Structural Control PDF

CONTENT
CHAPTER 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 1

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Description of the Building Structure ............................................................................ 1
1.2 Modeling Assumptions .................................................................................................. 3
1.3 Member Properties ......................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Curvature and ductility capacity .................................................................................... 7
1.5 Dynamic characteristics of the original structure .......................................................... 9
1.6 Pushover Analyses ......................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER 2 DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS ........................................................................... 10
1 Retrieval and analysis of Design Ground motions .............................................................. 10
2 Response Spectra................................................................................................................. 11
CHAPTER 3 - ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING .................................................... 13
1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 13
2 Performance of the existing structure.................................................................................. 13
2.1 Energy balance ............................................................................................................. 13
2.2 Plastic Hinging Distribution ........................................................................................ 16
2.3 Inter-story peak and residual drifts ................................................................................ 4
2.4 Peak Acceleration .......................................................................................................... 7
2.5 Performance evaluation ............................................................................................... 10
CHAPTER 4 - HYSTERETIC DAMPERS ................................................................................... 14
1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 14
2 Procedure to calculate the optimum activation load ........................................................... 15
3 Fourier Spectra .................................................................................................................... 16
4 Preliminary design............................................................................................................... 17
5 Intermediate design ............................................................................................................. 20
6 Final design ......................................................................................................................... 28
6.1 Energy Balance ............................................................................................................ 29
6.2 Plastic hinging distribution .......................................................................................... 30
6.3 Peak and Residual Inter-Story Drifts ........................................................................... 32
i
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
6.4 Accelerations................................................................................................................ 34
7 Flow Chart for Hysteretic dampers optimum design .......................................................... 37
CHAPTER 5 - VISCOUS DAMPERS .......................................................................................... 38
1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 38
2 Procedures to calculate the damping coefficients ............................................................... 39
3 Modeling of dampers .......................................................................................................... 40
4 Validation of the Damper element ...................................................................................... 42
5 Preliminary design............................................................................................................... 44
5.1 Stiffness proportional approach ................................................................................... 48
5.2 Constant damping approach ......................................................................................... 49
5.3 First mode proportional damping................................................................................. 50
7 Final Design ........................................................................................................................ 54
7.1 Energy Balance ............................................................................................................ 54
7.2 Hinge Distribution ....................................................................................................... 55
7.3 Peak and Residual Inter-Story Drifts ........................................................................... 58
7.4 Accelerations................................................................................................................ 60
8 Flow chart for viscous dampers optimum design................................................................ 63
CHAPTER 6 - BASE ISOLATION ............................................................................................... 64
1 Description .......................................................................................................................... 64
2 Preliminary Design .............................................................................................................. 68
4 Final Design ........................................................................................................................ 76
5 Flow chart for optimum design of base isolation ................................................................ 86
CHAPTER 7 - OPTIMUM DESIGN and NEAR-FAULT GROUND MOTION performance.... 87
1 Optimum retrofit strategy .................................................................................................... 87
2 Performance under near-fault ground motion ..................................................................... 88
2.1 Near-Fault Ground Motion .......................................................................................... 88
2.2 Assessment of the existing structure under near fault ground motion ......................... 89
2.3 Retrofitted building performance under near fault ground motion .............................. 92
APPENDIX A RESULTS ANALYSIS WITH VBA SCRIPT ................................................... 97
APPENDIX B COMPOSITE SECTION .................................................................................... 98
APPENDIX C: PEER REVIEW LETTERS .................................................................................. 99
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 101
ii
List of Tables
Table1:Designgravityloads_____________________________________________________________________3
Table2:Materialproperties______________________________________________________________________5
Table3:GeometricandElasticMemberProperties ___________________________________________________6
Table4:Descriptionoftheframemembers__________________________________________________________6
Table5:Columnaxialloadmomentinteraction_____________________________________________________7
Table6:PlasticCurvatureofeachelementforaplasticRotationlimit __________________________________8
Table7:Curvatureductilitycapacityatfailure _______________________________________________________9
Table8:Frequenciesandperiods__________________________________________________________________9
Table9:Massparticipationratios_________________________________________________________________9
Table10:LateralLoadDistribution,ASCE41_________________________________________________________3
Table11:LateralLoadDistribution,Linearvertical____________________________________________________3
Table 12:LateralLoadDistribution,NewZealandCode________________________________________________3
Table13:FractionofInputEnergyAbsorbed._______________________________________________________15
Table14:PeakAbsorbedEnergy._________________________________________________________________16
Table15:EnergyBalanceError.__________________________________________________________________16
Table16:MaximumplasticrotationsforLA02groundmotion__________________________________________3
Table17:MaximumplasticrotationsforLA07groundmotion. _________________________________________4
Table18:MaximumplasticrotationsforLA16groundmotion. _________________________________________3
Table19:Reponselimitsfordifferentperformancecategory___________________________________________12
Table20:PerformanceIndexesfordesigngroundmotions ____________________________________________13
Table21:Parameters__________________________________________________________________________19
Table22:Parameters__________________________________________________________________________22
Table23:MaximumplasticrotationsforLA02groundmotion. ________________________________________31
Table25:PerformanceIndexesforstructureretrofittedwithhystereticdamperscomparedtotheoriginal
performance. ________________________________________________________________________________36
Table26:Validationofdamperelement___________________________________________________________43
Table27:Summaryofstorystiffness______________________________________________________________47
Table28:StiffnessproportionalApproachdampingcoefficients ________________________________________51
Table29:ConstantDampingApproachdampingcoefficients__________________________________________51
Table30:FirstModeproportionalApproachdampingcoefficients______________________________________51
Table32:MaximumplasticrotationsforLA07groundmotion_________________________________________56
Table33:MaximumplasticrotationsforLA16groundmotion_________________________________________57
Table34:PerformanceIndicesforstructureretrofittedwithviscousdamperscomparedtoexistingbuilding
performance. ________________________________________________________________________________62
Table35:PreliminaryDesignresults ______________________________________________________________70
Table36:Summaryofparameterstobestudiedinintermediatedesign__________________________________71
Table37:SummaryofDesignParameters__________________________________________________________75
Table38:PerformanceIndexesforstructureretrofittedwithbaseisolationcomparedwithexistingperformance. 85
Table39:Summaryofvariousretrofitoptions ______________________________________________________87
Table40:Performancelevelcategory_____________________________________________________________88
Table41:MaximumplasticrotationsforNearFaultgroundmotioninexistingstructure.____________________90
Table42:PerformanceIndexesofexistingstructurefornearfaultgroundmotion. _________________________92
Table43:Performanceofexistingandretrofittedstructureforthenearfaultgroundmotion_________________96
iii
List of figures
Figure1:Planview,buildingtoberetrofitted________________________________________________________2
Figure2:ElevationviewAxisAE. ________________________________________________________________2
Figure3:BiLinearMomentCurvatureModel. _______________________________________________________3
Figure4:StrengthDegradationModelforWeldedBeamColumnConnections._____________________________4
Figure5:Elevationviewwithpositionofallnodesandmembers.________________________________________5
Figure6:AxialLoadBendingMomentInteractionDiagram ___________________________________________7
Figure7:ModeShapesofthestructure_____________________________________________________________2
Figure8:Pushoverscurves_______________________________________________________________________4
Figure9:Topfloorlateraldisplacementvs.time______________________________________________________4
Figure10:DeflectedShapeASCE41Pushover,PlasticHingeLocation_____________________________________5
Figure11:PushoverCurveASCE41________________________________________________________________5
Figure12:BaseShearvs.Time,ASCE41.____________________________________________________________6
Figure13:Momentvs.Time,beammember58end2 _________________________________________________6
Figure14:Momentvs.timeColumnmember23____________________________________________________7
Figure15:Momentvs.Curvature,Member58end2 __________________________________________________7
Figure16:1stFloorBeamFailureatend1 __________________________________________________________8
Figure17:1stFloorBeamFailureatend2 __________________________________________________________8
Figure18:BottomStoreyColumnsFailureatend1 ___________________________________________________8
Figure19:BottomStoreyColumnsFailureatend2 ___________________________________________________9
Figure20:LA02GroundMotion_________________________________________________________________10
Figure23:AbsoluteAccelerationResponseSpectrafor5%Damping_____________________________________11
Figure24:RelativeVelocityResponseSpectrum_____________________________________________________12
Figure25:RelativeDisplacementResponseSpectrum ________________________________________________12
Figure26:EnergyComponentsLA02 _____________________________________________________________14
Figure28:EnergyComponentsLA16._____________________________________________________________14
Figure29:DistributionofPlasticHingesforLA02 ___________________________________________________17
Figure32:InterstoryDriftTimeHistoryLA02______________________________________________________4
Figure33:InterstoryDriftTimeHistoryLA07______________________________________________________5
Figure34:InterstorydriftTimeHistoryLA16______________________________________________________5
Figure35:PeakinterstorydriftsforLA02,LA07andLA16. ___________________________________________6
Figure36:Peakinterstorydrifts.__________________________________________________________________6
Figure37:ResidualinterstorydriftsforLA02,LA07andLA16_________________________________________7
Figure38:ResidualinterstorydriftsforLA02,LA07andLA16_________________________________________7
Figure39:AccelerationtimehistoryforLA02 ______________________________________________________8
Figure42:PeakaccelerationforLA02,LA07andLA16_______________________________________________9
Figure43:Peaktotalaccelerations _______________________________________________________________10
Figure44:PerformanceLevels(FEMA273)_________________________________________________________11
Figure45:Locationsofaddedbracingandhystereticdampers(ConfigurationC1)__________________________14
Figure46:ElastoPlasticHysteresis_______________________________________________________________15
Figure47:FourierSpectra ______________________________________________________________________16
iv
Figure48:Preliminarydesign____________________________________________________________________20
Figure49:Sections____________________________________________________________________________21
Figure50:Alternativeretrofitschemeconsideredintheanalyses(ConfigurationC2)________________________21
Figure51:Optimumsizestudy___________________________________________________________________22
Figure52:Optimumsizestudy___________________________________________________________________23
Figure53:OptimumactivationloadstudyforHSS406C1 _____________________________________________24
Figure54:OptimumactivationloadstudyforHSS304C1 _____________________________________________24
Figure55:OptimumactivationloadstudyforHSS406&304C1_________________________________________25
Figure56:OptimumDesign_____________________________________________________________________25
Figure57:OptimumactivationloadstudyforHSS406&304C2(1/1) _____________________________________26
Figure61:OptimumactivationloadstudyforHSS406&304C2(1stModeproportional) ______________________28
Figure62:OptimumDesign_____________________________________________________________________28
Figure66:DistributionofplastichingesforLA02andLA16. __________________________________________30
Figure67:InterstorydrifttimehistorymotionLa02. ________________________________________________32
Figure70:PeakinterstorydriftsforLA02,07and16 ________________________________________________33
Figure71:Comparisonofpeakinterstorydrifts_____________________________________________________33
Figure72:Residualinterstorydrifts ______________________________________________________________34
Figure73:Comparisonofresidualinterstorydrifts __________________________________________________34
Figure74:AccelerationhistoryofmotionLA02._____________________________________________________34
Figure77:Comparisonoftotalpeakaccelerations. __________________________________________________36
Figure78:FlowChartforhystereticdampersoptimumdesign__________________________________________37
Figure79:Locationofaddedbracingandviscousdampers____________________________________________38
Figure80:HystereticBehaviorofViscousDampers __________________________________________________39
Figure81:PlotshowingcomparisonamongviscousdampingandRayleighdamping________________________41
Figure82:ModelView_________________________________________________________________________42
Figure83:Displacementtimehistory _____________________________________________________________42
Figure84:Springandviscousdamperforces________________________________________________________43
Figure85:Springandviscousdampingforce _______________________________________________________43
Figure86:SpectraaccelerationsforLA2underdifferentdampingratios__________________________________44
Figure87:SpectraaccelerationsforLA7underdifferentdampingratios__________________________________45
Figure88:SpectraaccelerationsforLA16underdifferentdampingratios_________________________________45
Figure89:SpectradisplacementsforLA2underdifferentdampingratios_________________________________46
Figure90:SpectradisplacementsforLA7underdifferentdampingratios_________________________________46
Figure91:SpectradisplacementsforLA16underdifferentdampingratios________________________________47
Figure92:Optimumdampingcomparison(StiffnessApproach)_________________________________________52
Figure93:Optimumdampingcomparison(ConstantdampingApproach) ________________________________52
Figure94:Optimumdampingcomparison(FirstModeproportionalApproach)____________________________53
Figure95:Optimumdampingapproach ___________________________________________________________53
Figure99:DistributionofplastichingesforLA02.___________________________________________________55
Figure100:DistributionofplastichingesforLA07andLA16.__________________________________________56
v
Figure101:InterstorydrifttimehistorymotionLa02. _______________________________________________58
Figure102:InterstorydrifttimehistorymotionLa07. _______________________________________________58
Figure103:InterstorydrifttimehistorymotionLa16________________________________________________59
Figure104:PeakinterstorydriftsforLA02,07and16_______________________________________________59
Figure105:Comparisonofpeakinterstorydrifts____________________________________________________59
Figure106:ResidualinterstorydriftsforLA02,07and16.____________________________________________60
Figure107:Comparisonofresidualinterstorydrifts._________________________________________________60
Figure108:AccelerationhistoryofmotionLA02.____________________________________________________60
Figure111:Comparisonoftotalpeakaccelerations. _________________________________________________62
Figure112:Flowchartforoptimumdesignforviscousdampers________________________________________63
Figure113:ModellingofBuildingStructurewithLeadRubberBaseIsolationSystem _______________________64
Figure114:ComponentsofLeadRubberbaseisolation_______________________________________________65
Figure115:LeadRubberBiLinearModel__________________________________________________________65
Figure116:SpectralDisplacementcorrespondingtoeffectiveperiodoftheequivalentsystem________________70
Figure117:OptimumFystudyfork1=30kN/mm ____________________________________________________72
Figure120:OptimumDesign____________________________________________________________________73
Figure121:EnergycomponentstimehistoryforLA02._______________________________________________76
Figure124:AbscenseofplastichingesforLA02,07and16.___________________________________________77
Figure125::InterstorydrifttimehistoryforLA02. __________________________________________________78
Figure126:DisplacementtimehistoryforBearingsinBaseisolationsystemLA02._________________________78
Figure127:InterstorydrifttimehistoryforLA07. ___________________________________________________79
Figure129:InterstorydrifttimehistoryforLA16. ___________________________________________________80
Figure131:PeakInterstoreydriftsforRetrofittedstructure.___________________________________________81
Figure132:ComparisonofPeakinterstoreydrifts. __________________________________________________81
Figure133:ResidualInterstoreydriftsforRetrofittedstructure.________________________________________81
Figure134:Comparisonofresidualinterstoreydrifts.________________________________________________81
Figure135:AccelerationtimehistoryforLA02._____________________________________________________82
Figure136:AccelerationtimehistoryforbearingsinbaseisolationLA02.________________________________82
Figure141:Comparisonofpeakaccelerations.______________________________________________________85
Figure142:Flowchartforoptimumdesignofbaseisolationsystems____________________________________86
Figure143:Nearfaultgroundmotionhorizontalcomponent___________________________________________88
Figure144:EnergycomponentstimehistoryforNearFaultGroundmotion. ______________________________89
Figure145:DistributionofplastichingesforExistingStructure._________________________________________89
Figure146:InterstoreydriftstimehistoryforNearFaultgroundmotion.________________________________91
Figure147:AccelerationtimehistoryforNearFaultgroundmotion._____________________________________91
Figure148:EnergycomponentstimehistoryforRetrofittedstructure.___________________________________92
Figure149:Interstoreydriftstimehistoryforretrofittedstructure. ____________________________________93
Figure150:DisplacementtimehistoryforBearingsinBaseisolationsystem.______________________________93
Figure151:Accelerationtimehistoryforretrofittedstructure. _________________________________________94
Figure152:Accelerationtimehistoryforbearingsinbaseisolation._____________________________________94
Figure153:Comparisonofpeakinterstoreydrifts. __________________________________________________95
vi
Figure154:Comparisonofresidualinterstoreydrifts.________________________________________________95
Figure155:Comparisonofpeakaccelerations.______________________________________________________95
Figure156:Performanceoftheexistingbuildingcomparedtotheoptimumretrofitstrategy_________________96
Figure157:Detailsforthecompositesection_______________________________________________________98
vii
CHAPTER 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1 Introduction
In recent years, the necessity to raise the structural performance of existing seismic-deficient
structures under earthquake events has led to a better understanding and implementation of
structural retrofit. In most cases life-safety and the financial savings could be achieved after
retrofitting an existing structure. As a consequence, it is of vital importance to convince the
buildings owners to have their buildings evaluated by a structural engineer who could assess the
retrofitting necessity.
Several devices with inelastic behavior have been introduced in order to protect structures against
dynamics effects. These devices reduce the displacement demand over the structure through their
capacity to venture into the plastic range. Additionally, devices to isolate the structure from the
ground motions have been used as well. The objective of this work is to assess the seismic
performance of the building studied by Tsai and Popov (1988) and retrofit it utilizing different
devices.
1.1 Description of the Building Structure

The building is a six-storey steel structure with rectangular configuration in plan and in elevation
(Figure 1). Structured employing W steel shapes and shear connection in all axes except in the
moment frames in grids A and E. The building is located in a seismic Zone 4 with soil type S2
and was designed according to the 1994 UBC code requirements.
The overall building floor area is approximately 4,816 m2 (including the ground floor) and a roof
area of approximately 803 m2. With an inter-storey height of 3.810 meters except for the ground
level 5.486 meters.
The main seismic resisting systems in north-south direction are steel moment frames in grids A
and E over the building height (Figure 2). The retrofitting strategies will be implemented in these
moment frames. Different dissipation devices configuration will be assessed to determine the
most efficient retrofitting solution in this structure.
1
NO
RTH
A B C D E
7.315
21.945 7.315
7.315
9.144 9.144 9.144 9.144

36.576
Figure 1: Plan view, building to be retrofitted
1 2 3 4
W 24 x 76
W 24 x 104
W 14 x 109
3.810
W 24 x 76
W 14 x 109
W 24 x 104
3.810
W 27 x 94
W 27 x 146
W 14 x 159
3.810
W 27 x 94
W 14 x 159
W 27 x 146
24.536
3.810
W 30 x 99
W 14 x 193
W 30 x 173
3.810
W 30 x 99
W 14 x 193
W 30 x 173
5.486
Gravity Columns
Figure 2: Elevation view Axis A E.

