scaling of Response Spectrum Results (ASCE 7-05)
12.9.4 Scal i ng Desi gn Val ues of Combined Response.
A base shear (V) shall be calculated in each of the two orthogonal
horizontal directions using the calculated fundamental period of the
structure T in each direction and the procedures of Section 12.8, except
where the calculated fundamental period exceeds (Cu )(Ta), then (Cu )(Ta)
shall be used in lieu of T in that direction. Where the combined
response for the modal base shear (Vt) is less than 85 percent of the
calculated base shear (V) using the equivalent lateral force procedure,
the forces, but not the drifts, shall be multiplied by



where
V = the equivalent lateral force procedure base shear, calculated in
accordance with this section and Section 12.8
Vt = the base shear from the required modal combination
Note: If the ELF base shear is governed by Eqn. 12.5-5 or 12.8-6 the force V
shall be based on the value of C
s
calculated by Eqn. 12.5-5 or 12.8-6, as
applicable.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 92

0.85
C
s
W
V
t
Scaling of Response Spectrum Results (ASCE 7-10)
12.9.4.2 Scaling of Drifts
Where the combined response for the modal base
shear (Vt) is less than 0.85 CsW, and where Cs is
determined in accordance with Eq. 12.8-6, drifts
shall be multiplied by:
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 93
T
X
T
Y
+ +
Scaled Static Torsions
Apply Torsion as a Static Load. Torsions can be
Scaled to 0.85 times Amplified
*
EFL Torsions if the
Response Spectrum Results are Scaled.

* See Sec. 12.9.5. Torsions must be amplified because they are applied
statically, not dynamically.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 94
A = Scaled CQCd Results in X Direction B = Scaled CQCd Results in Y Direction
A
B
Combination 1
A
0.3B
Combination 2
0.3A
B
A + 0.3B + |T
X
| 0.3A + B + |T
Y
|
Method 1: Weighted Addition of
Scaled CQCd Results
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 95
A = Scaled CQCd Results in X Direction B = Scaled CQCd Results in Y Direction
A
B
Combination
A
B
(A
2
+B
2
)
0.5
+ max(|T
X
| or |T
Y
|)

Method 2: SRSS of Scaled CQCd Results
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 96
Computed Story Shears and Scale Factors
from Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
X-Direction Scale Factor = 0.85(1124)/438.1=2.18
Y-Direction Scale Factor = 0.85(1124)/492.8=1.94
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 97
Response Spectrum Drifts in X Direction
(No Scaling Required)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 98
Response Spectrum Drifts in Y Direction
(No Scaling Required)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 99
Scaled Beam Shears from
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 100
Overview of Presentation
Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis
types
Overview of Equivalent Lateral Force analysis
Overview of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Overview of Modal Response History Analysis
Comparison of Results
Summary and Conclusions
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 101
Modal Response History Analysis
Part 1: Analysis
1. Select suite of ground motions (Sec. 16.1.3.2)
2. Develop adequate finite element model (Sec. 12.7.3)
3. Compute modal frequencies, effective mass, and mode Shapes
4. Determine number of modes to use in analysis (Sec. 12.9.1)
5. Assign modal damping values (typically 5% critical per mode)
6. Scale ground motions* (Sec. 16.1.3.2)
7. Perform dynamic analysis for each ground motion in each direction
8. Compute Equivalent Lateral Forces (ELF) in each direction (Sec. 12.8.1
through 12.8.3)
9. Determine accidental torsions (Sec 12.8.4.2), amplified if necessary
(Sec. 12.8.4.3)
10. Perform static torsion analysis
*Note: Step 6 is referred to herein as Ground Motion Scaling (GM Scaling). This is to
avoid confusion with Results Scaling, described later.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 102
Modal Response History Analysis Part 2: Drift and
P-Delta for Systems Without Torsion Irregularity
1. Multiply all dynamic displacements by C
d
/R (omitted in ASCE 7-05).
2. Compute story drifts based on displacements at center of mass
at each level
3. If 3 to 6 ground motions are used, compute envelope of story
drift at each level in each direction (Sec. 16.1.4)
4. If 7 or more ground motions are used, compute average story
drift at each level in each direction (Sec. 16.1.4)
5. Check drift limits in accordance with Sec. 12.12 and Table 12.2-1.
Note: drift limits for Special Moment Frames in SDC D and above
must be divided by the Redundancy Factor (Sec. 12.12.1.1)
6. Perform P-Delta analysis using Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
7. Revise structure if necessary
Note: when centers of mass of adjacent levels are not vertically aligned the drifts should be based on
the difference between the displacement at the upper level and the displacement of the point on the
level below which is the vertical projection of the center of mass of the upper level.(This procedure is
included in ASCE 7-10.)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 103
Modal Response History Analysis Part 2: Drift and
P-Delta for Systems With Torsion Irregularity

1. Multiply all dynamic displacements by C
d
/R (omitted in ASCE 7-05).
2. Compute story drifts based on displacements at edge of building
at each level
3. If 3 to 6 ground motions are used, compute envelope of story
drift at each level in each direction (Sec. 16.1.4)
4. If 7 or more ground motions are used, compute average story
drift at each level in each direction (Sec. 16.1.4)
5. Using results from the static torsion analysis, determine the drifts
at the same location used in Steps 2-4 above. Torsional drifts
may be based on the computed period of vibration (without the
C
u
T
a
limit). Torsional drifts should be based on computed displacements
multiplied by C
d
and divided by I.
6. Add drifts from Steps (3 or 4) and 5 and check drift limits in Table 12.12-1.
Note: Drift limits for special moment frames in SDC D and above
must be divided by the Redundancy Factor (Sec. 12.12.1.1)
7. Perform P-Delta analysis using Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
8. Revise structure if necessary
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 104
Modal Response History Analysis
Part 3: Obtaining Member Design Forces

1. Multiply all dynamic member forces by I/R
2. Determine dynamic base shear histories for each earthquake in each
direction
3. Determine Result Scale Factors* for each ground motion in each direction,
and apply to response history results as appropriate
4. Determine design member forces by use of envelope values if 3 to 6
earthquakes are used, or as averages if 7 or more ground motions are used.
5. Combine results from two orthogonal directions, if necessary (Sec. 12.5)
6. Add member forces from static torsion analysis (Sec. 12.9.5). Note
that static torsion forces may be scaled by factors obtained in Step 3
7. Determine redundancy factor (Sec. 12.3.4)
8. Combine seismic and gravity forces (Sec. 12.4)
9. Design and detail structural components
*Note: Step 3 is referred to herein as Results Scaling (GM Scaling). This is
to avoid confusion with Ground Motion Scaling, described earlier.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 105
Selection of Ground Motions for MRH Analysis
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 106
3D Scaling Requirements, ASCE 7-10
For each pair of horizontal ground motion components, a
square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) spectrum shall
be constructed by taking the SRSS of the 5 percent-damped
response spectra for the scaled components (where an
identical scale factor is applied to both components of a pair).
Each pair of motions shall be scaled such that in the period
range from 0.2T to 1.5T, the average of the SRSS spectra
from all horizontal component pairs does not fall below the
corresponding ordinate of the response spectrum used in the
design, determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5.
ASCE 7-05 Version:
does not fall below 1.3 times the corresponding ordinate of the design
response spectrum, determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5 by
more than 10 percent.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 107
A
X
A
Y
A
SRSS
B
SRSS
C
SRSS
SFA x A
SRSS
SFB x B
SRSS
SFC x C
SRSS
Average Scaled
S
A
S
A
S
A
S
A
S
A
Period

Period

Period

0.2T T 1.5T
Match Point

Period

Period

Unscaled
Unscaled Unscaled
ASCE 7

Avg Scaled

ASCE 7

3D ASCE 7 Ground Motion Scaling
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 108
Issues With Scaling Approach
No guidance is provided on how to deal with different
fundamental
periods in the two orthogonal directions

There are an infinite number of sets of scale factors that will
satisfy the criteria. Different engineers are likely to obtain
different sets of scale factors for the same ground motions.

In linear analysis, there is little logic in scaling at periods
greater than the structures fundamental period.

Higher modes, which participate marginally in the dynamic
response, may dominate the scaling process
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 109
Resolving Issues With Scaling Approach
No guidance is provided on how to deal with different
fundamental periods in the two orthogonal directions:

1. Use different periods in each direction (not
recommended)

2. Scale to range 0.2 T
min
to 1.5 T
max
where T
min
is the lesser
of the two periods and T
max
is the greater of the
fundamental
periods in each principal direction

3. Scale over the range 0.2T
Avg
to 1.5 T
Avg
where T
Avg
is the
average of T
min
and T
max

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 110
S
A
S
A
S
A
Period

Period

Period

Scale Factor SA
1
Scale Factor SB
1
Scale Factor SC
1
T
AVG
T
AVG
T
AVG
Note: A different scale factor will be obtained for each SRSSd pair
Resolving Issues With Scaling Approach
There are an infinite number of sets of scale factors that will
satisfy the criteria. Different engineers are likely to obtain
different sets of scale factors for the same ground motions.

Use Two-Step Scaling:
1] Scale each SRSSd Pair to the Average Period
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 111
Average Scaled
S
A
S
A
Period

Period
0.2T
Avg
T
AVG
1.5T
Avg
Match Point

ASCE 7

Avg Scaled

ASCE 7

T
Avg
S
2
times Average Scaled
Note: The same scale factor S
2
Applies to Each SRSSd Pair
Resolving Issues With Scaling Approach
There are an infinite number of sets of scale factors that will
satisfy the criteria. Different engineers are likely to obtain
different sets of scale factors for the same ground motions.
Use Two-Step Scaling:
1] Scale each SRSSd Pair to the Average Period
2] Obtain Suite Scale Factor S
2
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 112
Resolving Issues With Scaling Approach
There are an infinite number of sets of scale factors that will
satisfy the criteria. Different engineers are likely to obtain
different sets of scale factors for the same ground motions.
Use Two-Step Scaling:
1] Scale each SRSSd Pair to the Average Period
2] Obtain Suite Scale Factor S
2
3] Obtain Final Scale Factors:
Suite A: SS
A
=S
A1
x S
2
Suite B: SS
B
=S
B1
x S
2
Suite C: SS
C
=S
C1
x S
2

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 113
Ground Motions Used in Analysis
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 114
Unscaled Spectra
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 115
Average S1 Scaled Spectra
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 116
Ratio of Target Spectrum to Scaled SRSS
Average
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 117
Match Point
Target Spectrum and SS Scaled Average
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 118
Individual Scaled Components (00)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 119
Individual Scaled Components (90)
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 120
Computed Scale Factors
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 121
Number of Modes for
Modal Response History Analysis
ASCE 7-05 and 7-10 are silent on the number of modes to use in Modal
Response History Analysis. It is recommended that the same procedures
set forth in Section 12.9.1 for MODAL Response Spectrum Analysis be used for
Response History Analysis:
12.9.1 Number of Modes
An analysis shall be conducted to determine the natural
modes of vibration for the structure. The anal ysi s shal l
i ncl ude a suffi ci ent number of modes to obtai n a
combi ned modal mass parti ci pation of at l east 90
percent of the actual mass i n each of the orthogonal
hori zontal di recti ons of response considered by the
model.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 122



Damping for
Modal Response History Analysis
ASCE 7-05 and 7-10 are silent on the amount of
damping to use in Modal Response History Analysis.

Five percent critical damping should be used in all
modes considered in the analysis because the Target
Spectrum and the Ground Motion Scaling Procedures
are based on 5% critical damping.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 123
Scaling of Results for
Modal Response History Analysis (Part 1)
The structural analysis is executed using the GM scaled earthquake
records in each direction. Thus, the results represent the expected
elastic response of the structure. The results must be scaled to
represent the expected inelastic behavior and to provide improved
performance for important structures. ASCE 7-05 scaling is as follows:

1) Scale all component design forces by the factor (I/R). This is
stipulated in Sec. 16.1.4 of ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10.

2) Scale all displacement quantities by the factor (C
d
/R). This
requirement
was inadvertently omitted in ASCE 7-05, but is included in Section
16.1.4 of ASCE 7-10.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 124
V
ELF
T
computed
C
u
T
a
ELF
V
Min
0.85V
Min
MRH (unscaled)
MRH (scaled)
Inelastic GM
Inelastic ELF
Period
Base Shear
Response Scaling Requirements when
MRH Shear is Less Than Minimum Base Shear
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 125
T
computed
CuTa


V
Min
V
ELF
MRH (unscaled)
Inelastic GM
Inelastic ELF
No Scaling Required
Period
Base Shear
Response Scaling Requirements when
MRH Shear is Greater Than Minimum Base Shear
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 126
T
computed
CuTa


V
Min
V
ELF
MRH (unscaled)
Inelastic GM
Inelastic ELF
0.85V
MRS Unscaled
MRS Scaled
Period
Base Shear
Response Scaling Requirements when
MRH Shear is Greater Than Minimum Base Shear
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 127
12 Individual Response History Analyses Required
1. A00-X: SS Scaled Component A00 applied in X Direction
2. A00-Y: SS Scaled Component A00 applied in Y Direction
3. A90-X: SS Scaled Component A90 applied in X Direction
4. A90-Y: SS Scaled Component A90 applied in Y Direction

5. B00-X: SS Scaled Component B00 applied in X Direction
6. B00-Y: SS Scaled Component B00 applied in Y Direction
7. B90-X: SS Scaled Component B90 applied in X Direction
8. B90-Y: SS Scaled Component B90 applied in Y Direction

9. C00-X: SS Scaled Component C00 applied in X Direction
10.C00-Y: SS Scaled Component C00 applied in Y Direction
11.C90-X: SS Scaled Component C90 applied in X Direction
12.C90-Y: SS Scaled Component C90 applied in Y Direction

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 128
Low >
High >
Result Maxima from Response History Analysis
Using SS Scaled Ground Motions
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 129
I/R Scaled Shears and Required 85% Rule
Scale Factors
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 130
Response History Drifts for
all X-Direction Responses
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 131
Load Combinations for Response History
Analysis
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 132
Envelope of Scaled Frame 1 Beam Shears
from Response History Analysis
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 133
Overview of Presentation
Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis
types
Overview of Equivalent Lateral Force analysis
Overview of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Overview of Modal Response History Analysis
Comparison of Results
Summary and Conclusions
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 134
Comparison of Maximum X-Direction
Design Story Shears from All Analysis
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 135
Comparison of Maximum X-Direction
Design Story Drift from All Analysis
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 136
Comparison of Maximum Beam Shears
from All Analysis
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 137
Overview of Presentation
Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis
types
Overview of Equivalent Lateral Force analysis
Overview of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Overview of Modal Response History Analysis
Comparison of Results
Summary and Conclusions
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 138
Required Effort
The Equivalent Lateral Force method and the
Modal Response Spectrum methods require
similar levels of effort.

The Modal Response History Method requires
considerably more effort than ELF or MRS.
This is primarily due to the need to select and
scale the ground motions, and to run so many
response history analyses.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 139
Accuracy
It is difficult to say whether one method of analysis is
more accurate than the others. This is because each of
the methods assume linear elastic behavior, and make
simple adjustments (using R and C
d
) to account for
inelastic behavior.

Differences inherent in the results produced by the
different methods are reduced when the results are
scaled. However, it is likely that the Modal Response
Spectrum and Modal Response History methods are
generally more accurate than ELF because they more
properly account for higher mode response.

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 140
Recommendations for Future Considerations
1. Three dimensional analysis should be required for all Response Spectrum and
Response History analysis.

2. Linear Response History Analysis should be moved from Chapter 16 into Chapter
12 and be made as consistent as possible with the Modal Response Spectrum Method.
For example, requirements for the number of modes and for scaling of results should
be the same for the two methods.

3. A rational procedure needs to be developed for directly including Accidental Torsion in
Response Spectrum and Response History Analysis.

4. A rational method needs to be developed for directly including P-Delta effects in
Response Spectrum and Response History Analysis.

5. The current methods of selecting and scaling ground motions for linear response
history analysis can be and should be much simpler than required for nonlinear
response history analysis. The use of standardized motion sets or the use of
spectrum matched ground motions should be considered.

