i

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 
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
ii
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 
6  Intermediate design ............................................................................................................. 51 
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 
3  Intermediate design ............................................................................................................. 71 
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 
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
iii




List of Tables

Table 1: Design gravity loads _____________________________________________________________________ 3 
Table 2: Material properties ______________________________________________________________________ 5 
Table 3: Geometric and Elastic Member Properties  ___________________________________________________ 6 
Table 4: Description of the frame members __________________________________________________________ 6 
Table 5: Column axial load – moment interaction _____________________________________________________ 7 
Table 6: Plastic Curvature of each element for a plastic Rotation limit 0p __________________________________ 8 
Table 7: Curvature ductility capacity at failure  _______________________________________________________ 9 
Table 8: Frequencies and periods __________________________________________________________________ 9 
Table 9: Mass participation ratios _________________________________________________________________ 9 
Table 10: Lateral Load Distribution, ASCE 41 _________________________________________________________ 3 
Table 11: Lateral Load Distribution, Linear vertical ____________________________________________________ 3 
Table 12: Lateral Load Distribution, New Zealand Code ________________________________________________ 3 
Table 13: Fraction of Input Energy Absorbed. _______________________________________________________ 15 
Table 14: Peak Absorbed Energy. _________________________________________________________________ 16 
Table 15: Energy Balance Error. __________________________________________________________________ 16 
Table 16: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐02 ground motion __________________________________________ 3 
Table 17: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐07 ground motion.  _________________________________________ 4 
Table 18: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐16 ground motion.  _________________________________________ 3 
Table 19: Reponse limits for different performance category ___________________________________________ 12 
Table 20: Performance Indexes for design ground motions  ____________________________________________ 13 
Table 21: Parameters __________________________________________________________________________ 19 
Table 22: Parameters __________________________________________________________________________ 22 
Table 23: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐02 ground motion.  ________________________________________ 31 
Table 24: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐16 ground motion.  ________________________________________ 31 
Table 25: Performance Indexes for structure retrofitted with hysteretic dampers compared to the original 
performance.  ________________________________________________________________________________ 36 
Table 26: Validation of damper element ___________________________________________________________ 43 
Table 27: Summary of story stiffness ______________________________________________________________ 47 
Table 28: Stiffness proportional Approach damping coefficients  ________________________________________ 51 
Table 29: Constant Damping Approach damping coefficients  __________________________________________ 51 
Table 30: First Mode proportional Approach damping coefficients  ______________________________________ 51 
Table 31: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐02 ground motion.  ________________________________________ 56 
Table 32: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐07 ground motion _________________________________________ 56 
Table 33: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐16 ground motion _________________________________________ 57 
Table 34: Performance Indices for structure retrofitted with viscous dampers compared to existing building 
performance.  ________________________________________________________________________________ 62 
Table 35: Preliminary Design results  ______________________________________________________________ 70 
Table 36: Summary of parameters to be studied in intermediate design __________________________________ 71 
Table 37: Summary of Design Parameters __________________________________________________________ 75 
Table 38: Performance Indexes for structure retrofitted with base isolation compared with existing performance.  85 
Table 39: Summary of various retrofit options  ______________________________________________________ 87 
Table 40: Performance level category _____________________________________________________________ 88 
Table 41: Maximum plastic rotations for Near Fault ground motion in existing structure. ____________________ 90 
Table 42: Performance Indexes of existing structure for near fault ground motion.  _________________________ 92 
Table 43: Performance of existing and retrofitted structure for the near fault ground motion _________________ 96 