2
1.2 Modeling Assumptions

The building was designed with the 1994 UBC code requirements. The design gravity loads are
presented in Table 1: Design gravity loads, wind loads are based on the wind speed of 113 km/h
and an exposure type B.
Table 1: Design gravity loads
Dead Load Live Load

Roof 3.8 kPA Roof 1.0 kPA
Floor 4.5 kPA Floor 3.8 kPA
Exterior Cladding 1.7 kPA
All seismic/dynamic analyses are performed using the nonlinear dynamic analysis computer
program RUAUMOKO (Carr 1998). One moment frame was modeled by 2D model due to the
symmetry in the structure and it will resist half of the lateral load applied to the building in the
north-south direction. The model includes an exterior moment-resisting frame with one gravity
column which supports the total gravity loads acting on the interior columns to avoid the
additional P-delta effect on the moment frame columns. At each floor, the frame is constrained to
experience the same lateral deformation. The columns are fixed at the ground level, except the
gravity column that is assumed pinned at the base and at each level.
The slab participation as a composite beam is not included. The inelastic response is concentrated
in plastic hinges that could form at both ends of the frame members. These plastic hinges are
assigned a bi-linear hysteretic behavior with a curvature strain-hardening ratio of 0.02 (Figure 3),
and their length is set equal to 90% of the associated member depth. The plastic resistance at the
hinges is based on expected yield strength of 290 MPa.
M Bilinear Moment Curvature Model

9
r=2%
1.2Mp
0.02EI
1
Mp
Bending Moment
4.5 p
EI
(p=0.03 rad)
1
0
0 y ult 9

Curvature
Figure 3: Bi-Linear Moment-Curvature Model.
An axial load-moment interaction, as per LRFD 1993 (AISC 1993), is considered for the columns
of the structure. Rigid-end offsets are specified at the end of the frame members to account for
the actual size of the members at the joints. The panel zones of the beam-column connections are
3
assumed to be stiff and strong enough to avoid any panel shear deformation and yielding under
strong earthquakes. All hysteretic energy must be dissipated through plastic hinging in the beams
and the columns.
Gravity loads acting on the frame during the earthquake are the roof and floor dead loads, the
weight of the exterior walls, and a portion of the floor live load (0.7 kPa). P-delta effects are
accounted for in the analyses. Rayleigh damping of 5% based on the first two elastic modes of
vibration of the structure is assigned. All analyses are performed at a time-step increment of
0.002 s.
To capture the brittle failure of the welded beam-to-column connections, the flexural strength
degradation model shown in Figure 4, is introduced at the ends of the beam and column elements.
The strength degradation begins at a curvature ductility of 11.0. At a curvature ductility of 11.55,
the strength reduces 1% of the yield moment.
Strength Degradation Model

1
0.8
Multiplier on Yield Moment
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.01
0
0 5 10 11 11.55 15
Curvature Ductility
Figure 4: Strength Degradation Model for Welded Beam-Column Connections.
1.3 Member Properties

For the moment-resisting frame, the section properties are identical for both grid A and E. The
two dimensional model contains 66 members (60 for frame and 6 for gravity columns) and 53
joints listed as shown in Figure 5: Elevation view with position of all nodes and members..
4
25 2 26 27 4 28 29 6 30
1 7 8
3 5
1 3 4 61
2
31 10 32 33 12 34 35 14 36
9 15 16
11 13
5 6 7 62
8
37 18 38 39 20 40 41 22 42
17 23 24
19 21
9 10 11 12
63
43 26 44 45 28 46 47 30 48
25 31 32
27 29
13 16 64
14
15
49 34 50 51 36 52 53 38 54 40
33 39
35 37
20 65
17 19
18
42 43 44 45 46 48
41 47
55 56 57 58 59 60
21 23 66
22 24
49 50 51 52 53
Figure 5: Elevation view with position of all nodes and members.
1.3.1 Material Properties

The building structure was built with mild steel grade A36 for all members and the basic elastic
properties for this material are defined in Table 2.
Table 2: Material properties
Modulus of Elasticity 200 .

Shear Modulus G 77 GPa
Yield Stress 290 MPa.
5
1.3.2 Geometric and Elastic Member Properties

The model includes 24 different member sections in order to represent the columns and beams in
the frame. Each of this section has the properties defined in Table 3.
Table 3: Geometric and Elastic Member Properties
Member Member lp D A I My Ny
Section
Type No. (mm) (mm) (mm2) (mm4) (KN-mm) (KN)
1, 2 W14x109 1, 4, 5, 8 328 364 20645 5.16E+8 8.22E+5 5987
3,4 W24x104 2, 3, 6, 7 550 611 19742 1.29E+9 1.22E+6 5725
9, 12, 13,
5,6 W14x159 343 381 30129 7.91E+8 1.20E+6 8737
16
10, 11,
7,8 W27x146 626 696 27678 2.34E+9 1.95E+6 8027
14, 15
17, 20,
9, 10 W14x193 354 393 36645 9.99E+8 1.47E+6 10627
21, 24
18, 19,
11, 12 W30x173 696 773 32774 3.41E+9 2.56E+6 9505
22, 23
13 - 16 W24x76 25 - 36 547 608 14452 8.74E+8 8.34E+5 -
17 - 20 W27x94 37 - 48 616 684 17871 1.36E+9 1.15E+6 -
21 - 24 W30x99 49 - 60 678 753 18774 1.66E+9 1.28E+6 -
Where lp is the Plastic Hinge Length (mm), D the member depth (mm), A the cross sectional area
(mm2), I the moment of inertia of the section (mm4), My the yield bending moment (kN-mm) and
Ny, Yield Axial Force (kN).
The section assignment for each of the columns and beam in the model is presented in Table 4.
Table 4: Description of the frame members
Section
Member No. Description Section
Type
1, 4, 5, 8 Column W14X109 1,2
2, 3, 6, 7 Column W24X104 3,4
9, 12, 13, 16 Column W14X159 5,6
10, 11, 14, 15 Column W27X146 7,8
17, 20, 21, 24 Column W14X193 9, 10,
18, 19, 22, 23 Column W30X173 11, 12
25 - 36 Beam W24X76 13 - 16
37 - 48 Beam W27X94 17 - 20
49 - 60 Beam W30X99 21 - 24
The axial load-moment interaction diagram were calculated for each of the column members and
plotted in the Figure 6 with the respective coordinates listed in Table 5.
6
-15000
-10000
Axial load (kN)
-5000
5000 Sections 1,2

Sections 3,4
Sections 5,6
10000 Sections 7,8
Sections 9,10
Sections 11,12
15000
0 5E+5 1E+6 1.5E+6 2E+6 2.5E+6 3E+6
Bending moment (kN-mm)
Figure 6: Axial Load Bending Moment Interaction Diagram
Table 5: Column axial load moment interaction
N (kN) -5987 -1198 0.0 0.0 5987

Section 1, 2
M (kN-mm) 0.0 8.21E+5 9.12E+5 9.12E+5 0.0
N (kN) -5725 -1145 0.0 0.0 5725
Section 3,4
M (kN-mm) 0.0 1.24E+6 1.37E+6 1.37E+6 0.0
N (kN) -8737 -1748 0.0 0.0 8737
Section 5,6
M (kN-mm) 0.0 1.23E+6 1.36E+6 1.36E+6 0.0
N (kN) -8027 -1605 0.0 0.0 8027
Section 7, 8
M (kN-mm) 0.0 1.97E+6 2.19E+6 2.19E+6 0.0
N (kN) -10627 -2125 0.0 0.0 10627
Section 9, 10
M (kN-mm) 0.0 1.52E+6 1.69E+6 1.69E+6 0.0
N (kN) -9505 -1901 0.0 0.0 9505
Section 11, 12
M (kN-mm) 0.0 2.59E+06 2.88E+6 2.88E+6 0.0
1.4 Curvature and ductility capacity

For all members of the structure building the moment curvature relationship and the failure
criteria is described in section 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 respectively.
1.4.1 Moment Curvature Relationship

In the building structure, all members (beams and columns) were assigned a bi-linear moment-
curvature relationship described by Figure 3. For each member it is possible to verify that the
plastic curvature corresponds to a plastic rotation limit 0.03rad. where in order to
7
calculate this plastic rotation it is necessary first to compute the yielding curvature and based
on this value to calculate the plastic curvature .
The yielding curvature is defined by the following expression:

My

EI
The plastic curvature is defined as:
0.2

0.02
The ultimate capacity can readily be found from the figure above as:
Finally in order to find the plastic rotation of the members, the assumption that is considered is
that a length of 90% of the depth of the cross section was assumed as a plastic hinge length
therefore rotation and curvature are related through the following relationship.
l
In the Table 6: Plastic Curvature of each element for a plastic Rotation limit p are summarized
the values for plastic rotation of all elements.
Table 6: Plastic Curvature of each element for a plastic Rotation limit p
Member lp My I y p u p
Section
Type (mm) (KN-mm) (mm4) (rad/mm) (rad/mm) (rad/mm) (rad.)
1,2 W14x109 328 8.22E+5 5.16.E+8 7.97E-6 7.97E-5 8.76E-5 0.0261
3,4 W24x104 550 1.22E+6 1.29.E+9 4.75E-6 4.75E-5 5.22E-5 0.0261
5,6 W14x159 343 1.20E+6 7.91.E+8 7.61E-6 7.61E-5 8.37E-5 0.0261
7,8 W27x146 626 1.95E+6 2.34.E+9 4.17E-6 4.17E-5 4.58E-5 0.0261
9, 10, W14x193 354 1.47E+6 9.99.E+8 7.38E-6 7.38E-5 8.12E-5 0.0261
11, 12 W30x173 696 2.56E+6 3.41.E+9 3.75E-6 3.75E-5 4.13E-5 0.0261
13 - 16 W24x76 547 8.34E+5 8.74.E+8 4.77E-6 4.77E-5 5.25E-5 0.0261
17 - 20 W27x94 616 1.15E+6 1.36.E+9 4.24E-6 4.24E-5 4.66E-5 0.0261
21 - 24 W30x99 678 1.28E+6 1.66.E+9 3.85E-6 3.85E-5 4.24E-5 0.0261
The rotation p for all the members are less than the limit of 0.03 rad.
1.4.2 Strength Degradation Model

The strength degradation model for all structural members states that the strength degradation
begins at a curvature ductility of 11.0 as shown in Figure 4.
Once plastic rotations reach the plastic limit ( 0.03rad the corresponding moments and
curvatures can be found only by clearing the value of from equation 1.4.
8
In accordance with Figure 3 the strength degradation should begin at a ductility ratio value of
11.0 in which the ductility ratio ( ) is defined by:

Table 7: Curvature ductility capacity at failure
Member lp My I y p u
Section M/My
Type (mm) (KN-mm) (mm4) (rad/mm) (rad/mm) (rad/mm)
1,2 W14x109 328 8.22E+5 5.16E+8 7.97E-6 9.15E-5 9.94E-5 0.23 11
3,4 W24x104 550 1.22E+6 1.29E+9 4.75E-6 5.45E-5 5.93E-5 0.23 11
5,6 W14x159 343 1.20E+6 7.91E+8 7.61E-6 8.75E-5 9.51E-5 0.23 11
7,8 W27x146 626 1.95E+6 2.34E+9 4.17E-6 4.79E-5 5.21E-5 0.23 11
9, 10, W14x193 354 1.47E+6 9.99E+8 7.38E-6 8.47E-5 9.21E-5 0.23 11
11, 12 W30x173 696 2.56E+6 3.41E+9 3.75E-6 4.31E-5 4.69E-5 0.23 11
13 - 16 W24x76 547 8.34E+5 8.74E+8 4.77E-6 5.48E-5 5.96E-5 0.23 11
17 - 20 W27x94 616 1.15E+6 1.36E+9 4.24E-6 4.87E-5 5.29E-5 0.23 11
21 - 24 W30x99 678 1.28E+6 1.66E+9 3.85E-6 4.42E-5 4.81E-5 0.23 11
Therefore, with the plastic rotation of 0.03 rad, the curvature ductility at failure is 11.
1.5 Dynamic characteristics of the original structure

The dynamic characteristics of the building were calculated for the first 5 periods of vibration of
the structure (Table 8). The mode shapes for the frame were plotted in Figure 7. From the
dynamic analysis, it can be seen that the first three modes capture the dynamic behavior of the
building adequately as shown in Table 9 through the mass participation (99%).
Table 8: Frequencies and periods Table 9: Mass participation ratios
Frequency Period MODE % Mass

MODE
(Hz) (s) 1 87
1 0.77 1.30 2 96
2 2.20 0.45 3 99
3 4.04 0.25 4 100
4 6.41 0.16 5 100
5 9.00 0.11
9
Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5

25 25 25 25 25
20 20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Figure 7: Mode Shapes of the structure
1.6 Pushover Analyses

To assess the performance of the structure before carrying out more advanced analysis methods
as non-linear time history analysis, a pushover analysis was performed to identify maximum
lateral force capacity of the building and potential yield zones in members by statically increasing
lateral load on the structure to collapse.
Pushover analysis results are generally dependent on the applied load distribution given to the
structural model. Consequently, three lateral load distributions along the height of the building
were considered based on: (1) ASCE 41; (2) The first mode response of the building structure in
free vibration and (3) New Zealand Code with 92% of the base shear distributed linearly
according to inter-story height and 8% added to the top floor.
1.6.1 ASCE 41 lateral load pattern

For this case the fundamental mode of vibration of the structure is T = 1.30 s and k=1.4 in the
equation 1.8 (ASCE 41). Load distribution over height with total base shear of 1kN is shown in
Table 10.
Fx CvxV
wx hxk
Cvx n
wh
i 1
i i
k
2
Table 10: Lateral Load Distribution, ASCE 41
Weight H Elevation
Distribution
(kN) (m) (m)
floor 6 1815.5 3.81 24.536 0.248
floor 5 2514.8 3.81 20.726 0.272
floor 4 2514.8 3.81 16.916 0.205
floor 3 2514.8 3.81 13.106 0.143
floor 2 2514.8 3.81 9.296 0.088
floor 1 2599.1 5.486 5.486 0.044
Total shear 1.000
1.6.2 Linear vertical distribution

The linear load distribution along the height of the building used for another pushover load
pattern is shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Lateral Load Distribution, Linear vertical
Weight H Elevation
Distribution
(kN) (m) (m)
floor 6 1815.53 3.81 24.536 0.272
floor 5 2514.8 3.81 20.726 0.230
floor 4 2514.8 3.81 16.916 0.188
floor 3 2514.8 3.81 13.106 0.146
floor 2 2514.8 3.81 9.296 0.103
floor 1 2599.13 5.486 5.486 0.061
Sum 1.000
1.6.3 New Zealand Code

According to New zeland code a 92% of base shear distributes linear according to heights, 8%
added to the top floor. Table 12 shows load values for each floor level.
Table 12: Lateral Load Distribution, New Zealand Code
Weight H Elevation
Distribution
(kN) (m) (m)
floor 6 1815.53 3.81 24.536 0.331
floor 5 2514.8 3.81 20.726 0.212
floor 4 2514.8 3.81 16.916 0.173
floor 3 2514.8 3.81 13.106 0.134
floor 2 2514.8 3.81 9.296 0.095
floor 1 2599.13 5.486 5.486 0.056
Sum 1.000
3
For each of the three different load patterns for pushover analysis, the corresponding curves are
plotted in Figure 8 indicating the failure point for the structure. Figure 9 shows the steady
increase of top floor lateral displacement versus time, which indicates that static pushover load
increase is achieved, no dynamic effects is present.
3500
3250
3000
2750 475.14, 3269.2
2500
Base shear (kN)
2250 486.35, 3212.1