6. Drift should always be computed and checked at the corners of the building.
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 141
Questions
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 142
Titleslide
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 1
Thisexampledemonstrates threelinearelasticanalysisproceduresprovidedbyASCE705:
EquivalentLateralForceanalysis(ELF),ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis(MRS),and
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysis.Thebuildingisastructuralsteelsystemwithvarious
geometricirregularities.ThebuildingislocatedinStockton,California,anareaofrelatively
highseismicactivity.
TheexampleisbasedontherequirementsofASCE705.However,ASCE710isreferredto
inseveralinstances.
Completedetailsfortheanalysisareprovidedinthewrittenexample,andtheexample
shouldbeusedastheInstructorsGuidewhenpresentingthisslideset.Many,butnotall
oftheslidesinthissethaveSpeakersNotes,andtheseareintentionallykeptverybrief.
FinleyCharney isaProfessorofCivilEngineeringatVirginiaTech,Blacksburg,Virginia.Heis
alsopresidentofAdvancedStructuralConcepts,Inc.,locatedinBlacksburg.Thewritten
exampleandtheaccompanyingslidesetwerecompletedbyAdvancedStructuralConcepts.
AdrianTola wasagraduatestudentatVirginiaTechwhentheexamplewasdeveloped,and
servedasacontractorforAdvancedStructuralConcepts.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 2
Thisbuilding wasdevelopedspecificallyforthisexample.However,anattemptwasmade
todeveloparealisticstructuralsystem,witharealisticarchitecturalconfiguration.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 3
ThesearethethreelinearanalysismethodsprovidedinASCE7.
TheEquivalentLateralForcemethod(ELF)isessentiallyaonemoderesponsespectrum
analysiswithcorrectionsforhighermodeeffects.ThismethodisallowedforallSDCBand
Cbuildings,andforthevastmajorityofSDCD,EandFbuildings.Notethatsomeformof
ELFwillberequiredduringtheanalysis/designprocessforallbuildings.
TheModalResponseSpectrum(MRS)methodissomewhatmorecomplicatedthanELF
becausemodeshapesandfrequenciesneedtobecomputed,responsesigns(positiveor
negative)arelost,andresultsmustbescaled.However,therearegenerallyfewerload
combinationsthanrequiredbyELF.MRScanbeusedforanybuilding,andisrequiredfor
SDCD,E,andFbuildingswithcertainirregularities,andforSDCD,E,andFbuildingswith
longperiodsofvibration.
ThelinearModalResponseHistory(MRH)methodismorecomplexthatMRS,mainlydue
totheneedtoselectandscaleatleastthreeandpreferablysevensetsofmotions.MRS
canbeusedforanybuilding,butgiventhecurrentcodelanguage,itisprobablytootime
consumingforthevastmajorityofsystems.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 4
Thevastmajorityofthewritten exampleandthisslidesetisbasedontherequirementsof
ASCE705.TherequirementsofASCE710arementionedwhennecessary.WhenASCE7
10ismentioned,itisgenerallydonesotopointoutthedifferencesinASCE705andASCE
710.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 5
Thestructureanalyzedisa3DimensionalSpecialSteelMomentresistingSpaceFrame.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 6
Inthisbuildingalloftheexteriormomentresistingframesarelateralloadresistant.Those
portionsofFramesCandFthatareinterioratthelowerlevelsaregravityonlyframes.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 7
ThegravityonlycolumnsandgirdersbelowthesetbacksingridsCandFextendintothe
basement.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 8
Thisviewshowtheprincipalsetbacksforthebuilding.Theshadedlinesatlevels5and9
representthickeneddiaphragmslabs.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 9
Notethatthestructurehas onebasementlevel.Thisbasementisfullymodeledinthe
analysis(thebasementwallsaremodeledwithshellelements),andwillleadto
complicationsintheanalysespresentedlater.
Alloftheperimetercolumnsextendintothebasement,andareembeddedinthewall.
(Thewallisthickenedaroundthecolumnstoformmonolithicpilasters).Thus,foranalysis
purposes,thecolumnsmaybeassumedtobefixedatthetopofthewall.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 10
AllanalysisforthisexamplewasperformedonSAP2000.TheprogramETABS mayhave
beenamorerealisticchoice,butthiswasnotavailable.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 11
Theseviewsshowthatthebasementwallsandthe floordiaphragmswereexplicitly
modeledinthreedimensions.Itistheauthorsopinionthatalldynamicanalysisshouldbe
carriedoutinthreedimensions.Whendoingsoitissimpletomodeltheslabsandwalls
usingshellelements.Notethataverycoarsemeshisusedbecausethedesireistoinclude
thestiffness(flexibility)oftheseelementsonly.Nostressrecoverywasattempted.If
stressrecoveryisimportant,amuchfinermeshisneeded.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 12
ThegoalofthisexampleistopresenttheASCE7analysismethodologiesbyexample.
Thus,thisslidesetissomewhatlonger thanitwouldneedtobeifonlythemainpointsof
theanalysisweretobepresented.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 13
Thestepspresentedonthisslidearecommontoallanalysismethods.Themainstructural
analysiswouldbeginafterstep10.Note,however,thataverydetailedsideanalysis
mightberequiredtoestablish diaphragmflexibilityandtodetermineifcertainstructural
irregularitiesexist.Onepointthatshouldbestressedisthatregardlessofthemethodof
analysisselectedinstep8(ELF,MRS,orMRH),anELFanalysisisrequiredforallstructures.
ThisistruebecauseASCE705andASCE710useanELFanalysistosatisfyaccidental
torsionrequirementsandPDeltarequirements.Additionally,anELFanalysiswouldalmost
alwaysbeneededinpreliminarydesign.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 14
This structureisusedforanofficebuilding,sotheOccupancyCategoryisII.Notethat
analystsusuallyneedtorefertotheIBCoccupancycategorytablewhichissomewhat
differentthanshownonthisslide.ItisforthisreasonthatTable11asshownabovehas
beensimplifiedinASCE710.ItshouldalsobenotedthatassigninganOccupancyCategory
canbesubjective,andwhenindoubt,thelocalbuildingofficialshouldbeconsulted.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 15
These coefficientsarenotparticularlyrealisticbecausetheywereselectedtoprovide
compatibilitywithanearlierversionofthisexample.ItisforthisreasonthatLatitude
Longitudecoordinatesarenotgiven.StudentsshouldbeadvisedthatLatitudeLongitude
ispreferabletozipcodebecausesomezipcodescoverlargegeographicareaswhichcan
haveabroadrangeofgroundmotionparameters.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 16
Notethatthesitecoefficientsarelargerinareasoflowseismicity.Thisisbecausethesoil
remainselasticundersmallerearthquakes. Forlargerearthquakesthesoilisinelastic,and
thesiteamplificationeffectisreduced.NotethatforsiteclassesDandEthefactorF
v
can
goashighas3.5forsmallerearthquakes.Thus,forsuchsitesinthecentralandeastern
U.S.,thegroundmotionscanbequitelarge,andmanystructures(particularlycritical
facilities)maybeassignedtoSeismicDesignCategoryD.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 17
InthisslidetheintermediatecoefficientsS
MS
andS
M1
arenot separatelycomputed.Note
thatthesubscriptMstandsforMaximumConsideredEarthquake(MCE),andthesubscript
DinS
DS
andS
D1
standsforDesignBasisEarthquake(DBE).TheMCEistheearthquakewith
a2%probabilityofbeingexceededin50years.InCalifornia,theDBEisroughlya10%in50
yeargroundmotion.IntheEasternandcentralU.S.theDBEissomewherebetweena2%
and10%in50yearevent.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 18
NotethattheSDCisafactorofBOTHtheseismicityandintendeduse.For important
buildingsonsoftsitesinthecentralandEasternU.S.itispossibletohaveanassignmentof
SDCD,whichrequiresthehighestlevelofattentiontodetailing.Afewcodecyclesagothe
samebuildingwouldhavehadonlymarginalseismicdetailing(ifany).
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 19
Weenteredthisexampleknowingitwouldbea specialmomentframe,sosystemselection
wasmoot.However,thistablecanbeusedtoillustrateheightlimits(whichdonotapplyto
theSpecialSteelMomentFrame).Therequireddesignparametersarealsoprovidedby
thetable.
ThevaluesofR =8and
0
arethelargestamongallsystems.TheratioofC
d
toR is
oneofthesmallestforallsystems.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 20
Thediaphragmismodeled usingshellelementsinSAP2000.Onlyoneelementisrequired
ineachbayasallthatisneededintheanalysisisareasonableestimateofinplane
diaphragmstiffness.Ifdiaphragmstressesaretoberecoveredamuchfinermeshwould
berequired.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 21
Torsional irregularitiesmustbedeterminedbyanalysis,andthisisdiscussedlaterinthe
example.Thestructureclearlyhasareentrantcornerirregularity,andthediaphragm
discontinuityirregularityisalsolikely.Note,however,thattheconsequencesofthetwo
irregularities(2and3)arethesame,sotheseareeffectivelythesameirregularity.
Thestructurehasanonparallelsystemirregularitybecauseofthenonsymmetricallayoutof
thesystem.NotethatinASCE710thewordsorsymmetricaboutinthedescription of
thenonparallelsystemirregularityhavebeenremoved,sothisstructurewouldnothavea
nonsymmetricalirregularityinASCE710.Thisisaconsequentialchangebecause
requirementsforthreedimensionalanalysisandorthogonalloadingaretiedtothe
presenceofatype5irregularity.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 22
Thestructureinquestionclearlyhasthetwoirregularitiesnoted.
Onethingthatshouldbeillustratedonthisslide(andthepreviousslide)isthatthethere
arenoconsequencesifcertainirregularitiesoccurinSDCBandCsystems.Forexample,
VerticalIrregularities1,2,and3haveconsequencesonlyforSDCD,E,andF,thusthe
possibleoccurrenceoftheirregularitiesneednotbecheckedinSDCBandC.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 23
TheELFmethodisallowedforthevastmajorityofsystems.ThemainreasonthatELFis
notallowedforthissystemisthat(1)itisinSDCD,and(2)ithasReentrant Cornerand
DiaphragmDiscontinuityIrregularities.ItisinterestingtonotethatELFisallowedinhigher
SDCevenwhentherearestiffness,weight,andweakstoryirregularities.Itseemsthatthis
wouldbemoreofadetrimenttotheaccuracyofELFthanthanwouldareenrtant corner.
NotethatTable12.61asshownintheslideisfromASCE705.Thetablehasbeen
simplifiedsomewhatforASCE710(seethenextslide),butthebasicconfigurationswhere
ELFareallowed/disallowedareessentiallythesame.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 24
ThisisTable12.61fromASCE710.ThemaindifferencewithrespecttoASCE705isthat
building heightisthetriggerformakingdecisions,ratherthantheuseofT <3.5T
s
.The
changewasmadebecausetherearescenariosundertheASCE705tablethatproduced
illogicalresults.Forexample,therewerescenarioswhereatallbuildingonsoftsoilin
SeattlecoulduseELF,whereasashorterbuildingonstiffsoilinNewYorkcouldnot.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 25
Titleslide.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 26
ItisimportanttonotethatALLseismicanalysisrequiresELFanalysisinoneformor
another.ThestatementthatELFmaynotbeallowedasaDesignBasisanalysismeans
thatthedesigndriftsandelementforcesmayneed tobebasedonmoreadvanced
analysis,suchasModalResponseSpectrumorResponseHistoryanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 27
ThereisasignificantinconsistencyintherequirementthatPDeltaeffectsberepresented
inthemathematicalmodel.Infact,sucheffectsshouldNOTbeincludedinthemodel
becausetheyareevaluatedseparatelyinSection12.8.7.Additionally, directmodelingof
thestrengthoftheelementsisnotrequiredinlinearanalysis,butofcourse,wouldbe
neededinanyformofnonlinearanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 28
Threedimensionalanalysisisrequiredforthissystem,andthediaphragmsmustbe
modeledassemirigidbecausethereentrant cornersprohibitclassificationofthe
diaphragmsasrigid.Regardlessofthisrequirement,itwouldbevirtuallyimpossibleto
modeltheexamplestructurein2dimensions.
Inmostcasesisiseasiertomodelastructureinthreedimensionsthanintwo.Thisisdue
tothefactthatmostmodernsoftwaremakesiteasytogeneratethemodel,and
assumptionsdonotneedtobemadeastothebestwaytoseparateoutthevarious
elementsforanalysis.Additionally,theuseofrigiddiaphragmsasawaytoreducethe
numberofDOFisnotneededbecausetheprogramscananalyzequitecomplex3Dsystems
inonlyafewseconds.Semirigiddiaphragmsareeasytomodelusingshellelements,and
verycoarsemeshesmaybeusedifitisnotdesiredtorecoverdiaphragmstresses.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 29
No commentrequired.Seethenotesonthefollowingslide.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 30
Mostofthesepointsareselfexplanatory.Itshouldbenotedthattheuseofcenterline
analysisinsteelmomentframesis usedbecauseithasbeenshownthatoffsettingerrors
leadtoreasonableresults.Theerrorsincenterlineanalysisarethat(a)sheardeformations
inthepanelzonesareunderestimated,and(b)flexuraldeformationsinthepanelzonesare
overestimated.Manyprogramshavemodelsthatcandirectlyincludepanelzonebeam
columnjointdeformations.Severalprogramsallowtheuseofrigidendzones,butthis
shouldneverbedonebecauseitdrasticallyoverestimatesthelateralstiffnessofthe
structure.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 31
Thebasementwasmodeledbecauseitwasdesiredtoruntheinteriorcolumnsdownto
thebasementslab.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 32
Thesearethebasicstepsrequiredforequivalentlateralforceanalysis.Eachofthesepoints
arediscussedinthefollowingseveralslides.
ItshouldbenotedthatthereisalotofdetailintheELFanalysis,andthusthisisnotatrivial
task.TherearenumerousrequirementsscatteredthroughoutASCE7,andsometimes
theserequirementsaresomewhatambiguous.AnyoneattemptinganELFanalysis(orany
otherASCE7analysisforthatmater)shouldreadtheentirerelevantchapters(11and12in
thiscase)beforebeginningtheanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 33
Slideprovidescommentsoncomputingperiodof vibration.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 34
Heretheheightforperiodcalculationsistakenastheheightabovegrade.Thisis
reasonablebecausethebasementwallsareverystiff,andbecausetheperimeter columns
areembeddedinpilastersthatarecastwiththewalls.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 35
TheC
u
adjustmenttoperiodisallowedonlyif arational(Eigenvalue orRayleigh)analysisis
usedtocomputeaperiod.Thisadjustmentremovesaninherentconservatisminthe
statisticsusedtoderivetheempiricalformula,andadjustsforseismicity(recognizingthat
structuresinlowerhazardareasarelikelytobemoreflexiblethanstructuresinhighhazard
areas).TheperiodusedinbaseshearcalculationscannotexceedC
u
T
a
,butdriftsmaybe
computedonthebasisoftheperioddeterminedfromrationalanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 36
If acomputermodelisavailableitiseasytoestimatetheperiodusingthisapproach.The
lateralloadpatternshouldbeofthesameapproximateshapeasthefirstmodeshape.An
uppertriangularpatternortheELFloadpatternwillusuallysuffice.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 37
Both oftherationallycomputedperiodsexceedC
u
T
a
,soC
u
T
a
willbeusedintheELF
analysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 38
TheperiodsfromtheEigenvalue analysisarethemostmathematicallyprecise.Asseen,
theseareveryclosethatthoseproducedbytheRayleighmethod(seepreviousslide).
PeriodscomputedusingtheRayleighmethodshouldgenerallybecloseto,butslightlyless
thanthosecomputedfromEigenvalue analysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 39
Thisslidesimplysummarizestheperiodsfoundbythethreedifferentmethods.The
distributionofperiodsshownisnotuncommon.Itistheauthorsexperiencethatthe
computed periodisalmostalwaysgreaterthanC
u
T
a
formomentframes.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 40
Thisslideprovidesa simplesummaryforchoosingtheperiodtouseforELFanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 41
Thisslideissimplyakeyforuseindescribingmassescomputation(seefollowingslide).
Bothlinemassesandareamasseswereconsidered.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 42
Slideshowscalculationsforcomputingareaandlineweights.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 43
Thecalculationsfordeterminingtotalseismicweightareshown.Theequivalentlateral
forceswillbebasedontheweightofthestructureabovegrade(30,394kips)eventhough
thefullstructure,includingthebasement,ismodeled.
Thelocation oftheCMisneededbecausetheequivalentlateralforcesareappliedtothe
CMateachlevel.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 44
This slideshowntheequationsthatareneededforcomputingthedesignbaseshear.
Equation12.84isnotneededbecausethestructuresperiodislessthanT
L
.Equation12.6
6isnotneededbecauseS
1
<0.6g.
Equation12.85controlsthebaseshear.Notethatthisequationwasoriginallynotusedin
ASCE705(wherethetheminimumwasinsteadtakenas0.01W).Equation12.85as
shownaboveisincludedinasupplementtoASCE705,andisprovidedasshowninASCE
710.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 45
ThisslideshowsthattheEffectiveR valueforthisstructureis4.54.Thus, theanticipated
economyinherentintheuseofR =8hasnotbeenrealized.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 46
AlthoughbaseshearmaybecontrolledbyEquation12.85, thedriftscanbebasedonthe
baseshearcomputedfromEqn.12.83,andfurthermore,thecomputedperiodofvibration
maybeusedinlieuofC
u
T
a
fordriftcalculations.Thismeansthataseparatesetoflateral
forcesmaybecomputedforthepurposesofcalculatingdeflectionsinthestructure.
TheexceptionshownforASCE710didnotexistinASCE705,althoughmanyanalystsused
thisexceptionanyway.Thereasonisshownonthefollowingslide,wherethedeflections
basedonEqn.12.83and12.55arecompared.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 47
ThisslideshowsEquations 12.83and12.85intheformofadisplacementspectrum.The
twoperiodsarefromtheEigenvalue analysis.IfEquation12.85isusedtocomputeforces
fordeterminingdrift,thedriftswouldincreaseexponentially,whichisnotrational.The
irrationalityisduetothefactthat12.85isaminimumbaseshearformula,andisNOTa
truebranchoftheresponsespectrum.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 48
WhenEqn. 12.86controls,thedriftsmustbebasedonthelateralforcescomputedfrom
12.86.Notethatthisformulaisnotdependentonperiod.
TheargumentforrequiringthatEqn.12.86beusedfordriftcalculationsisthatit
representsthethetruespectralshapeitisnotaminimumbaseshearformula.
However,forlongerperiodbuildings,Eqn.12.86canleadtoirrationallylarge
displacementsbecausethedeflectionswillincreaseexponentiallywithperiod.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 49
ThisslidesummarizestheuseofEquations12.83 and12.85whencomputingbaseshear
anddrift.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 50
ThisslidesummarizestheuseofEquations12.83 and12.86whencomputingbaseshear
anddrift.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 51
Thesearetheequationsfordeterminingthedistributionoflateralforcealongtheheight.
Theexponentk isdeterminedbyinterpolation.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 52
Thelateralforcesarecomputedusingaspreadsheet.NotethattheforcesintheX andY
directionsarethesamebecausebothdirectionsarecontrolledbythesameminimumbase
shearformula,andbothhavethesameperiodofvibrationC
u
T
a
.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 53
ThebasicanalysisassumptionsforELFaresummarizedhere.Andonthefollowingslide.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 54
AssumptionsonELFanalysis,continued.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 55
PreviousversionsofASCE7requiredthatbothaccidentalandinherenttorsionbeamplified
inhigherSDCs whenthereweresignificanttorsional irregularities.Thus,theinherent
torsionneededtobeseparatedoutfromtheresultsofa3Danalysis.InASCE705and
ASCE710,theinherenttorsionneednotbeamplified, soinherenttorsionneednotbe
separatedoutwhena3Danalysisisused.
Ifaplanaranalysisisperformed,itwillbenecessarytodeterminetheinherenttorsion
loadingandtransformitintoinplaneloadsontheframes.Suchcalculationsarenot
straightforward,thus3Dmodeling,whichmayseemtobecomplex,mayinfactbesimpler
than2Danalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 56
Thestructureanalyzedwillrequireaccidentaltorsionanalysisbecausethediaphragmsare
notflexible.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 57
ExcerptofASCE7showingrequirementsforaccidentaltorsion.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 58
Threedimensionalstructuralanalysisisrequiredtodetermineifthestructurehastorsion
irregularities.In theanalysis,theELFloadsdeterminedearlierareappliedata5%
eccentricityasrequired.Notethatthetorsionirregularitycalculationsarebasedon
interstory DRIFT,notstorydisplacement.Ontheotherhand,torsional amplification(when
required)isbasedonstorydisplacement,notdrift.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 59
Intheanalysisthedirectlateralloadandthetorsional loadsareappliedseparately.The
directloadingisshownhere.Theseforces havebeencomputedtorepresentcenterof
massloadingonthediaphragms.Asimilarsetofforces(notshown)werecomputedinthe
Ydirection.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 60
Theseforcesrepresentthe accidentaltorsionduetoXdirectionforcesappliedata5%
eccentricity.Asimilarsetofforces(notshown)werecomputedfortheYdirectionloading.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 61
Thisslideshowsthestationsforwhichdisplacementswerecalculated todetermine
torsional irregularityduetolateralforcesappliedintheYdirection.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 62
Thereisnotorsional irregularityforloadingintheXdirection.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 63
Thereisaveryminortorsional irregularityalevel9forloadsappliedintheYdirection.It
wouldprobablybebesttoredesignthestructuretoeliminatetheirregularity.However,
theconsequencesoftheirregularityarenotsevere.
Notethatthedoubleentriesfordisplacementsinsomelocations(Levels5and9)isdueto
thesetbacks.Thiswasdiscussedonapreviousslidethatshowedthedeflection monitoring
stationsforthisloading.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 64
Notorsional amplificationisrequiredforthisstructure.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 65
ThisisdirectlyfromASCE7.Noadditionalcommentaryrequired.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 66
ASCE7statesthatforstructureswithSignificantTorsional Deflections,themaximum drift
shallincludetorsional effects.Thislanguageisvague,becauseitisnotclearwhat
significantis,anditisnotclearhowtorsional effectsshouldbeincluded(inherent
torsion,inherentplusaccidentaltorsion,inherentplusamplifiedaccidentaltorsion?).The
authorsassumedthatthisstructuredidnothavesignificanttorsional deflections,and
therebydidnotincludeaccidentaltorsionloadingintheanalysis.Inherenttorsionwas,of
course,includedintheanalysis.Deflectionswerecomputedatcenterofmass,notatthe
edgesofthebuilding.Asshownlater,thisbuildingisrelativelystiff,andthedriftsare
significantlylessthanallowed.Hadthedriftsbeenclosertothealloweddrifts,itmight
havebeenappropriatetodeterminethedriftsattheedgeofthebuilding.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 67
Thisissuewasdiscussedinearlierslides.Inthepresentanalysisdriftiscomputedonthe
basisoflateralforcescomputedusingEqn.12.83withT =C
u
T
a
.Hasthedriftsfromthis
analysisexceededtheallowabledrift,areanalysiswouldhavebeenpermittedusingthe
periodsforRayleighorEigenvalue analysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 68
ThedriftshavebeendeterminedonthebasisoflateralloadsfromEqn.12.85,andhave
beenmodified tobeconsistentwithEqn 12.83,whichusesC
u
T
a
astheperiodofvibration.
NotethatthecomputedperiodsfromEigenvalue analysiscouldhavebeenusedinstead,
andtheresultingdriftswouldbeevenlower.
IfthedriftshadbeenbasedonlateralforcesconsistentwithEqn.12.85,thedriftswould
havebeenexcessive.However,thecomputeddriftsaresignificantlylessthanthelimits
whentheadjustmentismade.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 69
Thecommentsonthepreviousslideapplytothisslideaswell.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 70
Thisslideprovidesthebasicexpressions usedinPDeltaanalysis.Notethatthedeflections
Deltainequation12.816arefortheanalysiswithout PDeltaeffectsincluded.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 71
Forthisstructurethemaximum stabilityfactorof0.091ismarginallyexceededforthe
bottomthreelevelsofthestructure.However,thisisbasedonconservativeestimatesof
liveload,andtheBetafactorusedtocompute
max
wastakenconservativelyas1.0.
Actualvaluesofthisfactorarelikelytobesignificantlylessthan1.0,sotheanalysiswill
proceedasifPDeltaprovisionsaresatisfied.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 72
This structurehasatype5horizontalirregularityundertheprovisionsofASCE705,butnot
underASCE710.Thisisbecausethesymmetryrequirementincludedinthenonparallel
systemirregularityhasbeeneliminated(seeTable12.31).Asthisexamplewaswritten
principallyforaccordancewithASCE705,orthogonalloadingisincluded.Additionally,this
structureusesaperimetermomentframe,andthecornercolumnswillbeaffectedby
loadingfromtwodirections.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 73
The100/30percentloadingisusedforthisstructure.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 74
ThemodificationinASCE710issignificant,becausemanystructuresdeemedirregulardue
tononsymmetric systemsinASCE705arelongerirregular.Thus,orthogonalloadingmay
nolongerberequiredformaySDCD,E,andFstructures.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 75
Thisslideshowsthe16basicseismicloadings thatarerequiredwhenaccidentaltorsion
andorthogonalloadingrequirementsaremet.Whenthetwobasicgravityloadingsare
included,itisseenthat32seismicloadcasesarerequired.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 76
Thesearethebasicgravityplusseismicloadcombinations.Thesnow andhydrostaticloads
arenotapplicable,andarecrossedout.Therewouldbenorequirementtousethesimilar
loadcombinationsincludingtheoverstrength factor
0
,sothisisnotshown.Thetwo
gravityloadingsincombinationwiththe16seismicloadsproduceatotalof32seismicload
combinations.Thisisinadditiontothegravityonlyandgravitypluswindcombinations
thatwouldberequired.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 77
Thestructureisnotregular,soonlysubparagraph(a)applies.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 78
Itisveryclearthattheremoval ofasinglebeaminthishighlyredundantperimeter
momentframestructurewouldnotcauseanextremetorsional irregularityorareduction
instrengthofmorethan33percent.Theseredundancycalculationswouldonlybe
requiredforsystemswithonlyoneortwobaysofresistingframeineachdirection.Thus,
fortheStocktonbuilding,the factoristakenas1.0.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 79
Thisslideprovidesthemaximum beamshearsinFrame1ofthestructure.Theseinclude
lateralloadsonly,withoutgravityandwithoutaccidential torsion.Accidentaltorsional
forcesareincludedseparately(seenextslide).Separationofthetorsional forcesfacilitates
thecomparisonoftheresultsfromthethreemethodsofanalysis.Additionally,the
torsional forcesdeterminedintheELFanalysiswouldbeused(withpossiblysome
reduction)intheresponsespectrumandresponsehistorycalculations.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 80
ThesearetheaccidentaltorsionforcesonFrame1.Seealsothecommentsfortheprevious
slide.
NotethattheseforcesareapplicabletoallthreeanalysismethodsbecauseboththeMRS
andtheMRHmethodsapplyaccidentaltorsionusingtheELFprocedure.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 81
Titleslide.Nocommentaryprovided.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 82
Thesearethebasicstepsinamodalresponsespectrumanalysis.Manyofthestepsare
requiredforELFanalysis,sotheamountofadditionalworkisnotsubstantial,andthe
additionalworkthatisrequired(steps6,7,and8)isgenerallydonebythecomputer.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 83
NotethatPDeltaeffectsarehandledinexactlythesamemannerasforELF.Thus,PDelta
effectsshouldnotbeincludedwhencomputingthemodeshapesandfrequencies.
ASCE7requiresthatdriftbecheckedatthecenterofmass,butthisisnoteasilydone
whenthemassesarenotverticallyaligned.ThenewASCE710provisionaddressesthe
problem.Driftscomputedatthecornersofthebuildingwouldbeconservative(exceeding
therequirementsforcenterofmasscalculations)andaremucheasiertocalculate.The
verticalalignmentapproachdescribedinASCE710wasusedintheexample.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 84
Thisprocedurewouldbeusedforasystemwithsignificanttorsional displacements.Itwas
notrequiredforthebuildingunderconsideration.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 85
Oneofthecomplicationstoresponsespectrumanalysisisthatmemberforcesmust
generallybescaledupsuchthatthebaseshearfromtheresponsespectrumanalysisisnot
lessthan85percentoftheELFshears.Accidentaltorsional forceswouldbescaledusing
thesamefactor.
This85percentruleprovidessomeincentiveforperformingMRSanalysisbecausethe15
percentreductioninbaseshearisusuallyallowed.Thisisduetothefactthatthe
computedperiodsbasedonEigenvalue analysisaregenerallymuchlongerthanperiods
computedusingC
u
T
a
.Note,however,thatintheunlikelycasethattheMRSanalysis
producesshearsgreaterthanthosefromELF,therearenoprovisionsforscalingtheresults
downtotheELFforces.
DeflectionscomputedfromMRSanalysismaybeuseddirectly,withoutscaling.Thisis
consistentwithallowingdeflectionstobebasedonthecomputedperiod,withouttheC
u
T
a
limit,inELFanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 86
ThisplotsimplyshowsthefirstfourmodeshapesandassociatedperiodsfromtheSAP
2000analysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 87
Thenextfourmodeshapesareshownhere.Thereissignificantlateraltorsional interaction
becauseofthesetbacks.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 88
Thisprovisionisbasedontheassumptionthattheheavybasementwallsandgroundlevel
slabarenotmodeledinthesystem.Thebasementhassignificantmass,andthatmass
doesnotappearuntilmodes100andaboveinthisstructure.Hadthestructurebeen
modeledasfixedatthebaseofthefirststorycolumns,onlythefirstdozenorsomodes
wouldberequiredtocapture85percentofthemassineachdirection.
TheauthorsbelievethattheASCE7languageshouldbemodifiedtoaccountforsuch
problems.Furthermore,asufficientmodesshouldbeusedtocapture85percentofthe
torsional mass.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 89
Only82percentofthetotallateralmassiscapturedbymode12.Thethirdmodeis
principallytorsion,andwith12modesonly75percentofthetorsional massiscaptured.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 90
Atmode108thelateralmasshasonlymarginallyincreased.Atmode112themass
associatedwiththebasementfinallyappearsintheYdirection.Thismassshowsupat
mode118intheXdirection.Thetorsional masshasstillnotreached85percent,evenat
mode119.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 91
Onlythefirst12modeswereusedintheanalysis,asthiscapturedmorethan90percentof
themassineachdirection.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 92
Thesearetheresponsespectrumordinatesusedintheanalysis.TheR factorisincludedin
thespectrum.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 93
Aquestionarises whentheELFbaseshearisbasedontheabsoluteminimumof0.01W.
TheStandard isnotclearonwhetherthescalingwouldeffectivelylowerthisminimumto
0.0085W.Intheauthorsopinion,thescalingoftheMRSresultsshouldnotproduceabase
shearlessthantheabsoluteminimumof0.01W.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 94
DriftsneedbescaledonlyiftheELFbaseshearisbasedonequation12.86.Thisis
consistentwiththerequirementsofELF.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 95
TheMRSanalysisautomaticallyaccountsforinherenttorsion.Accidentaltorsionis
generallyincludedbydirectadditionofthetheELFstatictorsioneffects,scaledin
accordancewiththe85percentrule,ifapplicable.Notethatwhenstaticaccidental
torsionsareused,theymayneedtobeamplifiedinaccordancewithSection12.8.4.3.
Accidentaltorsionneednotbeamplifiedifisisincludedinthedynamicanalysis,
presumablybyphysicallyshiftingofthemasseccentricities.SeeSection12.9.5ofASCE7.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 96
ThisisoneoftwoapproachestohandleorthogonalloadinginMRSanalysis.Theapproach
shownonthenextslideispreferred.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 97
Thisapproach,whilenotspecificallydescribedinASCE7,ispreferred.Thismethodis
somewhatmoreconservativethanthemethodgivenonthepreviousslidebecauseitwill
provideauniformresistanceforallpossibleanglesofattackoftheearthquake.Programs
likeSAP2000andETABScanautomaticallyimplementthisprocedure(ortheprocedure
shownonthepreviousslide).
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 98
ThisslideshowsthemodalshearsforeachlevelascomputedusingtheMRSapproach.
TheXdirectionbaseshearis438.1kips,andtheYdirectionshearis492.8kips.Thus,allof
thestoryshearsandrelatedmemberforcesneedtobescaleupto0.85timestheELFbase
shearof1124kips.Thescalefactorsare2.18and1.94intheXandYdirections,
respectively.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 99
Themodalstorydriftsinthesecondcolumncomedirectlyfromtheanalysis,andarenot
scaled.ThesedriftsalreadyincludetheeffectofR,whichwasincludedintheresponse
spectrum.Thestorydriftsaregenerallynotequaltothedifferenceinthetotaldrifts,as
thesearedeterminedindividuallyineachmodeandthenSRSSed.Thestorydriftsare
multipliedbyC
d
inthefourthcolumn.ThefinalC
d
scaleddriftsaresignificantlylessthan
theallowabledrifts,indicatingthatthisstructureisprobablytoostiffascurrentlydesigned.
ThesedisplacementswillbecomparedtotheELFandMRHdisplacementsattheendof
thisslideset.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 100
Seepreviousslidefordiscussion
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 101
Thebeamshearsarefoundineachmode,andthencombinedbySRSS.Theshearsshown
onthisslidehavebeenscaledsuchthattheyareconsistentwith(85%scaled)scaledbase
shears.
TheseshearswillbecomparedtotheELFandMRHshearsattheendofthisslideset.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 102
Titleslide.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 103
ThisslideshowsthebasicstepsintheModalResponseHistorymethod.Manyofthesteps
arethesameasrequiredforELForMRSanalysis.Thelargestnewitemistheselection
andscalingofthegroundmotions,andtherunningofthedynamicanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 104
Thisslideliststhestepsrequiredtodeterminedrift.Driftsaretakendirectlyfromthe
analysis,andneednotbescaledotherthanbytheratioofC
d
/R.Alldriftsarecalculatedat
thecenterofmass.
NotethatPDeltaeffectsarecheckedusingthesameprocedureasusedfortheELFand
MRSanalysis.Therefore,PDeltaeffectsshouldnotbeincludedinthedynamicanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 105
Theonlydifferencebetweenthisslideandthepreviousslideisthatwhenthereare
significanttorsional deflections,thedriftshouldbecomputedatthecornerofthebuilding.
Thiswasnotdonehereasthestructuredidnothaveasignificanttorsional response.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 106
Thisistheprocedurefordeterminingdesignseismicmemberforces.Thesignificantpoint
inthisslideisthatthescalingto85percentofthedesignbaseshearwillberequiredifthe
dynamicbaseshearsarelessthanthe85percentoftheELFshears.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 107
The ASCE710requirementsforselectinggroundmotionareshownhere.Selectingan
appropriatenumberofrecordsthatsatisfythecriteriacanbechallengingbecausethere
arefewavailablerecordingsofdesignlevelgroundmotions.
Thereisageneralconsensusthatmoreisbetterwhenrunningresponsehistoryanalysis.
Iffact,ASCE7rewardstheengineerwhensevenormoremotionsareusedastheaverage
responseamongthesevenmaybeusedwhendeterminingdesignvalues.Thepeak
responsemustbeusediflessthansevenmotionsareincludedintheanalysis.Onemust
notusefewerthanthreerecordsunderanycircumstances.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 108
ThescalingrequirementsforthegroundmotionsarebasedonASCE710.Thisresultsin
somewhatlowerscalefactorsthanusedinASCE705.
Hereitisimportanttonotethatthatthereareseveralsetsofscalefactorsappliedinthe
analysis:
(1) ScalingbyratioofI/R
(2) Groundmotionscalingasindicatedabove
(3) Scalingto85%ofELFbaseshear
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 109
Groundmotionsmustbescaledtobecompatiblewiththedesignspectrum.Thereare
numerouswastodoscaling,andthereisnoconsensusastowhichisthebestapproach.
InASCE710,thefirststepinscaling(for3Danalysis)istotakethesquarerootofthesum
ofthesquaresofthe5%dampedspectraforthetwoorthogonalcomponentsfromeach
earthquake.Next,eachoftheseSRSSspectraaremultipliedbyascalefactor.Then,the
averageofthethreeScaledSpectraiscomputed.Thechosenscalefactorsmustbe
establishedsuchthattheaveragespectraliesabovethedesignspectrafortheperiod
rangeof0.2T to1.5T,whereT istheperiodofvibrationofthestructure.
Intheexample,theMatchPointisthatpointatwhichthescaledaveragescaledspectrum
andthetargetspectrumhavethesameordinate.Intheexamplegiven,notehowthe
averagescaledspectralordinateisfarabovethetargetspectrumatthestructuresperiodof
vibration.ThisisoneoftheconsequencesintheASCE7method.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 110
Thesepointsareinadditiontotheproblemdiscussedinthecommentaryinthelastslide.
Regardingthefirstpoint,theauthorschosetoscaletotheaverageofthetwofirstmode
fundamentalperiods.Anotherchoicewouldbetoscaleovertherangeof0.2timesthe
smallerperiodto1.5timesthelargerperiod.
Tosomethesecondpointisnotimportantbecauseitisunlikelythatdifferentengineers
wouldusethesamesetofgroundmotions.However,thecurrentmethodallowsthe
designertoapplyscalefactorsinaarbitrarymanner,andthisallowsthedesignertoscale
downoffendinggroundmotions.
Innonlinearanalysistheperiodselongate,soitmakessensetoconsiderthiswhenscaling.
Forlinearanalysis,theperiodsdonotchange,andthereisnoreasontoscaleatperiods
aboveT (unlessoneistryingtomanageuncertaintiesrelatedtocomputingT).
Thefinalpointisrelatedtotheproblemillustratedinthepreviousslide.Thehighermodes
dominatethescaling,eventhoughtheymaycontributeverylittletothedynamicresponse.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 111
Asalreadymentioned,thethirdapproachwasusedinthisexample.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 112
Inthisexampleatwostepscalingapproachisused.First,theSRSSofeachcomponentpair
arescaledtomatchthetargetspectrumattheperiodT
avg
.Thisfactorwillbedifferentfor
eachofSRSSspectra.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 113
TheaverageofthescaledspectrawillmatchthetargetspectrumatT
avg
.Nowasecond
factorisappliedequallytoeachmotion(alreadyscaledonce)suchthatthescaledaverage
spectrumliesabovethetargetspectrumfrom0.2T
avg
to1.5T
avg
.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 114
Thefinalscalefactorforeachmotionistheproductofthetwoscalefactors.Byuseofthis
approachallengineerswillarriveatthesamescalefactorsforthesamesetofmotions.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 115
Theactualrecordsusedformtheanalysisareshowninthisslide.Theserecordscamefrom
thePEERNGAdatabase.TheyarereferredtoassetsA,B,andCherein.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 116
Thisslideshowstheunscaled SRSSspectraforeachmotionpair,togetherwiththetarget
spectrum.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 117
ThisslideshowstheaverageoftheS1scaledspectraforthethree earthquakes.Notethe
perfectmatchatthetargetperiod.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 118
ThisslideshowstheratioofthetargetspectrumtotheS1 Scaledspectraoverthetarget
periodrange.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 119
Thespectrum finalscaledspectrumiscomparedtothetargetspectrumhere.Thereisa
prettygoodmatchatperiodsbetween0.5secondsand5.0seconds,butthematchisnot
sogoodinthehighermodes.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 120
Thisplotshowstheindividualscaledcomponentsinthe00direction.Notethatthe
component spectrafallbelowthetargetspectrabecausethecomponentsarenot
amplifiedbytheSRSSprocedure.TheSRSSofthecomponentpairswouldbecloserto
thetargetspectrum.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 121
Seethecommentonthepreviousslide.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 122
This slideshowsthefinalcomputedscalefactors.Notethateachcomponentpairreceives
itsownS1factor,andallrecordsusethesameS2factor.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 123
Chapter16ofASCE7does notprovideguidanceonthenumberofmodestouseinmodal
responsehistoryanalysis.Itseemslogicaltofollowthesameproceduresasgivenin
Chapter12formodalresponsespectrumanalysis,andthiswasdonefortheexample
building.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 124
Chapter 16ofASCE7doesnotprovideguidanceondampinginresponsehistoryanalysis.
Itseemslogicaltouse5%dampingineachmodeasthiswasusedinthedevelopmentof
theresponsespectra.Thus,5%wasusedintheexample.Note,howeverthethatuseof
5%dampinginnonlinearresponsehistoryanalysisisprobablyunconservative.Theuseof
alowervalue,say2%critical,isgenerallyrecommendedfornonlinearanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 125
Thesepointsareexplainedinthefollowingslides.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 126
Theresponsehistoryshearsshouldbescaledupto85%oftheminimumbaseshear.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 127
NoscalingisrequiredwhentheMRHshearisgreaterthantheMinimumBaseShear.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 128
Thisslidecomparesresponsespectrumscalingwithresponsehistoryscaling.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 129
Thesearetheindividually scaledGMusedintheanalyses.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 130
ThisslideshowsthemaximumresponsequantitiesfromtheSSscaledgroundmotions.
Thereisahugevariation(considering thefactthatallrecordswerescaledinasimilar
mannertothesametargetspectrum),withbaseshearsrangingfromalowof1392kipsto
ahighof5075kips.Thevariationin otherresponsequantitiesaresimilar.Itisdifficultto
determinethesourceofthesevariations,whichincludethescalingmethod,thedifference
betweencomponents,andhighermodeeffects.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 131
Heretheindividualscalefactorsareprovided.Thesefactorsnormalizetheresponsesto
havethesamebaseshearasgivenby85percentoftheELFbaseshear.Itisnotablethatall
ofthegroundmotionshadtobescaledup.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 132
Thecomputeddriftenvelopesareshownhere.Thedriftsshave beenscaledbyCd/R,but
no85%scalingisrequired.Aswiththeothermethods,thedriftsappeartobewellbelow
thelimits,indicatingthatthestructureisprobablytoostiff.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 133
This slideshowsthevariousloadcombinations.Notethat100percentofthe85%scaled
motionswereappliedineachdirection.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 134
Thisslideshowstheenvelopesofallofthe85%scaledbeamshearsonFrame1.These
willbecomparedtotheresultsfromtheothermethods attheendofthepresentation.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 135
Titleslide.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 136
Thestoryshearsare comparableduetothescalingoftheMRSandMRHresults.However,
itseemsthatheshearsintheupperlevelsarerelativelygreaterintheMRHanalysis.This
isprobablyduetothehigherspectralaccelerationinthehighermodes(whencomparedto
thetargetspectrum).
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 137
TheELFmethodproducesthelargestdrifts.However,thesedriftswerebasedona period
ofC
u
T
a
,andnotonthecomputedsystemperiod.Theresponsehistorydriftsarelargerat
theupperlevels,reflectingtheinfluenceofthehighermodes.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 138
Again,thebeamshearsarelargerintheupperlevelswhencomputedusingresponse
history.Aswithdrift andstoryshear,thisisattributedtohighermodeeffectsaccentuated
byhighspectralaccelerationsatlowerperiods(whencomparedtothetargetspectrum).
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 139
Titleslide.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 140
Slidecomparingrelativeeffortofvariousmethodsofanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 141
Slidedescribesaccuracyinanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 142
ThesearetheauthorsopinionanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofASCEorBSSC.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 143
Thisslide isintendedtoinitiatequestionsfortheparticipants.
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 144
4 StructuralAnalysis1 1
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
StructuralAnalysis:Example1
TwelvestoryMomentResistingSteelFrame
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4
Structural Analysis
Finley Charney, Adrian Tola Tola, and Ozgur Atlayan