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
iv



List of figures

Figure 1: Plan view, building to be retrofitted ________________________________________________________ 2 
Figure 2: Elevation view Axis A – E.  ________________________________________________________________ 2 
Figure 3: Bi‐Linear Moment‐Curvature Model.  _______________________________________________________ 3 
Figure 4: Strength Degradation Model for Welded Beam‐Column Connections.  _____________________________ 4 
Figure 5: Elevation view with position of all nodes and members. ________________________________________ 5 
Figure 6: Axial Load – Bending Moment Interaction Diagram  ___________________________________________ 7 
Figure 7: Mode Shapes of the structure _____________________________________________________________ 2 
Figure 8: Pushovers curves _______________________________________________________________________ 4 
Figure 9: Top floor lateral displacement vs. time ______________________________________________________ 4 
Figure 10: Deflected Shape ASCE 41 Pushover, Plastic Hinge Location _____________________________________ 5 
Figure 11: Pushover Curve ASCE 41  ________________________________________________________________ 5 
Figure 12: Base Shear vs. Time, ASCE 41. ____________________________________________________________ 6 
Figure 13: Moment vs. Time, beam member 58 end 2  _________________________________________________ 6 
Figure 14: Moment vs. time – Column member 23 ____________________________________________________ 7 
Figure 15: Moment vs. Curvature, Member 58 end 2  __________________________________________________ 7 
Figure 16: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 1  __________________________________________________________ 8 
Figure 17: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 2  __________________________________________________________ 8 
Figure 18: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 1  ___________________________________________________ 8 
Figure 19: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 2  ___________________________________________________ 9 
Figure 20: LA‐02 Ground Motion _________________________________________________________________ 10 
Figure 21: LA‐07 Ground Motion _________________________________________________________________ 10 
Figure 22: LA‐16 Ground Motion _________________________________________________________________ 11 
Figure 23: Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra for 5% Damping _____________________________________ 11 
Figure 24: Relative Velocity Response Spectrum _____________________________________________________ 12 
Figure 25: Relative Displacement Response Spectrum  ________________________________________________ 12 
Figure 26: Energy Components LA‐02  _____________________________________________________________ 14 
Figure 27: Energy Components LA‐07  _____________________________________________________________ 14 
Figure 28: Energy Components LA‐16. _____________________________________________________________ 14 
Figure 29: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA‐02  ___________________________________________________ 17 
Figure 30: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA‐07  ___________________________________________________ 17 
Figure 31: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA‐16  ___________________________________________________ 17 
Figure 32: Inter‐story Drift – Time History LA‐02 ______________________________________________________ 4 
Figure 33: Inter‐story Drift – Time History LA‐07 ______________________________________________________ 5 
Figure 34: Inter‐story drift – Time History LA‐16 ______________________________________________________ 5 
Figure 35: Peak inter‐story drifts for LA‐02, LA‐07 and LA‐16.  ___________________________________________ 6 
Figure 36: Peak inter‐story drifts. __________________________________________________________________ 6 
Figure 37: Residual inter‐story drifts for LA‐02, LA‐07 and LA‐16 _________________________________________ 7 
Figure 38: Residual inter‐story drifts for LA‐02, LA‐07 and LA‐16 _________________________________________ 7 
Figure 39: Acceleration time ‐ history for LA‐02  ______________________________________________________ 8 
Figure 40: Acceleration time ‐ history for LA‐07  ______________________________________________________ 8 
Figure 41: Acceleration time ‐ history for LA‐16  ______________________________________________________ 9 
Figure 42: Peak acceleration for LA‐02, LA‐07 and LA‐16  _______________________________________________ 9 
Figure 43: Peak total accelerations  _______________________________________________________________ 10 
Figure 44: Performance Levels (FEMA 273) _________________________________________________________ 11 
Figure 45: Locations of added bracing and hysteretic dampers (Configuration‐C1) __________________________ 14 
Figure 46: Elasto‐Plastic Hysteresis  _______________________________________________________________ 15 
Figure 47: Fourier Spectra  ______________________________________________________________________ 16 
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
v
Figure 48: Preliminary design ____________________________________________________________________ 20 
Figure 49: Sections ____________________________________________________________________________ 21 
Figure 50: Alternative retrofit scheme considered in the analyses (Configuration‐C2) ________________________ 21 
Figure 51: Optimum size study ___________________________________________________________________ 22 
Figure 52: Optimum size study ___________________________________________________________________ 23 
Figure 53: Optimum activation load study for HSS406‐C1  _____________________________________________ 24 
Figure 54: Optimum activation load study for HSS304‐C1  _____________________________________________ 24 
Figure 55: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304‐C1 _________________________________________ 25 
Figure 56: Optimum Design _____________________________________________________________________ 25 
Figure 57: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (1/1)  _____________________________________ 26 
Figure 58: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (2/1)  _____________________________________ 26 
Figure 59: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (3/1)  _____________________________________ 27 
Figure 60: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (4/1)  _____________________________________ 27 
Figure 61: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (1
st
 Mode proportional)  ______________________ 28 
Figure 62: Optimum Design _____________________________________________________________________ 28 
Figure 63: Energy Components LA‐02  _____________________________________________________________ 29 
Figure 64: Energy Components LA‐07  _____________________________________________________________ 29 
Figure 65: Energy Components LA‐16  _____________________________________________________________ 30 
Figure 66: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA‐02 and LA‐16.  __________________________________________ 30 
Figure 67: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐02.  ________________________________________________ 32 
Figure 68: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐07.  ________________________________________________ 33 
Figure 69: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐16.  ________________________________________________ 33 
Figure 70: Peak inter‐story drifts for LA‐02, 07 and 16  ________________________________________________ 33 
Figure 71: Comparison of peak inter‐story drifts _____________________________________________________ 33 
Figure 72: Residual inter‐story drifts  ______________________________________________________________ 34 
Figure 73: Comparison of residual inter‐story drifts  __________________________________________________ 34 
Figure 74: Acceleration history of motion LA‐02. _____________________________________________________ 34 
Figure 75: Acceleration history of motion LA‐07. _____________________________________________________ 35 
Figure 76: Acceleration history of motion LA‐16. _____________________________________________________ 35 
Figure 77: Comparison of total peak accelerations.  __________________________________________________ 36 
Figure 78: Flow Chart for hysteretic dampers optimum design __________________________________________ 37 
Figure 79: Location of added bracing and viscous dampers  ____________________________________________ 38 
Figure 80: Hysteretic Behavior of Viscous Dampers  __________________________________________________ 39 
Figure 81: Plot showing comparison among viscous damping and Rayleigh damping ________________________ 41 
Figure 82: Model View _________________________________________________________________________ 42 
Figure 83: Displacement time history  _____________________________________________________________ 42 
Figure 84: Spring and viscous damper forces ________________________________________________________ 43 
Figure 85: Spring and viscous damping force  _______________________________________________________ 43 
Figure 86: Spectra accelerations for LA2 under different damping ratios __________________________________ 44 
Figure 87: Spectra accelerations for LA7 under different damping ratios __________________________________ 45 
Figure 88: Spectra accelerations for LA16 under different damping ratios _________________________________ 45 
Figure 89: Spectra displacements for LA2 under different damping ratios _________________________________ 46 
Figure 90: Spectra displacements for LA7 under different damping ratios _________________________________ 46 
Figure 91: Spectra displacements for LA16 under different damping ratios ________________________________ 47 
Figure 92: Optimum damping comparison (Stiffness Approach) _________________________________________ 52 
Figure 93: Optimum damping comparison (Constant damping Approach)  ________________________________ 52 
Figure 94: Optimum damping comparison (First Mode proportional Approach) ____________________________ 53 
Figure 95: Optimum damping approach  ___________________________________________________________ 53 
Figure 96: Energy Components LA‐02. _____________________________________________________________ 54 
Figure 97: Energy Components LA‐07. _____________________________________________________________ 54 
Figure 98: Energy Components LA‐16  _____________________________________________________________ 55 
Figure 99: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA‐02.  ___________________________________________________ 55 
Figure 100: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA‐07 and LA16. __________________________________________ 56 
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
vi
Figure 101: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐02.  _______________________________________________ 58 
Figure 102: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐07.  _______________________________________________ 58 
Figure 103: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐16 ________________________________________________ 59 
Figure 104: Peak inter‐story drifts for LA‐02, 07 and 16  _______________________________________________ 59 
Figure 105: Comparison of peak inter‐story drifts ____________________________________________________ 59 
Figure 106: Residual inter‐story drifts for LA‐02, 07 and 16. ____________________________________________ 60 
Figure 107: Comparison of residual inter‐story drifts. _________________________________________________ 60 
Figure 108: Acceleration history of motion LA‐02. ____________________________________________________ 60 
Figure 109: Acceleration history of motion LA‐07. ____________________________________________________ 61 
Figure 110: Acceleration history of motion LA‐16. ____________________________________________________ 61 
Figure 111: Comparison of total peak accelerations.  _________________________________________________ 62 
Figure 112: Flow chart for optimum design for viscous dampers ________________________________________ 63 
Figure 113: Modelling of Building Structure with Lead‐Rubber Base‐Isolation System  _______________________ 64 
Figure 114: Components of Lead‐Rubber base isolation _______________________________________________ 65 
Figure 115: Lead‐Rubber Bi‐Linear Model __________________________________________________________ 65 
Figure 116: Spectral Displacement corresponding to effective period of the equivalent system ________________ 70 
Figure 117: Optimum Fy study for k1=30kN/mm  ____________________________________________________ 72 
Figure 118: Optimum Fy study for k1=45kN/mm  ____________________________________________________ 72 
Figure 119: Optimum Fy study for k1=65kN/mm  ____________________________________________________ 73 
Figure 120: Optimum Design ____________________________________________________________________ 73 
Figure 121: Energy components time history for LA‐02. _______________________________________________ 76 
Figure 122: Energy components time history for LA‐07. _______________________________________________ 76 
Figure 123: Energy components time history for LA‐16. _______________________________________________ 77 
Figure 124: Abscense of plastic hinges for LA‐02, 07 and 16.  ___________________________________________ 77 
Figure 125: : Interstory drift time history for LA‐02.  __________________________________________________ 78 
Figure 126: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA‐02. _________________________ 78 
Figure 127: Interstory drift time history for LA‐07.  ___________________________________________________ 79 
Figure 128: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA‐07. _________________________ 79 
Figure 129: Interstory drift time history for LA‐16.  ___________________________________________________ 80 
Figure 130: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA‐16. _________________________ 80 
Figure 131: Peak Inter‐storey drifts for Retrofitted structure. ___________________________________________ 81 
Figure 132: Comparison of Peak inter‐storey drifts.  __________________________________________________ 81 
Figure 133: Residual Inter‐storey drifts for Retrofitted structure. ________________________________________ 81 
Figure 134: Comparison of residual inter‐storey drifts. ________________________________________________ 81 
Figure 135: Acceleration time history for LA‐02. _____________________________________________________ 82 
Figure 136: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA‐02. ________________________________ 82 
Figure 137: Acceleration time history for LA‐07. _____________________________________________________ 83 
Figure 138: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA‐07. ________________________________ 83 
Figure 139: Acceleration time history for LA‐16. _____________________________________________________ 84 
Figure 140: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA‐16. ________________________________ 84 
Figure 141: Comparison of peak accelerations. ______________________________________________________ 85 
Figure 142: Flow chart for optimum design of base isolation systems ____________________________________ 86 
Figure 143: Near fault ground motion horizontal component___________________________________________ 88 
Figure 144: Energy components time history for Near Fault Ground motion.  ______________________________ 89 
Figure 145: Distribution of plastic hinges for Existing Structure. _________________________________________ 89 
Figure 146: Inter storey ‐ drifts time history for Near Fault ground motion. ________________________________ 91 
Figure 147: Acceleration time history for Near Fault ground motion. _____________________________________ 91 
Figure 148: Energy components time history for Retrofitted structure. ___________________________________ 92 
Figure 149: Inter storey ‐ drifts time history for retrofitted structure.  ____________________________________ 93 
Figure 150: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system. ______________________________ 93 
Figure 151: Acceleration time history for retrofitted structure.  _________________________________________ 94 
Figure 152: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation. _____________________________________ 94 
Figure 153: Comparison of peak inter‐storey drifts.  __________________________________________________ 95 
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
vii
Figure 154: Comparison of residual inter‐storey drifts. ________________________________________________ 95 
Figure 155: Comparison of peak accelerations. ______________________________________________________ 95 
Figure 156: Performance of the existing building compared to the optimum retrofit strategy _________________ 96 
Figure 157: Details for the composite section _______________________________________________________ 98 
1

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
building’s 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 m
2
(including the ground floor) and a roof
area of approximately 803 m
2
. 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.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
2

Figure 1: Plan view, building to be retrofitted

Figure 2: Elevation view Axis A – E.
N
O
R
T
H
7.315
21.945
9.144 9.144 9.144 9.144
36.576
B C D E
4
3
2
1
A
7.315
7.315
5.486
3.810
3.810
3.810
3.810
3.810
24.536
1 2 3 4
W 24 x 76
W 24 x 76
W 27 x 94
W 30 x 99
W 30 x 99
W 27 x 94
W

3
0

x

1
7
3
W

3
0

x

1
7
3
W

2
7

x

1
4
6
W

2
4

x

1
0
4
W

2
7

x

1
4
6
W

2
4

x

1
0
4
W

1
4

x

1
9
3
W

1
4

x

1
0
9
W

1
4

x

1
5
9
W

1
4

x

1
9
3
W

1
4

x

1
5
9
W

1
4

x

1
0
9
Gravity Columns
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
3
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
Floor
Exterior Cladding
3.8 kPA Roof 1.0 kPA
3.8 kPA 4.5 kPA Floor
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.


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
Curvature
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t
Bilinear Moment Curvature Model
0 9
0
4.5
9
|y |ult
Mp
1.2Mp
r=2%
|
M
(up=0.03 rad)
1
EI
1
0.02EI
|p
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
4
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.


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..
Curvature Ductility
M
u
l
t
i
p
l
i
e
r

o
n

Y
i
e
l
d

M
o
m
e
n
t
Strength Degradation Model
0 5 10 15
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
11 11.55
0.01
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
5

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 E = 2uu 0Po.
Shear Modulus u = 77 uPa
Yield Stress σ
y
= 29u NPa.