2000
1750 511.84, 3172
1500
1250
ASCE 41
1000 Linear
750 NZ code
500
250
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Top floor lateral displacement (mm)
Figure 8: Pushovers curves

1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
Displacement (mm)
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
Figure 9: Top floor lateral displacement vs. time
The plastic hinge locations are seen at the bottom part of the columns and most of the first 4 story
beams (Figure 10: Deflected Shape ASCE 41 Pushover, Plastic Hinge Location)Figure 10. The
structure fails at 8.8 sec. according to ASCE 41 load pattern (Figure 11).
4
Figure 10: Deflected Shape ASCE 41 Pushover, Plastic Hinge Location
For Pushover curve for ASCE 41 load pattern, the first and second yield points are indicated in
Figure 11. In the same fashion the plot of base shear in time indicating first and second yield
point in Figure 12.
3500
3250
3000
2750 (486.35, 3212.1)
2500
Second yield (104.77, 2163.6)
Base shear (kN)
2250
2000
1750 First yield (100.11, 2074.3)
1500
1250
1000
750
500
250
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Top floor lateral displacement (mm)
Figure 11: Pushover Curve ASCE 41
5
4000
3500 Max base shear of 3212.1 (kN) at 8.8 (s)
3000
Base shear (kN)
2500
First yield (5.2, 2074.3)
2000 Second yield (5.5, 2163.6)
1500
1000
500
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
Figure 12: Base Shear vs. Time, ASCE 41.
The first yield corresponding to ASCE 41 pushover curve occured at the first floor midspan beam
member 58 at 5.2 sec. The second yield occurred in the first floor interior column member 23 at
the bottom end at 5.5s.
The momenttime and momentcurvature relations for beam member 58 and column 23 were
plotted in Figure 13 and Figure 15, respectively with the yield point and failure point indicated.
-1800
Yield at 5.2 (s) M= -1478.8
-1600
-1400
Bending moment (kN-m)
-1200 Fail at 8.9 (s) M= -1779.8
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
Figure 13: Moment vs. Time, beam member 58 end 2
6
3300000
3000000 Yields at 5.5 (s) M= 2642700
2700000
2400000

2100000
1800000 Fails at 8.8 (s) M= 3174800
1500000
1200000
900000
600000
300000
0
-300000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (s)
Figure 14: Moment vs. time Column member 23

-1800
-1600
-4.9133E-5, -1779.8
-1400
-1200 -4.4517E-6, -1478.8
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
0 -1E-5 -2E-5 -3E-5 -4E-5 -5E-5 -6E-5
Curvature (rad)
Figure 15: Moment vs. Curvature, Member 58 end 2
First failure in the building occurred at 8.8 sec. in column member 23, which yielded second
during the pushover. Moment in building members versus time are plotted in Figure 16, Figure
17, Figure 18 and Figure 19, for the each of the beam ends connected to the columns in the first
floor in order to identify the failure instant.
7
1800000
1600000
1400000
Moment-End 1 (kN-mm)
1200000
1000000
800000
600000 Members
Member 55
400000 Member 57
Member 59
200000
-200000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time(s)
Figure 16: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 1

0
-200000
-400000
Members
Member 56
-600000
Member 58
Member 60
-800000
-1000000
-1200000
8.9
-1400000
-1600000
-1800000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time(s)
Figure 17: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 2

600000
300000
-300000
-600000
-900000
-1200000
-1500000
Members
-1800000 Member 21
Member 22
-2100000
Member 23
-2400000 Member 24
9.0
-2700000
-3000000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time(s)
Figure 18: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 1
8
3300000
3000000
2700000 Members
Member 21
2400000 8.8
Member 22
Member 23
2100000
Member 24
1800000
1500000
1200000
900000
600000
300000
-300000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time(s)
Figure 19: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 2
9
CHAPTER 2 DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS
1 Retrieval and analysis of Design Ground motions

A seismic assessment for this building is based on a non-linear time history dynamic analysis.
Three historical recording for ground motions in Los Angeles region, are used in the analysis
mentioned early. The ground motions were scaled to match 10% probability of exceedance in 50
years corresponding to a design based earthquake based on current building code.
The first accelerogram (Figure 20) corresponds to the fault parallel component of the Imperial
Valley 1940 El Centro earthquake with a peak ground acceleration of 0.6757g and is
designated as LA-02 record. The second ground motion (Figure 27) corresponds to the fault
normal component of Landers Earthquake designated as LA-07 record. The third accelerogram
(Figure 28) is taken as fault parallel component from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake designated
as LA16 record with a peak ground acceleration of 0.58g.
0.8
Peak acc. 0.6757187 (g) at 2.12 (s)
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (g)
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (s)
Figure 20: LA-02 Ground Motion

0.8
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (g)
0.2
-0.2
-0.4 Peak acc. -0.4209786 (g) at 16.08 (s)
-0.6
-0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (s)
10
0.8
0.6
0.4
Acceleration (g)
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6 Peak acc. -0.5795923 (g) at 2.705 (s)
-0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Time (s)
2 Response Spectra
Using signal analysis programs as SeismoSignal (Seismosoft) and Nspectral (University of
Buffalo) to determine: the response spectrum for absolute acceleration for 5% damping (Figure
23), relative velocity (Figure 24) and relative displacement (Figure 25) for each of the ground
motions.
2
1.8
La02
1.6 La07
La16
Absolute acceleration (g)
1.4
Fundamental period
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Time (s)
Figure 23: Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra for 5% Damping
11
2.5
2.25
La02
2 La07
La16
Relative velocity (m/s)

1.75
Fundamental period
1.5
1.25
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Time (s)
Figure 24: Relative Velocity Response Spectrum

1.25
La02
1
La07
Relative displacement (m)
La16
Fundamental period
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
Time (s)
Figure 25: Relative Displacement Response Spectrum
In the acceleration response spectra (Figure 23) can be noted that records LA-07 has the lower
response of the set of ground motions and with high frequencies content. In the same fashion,
record LA-02 has high frequencies content but with almost the double in spectral acceleration
values that LA-07 in the same range of frequencies. However that difference between the two
records is not accentuated for relative displacement response.
Although record LA-16 (Figure 22) is a short duration ground motion, it has a wide range of
frequencies content. Moreover, the maximum velocity and displacement response is greater that
for records LA-02 and LA-07 for almost all frequencies.
12
CHAPTER 3 - ANALYSIS OF THE ORIGINAL BUILDING
1 Introduction
The objective of this chapter is to evaluate the seismic response of the original building structure
under each of the three design ground motions considered in chapter 2.
The computer program RUAUMOKO and the post-processor DYNAPLOT were used to evaluate
the performance of the original building structure. For each analysis of the building under ground
motions, four output quantities are extracted to assess the existing building performance. They
includes energy quantities, member curvature ductility, peak and residual interstory drifts and
total floor accelerations.
2 Performance of the existing structure
2.1 Energy balance

Plots of the time history energy components are shown in Figure 26 to Figure 28 (LA-02, LA-07
and LA16). In Figure 26 to Figure 28 five energy curves can be distinguished, three of them are
the internal energy components, kinetic, viscous damping and absorbed (strain) energy, the fourth
curve is the total energy and the last curve represents the input energy.
The absorbed energy represents the total amount of energy that the structure has absorbed either
through elastic or unrecoverable inelastic deformations of its elements and can be defined by the
following equation:
E t E t E t
Where E is the elastic strain energy and E the Energy dissipated through hysteretic damping of
the structural elements which depends on the hysteretic relation of each structural member.
In the program RUAUMOKO it must be noted that the sum of the internal energy components in
the static analysis is not equal to the total energy computed by the program (Applied work done)
due to the applied work done is the product of the loads and the displacements and the internal
strain energy is one half of the product of the elastic forces and the displacements.
Figure 26 to Figure 28 show that an energy balance between the input energy and the sum of the
internal energy components (kinetic, damping, strain) is achieved.
13
3E+6
2.4E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
1.8E+6
1.2E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
6E+5 Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Time (sec.)
Figure 26: Energy Components LA-02
1E+6
8E+5
Energy (kN-mm)
6E+5
4E+5
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
2E+5
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec.)
3E+6
2.4E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
1.8E+6
1.2E+6
Kinetic Energy
6E+5 Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec.)
Figure 28: Energy Components LA-16.

14
It can be seen that the input energy from LA02 and LA16 are equal and more than three times the
input energy from LA07. Among three motions, LA16 excites larger kinematic energy at the
beginning of the record; this is due to the long pause in the acceleration motion.
Although the energy time histories generated for the three ground motions varies considerably
from one to another, each energy component exhibits a particular pattern, for example the kinetic
energy oscillates from zero (maximum deflections) to positive peaks (initial undeformed
position).
The energy dissipated by viscous damping always increases with time for the three ground
motions reaching its maximum value for LA-02 and the lowest value for LA-07.
For the absorbed energy two components can be distinguished, the first of them is the recoverable
elastic energy which is represented by oscillations out of phase with the kinetic energy and the
second one is the non-recoverable component represented by sudden shifts towards positive
values due to the inelastic actions that occur in time.
The strain energy curve E (green curve) as was mentioned previously is the total amount of
energy that the structure has absorbed either through elastic straining or unrecoverable inelastic
deformations and the peak value of this curve during an earthquake represents the largest demand
on structural members.
For each one of the ground motions the fraction of input energy absorbed by the building
structure is shown in the Table 13.
Table 13: Fraction of Input Energy Absorbed.
Absorbed Total
Ground Percentage
Energy Energy Fraction
Motions (%)
(kN-m) (kN-m)
LA - 02 1152.7 2942.7 0.392 39.19
LA - 07 314.21 912.61 0.344 34.43
LA - 16 1930.70 2859.7 0.675 67.51
According to Table 13 it can be observed that the structure absorbs more energy for the LA-16
ground motion with a considerable difference compared with the other two ground motions. The
peak values of the absorbed energy for the three ground motions are detailed in Table 14.
15
Table 14: Peak Absorbed Energy.
Ground Peak Absorbed

Motions Energy (kN-m)
LA - 02 1241.7
LA - 07 433.7
LA - 16 2000.70
The maximum difference in percentage between the input energy and the internal energy
components is computed in Table 15 for the three ground motions considered. This indicates that
the energy balance is achieved in the program.
Table 15: Energy Balance Error.
Ground
EBE %
Motions
LA - 02 0.16
LA - 07 0.13
LA - 16 0.08
2.2 Plastic Hinging Distribution

Figure 29 to Figure 31 shows the distribution of the plastic hinges due to the three motions
considered and Table 16 to Table 18 provides the maximum curvature ductility demand and the
maximum plastic rotation for each yielding member. It is important to mention that program
RUAUMOKO list members with ductility ratios greater than 1 ( 1).
The following convention was used:

Bidirectional hinging in beams and columns
Unidirectional hinging in beams
Unidirectional hinging in columns
In the case of unidirectional hinging, the dark side of the plastic hinge indicates the side where
the plasticization on the member is occurring.
It is shown that for LA-07 the maximum curvature ductility ( 4.831) and the maximum
plastic rotation (p 0.013rad) are the lowest in comparison to LA-02 and LA-16 which
indicates that LA-07 induces the minor inelastic action to the members.
16
On the other hand the inelastic action produced by LA-16 is the greatest among the three ground
motions producing a maximum curvature ductility of 8.494 and a maximum plastic rotation
of p 0.022rad. For LA-02 the maximum values for ductility and plastic rotations are
5.710 and p 0.015rad., respectively.
It is clear that LA-16 causes the most severe damage to the members in the structure, however for
this motion none of the structural members reaches plastic rotations of p 0.03rad., the limit
rotation established as the failure criterion for the elements.
Clearly the ground motion LA-16 produces the most severe damage. As shown in Figure 29 and
Figure 30 the hinging distribution for LA-02 and LA-07 is predominantly unidirectional while for
LA-16 (Figure 31) is bidirectional.
Figure 29: Distribution of Plastic Hinges Figure 30: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for
for LA-02 LA-07
Figure 31: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA-16
17
Table 16: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-02 ground motion
Lp Ductility
Hinge Member Prop. Type p Lp(Int) p
(mm)
1 21 10 Column 328 7.98E-05 3.995 131.0 0.0105
2 22 12 Column 328 7.98E-05 5.496 180.3 0.0144
3 23 12 Column 328 7.98E-05 5.413 177.5 0.0142
4 24 10 Column 328 7.98E-05 3.409 111.8 0.0089
5 31 13 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.343 73.5 0.0035
6 32 14 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.878 102.7 0.0049
7 33 15 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.421 77.7 0.0037
8 34 14 Beam 547 4.78E-05 2.291 125.3 0.0060
9 35 15 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.237 67.7 0.0032
10 36 16 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.971 107.8 0.0052
11 37 17 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.351 144.8 0.0061
12 38 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.475 214.1 0.0091
13 39 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.087 190.2 0.0081
14 40 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.809 234.6 0.0099
15 41 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.801 172.5 0.0073
16 42 20 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.158 194.5 0.0082
17 43 17 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.360 207.0 0.0088
18 44 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 4.148 255.5 0.0108
19 45 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.718 229.0 0.0097
20 46 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 4.458 274.6 0.0116
21 47 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.458 213.0 0.0090
22 48 20 Beam 616 4.24E-05 4.175 257.2 0.0109
23 49 21 Beam 678 3.84E-05 3.949 267.7 0.0103
24 50 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.806 325.8 0.0125
25 51 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.555 308.8 0.0119
26 52 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 5.132 347.9 0.0134
27 53 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.252 288.3 0.0111
28 54 24 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.621 313.3 0.0120
29 55 21 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.852 329.0 0.0126
30 56 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 5.443 369.0 0.0142
31 57 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 5.146 348.9 0.0134
32 58 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 5.710 387.1 0.0149
33 59 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.863 329.7 0.0127
34 60 24 Beam 678 3.84E-05 5.461 370.3 0.0142
Where the 8th column (Lp) is the plastic length of the hinge.
3
Table 17: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-07 ground motion.
Lp Ductility
(mm)
1 22 12 Column 328 7.984E-05 -4.378 -143.6 -0.0115
2 23 12 Column 328 7.984E-05 -4.409 -144.6 -0.0115
3 39 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.423 87.7 0.0037
4 41 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.030 63.4 0.0027
5 43 17 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.313 142.5 0.0060
6 44 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.637 100.8 0.0043
7 45 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.559 157.6 0.0067
8 46 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.842 113.5 0.0048
9 47 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.342 144.3 0.0061
10 48 20 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.451 89.4 0.0038
11 49 21 Beam 678 3.844E-05 3.426 232.3 0.0089
12 50 22 Beam 678 3.844E-05 3.050 206.8 0.0079
13 51 23 Beam 678 3.844E-05 3.887 263.5 0.0101
14 52 22 Beam 678 3.844E-05 3.302 223.9 0.0086
15 53 23 Beam 678 3.844E-05 3.616 245.2 0.0094
16 54 24 Beam 678 3.844E-05 2.760 187.1 0.0072
17 55 21 Beam 678 3.844E-05 4.627 313.7 0.0121
18 56 22 Beam 678 3.844E-05 4.009 271.8 0.0104
19 57 23 Beam 678 3.844E-05 4.831 327.5 0.0126
20 58 22 Beam 678 3.844E-05 4.263 289.0 0.0111
21 59 23 Beam 678 3.844E-05 4.603 312.1 0.0120
22 60 24 Beam 678 3.844E-05 4.025 272.9 0.0105
4
Lp Ductility
(mm)
1 21 10 Column 328 7.98E-05 7.679 251.9 0.0201
2 22 12 Column 328 7.98E-05 8.485 278.3 0.0222
3 23 12 Column 328 7.98E-05 8.394 275.3 0.0220
4 24 10 Column 328 7.98E-05 5.810 190.6 0.0152
5 32 14 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.185 64.8 0.0031
6 33 15 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.398 76.5 0.0037
7 34 14 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.611 88.1 0.0042
8 36 16 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.199 65.6 0.0031
9 37 17 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.116 68.7 0.0029
10 38 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.604 98.8 0.0042
11 39 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.554 95.7 0.0041
12 40 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.889 116.4 0.0049
13 41 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.164 71.7 0.0030
14 42 20 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.552 95.6 0.0041
15 43 17 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.009 185.4 0.0079
16 44 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.758 231.5 0.0098
17 45 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.325 204.8 0.0087
18 46 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 4.031 248.3 0.0105
19 47 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.056 188.2 0.0080
20 48 20 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.818 235.2 0.0100
21 49 21 Beam 678 3.84E-05 5.349 362.7 0.0139
22 50 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 6.169 418.3 0.0161
23 51 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 5.939 402.7 0.0155
24 52 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 6.516 441.8 0.0170
25 53 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 5.603 379.9 0.0146
26 54 24 Beam 678 3.84E-05 6.035 409.2 0.0157
27 55 21 Beam 678 3.84E-05 7.488 507.7 0.0195
28 56 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 8.115 550.2 0.0212
29 57 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 7.923 537.2 0.0207
30 58 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 8.494 575.9 0.0221
31 59 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 7.518 509.7 0.0196
32 60 24 Beam 678 3.84E-05 8.098 549.0 0.0211
3
2.3 Inter-story peak and residual drifts