Structural Analysis, Part1 1
Analysisofa12StorySteelBuilding
InStockton,California
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 2
BuildingDescription
12Storiesabovegrade,onelevelbelowgrade
SignificantConfigurationIrregularities
SpecialSteelMomentResistingPerimeterFrame
IntendedUseisOfficeBuilding
SituatedonSiteClassCSoils
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 3
4 StructuralAnalysis1 2
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
AnalysisDescription
EquivalentLateralForceAnalysis(Section12.8)
ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis(Section
12.9)
LinearandNonlinearResponseHistoryAnalysis
(Chapter16)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 4
Note:ThemajorityofpresentationisbasedonrequirementsprovidedbyASCE705.
ASCE710andthe2009NEHRPProvisions(FEMAP750)willbereferredtoasapplicable.
OverviewofPresentation
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysistypes
OverviewofEquivalentLateralForceanalysis
OverviewofModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
OverviewofModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonofResults
SummaryandConclusions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 5
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysis
types
OverviewofEquivalentLateralForceanalysis
OverviewofModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
OverviewofModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonofResults
SummaryandConclusions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
OverviewofPresentation
Structural Analysis, Part1 6
4 StructuralAnalysis1 3
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
A A
B
B
PerimeterMoment
Frame
GravityOnlyColumns
PlanatFirstLevelAboveGrade
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 7
AboveLevel5 AboveLevel9
PerimeterMoment
Frame
PerimeterMoment
Frame
GravityOnlyColumns
PlansThroughUpperLevels
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 8
ThickenedSlabs
SectionAA
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 9
4 StructuralAnalysis1 4
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
SectionBB
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 10
3DWireFrameViewfromSAP2000
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 11
PerspectiveViewsofStructure(SAP2000)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 12
4 StructuralAnalysis1 5
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
OverviewofPresentation
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysis
types
OverviewofEquivalentLateralForceanalysis
OverviewofModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
OverviewofModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonofResults
SummaryandConclusions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 13
SeismicLoadAnalysis:BasicSteps
1. DetermineOccupancyCategory(Table11)
2. DetermineGroundMotionParameters:
S
S
andS
1
USGSUtilityorMapsfromCh.22)
F
a
andF
v
(Tables11.41and11.42)
S
DS
andS
D1
(Eqns.11.43and11.44)
3. DetermineImportanceFactor(Table11.51)
4. DetermineSeismicDesignCategory(Section11.6)
5. SelectStructuralSystem(Table12.21)
6. EstablishDiaphragmBehavior(Section11.3.1)
7. EvaluateConfigurationIrregularities(Section12.3.2)
8. DetermineMethodofAnalysis(Table12.61)
9. DetermineScopeofAnalysis[2D,3D](Section12.7.2)
10. EstablishModelingParameters
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 14
OccupancyCategory=II(Table11)
DetermineOccupancyCategory
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 15
4 StructuralAnalysis1 6
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
S
S
=1.25g
S
1
=0.40g
GroundMotionParametersforStockton
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 16
F
a
=1.0
F
a
=1.4
DeterminingSiteCoefficients
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 17
DeterminingDesignSpectralAccelerations
S
DS
=(2/3)F
a
S
S
=(2/3)x1.0x1.25=0.833
S
D1
=(2/3)F
v
S
1
=(2/3)x1.4x0.40=0.373
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 18
4 StructuralAnalysis1 7
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
DetermineImportanceFactor,
SeismicDesignCategory
SeismicDesignCategory=D
I=1.0
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 19
SelectStructuralSystem(Table12.21)
Buildingheight(abovegrade)=18+11(12.5)=155.5ft
SelectSpecialSteelMomentFrame:R=8,C
d
=5.5,O
0
=3
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 20
EstablishDiaphragmBehavior
andModelingRequirements
12.3.1DiaphragmFlexibility.
Thestructuralanalysisshallconsidertherelativestiffnessofdiaphragms
andtheverticalelementsoftheseismicforceresistingsystem.Unlessa
diaphragmcanbeidealizedaseitherflexibleorrigidinaccordancewith
Sections12.3.1.1,12.3.1.2,or12.3.1.3,thestructuralanalysisshall
explicitlyincludeconsiderationofthestiffnessofthediaphragm(i.e.,
semirigidmodelingassumption).
12.3.1.2RigidDiaphragmCondition.
Diaphragmsofconcreteslabsorconcretefilledmetaldeckwithspan
todepthratiosof3orlessinstructuresthathavenohorizontal
irregularities arepermittedtobeidealizedasrigid.
Duetohorizontalirregularities(e.g.reentrantcorners)thediaphragms
mustbemodeledassemirigid.ThiswillbedonebyusingShell
elementsintheSAP2000Analysis.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 21
4 StructuralAnalysis1 8
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
X
?
?
DetermineConfigurationIrregularities
HorizontalIrregularities
Irregularity2occursonlowerlevels.Irregularity3ispossiblebutneednotbe
evaluatedbecauseithassameconsequencesasirregularity3.Torsional
Irregularitieswillbeassessedlater.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 22
X
X
X
X
DetermineConfigurationIrregularities
VerticalIrregularities
Irregularities2and3occurduetosetbacks.Softstoryandweakstoryirregularities
arehighlyunlikelyforthissystemandarenotevaluated.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 23
Systemisnotregular
Verticalirregularities
2and3exist
Notapplicable
SelectionofMethodofAnalysis(ASCE705)
ELFisnotpermitted:
MustuseModalResponseSpectrumorResponseHistoryAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 24
4 StructuralAnalysis1 9
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
SelectionofMethodofAnalysis(ASCE710)
ELFisnotpermitted:
MustuseModalResponseSpectrumorResponseHistoryAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 25
OverviewofPresentation
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysis
types
OverviewofEquivalentLateralForceanalysis
OverviewofModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
OverviewofModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonofResults
SummaryandConclusions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 26
CommentsonuseofELFforThisSystem
ELFisNOTallowedastheDesignBasisAnalysis.
However,ELF(oraspectsofELF)mustbeusedfor:
Preliminaryanalysisanddesign
Evaluationoftorsionirregularitiesand
amplification
Evaluationofsystemredundancyfactors
ComputingPDeltaEffects
ScalingResponseSpectrumandResponseHistory
results
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 27
4 StructuralAnalysis1 10
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
DetermineScopeofAnalysis
12.7.3StructuralModeling.
Amathematicalmodelofthestructureshallbeconstructedfor
thepurposeofdeterminingmemberforcesandstructure
displacementsresultingfromappliedloadsandanyimposed
displacementsorPDeltaeffects.
Themodelshallincludethestiffnessandstrengthofelements
thataresignificanttothedistributionofforcesanddeformations
inthestructureandrepresentthespatialdistributionofmass
andstiffnessthroughoutthestructure.
Note:PDeltaeffectsshouldnotbeincludeddirectlyintheanalysis.
TheyareconsideredindirectlyinSection12.8.7
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 28
DetermineScopeofAnalysis
(Continued)
Continuationof12.7.3:
StructuresthathavehorizontalstructuralirregularityType1a,1b,4,or
5ofTable12.31shallbeanalyzedusinga3Drepresentation.
Wherea3Dmodelisused,aminimumofthreedynamicdegreesof
freedomconsistingoftranslationintwoorthogonalplandirections
andtorsionalrotationabouttheverticalaxisshallbeincludedateach
levelofthestructure.
Wherethediaphragmshavenotbeenclassifiedasrigidorflexiblein
accordancewithSection12.3.1,themodelshallincluderepresentation
ofthediaphragmsstiffnesscharacteristicsandsuchadditional
dynamicdegreesoffreedomasarerequiredtoaccountforthe
participationofthediaphragminthestructuresdynamicresponse.
Analysisofstructuremustbein3D,anddiaphragmsmustbemodeled
assemirigid
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 29
EstablishModelingParameters
Continuationof12.7.3:
Inaddition,themodelshallcomplywiththefollowing:
a) Stiffnesspropertiesofconcreteandmasonryelements
shallconsidertheeffectsofcrackedsections.
b) Forsteelmomentframesystems,thecontributionof
panelzonedeformationstooverallstorydriftshallbe
included.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 30
4 StructuralAnalysis1 11
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
ModelingParametersusedinAnalysis
1)Thefloordiaphragmwasmodeledwithshellelements,providing
nearlyrigidbehaviorinplane.
2)Flexural,shear,axial,andtorsionaldeformationswereincludedinall
columnsandbeams.
3)Beamcolumnjointsweremodeledusingcenterlinedimensions.
Thisapproximatelyaccountsfordeformationsinthepanelzone.
4)Sectionpropertiesforthegirderswerebasedonbaresteel,ignoring
compositeaction.Thisisareasonableassumptioninlightofthefact
thatmostofthegirdersareontheperimeterofthebuildingandare
underreversecurvature.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 31
ModelingParametersusedinAnalysis
(continued)
5)Exceptforthoselateralloadresistingcolumnsthatterminateat
Levels5and9,allcolumnsofthelateralloadresistingsystemwere
assumedtobefixedattheirbase.
6)Thebasementwallsandgradelevelslabwereexplicitlymodeled
using4nodeshellelements.Thiswasnecessarytoallowtheinterior
columnstocontinuethroughthebasementlevel.Noadditionallateral
restraintwasappliedatthegradelevel,thusthebasementlevelacts
asaverystifffirstfloorofthestructure.Thisbasementlevelwasnot
relevantfortheELFanalysis,butdidinfluencetheMRSandMRH
analysisasdescribedinlatersectionsofthisexample
7)PDeltaeffectswerenotincludedinthemathematicalmodel.These
effectsareevaluatedseparatelyusingtheproceduresprovidedin
section12.8.7oftheStandard.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 32

EquivalentLateralForceAnalysis
1. ComputeSeismicWeight,W (Sec.12.7.2)
2. ComputeApproximatePeriodofVibrationT
a
(Sec.12.8.2.1)
3. ComputeUpperBoundPeriodofVibration,T=C
u
T
a
(Sec.12.8.2)
4. ComputeAnalyticalNaturalperiods
5. ComputeSeismicBaseShear(Sec.12.8.1)
6. ComputeEquivalentLateralForces(Sec.12.8.3)
7. ComputeTorsionalAmplificationFactors(Sec.12.8.4.3)
8. DetermineOrthogonalLoadingRequirements(Sec.12.8)
9. ComputeRedundancyFactor(Sec.12.3.4)
10. PerformStructuralAnalysis
11. CheckDriftandPDeltaRequirements(Sec.12.9.4and12.9.6)
12. ReviseStructureinNecessaryandRepeatSteps111
[asappropriate]
13. DetermineDesignLevelMemberForces(Sec.12.4)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 33
4 StructuralAnalysis1 12
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
NotesonComputingthePeriodofVibration
T
a
(Eqn.12.87)isanapproximatelowerboundperiod,andis
basedonthemeasuredresponseofbuildingsinhighseismic
regions.
T=C
u
T
a
isalsoapproximate,butissomewhatmoreaccurate
thanT
a
alonebecauseitisbasedonthebestfitofthe
measuredresponse,andisadjustedforlocalseismicity.Both
oftheseadjustmentsarecontainedintheC
u
term.
C
u
T
a
canonlybeusedifananalyticallycomputedperiod,
calledT
computed
herein,isavailablefromacomputeranalysis
ofthestructure.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 34
FromTable12.8.2:
C
t
=0.028
x=0.80
h
n
=18+11(12.5)=155.5ft
T
a
= 0.028(155.5)
0.8
= 1.59sec
T
a
= C
t
h
n
x
AppliesinBothDirections
UsingEmpiricalFormulastoDetermineT
a
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 35
AppliesinBothDirections
T = 1.4(1.59) = 2.23sec
S
D1
=0.373
GivesC
u
=1.4
AdjustedEmpiricalPeriodT=C
u
T
a
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 36
4 StructuralAnalysis1 13
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Buildinghasn Levels
UseofRayleighAnalysistoDetermineT
computed
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 37
F
i o
i
T
computed
=
2t
e
computed
e
computed
=
g o
i
F
i
i =1
n

o
i
2
W
i
i =1
n

W
i
UseofRayleighAnalysistoDetermineT
computed
XDirectionT
computed
=2.85sec.
YDirectionT
computed
=2.56sec.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 38


Mode1 T=2.87sec

Mode2: T:2.60sec

Ku = MuO
2
O =
Diagonalmatrixcontainingcircularfrequencies e
PeriodsComputedUsingEigenvalueAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 39
u=
ModeShapeMatrix
4 StructuralAnalysis1 14
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
RangeofPeriodsComputedforThisExample
T
a
=1.59sec
C
u
T
a
=2.23sec
T
computed
=2.87secinXdirection
2.60secinYdirection
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 40
PeriodsofVibrationforComputing
SeismicBaseShear
(Eqns 12.81,12.83,and12.84)
ifT
computed
isnotavailableuseT
a
ifT
computed
isavailable,then:
ifT
computed
>C
u
T
a
useC
u
T
a
ifT
a
<=T
computed
<=C
u
T
a
useT
computed
ifT
computed
<T
a
useT
a
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 41
AreaandLineWeightDesignations
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 42
4 StructuralAnalysis1 15
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Table 4.1-1 AreaWeightsContributingtoMassesonFloor Diaphragms
AreaWeight Designation
MassType

A B C D E
SlabandDeck(psf)
Structure(psf)
CeilingandMechanical (psf)
Partition(psf)
Roofing(psf)
Special (psf)
Total (psf)
50
20
15
10
0
0
95
75
20
15
10
0
0
120
50
20
15
0
15
0
100
75
20
15
0
15
60
185
75
50
15
10
0
25
175
SeeFigure4.1-4for masslocation. 1.0psf =47.9N/m
2
.


Table 4.1-2 LineWeightsContributingtoMassesonFloor Diaphragms
LineWeight Designation
MassType
1 2 3 4 5
FromStoryAbove(plf)
FromStoryBelow(plf)
Total (plf)
60.0
93.8
153.8
93.8
93.8
187.6
93.8
0.0
93.8
93.8
135.0
228.8
135.0
1350.0
1485.0
SeeFigure4.1-4for masslocation. 1.0plf =14.6N/m.

AreaandLineWeightValues
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 43

Table 4.1-3 Floor Weight, Floor Mass, MassMoment of Inertia, andCenter of MassLocations
Level
Weight
(kips)
Mass
(kip-sec
2/
in.)
MassMoment of
Inertia(in.-kip-
sec
2/
/radian)
X Distanceto
C.M.
(in.)
Y Distanceto
C.M.
(in.)
R
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
G
E
1657
1596
1596
1596
3403
2331
2331
2331
4320
3066
3066
3097
6525
36912
4.287
4.130
4.130
4.130
8.807
6.032
6.032
6.032
11.19
7.935
7.935
8.015
16.89

2.072x10
6
2.017x10
6
2.017x10
6
2.017x10
6
5.309x10
6
3.703x10
6
3.703x10
6
3.703x10
6
9.091x10
6
6.356x10
6
6.356x10
6
6.437x10
6
1.503x10
7


1260
1260
1260
1260
1638
1553
1553
1553
1160
1261
1261
1262
1265

1050
1050
1050
1050
1175
1145
1145
1145
1206
1184
1184
1181
1149


TotalBuildingWeight=36,912k.Weightabovegrade=30,394k.
WeightsatIndividualLevels
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 44
V = C
S
W
C
S
=
S
DS
R/I
=
0.833
8/1
= 0.104
(12.82)
(12.83)
(12.85)
Controls
kips
(12.81)
CalculationofELFBaseShear
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 45
C
S
=
S
D1
T(R/I)
=
0.373
2.23(8/1)
= 0.021
C
S
= 0.044S
DS
I = 0.044(0.833)(1) = 0.0307
V = 0.037(30394) =1124
4 StructuralAnalysis1 16
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
C
u
T
a
=2.23sec
C
s
=0.044S
DS
I=0.037(controls)
C
s
=0.021fromEqn.12.83
R
effective
=(0.021/0.037)x 8=4.54
ConceptofR
effective
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 46
IssuesRelatedtoPeriodofVibrationandDrift
12.8.6.1 Minimum Base Shear for Computing
Drift
The elastic analysis of the seismic force-resisting
system for computing drift shall be made using the
prescribed seismic design forces of Section 12.8.
EXCEPTION: Eq. 12.8-5 need not be considered for
computing drift
12.8.6.2 Period for Computing Drift
For determining compliance with the story drift limits
of Section 12.12.1, it is permitted to determine the
elastic drifts, (xe), using seismic design forces based
on the computed fundamental period of the structure
without the upper limit (CuTa) specified in Section
12.8.2.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 47
C
u
T
a
=2.23sec
T=2.60sec T=2.87sec
Use DONTUse
UsingEqns.12.83or12.85forComputingELF
Displacements
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 48
4 StructuralAnalysis1 17
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
C
s
=
0.5S
1
(R/I)
Eqn.12.86,applicableonlywhenS
1
>=0.6g
WhatifEquation12.86had
ControlledBaseShear?
Thisequationrepresentsthetrueresponse
spectrumshapefornearfieldgroundmotions.
Thus,thelateralforcesdevelopedonthebasisof
thisequationmustbeusedfordetermining
componentdesignforcesand displacementsused
forcomputingdrift.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 49
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
0.044S
DS
I
e
SeismicBaseShear
Drift
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
0.044S
DS
I
e
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
0.044S
DS
I
e
WhenEquation12.85MayControl
SeismicBaseShear(S
1
<0.6g)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 50
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
S
DS
/(R/I
e
)
SeismicBaseShear
Drift
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
C
u
T
a
C
computed
C
s
S
DS
/(R/I
e
) S
DS
/(R/I
e
)
WhenEquation12.86MayControl
SeismicBaseShear(S
1
>=0.6g)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 51
4 StructuralAnalysis1 18
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
F
x
= C
vx
V
C
vs
=
w
x
h
k
w
i
h
i
k
i=1
n

(12.811)
(12.812)
k
T
0 0.5 2.5
1.0
2.0
T=2.23
k=1.86
CalculationofELFForces
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 52

Table 4.1-4 Equivalent Lateral Forcesfor BuildingRespondinginX andY Directions
Level
x
wx
(kips)
hx
(ft)
wxhx
k
Cvx
Fx
(kips)
Vx
(kips)
Mx
(ft-kips)
R 1657 155.5 20272144 0.1662 186.9 186.9 2336
12 1596 143.0 16700697 0.1370 154.0 340.9 6597
11 1596 130.5 14081412 0.1155 129.9 470.8 12482
10 1596 118.0 11670590 0.0957 107.6 578.4 19712
9 3403 105.5 20194253 0.1656 186.3 764.7 29271
8 2331 93.0 10933595 0.0897 100.8 865.5 40090
7 2331 80.5 8353175 0.0685 77.0 942.5 51871
6 2331 68.0 6097775 0.0500 56.2 998.8 64356
5 4324 55.5 7744477 0.0635 71.4 1070.2 77733
4 3066 43.0 3411857 0.0280 31.5 1101.7 91505
3 3066 30.5 1798007 0.0147 16.6 1118.2 103372
2 3097 18.0 679242 0.0056 6.3 1124.5 120694
E 30394 - 121937234 1.00 1124.5
Valuesincolumn4basedonexponent k=1.865. 1.0ft =0.3048m, 1.0kip=4.45kN.

CalculationofELFForces(continued)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 53
InherentandAccidentalTorsion
12.8.4.1InherentTorsion.Fordiaphragmsthatarenot
flexible,thedistributionoflateralforcesateachlevelshall
considertheeffectoftheinherenttorsionalmoment,M
t
,
resultingfromeccentricitybetweenthelocationsofthe
centerofmassandthecenterofrigidity.Forflexible
diaphragms,thedistributionofforcestothevertical
elementsshallaccountforthepositionanddistributionof
themassessupported.
Inherenttorsioneffectsareautomaticallyincludedin3D
structuralanalysis,andmemberforcesassociatedwithsuch
effectsneednotbeseparatedoutfromtheanalysis.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 54
4 StructuralAnalysis1 19
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
InherentandAccidentalTorsion
(continued)
12.8.4.2AccidentalTorsion.Wherediaphragmsarenotflexible,the
designshallincludetheinherenttorsionalmoment(M
t
)(kiporkN)
resultingfromthelocationofthestructuremassesplustheaccidental
torsionalmoments(M
ta
)(kiporkN)causedbyassumeddisplacement
ofthecenterofmasseachwayfromitsactuallocationbyadistance
equalto5percentofthedimensionofthestructureperpendicularto
thedirectionoftheappliedforces.
Whereearthquakeforcesareappliedconcurrentlyintwoorthogonal
directions,therequired5percentdisplacementofthecenterofmass
neednotbeappliedinbothoftheorthogonaldirectionsatthesame
time,butshallbeappliedinthedirectionthatproducesthegreater
effect.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 55
InherentandAccidentalTorsion
(continued)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 56
DetermineConfigurationIrregularities
HorizontalIrregularities
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 57
4 StructuralAnalysis1 20
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
ForcesinKips
ApplicationofEquivalentLateralForces
(XDirection)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 58
ForcesinKips
ApplicationofTorsionalForces
(UsingXDirectionLateralForces)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 59
StationsforMonitoringDriftfor
TorsionIrregularityCalculations
withELFForcesAppliedinXDirection
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 60
4 StructuralAnalysis1 21
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
ResultsofTorsionalIrregularityCalculations
ForELFForcesAppliedinXDirection
Result:ThereisnotaTorsionalIrregularityforLoadingintheXDirection
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 61
ResultsofTorsionalIrregularityCalculations
ForELFForcesAppliedinYDirection
Result:ThereisaminorTorsionalIrregularityforLoadingintheYDirection
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 62
ResultsofTorsionalAmplificationCalculations
ForELFForcesAppliedinYDirection
(XDirectionResultsareSimilar)
Result:AmplificationofAccidentalTorsionNeednotbeConsidered
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 63
4 StructuralAnalysis1 22
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
DriftandDeformation
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 64
Notstrictly
Followedinthis
Exampleduetovery
minortorsion
irregularity
DriftandDeformation(Continued)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 65
ASCE705(ASCE710)Similar
ASCE710
DriftandDeformation(Continued)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 66
4 StructuralAnalysis1 23
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
C
d
Amplifieddriftbasedonforces
fromEq.12.85
Modifiedforforcesbased
onEq.12.83


Table 4.1-7 ELF Drift for BuildingRespondinginX Direction
Level
1
Total drift from
SAP2000
(in.)
2
Storydrift from
SAP2000
(in.)
3
Amplifiedstory
drift
(in.)
4
Amplifieddrift
times0.568
(in.)
5
Allowabledrift
(in.)
R 6.67 0.32 1.74 0.99 3.00
12 6.35 0.45 2.48 1.41 3.00
11 5.90 0.56 3.07 1.75 3.00
10 5.34 0.62 3.39 1.92 3.00
9 4.73 0.58 3.20 1.82 3.00
8 4.15 0.63 3.47 1.97 3.00
7 3.52 0.64 3.54 2.01 3.00
6 2.87 0.63 3.47 1.97 3.00
5 2.24 0.54 2.95 1.67 3.00
4 1.71 0.54 2.97 1.69 3.00
3 1.17 0.53 2.90 1.65 3.00
2 0.64 0.64 3.51 2.00 4.32
Column4adjustsfor Standard Eq. 12.8-3(for drift) vs12.8-5(for strength).
1.0in. =25.4mm.

ComputedDriftsinXDirection
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 67
Table 4.1-8 ELF Drift for BuildingRespondinginY Direction
Level
1
Total drift from
SAP2000
(in.)
2
Story drift from
SAP2000
(in.)
3
Amplifiedstory
drift
(in.)
4
Amplifieddrift
times0.568
(in.)
5
Allowabledrift
(in.)
R 4.86 0.15 0.81 0.46 3.00
12 4.71 0.24 1.30 0.74 3.00
11 4.47 0.30 1.64 0.93 3.00
10 4.17 0.36 1.96 1.11 3.00
9 3.82 0.37 2.05 1.16 3.00
8 3.44 0.46 2.54 1.44 3.00
7 2.98 0.48 2.64 1.50 3.00
6 2.50 0.48 2.62 1.49 3.00
5 2.03 0.45 2.49 1.42 3.00
4 1.57 0.48 2.66 1.51 3.00
3 1.09 0.48 2.64 1.50 3.00
2 0.61 0.61 3.35 1.90 4.32
Column4adjustsfor Standard Eq. 12.8-3(for drift) versusEq. 12.8-5(for strength).
1.0in. =25.4mm.

C
d
Amplifieddriftbasedonforces
fromEq.12.85
Modifiedforforcesbased
onEq.12.83
ComputedDriftsinYDirection
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 68
u =
P
x
AI
V
x
h
sx
C
d
Eq.12.816*
u
max
=
0.5
|C
d
Eq.12.817
ThedriftA inEq.12.816isdrift
fromELFanalysis,multipliedbyC
d
anddividedbyI.
Theterm| inEq.12.817is
essentiallytheinverseofthe
Computedstoryoverstrength.
*TheimportancefactorI was inadvertentlyleftoutofEq.12.816in ASCE705.Itis properlyincluded in ASCE710.
PDeltaEffects
PDeltaEffectsformodalresponsespectrumanalysisandmodalresponse
historyanalysisarecheckedusingtheELFprocedureindicatedonthisslide.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 69
4 StructuralAnalysis1 24
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Table 4.1-11 Computationof P-DeltaEffectsfor X DirectionResponse
Level hsx (in.) (in.) PD (kips) PL (kips) PT (kips) PX (kips) VX(kips) uX
R 150 1.74 1656.5 315.0 1971.5 1971.5 186.9 0.022
12 150 2.48 1595.8 315.0 1910.8 3882.3 340.9 0.034
11 150 3.07 1595.8 315.0 1910.8 5793.1 470.8 0.046
10 150 3.39 1595.8 315.0 1910.8 7703.9 578.4 0.055
9 150 3.20 3403.0 465.0 3868.0 11571.9 764.7 0.059
8 150 3.47 2330.8 465.0 2795.8 14367.7 865.8 0.070
7 150 3.54 2330.8 465.0 2795.8 17163.5 942.5 0.078
6 150 3.47 2330.8 465.0 2795.8 19959.3 998.8 0.084
5 150 2.95 4323.8 615.0 4938.8 24898.1 1070.2 0.083
4 150 2.97 3066.1 615.0 3681.1 28579.2 1101.7 0.093
3 150 2.90 3066.1 615.0 3681.1 32260.3 1118.2 0.101
2 216 3.51 3097.0 615.0 3712.0 35972.3 1124.5 0.095
1.0in. =25.4mm, 1.0kip=4.45kN.