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
41
42 43 44 45 46
47
49 50 51
52
8
16
24
32
40
48
53
1 2 3 4
5 6
7
8
9 10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 29 30
31 32 33 34
35
36
37 38
39 40 41 42
43 44
45
46 47 48
49 50 51 52 53 54
55 56 57 58 59 60
61
62
63
64
65
66
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
6
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
Type
Section
Member
No.
l
p

(mm)
D
(mm)
A
(mm
2
)
I
(mm
4
)
M
y

(KN-mm)
N
y

(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
5,6 W14x159
9, 12, 13,
16
343 381 30129 7.91E+8 1.20E+6 8737
7,8 W27x146
10, 11,
14, 15
626 696 27678 2.34E+9 1.95E+6 8027
9, 10 W14x193
17, 20,
21, 24
354 393 36645 9.99E+8 1.47E+6 10627
11, 12 W30x173
18, 19,
22, 23
696 773 32774 3.41E+9 2.56E+6 9505
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 l
p
is the Plastic Hinge Length (mm), D the member depth (mm), A the cross sectional area
(mm
2
), I the moment of inertia of the section (mm
4
), M
y
the yield bending moment (kN-mm) and
N
y
, 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
Member No. Description Section
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.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
7

Figure 6: Axial Load – Bending Moment Interaction Diagram
Table 5: Column axial load – moment interaction
Section 1, 2
N (kN) -5987 -1198 0.0 0.0 5987
M (kN-mm) 0.0 8.21E+5 9.12E+5 9.12E+5 0.0
Section 3,4
N (kN) -5725 -1145 0.0 0.0 5725
M (kN-mm) 0.0 1.24E+6 1.37E+6 1.37E+6 0.0
Section 5,6
N (kN) -8737 -1748 0.0 0.0 8737
M (kN-mm) 0.0 1.23E+6 1.36E+6 1.36E+6 0.0
Section 7, 8
N (kN) -8027 -1605 0.0 0.0 8027
M (kN-mm) 0.0 1.97E+6 2.19E+6 2.19E+6 0.0
Section 9, 10
N (kN) -10627 -2125 0.0 0.0 10627
M (kN-mm) 0.0 1.52E+6 1.69E+6 1.69E+6 0.0
Section 11, 12
N (kN) -9505 -1901 0.0 0.0 9505
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 ∅
p
corresponds to a plastic rotation limit θ
p
= u.uS iau. where in order to
Bending moment (kN-mm)
A
x
i
a
l

l
o
a
d

(
k
N
)
0 5E+5 1E+6 1.5E+6 2E+6 2.5E+6 3E+6
15000
10000
5000
0
-5000
-10000
-15000
Sections 1,2
Sections 3,4
Sections 5,6
Sections 7,8
Sections 9,10
Sections 11,12
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
8
calculate this plastic rotation it is necessary first to compute the yielding curvature ϕ
y
and based
on this value to calculate the plastic curvature ϕ
p
.

The yielding curvature is defined by the following expression:
ϕ
y
=
Ny
EI

The plastic curvature is defined as:
ϕ
p
=
u.2
u.u2
ϕ
y


The ultimate capacity can readily be found from the figure above as:

ϕ
u
= ϕ
y
- ϕ
p


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.
θ
p
= ϕ
p
l
p

In the Table 6: Plastic Curvature of each element for a plastic Rotation limit θp are summarized
the values for plastic rotation of all elements.
Table 6: Plastic Curvature of each element for a plastic Rotation limit θp
Member
Type
Section
l
p

(mm)
M
y

(KN-mm)
I
(mm
4
)
ϕ
y

(rad/mm)
ϕ
p

(rad/mm)
ϕ
u

(rad/mm)
θ
p

(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 θp 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 (θ
p
= u.uS iau) the corresponding moments and
curvatures can be found only by clearing the value of ϕ
p
from equation 1.4.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
9
ϕ
p
=
θ
p
l
p

In accordance with Figure 3 the strength degradation should begin at a ductility ratio value of
11.0 in which the ductility ratio (p) is defined by:
p =
ϕ
p
ϕ
y

Table 7: Curvature ductility capacity at failure
Member
Type
Section
lp
(mm)
My
(KN-mm)
I
(mm
4
)
ϕy
(rad/mm)
ϕp
(rad/mm)
ϕu
(rad/mm)
∆M/My μ
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
MODE
Frequency
(Hz)
Period
(s)
1 0.77 1.30
2 2.20 0.45
3 4.04 0.25
4 6.41 0.16
5 9.00 0.11
Table 9: Mass participation ratios
MODE % Mass
1 87
2 96
3 99
4 100
5 100
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
2

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.

x vx
F C V =

1
k
x x
vx n
k
i i
i
w h
C
wh
=
=
¿





Mode 1
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mode 2
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mode 3
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mode 4
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Mode 5
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
3

Table 10: Lateral Load Distribution, ASCE 41

Weight
(kN)
H
(m)
Elevation
(m)
Distribution
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
(kN)
H
(m)
Elevation
(m)
Distribution
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
(kN)
H
(m)
Elevation
(m)
Distribution
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
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
4

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.


Figure 8: Pushovers curves

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).



Top floor lateral displacement (mm)
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
k
N
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
511.84, 3172
486.35, 3212.1
475.14, 3269.2
ASCE 41
Linear
NZ code
Time (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
5

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.


Figure 11: Pushover Curve ASCE 41










Top floor lateral displacement (mm)
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
k
N
)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3250
3500
(486.35, 3212.1)
First yield (100.11, 2074.3)
Second yield (104.77, 2163.6)
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
6


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 moment–time and moment–curvature 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.


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

Time (s)
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
k
N
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Max base shear of 3212.1 (kN) at 8.8 (s)
First yield (5.2, 2074.3)
Second yield (5.5, 2163.6)
Time (s)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
-
m
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
Fail at 8.9 (s) M= -1779.8
Yield at 5.2 (s) M= -1478.8
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
7

Figure 14: Moment vs. time – Column member 23

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.

Time (s)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
-
m
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-300000
0
300000
600000
900000
1200000
1500000
1800000
2100000
2400000
2700000
3000000
3300000
Yields at 5.5 (s) M= 2642700
Fails at 8.8 (s) M= 3174800
Curvature (rad)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
-
m
)
0 -1E-5 -2E-5 -3E-5 -4E-5 -5E-5 -6E-5
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-4.9133E-5, -1779.8
-4.4517E-6, -1478.8
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
8

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

Time(s)
M
o
m
e
n
t
-
E
n
d

1

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-200000
0
200000
400000
600000
800000
1000000
1200000
1400000
1600000
1800000
Members
Member 55
Member 57
Member 59
Time(s)
M
o
m
e
n
t
-
E
n
d

2

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-1800000
-1600000
-1400000
-1200000
-1000000
-800000
-600000
-400000
-200000
0
8.9
Members
Member 56
Member 58
Member 60
Time(s)
M
o
m
e
n
t
-
E
n
d

1

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-3000000
-2700000
-2400000
-2100000
-1800000
-1500000
-1200000
-900000
-600000
-300000
0
300000
600000
9.0
Members
Member 21
Member 22
Member 23
Member 24
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
9

Figure 19: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 2
Time(s)
M
o
m
e
n
t
-
E
n
d

2

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
-300000
0
300000
600000
900000
1200000
1500000
1800000
2100000
2400000
2700000
3000000
3300000
8.8
Members
Member 21
Member 22
Member 23
Member 24
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
10
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.


Figure 20: LA-02 Ground Motion

Figure 21: LA-07 Ground Motion
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Peak acc. 0.6757187 (g) at 2.12 (s)
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Peak acc. -0.4209786 (g) at 16.08 (s)
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
11

Figure 22: LA-16 Ground Motion
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.

Figure 23: Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra for 5% Damping
Time (s)
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Peak acc. -0.5795923 (g) at 2.705 (s)
Time (s)
A
b
s
o
l
u
t
e

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

(
g
)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
F
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
e
r
i
o
d
La02
La07
La16
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
12

Figure 24: Relative Velocity Response Spectrum

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.





Time (s)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
F
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
e
r
i
o
d
La02
La07
La16
Time (s)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

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

(
m
)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
F
u
n
d
a
m
e
n
t
a
l

p
e
r
i
o
d
La02
La07
La16
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
13
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
a
(t) = E
cs
(t) + E
h
(t)

Where E
cs
is the elastic strain energy and E
h
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.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
14

Figure 26: Energy Components LA-02

Figure 27: Energy Components LA-07

Figure 28: Energy Components LA-16.
Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
0
6E+5
1.2E+6
1.8E+6
2.4E+6
3E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
2E+5
4E+5
6E+5
8E+5
1E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
6E+5
1.2E+6
1.8E+6
2.4E+6
3E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
15
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
a
(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.
Ground
Motions
Absorbed
Energy
(kN-m)
Total
Energy
(kN-m)
Fraction
Percentage
(%)
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.



STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
16

Table 14: Peak Absorbed Energy.
Ground
Motions
Peak Absorbed
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
Motions
EBE %
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 ( p > 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 (μ = 4.8S1) and the maximum
plastic rotation (θp = u.u1S iau) are the lowest in comparison to LA-02 and LA-16 which
indicates that LA-07 induces the minor inelastic action to the members.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
17
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 μ = 8.494 and a maximum plastic rotation
of θp = u.u22 iau. For LA-02 the maximum values for ductility and plastic rotations are
μ = S.71u and θp = u.u1S iau., 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 θp = u.uS iau., 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
for LA-02

Figure 30: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for
LA-07

Figure 31: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA-16

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
3
Table 16: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-02 ground motion
Hinge Member Prop. Type
Lp
(mm)
ϕp
Ductility
μ
Lp(Int) θp
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 8
th
column (Lp) is the plastic length of the hinge.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
4

Table 17: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-07 ground motion.
Hinge Member Prop. Type
Lp
(mm)
ϕp
Ductility
μ
Lp(Int) θp
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









STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
3

Table 18: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-16 ground motion.
Hinge Member Prop. Type
Lp
(mm)
ϕp
Ductility
μ
Lp(Int) θp
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


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
4

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.

Figure 32: Inter-story Drift – Time History LA-02
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
s
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
1st floor peak 98.94 (mm)
1st floor residual 39.26 (mm)
2nd floor peak 62.74 (mm)
2nd floor residual 25.49 (mm)
3rd floor peak 57.8 (mm)
3rd floor residual 23.31 (mm)
4th floor peak 51.95 (mm)
4th floor residual 21.58 (mm)
5th floor peak 39.56 (mm)
5th floor residual 10.72 (mm)
Roof peak 26.13 (mm)
Roof residual 2.726 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
5

Figure 33: Inter-story Drift – Time History LA-07

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).

Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
s
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-90
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
1st floor peak -83.38 (mm)
1st floor residual -37.57 (mm)
2nd floor peak -52.13 (mm)
2nd floor residual -25.88 (mm)
3rd floor peak -41.85 (mm)
3rd floor residual -17.56 (mm)
4th foor peak -29.66 (mm)
4th floor residual -7.142 (mm)
5th floor peak -25.54 (mm)
5th floor residual -1.574 (mm)
Roof peak -18.7 (mm)
Roof residual -0.2766 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
s
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
0 10 20 30
-80
-70
-60
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
1st floor peak 148.1 (mm)
1st floor residual 19.84 (mm)
2nd floor peak 84.37 (mm)
2nd floor residual 12.72 (mm)
3rd floor peak 63.91 (mm)
3rd floor residual 11.03 (mm)
4th floor peak 39.26 (mm)
4th floor residual 5.82 (mm)
5th floor peak 29.71 (mm)
5th floor residual 2.227 (mm)
Roof peak 23.03 (mm)
Roof residual 0.6811 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
6

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 4
th
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.


Figure 36: Peak inter-story drifts.

Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Peak Inter-storey Drifts
Motion 02
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
2.5% drift
0.7% drift
Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Peak Inter-storey Drifts
Motion 07
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
2.5% drift
0.7% drift
Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Peak Inter-storey Drifts
Motion 16
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
2.5% drift
0.7% drift
Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Peak Inter-storey Drifts
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
Inter Storey Drifts
LA-02
LA-07
LA-16
2.5% Drift (LS)
0.7% Drift (IO)
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
7

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).

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.

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.
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
y
Motion 02
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
1% drift
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
y
Motion 07
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
1% drift
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
y
Motion 16
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
1% drift
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
y
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
LA-02
LA-07
LA-16
1% Drift (LS)
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
8

As can be seen from these figures, in all cases the largest total acceleration is at the top floor.

Figure 39: Acceleration time - history for LA-02

Figure 40: Acceleration time - history for LA-07
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1st floor peak 0.5825688
2nd floor peak -0.5550459
3rd floor peak -0.4893986
4th floor peak 0.5923547
5th floor peak -0.4714577
Roof peak 0.9504587
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1st floor peak 0.2770642
2nd floor peak 0.2697248
3rd floor peak 0.2832824
4th floor peak 0.3823649
5th floor peak 0.3884811
Roof peak 0.6092762
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
9

Figure 41: Acceleration time - history for LA-16
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 5
th
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.


Figure 42: Peak acceleration for LA-02, LA-07 and LA-16
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1st floor peak 0.3646279
2nd floor peak 0.4027523
3r floor peak 0.3584098
4th floor peak -0.5123344
5th floor peak -0.5197757
Roof peak -0.7851172
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Acceleration (g)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Motion 02
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Acceleration (g)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Motion 07
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Acceleration (g)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Motion 16
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
10

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 (1
st
, 2
nd
and 3th floor) and LA-02 (4
th
, 5
th
and 6
th
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.







Acceleration (g)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Peak Acceleration
LA-02
LA-07
LA-16
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
11


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 ∆
¡cs
.
- The maximum floor acceleration o.
- The maximum curvature ductility occurred in a beam p
b
.
- The maximum curvature ductility occurred in a column p
c
.
The numerical expression for the PI is defined as follows:
PI(%) =
l
l
l
l
1 -
w
b
.
μ
b
μ
bt
+ w
c
.
μ
c
μ
ct
+ w
∆p
.

p

pt
+ w
∆r
.

r

rt
+ w
a
.
a
a
t
w
b
+ w
c
+ w

+ w
∆r
+ w
a
1
1
1
1
. 1uu
Where μ
b
and μ
c
are maximum curvature ductilities of column and beam. ∆
p
and ∆
r
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.

μ
bt
and μ
ct
are the limits for curvature ductility of column and beam. ∆
pt
and ∆
rt
is the limits
for maximum values of the peak inter-story drift and residual drifts. And a
t
is the limit for peak
total floor acceleration. These values are the worst case limit that a building is expected to have.

w
b
, w
c
, w
∆p
, w
∆r
and w
a
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.



STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
12

Based on FEMA 274, the collapse prevention is chosen to be the lower bound limit for the
structure. Therefore, ∆
pt
and ∆
rt
will be of 5%. Values of μ
bt
and μ
ct
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 o
mux
= 1g.

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
PI(%) = _1 -
1u.
μ
b
11
+ 2S.
μ
c
11
+ Su.

p
S%
+1u.

r
S%
+ 2S.
a
1g
1uu
_ . 1uu

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
Variables
Limit for performance category
LS IO
μ
b
45% of 11 20% of 11
μ
c
45% of 11 20% of 11

p
2.5% 0.7%

r
1.0% 0%
a 0.75g 0.5g
PI 45 65



STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
13

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
Motion
μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) 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%

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.






STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
14
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.





STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
15


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:

I
b
I
u
< u.4u
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
16

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 “F
opt
” of the hysteretic damper that minimizes the amplitude of the response at
any forcing frequency is given by:

F
a
W
=
a
g
g
Q_
T
b
T
g
,
T
b
T
u
_

Where W is the seismic weight of the structure, a
g
is the peak ground acceleration, g is the
acceleration of gravity, T
g
is the period of the ground motion and Q is a singled valued function.

The Q function depends on the T
g
/T
u
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.


Figure 47: Fourier Spectra
Frequency (Hz)
F
o
u
r
i
e
r

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 30
0
0.06
0.12
0.18
0.24
0.3
0.36
0.42
0.48
0.54
0.6
Tg=0.68s
Tg=0.73s
Tg=1.28
Fourier Spectra
LA2
LA7
LA16
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
17

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.






















STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
18




































(Total seismic weight of the structure)
(Number of floors)
(Fundamental period of the braced structures)
(Fundamental period of the unbraced structure)
(Predominant period of the design ground motion LA2)


(Design Peak Ground Acceleration)

(Unknown single valued function)

(Optimum activation shear)



(Story base shear, uniformly distributed)
W 14475 kN · :=
Nf 6 :=
Tb 0.615 s · :=
Tu 1.304 s · :=
Tg 0.683 s · :=
Tb
Tu
0.472 =
Tg
Tu
0.524 =
ag 0.676 g · :=
Q
Tg
Tu
1.24 ÷ Nf · 0.31 ÷ ( )
Tb
Tu
· 1.04 Nf · + 0.43 +

¸
(
(
¸
· 0
Tg
Tu
s 1 s if
Tb
Tu
0.01 Nf · 0.02 + ( )
Tg
Tu
· 1.25 Nf · ÷ 0.32 ÷

¸
(
(
¸
·
Tg
Tu
0.002 0.002Nf · ÷ ( ) · + 1.04 Nf · + 0.42 +
Tg
Tu
1 > if
:=
Q 1.579 =
Vo Q
ag
g
· W · :=
Vo 15451.9kN · =
i 1 Nf .. :=
o 56.3
t
180
· := | 46.2
t
180
· :=
Vs
i
1
2
Vo
Nf
|

\
|
|
.
· :=
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
19

























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.






(Optimum activation load for each damper)

Vs
1287.7
1287.7
1287.7
1287.7
1287.7
1287.7
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
kN · =
i 2 Nf .. :=
Fa
1
Vs
1
2 cos o ( ) ·
:= Fa
i
Vs
i
2 cos | ( ) ·
:=
Fa
1
1160.4kN · =
Fa
1160.4
930.2
930.2
930.2
930.2
930.2
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
kN · =
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
20


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.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
21



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)
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
22
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
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
23


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).




STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
24


Figure 53: Optimum activation load study for HSS406-C1



Figure 54: Optimum activation load study for HSS304-C1







STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
25


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


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
26

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)


Figure 58: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (2/1)
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
27



Figure 59: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (3/1)



Figure 60: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (4/1)





STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
28


Figure 61: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (1
st
Mode proportional)



Figure 62: Optimum Design

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.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
29
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.


Figure 63: Energy Components LA-02

Figure 64: Energy Components LA-07

Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Time History Energy Components
LA - 02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
0
6E+5
1.2E+6
1.8E+6
2.4E+6
3E+6
3.6E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Time History Energy Components
LA - 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
2E+5
4E+5
6E+5
8E+5
1E+6
1.2E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
30

Figure 65: Energy Components LA-16
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.



Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Time History Energy Components
LA - 16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
6E+5
1.2E+6
1.8E+6
2.4E+6
3E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
31
Table 23: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-02 ground motion.
Hinge Member Prop. Type
Lp
(mm)
ϕp
Ductility
μ
Lp(Int) θp
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


Table 24: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-16 ground motion.
Hinge Member Prop. Type
Lp
(mm)
ϕp
Ductility
μ
Lp(Int) θp
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




STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
32

6.3 Peak and Residual Inter-Story Drifts


Figure 67: Inter-story drift time history motion La-02.


Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time history - Motion 02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
1st floor peak 22.4 (mm)
2nd floor peak 20.3 (mm)
3rd floor peak 21.9 (mm)
4th floor peak -18.3 (mm)
5th floor peak -15 (mm)
Roof peak -6.44 (mm)
1st floor residual 3.47 (mm)
2nd floor residual 1.15 (mm)
3rd floor residual 0.424 (mm)
4th floor residual -0.208 (mm)
5th floor residual -0.187 (mm)
Roof residual -0.107 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r

-

S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time History - Motion 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-18
-15
-12
-9
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
1st floor peak -17.6 (mm)
2nd floor peak -16.3 (mm)
3rd floor peak -16.9 (mm)
4th floor peak -13.7 (mm)
5th floor peak -9.63 (mm)
Roof peak -3.33 (mm)
1st floor residual 3.41 (mm)
2nd floor residual 0.403 (mm)
3rd floor residual -0.26 (mm)
4th floor residual 0.524 (mm)
5th floor residual -0.307 (mm)
Roof residual 0.0895 (mm) 1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
33
Figure 68: Inter-story drift time history motion La-07.

Figure 69: Inter-story drift time history motion La-16.




Figure 70: Peak inter-story drifts for LA-02, 07 and 16

Figure 71: Comparison of peak inter-story drifts
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r

-

S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time History - Motion 16
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1st floor peak 66.1 (mm)
2nd floor peak 55 (mm)
3rd floor peak 51.6 (mm)
4th floor peak 33.1 (mm)
5th floor peak 18.8 (mm)
Roof peak 7.93 (mm)
1st floor residual 28.2 (mm)
2nd floor residual 21.4 (mm)
3rd floor residual 19.1 (mm)
4th floor residual 9.85 (mm)
5th floor residual 1.93 (mm)
Roof residual -1.39 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Peak Inter-storey Drifts
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
Inter Storey Drifts
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
2.5% Drift (LS)
0.7% Drift (IO)
Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Comparison of peak
inter-storey drifts
-150 -50 50 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
-150 -50 50 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
Inter Storey Drifts
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
34



Figure 72: Residual inter-story drifts


Figure 73: Comparison of residual inter-story
drifts
6.4 Accelerations


Figure 74: Acceleration history of motion LA-02.
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
0 15 30 45 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
1% Drift (LS)
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Comparison of residual
inter-storey drifts
-60 -30 0 30 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st floor peak 0.607
2nd floor peak 0.416
3rd floor peak 0.366
4th floor peak 0.364
5th floor peak 0.494
Roof peak 0.522
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
35

Figure 75: Acceleration history of motion LA-07.

Figure 76: Acceleration history of motion LA-16.
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
1st floor peak -0.34
2nd floor peak 0.311
3rd floor peak 0.298
4th floor peak -0.304
5th floor peak 0.307
Roof peak 0.389
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1st floor peak -0.599
2nd floor peak -0.484
3rd floor peak -0.461
4th floor peak -0.528
5th foor peak -0.541
Roof peak -0.59
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
36

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
Motion
μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) 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%


Ground
Motion
μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) a(g) PI
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%





Acceleration (g)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Comparison of total
peak accelerations
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Peak Acceleration
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
37

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

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
38
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.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
39

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).

t 2
ˆ
1 0
T k
C
L
=

Where k
0
are the spring constants, T
1
the fundamental period of the building and C
L
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.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
40
2
1 1
1
2 2
1
cos
f
N
i i
i
L Nd
i i
i
T k
C
ç o
t o ¸
=
=
=
¿
¿


Where ¸ is the inclination angle of the damper, N
d
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.

i
L i L
C C o =

Where d is the inter-story drift of the normalized first mode of vibration. In the above equation it
is considered as non-dimensional.


2 2 2
1
1
2 ( ) cos
d
N
i L i i
vd
i
C
E
T
t o o ¸
=
=
¿


2
1
1
2
f
N
es i i
i
E k o
=
=
¿


1
4
vd
es
E
E
ç
t
=


2
1 1
1
3 2
1
cos
f
N
i i
i
L Nd
i i
i
T k
C
ç o
t o ¸
=
=
=
¿
¿



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.


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
41
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.



Figure 81: Plot showing comparison among viscous damping and Rayleigh damping




Time (s)
T
o
p

f
l
o
o
r

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

(
m
m
)
Displacement time history - Motion 02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-125
-100
-75
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
125
Rayleigh Damping- 35%
Viscous Dampers (Stiffness proportion approach)
Viscous Dampers (Drift proportion approach)
Viscous Dampers (Constant coeff. approach)
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
42
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-s
2
/mm. The system was forced in motion by imposing a sinusoidal
acceleration excitation of ü(t) = 3200(sin8t).



Figure 82: Model View

The displacement time history for the node with attached mass was plotted, see Figure 83.


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.

Time (s)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Lateral diplacement
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
43

Figure 84: Spring and viscous damper forces


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

Displacement (mm)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Spring and viscous damping force
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
-8000
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
3196
79.808, 5182.5
-3183.3
-79.825, -5074
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
44

5 Preliminary design

The first step in the design process of the viscous dampers is to determine the target damping (ζ1)
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).



Figure 86: Spectra accelerations for LA2 under different damping ratios




Period
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

A
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
0.46g
0.27g
0.28g
LA2 Response Spectra
5%
10%
20%
30%
35%
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
45

Figure 87: Spectra accelerations for LA7 under different damping ratios

Figure 88: Spectra accelerations for LA16 under different damping ratios










Period
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

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

(
g
)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
0
0.15
0.3
0.45
0.6
0.75
0.9
1.05
1.2
0.39g
0.26g
0.25g
LA7 Response Spectra
5%
10%
20%
30%
35%
Period
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

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

(
g
)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
0.99g
0.60g
0.59g
LA16 Response Spectra
5%
10%
20%
30%
35%
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
46

Figure 89: Spectra displacements for LA2 under different damping ratios



Figure 90: Spectra displacements for LA7 under different damping ratios











Period
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

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

(
c
m
)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
0
8
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
19.4cm
9.1cm
9.9cm
LA2 Response Spectra
5%
10%
20%
30%
35%
Period
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

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

(
c
m
)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
16.0cm
9.0cm
8.3cm
LA7 Response Spectra
5%
10%
20%
30%
35%
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
47

Figure 91: Spectra displacements for LA16 under different damping ratios
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.
1
1 arg
2 1
t et
T
T
, 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

Period
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

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

(
c
m
)
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2 2.4 2.8 3.2
0
8
16
24
32
40
48
56
64
41.0cm
20.0cm
18.5cm
LA16 Response Spectra
5%
10%
20%
30%
35%
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
48

5.1 Stiffness proportional approach






















(Fundamental period of un-braced structure)
(Assumed damping ratio)

(Target fundamental period of the structured braced with the
fictitious springs)

(Fictitious spring constants at proposed locations, from
Ruamoko and proportional to drifts)
(Trial value of the fundamental period of the fictitious
braced structure obtained with first trial spring constants,
from Ruamoko)

(Final spring constants)

(Damping coefficient of each viscous damper)

T1 1.304 s · :=
,1 0.30 :=
T1target
T1
2 ,1 · 1 +
:=
T1target 1.031s =
ko
70.72
85.67
123.25
137.47
164.2
95.04
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
kN
mm
· :=
T1tr 0.950 s · :=
kfinal
ko
1
T1target
2
T1tr
2
÷
T1target
2
T1
2
÷
|

\
|
|
|
.
÷
:=
kfinal
57
68
98
110
131
76
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
kN
mm
· =
CL
kfinal T1 ·
2 t ·
:=
CL
12
14
20
23
27
16
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
kN s ·
mm
· =
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
49

5.2 Constant damping approach









































(Number of dampers)
(Number of floors)
(Fundamental period of umbraced structure)
(Assumed damping ratio)
(Fictitious spring constants at proposed locations, from
Ruamoko and proportional to drifts)