The Inter-story peak and residual drift ratios are very important indicators of the structural
damage in the building, Figure 32 to Figure 38 show the inter-story drift time history, the peak
inter-storey drift and the residual inter-storey drift for each one of the three ground motions
considered.
Figure 32 to Figure 34 show the Inter-story peak drift time history of each floor for each motion.
The maximum inter-story drift for the three ground motions occurs in the first floor which is
justified due to larger height of the first floor producing the soft story mechanism.
120
110 1st floor

1st floor peak 98.94 (mm) 2nd floor
100 2nd floor peak 62.74 (mm) 3rd floor
4th floor
90 3rd floor peak 57.8 (mm) 5th floor
80 4th floor peak 51.95 (mm) Roof
Inter-storey drift (mm)
70 5th floor peak 39.56 (mm)

1st floor residual 39.26 (mm)
60
2nd floor residual 25.49 (mm)
50 3rd floor residual 23.31 (mm)
40
30
20
10
0
4th floor residual 21.58 (mm)
-10
-20 Roof residual 2.726 (mm)
Roof peak 26.13 (mm)
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
Figure 32: Inter-story Drift Time History LA-02
4
50
40 Roof peak -18.7 (mm)
5th floor peak -25.54 (mm)

30
Roof residual -0.2766 (mm)
4th foor peak -29.66 (mm)
20
5th floor residual -1.574 (mm)
10 4th floor residual -7.142 (mm)
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
1st floor 3rd floor residual -17.56 (mm)
2nd floor
-60 3rd floor
4th floor 2nd floor residual -25.88 (mm)
3rd floor peak -41.85 (mm)
-70 5th floor
Roof
2nd floor peak -52.13 (mm) 1st floor residual -37.57 (mm)
-80
1st floor peak -83.38 (mm)
-90
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)
Figure 33: Inter-story Drift Time History LA-07

160
150
140 1st floor
1st floor peak 148.1 (mm)
130 2nd floor
2nd floor peak 84.37 (mm) 3rd floor
120
4th floor
110 3rd floor peak 63.91 (mm) 5th floor
100 Roof
4th floor peak 39.26 (mm)
90
80 5th floor peak 29.71 (mm)

70 1st floor residual 19.84 (mm)
60 Roof peak 23.03 (mm)
50 2nd floor residual 12.72 (mm)
40 3rd floor residual 11.03 (mm)
30
20
10
0
-10 4th floor residual 5.82 (mm)
-20
-30 5th floor residual 2.227 (mm)
-40
-60
-70
-80
0 10 20 30
Time (s)
Figure 34: Inter-story drift Time History LA-16
In Figure 35 the peak values of the Inter-story drifts are shown for each ground motion although
the maximum values do not occur at the same time. This figure is an envelope of the inter-story
drifts.
From the three ground motions, LA-16 produces the maximum peak inter-story drift (first floor).
5
Peak Inter-storey Drifts Peak Inter-storey Drifts Peak Inter-storey Drifts

Motion 02 Motion 07 Motion 16
25 25 25
2.5% drift
2.5% drift
20 20 20
2.5% drift
Height (m.)
Height (m.)
Height (m.)
15 15 15
10 10 10
5 5 5
0.7% drift 0.7% drift 0.7% drift

0 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm.) Displacement (mm.) Displacement (mm.)
Figure 35: Peak inter-story drifts for LA-02, LA-07 and LA-16.
It is also shown that in terms of inter-story drifts LA-16 governs from the first floor until the third
floor and from the 4th to the top floor LA-02 is predominant over the other two motions. LA-07
does not exceed 1.5% drift in any of the floors.
The inter-story drifts of the three ground motions superimposed are shown in Figure 36. From
this graphic, as was mentioned before, LA-16 and LA-02 are the motions that govern this
parameter.
Peak Inter-storey Drifts

25
20
Inter Storey Drifts

Height (m.)
15 LA-02
LA-07
LA-16
2.5% Drift (LS)
10 0.7% Drift (IO)
0
0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm.)
Figure 36: Peak inter-story drifts.
6
Residual Inter-story drifts for each ground motions is presented in Figure 37 in which the
maximum residual Inter-story drift occurs for the first ground motion (LA-02) in the first floor
(soft story mechanism). y y y
25 25 25
20 20 20
15 15 15
Height (m)
Height (m)
Height (m)
1% drift 1% drift
1% drift
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Figure 37: Residual inter-story drifts for LA-02, LA-07 and LA-16
In terms of residual inter-story drifts, the first ground motion (LA-02) produces the maximum
values in almost all the floors. In Figure 38 is shown that LA-16 produces the lowest values for
this parameter. y
25
20
15
Height (m)
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts

LA-02
LA-07
LA-16
10 1% Drift (LS)
0
0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm)
Figure 38: Residual inter-story drifts for LA-02, LA-07 and LA-16
2.4 Peak Acceleration

The peak absolute floor accelerations are also significant indicators for assessing the performance
of non-structural components in buildings. Figure 39 to Figure 43 show the total acceleration
time histories and the peak acceleration at each floor of the building for each ground motion.
7
As can be seen from these figures, in all cases the largest total acceleration is at the top floor.
1
Roof peak 0.9504587 1st floor
0.8 1st floor peak 0.5825688 2nd floor
3rd floor
4th floor peak 0.5923547 4th floor
0.6 5th floor
Roof
0.4
Total acceleration (g)
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
5th floor peak -0.4714577
-0.8 3rd floor peak -0.4893986
2nd floor peak -0.5550459
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
Figure 39: Acceleration time - history for LA-02

1
1st floor
0.8 Roof peak 0.6092762 2nd floor
5th floor peak 0.3884811 3rd floor
4th floor
0.6 4th floor peak 0.3823649 5th floor
3rd floor peak 0.2832824 Roof
0.4 2nd floor peak 0.2697248
1st floor peak 0.2770642

0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)
8
0.8 3r floor peak 0.3584098 1st floor

2nd floor
2nd floor peak 0.4027523 3rd floor
0.6 4th floor
5th floor
0.4 Roof
0.2
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6 4th floor peak -0.5123344

-0.8
Roof peak -0.7851172
-1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
In terms of accelerations the most critical ground motion appears to be LA-02 with the greatest
accelerations at almost all floors except for the 5th floor (Figure 42 and Figure 43) in which the
acceleration produced by LA-16 is the maximum one. The peak acceleration for LA-02 in the top
floor reaches a value of 0.95g.

25 25 25
20 20 20
15 15 15
Height (m)
Height (m)
Height (m)
10 10 10
5 5 5
0 0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g)
Figure 42: Peak acceleration for LA-02, LA-07 and LA-16
9
25
20
Height (m)
15 Peak Acceleration
LA-02
LA-07
LA-16
10
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
Acceleration (g)
Figure 43: Peak total accelerations
It can be concluded then that the LA-02 ground motion dominates in terms of accelerations while
the LA-16 (1st, 2nd and 3th floor) and LA-02 (4th, 5th and 6th floor) prevails in terms of peak inter-
storey drifts.
2.5 Performance evaluation

In this section a global measuring tool, called a performance index (PI), is introduced to quantify
numerically the performance of a building. It takes into account the effects of important response
quantities; including member ductility, peak inter-story drifts, maximum residual drifts and peak
acceleration.
The objective of the performance index is to help the owner of the building understand the
overall performance of the building under the design earthquake motions
2.5.1 Performance index

The performance index considered is based on FEMA 274 guidelines. This PI will measure the
global structural performance level of the building. Each of the building performance levels
defined in FEMA 274 document correlate with a combination of both structural and nonstructural
parameters that may be expected. Figure 44 (adapted from FEMA 274) shows the different
performance levels considered for a ductile structure.
10
Figure 44: Performance Levels (FEMA 273)
The variables considered to characterize the performance in the PI formulation are as follows:
The maximum inter-story drift.
The maximum residual inter-story drift .
The maximum floor acceleration .
The maximum curvature ductility occurred in a beam .
The maximum curvature ductility occurred in a column .
The numerical expression for the PI is defined as follows:

a
w . w . w . w . w .
a
PI % 1 . 100
w w w w w
Where and are maximum curvature ductilities of column and beam. and is the
maximum values of the peak inter-story drift and residual drifts. And a is the peak total floor
acceleration. These values represent response of the building under each ground motion.
and are the limits for curvature ductility of column and beam. and is the limits
for maximum values of the peak inter-story drift and residual drifts. And a is the limit for peak
total floor acceleration. These values are the worst case limit that a building is expected to have.
w , w , w , w and w are assigned weights to the performance variables, representing the

importance of the quantity towards the overall performance and design targets. These weights
add up to 100 and have been distributed with the aim of penalizing the most critical variable.
11
Based on FEMA 274, the collapse prevention is chosen to be the lower bound limit for the
structure. Therefore, and will be of 5%. Values of and are taken to be 11, the
maximum ductility a member can reach in this project. FEMA 274 does not limit the maximum
floor acceleration so a reasonable upper bound value for this structure is set to be 1 .
The weight for each quantity is chosen based on its importance in the performance of the
building. There variables considered most important are peak drift, column ductility and
acceleration. The weights for these variables are 30, 25 and 25 respectively. For beam ductility
and residual drift, the weights are 10 and 10. The reason for put more weight into acceleration is
from the fact that the existing structure is hospital building, which hosts medical equipment
sensitive to acceleration.
Therefore, the PI will be in the form of

a
10. 11 25. 11 30. 10. 25. 1g
5% 5%
PI % 1 . 100
100
The value of PI can be from any negative value to 100%, which is ideal value that a structure
only can get close to. PI equal to zero means that the structure is at the collapse limit in an overall
sense. A negative value of PI would mean the structure collapses.
Two thread holes are defined in this PI scale, corresponding to the Immediate Occupancy (IO)
and Life Safety (LS) limits. According to FEMA 274, limits for peak and residual drifts are 0.7%
and 0% for IO; and 2.5% and 1% for LS. Limits for other variables are chosen and presented in
Table 19.
Table 19: Reponse limit for different performance categories
Limit for performance category

Variables
LS IO
45% of 11 20% of 11
45% of 11 20% of 11
2.5% 0.7%
1.0% 0%
a 0.75g 0.5g
PI 45 65
12
According to FEMA 274, the existing structure performance is from the collapse prevention limit
to life safety, with maximum peak drift is higher than 2.5% under LA16.
Based on the proposed performance index formulation, the PI values will be calculated from
those response quantities for each ground motion and presented in Table 20.
Table 20: Performance Indexes for design ground motions
Ground
(%) (%) a(g) PI
Motion
LA-02 5.71 5.50 1.80 0.72 0.95 46%
LA-07 4.83 4.41 1.52 0.68 0.61 60%
LA-16 8.49 8.49 2.70 0.36 0.79 36%
The PI for the structure will be the smallest among the PI for each ground motion, which will be
36% corresponding to LA16 motion. This index is within the [0;45] range, which means the
structure passes the collapse prevention limit but stays below life safety limit.
13
CHAPTER 4 - HYSTERETIC DAMPERS
1 Description
The objective of this phase was to retrofit the original building with hysteretic dampers for the
different ground motions considered (LA2, LA7 and LA16). It was shown in the previous phase
of the project that collapse is not reached under the considered ground motions; nonetheless this
approach is intended to improve the seismic performance of the building rather than prevent
collapse.
The retrofit strategy for the structure consists on introducing chevron braces at each moment
resisting frame and installing hysteretic dampers at one end of the bracing members as shown in
Figure 45. This retrofit scheme was selected because it minimizes the levels of intervention (i.e.
only the middle bay will be affected when installing dampers and braces). For the final design
other hysteretic damper locations will be studied.
Figure 45: Locations of added bracing and hysteretic dampers (Configuration-C1)
The bracing members were designed to sustain the activation load assigned to the hysteretic
dampers. This system dissipates energy through the elasto-plastic hysteretic behavior shown in
Figure 46.
14
Figure 46: Elasto-Plastic Hysteresis
For this retrofit, it was specified that hollow steel sections (HSS) must be used for the cross
braces. In addition, as the braces would be installed to the existing building, brace forces induced
by dead loads were ignored in the analysis and design. In order to improve the behavior of
hysteretic dampers in the structure composite sections composed by HSS sections will be also
considered.
The methods used to determine the slip load are based on design procedures provided by
Christopoulos and Filiatrault (2006) as discussed below. The computer program RUAUMOKO
and its post-processor DYNAPLOT were used to perform nonlinear time history dynamic
analysis in order to completely estimate the response of the building structure and select an
optimum solution.
Finally a comparison between the optimum design configuration and the original building will be
presented in terms of energy balance, plastic hinge distribution, envelopes of peak and residual
inter-story drifts and envelopes of peak absolute floor accelerations. The merits of the optimum
solution in terms of performance indices will also be discussed.
2 Procedure to calculate the optimum activation load
The first step in the design of structures equipped with hysteretic dampers is the estimation of the
optimum parameters for the dampers. These parameters are the activation load Fa and the
bracing stiffness.
Christopoulos and Filiatrault (2006) found that the optimal use of hysteretic dampers will occurs
when the addition of these devices to a system produce additional supplemental damping along
with a modification of the dynamics properties of the system that optimizes the use of the added
damper. Otherwise, the system will behave either as an unbraced frame or as a fully braced
frame. The selection of the cross sections for the diagonal braces is based on the recommendation
by Filiatrault and Cherry (1988), which is expressed as:
0.40
15
Where Tb is the natural period of the fully braced structure and Tu is the natural period of the
unbraced structure.
Furthermore, based on parametric studies it was determined that the optimum value of the
activation load Fopt of the hysteretic damper that minimizes the amplitude of the response at
any forcing frequency is given by:
F a T T
Q ,
W g T T
Where W is the seismic weight of the structure, ag is the peak ground acceleration, g is the
acceleration of gravity, Tg is the period of the ground motion and Q is a singled valued function.
The Q function depends on the Tg/Tu ratio and will be presented in the preliminary design. The
equation shown above reveals that the optimum activation load of a hysteretic damper depends
on the frequency and amplitude of the ground motion and is not strictly a structural property.
Moreover, it shows that the optimum activation load is linearly proportional to the peak ground
acceleration.
3 Fourier Spectra
For determining the predominant period of the design ground motions the Fast Fourier transform
(FFT), which is an efficient method to compute the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) was used.
This analysis was performed in the software SeismoSignal by inputting our design ground
motions and running the FFT analysis.
0.6
Tg=0.68s
0.54
Fourier Spectra
0.48 LA2
LA7
0.42 LA16
Tg=1.28
Fourier Amplitude
Tg=0.73s
0.36
0.3
0.24
0.18
0.12
0.06
0
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30
Frequency (Hz)
Figure 47: Fourier Spectra
16
Once the analysis is completed and the data is converted into a frequency domain format, the
peaks corresponding to the highest values o Fourier amplitudes were selected. The plot shown
above represents the decoupling of the equations of motion for single DOFs and the peaks
represent the predominant frequencies for each of the design ground motions. Predominant
periods corresponding to each ground motion are also shown in Figure 47.
4 Preliminary design
As mentioned above, the best response of hysteretically damped structures occurs for small
values of Tb/Tu, which corresponds to large diagonal braces. Therefore the diagonal cross-braces
were chosen with the largest possible cross-sectional area within the limits imposed by
architecture, cost and availability of material. As a first trial an HSS406x406x15.9 section and an
HSS304X304X15.9 section were selected among the largest possible sections according the
AISC provisions. The cross-braces were used along the six stories of the building.
A spreadsheet in MathCAD was used to calculate the optimum activation loads at each damper
for the proposed cross sections and for the different ground motions. Calculations corresponding
to the ground motion LA2 and section HSS406x406x15.9 are shown in the following page.
The idea is to get a felling on which are the best braces configuration and member cross section
to take into account for the optimum activation load study to be carried out in the intermediate
design.
17
W 14475 kN (Total seismic weight of the structure)
Nf 6 (Number of floors)
Tb 0.615 s (Fundamental period of the braced structures)
Tu 1.304 s (Fundamental period of the unbraced structure)
Tg 0.683 s (Predominant period of the design ground motion LA2)

Tb
0.472
Tu
Tg
0.524
Tu
ag 0.676 g (Design Peak Ground Acceleration)
( 1.24 Nf 0.31) 1.04 Nf 0.43 if 0