Marginallyexceedslimitof0.091using|=1.0.u wouldbe
lessthanu
max
ifactual| werecomputedandused.
PDeltaEffects
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 70
OrthogonalLoadingRequirements
12.5.4 Seismic Design Categories D through F. Structures
assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F shall, as a
minimum, conform to the requirements of Section 12.5.3.
12.5.3 Seismic Design Category C. Loading applied to
structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C shall, as a
minimum, conform to the requirements of Section 12.5.2 for
Seismic Design Category B and the requirements of this section.
Structures that have horizontal structural irregularity Type 5 in
Table 12.3-1 shall the following procedure [for ELF Analysis]:
ContinuedonNextSlide
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 71
OrthogonalLoadingRequirements
(continued)
Orthogonal Combination Procedure. The structure shall
be analyzed using the equivalent lateral force analysis
procedure of Section 12.8 with the loading applied
independently in any two orthogonal directions and the
most critical load effect due to direction of application of
seismic forces on the structure is permitted to be assumed
to be satisfied if components and their foundations are
designed for the following combination of prescribed loads:
100 percent of the forces for one direction plus 30
percent of the forces for the perpendicular direction;
the combination requiring the maximum component
strength shall be used.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 72
4 StructuralAnalysis1 25
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
ASCE705HorizontalIrregularityType5
Nonparallel Systems-Irregularity is defined to exist where the
vertical lateral force-resisting elements are not parallel to or
symmetric about the major orthogonal axes of the seismic
forceresisting system.
The system in question clearly has nonsymmetrical lateral force
resisting elements so a Type 5 Irregularity exists, and orthogonal
combinations are required. Thus, 100%-30% procedure given
on the previous slide is used.
Note: The words or symmetric about have been removed from the
definition of a Type 5 Horizontal Irregularity in ASCE 7-10. Thus, the
system under consideration does not have a Type 5 irregularity in
ASCE 7-10.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 73
100%Eccentric
30%Centered
16BasicLoadCombinationsusedinELF
Analysis(IncludingTorsion)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 74
1.2D+1.0E +0.5L +0.2S
0.9D+1.0E +1.6H
E = E
h
+ E
v
E
h
= Q
E
E
v
= 0.2S
DS
( =1.0)
(S
DS
=0.833g)
CombinationofLoadEffects
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 75
4 StructuralAnalysis1 26
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Structure
isNOTregular
atall
Levels.
}Seenextslide
RedundancyFactor
12.3.4.2 Redundancy Factor, , for Seismic Design
Categories D through F. For structures assigned to
Seismic Design Category D, E, or F, shall equal 1.3
unless one of the following two conditions is met, whereby
is permitted to be taken as 1.0:
a) Each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base
shear
in the direction of interest shall comply with Table 12.3-
3.
b) Structures that are regular in plan at all levels
provided that the seismic forceresisting systems
consist of at least two bays of seismic forceresisting
perimeter framing on each
side of the structure in each orthogonal direction at
each
story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear.
The
number of bays for a shear wall shall be calculated as
the
length of shear wall divided by the story height or two
times
th l th f h ll di id d b th t h i ht f
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 76
Redundancy,Continued
TABLE 12.3-3 REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH STORY
RESISTING MORE THAN 35% OF THE BASE SHEAR
Moment Frames Loss of moment resistance at the beam-to-
column connections at both ends of a single beamwould not
result in more than a 33% reduction in story strength, nor does
the resulting systemhave an extreme torsional irregularity
(horizontal structural irregularity Type 1b).
Itcanbeseenbyinspectionthatremovalofonebeaminthisstructurewill
notresultinaresultinasignificantlossof strengthorleadtoanextreme
torsionalirregularity. Hence=1forthissystem.(ThisisapplicabletoELF,
MRS,andMRHanalyses).
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 77
8.99 10.3 10.3
R-12
17.3 18.9 19.0
12-11
27.7 28.1 29.5
11-10
33.4 33.1 35.7
10-9
34.8 34.7 32.2 30.3 13.2
9-8
36.4 35.9 33.9 37.8 23.7
8-7
41.2 40.1 38.4 41.3 25.8
7-6
43.0 40.6 39.3 41.7 26.4
6-5
14.1 33.1 33.8 36.5 35.5 37.2 24.9
5-4
24.1 37.9 32.0 34.6 33.9 34.9 23.9
4-3
24.1 37.0 33.3 35.1 34.6 35.4 24.6
3-2
22.9 36.9 34.1 35.3 34.9 35.9 23.3
2 - G



SeismicShearsinBeamsofFrame1fromELF
Analysis
SeismicShearsinGirders,kips,ExcludingAccidentalTorsion
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 78
4 StructuralAnalysis1 27
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
0.56 0.56 0.58
R-12
1.13 1.13 1.16
12-11
1.87 1.77 1.89
11-10
2.26 2.12 2.34
10-9
2.07 1.97 1.89 1.54 0.76
9-8
1.89 1.81 1.72 1.84 1.36
8-7
2.17 2.05 1.99 2.06 1.49
7-6
2.29 2.09 2.04 2.09 1.51
6-5
0.59 1.33 1.65 1.72 1.68 1.72 1.27
5-4
1.04 1.45 1.34 1.41 1.39 1.42 1.07
4-3
1.07 1.51 1.45 1.48 1.45 1.47 1.10
3-2
1.04 1.58 1.52 1.54 1.53 1.56 1.06
2 - G



SeismicShearsinBeamsofFrame1fromELF
Analysis
SeismicShearsinGirders,kips,AccidentalTorsionOnly
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 79
OverviewofPresentation
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysis
types
OverviewofEquivalentLateralForceanalysis
OverviewofModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
OverviewofModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonofResults
SummaryandConclusions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 80
ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
Part1:Analysis
1. DevelopElastic responsespectrum(Sec.11.4.5)
2. Developadequatefiniteelementmodel(Sec.12.7.3)
3. Computemodalfrequencies,effectivemass,andmodeshapes
4. Determinenumberofmodestouseinanalysis(Sec.12.9.1)
5. Performmodalanalysisineachdirection,combiningeach
directions
resultsbyuseofCQCmethod(Sec.12.9.3)
6. ComputeEquivalentLateralForces(ELF)ineachdirection(Sec.
12.8.1
through12.8.3)
7. Determineaccidentaltorsions(Sec12.8.4.2),amplifiedifnecessary
(Sec.12.8.4.3)
8. PerformstaticTorsionanalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 81
4 StructuralAnalysis1 28
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
Part2:DriftandPDeltaforSystemsWithout
TorsionIrregularity
1. MultiplyalldynamicdisplacementsbyC
d
/R (Sec.12.9.2).
2. ComputeSRSSofinterstorydriftsbasedondisplacementsat
centerof
massateachlevel.
3. CheckdriftLimitsinaccordancewithSec.12.12andTable12.21.
Note:driftLimitsforSpecialMomentFramesinSDCDandabove
mustbedividedbytheRedundancyFactor(Sec.12.12.1.1)
4. PerformPDeltaanalysisusingEquivalentLateralForceprocedure
5. Revisestructureifnecessary
Note:whencentersofmassofadjacentlevelsarenotvertically
alignedthedriftsshouldbebasedonthedifferencebetweenthe
displacementattheupperlevelandthedisplacementofthepointon
thelevelbelowwhichistheverticalprojectionofthecenterofmass
oftheupperlevel.(ThisprocedureisincludedinASCE710.)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 82
ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
Part2:DriftandPDeltaforSystemsWith
TorsionIrregularity
1. MultiplyalldynamicdisplacementsbyC
d
/R (Sec.12.9.2).
2. ComputeSRSSofstorydriftsbasedondisplacementsatthe
edgeofthebuilding
3. Usingresultsfromthestatictorsionanalysis,determinethedrifts
atthesamelocationusedinStep2above.Torsionaldrifts
maybebasedonthecomputedperiodofvibration(withoutthe
C
u
T
a
limit).Torsionaldriftsshouldbebasedoncomputed
displacements
multipliedbyC
d
anddividedbyI.
4. AdddriftsfromSteps2and3andcheckdriftlimitsinTable12.12
1.
Note:DriftlimitsforspecialmomentframesinSDCDandabove
mustbedividedbytheRedundancyFactor(Sec.12.12.1.1)
5. PerformPDeltaanalysisusingEquivalentLateralForceprocedure
6. Revisestructureifnecessary
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 83
ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
Part3:ObtainingMemberDesignForces
1. MultiplyalldynamicforcequantitiesbyI/R(Sec.12.9.2)
2. Determinedynamicbaseshearsineachdirection
3. Computescalefactorsforeachdirection(Sec.12.9.4)andapplyto
respectivememberforceresultsineachdirection
4. Combineresultsfromtwoorthogonaldirections,ifnecessary(Sec.
12.5)
5. Addmemberforcesfromstatictorsionanalysis(Sec.12.9.5).
Note
thatstatictorsionforcesmaybescaledbyfactorsobtainedinStep
3
6. Determineredundancyfactor(Sec.12.3.4)
7. Combineseismicandgravityforces(Sec.12.4)
8. Designanddetailstructuralcomponents
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 84
4 StructuralAnalysis1 29
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Mode1 T=2.87sec
(1
st
ModeTranslationX)

Mode2: T:2.60sec
(1
st
ModeTranslationY)

Mode3 T=1.57sec
(1
st
ModeTorsion)

Mode4 T=1.15sec
(2
nd
ModeX)

ModeShapesforFirstFourModes
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 85
ModeShapesforModes58
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 86
NumberofModestoInclude
inResponseSpectrumAnalysis
12.9.1 Number of Modes
An analysis shall be conducted to determine
the natural modes of vibration for the structure.
The analysis shall include a sufficient number
of modes to obtain a combined modal mass
participation of at least 90 percent of the actual
mass in each of the orthogonal horizontal
directions of response considered by the
model.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 87
4 StructuralAnalysis1 30
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Table 4.1-13 ComputedPeriodsandEffectiveMassFactors (Lower Modes)
EffectiveMassFactor, [AccumMassFactor]
Mode

Period
(seconds) X Translation Y Translation Z Rotation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2.87
2.60
1.57
1.15
0.975
0.705
0.682
0.573
0.434
0.387
0.6446[0.64]
0.0003[0.65]
0.0035 [0.65]
0.1085[0.76]
0.0000[0.76]
0.0263[0.78]
0.0056[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0129[0.80]
0.0048[0.81]
0.0003[0.00]
0.6804[0.68]
0.0005[0.68]
0.0000[0.68]
0.0939[0.78]
0.0000[0.78]
0.0006[0.79]
0.0188[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0028[0.00]
0.0162[0.02]
0.5806[0.60]
0.0000[0.60]
0.0180[0.62]
0.0271[0.64]
0.0687[0.71]
0.0123[0.73]
0.0084[0.73]
0.0191[0.75]
11 0.339 0.0000[0.81] 0.0193[0.81] 0.0010[0.75]
12 0.300 0.0089[0.82] 0.0000[0.81] 0.0003[0.75]

EffectiveMassesforFirst12Modes
12ModesAppearstobeInsufficient
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 88
Table 4.1-14 ComputedPeriodsandEffectiveMassFactors (Higher Modes)
EffectiveMassFactor, [AccumEffectiveMass]
Mode

Period
(seconds) X Translation Y Translation Z Rotation
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
0.0693
0.0673
0.0671
0.0671
0.0669
0.0663
0.0646
0.0629
0.0621
0.0609
0.0000[0.83]
0.0000[0.83]
0.0000[0.83]
0.0000[0.83]
0.0000[0.83]
0.0000[0.83]
0.0000[0.83]
0.0000[0.83]
0.0008[0.83]
0.0014[0.83]
0.0000[0.83]
0.0000[0.83]
0.0354[0.86]
0.0044[0.87]
0.1045[0.97]
0.0000[0.97]
0.0000[0.97]
0.0000[0.97]
0.0010[0.97]
0.0009[0.97]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
118 0.0575 0.1474[0.98] 0.0000[0.97] 0.0035[0.80]
119 0.0566 0.0000[0.98] 0.0000[0.97] 0.0000[0.80]

VirtuallytheSame
as12Modes
EffectiveMassesforModes108119
118ModesRequiredtoCaptureDynamicResponseofStiffBasement
LevelandGradeLevelSlab
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 89
Table 4.1-13 ComputedPeriodsandEffectiveMassFactors (Lower Modes)
EffectiveMassFactor, [AccumMassFactor]
Mode

Period
(seconds) X Translation Y Translation Z Rotation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2.87
2.60
1.57
1.15
0.975
0.705
0.682
0.573
0.434
0.387
0.6446[0.64]
0.0003[0.65]
0.0035 [0.65]
0.1085[0.76]
0.0000[0.76]
0.0263[0.78]
0.0056[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0129[0.80]
0.0048[0.81]
0.0003[0.00]
0.6804[0.68]
0.0005[0.68]
0.0000[0.68]
0.0939[0.78]
0.0000[0.78]
0.0006[0.79]
0.0188[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0000[0.79]
0.0028[0.00]
0.0162[0.02]
0.5806[0.60]
0.0000[0.60]
0.0180[0.62]
0.0271[0.64]
0.0687[0.71]
0.0123[0.73]
0.0084[0.73]
0.0191[0.75]
11 0.339 0.0000[0.81] 0.0193[0.81] 0.0010[0.75]
12 0.300 0.0089[0.82] 0.0000[0.81] 0.0003[0.75]

EffectiveMassesforFirst12Modes
12ModesareActuallySufficienttoRepresenttheDynamicResponseofthe
AboveGradeStructure
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 90
4 StructuralAnalysis1 31
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Table 4.1-15 ResponseSpectrum
Coordinates
Tm (seconds) Sa Sa(I/R)
0.000 0.333 0.0416
0.089(T0) 0.833 0.104
0.448(TS) 0.833 0.104
1.000 0.373 0.0446
1.500 0.249 0.0311
2.000 0.186 0.0235
2.500 0.149 0.0186
3.000 0.124 0.0155
I =1, R =8.0.
C
s
(ELF)
0.85C
s
(ELF)
InelasticDesignResponseSpectrum
Coordinates
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 91
0.85
V
V
t
ScalingofResponseSpectrumResults(ASCE705)
12.9.4 Scaling Design Values of Combined Response.
A base shear (V) shall be calculated in each of the two orthogonal
horizontal directions using the calculated fundamental period of the
structure T in each direction and the procedures of Section 12.8, except
where the calculated fundamental period exceeds (Cu )(Ta), then (Cu )(Ta)
shall be used in lieu of T in that direction. Where the combined
response for the modal base shear (Vt) is less than 85 percent of the
calculated base shear (V) using the equivalent lateral force procedure,
the forces, but not the drifts, shall be multiplied by
where
V = the equivalent lateral force procedure base shear, calculated in
accordance with this section and Section 12.8
Vt = the base shear from the required modal combination
Note:IftheELFbaseshearisgovernedbyEqn.12.55or12.86theforceV
shallbebasedonthevalueofC
s
calculatedbyEqn.12.55or12.86,as
applicable.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 92
0.85
C
s
W
V
t
ScalingofResponseSpectrumResults(ASCE710)
12.9.4.2 Scaling of Drifts
Where the combined response for the modal base
shear (Vt) is less than 0.85 CsW, and where Cs is
determined in accordance with Eq. 12.8-6, drifts
shall be multiplied by:
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 93
4 StructuralAnalysis1 32
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
T
X
T
Y
+ +
ScaledStaticTorsions
ApplyTorsionasaStaticLoad.Torsionscanbe
Scaledto0.85timesAmplified
*
EFLTorsionsifthe
ResponseSpectrumResultsareScaled.
*SeeSec.12.9.5.Torsionsmustbeamplifiedbecausetheyareapplied
statically,notdynamically.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 94
A =Scaled CQCd ResultsinXDirection B =Scaled CQCd ResultsinYDirection
A
B
Combination1
A
0.3B
Combination2
0.3A
B
A +0.3B +|T
X
| 0.3A +B +|T
Y
|
Method1:WeightedAdditionof
Scaled CQCd Results
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 95
A =Scaled CQCd ResultsinXDirection B =ScaledCQCd ResultsinYDirection
A
B
Combination
A
B
(A
2
+B
2
)
0.5
+max(|T
X
|or|T
Y
|)
Method2:SRSSofScaled CQCd Results
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 96
4 StructuralAnalysis1 33
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples


Table 4.1-16 Story ShearsfromModal ResponseSpectrumAnalysis
X Direction(SF =2.18) Y Direction(SF =1.94)
Story UnscaledShear
(kips)
ScaledShear
(kips)
UnscaledShear
(kips)
ScaledShear
(kips)
R-12 82.7 180 77.2 150
12-11 130.9 286 132.0 256
11-10 163.8 357 170.4 330
10-9 191.4 418 201.9 392
9-8 240.1 524 265.1 514
8-7 268.9 587 301.4 585
7-6 292.9 639 328.9 638
6-5 316.1 690 353.9 686
5-4 359.5 784 405.1 786
4-3 384.8 840 435.5 845
3-2 401.4 895 462.8 898
2-G 438.1 956 492.8 956
1.0kip=4.45kN.


ComputedStoryShearsandScaleFactors
fromModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
XDirectionScaleFactor=0.85(1124)/438.1=2.18
YDirectionScaleFactor=0.85(1124)/492.8=1.94
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 97
Level
Total Drift from
R.S. Analysis
(in.)
Story Drift
(in.)
Story
Drift C
d

(in.)
Allowable
Story Drift
(in.)
R
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
2.23
2.10
1.94
1.76
1.56
1.38
1.19
0.99
0.80
0.62
0.43
0.24
0.12
0.16
0.19
0.20
0.18
0.19
0.20
0.20
0.18
0.19
0.19
0.24
0.66
0.89
1.03
1.08
0.98
1.06
1.08
1.08
0.97
1.02
1.05
1.34
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.32
1.0 in. =25.4 mm
ResponseSpectrumDriftsinXDirection
(NoScalingRequired)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 98

Level
Total Drift from
R.S. Analysis
(in.)
Story Drift
(in.)
Story
Drift Cd
(in.)
Allowable
Story Drift
(in.)
R
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1.81
1.76
1.67
1.56
1.44
1.31
1.15
0.99
0.92
0.65
0.46
0.26
0.06
0.09
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.16
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.20
0.26
0.32
0.49
0.58
0.67
0.70
0.87
0.91
0.92
0.93
1.04
1.08
1.44
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.32
1.0in. =25.4mm
ResponseSpectrumDriftsinYDirection
(NoScalingRequired)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 99
4 StructuralAnalysis1 34
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
ScaledBeamShearsfrom
ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 100
OverviewofPresentation
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysis
types
OverviewofEquivalentLateralForceanalysis
OverviewofModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
OverviewofModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonofResults
SummaryandConclusions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 101
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
Part1:Analysis
1. Selectsuiteofgroundmotions(Sec.16.1.3.2)
2. Developadequatefiniteelementmodel(Sec.12.7.3)
3. Computemodalfrequencies,effectivemass,andmodeShapes
4. Determinenumberofmodestouseinanalysis(Sec.12.9.1)
5. Assignmodaldampingvalues(typically5%criticalpermode)
6. Scalegroundmotions*(Sec.16.1.3.2)
7. Performdynamicanalysisforeachgroundmotionineachdirection
8. ComputeEquivalentLateralForces(ELF)ineachdirection(Sec.12.8.1
through12.8.3)
9. Determineaccidentaltorsions(Sec12.8.4.2),amplifiedifnecessary
(Sec.12.8.4.3)
10. Performstatictorsionanalysis
*Note:Step6isreferredtohereinasGroundMotionScaling(GMScaling).Thisisto
avoidconfusionwithResultsScaling,describedlater.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 102
4 StructuralAnalysis1 35
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysisPart2:Driftand
PDeltaforSystemsWithout TorsionIrregularity
1. MultiplyalldynamicdisplacementsbyC
d
/R (omittedinASCE705).
2. Computestorydriftsbasedondisplacementsatcenterofmass
ateachlevel
3. If3to6groundmotionsareused,computeenvelopeofstory
driftateachlevelineachdirection(Sec.16.1.4)
4. If7ormoregroundmotionsareused,computeaveragestory
driftateachlevelineachdirection(Sec.16.1.4)
5. CheckdriftlimitsinaccordancewithSec.12.12andTable12.21.
Note:driftlimitsforSpecialMomentFramesinSDCDandabove
mustbedividedbytheRedundancyFactor(Sec.12.12.1.1)
6. PerformPDeltaanalysisusingEquivalentLateralForceprocedure
7. Revisestructureifnecessary
Note:whencentersofmassofadjacentlevelsarenotverticallyalignedthedriftsshouldbebasedon
thedifferencebetweenthedisplacementattheupperlevelandthedisplacementofthepointonthe
levelbelowwhichistheverticalprojectionofthecenterofmassoftheupperlevel.(Thisprocedureis
includedinASCE710.)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 103
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysisPart2:Driftand
PDeltaforSystemsWith TorsionIrregularity
1. MultiplyalldynamicdisplacementsbyC
d
/R (omittedinASCE705).
2. Computestorydriftsbasedondisplacementsatedgeofbuilding
ateachlevel
3. If3to6groundmotionsareused,computeenvelopeofstory
driftateachlevelineachdirection(Sec.16.1.4)
4. If7ormoregroundmotionsareused,computeaveragestory
driftateachlevelineachdirection(Sec.16.1.4)
5. Usingresultsfromthestatictorsionanalysis,determinethedrifts
atthesamelocationusedinSteps24above.Torsionaldrifts
maybebasedonthecomputedperiodofvibration(withoutthe
C
u
T
a
limit).Torsionaldriftsshouldbebasedoncomputeddisplacements
multipliedbyC
d
anddividedbyI.
6. AdddriftsfromSteps(3or4)and5andcheckdriftlimitsinTable12.121.
Note:DriftlimitsforspecialmomentframesinSDCDandabove
mustbedividedbytheRedundancyFactor(Sec.12.12.1.1)
7. PerformPDeltaanalysisusingEquivalentLateralForceprocedure
8. Revisestructureifnecessary
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 104
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
Part3:ObtainingMemberDesignForces
1. MultiplyalldynamicmemberforcesbyI/R
2. Determinedynamicbaseshearhistoriesforeachearthquakeineach
direction
3. DetermineResultScaleFactors*foreachgroundmotionineachdirection,
andapplytoresponsehistoryresultsasappropriate
4. Determinedesignmemberforcesbyuseofenvelopevaluesif3to6
earthquakesareused,orasaveragesif7ormoregroundmotionsareused.
5. Combineresultsfromtwoorthogonaldirections,ifnecessary(Sec.12.5)
6. Addmemberforcesfromstatictorsionanalysis(Sec.12.9.5).Note
thatstatictorsionforcesmaybescaledbyfactorsobtainedinStep3
7. Determineredundancyfactor(Sec.12.3.4)
8. Combineseismicandgravityforces(Sec.12.4)
9. Designanddetailstructuralcomponents
*Note:Step3isreferredtohereinasResultsScaling(GMScaling).Thisis
toavoidconfusionwithGroundMotionScaling,describedearlier.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 105
4 StructuralAnalysis1 36
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
SelectionofGroundMotionsforMRHAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 106
3DScalingRequirements,ASCE710
For each pair of horizontal ground motion components, a
square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) spectrum shall
be constructed by taking the SRSS of the 5 percent-damped
response spectra for the scaled components (where an
identical scale factor is applied to both components of a pair).
Each pair of motions shall be scaled such that in the period
range from 0.2T to 1.5T, the average of the SRSS spectra
from all horizontal component pairs does not fall below the
corresponding ordinate of the response spectrum used in the
design, determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5.
ASCE705Version:
does not fall below 1.3 times the corresponding ordinate of the design
response spectrum, determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5 by
more than 10 percent.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 107
A
X
A
Y
A
SRSS
B
SRSS
C
SRSS
SFAx A
SRSS
SFBx B
SRSS
SFCx C
SRSS
AverageScaled
S
A
S
A
S
A
S
A
S
A
Period
Period Period 0.2T T 1.5T
MatchPoint
Period Period
Unscaled
Unscaled Unscaled
ASCE7
Avg Scaled
ASCE7
3DASCE7GroundMotionScaling
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 108
4 StructuralAnalysis1 37
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
IssuesWithScalingApproach
Noguidanceisprovidedonhowtodealwithdifferent
fundamental
periodsinthetwoorthogonaldirections
Thereareaninfinitenumberofsetsofscalefactorsthatwill
satisfythecriteria.Differentengineersarelikelytoobtain
differentsetsofscalefactorsforthesamegroundmotions.
Inlinearanalysis,thereislittlelogicinscalingatperiods
greaterthanthestructuresfundamentalperiod.
Highermodes,whichparticipatemarginallyinthedynamic
response,maydominatethescalingprocess
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 109
ResolvingIssuesWithScalingApproach
Noguidanceisprovidedonhowtodealwithdifferent
fundamentalperiodsinthetwoorthogonaldirections:
1. Usedifferentperiodsineachdirection(not
recommended)
2. Scaletorange0.2T
min
to1.5T
max
whereT
min
isthelesser
ofthetwoperiodsandT
max
isthegreaterofthe
fundamental
periodsineachprincipaldirection
3. Scaleovertherange0.2T
Avg
to1.5T
Avg
whereT
Avg
isthe
averageofT
min
andT
max
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 110
S
A
S
A
S
A
Period Period Period
ScaleFactorSA
1
ScaleFactorSB
1
ScaleFactorSC
1
T
AVG
T
AVG
T
AVG
Note:AdifferentscalefactorwillbeobtainedforeachSRSSd pair
ResolvingIssuesWithScalingApproach
Thereareaninfinitenumberofsetsofscalefactorsthatwill
satisfythecriteria.Differentengineersarelikelytoobtain
differentsetsofscalefactorsforthesamegroundmotions.
UseTwoStepScaling:
1]ScaleeachSRSSd PairtotheAveragePeriod
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 111
4 StructuralAnalysis1 38
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
AverageScaled
S
A S
A
Period Period
0.2T
Avg
T
AVG
1.5T
Avg
MatchPoint
ASCE7
Avg Scaled
ASCE7
T
Avg
S
2
timesAverageScaled
Note:ThesamescalefactorS
2
AppliestoEachSRSSd Pair
ResolvingIssuesWithScalingApproach
Thereareaninfinitenumberofsetsofscalefactorsthatwill
satisfythecriteria.Differentengineersarelikelytoobtain
differentsetsofscalefactorsforthesamegroundmotions.
UseTwoStepScaling:
1]ScaleeachSRSSd PairtotheAveragePeriod
2]ObtainSuiteScaleFactorS
2
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 112
ResolvingIssuesWithScalingApproach
Thereareaninfinitenumberofsetsofscalefactorsthatwill
satisfythecriteria.Differentengineersarelikelytoobtain
differentsetsofscalefactorsforthesamegroundmotions.
UseTwoStepScaling:
1]ScaleeachSRSSd PairtotheAveragePeriod
2]ObtainSuiteScaleFactorS
2
3]ObtainFinalScaleFactors:
SuiteA:SS
A
=S
A1
xS
2
SuiteB:SS
B
=S
B1
xS
2
SuiteC:SS
C
=S
C1
xS
2
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 113
Table4.1-20a. Suiteof GroundMotionsUsedfor ResponseHistory Analysis

NGA Magnitude Site Component PGA
Record
Name
Record
Number
[Epicenter
Distance,
km]
Class
Number of
Pointsand
Digitization
Increment
SourceMotion (g)
(This
Example)

7.28 Landers/LCN260* 0.727 A00 0879
[44]
C 9625@ 0.005
sec
Landers/LCN345* 0.789 A90
6.54 SUPERST/B-POE270 0.446 B00 0725
[11.2]
D 2230@ 0.01
sec
SUPERST/B-POE360 0.300 B90
7.35 TABAS/DAY-LN 0.328 C00 0139
[21]
C 1192@ 0.02
sec
TABAS/DAY-TR 0.406 C90
* Notethat thetwo components of motion for theLanders earthquakeare apparently separated by an 85
degree angle, not 90 degrees as is traditional. It is not known whether these are true orientations, or of
thereisanerror inthedescriptionsprovidedintheNGA database.

GroundMotionsUsedinAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 114
4 StructuralAnalysis1 39
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Unscaled Spectra
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 115
AverageS1ScaledSpectra
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 116
RatioofTargetSpectrumtoScaledSRSS
Average
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 117
4 StructuralAnalysis1 40
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
MatchPoint
TargetSpectrumandSSScaledAverage
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 118
IndividualScaledComponents(00)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 119
IndividualScaledComponents(90)
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 120
4 StructuralAnalysis1 41
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples


Table 4.1-20b. Result of 3D Scaling Process
SRSS
ordinateat
T=TAvg
Target
Ordinateat
T=TAvg
Set No. Designation
(g) (g)
S1 S2 SS
1 A00& A90 0.335 0.136 0.407 1.184 0.482
2 B00& B90 0.191 0.136 0.712 1.184 0.843
3 C00& C90 0.104 0.136 1.310 1.184 1.551

ComputedScaleFactors
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 121
NumberofModesfor
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ASCE705and710aresilentonthenumberofmodestouseinModal
ResponseHistoryAnalysis.Itisrecommendedthatthesameprocedures
setforthinSection12.9.1forMODALResponseSpectrumAnalysisbeusedfor
ResponseHistoryAnalysis:
12.9.1 Number of Modes
An analysis shall be conducted to determine the natural
modes of vibration for the structure. The analysis shall
include a sufficient number of modes to obtain a
combined modal mass participation of at least 90
percent of the actual mass in each of the orthogonal
horizontal directions of response considered by the
model.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 122
Dampingfor
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ASCE705and710aresilentontheamountof
dampingtouseinModalResponseHistoryAnalysis.
Fivepercentcriticaldampingshouldbeusedinall
modesconsideredintheanalysisbecausetheTarget
SpectrumandtheGroundMotionScalingProcedures
arebasedon5%criticaldamping.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 123
4 StructuralAnalysis1 42
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
ScalingofResultsfor
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysis(Part1)
ThestructuralanalysisisexecutedusingtheGMscaledearthquake
recordsineachdirection.Thus,theresultsrepresenttheexpected
elasticresponseofthestructure.Theresultsmustbescaledto
representtheexpectedinelasticbehaviorandtoprovideimproved
performanceforimportantstructures.ASCE705scalingisasfollows:
1)Scaleallcomponentdesignforcesbythefactor(I/R).Thisis
stipulatedinSec.16.1.4ofASCE705andASCE710.
2)Scalealldisplacementquantitiesbythefactor(C
d
/R).This
requirement
wasinadvertentlyomittedinASCE705,butisincludedinSection
16.1.4ofASCE710.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 124
V
ELF
T
computed
C
u
T
a
ELF
V
Min
0.85V
Min
MRH(unscaled)
MRH(scaled)
InelasticGM
InelasticELF
Period
BaseShear
ResponseScalingRequirementswhen
MRHShearisLessThanMinimumBaseShear
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 125
T
computed
CuTa

V
Min
V
ELF
MRH(unscaled)
InelasticGM
InelasticELF
NoScalingRequired
Period
BaseShear
ResponseScalingRequirementswhen
MRHShearisGreaterThanMinimumBaseShear
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 126
4 StructuralAnalysis1 43
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
T
computed
CuTa

V
Min
V
ELF
MRH(unscaled)
InelasticGM
InelasticELF
0.85V
MRSUnscaled
MRSScaled
Period
BaseShear
ResponseScalingRequirementswhen
MRHShearisGreaterThanMinimumBaseShear
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 127
12IndividualResponseHistoryAnalysesRequired
1. A00X:SSScaledComponentA00appliedinXDirection
2. A00Y:SSScaledComponentA00appliedinYDirection
3. A90X:SSScaledComponentA90appliedinXDirection
4. A90Y:SSScaledComponentA90appliedinYDirection
5. B00X:SSScaledComponentB00appliedinXDirection
6. B00Y:SSScaledComponentB00appliedinYDirection
7. B90X:SSScaledComponentB90appliedinXDirection
8. B90Y:SSScaledComponentB90appliedinYDirection
9. C00X:SSScaledComponentC00appliedinXDirection
10.C00Y:SSScaledComponentC00appliedinYDirection
11.C90X:SSScaledComponentC90appliedinXDirection
12.C90Y:SSScaledComponentC90appliedinYDirection
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 128
Low>
High>
Analysis
Maximum
baseshear
(kips)
Timeof
maximum
shear
(sec.)
Maximum
roof
displacement
(in.)
Timeof
maximum
displacement
(sec.)
A00-X 3507 11.29 20.28 11.38
A00-Y 3573 11.27 14.25 11.28
A90-X 1588 12.22 7.32 12.70
A90-Y 1392 13.56 5.16 10.80
B00-X 3009 8.28 12.85 9.39
B00-Y 3130 9.37 11.20 10.49
B90-X 2919 8.85 11.99 7.11
B90-Y 3460 7.06 11.12 8.20
C00-X 3130 13.5 9.77 13.54
C00-Y 2407 4.64 6.76 8.58
C90-X 3229 6.92 15.61 6.98
C90-Y 5075 6.88 14.31 7.80
1.0in. =25.4mm, 1.0kip=4.45kN.

ResultMaximafromResponseHistoryAnalysis
UsingSSScaledGroundMotions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 129
4 StructuralAnalysis1 44
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Analysis
(I/R) times maximumbase
shear fromanalysis
(kips)
Requiredadditional scalefactor for
V =0.85VELF =956kips
A00-X 438.4 2.18
A00-Y 446.7 2.14
A90-X 198.5 4.81
A90-Y 173.9 5.49
B00-X 376.1 2.54
B00-Y 391.2 2.44
B90-X 364.8 2.62
B90-Y 432.5 2.21
C00-X 391.2 2.44
C00-Y 300.9 3.18
C90-X 403.6 2.37
C90-Y 634.4 1.51
1.0kip=4.45kN

I/RScaledShearsandRequired85%Rule
ScaleFactors
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 130
Envelopeof drift (in.) for eachgroundmotion
Level
A00-X A90-X B00-X B90-X C00-X C90-X
Envelope
of drift for
all the
ground
motions
Envelope
of drift
Cd/R
Allowable
drift
(in.)
R 1.17 0.49 0.95 0.81 0.91 1.23 1.23 0.85 3.00
12 1.64 0.66 1.22 0.95 1.16 1.27 1.64 1.13 3.00
11 1.97 0.78 1.32 0.99 1.25 1.52 1.97 1.35 3.00
10 2.05 0.86 1.42 1.04 1.20 1.68 2.05 1.41 3.00
9 1.79 0.82 1.26 1.25 0.99 1.41 1.79 1.23 3.00
8 1.83 0.87 1.22 1.42 1.23 1.50 1.83 1.26 3.00
7 1.82 0.83 1.27 1.36 1.21 1.67 1.82 1.25 3.00
6 1.77 0.74 1.36 1.35 1.06 1.94 1.94 1.33 3.00
5 1.50 0.59 1.19 1.21 1.09 1.81 1.81 1.24 3.00
4 1.55 0.62 1.22 1.32 1.23 1.76 1.76 1.21 3.00
3 1.56 0.64 1.24 1.30 1.33 1.60 1.60 1.10 3.00
2 1.97 0.86 1.64 1.58 1.73 1.85 1.97 1.35 4.32
1.0in. =25.4mm.