(Inclination angle of the dampers)
(Inter-story drift at the storey where the damper is
located )


Nd 6 :=
Nf 6 :=
T1 1.304s · :=
,1 0.30 :=
k
97.95
118.65
170.71
190.40
227.43
105.44
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
kN
mm
· :=
¸
0.806
0.806
0.806
0.806
0.806
0.983
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
:=
o
0.09
0.14
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.27
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
:=
CL
,1 T1 ·
1
Nf
i
k
i
o
i
( )
2
·

¸
(
¸
¿
=
·
2 t ·
1
Nd
i
o
i
( )
2
cos ¸
i
( )
2
·

¸
(
¸
¿
=
·
:=
CL 22.628s
kN
mm
· =
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
50

5.3 First mode proportional damping





































(Number of dampers)
(Number of floors)
(Fundamental period of umbraced structure)
(Assumed damping ratio)
(Fictitious spring constants at proposed locations, from
Ruamoko and proportional to drifts)
(Inclination angle of the damper is defined on the left and
Inter-story drift at the storey where the damper is located is
defined on the right)





Nd 6 :=
Nf 6 :=
T1 1.304s · :=
,1 0.30 :=
k
97.95
118.65
170.71
190.40
227.43
105.44
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
kN
mm
· :=
¸
0.806
0.806
0.806
0.806
0.806
0.983
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
:= o
0.09
0.14
0.15
0.18
0.18
0.27
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
:=
CL
,1 T1 ·
1
Nf
i
k
i
o
i
( )
2
·

¸
(
¸
¿
=
·
2 t ·
1
Nd
i
o
i
( )
3
cos ¸
i
( )
2
·

¸
(
¸
¿
=
·
:=
CL 117.556s
kN
mm
· =
CLfm CLo · :=
CLfm
10.6
16.5
17.6
21.2
21.2
31.7
|

\
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.
s
kN
mm
· =
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
51

6 Intermediate design

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


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
52

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)


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
53



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.


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
54
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.


Figure 96: Energy Components LA-02.


Figure 97: Energy Components LA-07.

Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Time History Energy Components
LA - 02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
0
6E+5
1.2E+6
1.8E+6
2.4E+6
3E+6
3.6E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Time History Energy Components
LA - 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
2E+5
4E+5
6E+5
8E+5
1E+6
1.2E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
55


Figure 98: Energy Components LA-16

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.



Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Time History Energy Components
LA - 16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
6E+5
1.2E+6
1.8E+6
2.4E+6
3E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
56

Table 31: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-02 ground motion.
Hinge Member Prop. Type
Lp
(mm)
ϕp
Ductility
μ
Lp(Int) θp
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.

Table 32: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-07 ground motion
Hinge Member Prop. Type
Lp
(mm)
ϕp
Ductility
μ
Lp(Int) θp
1 57 23 Beam 678 3.84E-05 1.061 71.936 0.0028








STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
57

Table 33: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-16 ground motion
Hinge Member Prop. Type
Lp
(mm)
ϕp
Ductility
μ
Lp(Int) θp
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










STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
58


7.3 Peak and Residual Inter-Story Drifts

Figure 101: Inter-story drift time history motion La-02.

Figure 102: Inter-story drift time history motion La-07.
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time history - Motion 02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1st floor peak 30.3 (mm)
2nd floor peak -19.5 (mm)
3rd floor peak -18.5 (mm)
4th floor peak -15.1 (mm)
5th floor peak -11.8 (mm)
Roof peak -6.6 (mm)
1st floor residual 2.81 (mm)
2nd floor residual 0.0339 (mm)
3rd floor residual 0.0108 (mm)
4th floor residual 0.00142 (mm)
5th floor residual 0.00132 (mm)
Roof residual 0.00111 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r

-

S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time History - Motion 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1st floor peak -27 (mm)
2nd floor peak -17.9 (mm)
3rd floor peak -16.6 (mm)
4th floor peak -13.1 (mm)
5th floor peak -9.67 (mm)
Roof peak -4.53 (mm)
1st floor residual -0.876 (mm)
2nd floor residual -0.0394 (mm)
3rd floor residual -0.00891 (mm)
4th floor residual -0.00162 (mm)
5th floor residual -0.000901 (mm)
Roof residual -0.000684 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
59

Figure 103: Inter-story drift time history motion La-16



Figure 104: Peak inter-story drifts for LA-02,
07 and 16



Figure 105: Comparison of peak inter-story
drifts


Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r

-

S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time History - Motion 16
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1st floor peak 58.8 (mm)
2nd floor peak 38.8 (mm)
3rd floor peak 35.2 (mm)
4th floor peak 26.6 (mm)
5th floor peak 19.4 (mm)
Roof peak 9.71 (mm)
1st floor residual 11.6 (mm)
2nd floor residual 12.2 (mm)
3rd floor residual 10.3 (mm)
4th floor residual 4.6 (mm)
5th floor residual 0.884 (mm)
Roof residual 0.143 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Peak Inter-storey Drifts
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
Inter Storey Drifts
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
2.5% Drift (LS)
0.7% Drift (IO)
Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Comparison of peak
inter-storey drifts
-150 -50 50 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
-150 -50 50 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
Inter Storey Drifts
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
60


Figure 106: Residual inter-story drifts for LA-
02, 07 and 16.

Figure 107: Comparison of residual inter-story
drifts.
7.4 Accelerations

Figure 108: Acceleration history of motion LA-02.
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
0 15 30 45 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
1% Drift (LS)
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Comparison of residual
inter-storey drifts
-60 -30 0 30 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
-60 -30 0 30 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1st floor peak 0.47
2nd floor peak 0.385
3rd floor peak 0.343
4th floor peak 0.35
5th floor peak 0.468
Roof peak 0.64
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
61

Figure 109: Acceleration history of motion LA-07.


Figure 110: Acceleration history of motion LA-16.
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
1st floor peak -0.264
2nd floor peak 0.238
3rd floor peak 0.243
4th floor peak 0.26
5th floor peak 0.295
Roof peak 0.324
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1st floor peak -0.503
2nd floor peak -0.491
3rd floor peak -0.515
4th floor peak -0.564
5th floor peak -0.62
Roof peak -0.673
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
62

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
Motion
μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) 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%

Ground
Motion
μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) a(g) PI
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%




Acceleration (g)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Comparison of total
peak accelerations
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Peak Acceleration
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
63

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


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
64
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.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
65

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 structure’s 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


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
66

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. 
'
0.6
r
A
A
~


- The diameter of the bearing was fixed based on the following recommendation:

'
0.8(1 )
b
Db
A
Ar
x
~
÷


- The thickness of the rubber was computed based on the following recommendation: 
 
4
b
r
D
t
S
~


- The shape factor was considered in the following interval

10 20 S s s


- The total height of the rubber layers was set to remain in the following range:
 
2
3 3
b b D D
hr s s

b iso D h ~
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
67
2 r s t t ~


- The number of isolator was fixed to 6 to ensure enough redundancy.

6 isolators n =


- The plug diameter was contained in the following range

1 1
3 6
b p b D D D s s


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.

2
r r
r
G A
k
h
=


1 2 10 k k ~


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.

(1 )
r r
py p
p p
G A
Fy A
G A
t = +


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).

b D x S =

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
68
2 Preliminary Design

































(Rubber Shear Modulus)
(Lead shear Modulus)
(Rubber compression modulus)
(Lead Shear Yield Strength)
(Maximum seismic displacement of lead-rubber bearings)

(Maximum overlap factor for individual bearings, A1/A)
(Shape factor for individual bearings)
(Total Weight of structure)
(Short-term failure strain of the rubber)
(Allowable shear strain under gravity load

(Diameter of the rubber bearing)
(Rounded rubber bearing)

(Rubber cross area)

(Rubber thickness per layer)
(Rounded rubber thickness)

(Overlap area)
(Maximum allowable vertical load)

(Number of isolators)
(Rounded number of isolators)
Gr 1 MPa · :=
Gp 150 MPa · :=
kr 2000MPa · :=
tpy 10 MPa · :=
xb 300 mm · :=
OverlapFactor 0.6 :=
S 12 :=
BldgWtTotal 30950kN · :=
cv 4.5 :=
¸w 0.4 cv · 1.8 = :=
Dbearing
xb
0.8 1 OverlapFactor ÷ ( )

¸
(
(
¸
937.5mm · = :=
Dbearing 940 mm · :=
Ar t
Dbearing
2
|

\
|
|
.
2
693978mm
2
· = :=
tr
Dbearing
4 S ·
|

\
|
|
.
19.583mm · = :=
tr 20 mm · :=
A1 OverlapFactor Ar · 416387mm
2
· = :=
Wmax A1 Gr · S · ¸w · 8994kN · = :=
nisolators
BldgWtTotal
Wmax
|

\
|
|
.
3.441 = :=
nisolators 6 :=
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
69































(Number of rubber layers)


(Lead plug diameter, taken between 1/3 and 1/6 of Dbearing)
(Rounded lead plug diameter)

(Area of the lead plug)
(Lead rubber Post-yield stiffness)