Tg Tb Tg
Q 1
Tu Tu Tu
Tb
1.25 Nf 0.32
Tg Tg Tg
( 0.01 Nf 0.02) ( 0.002 0.002 Nf ) 1.04 Nf 0.42 if 1
Tu Tu Tu Tu
Q 1.579 (Unknown single valued function)

ag
Vo Q W
g
Vo 15451.9 kN (Optimum activation shear)

i 1 Nf 56.3 46.2
180 180

1 Vo
Vs
i (Story base shear, uniformly distributed)
2 Nf
18
1287.7
1287.7

1287.7
Vs kN
1287.7
1287.7

1287.7
i 2 Nf
Vs Vs
1 i
Fa Fa
1 2 cos ( ) i 2 cos ( )
Fa 1160.4kN
1
(Optimum activation load for each damper)
1160.4
930.2

930.2
Fa kN
930.2
930.2

930.2
Likewise calculations were performed for ground motions LA7 and LA16 for determining the
activation loads (See Table 21). In order to assess the performance of this initial proposed
configuration performance indeces were calculated and compared with the PI for the existing
building (See Figure 48).
Table 21: Parameters
The PI corresponding to the IO and LS performance levels are included in all the plots hereinafter
to have an idea of the performance of the proposed retrofit scheme in comparison to these
thresholds. This performance levels are shown in dot gray lines and the values corresponding to
this levels were calculated in Chapter 3.
19
Figure 48: Preliminary design
The proposed brace size member from the previous Figure seems to work fine for ground
motions LA2 and LA7, with an approximate increase on performance of about 30% with respect
of the existing structure. Nonetheless for ground motion LA16 not significant improvement was
found. This fact can be justified by arguing that for LA16 the predominant period of the ground
motion is high producing high activation forces that will eventually prevent the damper to
activate and contribute to the energy dissipation. In the intermediate design based on a
comparative study aiming to improve the performance of our building, the optimum activation
loads and brace sections will be found.
5 Intermediate design
In the preliminary design the members size and the activation forces were intuitively chosen
based on the recommendation of Tb/Tu = 0.4 and the design procedures provided by
Christopoulos and Filiatrault (2006). In order to optimize the design we proceed to perform
multiple analyses in RUAMOKO but this time considering different cross sections and braces
configurations.
Regarding the members size we tried to get closer to the recommended ratio of Tb/Tu = 0.4 by
proposing a composite section capable of increase the brace stiffness without violating the design
specifications that states that hollow shape section are to be considered in the design. Details on
this composite section are presented in Appendix B. For this approach the activation load
corresponding to each configuration were still calculated based on the procedure suggested by
Christopoulos and Filiatrault (2006). Figure 49 shows a sketch of the proposed cross sections to
be considered in the analyses.
20
Figure 49: Sections
A second approach was followed by proposing an alternative configuration which presents frame
braces in the three bays of the first floor (See Figure 50). For this particular configuration the way
the optimum activation shear was redistributed in height was also studied.
Figure 50: Alternative retrofit scheme considered in the analyses (Configuration-C2)
A total of 4 brace cross sections were used in the two different brace configurations just shown in
Figure 45 and Figure 50). The HSS406x406x15.9 and HSS304x304x15.9 section were used as
described in the preliminary design but in this part were compared with the composite sections
and evaluated in the two different configurations (C1 and C2). A total of 21 analyses were
performed since each alternative had to be evaluated for each of the three design ground motions
specified. (See Table 22 for reference)
21
It is important to mention that when pursuing an optimum design, performance indices were used
to make a comparison between the different alternatives. These indices were presented in
Chapter 3. Excel macros were used to get the relevant values used to compute the performance
indices and accelerate the design process. Batch files were also created in RUAMOKO to
efficiently get the relevant results regarding our performances indices. Appendix A shows a
detailed explanation on how the macro works.
Table 22: Parameters
The highlighted values in the previous table were inputted in the RUAMOKO files when defining
the elasto-plastic hysteretic loop shown in Figure 46. A plot summarizing the performances
indices obtained for each of the proposed configurations and the relevant member sizes are
shown in the figure below.
Figure 51: Optimum size study

22
It can be seen in the previous figure that in overall all the proposed alternatives reached
performances indices higher than the existing building. The higher PI corresponds to the
composite section HSS406&304 in the brace configuration C2. The same results are presented in
the figure below but this time in terms of Tb/Tu. It can be inferred from this graph that the closer
we get to 0.4 the higher the PI is.
Figure 52: Optimum size study
The previous results give us an idea on which sections and brace configurations should be
considered for the final design. Nonetheless a study on the optimum activations loads will be
performed in order to optimize the design. This optimum activation study will be considered
among the brace sizes and configuration that performed better in the previous comparison. The
selected configurations to be studied are the HSS406-C1, HSS406&304-C1 and HSS406&304-
C2. (See Figure 45, Figure 46 and Figure 50 for details on the configurations and cross sections
selected).
For this study the optimum activation load were evaluated in the range of 200kN to 2000kN
based on previous calculations (See Table 22). Analyses in RUAMOKO were performed for each
configuration under study for activation load increments of 200kN. In total 30 analysis were run
per proposed configuration and the optimum activation load corresponds to the maximum PI
value for the most critical earthquake (In this case LA16).
23
Figure 53: Optimum activation load study for HSS406-C1
Figure 54: Optimum activation load study for HSS304-C1
24
Figure 55: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304-C1
The following plot summarizes the three previous analyses, and shows the higher PI obtained for
each configuration. It is important to state that these performances indices correspond to different
activation loads as shown in the previous plots.
Figure 56: Optimum Design
25
Even though the HSS406&304-C2 configuration reached the higher performance, we assumed
for this case a uniform load redistribution along the height of the building, even though the
second configuration present higher stiffness in the first floor with respect to the other floors. In
order to deal with this uncertainty the way the forces were redistributed was studied. In each of
the plots presented below the ratio shown in brackets corresponds to the ratio of the first floor
activation load to the other floors activation loads. A triangular distribution of the activation loads
based on the first mode was also considered.
Figure 57: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (1/1)
26
27
Figure 61: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (1st Mode proportional)
6 Final design
Based on the parametric study performed in the preliminary and intermediate design the
HSS406&304 composite sections in the bracing configuration C2 was proved to be the more
optimum in terms of performance.
28
6.1 Energy Balance

A significant increase on the strain energy due to the friction damper is noted in the following
figures compared to existing structure. In the existing structure the strain energy is due to the
formation of plastic hinges which lead to the damage of the building.
Time History Energy Components

LA - 02
3.6E+6
3E+6
2.4E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
1.8E+6
1.2E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
6E+5 Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Time (sec.)

LA - 07
1.2E+6
1E+6
8E+5
Energy (kN-mm)
6E+5
4E+5
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
2E+5 Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec.)
29

LA - 16
3E+6
2.4E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
1.8E+6
1.2E+6
Kinetic Energy
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec.)
6.2 Plastic hinging distribution
The number of plastic hinges in the systems was significantly reduced. For ground motion LA7
no hinges were formed and LA16 still present the most number of hinges among our ground
motions.
Figure 66: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA-02 and LA-16.
30
Lp Ductility
(mm)
1 50 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 1.185 80.343 0.0031
2 52 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 1.055 71.529 0.0027
3 54 24 Beam 678 3.84E-05 1.156 78.377 0.0030
Lp Ductility
(mm)
1 21 10 Column 328 7.98E-05 1.487 48.8 0.004
2 22 12 Column 328 7.98E-05 3.537 116.0 0.009
3 23 12 Column 328 7.98E-05 3.005 98.6 0.008
4 24 10 Column 328 7.98E-05 1.441 47.3 0.004
5 38 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.088 67.0 0.003
6 43 17 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.366 145.7 0.006
7 44 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.218 198.2 0.008
8 45 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.401 147.9 0.006
9 46 18 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.99 184.2 0.008
10 47 19 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.402 148.0 0.006
11 48 20 Beam 616 4.24E-05 3.21 197.7 0.008
12 49 21 Beam 678 3.84E-05 3.676 249.2 0.010
13 50 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.509 305.7 0.012
14 51 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 3.95 267.8 0.010
15 52 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.542 307.9 0.012
16 53 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 3.954 268.1 0.010
17 54 24 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.343 294.5 0.011
18 55 21 Beam 678 3.84E-05 3.675 249.2 0.010
19 56 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.267 289.3 0.011
20 57 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 3.748 254.1 0.010
21 58 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.232 286.9 0.011
22 59 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 3.59 243.4 0.009
23 60 24 Beam 678 3.84E-05 4.279 290.1 0.011
31
6.3 Peak and Residual Inter-Story Drifts
Inter-Storey drift - Time history - Motion 02

25
1st floor peak 22.4 (mm) 1st floor

20
2nd floor
3rd floor peak 21.9 (mm)
3rd floor 1st floor residual 3.47 (mm)
15 2nd floor peak 20.3 (mm) 4th floor
5th floor
Inter-Storey drift (mm)
10 Roof 2nd floor residual 1.15 (mm)

3rd floor residual 0.424 (mm)
5
0
-5
-10 Roof peak -6.44 (mm)
5th floor peak -15 (mm) 4th floor residual -0.208 (mm)
-15
-20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
Figure 67: Inter-story drift time history motion La-02.
Inter-Storey drift - Time History - Motion 07

15
12
9
Inter - Storey drift (mm)
6 1st floor residual 3.41 (mm)
0
-3
-6 Roof peak -3.33 (mm) 3rd floor residual -0.26 (mm)
1st floor Roof residual 0.0895 (mm)
-9 4th floor peak -13.7 (mm) 2nd floor
2nd floor peak -16.3 (mm) 3rd floor 5th floor residual -0.307 (mm)
-12
3rd floor peak -16.9 (mm) 4th floor
5th floor
-15 1st floor peak -17.6 (mm)
Roof
-18
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)
32

70
60 2nd floor peak 55 (mm) 1st floor
2nd floor
50 3rd floor peak 51.6 (mm) 3rd floor
4th floor peak 33.1 (mm) 4th floor 1st floor residual 28.2 (mm)
5th floor
40 5th floor peak 18.8 (mm) 2nd floor residual 21.4 (mm)
Roof
30
20
10
0
-10
-20 Roof peak 7.93 (mm) 5th floor residual 1.93 (mm)
-30 Roof residual -1.39 (mm)
-40
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Time (s)
Peak Inter-storey Drifts Comparison of peak

25 inter-storey drifts
25
20
20
Inter Storey Drifts

Height (m.)
15 LA-02 Retrof. Struc.

Inter Storey Drifts
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
Height (m.)

2.5% Drift (LS)
0.7% Drift (IO) LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
10 LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
5
5
0
0 50 100 150
0
Displacement (mm.)
-150 -50 50 150
Displacement (mm.)
Figure 70: Peak inter-story drifts for LA-02, 07 and 16 Figure 71: Comparison of peak inter-story drifts
33
Comparison of residual
inter-storey drifts
25
25
20
20
15
Height (m)
15 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
Height (m)

10 10 LA-02 Orig. Struc.
1% Drift (LS)
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
5 5
0 0
0 15 30 45 60 -60 -30 0 30 60
Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm)
Figure 72: Residual inter-story drifts Figure 73: Comparison of residual inter-story
drifts
6.4 Accelerations
Acceleration History - Motion 02

0.8

0.6 Roof peak 0.522
5th floor peak 0.494
2nd floor peak 0.416
0.4 4th floor peak 0.364
Total Acceleration (g)
3rd floor peak 0.366
0.2
1st floor
-0.2 2nd floor
3rd floor
4th floor
-0.4 5th floor
Roof
-0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
Figure 74: Acceleration history of motion LA-02.
34

0.4
1st floor
2nd floor
0.3 Roof peak 0.389 3rd floor
2nd floor peak 0.311 4th floor
0.2 3rd floor peak 0.298 5th floor
Roof

0.1
-0.1
-0.2
1st floor peak -0.34
-0.3
-0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)

0.6
1st floor
0.5 2nd floor
0.4 3rd floor
4th floor
0.3 5th floor
Roof
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3 3rd floor peak -0.461
-0.4 4th floor peak -0.528
5th foor peak -0.541
-0.5
Roof peak -0.59
-0.6 1st floor peak -0.599
-0.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
35
Comparison of total
peak accelerations
25
20
15
Height (m)
Peak Acceleration
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Acceleration (g)
Figure 77: Comparison of total peak accelerations.
We can notice on the table below that the performance of the structure was increased from 36%
to 63%. We can also notice that ductility ratios for LA16 were reduced from 8.5 to 4.5 and the
acceleration was slightly reduced from 0.79g to 0.60g.
Table 25: Performance Indexes for structure retrofitted with hysteretic dampers compared to the
original performance.
Ground
(%) (%) a(g) PI
Motion
LA-02 5.71 5.50 1.80 0.72 0.95 46%
LA-07 4.83 4.41 1.52 0.68 0.61 60%
LA-16 8.49 8.49 2.70 0.36 0.79 36%
Ground
(%) (%) a(g) PI
Motion
LA-02 1.19 1.00 0.58 0.06 0.61 77.90%
LA-07 1.00 0.00 0.44 0.06 0.39 86.58%
LA-16 4.54 3.54 1.44 0.56 0.60 63.07%
36
7 Flow Chart for Hysteretic dampers optimum design

A flow chart summarizing the procedure to obtain the optimum design is shown below. As is
described in Appendix A a macro were used to get the relevant information used to computed the
performance indices which allowed us to perform a parametric study in terms of optimum size,
optimum activation load and optimum distribution of the dampers.
Figure 78: Flow Chart for hysteretic dampers optimum design
37
CHAPTER 5 - VISCOUS DAMPERS
1 Description
The retrofit strategy for the structure consists on introducing chevron braced frame in the middle
bay of each moment resisting frame and installing viscous-type energy dissipating devices at one
end of the bracing members, as shown in Figure 79. The bracing members must be designed to
sustain the maximum load developed by the viscous damper. Brace forces induced by gravity
loads will be ignored in the design of the bracing and viscous energy dissipating systems, as the
braces would be installed to the existing building and that live loads will have a negligible effect
on the bracing members.
Figure 79: Location of added bracing and viscous dampers
The retrofit system considered incorporates at one end of the bracing members, viscous damper
connections with an axial force linearly proportional to the relative velocity between ends. This
system exhibits the elliptical hysteretic behavior shown in Figure 80. The behavior of the damper
element will be proven when referring to the DAMPER element in RUAMOKO and the
validation process of this element presented at the end of the chapter.
38
Figure 80: Hysteretic Behavior of Viscous Dampers
2 Procedures to calculate the damping coefficients
Viscous dampers were installed at all floors. The retrofit procedure included the calculation of the
damping constants of the viscous dampers as well as their distribution along the height of the
building.
The first approach used to determine the target viscous damping constants was achieved by
providing damping constant for each floor level proportional to the lateral inter-story stiffness of
the story at which the damper is to be placed. By imposing the damping constants to be
proportional to the inter-story lateral stiffness of the structure, this ensures that classical normal
modes will be maintained (Christopoulos and Filiatrault, 2006).
k0T1
CL
2
Where k0 are the spring constants, T1 the fundamental period of the building and CL are the
damping coefficients.
The drawback of this procedure is that the dampers will be different at each floor level, which
would cause a construction issue. Secondly, a preliminary analysis for the most significant
earthquake for the building showed that the structure would have a highly nonlinear behavior due
to the large amount of plastic hinges occurring in the structure and the achievement of a linear
response under the specific earthquake would not be possible.
A second approach was implemented by using the same damping coefficient for all the floor of
the building with the assumption that the building will behave mostly in the first mode of
vibration. For this method, the fundamental natural period of the existing building and the target
damping ratio(s) of the building retrofitted with viscous dampers, and the maximum inter-story
drifts are needed. With these three parameters known, the calculation of the damping constant
can be determined for a given time history and damping level desired using the equation below.
39
Nf
1T1 ki i2
CL Nd
i 1
i2 cos 2 i
i 1
Where is the inclination angle of the damper, Nd is the number of dampers, k the spring
constants and d is the inter-story drift.
A third approach was proposed by modifying the previous equation and assuming a damping
coefficient distribution proportional to the first mode of vibration.
CLi i CL
Where d is the inter-story drift of the normalized first mode of vibration. In the above equation it
is considered as non-dimensional.
Nd
2 2 ( i CL ) i2 cos 2 i
Evd
i 1 T1
N
1 f
Ees ki i2
2 i 1
Evd
1
4 Ees
Nf
1T1 ki i2
CL Nd
i 1
i3 cos 2 i
i 1
For the complete design protocol used the different approaches, refer to the MathCAD
calculations on the preliminary design.
3 Modeling of dampers
Before modeling the damper and in order to obtain the corresponding trial value of the
fundamental period, fictitious spring elements were modeled in RUAMOKO as brace elements.
40
The spring constants were determined as shown in Table 27 and the trial period needed to correct
the stiffness was computed. This procedure was followed in the first approach only.
Having calculated the damping constants to be used in the model for the three approaches we
proceeded to model the dampers. For the modeling of the dampers phantom nodes were placed
directly on the node at mid-span of the beam in the middle bay of the structure. The phantom
nodes were located at the same coordinates than the existing nodes, but have different degrees of
freedom. The reason for using phantom nodes is to eliminate the effect of gravity dead loads on
the damper as this is a retrofit of an existing building and these loads are already supported by the
existing structure. These nodes are locked to the horizontal component of the node it is
connected to but have different y-axis displacements and z-axis rotations.
Then the damping constants were assigned to these damper elements. For the first approach were
the damping constants varies along the height of the building multiple properties were defined.
In Figure 81 history displacements for the viscous damping using the different methods were
plotted in conjunction with the Rayleigh damping. A good correlation was found among the
plots, proving a good estimate of the damping coefficient and validating the behavior of the
dampers.
Displacement time history - Motion 02