ResponseHistoryDriftsfor
allXDirectionResponses
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 131
Load Combination for Response History Analysis
LoadingX Direction LoadingY Direction
Earthquake
Load
Combination
Record
Scale
Factor Record
Scale
Factor
1 A00-X 2.18 A00-Y 5.49
2 A90-X -4.81 A90-Y 2.14
3 A00-X -2.18 A00-Y -5.49
A
4 A90-X 4.81 A90-Y -2.14
5 B00-X 2.54 B00-Y 2.21
6 B90-X -2.62 B90-Y 2.44
7 B00-X -2.54 B00-Y -2.21
B
8 B90-X 2.62 B90-Y -2.44
9 C00-X 2.44 C00-y 1.50
10 C90-X -2.36 C90-Y 3.18
11 C00-X -2.44 C00-Y -1.50
C
12 C90-X 2.36 C90-Y -3.18
LoadCombinationsforResponseHistory
Analysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 132
4 StructuralAnalysis1 45
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
14.15 12.82 14.17
R-12
21.5 20.6 21.5
12-11
29.5 29.4 30.6
11-10
33.7 33.2 35.5
10-9
32.9 32.0 29.5 28.2 12.1
9-8
33.6 32.3 30.7 34.0 21.0
8-7
36.3 34.5 33.2 35. 7 22.0
7-6
39.0 35.3 34.5 36.2 22.8
6-5
15.1 32.9 33.9 35.8 35.6 36.0 24.6
5-4
25.0 38.5 33.6 35.6 35.5 35.7 24.7
4-3
23.7 35.7 33.1 34.3 34.2 34.3 24.0
3-2
21.6 34.3 32.3 33.1 33.0 33.5 21.9
2 - G



EnvelopeofScaledFrame1BeamShears
fromResponseHistoryAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 133
OverviewofPresentation
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysis
types
OverviewofEquivalentLateralForceanalysis
OverviewofModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
OverviewofModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonofResults
SummaryandConclusions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 134
Level ELF
Modal
response
spectrum
Envelopedresponse
history
R 187 180 295
12 341 286 349
11 471 357 462
10 578 418 537
9 765 524 672
8 866 587 741
7 943 639 753
6 999 690 943
5 1,070 784 1,135
4 1,102 840 1,099
3 1,118 895 1,008
2 1,124 956 956
ComparisonofMaximumXDirection
DesignStoryShearsfromAllAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 135
4 StructuralAnalysis1 46
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
X DirectionDrift
(in.)
Level
ELF
Modal
response
spectrum
Enveloped
response
history
R 0.99 0.66 0.85
12 1.41 0.89 1.13
11 1.75 1.03 1.35
10 1.92 1.08 1.41
9 1.82 0.98 1.23
8 1.97 1.06 1.26
7 2.01 1.08 1.25
6 1.97 1.08 1.33
5 1.67 0.97 1.24
4 1.69 1.02 1.21
3 1.65 1.05 1.10
2 2.00 1.34 1.35
1.0in. =25.4mm.
ComparisonofMaximumXDirection
DesignStoryDriftfromAllAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 136
ComparisonofMaximumBeamShears
fromAllAnalysis
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 137
OverviewofPresentation
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysis
types
OverviewofEquivalentLateralForceanalysis
OverviewofModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
OverviewofModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonofResults
SummaryandConclusions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 138
4 StructuralAnalysis1 47
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
RequiredEffort
TheEquivalentLateralForcemethodandthe
ModalResponseSpectrummethodsrequire
similarlevelsofeffort.
TheModalResponseHistoryMethodrequires
considerablymoreeffortthanELForMRS.
Thisisprimarilyduetotheneedtoselectand
scalethegroundmotions,andtorunsomany
responsehistoryanalyses.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 139
Accuracy
Itisdifficulttosaywhetheronemethodofanalysisis
moreaccuratethantheothers.Thisisbecauseeachof
themethodsassumelinearelasticbehavior,andmake
simpleadjustments(usingR andC
d
)toaccountfor
inelasticbehavior.
Differencesinherentintheresultsproducedbythe
differentmethodsarereducedwhentheresultsare
scaled.However,itislikelythattheModalResponse
SpectrumandModalResponseHistorymethodsare
generallymoreaccuratethanELFbecausetheymore
properlyaccountforhighermoderesponse.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 140
RecommendationsforFutureConsiderations
1. Threedimensionalanalysisshouldberequiredforall ResponseSpectrumand
ResponseHistoryanalysis.
2. LinearResponseHistoryAnalysisshouldbemovedfromChapter16intoChapter
12andbemadeasconsistentaspossiblewiththeModalResponseSpectrumMethod.
Forexample,requirementsforthenumberofmodesandforscalingofresultsshould
bethesameforthetwomethods.
3. ArationalprocedureneedstobedevelopedfordirectlyincludingAccidentalTorsionin
ResponseSpectrumandResponseHistoryAnalysis.
4. ArationalmethodneedstobedevelopedfordirectlyincludingPDeltaeffectsin
ResponseSpectrumandResponseHistoryAnalysis.
5. Thecurrentmethodsofselectingandscalinggroundmotionsforlinearresponse
historyanalysiscanbeandshouldbemuchsimplerthanrequiredfornonlinear
responsehistoryanalysis.Theuseofstandardizedmotionsetsortheuseof
spectrummatchedgroundmotionsshouldbeconsidered.
6. Driftshouldalwaysbecomputedandcheckedatthecornersofthebuilding.
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 141
4 StructuralAnalysis1 48
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Questions
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples Structural Analysis, Part1 142
Example 2:
Six-story Moment Resisting Steel Frame
1 Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Description of Structure
6-story office building in Seattle, Washington
Occupancy (Risk) Category II
Importance factor (I) = 1.0
Site Class = C
Seismic Design Category D
Special Moment Frame (SMF), R = 8, C
d
= 5.5
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 2
Floor Plan and Gravity Loads
Girder
Load
Column
Load
P-Delta
Frame
Load
3
Special Moment
Frame
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
1
Elevation view and P-Delta Column
4
5 at 280=1400
2 3 4 5 6
1
5

-
0


1
5

-
0


5

a
t

1
2

-
6

=
6
2

-
6

-
0


Basement
wall
P-Delta
Frame
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Member Sizes Used in N-S Moment Frames
Sections meet the width-to-thickness
requirements for special moment frames
Strong column-weak beam
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 5
Member
Supporting
Level
Column Girder Doubler Plate
Thickness (in.)
R W21x122 W24x84 1.00
6 W21x122 W24x84 1.00
5 W21x147 W27x94 1.00
4 W21x147 W27x94 1.00
3 W21x201 W27x94 0.875
2 W21x201 W27x94 0.875
Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure
6
D
Fe
F
Vdesign
Tcomp
Vdrift
CuTa
y
design
Tcomp=2.05 sec (without P-Delta)
Tcomp=2.13 sec (with P-Delta)

Approximate Period of Vibration
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
7
Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure
Vertical Distribution of Forces
Equivalent Lateral Forces for Building Responding in N-S Direction
Level
x
w
x

(kips)
h
x

(ft)
w
x
h
x
k
C
vx

F
x

(kips)
V
x

(kips)
M
x

(ft-kips)
R 2,596 77.5 1,080,327 0.321 243.6 243.6 3,045
6 2,608 65.0 850,539 0.253 191.8 435.4 8,488
5 2,608 52.5 632,564 0.188 142.6 578.0 15,713
4 2,608 40.0 433,888 0.129 97.8 675.9 24,161
3 2,608 27.5 258,095 0.077 58.2 734.1 33,337
2 2,621 15.0 111,909 0.033 25.2 759.3 44,727
15,650 3,367,323 1.000 759.3
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Computer Programs NONLIN-Pro and DRAIN 2Dx
Shortcomings of DRAIN
It is not possible to model strength loss when using the
ASCE 41-06 (2006) model for girder plastic hinges.
The DRAIN model for axial-flexural interaction in
columns is not particularly accurate.
Only Two-Dimensional analysis may be performed.

Elements used in Analysis
Type 1, inelastic bar (truss) element
Type 2, beam-column element
Type 4, connection element


8 Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Description of Preliminary Model
Only a single frame (Frame A or G) is modeled.
Columns are fixed at their base.
Each beam or column element is modeled using a Type 2
element. For the columns, axial, flexural, and shear deformations
are included. For the girders, flexural and shear deformations are
included but, because of diaphragm slaving, axial deformation is
not included. Composite action in the floor slab is ignored for all
analysis.
All members are modeled using centerline dimensions without
rigid end offsets.
This model does not provide any increase in beam-column joint
stiffness due to the presence of doubler plates.
The stiffness of the girders was decreased by 7% in the
preliminary analyses, which should be a reasonable approximate
representation of the 35% reduction in the flange sections.
Moment rotation properties of the reduced flange sections are
used in the detailed analyses.
9 Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Results of Preliminary Analysis : Drift
10
Results of Preliminary Analysis Excluding P-delta Effects
Story
Total Drift
(in.)
Story Drift
(in.)
Magnified
Story Drift (in.)
Drift Limit
(in.)
Story Stability
Ratio,
6 2.08 0.22 1.21 3.00 0.0278
5 1.86 0.32 1.76 3.00 0.0453
4 1.54 0.38 2.09 3.00 0.0608
3 1.16 0.41 2.26 3.00 0.0749
2 0.75 0.41 2.26 3.00 0.0862
1 0.34 0.34 1.87 3.60 0.0691
Results of Preliminary Analysis Including P-delta Effects
Story
Total Drift
(in.)
Story Drift
(in.)
Magnified
Story Drift (in.)
Drift from
(in.)
Drift Limit
(in.)
6 2.23 0.23 1.27 1.24 3.00
5 2.00 0.34 1.87 1.84 3.00
4 1.66 0.40 2.20 2.23 3.00
3 1.26 0.45 2.48 2.44 3.00
2 0.81 0.45 2.48 2.47 3.00
1 0.36 0.36 1.98 2.01 3.60
5.5
5.5
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Results of Preliminary Analysis :
Demand Capacity Ratios (Columns-Girders)
11
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
1.033 0.973 0.968 0.971 1.098
1.837 1.826 1.815 1.826 1.935
2.557 2.366 2.366 2.357 2.626
3.025 2.782 2.782 2.773 3.085
3.406 3.198 3.198 3.189 3.475
3.155 2.903 2.903 2.895 3.224
0.595 1.084 1.082 1.082 1.082 0.671
0.971 1.480 1.477 1.482 1.482 1.074
1.060 1.721 1.693 1.692 1.712 1.203
1.249 1.908 1.857 1.857 1.882 1.483
1.041 1.601 1.550 1.550 1.575 1.225
3.345 2.922 2.850 2.850 2.856 4.043
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Results of Preliminary Analysis :
Demand Capacity Ratios (Panel Zones)
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 12
1.686
(1.686)
1.746
(3.128)
1.718
(3.076)
1.718
(3.076)
1.749
(3.132)
1.731
(1.731) 1.932
(1.932)
2.013
(3.605)
1.991
(3.567)
1.991
(3.567)
1.884
(1.884)
2.343
(2.343)
1.951
(4.334)
1.929
(4.285)
1.929
(4.285)
1.953
(4.339)
2.405
(2.405) 2.092
(2.092) 1.757
(1.757) 0.899
(0.899)
0.577
(1.429)
1.272
(3.149)
1.701
(3.779)
1.680
(3.732) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
1.683
(3.739) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
0.574
(1.422)
1.268
(3.141)
1.699
(3.774)
2.021
(2.021)
1.656
(1.656)
0.839
(0.839)
2.009
(3.598)
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Results of Preliminary Analysis :
Demand Capacity Ratios
The structure has considerable overstrength, particularly at the
upper levels.
The sequence of yielding will progress from the lower level girders
to the upper level girders.
With the possible exception of the first level, the girders should
yield before the columns. While not shown in the Figure, it should
be noted that the demand-to-capacity ratios for the lower story
columns were controlled by the moment at the base of the column.
The column on the leeward (right) side of the building will yield first
because of the additional axial compressive force arising from the
seismic effects.
The maximum DCR of girders is 3.475, while maximum DCR for
panel zones without doubler plates is 4.339. Thus, if doubler plates
are not used, the first yield in the structure will be in the panel
zones. However, with doubler plates added, the first yield is at the
girders as the maximum DCR of the panel zones reduces to 2.405.

13 Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Results of Preliminary Analysis:
Overall System Strength
14 Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Results of Preliminary Analysis:
Overall System Strength
As expected, the strength under uniform load is significantly greater than under
triangular or Standards load.
The closeness of the Standards and triangular load strengths is due to the fact
that the vertical-load-distributing parameter (k) was 1.385, which is close to 1.0.
Slightly more than 15 percent of the system strength comes from plastic hinges
that form in the columns. If the strength of the column is taken simply as M
p

(without the influence of axial force), the error in total strength is less than 2
percent.
The rigid-plastic analysis did not include strain hardening, which is an additional
source of overstrength.
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 15
Lateral Strength on Basis of Rigid-Plastic Mechanism
Lateral Load Pattern
Lateral Strength
(kips)
Entire Structure
Lateral Strength
(kips)
Single Frame
Uniform 3,332 1,666
Upper Triangular 2,747 1,373
Standard 2,616 1,308
Description of Model Used for Detailed
Structural Analysis
16
1
5

-
0


5

a
t

1
2

-
6

=
6
2

-
6



P-Delta
Frame
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Description of Model Used for Detailed
Structural Analysis
Nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analyses require a
much more detailed model than was used in the linear
analysis.
The primary reason for the difference is the need to explicitly
represent yielding in the girders, columns, and panel zone
region of the beam-column joints.
17 Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Plastic Hinge Modeling and Compound Nodes
Compound nodes are used to model plastic hinges in girders and deformations in the panel
zone region of beam-column joints
Typically consist of a pair of single nodes with each node sharing the same point in space.
The X and Y degrees of freedom of the first node of the pair (the slave node) are constrained
to be equal to the X and Y degrees of freedom of the second node of the pair (the master
node), respectively. Hence, the compound node has four degrees of freedom: an X
displacement, a Y displacement, and two independent rotations.
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 18
Modeling of Beam-Column Joint Regions
19
Krawinkler beam-column joint model
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Modeling of Beam-Column Joint Regions
Krawinkler model assumes that the panel zone has two resistance mechanisms
acting in parallel:
1. Shear resistance of the web of the column, including doubler plates and
2. Flexural resistance of the flanges of the column.






F
y
= yield strength of the column and the doubler plate,
d
c
= total depth of column,
t
p
= thickness of panel zone region = column web + doubler plate thickness,
b
cf
= width of column flange,
t
cf
= thickness of column flange, and
d
b
= total depth of girder.

Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 20
Modeling of Beam-Column Joint Regions
21
Force-deformation behavior of panel zone region (Krawinkler Model)
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Modeling Girders
The AISC Seismic Design
Manual (AISC, 2006)
recommends design practices
to force the plastic hinge
forming in the beam away
from the column.

1. Reduce the cross sectional
properties of the beam at a
specific location away from
the column
2. Special detailing of the beam-
column connection to provide
adequate strength and
toughness in the connection
so that inelasticity will be
forced into the beam adjacent
to the column face.
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 22
Zero Length
Inelastic
Plastic Hinge
0.625 b 0.75 d
bf
b
Rigid End Zone (0.5 d )
Reduced Beam
Section (RBS)
c
Side view of beam element and
beam modeling
23
Modeling Girders
Top view of
Reduced Beam
Section
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
M
o
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
-
k
i
p
s

Curvature, rad/in.
bf bf1
bf2 bf3
0.65 bf
Moment curvature
diagram for
W27x94 girder
/14 /7 /7
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
24
Modeling Girders
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
C
u
r
v
a
t
u
r
e
,

r
a
d
/
i
n
.

Cantilever beam length, in.
Curvature Diagram
for Cantilever Beam
with
Reduced Beam
Section
P1
P2
P3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
F
o
r
c
e
,

k
i
p
s

Displacement, in.
Real F-D relationship
Trilinear F-D relationship
Force Displacement
Diagram for
W27x94 with
RBS
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
25
Modeling Girders
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
M
o
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
-
k
i
p
s

Rotation, rad.
W27x94
W24x84
Moment-Rotation Diagram for girder hinges with RBS
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
26
Modeling Columns
-4,000
-3,000
-2,000
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
-40,000 -30,000 -20,000 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
A
x
i
a
l

l
o
a
d
,

k
i
p
s

Moment, in.-kips
W21x201
W21x147
W21x122
Yield surface used for modeling columns
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Results of Detailed Analysis: Period of Vibration
P-delta effects increases the period.
Doubler plates decreases the period as the model becomes stiffer with
doubler plates.
Different period values were obtained from preliminary and detailed
analyses.
Detailed model results in a stiffer structure than the preliminary model
especially when doubler plates are added.
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 27
Periods of Vibration From Detailed Analysis (sec/cycle)

Model Mode P-delta Excluded P-delta Included

Strong Panel
with
doubler plates
1 1.912 1.973

2 0.627 0.639

3 0.334 0.339

Weak Panel
without
doubler plates
1 2.000 2.069

2 0.654 0.668

3 0.344 0.349

Pushover analysis procedure performed in this example
follows the recommendations of ASCE/SEI 41-06.
Pushover analysis should always be used as a precursor to
nonlinear response history analysis.
The structure is subjected to the full dead load plus 50
percent of the fully reduced live load, followed by the lateral
loads.
For the entire pushover analyses reported for this example,
the structure is pushed to 37.5 in. at the roof level. This value
is about two times the total drift limit for the structure where
the total drift limit is taken as 2 percent of the total height.
The effect of lateral load distribution, strong and weak panel
zones (doubler plates) and P-delta are investigated separately
in this example.


28
Static Pushover Analysis
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
29
Static Pushover Analysis
Effect of Different Lateral Load Distribution

In this example, three different load patterns were initially considered:

UL = Uniform load (equal force at each level)
ML = Modal load (lateral loads proportional to first mode shape)
BL = Provisions load distribution (Equivalent lateral forces used for preliminary analysis)

Lateral Load Patterns Used in Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis
Level
Uniform Load
UL
(kips)
Modal Load
ML
(kips)
Provisions Load
BL
(kips)
R
6
5
4
3
2
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
85.1
77.3
64.8
49.5
32.2
15.0
144.8
114.0
84.8
58.2
34.6
15.0
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
30
Static Pushover Analysis
Effect of Different Lateral Load Distribution


0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s

Roof displacement, in.
UL Loading
ML Loading
BL Loading
Response of strong
panel model to three
load patterns,
excluding P-delta
effects
The Provisions states that the lateral load pattern should follow the shape of the
first mode. (ML Loading)
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
31
Static Pushover Analysis
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
S
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s

Roof displacement, in.
Column Shear Forces
Total Base Shear
P-Delta Forces
Two base shear
components of
pushover
response
Static Pushover Curves with P-Delta Effects
= Sum of all column shears in 1
st
story
= P-delta column 1
st
story displacement
= Total vertical load on P-delta column
= 1
st
story height
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
32
Static Pushover Analysis
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s

Roof displacement, in.
UL Loading
ML Loading
BL Loading
Response of strong
panel model to three
load patterns,
including P-delta
effects
Effect of Different Lateral Load Distribution


Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
33
Static Pushover Analysis
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s

Roof displacement, in.
Excluding P-Delta
Including P-Delta
Effect of P-Delta on Pushover Curve


Response of strong
panel model to
ML loads,
with and without
P-delta effects
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
34
Static Pushover Analysis
Effect of P-Delta on Pushover Curve


Tangent stiffness
history for
Strong Panel model
under ML loads,
with and without
P-delta effects
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
"
T
a
n
g
e
n
t

S
t
i
f
f
n
e
s
s
"
,

k
i
p
s
/
i
n
.

Roof displacement, in.
Excluding P-Delta
Including P-Delta
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
35
Static Pushover Analysis
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s

Roof displacement, in.
Strong Panels
Weak Panels
Effect of Panel zones (Doubler Plates) on Pushover Curve


Comparison of
weak panel zone
model with strong
panel zone model,
both including
P-delta effects
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
36
Static Pushover Analysis: Sequence and Pattern
of Plastic Hinging with NonlinPro

Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Static Pushover Analysis
Sequence and Pattern of Plastic Hinging for Strong Panel Model
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 37
1
2
3 3 3 3 4
4 5 6 6 6
8 8 8 7
9
9
10 10 10
11 11 11 11 12
13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 15 16
17 18 18 18 19 20 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22
23
24
25
26
27 27 27
28
27
Static Pushover Analysis
DCR Plastic Hinge Sequence Comparison for Girders and Columns
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 38
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
1.033 0.973 0.968 0.971 1.098
1.837 1.826 1.815 1.826 1.935
2.557 2.366 2.366 2.357 2.626
3.025 2.782 2.782 2.773 3.085
3.406 3.198 3.198 3.189 3.475
3.155 2.903 2.903 2.895 3.224
0.595 1.084 1.082 1.082 1.082 0.671
0.971 1.480 1.477 1.482 1.482 1.074
1.060 1.721 1.693 1.692 1.712 1.203
1.249 1.908 1.857 1.857 1.882 1.483
1.041 1.601 1.550 1.550 1.575 1.225
3.345 2.922 2.850 2.850 2.856 4.043
Static Pushover Analysis
DCR Plastic Hinge Sequence Comparison for Panel Zones
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 39
1.686
(1.686)
1.746
(3.128)
1.718
(3.076)
1.718
(3.076)
1.749
(3.132)
1.731
(1.731) 1.932
(1.932)
2.013
(3.605)
1.991
(3.567)
1.991
(3.567)
1.884
(1.884)
2.343
(2.343)
1.951
(4.334)
1.929
(4.285)
1.929
(4.285)
1.953
(4.339)
2.405
(2.405) 2.092
(2.092) 1.757
(1.757) 0.899
(0.899)
0.577
(1.429)
1.272
(3.149)
1.701
(3.779)
1.680
(3.732) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
1.683
(3.739) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
0.574
(1.422)
1.268
(3.141)
1.699
(3.774)
2.021
(2.021)
1.656
(1.656)
0.839
(0.839)
2.009
(3.598)
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Static Pushover Analysis
Sequence and Pattern of Plastic Hinging for Strong Panel Model
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 40
1
5
9
12
15
19
21
22 23
25 27
28
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
T
o
t
a
l

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s

Drift, in.
Static Pushover Analysis
Sequence and Pattern of Plastic Hinging for Weak Panel Model
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 41
1 2 3 3
4 5
5
6 6
7
8
8
9
9 10 10
10 11 11
12
11
13
13
14
15 16 17
18 19
20
21
21
21
20
22 22
23 23
23
24
25
26
26 26
28 28
27 27 27 30
31 31
29
32
33
34 34 35 35
36
36
38
38
37 37 39 39
40
42 41
43
44
45 46
47
49
50
48
51
53
53 52
54
56 56
55
57
58
59 60 61
60
62 62
63 64 64
66
65
67
68
69
70
Static Pushover Analysis
DCR Plastic Hinge Sequence Comparison for Panel Zones
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 42
1.686
(1.686)
1.746
(3.128)
1.718
(3.076)
1.718
(3.076)
1.749
(3.132)
1.731
(1.731) 1.932
(1.932)
2.013
(3.605)
1.991
(3.567)
1.991
(3.567)
1.884
(1.884)
2.343
(2.343)
1.951
(4.334)
1.929
(4.285)
1.929
(4.285)
1.953
(4.339)
2.405
(2.405) 2.092
(2.092) 1.757
(1.757) 0.899
(0.899)
0.577
(1.429)
1.272
(3.149)
1.701
(3.779)
1.680
(3.732) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
1.683
(3.739) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
0.574
(1.422)
1.268
(3.141)
1.699
(3.774)
2.021
(2.021)
1.656
(1.656)
0.839
(0.839)
2.009
(3.598)
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
Static Pushover Analysis
Target Displacement

Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 43
= =
1 , 1 0 r
C
modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equal single degree of freedom system to
the roof displacement of the building multi-degree of freedom system.
=
r , 1

the ordinate of mode shape 1 at the roof (control node)


=
1
=
1
C
=
2
C
=
a
S
= =
e
i
i e
K
K
T T
= g
=
i
T
the first mode participation factor
modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to displacements
calculated for linear elastic response.
modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness
degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement response.
response spectrum acceleration, at the effective fundamental period and damping ratio of
the building in the direction under consideration.
effective fundamental period of the building in the direction under consideration
elastic fundamental period in the direction under consideration calculated by elastic dynamic
analysis.
elastic, and effective lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration.
acceleration of gravity
,
Static Pushover Analysis
This spectrum is for BSE-2 (Basic Safety Earthquake 2)
hazard level which has a 2% probability of exceedence in
50 years.
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 44
2% damped
horizontal
response spectrum
from ASCE 41-06
Target Displacement
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Period, sec
Static Pushover Analysis
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 45
Target Displacement







Nonlinear force-displacement relationship between base shear and displacement
of control node shall be replaced with an idealized force-displacement curve. The
effective lateral stiffness and the effective period depend on the idealized force-
displacement curve.
The idealized force-displacement curve is developed by using an iterative
graphical procedure where the areas below the actual and idealized curves are
approximately balanced up to a displacement value of . is the
displacement at the end of second line segment of the idealized curve and is
the base shear at the same displacement.
should be a point on the actual force displacement curve at either the
calculated target displacement, or at the displacement corresponding to the
maximum base shear, whichever is the least.
The first line segment of the idealized force-displacement curve should begin at
the origin and finish at , where is the effective yield strength and
is the yield displacement of idealized curve.
The slope of the 1
st
line segment is equal to the effective lateral stiffness ,
which should be taken as the secant stiffness calculated at a base shear force
equal to 60% of the effective yield strength of the structure.
46
Static Pushover Analysis
y,Vy
d,Vd
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s

Roof displacement, in.
Actual force Displacement
y,Vy
d,Vd
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s

Roof displacement, in.
Actual Force Displacement
Actual and idealized
force displacement
curves for
STRONG panel model,
under ML load,
with P-delta effects
Actual and idealized
force displacement
curves for
WEAK panel model,
under ML load,
with P-delta effects
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Static Pushover Analysis
Story drifts are also shown at the load level of target displacement.
Negative stiffness starts after target displacements for both models.
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 47
Strong Panel Weak Panel
1.303 1.310
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
(g) 0.461 0.439
(sec) 1.973 2.069
(in.) at Roof Level 22.9 24.1
Drift R-6 (in.) 0.96 1.46
Drift 6-5 (in.) 1.76 2.59
Drift 5-4 (in.) 2.87 3.73
Drift 4-3 (in.) 4.84 4.84
Drift 3-2 (in.) 5.74 5.35
Drift 2-1 (in.) 6.73 6.12
Target displacement for strong and weak panel models

0
C
1
C
2
C
a
S
t

e
T
Response History Analysis
Response response history analysis method is used to estimate the
inelastic deformation demands for the detailed structure.
Three ground motions were used. (Seven or more ground motions is
generally preferable.)
The analysis considered a number of parameters, as follows:
- Scaling of ground motions to the DBE and MCE level
- With and without P-delta effects
- Two percent and five percent inherent damping
- Added linear viscous damping
Identical structural model used in Nonlinear Pushover Analyses and 2
nd

order effects were included through the use of leaning column.
All of the model analyzed had Strong Panels (wherein doubler plated
were included in the interior beam-column joints).
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 48
Modeling and Analysis Procedure
Rayleigh Damping
Rayleigh proportional damping was used to represent viscous
energy dissipation in the structure.
The mass and stiffness proportional damping factors were initially
set to produce 2.0 percent damping in the first and third modes.
It is generally recognized that this level of damping (in lieu of the 5
percent damping that is traditionally used in elastic analysis) is
appropriate for nonlinear response history analysis.
49
Response History Analysis
K M C + =

+
=

1
2
3 1
3 1
w w
w w

Structural frequencies and damping factors used in response history analysis.


(Damping factors that produce 2 percent damping in modes 1 and 3)
Model/Damping Parameters

1

(rad/sec)

3

(rad/sec)

Strong Panel with P-delta
Strong Panel without P-delta
3.184
3.285
18.55
18.81
0.109
0.112
0.00184
0.00181
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Because only a two-dimensional analysis of the structure is performed using DRAIN,
only a single component of ground motion is applied at one time.
For the analyses reported herein, the component that produced the larger spectral
acceleration at the structures fundamental period was used.
A complete analysis would require consideration of both components of ground
motions, and possibly of a rotated set of components.
50
Response History Analysis
Development of Ground Motion Records
NGA
Record
Number
Magnitude,
[Epicenter
Distance (km)]
Site
Class
Number of
Points and
Time step
Integration Time
Step used in
analyses
Component
Source
Motion
PGA
(g)
Record
Name
0879 7.28 , [44] C
9625 @
0.005 sec
0.0005 sec
Landers /
LCN260
0.727 A00
0725 6.54 , [11.2] D
2230 @
0.01 sec
0.001 sec
SUPERST/
B-POE360
0.300 B90
0139 7.35 , [21] C
1192 @
0.02 sec
0.001 sec
TABAS/
DAY-TR
0.406 C90
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Response History Analysis
A00
B90
C90
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Time, sec
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0 5 10 15 20 25
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Time, sec
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Time, sec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Period, sec
2% damped 5% damped
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Period, sec
2% Damped 5% damped
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Period, sec
2% Damped 5% damped
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 - 51
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Period, sec
2% Damped Response Spectrum
2% Damped MCE Spectrum
Response History Analysis
1. Each spectrum is initially scaled to match the target spectrum at the structures
fundamental period.




2. The average of the scaled spectra are re-scaled such that no ordinate of the scaled
average spectrum falls below the target spectrum in the range of periods between
0.2 and 1.5T.







3. The final scale factor for each motion consists of the product of the initial scale
factor (different for each ground motion), and the second scale factor (which is the
same for each ground motion).

Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 52
Ground Motion Scaling Procedure
T1=1.973 sec.
T1=1.973 sec.
1.5*T1
0.2*T1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Period, sec
Average of scaled EQ Windows
2% Damped MCE Spectrum
Results of Response History Analysis
DBE Results for 2% Damped Strong Panel Model with P- Excluded / P- Included
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 53
(a) Maximum Base Shear (kips)
Motion A00 Motion B90 Motion C90
Column Forces 1780 / 1467 1649 / 1458 1543 / 1417
Inertial Forces 1848 / 1558 1650 / 1481 1540 / 1419
* Values in ( ) reflect increased drift limits provided by Sec. 16.2.4.3 of the Standard
(b) Maximum Story Drifts (in.)
Level Motion A00 Motion B90 Motion C90 Limit*
Total Roof
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
26.80 / 32.65
1.85 / 1.86
2.51 / 2.64
3.75 / 4.08
5.62 / 6.87
6.61 / 8.19
8.09 / 10.40
14.57 /14.50
1.92 / 1.82
2.60 / 2.50
3.08 / 2.81
2.98 / 3.21
3.58 / 3.40
4.68 / 4.69
13.55 / 14.75
1.71 / 1.70
2.33 / 2.41
3.03 / 3.19
3.03 / 3.33
2.82 / 2.90
3.29 / 3.44
NA
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.60 (4.50)
Results of Response History Analysis
MCE Results for 2% Damped Strong Panel Model with P- Excluded / P- Included
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 54
(a) Maximum Base Shear (kips)
Motion A00 Motion B90 Motion C90
Column Forces 2181 / 1675 1851 / 1584 1723 / 1507
Inertial Forces 2261 / 1854 1893 / 1633 1725 / 1515
(b) Maximum Story Drifts (in.)
Level Motion A00 Motion B90 Motion C90 Limit*
Total Roof
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
62.40 / 101.69
1.98 / 1.95
3.57 / 2.97
7.36 / 6.41
14.61 / 20.69
16.29 / 31.65
19.76 / 40.13
22.45 / 26.10
2.30 / 2.32
2.77 / 2.60
3.33 / 3.62
4.61 / 5.61
5.21 / 6.32
6.60 / 7.03
20.41 / 20.50
3.05 / 2.93
3.69 / 3.49
4.43 / 4.32
4.45 / 4.63
3.97 / 4.18
5.11 / 5.11
NA
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
5.40
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s
Time, sec
Total Shear with P-Delta
Total Shear without P-delta
55
Results of Response History Analysis
Response Histories of
Roof and First-story
Displacement,
Ground Motion A00
(DBE)
Response History of
Total Base Shear,
Ground Motion A00
(DBE)
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
.
Time, sec
Total (Roof) with P-delta
Total (Roof) without P-delta
First Story with P-delta
First Story without P-delta
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Results of Response History Analysis
Energy Response History, Ground Motion A00 (DBE), including P-delta
effects
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 56
57
Results of Response History Analysis
Response Histories of
Roof and First-story
Displacement,
Ground Motion B90
(MCE)
Response History of
Roof and First-story
Displacement,
Ground Motion A00
(MCE)
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
.
Time, sec
Total (Roof) with P-delta
Total (Roof) without P-delta
First Story with P-delta
First Story without P-delta
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
.
Time, sec
Total (Roof) with P-delta
Total (Roof) without P-delta
First Story with P-delta
First Story without P-delta
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Response History Analysis
A00 Motion Ground Acceleration, Velocity and Displacement
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 58
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
G
r
o
u
n
d

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
t
/
s
e
c
Time, sec
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
G
r
o
u
n
d

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

f
t
Time, sec
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
,

g
Time, sec
Response History Analysis
A00 Motion tripartite Spectrum
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 59
Period, sec
P
s
e
u
d
o
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
t
/
s
e
c
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.01
0.1
1
10
5
0

g
1
0

g
5

g
1

g
0
.
1

g
0
.
0
5

g
0
.
0
1

g
0
.
0
0
5

g
0
.
0
0
1

g
0
.
0
0
0
5

g
1

f
t
.
0
.
5

f
t
.
0
.
1

f
t
. 0
.
0
5

f
t
.
0
.
0
1

f
t
.
0
.
0
0
5

f
t
.
0
.
0
0
1

f
t
.
0
.
0
0
0
5

f
t
.
0
.
0
0
0
1

f
t
.
2% Damping
5% Damping
Results of Response History Analysis
Yielding locations for structure with strong panels subjected to MCE
scaled B90 motion, including P-delta effects
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 60
Girder,max=
0.03609 rad
Column,max=
0.02993 rad
Panel zone,max=
0.00411 rad
Results of Response History Analysis
Comparison with Results from Other Analyses
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 61

Response Quantity
Analysis Method
Equivalent
Lateral
Forces
Nonlinear Static
Pushover
Nonlinear
Dynamic
Base Shear (kips)
Roof Disp. (in.)
Drift R-6 (in.)
Drift 6-5 (in.)
Drift 5-4 (in.)
Drift 4-3 (in.)
Drift 3-2 (in.)
Drift 2-1 (in.)
Girder Hinge Rot. (rad)
Column Hinge Rot. (rad)
Panel Hinge Rot. (rad)
Panel Plastic Shear Strain
569
18.4
1.86
2.78
3.34
3.73
3.67
2.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
1208
22.9
0.96
1.76
2.87
4.84
5.74
6.73
0.03304
0.02875
0.00335
0.00335
1633
26.1
2.32
2.60
3.62
5.61
6.32
7.03
0.03609
0.02993
0.00411
0.00411
Note: Shears are for half of total structure.
Results of Response History Analysis
Reasons of the differences
between Pushover and Response
History Analyses
Scale factor of 1.367 was used for
the 2
nd
part of the scaling
procedure.
The use of the first-mode lateral
loading pattern in the nonlinear
static pushover response.
The higher mode effects shown in
the Figure are the likely cause of the
different hinging patterns and are
certainly the reason for the very
high base shear developed in the
response history analysis.
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 62
Comparison of inertial force patterns
Results of Response History Analysis
Effect of Increased Damping on Response

Excessive drifts occur in the bottom three stories.
Additional strength and/or stiffness should be provided at these
stories.
Considered next, Added damping is also a viable approach.
Four different damper configurations were used.
Dampers were added to the Strong Panel frame with 2% inherent
damping.
The structure was subjected to the DBE scaled A00 and B90
ground motions.
P-delta effects were included in the analyses.
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 63



Modeling Added Dampers
Added damping is easily accomplished in
DRAIN by use of the stiffness proportional
component of Rayleigh damping.
Linear viscous fluid damping device can be
modeled through use of a Type-1 (truss bar)
element.





Set damper elastic stiffness to negligible
value. = 0.001 kips/in.
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 64



















It is convenient to set


device
device device
device
L
E A
k =
device device device
k C =
device
k
device
device
device
C
C
1000
001 . 0
= =
E
device
= 0.001 and A
device
= Damper length L
device

Modeling a simple damper
Results of Response History Analysis
Effect of Increased Damping on Response
Effect of different added damper configurations when SP
model is subjected to DBE scaled A00 motion, including P-
delta effects

Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 65
No Damper 1
st
combo 2
nd
combo 3
rd
combo 4
th
combo
Level
Drift,
In.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Drift
Limit
in.
R-6 1.86 10.5 1.10 60 1.03 - 1.82 - 1.47 3.75
6-5 2.64 33.7 1.90 60 1.84 - 3.56 - 2.41 3.75
5-4 4.08 38.4 2.99 70 2.88 - 4.86 56.25 3.46 3.75
4-3 6.87 32.1 5.46 70 4.42 - 5.24 56.25 4.47 3.75
3-2 8.19 36.5 6.69 80 5.15 160 4.64 112.5 4.76 3.75
2-G 10.40 25.6 8.39 80 5.87 160 4.40 112.5 4.96 4.50
Column
Base
Shear,kips
1467 1629 2170 2134 2267
Inertial
Base
Shear,kips
1558 1728 2268 2215 2350
Total
Damping,%
2 10.1 20.4 20.2 20.4
Results of Response History Analysis
Effect of Increased Damping on Response
Effect of different added damper configurations when SP model
is subjected to DBE scaled B90 motion, including P-delta effects
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 66
No Damper 1
st
combo 2
nd
combo 3
rd
combo 4
th
combo
Level
Drift,
In.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Drift
Limit
in.
R-6 1.82 10.5 1.11 60 0.86 - 1.53 - 1.31 3.75
6-5 2.50 33.7 1.76 60 1.35 - 2.11 - 1.83 3.75
5-4 2.81 38.4 2.33 70 1.75 - 2.51 56.25 2.07 3.75
4-3 3.21 32.1 2.67 70 2.11 - 2.37 56.25 2.16 3.75
3-2 3.40 36.5 2.99 80 2.25 160 2.09 112.5 2.13 3.75
2-G 4.69 25.6 3.49 80 1.96 160 1.87 112.5 1.82 4.50
Column
Base
Shear,kips
1458 1481 1485 1697 1637
Inertial
Base
Shear,kips
1481 1531 1527 1739 1680
Total
Damping,%
2 10.1 20.4 20.2 20.4
67
Results of Response History Analysis :
Roof Displacements
Roof Displacement
Response Histories
with added damping
(20% total) and
inherent damping (2%)
for A00 motion
Roof Displacement
Response Histories
with added damping
(20% total) and
inherent damping (2%)
for B90 motion
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50
R
o
o
f

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
.
Time, sec
4th Added Damper Combo (20% Total)
2% Inherent Damping
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
R
o
o
f

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,

i
n
.
Time, sec
4th Added Damper Combo (20% Total)
2% Inherent Damping
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Results of Response History Analysis: Energy Plots
Energy Response History
with added damping of
4
th
combination
(20% total damping)
for A00 motion
Energy Response History
with inherent damping
(2% total damping)
for A00 motion
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 68
Results of Response History Analysis: Energy Plots
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 69
Energy Response History
with inherent damping
(2% total damping)
for B90 motion
Energy Response History
with added damping of
4
th
combination
(20% total damping)
for B90 motion
Results of Response History Analysis: Base Shear
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 70
Inertial Base Shear
Response Histories
with added damping
(20% total) and
inherent damping (2%)
for A00 motion
Inertial Base Shear
Response Histories
with added damping
(20% total) and
inherent damping (2%)
for B90 motion
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s
Time, sec
4th Added Damper Combo (20% Total)
2% Inherent Damping
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 5 10 15 20 25
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s
Time, sec
4th Added Damper Combo (20% Total)
2% Inherent Damping
Results of Response History Analysis:
Deflected Shape of by NonlinPro for Added Damper Frame (4
th

combination) During B90 Motion

Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 71
Summary and Conclusions
72
Five different analytical approaches were used to estimate the deformation demands
in a simple unbraced steel frame structure:
1. Linear static analysis (the equivalent lateral force method)
2. Plastic strength analysis (using virtual work)
3. Nonlinear static pushover analysis
4. Linear dynamic analysis
5. Nonlinear dynamic response history analysis
Approaches 1, 3, and 5 were carried to a point that allowed comparison of results. The
results obtained from the three different analytical approaches were quite dissimilar.
Because of the influence of the higher mode effects on the response, pushover
analysis, where used alone, is inadequate.
Except for preliminary design, the ELF approach should not be used in explicit
performance evaluation as it has no mechanism for determining location and extent of
yielding in the structure.
Response history analysis as the most viable approach. However, significant
shortcomings, limitations, and uncertainties in response history analysis still exist.
In modeling the structure, particular attention was paid to representing possible
inelastic behavior in the panel-zone regions of the beam-column joints.



Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples Structural Analysis, Part 2 -
Questions?
Structural Analysis, Part 2 - Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples 73
Inthisexample,thebehaviorofasimple,sixstorystructuralsteelmomentresisting
frameisinvestigatedusingavarietyofanalyticaltechniques.Thestructurewas
initiallyproportionedusingapreliminaryanalysis,anditisthispreliminarydesign
thatisinvestigated.Theanalysiswillshowthatthestructurefallsshortofseveral
performanceexpectations.Inanattempttoimproveperformance,viscousfluid
dampersareconsideredforuseinthestructuralsystem.
Completedetailsfortheanalysisareprovidedinthewrittenexample,andtheexample
shouldbeusedastheInstructorsGuidewhenpresentingthisslideset.Many,butnotall
oftheslidesinthissethaveSpeakersNotes,andtheseareintentionallykeptverybrief.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 1
AccordingtothedescriptionsinASCE705Table 11,thebuildingisassignedtoOccupancy
Category II.ThisissimilartoRiskCategoryIIinASCE710Table1.51.
FromASCE705Table 11.51,theimportancefactor(I)is1.0.Importancefactorisprovided
inTable1.52inASCE710.I
e
(seismicimportancefactor)is1.0forRiskCategoryII.
SiteclassificationisprovidedinStandard Table20.31.
SeismicdesigncategoryisprovidedinTables11.61and11.62inStandard.
Responsemodificationcoefficient(R),overstrength factor(
o
),anddeflectionamplification
factor(C
d
)forseismicforceresistingsystemsareprovidedinTable
12.21inStandard.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 2
Thelateralloadresistingsystemconsistsofsteelmomentresistingframesonthe
perimeterofthebuilding.Therearefivebaysat28ftoncenterintheNSdirection
andsixbaysat30ftoncenterintheEWdirection.Thelateralloadresistingsystem
consistsofsteelmomentresistingframesontheperimeterofthebuilding.
ForthemomentresistingframesintheNSdirection(FramesAandG),allofthe
columnsbendabouttheirstrongaxes,andthegirdersareattachedwithfully
weldedmomentresistingconnections.Theexpectedplastichingeregionsofthe
girdershavereducedflangesections,detailedinaccordancewiththeAISC34105
SeismicProvisionsforStructuralSteelBuildings(AISC,2005a).
FortheframesintheEWdirection(Frames1and6),momentresistingconnections
areusedonlyattheinteriorcolumns.Attheexteriorbays,theEWgirdersare
connectedtotheweakaxisoftheexterior(corner)columnsusingnonmoment
resistingconnections.Allinteriorcolumnsaregravitycolumnsandarenotintended
toresistlateralloads.Afewofthesecolumns,however,wouldbeengagedaspart
oftheaddeddampingsystemdescribedinthelastpartofthisexample.Withminor
exceptions,alloftheanalysesinthisexamplewillbeforlateralloadsactinginthe
NSdirection.AnalysisforlateralloadsactingintheEWdirectionwouldbe
performedinasimilarmanner.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 3
Thetypicalstoryheightis12ft6in.withtheexceptionofthefirststory,whichhas
aheightof15ft.Thereisa5fttallperimeterparapetattheroofandone
basementlevelthatextends15ftbelowgrade.Forthisexample,itisassumedthat
thecolumnsofthemomentresistingframesareembeddedintopilastersformed
intothebasementwall.
PDeltaeffectsaremodeledusingtheleanerghostcolumnshowninFigureattherightof
themainframe.Thiscolumnismodeledwithanaxiallyrigidtrusselement.PDeltaeffects
areactivatedforthiscolumnonly(PDeltaeffectsareturnedoffforthecolumnsofthe
mainframe).ThelateraldegreeoffreedomateachlevelofthePDeltacolumnisslavedto
thefloordiaphragmatthematchingelevation.WherePDeltaeffectsareincludedinthe
analysis,aspecialinitialloadcasewascreatedandexecuted.Thisspecialloadcaseconsists
ofaverticalforceequaltoonehalfofthetotalstoryweight(deadloadplus50percentof
thefullyreducedliveload)appliedtotheappropriatenodeofthePDeltacolumn.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 4
Priortoanalyzingthestructure,apreliminarydesignwasperformedinaccordance
withtheAISCSeismicProvisions.Allmembers,includingmiscellaneousplates,were
designedusingsteelwithanominalyieldstressof50ksi andexpectedyield
strengthof55ksi. Detailedcalculationsforthedesignarebeyondthescopeofthis
example.
ThesectionsshowninTablemeetthewidthtothicknessrequirementsforspecial
momentframes,andthesizeofthecolumnrelativetothegirdersshouldensure
thatplastichingeswillforminthegirders.Duetostrainhardening,plastichinges
willeventuallyforminthecolumns.
However,theseformunderlateraldisplacementsthatareinexcessofthose
allowedundertheDesignBasisEarthquake(DBE).Doublerplatesof0.875in.thick
areusedateachoftheinteriorcolumnsatLevels2and3,and1.00in.thickplates
areusedattheinteriorcolumnsatLevels4,5,6,andR.Doublerplateswerenot
usedintheexteriorcolumns.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 5
Althoughthemainanalysisinthisexampleisnonlinear,equivalentstaticforcesare
computedinaccordancewiththeSection12.8oftheStandard.Theseforcesare
usedinapreliminarystaticanalysistodeterminewhetherthestructure,as
designed,conformstothedriftrequirementlimitationsimposedbySection12.12
oftheStandard.
Forthepurposeofanalysis,itisassumedthatthestructurecomplieswiththe
requirementsforaspecialmomentframe,which,accordingtoStandardTable12.2
1,hasthefollowingdesignvalues:
R=8
C
d
=5.5