125
100
75
Top floor displacement (mm)
50
25
-25
-50 Rayleigh Damping- 35%

Viscous Dampers (Stiffness proportion approach)
-75 Viscous Dampers (Drift proportion approach)
Viscous Dampers (Constant coeff. approach)
-100
-125
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
Figure 81: Plot showing comparison among viscous damping and Rayleigh damping
41
4 Validation of the Damper element
The dashpot element used in RUAMOKO was verified to ensure proper damping. A simplified
model was proposed for the verification as seen in the figure below. The spring and dashpot
elements were given values of stiffness (K=64 kN/mm), a damping coefficient (C=5 kN-s/mm)
and a mass of 1kN-s2/mm. The system was forced in motion by imposing a sinusoidal
acceleration excitation of (t) = 3200(sin8t).
Figure 82: Model View
The displacement time history for the node with attached mass was plotted, see Figure 83.
Lateral diplacement
80
60
40
Displacement (mm)
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Time (s)
Figure 83: Displacement time history
Figure 85 shows a displacement vs. force plot for the damper element under validation. From this
graph and following equations present in Figure 84 the values of K and C were calculated. See
Table 26 for reference.
42
Figure 84: Spring and viscous damper forces
Spring and viscous damping force

8000
79.808, 5182.5
6000
3196
4000
2000
Force (kN)
-2000
-4000
-3183.3
-6000
-79.825, -5074
-8000
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Displacement (mm)
Figure 85: Spring and viscous damping force
The results obtained in this validation process for the stiffness and damping coefficient match the
values assumed in the analysis. Therefore the DAMPER elements are proved to adequately
respond and were implemented in the RUAMOKO model. Damping coefficients were calculated
in the preliminary design for the different approaches.
Table 26: Validation of damper element
Assumed Obtained
K=64 kN/mm K=63.9 kN/mm
C= 5 kN-s/mm C=4.9 kN-s/mm
43
5 Preliminary design
The first step in the design process of the viscous dampers is to determine the target damping (1)
of the building for a desired performance level. Prior to any addition of supplemental damping
elements in a building acceleration and displacement response spectra were developed for
damping ratios ranging between 5% and 35% (See Figure 86 to Figure 91).
Using these spectra as a tool, it was determined that target damping ratios of 10%, 20% and 30%
provided logical target damping ratios for the design iterations to determine the optimal design of
the linear viscous dampers. Previous research, caps damping at 35%, typically this level of
damping is the maximum that can be achieved economically with currently available viscous
dampers (Christopoulos and Filiatrault, 2006).
1.75
Response Aceleration (g)
1.5
LA2 Response Spectra
1.25 5%
10%
20%
1 30%
35%
0.75
0.46g
0.5
0.25 0.28g
0.27g
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Period
Figure 86: Spectra accelerations for LA2 under different damping ratios
44
1.2
1.05
Response Acceleration (g)

0.9
5%
0.75 10%
20%
30%
0.6 35%
0.45 0.39g
0.3
0.15 0.26g
0.25g
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Period
1.75
Response Acceleration (g)
1.5 LA16 Response Spectra

5%
10%
1.25 20%
30%
0.99g 35%
1
0.75
0.5
0.60g 0.59g
0.25
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Period
45
64
56
5%
Response displacement (cm)

48 10%
20%
30%
40 35%
32 19.4cm
24
16
8
9.9cm
9.1cm
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Period
Figure 89: Spectra displacements for LA2 under different damping ratios
80
70

60 5%
10%
50 20%
30%
35%
40
30
16.0cm
20 9.0cm
10
8.3cm
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Period
46
64
56
5%

48 10%
20% 41.0cm
30%
40 35%
32
24 20.0cm
16 18.5cm
0
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
Period
It is shown in Figure 86 to Figure 91 that not much reduction in terms of spectral displacements
and spectra acceleration is achieved by using 35% damping. A 30% damping was chosen as the
maximum criteria condition in order to remain well under the threshold limit for economic
factors as well as to limit the force demand in the damper braces. Then the required fundamental
period of the fictitiously braced structure is computed.
T1
T 1t arg et
2 1
Having defined the target fundamental period, we proceed to compute the inter-story drifts in
order to compute the inter-story stiffness needed for all the approaches. For this purpose a pair of
1000kN forces was applied at opposite direction at each floor. Table 27 shows a summary of the
stiffness calculated for each floor and the braces stiffness calculated at each floor. Section 5.1 and
section 5.2 on this chapter shows MathCAD worksheets used to calculate the damping
coefficients using both the stiffness and the energy approach. For both calculations the stiffness
highlighted in gray on Table 27 were used.
Table 27: Summary of story stiffness
47
5.1 Stiffness proportional approach
T1 1.304 s (Fundamental period of un-braced structure)
1 0.30 (Assumed damping ratio)

T1
T1target (Target fundamental period of the structured braced with the
2 1 1 fictitious springs)
T1target 1.031s
70.72
85.67

123.25 kN (Fictitious spring constants at proposed locations, from
ko
137.47 mm Ruamoko and proportional to drifts)
164.2

95.04
T1tr 0.950 s (Trial value of the fundamental period of the fictitious

braced structure obtained with first trial spring constants,
from Ruamoko)
ko
kfinal
T1target 2 T1tr2
1
T1target 2 T12

57
68

98 kN
kfinal (Final spring constants)
110 mm
131

76
kfinal T1
CL (Damping coefficient of each viscous damper)
2
12
14

20 kN s
CL
23 mm
27

16
48
5.2 Constant damping approach
Nd 6 (Number of dampers)
T1 1.304 s (Fundamental period of umbraced structure)
97.95
118.65

k
227.43

105.44
0.806
0.806

0.806
(Inclination angle of the dampers)
0.806
0.806

0.983
0.09
0.14
(Inter-story drift at the storey where the damper is
0.15
located )
0.18
0.18

0.27
Nf
i i
k 2
1 T1
i1
CL
Nd
i cos i
2 2
2
i1
kN
CL 22.628s
mm
49
5.3 First mode proportional damping
Nd 6 (Number of dampers)
T1 1.304 s (Fundamental period of umbraced structure)
97.95
118.65

k
227.43

105.44
0.806 0.09
0.806 0.14
(Inclination angle of the damper is defined on the left and
0.806 0.15
Inter-story drift at the storey where the damper is located is
0.806 0.18 defined on the right)
0.806 0.18

0.983 0.27
Nf
i i
k 2
1 T1
i1
CL
Nd
i cos i
3 2
2
i1
kN
CL 117.556s
mm
CLfm CL
10.6
16.5

17.6 kN
CLfm s
21.2 mm
21.2

31.7
50
In the intermediate design performance indices were calculated for the target damping under
consideration (30%) and compared with different damping ratios ranging from 10% to 45%.
The MathCAD worksheet shown in section 5 in this chapter was used for different target
damping ratios. Table 28 and Table 29 and Table 30 show a summary of the damping constants
obtained for the desired damping ratio using the different approaches.
Table 28: Stiffness proportional Approach damping coefficients
Table 29: Constant Damping Approach damping coefficients
Table 30: First Mode proportional Approach damping coefficients
51
Based on the figures presented below we can infer that there is not significant improvement in
terms of performance for damping ratios higher than 30%. It is for this reason that for the
optimum design just performance indices corresponding to 30% damping will be compared as
seen in Figure 95.
Figure 92: Optimum damping comparison (Stiffness Approach)
Figure 93: Optimum damping comparison (Constant damping Approach)
52
Figure 94: Optimum damping comparison (First Mode proportional Approach)
Figure 95: Optimum damping approach
It is clear that the first mode proportional method reaches the higher performance of the building.
Therefore this method is chosen for the optimum design.
53
7 Final Design
Third method design was chosen with 30% damping ratio and the response parameters under the
three ground motions are presented below.
7.1 Energy Balance

For all the ground motions the energy absorbed by the viscous dampers is almost the same as the
input energy.

LA - 02
3.6E+6
3E+6
2.4E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
1.8E+6
1.2E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
6E+5 Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Time (sec.)

LA - 07
1.2E+6
1E+6
8E+5
Energy (kN-mm)
6E+5
4E+5
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
2E+5 Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec.)
54

LA - 16
3E+6
2.4E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
1.8E+6
1.2E+6
Kinetic Energy
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec.)
7.2 Hinge Distribution
The number of hinges was considerably reduced compared to the existing structure performance.
Sketches presenting the hinge formation are presented below for each ground motion
Figure 99: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA-02.
55
Lp Ductility
(mm)
1 22 12 Column 328 7.98E-05 1.173 38.474 0.0031
2 23 12 Column 328 7.98E-05 1.636 53.661 0.0043
3 56 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 1.155 78.309 0.0030
4 57 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 1.262 85.5636 0.0033
5 58 22 Beam 678 3.84E-05 1.210 82.038 0.0032
6 59 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 1.192 80.8176 0.0031
Figure 100: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA-07 and LA16.
Lp Ductility
(mm)
1 57 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 1.061 71.936 0.0028
56
Lp Ductility
(mm)
1 19 11 Column 696 3.7557E-06 1.628 113.3 0.0004
2 21 3 Column 328 7.98E-05 1.424 46.7 0.0037
3 22 3 Column 328 7.98E-05 3.817 125.2 0.0100
4 23 1 Column 328 7.98E-05 2.681 87.9 0.0070
5 24 2 Column 328 7.98E-05 1.417 46.5 0.0037
6 38 4 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.117 68.8 0.0029
7 43 4 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.326 81.7 0.0035
8 44 2 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.158 132.9 0.0056
9 45 5 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.345 82.9 0.0035
10 46 7 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.049 126.2 0.0054
11 47 7 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.491 91.8 0.0039
12 48 5 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.13 131.2 0.0056
13 49 6 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.009 136.2 0.0052
14 50 8 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.801 189.9 0.0073
15 51 8 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.289 155.2 0.0060
16 52 6 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.953 200.2 0.0077
17 53 9 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.332 158.1 0.0061
18 54 11 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.647 179.5 0.0069
19 55 11 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.55 172.9 0.0066
20 56 9 Beam 678 3.84E-05 3.196 216.7 0.0083
21 57 10 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.653 179.9 0.0069
22 58 12 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.303 156.1 0.0060
23 59 12 Beam 678 3.84E-05 2.193 148.7 0.0057
24 60 10 Beam 678 3.84E-05 3.097 209.9766 0.0081
57
7.3 Peak and Residual Inter-Story Drifts

35
30
25 2nd floor
3rd floor
20 4th floor
5th floor
15 Roof
10
5
0
-5
Roof residual 0.00111 (mm)
-10 Roof peak -6.6 (mm) 4th floor residual 0.00142 (mm)
-15 5th floor peak -11.8 (mm) 3rd floor residual 0.0108 (mm)
-20 4th floor peak -15.1 (mm)
-25 2nd floor residual 0.0339 (mm)
2nd floor peak -19.5 (mm)
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)

20
1st floor
15 2nd floor
3rd floor
10 4th floor
5th floor 5th floor residual -0.000901 (mm)
5 Roof
3rd floor residual -0.00891 (mm)
-5
2nd floor residual -0.0394 (mm)
-10 Roof residual -0.000684 (mm)
-15 Roof peak -4.53 (mm) 1st floor residual -0.876 (mm)
-25 2nd floor peak -17.9 (mm)
1st floor peak -27 (mm)
-30
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)

58

60
50
2nd floor peak 38.8 (mm) 2nd floor
40 3rd floor peak 35.2 (mm) 3rd floor 3rd floor residual 10.3 (mm)
4th floor
4th floor peak 26.6 (mm)
5th floor 2nd floor residual 12.2 (mm)
30
5th floor peak 19.4 (mm) Roof 1st floor residual 11.6 (mm)
20
10
-10
-20
Roof residual 0.143 (mm)
-30 Roof peak 9.71 (mm) 5th floor residual 0.884 (mm)
-40
-50
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Time (s)
Figure 103: Inter-story drift time history motion La-16

25
20
20
Inter Storey Drifts

Height (m.)

Inter Storey Drifts
Height (m.)

2.5% Drift (LS)
10 0.7% Drift (IO)
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
5
5
0
0 50 100 150
0
Displacement (mm.) -150 -50 50 150
Displacement (mm.)
Figure 104: Peak inter-story drifts for LA-02, Figure 105: Comparison of peak inter-story
07 and 16 drifts
59
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts Comparison of residual

25
20
20
15
Height (m)

LA-02 Retrof. Struc. 15
Height (m)
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
1% Drift (LS)
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
5
5
0
0 15 30 45 60
0
Displacement (mm) -60 -30 0 30 60
Displacement (mm)
Figure 106: Residual inter-story drifts for LA- Figure 107: Comparison of residual inter-story
02, 07 and 16. drifts.
7.4 Accelerations

0.8
Roof peak 0.64

0.6
1st floor peak 0.47
0.4
4th floor peak 0.35

0.2
1st floor
-0.2 2nd floor
3rd floor
4th floor
-0.4 5th floor
Roof
-0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
60

0.35
Roof peak 0.324 1st floor
0.3 2nd floor
0.25 5th floor peak 0.295 3rd floor
4th floor peak 0.26 4th floor
0.2 5th floor
3rd floor peak 0.243 Roof
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)

0.6
1st floor
0.5 2nd floor
0.4 3rd floor
4th floor
0.3 5th floor
Roof
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.4 3rd floor peak -0.515
-0.5
-0.6 Roof peak -0.673
-0.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)
61
Comparison of total
peak accelerations
25
20
15
Height (m)
Peak Acceleration
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Acceleration (g)
Figure 111: Comparison of total peak accelerations.
Significant ductility reduction is achieved when implementing viscous dampers. We can also
notice Peak drift were reduced and overall the acceleration are reduced for all the motions. The
performance of the structure improved from 36% to 65%. Summary of results are presented
Table 34.
Table 34: Performance Indices for structure retrofitted with viscous dampers compared to
existing building performance.
Ground
(%) (%) a(g) PI
Motion
LA-02 5.71 5.50 1.80 0.72 0.95 46%
LA-07 4.83 4.41 1.52 0.68 0.61 60%
LA-16 8.49 8.49 2.70 0.36 0.79 36%
Ground
(%) (%) a(g) PI
Motion
LA-02 1.19 1.58 0.54 0.04 0.63 76%
LA-07 1.00 0.00 0.47 0.01 0.32 88%
LA-16 3.01 3.75 1.05 0.31 0.69 65%
62
8 Flow chart for viscous dampers optimum design

A flow chart describing the procedure that was followed to achieve the optimum design is
presented below.
Figure 112: Flow chart for optimum design for viscous dampers
63
CHAPTER 6 - BASE ISOLATION
1 Description
The retrofit strategy for the structure consists on introducing lead-rubber bearings at the base of
the structure as shown in Figure 113. For this purpose, it will be assumed that a large foundation
mat supports the building and that retrofit work will be required to introduce a link-frame
between the columns and this mat. The isolators will be installed between this link-frame and the
top surface of the mat. For modeling purposes, it will be assumed that all bearings operate in
parallel and the complete base isolation system will be modeled as a single horizontal bilinear
spring at the base of the structure.
Figure 113: Modelling of Building Structure with Lead-Rubber Base-Isolation System
The base isolation system used for this retrofit strategy is lead-rubber bearings. These isolation
elements are comprised of two distinct components; a laminated rubber bearing and a lead core as
seen in Figure 114.
64
Figure 114: Components of Lead-Rubber base isolation
The first component of this type of isolation system is the laminated rubber bearing which is the
primary mechanism of the isolation system and consists of thin layers of rubber and steel shim
plates laminated together in an alternating pattern as shown in the figure above. The physics
behind the use of laminated rubber bearings for base isolation is that the lateral stiffness of the
bearings is significantly less than that of the supported structure. Consequently, the objective of
the use of a base isolation system is to provide a shift of the structures fundamental natural
period out of the frequency range at which most buildings are more vulnerable to damage due to
the affects of ground motion during a seismic event.
The second component of a lead-rubber bearing isolator is the lead core plug. The stiffness of the
laminated rubber bearing is low, providing little damping by itself and as a result is susceptible to
large lateral displacements. The lead core element is introduced to compensate for this by
providing an element to increase damping as well as to dissipate hysteretic energy.
To model the Lead-rubber bearings in our RUAMOKO model we used a non-linear spring with a
bi-linear hysteretic model. The bi-linear hysteretic model is shown in Figure 115.
Figure 115: Lead-Rubber Bi-Linear Model
65
If the mechanical properties based on experimental tests are not known, the determination of the
mechanical properties requires an iterative approach for the preliminary bearing design. The
three parameters that define the bi-linear model are k1, k2 and Fy. Where k1 is the combined
elastic stiffness of the laminated rubber and the lead core assemblage, k2 is the post-yield
stiffness equal to the stiffness of only the laminated rubber, and Fy is the yield force at which the
lead core starts to yield.
For modeling of the base isolators in RUAMOKO, a fixed node was introduced at the ground
level. The horizontal degrees of freedom at the base of all the column nodes at the ground level
were released. A non-linear spring element was connected to the base node of one of the exterior
bay columns. Next, the base nodes at the remainder of the ground level columns were slaved to
horizontal degree of freedom of the aforementioned column. This is shown schematically in
Figure 113.
The determination of the hysteretic model of the isolators is an iterative approach. The
preliminary approach was used to determine the bi-linear properties using a MathCAD worksheet
developed linking the assumptions listed below.
Overlap factor was fixed to 0.6.