o
=3.0
Notethattheoverstrength factor0 isnotneededfortheanalysispresented
herein.
InStandardsection12.8.6.2,itispermittedtodeterminetheelasticdriftsusingseismic
designforcesbasedonthecomputedfundamentalperiodofthestructurewithoutthe
upperlimitoncalculatedapproximateperiod(C
u
T
a
).Thus,anewsetoflateralforces(V
drift
inFigure)werecalculatedandelasticdriftswerefoundusingtheseforces.Driftlimitations
ofStandardSection12.12weresatisfiedwiththeamplifieddrifts(
drift
inFigure)found
withthesenewsetoflateralforces.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 6
VerticaldistributionoflateralforceswerecalculatedinaccordancewithStandardSection
12.8.3.
Thelateralforcesactingateachlevel(F
x
)andthestoryshears(V
x
)atthebottomofthe
storybelowtheindicatedlevelaresummarizedinthetable.Notethatthesearetheforces
actingonthewholebuilding.Thus,foranalysisofasingleframe,onehalfofthetabulated
valuesareused.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 7
Lossofstrengthgenerallyoccursatplastichingerotationswellbeyondtherotational
demandsproducedundertheDBEgroundmotions.Maximumplasticrotationanglesof
plastichingeswerecheckedwiththevaluesinTable56ofASCE4106.
TherulesemployedbyDRAINtomodelcolumnyieldingareadequateforeventtoevent
nonlinearstaticpushoveranalysis,butleavemuchtobedesiredwheredynamicanalysisis
performed.Thegreatestdifficultyinthedynamicanalysisisadequatetreatmentofthe
columnwhenunloadingandreloading.
Twodimensionalanalysisisreasonableforthestructureconsideredinthisexample
becauseofitsregularshapeandbecausefullmomentconnectionsareprovidedonlyinthe
NSdirectionforthecornercolumns.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 8
Pdeltaeffectsaremodeledusingtheleanerghostcolumnshownwhichislaterally
constrainedtothemainframe,asexplainedbefore.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 9
TheresultsofthepreliminaryanalysisfordriftareshowninTablesforthe
computationsexcludingandincludingPdeltaeffects,respectively.Ineachtable,
thedeflectionamplificationfactor(C
d
)equals 5.5,andtheacceptablestorydrift
(storydriftlimit)istakenas2%ofthestoryheightwhichisthelimitprovidedby
Standard Table 12.121.Asexplainedbefore,anewsetoflateralloadsbasedonthe
computedperiodoftheactualstructurewerefoundandappliedtothestructureto
calculatetheelasticdrifts.
WhenPdeltaeffectsareincluded,thedriftscanalsobeestimatedasthedrifts
withoutPdeltatimesthequantity1/(1u),whereu isthestabilitycoefficientfor
thestory.AscanbeseeninbottomTable,backcalculateddriftvaluesfrom are
fairlyconsistentwiththerealresultsobtainedbyrunningtheanalyseswithPdelta
effects.Thedifferenceisalwayslessthan2%.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 10
ForDCRanalysis,thestructureissubjectedtofulldeadloadplus0.5timesthefully
reducedliveload,followedbyequivalentlateralforcesfoundwithoutRfactor.Equivalent
lateralforcesareappliedtowardsrightintheanalyses.Pdeltaeffectsareincluded.
SincetheDCRsintheFigurearefoundfrompreliminaryanalyses,inwhichthecenterline
modelisused,doublerplatesarenotaddedintothemodel.
Forgirders,theDCRissimplythemaximummomentinthememberdividedbythe
membersplasticmomentcapacitywheretheplasticcapacityisZ
e
F
ye
.Z
e
istheplastic
sectionmodulusatcenterofreducedbeamsectionandF
ye
istheexpectedyieldstrength.
Forcolumns,theratioissimilarexceptthattheplasticflexuralcapacityisestimatedtobe
Z
col
(F
ye
P
u
/A
col
)whereP
u
isthetotalaxialforceinthecolumn.Theratiosarecomputedat
thecenterofthereducedsectionforbeamsandatthefaceofthegirderforcolumns.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 11
Thevaluesinparentheses(inblue)representtheDCRswithoutdoublerplates.The
maximumDCRvalueswithanddoublerplatesaddedarehighlightedintheFigure.
SincetheDCRsinFigurearefoundfrompreliminaryanalyses,inwhichthecenterline
modelisused,doublerplatesarentaddedintothemodel.Thus,thedemandvalues
shownintheFigurearethesamewithandwithoutdoublerplates.However,sincethe
capacityofthepanelzoneincreaseswithaddeddoublerplates,theDCRsdecreaseatthe
interiorbeamcolumnjointsasthedoublerplatesareusedonlyattheinteriorjoints.As
maybeseeninFigure, theDCRattheexteriorjointsarethesamewithandwithout
doublerplatesadded.
Tofindthesheardemandatthepanelzones,thetotalmomentinthegirders(attheleft
andrightsidesofthejoint)isdividedbytheeffectivebeamdepthtoproducethepanel
shearduetobeamflangeforces.Thenthecolumnshearataboveorbelowthepanelzone
jointwassubtractedfromthebeamflangeshears,andthepanelzoneshearforceis
obtained.ThisforceisdividedbytheshearstrengthcapacitytodeterminetheDCRofthe
panelzones.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 12
NotethatalthoughthemaximumDCRforthecolumns(4.043)isgreaterthanthe
maximumDCRforthebeams(3.475),itislikelythatthebeamwillyieldearlierthanthe
column.ColumnDCRgetsbiggerherebecauseofthehugeadditionalaxialcompressive
forcearisingfromtheseismicloadwhichwasappliedwithoutRfactor.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 13
Thetotallateralstrengthoftheframeiscalculatedusingvirtualwork.
Intheanalysis,itisassumedthatplastichingesareperfectlyplastic.Girdershingeata
valueZ
e
F
ye
,andthehingesformatthecenterofthereducedsection(approximately15
inchesfromthefaceofthecolumn).Columnshingeonlyatthebase,andtheplastic
momentcapacityisassumedtobeZ
col
(F
ye
P
u
/A
col
).
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 14
Threelateralforcepatternsareused:uniform,uppertriangular,andStandard (wherethe
Standard patternisconsistentwiththeverticalforcedistributionprovidedinSlide7).
Therigidplasticanalysisdoesnotconsiderthetruebehaviorofthepanelzoneregionof
thebeamcolumnjoint.Yieldinginthisareacanhaveasignificanteffectonsystem
strength.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 15
TheDRAINmodelusedforthenonlinearanalysisisshownintheFigure.
Indetailedmodel,Krawinklertypepanelzonesareaddedtothemodel.Plastichingesare
assignedatthereducedflangesections.PDeltaeffectsareincludedbyuseofalinear
columnsimilartopreliminarymodel.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 16
Thedetailillustratesthetwomainfeaturesofthemodel:anexplicitrepresentation
ofthepanelzoneregionandtheuseofconcentratedplastichingesinthegirders.
Connectionelements(Type4)areusedforbothgirderplastichingesandpanelzone
panelandflangesprings.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 17
Inmostcases,oneormorerotationalspringconnectionelements(DRAINelement
Type4)areplacedbetweenthetwosinglenodesofthecompoundnode,andthese
springsdevelopbendingmomentinresistancetotherelativerotationbetweenthe
twosinglenodes.Ifnospringelementsareplacedbetweenthetwosinglenodes,
thecompoundnodeactsasamomentfreehinge.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 18
Krawinklermodelrepresentsthepanelzonestiffnessandstrengthbyan
assemblageoffourrigidlinksandtworotationalsprings.Thelinksformthe
boundaryofthepanel,andthespringsareusedtoprovidethedesiredinelastic
behavior.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 19
TheKrawinklermodelassumesthatthepanelzonehastworesistancemechanisms
actinginparallel:
1.Shearresistanceofthewebofthecolumn,includingdoublerplates
2.Flexuralresistanceoftheflangesofthecolumn
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 20
Thecompleteresistancemechanism,intermsofrotationalspringproperties,is
showninFigure.Thistrilinear behaviorisrepresentedbytwoelasticperfectly
plasticspringsattheopposingcornersofthejointassemblage.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 21
AsideviewofthereducedbeamsectionsisshowninFigure.Thedistancebetweenthe
columnfaceandtheedgeofthereducedbeamsectionwaschosenas
a =0.625b
bf
andthereducedsectionlengthwasassumedasb=0.75d
b
.Bothofthese
valuesarejustatthemiddleofthelimitsstatedinAISC 358.Plastichingesofthebeams
aremodeledatthecenterofthereducedsectionlength.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 22
Todeterminetheplastichingecapacities,amomentcurvatureanalysisofthecross
section,whichisdependentonthestressstraincurveofthesteelusedingirders,
wasimplemented.
FiguredemonstratesthemomentcurvaturegraphfortheW27x94girder.Asmay
beseeninthefigure,themomentcurvaturerelationshipisdifferentateachsection
ofthereducedlength.Thelocationsofthedifferentreducedbeamsectionsusedin
Figure1,namedasbf1,bf2,andbf3,canbeseeninFigure2.Notethat
becauseofcloselyadjacentlocationschosenfor0.65bfandbf3(SeeFigure1),
theirmomentcurvatureplotsarenearlyindistinguishablefromotherinFigure2.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 23
Figure1showsthecurvaturediagramwhenthecurvatureductilityreaches20.The
curvaturedifference(bumpatthecenterofRBSinFigure)sectionislessprominent
whentheductilityissmaller.
Giventhecurvaturedistributionalongcantileverbeamlength,thedeflectionsat
thepointofload(tipdeflections)canbefoundbyusingthemomentareamethod.
Figure2illustratestheforce displacementrelationshipattheendofthespan
cantileverfortheW27x94withthereducedflangesection.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 24
Toconverttheforcetipdisplacementdiagramintomomentrotationoftheplastic
hinge,thefollowingprocedureisfollowed.
1. Usingthetrilinear forcedisplacementrelationshipshowninpreviousslide
(Figure2),findthemomentattheplastichingeforP1,P2andP3loadlevels
andcallthemasM1,M2andM3.Tofindthemoments,thetipforces(P1,P2
andP3)weremultipliedwiththedifferenceofthespancantileverlengthand
theplastichingedistancefromthecolumnface.
2. Calculatethechangeinmomentforeachaddedload(Forex:dM1=M2M1).
3. Findtheflexuralrigidity(EI)ofthebeamgiventipdisplacementof1in.under
the1stload(P1inFigure2ofpreviousslide).
4. CalculatetherequiredrotationalstiffnessesofthehingebetweenM1andM2,
andthenM2andM3.
5. CalculatethechangeinrotationfromM1toM2,andfromM2toM3bydividing
thechangeinmomentfoundatStep2bytherequiredrotationalstiffness
valuescalculatedatStep4.
6. FindthespecificrotationsatM1,M2andM3usingthechangeinrotation
valuesfoundinstep5.NotethattherotationiszeroatM1.
7. Plotmomentrotationdiagramoftheplastichingeusingthevaluescalculatedat
Step1andStep6.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 25
AllcolumnsintheanalysisweremodeledinDRAINwithType2elements.
Preliminaryanalysisindicatedthatcolumnsshouldnotyield,exceptatthebaseof
thefirststory.Subsequentanalysisshowedthatthecolumnswillyieldintheupper
portionofthestructureaswell.Forthisreason,columnyieldinghadtobe
activatedinalloftheType2columnelements.Thecolumnsweremodeledusing
thebuiltinyieldingfunctionalityoftheDRAINprogram,whereintheyieldmoment
isafunctionoftheaxialforceinthecolumn.TheyieldsurfacesusedbyDRAINfor
allthecolumnsinthemodelareshowninFigure.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 26
Slideshows vibrationofperiodsofvibrationusingdifferentanalysisassumptions.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 27
Slideisselfexplanatory.Describesprocedurefornonlinearstaticpushoveranalysis.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 28
RelativevaluesoftheseloadpatternsaresummarizedinTable.Theloadshave
beennormalizedtoavalueof15 kipsatLevel 2.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 29
FigureshowsthepushoverresponseoftheSPstructuretoallthreelateralload
patternswherePdeltaeffectsareexcluded.Ineachcase,gravityloadsareapplied
firstandthenthelateralloadsareappliedusingthedisplacementcontrol
algorithm.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 30
Figure plotstwobaseshearcomponentsofthepushoverresponsefortheSP
structuresubjectedtotheMLloading.
ThekinkinthelinerepresentingPdeltaforcesoccursbecausetheseforcesare
basedonfirststorydisplacement,which,foraninelasticsystem,generallywillnot
beproportionaltotheroofdisplacement.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 31
FigureshowsthepushoverresponseoftheSPstructuretoallthreelateralload
patternswherePdeltaeffectsareincluded.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 32
TheresponseofthestructureunderMLloadingwithandwithoutPdeltaeffectsis
illustratedinFigure.
Clearly,Pdeltaeffectsareanextremelyimportantaspectoftheresponseofthisstructure,
andtheinfluencegrowsinsignificanceafteryielding.Thisisparticularlyinterestinginthe
lightoftheStandard,whichignoresPdeltaeffectsinelasticanalysisifthemaximum
stabilityratioislessthan0.10(seeSec.12.87).Forthisstructure,themaximumcomputed
stabilityratiois0.0862(seeSlide10),whichislessthan0.10andisalsolessthantheupper
limitof0.0909.TheupperlimitiscomputedaccordingtoStandard Equation 12.817andis
basedontheveryconservativeassumptionthat| =1.0.
WhiletheStandard allowstheanalysttoexcludePdeltaeffectsinanelasticanalysis,this
clearlyshouldnotbedoneinthepushoveranalysis(orinresponsehistoryanalysis).
IntheProvisionstheupperlimitforthestabilityratioiseliminated.Wherethecalculated
u isgreaterthan0.10,apushoveranalysismustbeperformedinaccordancewithASCE41,
anditmustbeshownthatthattheslopeofthepushovercurveispositiveuptothetarget
displacement.ThepushoveranalysismustbebasedontheMCEspectralaccelerationand
mustincludePdeltaeffects[andlossofstrength,asappropriate].Iftheslopeofthe
pushovercurveisnegativeatdisplacementslessthanthetargetdisplacement,the
structuremustberedesignedsuchthat u islessthan0.10orthepushoverslopeispositive
uptothetargetdisplacement.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 33
Thefirstsignificantyieldoccursataroofdisplacementofapproximately6.5 inchesandthat
mostofthestructuresoriginalstiffnessisexhaustedbythetimetheroofdisplacement
reaches13 inches.
ForthecasewithPdeltaeffectsexcluded,thefinalstiffnessshowninFigureis
approximately10.2kips/in.,comparedtoanoriginalvalueof139kips/in.Hence,
thestrainhardeningstiffnessofthestructureis0.073timestheinitialstiffness.
Thisissomewhatgreaterthanthe0.03(3.0percent)strainhardeningratiousedin
thedevelopmentofthemodelbecausetheentirestructuredoesnotyield
simultaneously.
WherePdeltaeffectsareincluded,thefinalstiffnessis1.6kipsperin.The
structureattainsthisnegativeresidualstiffnessatadisplacementofapproximately
23in.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 34
Figureshowsthatthedoublerplates,whichrepresentapproximately2.0 percentofthe
volumeofthestructure,increasethestrengthandinitialstiffnessbyapproximately
10 percent.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 35
ThisslideshowsamoviewhichisobtainedusingthesnapshottoolofNonlinPro.Yielded
displacedshapeshowingsequenceandpatternofplastichingingisdisplayed.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 36
Itappearsthatthestructureissomewhatweakinthemiddletwostoriesandisrelatively
strongattheupperstories.Thedoublerplatesaddedtotheinteriorcolumnsprevented
panelzoneyielding.
Figureshowsthefirstyieldinglocationsofthegirder,columnandpanelzones.
Someobservations:
ThereisnohinginginLevels6andR.
ThereispanelzonehingingonlyattheexteriorcolumnsatLevels 4and5.Panelzone
hingesdonotformattheinteriorjointswheredoublerplatesareused.
HingesformatthebaseofalltheLevel 1columns.
PlastichingesforminallcolumnsonLevel 3andalltheinteriorcolumnsonLevel 4.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 37
Thedemandcapacityratiosmatchtheplastichingeformationsequence,i.e.first
plastichingesformatthemaximumDCRsforcolumns,girdersandpanelzones.
ThehighestDCRwasobservedatthegirdersof3
rd
levelbeginningfromthebaysat
theleeward(right)side.Asmaybeseen,firstplastichingesformatthesame
locationsofthebuilding.
Asmaybeseeninthepreviousslidethefirstcolumnhingeformsatthebaseofthe
fifthcolumn.However,theDCRofthesixthcolumn(leewardside)isthemaximum.
Thisisduetohugeaxialcompressiveforcesthatreducethecapacityoftheleeward
sidecolumnwhenDCRiscalculated.NotethatifR=8isusedforthelateralloadof
DCRanalysis,thebaseofthefifthcolumnresultsinthemaximumDCRwhichwould
matchbetterwiththehingingsequenceofthepushoveranalysis.Inaddition,as
seenintheFigureofSlide37,basecolumnhingesformalmostsimultaneously.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 38
Firstpanelzonehingeformsatthebeamcolumnjointofthesixthcolumnatthefourth
level(seeSlide37),andthisiswherethehighestDCRvalueswereobtainedforthepanel
zonesinpreliminaryDCRanalyses.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 39
Diagramshowssequencingofplastichingeformationonapushovercurve.
Figureshowsthesequenceofthehingingonthepushovercurve.Theseeventscorrespond
tonumbersshowninFigureofSlide37.Thepushovercurveonlyshowsselectedevents
becauseanillustrationshowingalleventswouldbedifficulttoread.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 40
AsmaybeseeninFigure,firstyieldingoccursinthepanelzoneswhendoublerplatesare
notused.PanelhingesofLevel4formfirst.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 41
FigureshowsthesameplotdisplayedinSlide12(DCRofpanelzonesbypreliminary
analysis).Thevaluesinparentheses(inblue)representtheDCRswithoutdoublerplates.
AsmaybeseeninFigure,thehingesofthepanels,wherehighestDCRareobtainedfrom
preliminaryanalyses,formfirst(CompareFigurewiththeFigureinthepreviousslide).
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 42
Theformulaisfromsection3.3.3.3.2ofASCE41whichusesthecoefficientmethodfor
calculatingtargetdisplacement.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 43
Spectralaccelerationatthefundamentalperiodofthestructurewasfoundfromthe2%
dampedhorizontalresponsespectrumasdescribedinSection1.6.1.5of
ASCE4106.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 44
Slideexplainsstaticpushoveranalysis.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 45
Targetdisplacementis22.9in.forStrongPanelmodeland24.1in.forWeakPanelmodel.
Negativetangentstiffnessstartsat22.9inchesand29.3inchesforstrongandweakpanel
models,respectively.Thusnegativetangentstiffnessstartsaftertargetdisplacementsfor
bothmodels.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 46
SlidedescribesTargetDisplacements.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 47
Thestructureissubjectedtodeadloadandhalfofthefullyreducedliveload,followedby
groundacceleration.Theincrementaldifferentialequationsofmotionaresolvedinastep
bystepmannerusingtheNewmark constantaverageaccelerationapproach.Timesteps
andotherintegrationparametersarecarefullycontrolledtominimizeerrors.Theminimum
timestepusedforanalysisisassmallas0.0005secondforthefirstearthquakeand0.001
secondforthesecondandthirdearthquakes.Asmallerintegrationtimestepisrequired
forthefirstearthquakebecauseofitsimpulsivenature.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 48
Notethatotqo and|cto aredirectlyproportionalto.Toincreasethetargetdamping
from2 percentto5 percentofcritical,allthatisrequiredisamultiplyingfactorof2.5on
otqo and|cto.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 49
SlidedescribesdevelopmentofgroundmotionrecordsforResponseHistoryAnalysis.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 50
Slideshowstheaccelerationtimehistoriesandresponsespectraoftheselectedmotions.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 51
Whenanalyzingstructuresintwodimensions,Section16.1.3.1ofthe Standard (aswellas
ASCE710)givesthefollowinginstructionsforscaling:
Thegroundmotionsshallbescaledsuchthattheaveragevalueofthe5percentdamped
responsespectraforthesuiteofmotionsisnotlessthanthedesignresponsespectrumfor
thesiteforperiodsrangingfrom0.2T to1.5T whereT isthenaturalperiodofthestructure
inthefundamentalmodeforthedirectionofresponsebeinganalyzed.
ThescalingrequirementsinProvisions Part3ResourcePaper 3aresimilar,exceptthatthe
targetspectrumforscalingistheMCE
R
spectrum.Inthisexample,theonlyadjustmentis
madeforscalingwhentheinherentdampingistakenas2 percentofcritical.Inthiscase,
thegroundmotionspectraarebasedon2 percentdamping,andtheDBEorMCEspectrum
isadjustedfrom5 percentdampingto2 percentdampingusingthemodificationfactors
giveninASCE41.
Thescalingproceduredescribedabovehasadegreeoffreedominthattherearean
infinitenumberofscalingfactorsthatcanfitthecriterion.Toavoidthis,atwostepscaling
processisusedwhereineachspectrumisinitiallyscaledtomatchthetargetspectrumat
thestructuresfundamentalperiod,andthentheaverageofthescaledspectraarere
scaledsuchthatnoordinateofthescaledaveragespectrumfallsbelowthetarget
spectrumintherangeofperiodsbetween0.2T and1.5T.Thefinalscalefactorforeach
motionconsistsoftheproductoftheinitialscalefactorandthesecondscalefactor.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 52
Part (a)ofeachtableprovidesthemaximumbaseshears,computedeitherasthesumof
columnforces(includingPdeltaeffectsasapplicable),orasthesumoftheproductsofthe
totalaccelerationandmassateachlevel.Ineachcase,theshearscomputedusingthetwo
methodsaresimilar,whichservesasacheckontheaccuracyoftheanalysis.Hadthe
analysisbeenrunwithoutdamping,theshearscomputedbythetwomethodsshouldbe
identical.AsexpectedbaseshearsdecreasewhenPdeltaeffectsareincluded.
Thedriftlimitsinthetable,equalto2 percentofthestoryheight,arethesameasprovided
inStandard Table 12.121.Standard Section 16.2.4.3providesfortheallowabledrifttobe
increasedby25 percentwherenonlinearresponsehistoryanalysisisused;theselimitsare
showninthetablesinparentheses.Provisions Part2statesthattheincreaseindriftlimitis
attributedtothemoreaccurateanalysis,andthefactthatdriftsarecomputedexplicitly.
Driftsthatexceedtheincreasedlimitsareshowninboldtextinthetables.
It isinterestingthatPDeltaeffectsmoreorlessreducesthedriftsforB90motion.These
valuesarethemaximumvaluesthoughi.e.theydontnecessarilyoccuratthesametime.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 53
Thelimitsare1.5timesthoseallowedbyStandard Section 12.2.1. The50 percentincrease
indriftlimitsisconsistentwiththeincreaseingroundmotionintensitywhenmovingfrom
DBEtoMCEgroundmotions.
EarthquakeA00resultsin62.40inchdisplacementattherooflevelandapproximately
between15 to20inchdriftsatthefirstthreestoriesofthestructure.Thesestorydrifts
arewellabovethelimits.WhenPdeltaeffectsareincludedwiththesamelevelofmotion,
roofdisplacementincreasesto101.69incheswithapproximately20 to40inch
displacementatthefirstthreestories.
ItisclearfromPart (b)ofTablesthatGroundMotionA00ismuchmoredemandingwith
respecttodriftthanaretheothertwomotions.ThedriftsproducedbyGroundMotion
A00areparticularlylargeatthelowerlevels,withthemoreliberaldriftlimitsbeing
exceededinthelowerfourstoriesofthebuilding.WhenPdeltaeffectsareincluded,the
driftsproducedbyGroundMotionA00increasesignificantly;driftsproducedbyGround
MotionsB90andC90changeonlyslightly.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 54
Figure 1showsresponsehistoriesofroofdisplacementandfirststorydriftforthe
2 percentdampedSPmodelsubjectedtotheDBEscaledA00groundmotion.Twotrends
arereadilyapparent.First,thevastmajorityoftheroofdisplacementisduetoresidual
deformationinthefirststory.Second,thePdeltaeffectincreasesresidualdeformationsby
about50percent.Suchextremedifferencesinbehaviordonotappearinplotsofbase
shear,asprovidedinFigure2.
TheresidualdeformationsshowninFigure1maybereal(duetoactualsystembehavior)or
mayreflectaccumulatednumericalerrorsintheanalysis.Numericalerrorsareunlikely
becausetheshearscomputedfrommemberforcesandfrominertialforcesaresimilar.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 55
Iftheanalysisisaccurate,theinputenergywillcoincidewiththetotalenergy(sumof
kinetic,damping,andstructuralenergy).DRAIN2Dproducesindividualenergyvaluesas
wellastheinputenergy.AsseeninFigure,thetotalandinputenergycurvescoincide,so
theanalysisisnumericallyaccurate.Wherethisaccuracyisindoubt,theanalysisshouldbe
rerunusingasmallerintegrationtimestep.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 56
ItisinterestingtocomparetheresponsecomputedforGroundMotionB90withthat
obtainedforgroundmotionA00.WhilethereissomesmallresidualdeformationinFigure
1(B90motion),itisnotextreme,anditappearsthatthestructureisnotindangerof
collapse.(Thecorrespondingplasticrotationsarelessthanthosethatwouldbeassociated
withsignificantstrengthloss.)
AsmaybeseeninFigure2,whenMCEtypeA00motionisused,residualdeformations
againdominate(astheDBEcase),andinthiscasethetotalresidualroofdisplacementwith
PdeltaeffectsincludedisfivetimesthatwithoutPdeltaeffects.Thisbehaviorindicates
dynamicinstabilityandeventualcollapse.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 57
Thecharacteristicofthegroundmotion(A00)thatproducestheresidualdeformationsis
notevidentfromthegroundaccelerationhistoryorfromtheaccelerationresponse
spectrum.Thesourceofthebehaviorisquiteobviousfromplotsofthegroundvelocityand
grounddisplacementhistories.
Thegroundvelocityhistoryshowsthataverylargevelocitypulseoccursapproximately
10 secondsintotheearthquake.Thisleadstoasurgeingrounddisplacement,also
occurringapproximately10 secondsintotheresponse.Thesurgeingrounddisplacementis
morethan8 feet,whichissomewhatunusual.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 58
TheunusualcharacteristicsofGroundMotionA00maybeseeninFigure whichisa
tripartitespectrum.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 59
Thecirclesonthefigurerepresentyieldingatanytimeduringtheresponse;consequently,
yieldingdoesnotnecessarilyoccuratalllocationssimultaneously.Thecirclesshownatthe
upperleftcornerofthebeamcolumnjointregionindicateyieldingintherotationalspring,
whichrepresentsthewebcomponentofpanelzonebehavior.Thereisnoyieldinginthe
flangecomponentofthepanelzones,asseeninFigure.
YieldingpatternsfortheothergroundmotionsandforanalysesrunwithandwithoutP
deltaeffectsaresimilarbutarenotshownhere.Asexpected,thereismoreyieldinginthe
columnswhenthestructureissubjectedtotheA00groundmotion.
Themaximumplastichingerotationsareshownwheretheyoccurforthecolumns,girders,
andpanelzones.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 60
Tablecomparestheresultsobtainedfromtheresponsehistoryanalysiswiththose
obtainedfromtheELFandthenonlinearstaticpushoveranalyses.Recallthatthe
baseshearsinthetablerepresenthalfofthetotalshearinthebuilding.Asitwas
discussedbefore,2%dampedMCEbasedspectrumwasusedforthepushover
analysis.Tobeconsistent,theresultsof2%dampedMCEscaledB90motionwas
usedforthenonlineardynamicanalysispartofthetable.Inaddition,thelateral
forcesusedtofindtheELFdriftsinSlide7weremultipliedby1.5tomakethem
consistentwiththeMCElevelofshaking.TheELFanalysisdriftvaluesincludethe
deflectionamplificationfactorof5.5.Theresultstabulatedasresultsofpushover
analysisareobtainedattheloadleveloftargetdisplacement.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 61
Figureshowstheinertialforcesfromthenonlinearresponsehistoryanalysesatthetimeof
peakbaseshearandtheloadsappliedtothenonlinearstaticanalysismodelatthetarget
displacement.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 62
Slidesummarizesresultsofresponsehistoryanalysis.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 63
Baseshearincreaseswithaddeddamping,soinpracticeaddeddampingsystemsusually
employnonlinearviscousfluiddeviceswithasofteningrelationshipbetweenthe
deformationalvelocityinthedeviceandtheforceinthedevice,tolimitbaseshearswhen
deformationalvelocitiesbecomelarge.
Thisvalueof|
device
isfortheaddeddamperelementonly.Differentdampersmayrequire
differentvalues.Also,adifferent(global)valueof| isrequiredtomodelthestiffness
proportionalcomponentofdampingintheremainingnondamperelements.
ModelingthedynamicresponseusingType 1elementsisexactwithinthetypical
limitationsoffiniteelementanalysis.Usingthemodalstrainenergyapproach,DRAIN
reportsadampingvalueineachmode.Thesemodaldampingvaluesareapproximateand
maybepoorestimatesofactualmodaldamping,particularlywherethereisexcessive
flexibilityinthemechanismthatconnectsthedampertothestructure.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 64
Fourdifferentaddeddamperconfigurationsareusedtoassestheireffectonstorydrifts
andbaseshear. Theseconfigurationsincreasetotaldampingofthestructurefrom
2 percent(inherent)to10and20 percent.Inthefirstconfigurationaddeddampersare
distributedproportionallytoapproximatestorystiffnesses.Inthesecondconfiguration,
dampersareaddedatallsixstories,withlargerdampersinlowerstories.Sincethe
structureseemstobeweakatthebottomstories(whereitexceedsdriftlimits),dampers
areconcentratedatthebottomstoriesinthelasttwoconfigurations.Addeddampersare
usedonlyatthefirstandsecondstoriesinthethirdconfigurationandatthebottomfour
storiesinthefourthconfiguration.
Basedonthissupplementaldamperstudy,itappearstobeimpossibletodecreasethe
storydriftsfortheA00groundmotionbelowthelimits.Thisisbecauseoftheincremental
velocityofGroundMotionA00causessuchsignificantstructuraldamage.Thedriftlimits
couldbesatisfiedifthetotaldampingratioisincreasedto33.5 percent,butsincethatis
impracticaltheresultsarenotreportedhere.Thethirdconfigurationofaddeddampers
reducesthefirststorydriftfrom10.40inchesto4.40inches.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 65
AlloftheconfigurationseasilysatisfydriftlimitsfortheB90groundmotion.Whilethe
systemwith10 percenttotaldampingissufficientfordriftlimits,systemswith20 percent
dampingfurtherimproveperformance.Althoughconfigurations3and4havethesame
amountoftotaldampingasconfiguration2,storydriftsarehigheratthetopstoriessince
dampersareaddedonlyatlowerstories.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 66
AddeddampersreducetheroofdisplacementforbothA00andB90groundmotions.
AsFigure2showsaddeddampersreduceroofdisplacementsignificantlybutdonot
preventresidualdisplacement fortheA00groundmotion.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 67
Asshouldbeexpected,addingdiscretedampingreducesthehystereticenergydemandin
thestructure(designatedasstructuralenergyinFigures).Areductioninhystereticenergy
demandforthesystemwithaddeddampingcorrespondstoareductioninstructural
damage.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 68
Again,addingdiscretedampingreducesthehystereticenergydemand,whichresultsina
reductioninstructuraldamageforB90motion.
Asmaybeseen,addeddampersaremoreefficientintermsofenergydissipationforB90
motionthanA00motion(Seepreviousslide).
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 69
Figuresshowhowaddeddampingincreasesbaseshear.Especially,forA00motion,the
maximumbaseshearincreasesmorethan50%.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 70
ThisslideshowsamoviewhichisobtainedusingthesnapshottoolofNonlinPro.Displaced
shapeofthe4
th
combinationaddeddamperframeunderB90motionisdisplayed.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 71
SummaryandConclusions.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 72
Slideprompts participantstoaskquestions.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 73
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 1
Example2:
SixstoryMomentResistingSteelFrame
1
4
Structural Analysis
Finley Charney, Adrian Tola Tola, and Ozgur Atlayan

InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
DescriptionofStructure
6storyofficebuildinginSeattle,Washington
Occupancy(Risk)CategoryII
Importancefactor(I)=1.0
SiteClass=C
SeismicDesignCategoryD
SpecialMomentFrame(SMF),R =8,C
d
=5.5
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 2
FloorPlanandGravityLoads
Girder
Load
Column
Load
PDelta
Frame
Load
3
SpecialMoment
Frame
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 2
1
ElevationviewandPDeltaColumn
4
5at280=1400
2 3 4 5 6
1
5

1
5

a
t

1
2

=
6
2

Basement
wall
PDelta
Frame
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
MemberSizesUsedinNSMomentFrames
Sectionsmeetthewidthtothickness
requirementsforspecialmomentframes
Strongcolumnweakbeam
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 5
Member
Supporting
Level
Column Girder Doubler Plate
Thickness (in.)
R W21x122 W24x84 1.00
6 W21x122 W24x84 1.00
5 W21x147 W27x94 1.00
4 W21x147 W27x94 1.00
3 W21x201 W27x94 0.875
2 W21x201 W27x94 0.875
EquivalentLateralForceProcedure
6
D
Fe
F
Vdesign
Tcomp
Vdrift
CuTa
y design
Tcomp=2.05sec(withoutPDelta)
Tcomp=2.13sec(withPDelta)
ApproximatePeriodofVibration
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 3
7
EquivalentLateralForceProcedure
VerticalDistributionofForces
Equivalent Lateral Forces for Building Responding in N-S Direction
Level
x
w
x
(kips)
h
x
(ft)
w
x
h
x
k
C
vx
F
x
(kips)
V
x
(kips)
M
x
(ft-kips)
R 2,596 77.5 1,080,327 0.321 243.6 243.6 3,045
6 2,608 65.0 850,539 0.253 191.8 435.4 8,488
5 2,608 52.5 632,564 0.188 142.6 578.0 15,713
4 2,608 40.0 433,888 0.129 97.8 675.9 24,161
3 2,608 27.5 258,095 0.077 58.2 734.1 33,337
2 2,621 15.0 111,909 0.033 25.2 759.3 44,727
E 15,650 3,367,323 1.000 759.3
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ComputerProgramsNONLINProandDRAIN2Dx
ShortcomingsofDRAIN
Itisnotpossibletomodelstrengthlosswhenusingthe
ASCE4106(2006)modelforgirderplastichinges.
TheDRAINmodelforaxialflexuralinteractionin
columnsisnotparticularlyaccurate.
OnlyTwoDimensionalanalysismaybeperformed.
ElementsusedinAnalysis
Type1,inelasticbar(truss)element
Type2,beamcolumnelement
Type4,connectionelement
8 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
DescriptionofPreliminaryModel
Onlyasingleframe(FrameAorG)ismodeled.
Columnsarefixedattheirbase.
Each beam or column element is modeled using a Type 2
element. For the columns, axial, flexural, and shear deformations
are included. For the girders, flexural and shear deformations are
included but, because of diaphragm slaving, axial deformation is
not included. Composite action in the floor slab is ignored for all
analysis.
Allmembersaremodeledusingcenterlinedimensionswithout
rigidendoffsets.
This model does not provide any increase in beamcolumn joint
stiffness due to the presence of doubler plates.
The stiffness of the girders was decreased by 7% in the
preliminary analyses, which should be a reasonable approximate
representation of the 35% reduction in the flange sections.
Moment rotation properties of the reduced flange sections are
used in the detailed analyses.
9 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 4
ResultsofPreliminaryAnalysis:Drift
10
Results of Preliminary Analysis Excluding P-delta Effects
Story
Total Drift
(in.)
Story Drift
(in.)
Magnified
Story Drift (in.)
Drift Limit
(in.)
Story Stability
Ratio, u
6 2.08 0.22 1.21 3.00 0.0278
5 1.86 0.32 1.76 3.00 0.0453
4 1.54 0.38 2.09 3.00 0.0608
3 1.16 0.41 2.26 3.00 0.0749
2 0.75 0.41 2.26 3.00 0.0862
1 0.34 0.34 1.87 3.60 0.0691
Results of Preliminary Analysis Including P-delta Effects
Story
Total Drift
(in.)
Story Drift
(in.)
Magnified
Story Drift (in.)
Drift from u
(in.)
Drift Limit
(in.)
6 2.23 0.23 1.27 1.24 3.00
5 2.00 0.34 1.87 1.84 3.00
4 1.66 0.40 2.20 2.23 3.00
3 1.26 0.45 2.48 2.44 3.00
2 0.81 0.45 2.48 2.47 3.00
1 0.36 0.36 1.98 2.01 3.60
5.5
5.5
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ResultsofPreliminaryAnalysis:
DemandCapacityRatios(ColumnsGirders)
11
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
1.033 0.973 0.968 0.971 1.098
1.837 1.826 1.815 1.826 1.935
2.557 2.366 2.366 2.357 2.626
3.025 2.782 2.782 2.773 3.085
3.406 3.198 3.198 3.189 3.475
3.155 2.903 2.903 2.895 3.224
0.595 1.084 1.082 1.082 1.082 0.671
0.971 1.480 1.477 1.482 1.482 1.074
1.060 1.721 1.693 1.692 1.712 1.203
1.249 1.908 1.857 1.857 1.882 1.483
1.041 1.601 1.550 1.550 1.575 1.225
3.345 2.922 2.850 2.850 2.856 4.043
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ResultsofPreliminaryAnalysis:
DemandCapacityRatios(PanelZones)
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 12
1.686
(1.686)
1.746
(3.128)
1.718
(3.076)
1.718
(3.076)
1.749
(3.132)
1.731
(1.731) 1.932
(1.932)
2.013
(3.605)
1.991
(3.567)
1.991
(3.567)
1.884
(1.884) 2.343
(2.343)
1.951
(4.334)
1.929
(4.285)
1.929
(4.285)
1.953
(4.339)
2.405
(2.405) 2.092
(2.092) 1.757
(1.757) 0.899
(0.899)
0.577
(1.429)
1.272
(3.149)
1.701
(3.779)
1.680
(3.732) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
1.683
(3.739) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
0.574
(1.422)
1.268
(3.141)
1.699
(3.774)
2.021
(2.021) 1.656
(1.656) 0.839
(0.839)
2.009
(3.598)
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 5
ResultsofPreliminaryAnalysis:
DemandCapacityRatios
Thestructurehasconsiderableoverstrength,particularlyatthe
upperlevels.
Thesequenceofyieldingwillprogressfromthelowerlevelgirders
totheupperlevelgirders.
Withthepossibleexceptionofthefirstlevel,thegirdersshould
yieldbeforethecolumns.WhilenotshownintheFigure,itshould
benotedthatthedemandtocapacityratiosforthelowerstory
columnswerecontrolledbythemomentatthebaseofthecolumn.
Thecolumnontheleeward(right)sideofthebuildingwillyieldfirst
becauseoftheadditionalaxialcompressiveforcearisingfromthe
seismiceffects.
ThemaximumDCRofgirdersis3.475,whilemaximumDCRfor
panelzoneswithoutdoublerplatesis4.339.Thus,ifdoublerplates
arenotused,thefirstyieldinthestructurewillbeinthepanel
zones.However,withdoublerplatesadded,thefirstyieldisatthe
girdersasthemaximumDCRofthepanelzonesreducesto2.405.
13 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ResultsofPreliminaryAnalysis:
OverallSystemStrength
14 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ResultsofPreliminaryAnalysis:
OverallSystemStrength
Asexpected,thestrengthunderuniformloadissignificantlygreaterthanunder
triangularorStandardsload.
TheclosenessoftheStandards andtriangularloadstrengthsisduetothefact
thattheverticalloaddistributingparameter(k)was1.385,whichiscloseto1.0.
Slightlymorethan15percentofthesystemstrengthcomesfromplastichinges
thatforminthecolumns.IfthestrengthofthecolumnistakensimplyasM
p
(withouttheinfluenceofaxialforce),theerrorintotalstrengthislessthan2
percent.
Therigidplasticanalysisdidnotincludestrainhardening,whichisanadditional
sourceofoverstrength.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 15
Lateral Strength on Basis of Rigid-Plastic Mechanism
Lateral Load Pattern
Lateral Strength
(kips)
Entire Structure
Lateral Strength
(kips)
Single Frame
Uniform 3,332 1,666
Upper Triangular 2,747 1,373
Standard 2,616 1,308
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 6
DescriptionofModelUsedforDetailed
StructuralAnalysis
16
1
5