A'
0.6
Ar
The diameter of the bearing was fixed based on the following recommendation:
Db
xb
A'
0.8(1 )
Ar
The thickness of the rubber was computed based on the following recommendation:

Db
tr
4S
The shape factor was considered in the following interval
10 S 20
The total height of the rubber layers was set to remain in the following range:

Db 2 Db
hr
3 3
Db hiso
66
tr 2ts
The number of isolator was fixed to 6 to ensure enough redundancy.
nisolators 6
The plug diameter was contained in the following range
1 1
Db Dp Db
3 6
When considering the assumptions stated above to determine the optimum k1 and Fy of the base
isolation system the procedure is simplified.
By limiting the range at which hr will be evaluated we can limit at the same time the total elastic
stiffness of the system since this is proportional to k2 as follows.
GrAr
k2
hr
k 1 10k 2
By limiting the diameter of the plug we are also bounding the yield strength range since Fy it is
proportional to the area of the plug as shown in the equation below.
GrAr
Fy pyAp (1 )
GpAp
As a result of limiting the rubber height and the plug diameter we were able to establish a range
in which k1 and Fy can be evaluated to get the better performance.
The base isolation properties that were given for the design of the lead-rubber bearings for this
project required the maximum lateral displacement of each bearing to not exceed 300 mm. An
iterative procedure was carried out in the MathCAD worksheet presented in the following page
by assuming values of k1 and calculating an equivalent stiffness of the system. Having the
equivalent stiffness we were able to calculate the equivalent period of the system and the
equivalent damping as well. Then for the most critical spectral displacement spectrum (LA7), a
spectral displacement corresponding to the equivalent period of the system was obtained.
Different values of k1 were given in conjunction with the assumptions listed above to ensure that
the spectral displacement equal the desired lateral displacement of the bearing (300mm).
xb S D
67
2 Preliminary Design
Gr 1 MPa (Rubber Shear Modulus)
Gp 150 MPa (Lead shear Modulus)
kr 2000 MPa (Rubber compression modulus)
py 10 MPa (Lead Shear Yield Strength)
xb 300 mm (Maximum seismic displacement of lead-rubber bearings)
OverlapFactor 0.6 (Maximum overlap factor for individual bearings, A1/A)
S 12 (Shape factor for individual bearings)
BldgWtTotal 30950kN
(Total Weight of structure)
v 4.5 (Short-term failure strain of the rubber)
w 0.4 v 1.8 (Allowable shear strain under gravity load
Dbearing
xb
937.5 mm (Diameter of the rubber bearing)
0.8( 1 OverlapFactor )
Dbearing 940 mm (Rounded rubber bearing)
2
Ar
Dbearing 2
693978mm
(Rubber cross area)
2
tr 19.583 mm
Dbearing
(Rubber thickness per layer)
4 S
tr 20 mm (Rounded rubber thickness)
2
A1 OverlapFactor Ar 416387 mm (Overlap area)
Wmax A1 Gr S w 8994 kN (Maximum allowable vertical load)
nisolators 3.441
BldgWtTotal
(Number of isolators)
Wmax
nisolators 6 (Rounded number of isolators)
68
nlayers 20 (Number of rubber layers)
hr nlayers tr 400 mm (Total rubber height)
Dplug 313.333mm
Dbearing
(Lead plug diameter, taken between 1/3 and 1/6 of Dbearing)
3
Dplug 315 mm (Rounded lead plug diameter)

2
Ap
Dplug 2
34636 mm (Area of the lead plug)
3
Gr Ar kN (Lead rubber Post-yield stiffness)
k2 1.735
hr mm
kN
k1 10 k2 17.3494 (Lead rubber approximation of the lateral elastic stiffness)
mm
Fy py Ap 1 392.626kN
Gr Ar
(Yield force of the bearing)
Gp Ap
nisolators k1 kN
Tk1 52.048 (Total elastic stiffness of the system)
2 mm
nisolators Fy
TFy 1177.877kN
(Total yield force of the system)
2
keff k2 1 nisolators
Fy Fy
(Equivalent Stiffness of the system)
xb k1 xb
kN
keff 17.477
mm
BldgWtTotal
teff 2 2.67s (Equivalent period of the system)
keff g
Fy
dy 22.63 mm
k1
2 TFy ( xb dy )
beff 0.132 (Equivalent damping of the system)
2
keff xb
69
640
560
Spectral Displacement (mm)
480
LA7
400 13.2%
300mm
320
240
160
80
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (s)
Figure 116: Spectral Displacement corresponding to effective period of the equivalent system
The parameters for which the spectral displacement matched the maximum lateral displacements
are presented below:
Table 35: Preliminary Design results
Parameter Value
k1 52 kN/mm
k2 5.2 kN/mm
Fy 1178 kN
Having defined the Bi-linear Rubber-Lead parameters to be used for the equivalent non-linear
spring element in RUAMOKO, time history analyses were performed for the three design ground
motions. As expected from the spectral displacements plots the motion LA7 governed the design
since it presented the higher displacements. These displacements were below the 300mm. limit
and consequently the preliminary design was satisfied.
It was previously stated that the values of k1 and Fy can be limited at certain range of application
by following the listed assumptions presented above. It is for this reason that optimum values of
these parameters will be seeks in the intermediate design with the aim of finding the optimum
design parameters that meet the maximum lateral displacement and give at the same time the
higher performance indices.
70
Same assumptions that were used in the preliminary design will be followed. The idea is to limit
the range at which hr and Dp can be evaluated as shown in the listed assumptions in the
preliminary design. By doing this the range at which k1 and Fy are evaluated can be contained
and evaluated.
Three values of k1 will be considered for the analyses. Two values corresponding to the upper
and lower bound ok k1 and one intermediate point ok k1. The lower and upper bound were
obtained by assuming different hr values contained in the following range boundaries as
previously stated.
Db 2 Db
hr
3 3
Then for each value of k1 the optimum Fy was studied. Since for our design Fy is primarily
conditioned to the area of the plug, and we limited the diameter of the plug to:
1 1
Db Dp Db
3 6
Therefore the upper and lower bound of Fy can also be established. This range of application was
found to vary from 750kN to 2500kN. Performances indices were calculated for increments of
250kN in the range of 750kN to 2500kN for each of the three assumed values of k1.
Table 36: Summary of parameters to be studied in intermediate design
In Table 36 the different values of k1 and the range of application of Fy is shown. Figure 117,
Figure 118 and Figure 119 shows the performance indices obtained for each run.
71
Figure 117: Optimum Fy study for k1=30kN/mm
72
From Figure 120 we can observe that the highest performance is obtained when k1 equals
30kN/mm and from Figure 117 it is evident that this happens when Fy is 750 kN. This optimum
configuration reached a performance index of 81%.
73
MathCAD calculations to obtain the optimum parameters just presented are shown below.
Gr 1 MPa (Rubber Shear Modulus)
Gp 150 MPa (Lead shear Modulus)
kr 2000 MPa (Rubber compression modulus)
py 10 MPa (Lead Shear Yield Strength)
xb 300 mm (Maximum seismic displacement of lead-rubber bearings)
OverlapFactor 0.6 (Maximum overlap factor for individual bearings, A1/A)
S 13 (Shape factor for individual bearings)
BldgWtTotal 30950kN (Total Weight of structure)
v 4.5 (Short-term failure strain of the rubber)
w 0.4 v 1.8 (Allowable shear strain under gravity load)
Dbearing 937.5 mm
xb
(Diameter of the rubber bearing)
0.8( 1 OverlapFactor )
Dbearing 940 mm (Rounded rubber bearing)
2
Ar
Dbearing 2
693978mm
(Rubber cross area)
2
tr 18.077 mm
Dbearing
(Rubber thickness per layer)
4 S
tr 20 mm (Rounded rubber thickness)
2
A1 OverlapFactor Ar 416387 mm (Overlap area)
Wmax A1 Gr S w 9743.4kN
(Maximum allowable vertical load)
nisolators 3.176
BldgWtTotal
(Number of isolators)
Wmax
nisolators 6 (Rounded number of isolators)
nlayers 34 (Number of rubber layers)
74
hr nlayers tr 680 mm (Total rubber height)
Dplug
Dbearing
156.667mm

(Lead plug diameter, taken with 1/3 and 1/6 of Dbearing)
6
Dplug 161 mm
(Rounded lead plug diameter)
2
Ap
Dplug 2
20358 mm (Area of the lead plug)
2
Gr Ar kN
k2 1.021 (Lead rubber Post-yield stiffness)
hr mm
kN
k1 10 k2 10.2056 (Lead rubber approximation of the lateral elastic stiffness)
mm
Fy py Ap 1 249.848kN
Gr Ar

(Yield force of the bearing)
Gp Ap
nisolators k1 kN
Tk1 30.6 (Total elastic stiffness of the system)
2 mm
nisolators Fy
TFy 750 kN (Total yield force of the system)
2
A summary of the optimum design is shown in Table 37.
Table 37: Summary of Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Diameter of the bearing 940 mm
Diameter of the plug 160 mm
Rubber thickness / number of layers 20 mm / 34
Shape factor 13
Number of isolators 6
75
4 Final Design
We can see form the energy plots that in overall the input energy was reduced by half. This will
reduce significantly the demand on the structure. The strain energy is mostly due to the yielding
of the plug.

LA - 02
1.8E+6
1.5E+6
1.2E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
9E+5
6E+5
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
3E+5 Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Time (sec.)
Figure 121: Energy components time history for LA-02.

LA - 07
2.1E+6
1.8E+6
1.5E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
1.2E+6
9E+5
6E+5
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
3E+5 Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (sec.)
76

LA - 16
1.8E+6
1.5E+6
1.2E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
9E+5
6E+5
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
3E+5 Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec.)
No hinges were reported on the RUAMOKO output for the optimum base isolation design
Figure 124: Abscense of plastic hinges for LA-02, 07 and 16.
77

15
12 2nd floor peak -10.1 (mm) 1st floor

3rd floor peak -12.6 (mm) 2nd floor
9 3rd floor
4th floor
6 5th floor
Roof
3
-3
-6 1st floor residual -0.0349 (mm)

-9
-12 Roof peak -12.4 (mm) 3rd floor residual -0.0209 (mm)
4th floor peak -13.7 (mm) 2nd floor residual -0.0226 (mm)
-15 1st floor peak -13.9 (mm)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
Figure 125: : Interstory drift time history for LA-02.

180
150
120
90
60
30
-30
-60
-90
-120
-150
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
Figure 126: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA-02.
78

15
12.5 1st floor
5th floor peak 13.6 (mm) 2nd floor
10 4th floor peak 12 (mm) 3rd floor
3rd floor peak 11.4 (mm) 4th floor
7.5 5th floor
Roof
5
2.5
1st floor residual -0.0473 (mm)
0
-2.5 Roof residual -0.0128 (mm)

-5
-7.5 3rd floor residual -0.0283 (mm)
-10 Roof peak 10.1 (mm)

2nd floor peak 9.72 (mm)
-12.5
-15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)
Figure 127: Interstory drift time history for LA-07.

200
150
100
50
-50
-100
-150
-200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)
79

18
15 5th floor peak 15.7 (mm) 1st floor

4th floor peak 13 (mm) 2nd floor
12 3rd floor
Roof peak 12.1 (mm) 4th floor
9 5th floor
Roof
6
-3
-6
3rd floor residual -0.0929 (mm)
-9 1st floor residual -0.157 (mm)
-12 2nd floor peak -11.5 (mm) 5th floor residual -0.0676 (mm)
3rd floor peak -11.9 (mm) 4th floor residual -0.078 (mm)
-15
1st floor peak -16.2 (mm) Roof residual -0.0412 (mm)
-18
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Time (s)
Figure 129: Interstory drift time history for LA-16.

250
200
150
100
50
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Time (s)
80

25
20
20
Inter Storey Drifts

Height (m.)

LA-07 Retrof. Struc. Inter Storey Drifts
Height (m.)
LA-16 Retrof. Struc. 15 LA-02 Orig. Struc.
2.5% Drift (LS) LA-07 Orig. Struc.
0.7% Drift (IO) LA-16 Orig. Struc.
0
0 50 100 150
Displacement (mm.) 0
-150 -50 50 150
Displacement (mm.)
Figure 131: Peak Inter-storey drifts for Figure 132: Comparison of Peak inter-storey
Retrofitted structure. drifts.
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts Comparison of residual

25
20
20
15
Height (m)

1% Drift (LS) 15
Height (m)

LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
5
5
0
0 15 30 45 60
0
Displacement (mm) -60 -30 0 30 60
Displacement (mm)
Figure 133: Residual Inter-storey drifts for Figure 134: Comparison of residual inter-storey
Retrofitted structure. drifts.
81

0.45
Roof peak 0.414
0.35 1st floor peak 0.263

0.25 3rd floor peak 0.172

0.15
0.05
-0.05
1st floor
2nd floor
-0.15
3rd floor
4th floor
-0.25 5th floor peak -0.232 5th floor
Roof
-0.35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
Figure 135: Acceleration time history for LA-02.

0.35
0.3
0.25
Top bearing peak 0.339
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Time (s)
Figure 136: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA-02.
82

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
1st floor
-0.15 4th floor peak -0.135 2nd floor
3rd floor peak -0.159 3rd floor
-0.2 4th floor
5th floor
-0.25 5th floor peak -0.179 Roof
1st floor peak -0.185
-0.3 Roof peak -0.326
-0.35
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)

0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
Top bearing peak -0.217
-0.2
-0.25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Time (s)
83

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
3rd floor peak -0.185 1st floor
-0.2 1st floor peak -0.211 2nd floor
3rd floor
4th floor
5th floor peak -0.234 5th floor
-0.4 Roof peak -0.423 Roof
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Top bearing peak -0.284
-0.25
-0.3
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
Time (s)
84
Comparison of total
peak accelerations
25
20
15
Height (m)
Peak Acceleration
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Acceleration (g)
Figure 141: Comparison of peak accelerations.
The building behaves in the elastic range, there is no plastic hinging formation, and therefore the
residual drifts in the superstructure were zero. The building performance increases from 36% to
81%.
Table 38: Performance Indexes for structure retrofitted with base isolation compared with
existing performance.
Existing (%) (%) a(g) PI

LA-02 5.71 5.50 1.80 0.72 0.95 46%
LA-07 4.83 4.41 1.52 0.68 0.61 60%
LA-16 8.49 8.49 2.70 0.36 0.79 36%
Retrofitted (%) (%) a(g) PI

LA-02 <1.00 <1.00 0.43 0.00 0.41 84%
LA-07 <1.00 <1.00 0.36 0.00 0.33 81%
LA-16 <1.00 <1.00 0.41 0.00 0.42 81%
85
5 Flow chart for optimum design of base isolation
A flow chart describing the procedure that was followed to achieve the optimum base isolation
design is presented below.
Figure 142: Flow chart for optimum design of base isolation systems
86
CHAPTER 7 - OPTIMUM DESIGN AND NEAR-FAULT