a
t

1
2

=
6
2

PDelta
Frame
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
DescriptionofModelUsedforDetailed
StructuralAnalysis
Nonlinearstaticandnonlineardynamicanalysesrequirea
muchmoredetailedmodelthanwasusedinthelinear
analysis.
Theprimaryreasonforthedifferenceistheneedtoexplicitly
representyieldinginthegirders,columns,andpanelzone
regionofthebeamcolumnjoints.
17 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
PlasticHingeModelingandCompoundNodes
Compoundnodesareusedtomodelplastichingesingirdersanddeformationsinthepanel
zoneregionofbeamcolumnjoints
Typicallyconsistofapairofsinglenodeswitheachnodesharingthesamepointinspace.
TheXandYdegreesoffreedomofthefirstnodeofthepair(theslavenode)areconstrained
tobeequaltotheXandYdegreesoffreedomofthesecondnodeofthepair(themaster
node),respectively.Hence,thecompoundnodehasfourdegreesoffreedom:anX
displacement,aYdisplacement,andtwoindependentrotations.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 18
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 7
ModelingofBeamColumnJointRegions
19
Krawinklerbeamcolumnjointmodel
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ModelingofBeamColumnJointRegions
Krawinkler modelassumesthatthepanelzonehastworesistancemechanisms
actinginparallel:
1. Shearresistanceofthewebofthecolumn,includingdoubler platesand
2. Flexuralresistanceoftheflangesofthecolumn.
F
y
=yieldstrengthofthecolumnandthedoubler plate,
d
c
=totaldepthofcolumn,
t
p
=thicknessofpanelzoneregion=columnweb+doubler platethickness,
b
cf
=widthofcolumnflange,
t
cf
=thicknessofcolumnflange,and
d
b
=totaldepthofgirder.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 20
ModelingofBeamColumnJointRegions
21
Forcedeformationbehaviorofpanelzoneregion(KrawinklerModel)
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 8
ModelingGirders
The AISC Seismic Design
Manual (AISC, 2006)
recommends design practices
to force the plastic hinge
forming in the beam away
from the column.
1. Reduce the cross sectional
properties of the beam at a
specific location away from
the column
2. Special detailing of the beam
column connection to provide
adequate strength and
toughness in the connection
so that inelasticity will be
forced into the beam adjacent
to the column face.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 22
Zero Length
Inelastic
Plastic Hinge
0.625 b 0.75 d
bf b
Rigid End Zone (0.5 d )
Reduced Beam
Section (RBS)
c
Sideviewofbeamelementand
beammodeling
23
ModelingGirders
Topviewof
ReducedBeam
Section
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
0 0.0005 0.001 0.0015 0.002 0.0025 0.003
M
o
m
e
n
t
, i
n
-
k
i
p
s
Curvature, rad/in.
bf bf1
bf2 bf3
0.65 bf
Momentcurvature
diagramfor
W27x94girder
/14 /7 /7
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
24
ModelingGirders
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
C
u
r
v
a
t
u
r
e
, r
a
d
/
i
n
.
Cantilever beam length, in.
CurvatureDiagram
forCantileverBeam
with
ReducedBeam
Section
P1
P2
P3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
F
o
r
c
e
, k
i
p
s
Displacement, in.
Real F-D relationship
Trilinear F-D relationship
ForceDisplacement
Diagramfor
W27x94with
RBS
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 9
25
ModelingGirders
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
M
o
m
e
n
t
, i
n
-
k
i
p
s
Rotation, rad.
W27x94
W24x84
MomentRotationDiagramforgirderhingeswithRBS
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
26
ModelingColumns
-4,000
-3,000
-2,000
-1,000
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
-40,000 -30,000 -20,000 -10,000 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000
A
x
ia
l lo
a
d
, k
ip
s
Moment, in.-kips
W21x201
W21x147
W21x122
Yieldsurfaceusedformodelingcolumns
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ResultsofDetailedAnalysis:PeriodofVibration
Pdeltaeffectsincreasestheperiod.
Doubler platesdecreasestheperiodasthemodelbecomesstifferwith
doubler plates.
Differentperiodvalueswereobtainedfrompreliminaryanddetailed
analyses.
Detailedmodelresultsinastifferstructurethanthepreliminarymodel
especiallywhendoubler platesareadded.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 27
Periods of Vibration From Detailed Analysis (sec/cycle)
Model Mode P-delta Excluded P-delta Included
Strong Panel
with
doubler plates
1 1.912 1.973
2 0.627 0.639
3 0.334 0.339
Weak Panel
without
doubler plates
1 2.000 2.069
2 0.654 0.668
3 0.344 0.349
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 10
Pushover analysis procedure performed in this example
follows the recommendations of ASCE/SEI 4106.
Pushover analysis should always be used as a precursor to
nonlinear response history analysis.
The structure is subjected to the full dead load plus 50
percent of the fully reduced live load, followed by the lateral
loads.
For the entire pushover analyses reported for this example,
the structure is pushed to 37.5 in. at the roof level. This value
is about two times the total drift limit for the structure where
the total drift limit is taken as 2 percent of the total height.
The effect of lateral load distribution, strong and weak panel
zones (doubler plates) and Pdelta are investigated separately
in this example.
28
StaticPushoverAnalysis
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
29
StaticPushoverAnalysis
EffectofDifferentLateralLoadDistribution
Inthisexample,threedifferentloadpatternswereinitiallyconsidered:
UL=Uniformload(equalforceateachlevel)
ML=Modalload(lateralloadsproportionaltofirstmodeshape)
BL=Provisions loaddistribution(Equivalentlateralforcesusedforpreliminaryanalysis)
Lateral Load Patterns Used in Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis
Level
Uniform Load
UL
(kips)
Modal Load
ML
(kips)
Provisions Load
BL
(kips)
R
6
5
4
3
2
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
85.1
77.3
64.8
49.5
32.2
15.0
144.8
114.0
84.8
58.2
34.6
15.0
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
30
StaticPushoverAnalysis
EffectofDifferentLateralLoadDistribution
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
, k
ip
s
Roof displacement, in.
UL Loading
ML Loading
BL Loading
Responseofstrong
panelmodeltothree
loadpatterns,
excludingPdelta
effects
TheProvisions statesthatthelateralloadpatternshouldfollowtheshapeofthe
firstmode.(MLLoading)
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 11
31
StaticPushoverAnalysis
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
S
h
e
a
r
, k
ip
s
Roof displacement, in.
Column Shear Forces
Total Base Shear
P-Delta Forces
Twobaseshear
componentsof
pushover
response
StaticPushoverCurveswithPDeltaEffects
=Sumofallcolumnshearsin1
st
story
=Pdeltacolumn1
st
storydisplacement
=TotalverticalloadonPdeltacolumn
=1
st
storyheight
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
32
StaticPushoverAnalysis
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
, k
ip
s
Roof displacement, in.
UL Loading
ML Loading
BL Loading
Responseofstrong
panelmodeltothree
loadpatterns,
includingPdelta
effects
EffectofDifferentLateralLoadDistribution
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
33
StaticPushoverAnalysis
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
, k
ip
s
Roof displacement, in.
Excluding P-Delta
Including P-Delta
EffectofPDeltaonPushoverCurve
Responseofstrong
panelmodelto
MLloads,
withandwithout
Pdeltaeffects
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 12
34
StaticPushoverAnalysis
EffectofPDeltaonPushoverCurve
Tangentstiffness
historyfor
StrongPanelmodel
underMLloads,
withandwithout
Pdeltaeffects
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
"
T
a
n
g
e
n
t

S
t
if
f
n
e
s
s
"
, k
ip
s
/in
.
Roof displacement, in.
Excluding P-Delta
Including P-Delta
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
35
StaticPushoverAnalysis
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
, k
ip
s
Roof displacement, in.
Strong Panels
Weak Panels
EffectofPanelzones(DoublerPlates)onPushoverCurve
Comparisonof
weakpanelzone
modelwithstrong
panelzonemodel,
bothincluding
Pdeltaeffects
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
36
StaticPushoverAnalysis:SequenceandPattern
ofPlasticHingingwithNonlinPro
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 13
StaticPushoverAnalysis
SequenceandPatternofPlasticHingingforStrongPanelModel
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 37
1
2
3 3 3 3 4
4 5 6 6 6
8 8 8 7
9
9
10 10 10
11 11 11 11 12 13 13 13 13
14 14 14 14 15 16
17 18 18 18 19 20 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22
23
24
25
26
27 27 27
28
27
StaticPushoverAnalysis
DCR PlasticHingeSequenceComparisonforGirdersandColumns
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 38
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
1.033 0.973 0.968 0.971 1.098
1.837 1.826 1.815 1.826 1.935
2.557 2.366 2.366 2.357 2.626
3.025 2.782 2.782 2.773 3.085
3.406 3.198 3.198 3.189 3.475
3.155 2.903 2.903 2.895 3.224
0.595 1.084 1.082 1.082 1.082 0.671
0.971 1.480 1.477 1.482 1.482 1.074
1.060 1.721 1.693 1.692 1.712 1.203
1.249 1.908 1.857 1.857 1.882 1.483
1.041 1.601 1.550 1.550 1.575 1.225
3.345 2.922 2.850 2.850 2.856 4.043
StaticPushoverAnalysis
DCR PlasticHingeSequenceComparisonforPanelZones
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 39
1.686
(1.686)
1.746
(3.128)
1.718
(3.076)
1.718
(3.076)
1.749
(3.132)
1.731
(1.731) 1.932
(1.932)
2.013
(3.605)
1.991
(3.567)
1.991
(3.567)
1.884
(1.884) 2.343
(2.343)
1.951
(4.334)
1.929
(4.285)
1.929
(4.285)
1.953
(4.339)
2.405
(2.405) 2.092
(2.092) 1.757
(1.757) 0.899
(0.899)
0.577
(1.429)
1.272
(3.149)
1.701
(3.779)
1.680
(3.732) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
1.683
(3.739) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
0.574
(1.422)
1.268
(3.141)
1.699
(3.774)
2.021
(2.021) 1.656
(1.656) 0.839
(0.839)
2.009
(3.598)
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 14
StaticPushoverAnalysis
SequenceandPatternofPlasticHingingforStrongPanelModel
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 40
1
5
9
12
15
19
21
2223 25 27 28
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
T
o
t
a
l

s
h
e
a
r
,

k
i
p
s
Drift, in.
StaticPushoverAnalysis
SequenceandPatternofPlasticHingingforWeakPanelModel
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 41
1 2 3 3
4 5
5
6 6
7
8
8
9
9 10 10
10 11 11
12
11
13
13
14
15 16 17
18 19
20
21
21
21
20
22 22
23 23
23
24
25
26
26 26
28 28
27 27 27 30
31 31
29
32
33
34 34 35 35
36
36
38 38
37 37 39 39
40 42 41
43
44 45 46
47
49
50
48
51
53
53 52
54
56 56
55
57
58
59 60 61
60
62 62
63 64 64
66
65
67
68
69
70
StaticPushoverAnalysis
DCR PlasticHingeSequenceComparisonforPanelZones
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 42
1.686
(1.686)
1.746
(3.128)
1.718
(3.076)
1.718
(3.076)
1.749
(3.132)
1.731
(1.731) 1.932
(1.932)
2.013
(3.605)
1.991
(3.567)
1.991
(3.567)
1.884
(1.884) 2.343
(2.343)
1.951
(4.334)
1.929
(4.285)
1.929
(4.285)
1.953
(4.339)
2.405
(2.405) 2.092
(2.092) 1.757
(1.757) 0.899
(0.899)
0.577
(1.429)
1.272
(3.149)
1.701
(3.779)
1.680
(3.732) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
1.683
(3.739) 1.272
(3.149) 0.576
(1.427)
0.574
(1.422)
1.268
(3.141)
1.699
(3.774)
2.021
(2.021) 1.656
(1.656) 0.839
(0.839)
2.009
(3.598)
Level R
Level 6
Level 5
Level 4
Level 3
Level 2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 15
StaticPushoverAnalysis
TargetDisplacement
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 43
= I =
1 , 1 0 r
C |
modificationfactor torelatespectraldisplacement ofanequalsingledegreeoffreedomsystemto
theroofdisplacement ofthebuildingmultidegreeoffreedomsystem.
=
r , 1
| theordinateofmodeshape1at theroof(controlnode)
= I
1
=
1
C
=
2
C
=
a
S
= =
e
i
i e
K
K
T T
= g
=
i
T
thefirst modeparticipationfactor
modificationfactor torelateexpectedmaximuminelastic displacements todisplacements
calculatedfor linearelastic response.
modificationfactor torepresent theeffect ofpinchedhysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness
degradationandstrengthdeteriorationonmaximumdisplacement response.
responsespectrumacceleration, at theeffectivefundamentalperiodanddampingratioof
thebuildinginthedirectionunder consideration.
effectivefundamentalperiodofthebuildinginthedirectionunder consideration
elastic fundamentalperiodinthedirectionunder considerationcalculatedbyelastic dynamic
analysis.
elastic,andeffectivelateralstiffness ofthebuildinginthedirectionunder consideration.
accelerationofgravity
,
StaticPushoverAnalysis
ThisspectrumisforBSE2(BasicSafetyEarthquake2)
hazardlevelwhichhasa2%probabilityofexceedencein
50years.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 44
2%damped
horizontal
responsespectrum
fromASCE4106
TargetDisplacement
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l a
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Period, sec
StaticPushoverAnalysis
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 45
TargetDisplacement
Nonlinearforcedisplacementrelationshipbetweenbaseshearanddisplacement
ofcontrolnodeshallbereplacedwithanidealizedforcedisplacementcurve.The
effectivelateralstiffnessandtheeffectiveperioddependontheidealizedforce
displacementcurve.
Theidealizedforcedisplacementcurveisdevelopedbyusinganiterative
graphicalprocedurewheretheareasbelowtheactualandidealizedcurvesare
approximatelybalanceduptoadisplacementvalueof.isthe
displacementattheendofsecondlinesegmentoftheidealizedcurveandis
thebaseshearatthesamedisplacement.
shouldbeapointontheactualforcedisplacementcurveateitherthe
calculatedtargetdisplacement,oratthedisplacementcorrespondingtothe
maximumbaseshear,whicheveristheleast.
Thefirstlinesegmentoftheidealizedforcedisplacementcurveshouldbeginat
theoriginandfinishat,whereistheeffectiveyieldstrengthand
istheyielddisplacementofidealizedcurve.
Theslopeofthe1
st
linesegmentisequaltotheeffectivelateralstiffness,
whichshouldbetakenasthesecantstiffnesscalculatedatabaseshearforce
equalto60%oftheeffectiveyieldstrengthofthestructure.
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 16
46
StaticPushoverAnalysis
y,Vy
d,Vd
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
, k
i
p
s
Roof displacement, in.
Actual force Displacement
Ay,Vy
Ad,Vd
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
B
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
, k
ip
s
Roof displacement, in.
Actual Force Displacement
Actualandidealized
forcedisplacement
curvesfor
STRONGpanelmodel,
underMLload,
withPdeltaeffects
Actualandidealized
forcedisplacement
curvesfor
WEAKpanelmodel,
underMLload,
withPdeltaeffects
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
StaticPushoverAnalysis
Storydriftsarealsoshownattheloadleveloftargetdisplacement.
Negativestiffnessstartsaftertargetdisplacementsforbothmodels.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 47
Strong Panel Weak Panel
1.303 1.310
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
(g) 0.461 0.439
(sec) 1.973 2.069
(in.) at Roof Level 22.9 24.1
Drift R-6 (in.) 0.96 1.46
Drift 6-5 (in.) 1.76 2.59
Drift 5-4 (in.) 2.87 3.73
Drift 4-3 (in.) 4.84 4.84
Drift 3-2 (in.) 5.74 5.35
Drift 2-1 (in.) 6.73 6.12
Target displacement for strong and weak panel models
0
C
1
C
2
C
a
S
t
o
e
T
ResponseHistoryAnalysis
Responseresponse historyanalysismethodisusedtoestimatethe
inelasticdeformationdemandsforthedetailedstructure.
Threegroundmotionswereused.(Sevenormoregroundmotionsis
generallypreferable.)
Theanalysisconsideredanumberofparameters,asfollows:
ScalingofgroundmotionstotheDBEandMCElevel
WithandwithoutPdeltaeffects
Twopercentandfivepercentinherentdamping
Addedlinearviscousdamping
IdenticalstructuralmodelusedinNonlinearPushoverAnalysesand2
nd
ordereffectswereincludedthroughtheuseofleaningcolumn.
AllofthemodelanalyzedhadStrongPanels(whereindoubler plated
wereincludedintheinteriorbeamcolumnjoints).
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 48
ModelingandAnalysisProcedure
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 17
RayleighDamping
Rayleighproportionaldampingwasusedtorepresentviscous
energydissipationinthestructure.
Themassandstiffnessproportionaldampingfactorswereinitially
settoproduce2.0percentdampinginthefirstandthirdmodes.
Itisgenerallyrecognizedthatthislevelofdamping(inlieuofthe5
percentdampingthatistraditionallyusedinelasticanalysis)is
appropriatefornonlinearresponsehistoryanalysis.
49
ResponseHistoryAnalysis
K M C | o + =
)
`

+
=
)
`

1
2
3 1
3 1
w w
w w

|
o
Structural frequencies and damping factors used in response history analysis.
(Damping factors that produce 2 percent damping in modes 1 and 3)
Model/Damping Parameters

1
(rad/sec)

3
(rad/sec)

Strong Panel with P-delta
Strong Panel without P-delta
3.184
3.285
18.55
18.81
0.109
0.112
0.00184
0.00181
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
BecauseonlyatwodimensionalanalysisofthestructureisperformedusingDRAIN,
onlyasinglecomponentofgroundmotionisappliedatonetime.
Fortheanalysesreportedherein,thecomponentthatproducedthelargerspectral
accelerationatthestructuresfundamentalperiodwasused.
Acompleteanalysiswouldrequireconsiderationofbothcomponentsofground
motions,andpossiblyofarotatedsetofcomponents.
50
ResponseHistoryAnalysis
DevelopmentofGroundMotionRecords
NGA
Record
Number
Magnitude,
[Epicenter
Distance (km)]
Site
Class
Numberof
Pointsand
Timestep
Integration Time
Stepusedin
analyses
Component
Source
Motion
PGA
(g)
Record
Name
0879 7.28,[44] C
9625@
0.005sec
0.0005sec
Landers /
LCN260
0.727 A00
0725 6.54,[11.2] D
2230@
0.01sec
0.001sec
SUPERST/
BPOE360
0.300 B90
0139 7.35,[21] C
1192@
0.02sec
0.001sec
TABAS/
DAYTR
0.406 C90
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ResponseHistoryAnalysis
A00
B90
C90
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Time, sec
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0 5 10 15 20 25
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Time, sec
-0.30
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Time, sec
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 1 2 3 4
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Period, sec
2% damped 5% damped
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Period, sec
2% Damped 5% damped
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Period, sec
2% Damped 5% damped
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2 51
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 18
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Period, sec
2%DampedResponse Spectrum
2%DampedMCE Spectrum
ResponseHistoryAnalysis
1. Eachspectrumisinitiallyscaledtomatchthetargetspectrumatthestructures
fundamentalperiod.
2. Theaverageofthescaledspectraarerescaledsuchthatnoordinateofthescaled
averagespectrumfallsbelowthetargetspectrumintherangeofperiodsbetween
0.2and1.5T.
3. Thefinalscalefactorforeachmotionconsistsoftheproductoftheinitialscale
factor(differentforeachgroundmotion),andthesecondscalefactor(whichisthe
sameforeachgroundmotion).
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 52
GroundMotionScalingProcedure
T1=1.973sec.
T1=1.973sec.
1.5*T1
0.2*T1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0
P
s
e
u
d
o
a
c
c
e
le
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Period, sec
Average of scaled EQWindows
2% Damped MCE Spectrum
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
DBE Results for 2% Damped Strong Panel Model with P-A Excluded / P-A Included
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 53
(a) Maximum Base Shear (kips)
Motion A00 Motion B90 Motion C90
Column Forces 1780 / 1467 1649 / 1458 1543 / 1417
Inertial Forces 1848 / 1558 1650 / 1481 1540 / 1419
* Values in ( ) reflect increased drift limits provided bySec. 16.2.4.3 of the Standard
(b) Maximum Story Drifts (in.)
Level Motion A00 Motion B90 Motion C90 Limit*
Total Roof
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
26.80 / 32.65
1.85 / 1.86
2.51 / 2.64
3.75 / 4.08
5.62 / 6.87
6.61 / 8.19
8.09 / 10.40
14.57 /14.50
1.92 / 1.82
2.60 / 2.50
3.08 / 2.81
2.98 / 3.21
3.58 / 3.40
4.68 / 4.69
13.55 / 14.75
1.71 / 1.70
2.33 / 2.41
3.03 / 3.19
3.03 / 3.33
2.82 / 2.90
3.29 / 3.44
NA
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.60 (4.50)
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
MCE Results for 2% Damped Strong Panel Model with P-A Excluded / P-A Included
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 54
(a) Maximum Base Shear (kips)
Motion A00 Motion B90 Motion C90
Column Forces 2181 / 1675 1851 / 1584 1723 / 1507
Inertial Forces 2261 / 1854 1893 / 1633 1725 / 1515
(b) Maximum Story Drifts (in.)
Level Motion A00 Motion B90 Motion C90 Limit*
Total Roof
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
62.40 / 101.69
1.98 / 1.95
3.57 / 2.97
7.36 / 6.41
14.61 / 20.69
16.29 / 31.65
19.76 / 40.13
22.45 / 26.10
2.30 / 2.32
2.77 / 2.60
3.33 / 3.62
4.61 / 5.61
5.21 / 6.32
6.60 / 7.03
20.41 / 20.50
3.05 / 2.93
3.69 / 3.49
4.43 / 4.32
4.45 / 4.63
3.97 / 4.18
5.11 / 5.11
NA
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
5.40
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 19
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
B
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
, k
i
p
s
Time, sec
Total Shear with P-Delta
Total Shear without P-delta
55
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
ResponseHistoriesof
RoofandFirststory
Displacement,
GroundMotionA00
(DBE)
ResponseHistoryof
TotalBaseShear,
GroundMotionA00
(DBE)
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
, i
n
.
Time, sec
Total (Roof) withP-delta
Total (Roof) without P-delta
First Story with P-delta
First Story without P-delta
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
EnergyResponseHistory,GroundMotionA00(DBE),includingPdelta
effects
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 56
57
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
ResponseHistoriesof
RoofandFirststory
Displacement,
GroundMotionB90
(MCE)
ResponseHistoryof
RoofandFirststory
Displacement,
GroundMotionA00
(MCE)
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 5 10 15 20 25
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
, i
n
.
Time, sec
Total (Roof) with P-delta
Total (Roof) without P-delta
First Story with P-delta
First Story without P-delta
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
, i
n
.
Time, sec
Total (Roof) withP-delta
Total (Roof) without P-delta
First Story with P-delta
First Story without P-delta
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 20
ResponseHistoryAnalysis
A00MotionGroundAcceleration,VelocityandDisplacement
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 58
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
G
r
o
u
n
d
v
e
lo
c
it
y
, f
t
/s
e
c
Time, sec
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
G
r
o
u
n
d
d
is
p
la
c
e
m
e
n
t
, f
t
Time, sec
-0.80
-0.60
-0.40
-0.20
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
io
n
, g
Time, sec
ResponseHistoryAnalysis
A00MotiontripartiteSpectrum
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 59
Period, sec
P
s
e
u
d
o
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
,

f
t
/
s
e
c
0.01 0.1 1 10
0.01
0.1
1
10
5
0
g
1
0
g
5
g
1
g
0
.1
g
0
.0
5
g
0
.0
1
g
0
.0
0
5
g
0
.0
0
1
g
0
.0
0
0
5
g
1
ft.
0
.5
ft.
0
.1
ft. 0
.0
5
ft.
0
.0
1
ft.
0
.0
0
5
ft.
0
.0
0
1
ft.
0
.0
0
0
5
ft.
0
.0
0
0
1
ft.
2% Damping
5% Damping
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
YieldinglocationsforstructurewithstrongpanelssubjectedtoMCE
scaledB90motion,includingPdeltaeffects
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 60
Girder,max=
0.03609 rad
Column,max=
0.02993 rad
Panel zone,max=
0.00411 rad
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 21
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonwithResultsfromOtherAnalyses
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 61
Response Quantity
Analysis Method
Equivalent
Lateral
Forces
Nonlinear Static
Pushover
Nonlinear
Dynamic
Base Shear (kips)
Roof Disp. (in.)
Drift R-6 (in.)
Drift 6-5 (in.)
Drift 5-4 (in.)
Drift 4-3 (in.)
Drift 3-2 (in.)
Drift 2-1 (in.)
Girder Hinge Rot. (rad)
Column Hinge Rot. (rad)
Panel Hinge Rot. (rad)
Panel Plastic Shear Strain
569
18.4
1.86
2.78
3.34
3.73
3.67
2.98
NA
NA
NA
NA
1208
22.9
0.96
1.76
2.87
4.84
5.74
6.73
0.03304
0.02875
0.00335
0.00335
1633
26.1
2.32
2.60
3.62
5.61
6.32
7.03
0.03609
0.02993
0.00411
0.00411
Note: Shears are for half of total structure.
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
Reasonsofthedifferences
betweenPushoverandResponse
HistoryAnalyses
Scalefactorof1.367wasusedfor
the2
nd
partofthescaling
procedure.
Theuseofthefirstmodelateral
loadingpatterninthenonlinear
staticpushoverresponse.
Thehighermodeeffectsshownin
theFigurearethelikelycauseofthe
differenthingingpatternsandare
certainlythereasonforthevery
highbasesheardevelopedinthe
responsehistoryanalysis.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 62
Comparisonofinertialforcepatterns
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
EffectofIncreasedDampingonResponse
Excessivedriftsoccurinthebottomthreestories.
Additionalstrengthand/orstiffnessshouldbeprovidedatthese
stories.
Considerednext,Addeddampingisalsoaviableapproach.
Fourdifferentdamperconfigurationswereused.
DamperswereaddedtotheStrongPanelframewith2%inherent
damping.
ThestructurewassubjectedtotheDBEscaledA00andB90
groundmotions.
Pdeltaeffectswereincludedintheanalyses.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 63
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 22
ModelingAddedDampers
Addeddampingiseasilyaccomplishedin
DRAINbyuseofthestiffnessproportional
componentofRayleighdamping.
Linearviscousfluiddampingdevicecanbe
modeledthroughuseofaType1(trussbar)
element.
Setdamperelasticstiffnesstonegligible
value.=0.001 kips/in.
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 64
Itisconvenienttoset
device
device device
device
L
E A
k =
device device device
k C | =
device
k
device
device
device
C
C
1000
001 . 0
= = |
E
device
=0.001andA
device
=DamperlengthL
device
Modelingasimpledamper
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
EffectofIncreasedDampingonResponse
EffectofdifferentaddeddamperconfigurationswhenSP
modelissubjectedtoDBEscaledA00 motion,includingP
deltaeffects
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 65
No Damper 1
st
combo 2
nd
combo 3
rd
combo 4
th
combo
Level
Drift,
In.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Drift
Limit
in.
R-6 1.86 10.5 1.10 60 1.03 - 1.82 - 1.47 3.75
6-5 2.64 33.7 1.90 60 1.84 - 3.56 - 2.41 3.75
5-4 4.08 38.4 2.99 70 2.88 - 4.86 56.25 3.46 3.75
4-3 6.87 32.1 5.46 70 4.42 - 5.24 56.25 4.47 3.75
3-2 8.19 36.5 6.69 80 5.15 160 4.64 112.5 4.76 3.75
2-G 10.40 25.6 8.39 80 5.87 160 4.40 112.5 4.96 4.50
Column
Base
Shear,kips
1467 1629 2170 2134 2267
Inertial
Base
Shear,kips
1558 1728 2268 2215 2350
Total
Damping,%
2 10.1 20.4 20.2 20.4
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
EffectofIncreasedDampingonResponse
EffectofdifferentaddeddamperconfigurationswhenSPmodel
issubjectedtoDBEscaledB90 motion,includingPdeltaeffects
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 66
No Damper 1
st
combo 2
nd
combo 3
rd
combo 4
th
combo
Level
Drift,
In.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Damper
Coeff,
kip-
sec/in.
Drift,
in.
Drift
Limit
in.
R-6 1.82 10.5 1.11 60 0.86 - 1.53 - 1.31 3.75
6-5 2.50 33.7 1.76 60 1.35 - 2.11 - 1.83 3.75
5-4 2.81 38.4 2.33 70 1.75 - 2.51 56.25 2.07 3.75
4-3 3.21 32.1 2.67 70 2.11 - 2.37 56.25 2.16 3.75
3-2 3.40 36.5 2.99 80 2.25 160 2.09 112.5 2.13 3.75
2-G 4.69 25.6 3.49 80 1.96 160 1.87 112.5 1.82 4.50
Column
Base
Shear,kips
1458 1481 1485 1697 1637
Inertial
Base
Shear,kips
1481 1531 1527 1739 1680
Total
Damping,%
2 10.1 20.4 20.2 20.4
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 23
67
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:
RoofDisplacements
RoofDisplacement
ResponseHistories
withaddeddamping
(20%total)and
inherentdamping(2%)
forA00motion
RoofDisplacement
ResponseHistories
withaddeddamping
(20%total)and
inherentdamping(2%)
forB90motion
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
0 10 20 30 40 50
R
o
o
f
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
i
n
.
Time, sec
4th Added Damper Combo (20% Total)
2% Inherent Damping
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
0 5 10 15 20 25
R
o
o
f
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
, i
n
.
Time, sec
4th AddedDamper Combo (20% Total)
2% Inherent Damping
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:EnergyPlots
EnergyResponseHistory
withaddeddampingof
4
th
combination
(20%totaldamping)
forA00motion
EnergyResponseHistory
withinherentdamping
(2%totaldamping)
forA00motion
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 68
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:EnergyPlots
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 69
EnergyResponseHistory
withinherentdamping
(2%totaldamping)
forB90motion
EnergyResponseHistory
withaddeddampingof
4
th
combination
(20%totaldamping)
forB90motion
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 24
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:BaseShear
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 70
InertialBaseShear
ResponseHistories
withaddeddamping
(20%total)and
inherentdamping(2%)
forA00motion
InertialBaseShear
ResponseHistories
withaddeddamping
(20%total)and
inherentdamping(2%)
forB90motion
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
B
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
,
k
i
p
s
Time, sec
4th Added Damper Combo (20% Total)
2% Inherent Damping
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 5 10 15 20 25
B
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
,
k
i
p
s
Time, sec
4th Added Damper Combo (20% Total)
2% Inherent Damping
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:
DeflectedShapeofbyNonlinPro forAddedDamperFrame(4
th
combination)DuringB90Motion
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 71
SummaryandConclusions
72
Fivedifferentanalyticalapproacheswereusedtoestimatethedeformationdemands
inasimpleunbraced steelframestructure:
1. Linearstaticanalysis(theequivalentlateralforcemethod)
2. Plasticstrengthanalysis(usingvirtualwork)
3. Nonlinearstaticpushoveranalysis
4. Lineardynamicanalysis
5. Nonlineardynamicresponsehistoryanalysis
Approaches1,3,and5werecarriedtoapointthatallowedcomparisonofresults.The
resultsobtainedfromthethreedifferentanalyticalapproacheswerequitedissimilar.
Becauseoftheinfluenceofthehighermodeeffectsontheresponse,pushover
analysis,whereusedalone,isinadequate.
Exceptforpreliminarydesign,theELFapproachshouldnotbeusedinexplicit
performanceevaluationasithasnomechanismfordetermininglocationandextentof
yieldinginthestructure.
Responsehistoryanalysisasthemostviableapproach.However,significant
shortcomings,limitations,anduncertaintiesinresponsehistoryanalysisstillexist.
Inmodelingthestructure,particularattentionwaspaidtorepresentingpossible
inelasticbehaviorinthepanelzoneregionsofthebeamcolumnjoints.
InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples StructuralAnalysis, Part2
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
4 StructuralAnalysis2 25
Questions?
StructuralAnalysis, Part2 InstructionalMaterials Complementing FEMAP751, Design Examples 73