GROUND MOTION PERFORMANCE
1 Optimum retrofit strategy

The base isolation retrofit option was shown to achieve the highest performance of the building
as indicated in the table below. In this table all the retrofit schemes are compared.
Table 39: Summary of various retrofit options
Ground
(%) (%) a g PI
Motion
Existing Structure
LA-02 5.71 5.50 1.80 0.72 0.95 46%
LA-07 4.83 4.41 1.52 0.68 0.61 60%
LA-16 8.49 8.49 2.70 0.36 0.79 36%
Structure retrofitted with Hysteretic Dampers
LA-02 1.19 1.00 0.58 0.06 0.61 78%
LA-07 1.00 0.00 0.44 0.06 0.39 87%
LA-16 4.54 3.54 1.44 0.56 0.60 63%
Structure retrofitted with Viscous Dampers
LA-02 1.19 1.58 0.54 0.04 0.63 76%
LA-07 1.00 0.00 0.47 0.01 0.32 88%
LA-16 3.01 3.75 1.05 0.31 0.69 65%
Structure retrofitted with Base Isolation
LA-02 1.00 1.00 0.43 0.00 0.41 84%
LA-07 2.93 2.68 0.36 0.00 0.33 81%
LA-16 1.88 1.86 0.41 0.00 0.42 81%
Existing Structure
N.F. 9.743 10.9 3.33 1.97 0.913 20%
Optimum Retrofitted Structure
N.F. 1.00 1.00 0.46 0.05 0.489 82%
The performance of all retrofit options compared against the performance levels in the PI scale is
summarized in the next chart. Using the base isolation system we can reach the immediate
occupancy level and this option will be chosen to be the optimum design for this project and
considered for the near fault event study.
87
Table 40: Performance level category
CP LS IO
Existing Structure X (36%)
Hysteretic Damping X (63%)
Viscous Damping X (65%)
Base Isolation X (81%)
2 Performance under near-fault ground motion
The performance of the existing and the optimally retrofitted structure in the case that the
construction site would be located at proximity (less than 10 km) of an active fault will be
studied.
2.1 Near-Fault Ground Motion
The optimally retrofitted structure will be analyzed under a particular historically derived near-
fault ground motion. This ground motion, called NF13, has been derived from one horizontal
component of the ground motion recorded at the Rinaldi station (distance = 7.5 km) during the
1994 Northridge earthquake (Moment Magnitude = 6.7). The ground motion has a PGA of 0.89g
at 2.69 sec.
Northridge,17 Jan 94,04:31PST; Rinaldi Receiving Station FF

1
0.75
Ground motion NF13
Response Aceleration (g)
0.5
0.25
-0.25
-0.5
-0.75
-1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Period
Figure 143: Near fault ground motion horizontal component
88
2.2 Assessment of the existing structure under near fault ground motion
As expected the structure experienced significant damage. The energy plots show a significant
contribution of strain energy due to plastic hinge formation in the structure as seen in Figure 145.
Energy Components Time History - Existing Structure

Near Fault G.M.
4.8E+6
4.2E+6
3.6E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
3E+6
2.4E+6
1.8E+6
1.2E+6 Kinetic Energy

Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
6E+5 Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Time (sec.)
Figure 144: Energy components time history for Near Fault Ground motion.
Figure 145: Distribution of plastic hinges for Existing Structure.
89
Table 41: Maximum plastic rotations for Near Fault ground motion in existing structure.
Lp Ductility
(mm)
1 6 11 Column 550 4.74E-05 1.297 71.3 0.003
2 7 3 Column 550 4.74E-05 1.263 69.5 0.003
3 14 3 Column 626 4.17E-05 2.591 162.2 0.007
4 15 1 Column 626 4.17E-05 2.568 160.8 0.007
5 18 2 Column 696 3.76E-05 2.539 176.7 0.007
6 19 4 Column 696 3.76E-05 2.501 174.1 0.007
7 21 4 Column 354 7.37E-05 4.629 163.9 0.012
8 21 2 Column 354 7.37E-05 7.873 278.7 0.021
9 22 5 Column 696 3.76E-05 3.751 261.1 0.010
10 22 7 Column 696 3.76E-05 10.9 758.6 0.028
11 23 7 Column 696 3.76E-05 3.485 242.6 0.009
12 23 5 Column 696 3.76E-05 10.73 746.8 0.028
13 24 6 Column 354 7.37E-05 4.605 163.0 0.012
14 24 8 Column 354 7.37E-05 9.514 336.8 0.025
15 32 8 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.757 96.1 0.005
16 33 6 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.043 57.1 0.003
17 34 9 Beam 547 4.78E-05 2.184 119.5 0.006
18 36 11 Beam 547 4.78E-05 1.817 99.4 0.005
19 37 11 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.477 91.0 0.004
20 38 9 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.204 135.8 0.006
21 39 10 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.749 107.7 0.005
22 40 12 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.485 153.1 0.006
23 41 12 Beam 616 4.24E-05 1.529 94.2 0.004
24 42 10 Beam 616 4.24E-05 2.315 142.6 0.006
25 43 13 Beam 616 4.24E-05 4.212 259.5 0.011
26 44 14 Beam 616 4.24E-05 4.87 300.0 0.013
27 45 15 Beam 616 4.24E-05 4.376 269.6 0.011
28 46 14 Beam 616 4.24E-05 5.12 315.4 0.013
29 47 15 Beam 616 4.24E-05 4.159 256.2 0.011
30 48 16 Beam 616 4.24E-05 5.023 309.4 0.013
31 49 13 Beam 678 3.84E-05 6.672 452.4 0.017
32 50 14 Beam 678 3.84E-05 6.918 469.0 0.018
33 51 15 Beam 678 3.84E-05 6.759 458.3 0.018
34 52 14 Beam 678 3.84E-05 7.321 496.4 0.019
35 53 15 Beam 678 3.84E-05 6.327 429.0 0.016
36 54 16 Beam 678 3.84E-05 6.154 417.2 0.016
37 55 17 Beam 678 3.84E-05 9.743 660.6 0.025
38 56 18 Beam 678 3.84E-05 8.65 586.5 0.023
39 57 19 Beam 678 3.84E-05 9.602 651.0 0.025
40 58 18 Beam 678 3.84E-05 9.023 611.8 0.024
41 59 19 Beam 678 3.84E-05 9.274 628.8 0.024
42 60 20 Beam 678 3.84E-05 9.197 623.6 0.024
90
Inter-Storey drift Time history - Existing Structure

Near Fault G.M.
200
3rd floor peak 74.3 (mm)

4th floor peak 50.1 (mm) 1st floor residual 108 (mm)
100

0
1st floor Roof residual 3.29 (mm)
-100 2nd floor
5th floor peak 34.9 (mm) 3rd floor
Roof peak 26.3 (mm) 4th floor
2nd floor peak -97.8 (mm) 5th floor
Roof
1st floor peak -183 (mm)
-200
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Time (s)
Figure 146: Inter storey - drifts time history for Near Fault ground motion.
Acceleration Time History - Existing Structure

Near Fault G.M.
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
-0.25
5th floor peak -0.462 1st floor

-0.5 2nd floor
3rd floor peak -0.463
2nd floor peak -0.492 3rd floor
4th floor
5th floor
1st floor peak -0.582 Roof
Roof peak -0.913
-1
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Time (s)
Figure 147: Acceleration time history for Near Fault ground motion.
91
The performance evaluation of the existing building is presented in the table below:
Table 42: Performance Indexes of existing structure for near fault ground motion.
Ground
(%) (%) a(g) PI
Motion
N.F. 9.743 10.9 3.33 1.97 0.913 19.60%
2.3 Retrofitted building performance under near fault ground motion
The input energy as seen in the figure below was significantly reduced compared with the
existing building due to the strain energy and viscous energy provided by the base isolators.
Energy Components Time History - Retrofit with Bae Isolation

Near Fault G. M.
3E+6
2.4E+6
Energy (kN-mm)
1.8E+6
1.2E+6
Kinetic Energy
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Time (sec.)
Figure 148: Energy components time history for Retrofitted structure.
92
Inter-Storey drift time history - Retrofit with Base Isolation

Near Fault G.M.
20
15 2nd floor residual 1.81 (mm)
10 4th floor residual 1.4 (mm)
-5
Roof peak -13.3 (mm)
-15 4th floor peak -14.8 (mm) 1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor peak -16.3 (mm) 3rd floor
-20 5th floor peak -17.4 (mm) 4th floor
2nd floor peak -16.5 (mm) 5th floor
-25 1st floor peak -25.1 (mm) Roof
-30
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Time (s)
Figure 149: Inter storey - drifts time history for retrofitted structure.
Displacement history - Lead Rubbers Base Isolation

Near Fault G.M.
150
0
-150
-300
Peak Displacement -483

-450
-600
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Time (s)
Figure 150: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system.
93
Acceleration Time History - Retrofit with Base Isolation

Near Fault G.M.
0.75
0.5

0.25
1st floor
2nd floor
-0.25 3rd floor
4th floor
1st floor peak -0.257 5th floor
Roof peak -0.489 Roof
-0.5
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Time (s)
Figure 151: Acceleration time history for retrofitted structure.
Acceleration History - Lead Rubbers Base Isolation

Near Fault G.M.
0.35
0.25
0.15
0.05
-0.05
-0.15
-0.25
-0.35 Base Isolation peak -0.436
-0.45
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5
Time (s)
Figure 152: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation.
94
Peak Inter-storey Drifts Residual Inter-Storey Drifts

25 25
20 20
Inter Storey Drifts

Height (m.)
15 2.5% Drift (LS) 15
Height (m)
0.7% Drift (IO) 1% Drift (LS)
Existing Structure Existing Structure
Retrof. Base isolation Retrof. Base Isolation
10 10
5 5
0 0
-200 -100 0 100 200 -120 -60 0 60 120
Displacement (mm.) Displacement (mm)
Figure 153: Comparison of peak inter-storey Figure 154: Comparison of residual inter-storey
drifts. drifts.
Peak Accelerations
25
20
Height (m)
15 Peak Acceleration
Existing Structure
Retrof. Base Islation
10
0
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Acceleration (g)
Figure 155: Comparison of peak accelerations.
95
The retrofitted structure performed well under the near-fault effect. Nonetheless the allowable
bearing displacement was exceeded by 180 mm. Other than that the super structure performs well
in the elastic range with a performance index of 81.75% and overall reduction of all the
parameters shown in Table 43. The increase in performance compared to the original structure is
shown in Figure 156.
Table 43: Performance of existing and retrofitted structure for the near fault ground motion
Existing (%) (%) a(g) PI

N.F. 9.743 10.9 3.33 1.97 0.913 19.60%
Retrofitted (%) (%) a(g) PI

N.F. <1.00 <1.00 0.46 0.05 0.489 81.75%
Figure 156: Performance of the existing building compared to the optimum retrofit strategy
In summary the chosen optimum design is proved to perform well for the design ground motions
with improvement from the collapse prevention to immediate occupancy. The big margin gained
in the optimum retrofitted performance allows the structure to achieve a good performance under
unexpected ground motion uncertainties as the near-fault phenomena.
96
APPENDIX A RESULTS ANALYSIS WITH VBA SCRIPT
In order to facilitate the laborious task of analyzing output results from several runs done for each
retrofitting strategy, a VBA Script was coded to do this task. This code reads RUAMOKO output
files and synthesizes the information into a single Excel file per run. Then, it chooses the
necessary values from these tables to compute the Performance Index for that run.
Finally another VBA Script was coded to set all the Performance Indexes determined in each of
the runs in one graph. Moreover in order to assess the overall performance of the set of runs
done, it extracts the corresponding values to generate comparison graphs for acceleration, drifts,
ductility in beam and columns.
97
APPENDIX B COMPOSITE SECTION
Sketch of composite sections used in the hysteretic damper scheme are detailed below. Two HSS
tubes are intended to work as a composite section. The inside HSS with the stiffeners is slided
into the bigger section and the cover plate is applied and welded to both HSS sections. There is
no direct welding between the two HSS sections. The stiffener in the small HSS is introduced to
enable the composite behavior of the two HSS if there is bending.

Figure 157: Details for the composite section
98
APPENDIX C: PEER REVIEW LETTERS
From: CIE 626 Peer Review Panel

To: Team #4
Date: 04/17/2011
Subject: "Peer Review Panel's Suggestions/Recommendations to Team #4 of CIE 626 Structural
Control Project - First Meeting"
On April 15, 2011, the members of Team #4, namely, (1) Nguyen Nam Hoai, (2) Gonzalez
Sanchez Efrain, (3) Roberts Cervantes Gonzalo and (4) Rosas Espinoza Jorge, met with the Peer
Review Panel to discuss the progress of the CIE 626 class project. Team #4 presented the
progress of phase 4 (hysteretic dampers retrofit) of the project.
The suggestions/commendations listed below are provided by the Peer Review Panel (PRP)
based on the 4/15/2011 progress presentation:
- For the retrofit scheme using hysteretic dampers, preliminary case studies were presented
assuming a uniform activation load distribution. It is recommended to investigate
different activation load distributions of along the height of the building.
- Three different performance indexes were presented. It is recommended to justify the use
of three performance indexes. It is suggested to combine the three performance indexes in
one to better identify the performance level of the structure.
Shall you have questions regarding the above suggestions/recommendations; do not hesitate to
contact us.
Peer Review Panel Members

Maria Koliou
Maikol Del Carpio Ramos
Response:
- An activation load study was carried out and presented for the second review.
- Three indices were combined in one single index as suggested and presented in the
second review.
99
From: CIE 626 Peer Review Panel

To: Team #4
Date: 04/25/2011
Subject: "Peer Review Panel's Suggestions/Recommendations to Team #4 of CIE 626 Structural
Control Project Second Meeting"
On April 25, 2011, the members of Team #4, namely, (1) Nguyen Nam Hoai, (2) Gonzalez
Sanchez Efrain, (3) Roberts Cervantes Gonzalo and (4) Rosas Espinoza Jorge, met with the Peer
Review Panel to discuss the progress of the CIE 626 class project. Team #4 presented results of
phase 4 (hysteretic dampers), phase 5 (viscous dampers), and phase 6 (base isolation) of the
project.
The suggestions/commendations listed below are provided by the Peer Review Panel (PRP)
based on the 4/25/2011 progress presentation:
- Plots should include normalized responses (i.e., inter-story drift ratios (%), peak
accelerations (g), etc).
- Envelopes of responses of the three ground motions should be used to compare different
retrofit cases.
Shall you have questions regarding the above suggestions/recommendations, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Peer Review Panel Members

Maria Koliou
Maikol Del Carpio Ramos
Response:
- Plots include the inter-story drift ratios (%) as well as the absolute value.
- Performance indices were calculated for each ground motion therefore they were
presented separately.
100
REFERENCES
Christopoulos C. and Filiatrault, A. (2006) Principles of Passive Supplemental Damping and

Seismic Isolation, IUSS Press, Italy.
Romero, M.L. and Martinez-Rodrigo, M., (2003) An Optimum Retrofit Strategy for Moment
Resisting Frames with Nonlinear Viscous Dampers for Seismic Applications Engineering
Structures 25, p913-925.
Federal Emergency Management Agency ASCE (1997) FEMA 273 - NEHRP Guidelines for
the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Washington, DC.
Federal Emergency Management Agency ASCE (1997) FEMA 274 Commentary on the
NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Washington, DC
101

Structural Control PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Structural Control PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

CONTENT

CHAPTER 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 1

1.1 Description of the Building Structure

9.144 9.144 9.144 9.144

Figure 1: Plan view, building to be retrofitted

Figure 2: Elevation view Axis A E.

1.2 Modeling Assumptions

Dead Load Live Load

M Bilinear Moment Curvature Model

Figure 3: Bi-Linear Moment-Curvature Model.

Strength Degradation Model

Figure 4: Strength Degradation Model for Welded Beam-Column Connections.

1.3 Member Properties

Figure 5: Elevation view with position of all nodes and members.

1.3.1 Material Properties

Modulus of Elasticity 200 .

1.3.2 Geometric and Elastic Member Properties

5000 Sections 1,2

Figure 6: Axial Load Bending Moment Interaction Diagram

Table 5: Column axial load moment interaction

N (kN) -5987 -1198 0.0 0.0 5987

1.4 Curvature and ductility capacity

1.4.1 Moment Curvature Relationship

The yielding curvature is defined by the following expression:

1.4.2 Strength Degradation Model

Table 7: Curvature ductility capacity at failure

1.5 Dynamic characteristics of the original structure

Table 8: Frequencies and periods Table 9: Mass participation ratios

Frequency Period MODE % Mass

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5

Figure 7: Mode Shapes of the structure

1.6 Pushover Analyses

1.6.1 ASCE 41 lateral load pattern

Table 10: Lateral Load Distribution, ASCE 41

1.6.2 Linear vertical distribution

1.6.3 New Zealand Code

2250 486.35, 3212.1

Figure 8: Pushovers curves

Figure 9: Top floor lateral displacement vs. time

Figure 10: Deflected Shape ASCE 41 Pushover, Plastic Hinge Location

Figure 11: Pushover Curve ASCE 41

3500 Max base shear of 3212.1 (kN) at 8.8 (s)

Figure 12: Base Shear vs. Time, ASCE 41.

-1200 Fail at 8.9 (s) M= -1779.8

Figure 13: Moment vs. Time, beam member 58 end 2

Bending moment (kN-m)

Figure 14: Moment vs. time Column member 23

-1200 -4.4517E-6, -1478.8

Figure 15: Moment vs. Curvature, Member 58 end 2

Figure 16: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 1

Figure 17: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 2

Figure 18: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 1

Figure 19: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 2

CHAPTER 2 DESIGN GROUND MOTIONS

1 Retrieval and analysis of Design Ground motions

Figure 20: LA-02 Ground Motion

-0.4 Peak acc. -0.4209786 (g) at 16.08 (s)

Figure 21: LA-07 Ground Motion

-0.6 Peak acc. -0.5795923 (g) at 2.705 (s)

Figure 22: LA-16 Ground Motion

Figure 23: Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra for 5% Damping

Relative velocity (m/s)

Figure 24: Relative Velocity Response Spectrum