(Lead rubber approximation of the lateral elastic stiffness)

(Yield force of the bearing)

(Total elastic stiffness of the system)

(Total yield force of the system)

(Equivalent Stiffness of the system)


(Equivalent period of the system)


(Equivalent damping of the system)
(Total rubber height)
nlayers 20 :=
hr nlayers tr · 400 mm · = :=
Dplug
Dbearing
3
|

\
|
|
.
313.333mm · = :=
Dplug 315 mm · :=
Ap t
Dplug
3
|

\
|
|
.
2
· 34636mm
2
· = :=
k2
Gr Ar ·
hr
1.735
kN
mm
· = :=
k1 10 k2 · 17.3494
kN
mm
· = :=
Fy tpy Ap · 1
Gr Ar ·
Gp Ap ·
+
|

\
|
|
.
· 392.626kN · = :=
Tk1
nisolators k1 ·
2
52.048
kN
mm
· = :=
TFy
nisolators Fy ·
2
1177.877kN · = :=
keff
Fy
xb
k2 1
Fy
k1 xb ·
÷
|

\
|
|
.
· +

¸
(
(
¸
nisolators :=
keff 17.477
kN
mm
· =
teff 2 t ·
BldgWtTotal
keff g ·
· 2.67s = :=
dy
Fy
k1
22.63 mm · = :=
beff
2 TFy · xb dy ÷ ( ) ·
t keff · xb
2
·
0.132 = :=
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
70


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.




Period (s)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

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

(
m
m
)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0
80
160
240
320
400
480
560
640
300mm
LA7
13.2%
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
71
3 Intermediate design

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.

2
3 3
b b D D
hr s s


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
3 6
b p b D D D s s


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.







STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
72


Figure 117: Optimum Fy study for k1=30kN/mm




Figure 118: Optimum Fy study for k1=45kN/mm





STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
73


Figure 119: Optimum Fy study for k1=65kN/mm

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%.



Figure 120: Optimum Design


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
74
MathCAD calculations to obtain the optimum parameters just presented are shown below.































(Rubber Shear Modulus)
(Lead shear Modulus)
(Rubber compression modulus)
(Lead Shear Yield Strength)
(Maximum seismic displacement of lead-rubber bearings)

(Maximum overlap factor for individual bearings, A1/A)
(Shape factor for individual bearings)
(Total Weight of structure)
(Short-term failure strain of the rubber)
(Allowable shear strain under gravity load)

(Diameter of the rubber bearing)
(Rounded rubber bearing)

(Rubber cross area)

(Rubber thickness per layer)
(Rounded rubber thickness)

(Overlap area)
(Maximum allowable vertical load)

(Number of isolators)
(Rounded number of isolators)
(Number of rubber layers)
Gr 1 MPa · :=
Gp 150 MPa · :=
kr 2000MPa · :=
tpy 10 MPa · :=
xb 300 mm · :=
OverlapFactor 0.6 :=
S 13 :=
BldgWtTotal 30950kN :=
cv 4.5 :=
¸w 0.4 cv · 1.8 = :=
Dbearing
xb
0.8 1 OverlapFactor ÷ ( )

¸
(
(
¸
937.5mm · = :=
Dbearing 940 mm · :=
Ar t
Dbearing
2
|

\
|
|
.
2
693978mm
2
· = :=
tr
Dbearing
4 S ·
|

\
|
|
.
18.077mm · = :=
tr 20 mm · :=
A1 OverlapFactor Ar · 416387mm
2
· = :=
Wmax A1 Gr · S · ¸w · 9743.4kN · = :=
nisolators
BldgWtTotal
Wmax
|

\
|
|
.
3.176 = :=
nisolators 6 :=
nlayers 34 :=
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
75



















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






(Lead plug diameter, taken with 1/3 and 1/6 of Dbearing)

(Rounded lead plug diameter)

(Area of the lead plug)

(Lead rubber Post-yield stiffness)

(Lead rubber approximation of the lateral elastic stiffness)

(Yield force of the bearing)

(Total elastic stiffness of the system)

(Total yield force of the system)

(Total rubber height)
Dplug
Dbearing
6
|

\
|
|
.
156.667mm · = :=
Dplug 161 mm · :=
Ap t
Dplug
2
|

\
|
|
.
2
· 20358mm
2
· = :=
k2
Gr Ar ·
hr
1.021
kN
mm
· = :=
k1 10 k2 · 10.2056
kN
mm
· = :=
Fy tpy Ap · 1
Gr Ar ·
Gp Ap ·
+
|

\
|
|
.
· 249.848kN · = :=
Tk1
nisolators k1 ·
2
30.6
kN
mm
· = :=
TFy
nisolators Fy ·
2
750 kN · = :=
hr nlayers tr · 680 mm · = :=
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
76

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.


Figure 121: Energy components time history for LA-02.



Figure 122: Energy components time history for LA-07.
Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Time History Energy Components
LA - 02
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
0
3E+5
6E+5
9E+5
1.2E+6
1.5E+6
1.8E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Time History Energy Components
LA - 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
0
3E+5
6E+5
9E+5
1.2E+6
1.5E+6
1.8E+6
2.1E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
77



Figure 123: Energy components time history for LA-16.
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.

Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Time History Energy Components
LA - 16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
3E+5
6E+5
9E+5
1.2E+6
1.5E+6
1.8E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
78

Figure 125: : Interstory drift time history for LA-02.



Figure 126: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA-02.

Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time history - Motion 02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-18
-15
-12
-9
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
1st floor peak -13.9 (mm)
2nd floor peak -10.1 (mm)
3rd floor peak -12.6 (mm)
4th floor peak -13.7 (mm)
5th floor peak -16.4 (mm)
Roof peak -12.4 (mm)
1st floor residual -0.0349 (mm)
2nd floor residual -0.0226 (mm)
3rd floor residual -0.0209 (mm)
4th floor residual -0.0177 (mm)
5th floor residual -0.0154 (mm)
Roof residual -0.00949 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time history - Motion 02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-150
-120
-90
-60
-30
0
30
60
90
120
150
180
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
79


Figure 127: Interstory drift time history for LA-07.


Figure 128: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA-07.

Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r

-

S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time History - Motion 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-15
-12.5
-10
-7.5
-5
-2.5
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
1st floor peak 14.1 (mm)
2nd floor peak 9.72 (mm)
3rd floor peak 11.4 (mm)
4th floor peak 12 (mm)
5th floor peak 13.6 (mm)
Roof peak 10.1 (mm)
1st floor residual -0.0473 (mm)
2nd floor residual -0.0306 (mm)
3rd floor residual -0.0283 (mm)
4th floor residual -0.0239 (mm)
5th floor residual -0.0209 (mm)
Roof residual -0.0128 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time history - Motion 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
80



Figure 129: Interstory drift time history for LA-16.



Figure 130: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA-16.
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r

-

S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time History - Motion 16
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
-18
-15
-12
-9
-6
-3
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
1st floor peak -16.2 (mm)
2nd floor peak -11.5 (mm)
3rd floor peak -11.9 (mm)
4th floor peak 13 (mm)
5th floor peak 15.7 (mm)
Roof peak 12.1 (mm)
1st floor residual -0.157 (mm)
2nd floor residual -0.101 (mm)
3rd floor residual -0.0929 (mm)
4th floor residual -0.078 (mm)
5th floor residual -0.0676 (mm)
Roof residual -0.0412 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift - Time history - Motion 16
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
81


Figure 131: Peak Inter-storey drifts for
Retrofitted structure.


Figure 132: Comparison of Peak inter-storey
drifts.




Figure 133: Residual Inter-storey drifts for
Retrofitted structure.


Figure 134: Comparison of residual inter-storey
drifts.



Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Peak Inter-storey Drifts
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 50 100 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
Inter Storey Drifts
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
2.5% Drift (LS)
0.7% Drift (IO)
Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Comparison of peak
inter-storey drifts
-150 -50 50 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
-150 -50 50 150
0
5
10
15
20
25
Inter Storey Drifts
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
0 15 30 45 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
1% Drift (LS)
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Comparison of residual
inter-storey drifts
-60 -30 0 30 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
-60 -30 0 30 60
0
5
10
15
20
25
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
82


Figure 135: Acceleration time history for LA-02.



Figure 136: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA-02.
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-0.35
-0.25
-0.15
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
0.45
1st floor peak 0.263
2nd floor peak 0.264
3rd floor peak 0.172
4th floor peak 0.162
5th floor peak -0.232
Roof peak 0.414
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 02
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
Top bearing peak 0.339
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
83



Figure 137: Acceleration time history for LA-07.


Figure 138: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA-07.

Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.35
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
1st floor peak -0.185
2nd floor peak -0.172
3rd floor peak -0.159
4th floor peak -0.135
5th floor peak -0.179
Roof peak -0.326
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 07
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Top bearing peak -0.217
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
84


Figure 139: Acceleration time history for LA-16.


Figure 140: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA-16.

Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.7
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
1st floor peak -0.211
2nd floor peak 0.181
3rd floor peak -0.185
4th floor peak -0.213
5th floor peak -0.234
Roof peak -0.423
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Motion 16
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
-0.3
-0.25
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
Top bearing peak -0.284
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
85

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 μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) 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 μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) 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%









Acceleration (g)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Comparison of total
peak accelerations
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Peak Acceleration
LA-02 Orig. Struc.
LA-07 Orig. Struc.
LA-16 Orig. Struc.
LA-02 Retrof. Struc.
LA-07 Retrof. Struc.
LA-16 Retrof. Struc.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
86

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

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
87
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
Motion
μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) a(g) PI
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.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
88

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.


Figure 143: Near fault ground motion horizontal component
Period
R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

A
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
)
Northridge,17 Jan 94,04:31PST; Rinaldi Receiving Station FF
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
Ground motion NF13
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
89

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.


Figure 144: Energy components time history for Near Fault Ground motion.


Figure 145: Distribution of plastic hinges for Existing Structure.
Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Energy Components Time History - Existing Structure
Near Fault G.M.
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
0
6E+5
1.2E+6
1.8E+6
2.4E+6
3E+6
3.6E+6
4.2E+6
4.8E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
90

Table 41: Maximum plastic rotations for Near Fault ground motion in existing structure.
Hinge Member Prop. Type
Lp
(mm)
ϕp
Ductility
μ
Lp(Int) θp
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


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
91


Figure 146: Inter storey - drifts time history for Near Fault ground motion.


Figure 147: Acceleration time history for Near Fault ground motion.
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift Time history - Existing Structure
Near Fault G.M.
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
-200
-100
0
100
200
1st floor peak -183 (mm)
2nd floor peak -97.8 (mm)
3rd floor peak 74.3 (mm)
4th floor peak 50.1 (mm)
5th floor peak 34.9 (mm)
Roof peak 26.3 (mm)
1st floor residual 108 (mm)
2nd floor residual 17.2 (mm)
3rd floor residual 22.3 (mm)
4th floor residual 17.3 (mm)
5th floor residual 8.88 (mm)
Roof residual 3.29 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration Time History - Existing Structure
Near Fault G.M.
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
1st floor peak -0.582
2nd floor peak -0.492
3rd floor peak -0.463
4th floor peak -0.509
5th floor peak -0.462
Roof peak -0.913
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
92

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
Motion
μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) a(g) PI
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.



Figure 148: Energy components time history for Retrofitted structure.










Time (sec.)
E
n
e
r
g
y

(
k
N
-
m
m
)
Energy Components Time History - Retrofit with Bae Isolation
Near Fault G. M.
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
0
6E+5
1.2E+6
1.8E+6
2.4E+6
3E+6
Kinetic Energy
Viscous Damping
Strain Energy
Total Energy
Input Energy
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
93


Figure 149: Inter storey - drifts time history for retrofitted structure.


Figure 150: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system.
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Inter-Storey drift time history - Retrofit with Base Isolation
Near Fault G.M.
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
1st floor peak -25.1 (mm)
2nd floor peak -16.5 (mm)
3rd floor peak -16.3 (mm)
4th floor peak -14.8 (mm)
5th floor peak -17.4 (mm)
Roof peak -13.3 (mm)
1st floor residual 2.82 (mm)
2nd floor residual 1.81 (mm)
3rd floor residual 1.67 (mm)
4th floor residual 1.4 (mm)
5th floor residual 1.21 (mm)
Roof residual 0.735 (mm)
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
I
n
t
e
r
-
S
t
o
r
e
y

d
r
i
f
t

(
m
m
)
Displacement history - Lead Rubbers Base Isolation
Near Fault G.M.
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
-600
-450
-300
-150
0
150
Peak Displacement -483
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
94


Figure 151: Acceleration time history for retrofitted structure.


Figure 152: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation.
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration Time History - Retrofit with Base Isolation
Near Fault G.M.
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1st floor peak -0.257
2nd floor peak -0.231
3rd floor peak 0.198
4th floor peak 0.229
5th floor peak 0.265
Roof peak -0.489
1
st
floor
2
nd
floor
3
rd
floor
4
th
floor
5
th
floor
Roof
Time (s)
T
o
t
a
l

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

(
g
)
Acceleration History - Lead Rubbers Base Isolation
Near Fault G.M.
0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5 15 17.5 20 22.5
-0.45
-0.35
-0.25
-0.15
-0.05
0.05
0.15
0.25
0.35
Base Isolation peak -0.436
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
95


Figure 153: Comparison of peak inter-storey
drifts.


Figure 154: Comparison of residual inter-storey
drifts.


Figure 155: Comparison of peak accelerations.








Displacement (mm.)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
.
)
Peak Inter-storey Drifts
-200 -100 0 100 200
0
5
10
15
20
25
-200 -100 0 100 200
0
5
10
15
20
25
Inter Storey Drifts
2.5% Drift (LS)
0.7% Drift (IO)
Existing Structure
Retrof. Base isolation
Displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
-120 -60 0 60 120
0
5
10
15
20
25
Residual Inter-Storey Drifts
1% Drift (LS)
Existing Structure
Retrof. Base Isolation
Acceleration (g)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Peak Accelerations
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Peak Acceleration
Existing Structure
Retrof. Base Islation
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
96

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 μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) a(g) PI
N.F. 9.743 10.9 3.33 1.97 0.913 19.60%


Retrofitted μ
b
μ
c

p
(%) ∆
r
(%) 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.
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
97
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.


STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
98
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
STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
99
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.



STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
100


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.








STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4
101
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












STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT

TEAM 4

6.4  7  1  2  3  4  5 

Accelerations................................................................................................................ 34 

Flow Chart for Hysteretic dampers optimum design .......................................................... 37  Description .......................................................................................................................... 38  Procedures to calculate the damping coefficients ............................................................... 39  Modeling of dampers .......................................................................................................... 40  Validation of the Damper element ...................................................................................... 42  Preliminary design............................................................................................................... 44  5.1  5.2  5.3  Stiffness proportional approach ................................................................................... 48  Constant damping approach ......................................................................................... 49  First mode proportional damping................................................................................. 50 

CHAPTER 5 - VISCOUS DAMPERS .......................................................................................... 38 

6  7 

Intermediate design ............................................................................................................. 51  Final Design ........................................................................................................................ 54  7.1  7.2  7.3  7.4  Energy Balance ............................................................................................................ 54  Hinge Distribution ....................................................................................................... 55  Peak and Residual Inter-Story Drifts ........................................................................... 58  Accelerations................................................................................................................ 60 

8  1  2  3  4  5  1  2 

Flow chart for viscous dampers optimum design................................................................ 63  Description .......................................................................................................................... 64  Preliminary Design .............................................................................................................. 68  Intermediate design ............................................................................................................. 71  Final Design ........................................................................................................................ 76  Flow chart for optimum design of base isolation ................................................................ 86  Optimum retrofit strategy .................................................................................................... 87  Performance under near-fault ground motion ..................................................................... 88  2.1  2.2  2.3  Near-Fault Ground Motion .......................................................................................... 88  Assessment of the existing structure under near fault ground motion ......................... 89  Retrofitted building performance under near fault ground motion .............................. 92 

CHAPTER 6 - BASE ISOLATION ............................................................................................... 64 

CHAPTER 7 - OPTIMUM DESIGN and NEAR-FAULT GROUND MOTION performance.... 87 

APPENDIX A – RESULTS ANALYSIS WITH VBA SCRIPT ................................................... 97  APPENDIX B – COMPOSITE SECTION .................................................................................... 98  APPENDIX C: PEER REVIEW LETTERS .................................................................................. 99  REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 101 
ii

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT

TEAM 4

List of Tables
Table 1: Design gravity loads _____________________________________________________________________ 3  Table 2: Material properties  _____________________________________________________________________ 5  _ Table 3: Geometric and Elastic Member Properties  ___________________________________________________ 6  Table 4: Description of the frame members  _________________________________________________________ 6  _ Table 5: Column axial load – moment interaction _____________________________________________________ 7  Table 6: Plastic Curvature of each element for a plastic Rotation limit   __________________________________ 8  Table 7: Curvature ductility capacity at failure  _______________________________________________________ 9  Table 8: Frequencies and periods __________________________________________________________________ 9  Table 9: Mass participation ratios _________________________________________________________________ 9  Table 10: Lateral Load Distribution, ASCE 41 _________________________________________________________ 3  Table 11: Lateral Load Distribution, Linear vertical ____________________________________________________ 3  Table 12: Lateral Load Distribution, New Zealand Code ________________________________________________ 3  Table 13: Fraction of Input Energy Absorbed. _______________________________________________________ 15  Table 14: Peak Absorbed Energy. _________________________________________________________________ 16  Table 15: Energy Balance Error. __________________________________________________________________ 16  Table 16: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐02 ground motion __________________________________________ 3  Table 17: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐07 ground motion.  _________________________________________ 4  Table 18: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐16 ground motion.  _________________________________________ 3  Table 19: Reponse limits for different performance category ___________________________________________ 12  Table 20: Performance Indexes for design ground motions  ____________________________________________ 13  Table 21: Parameters __________________________________________________________________________ 19  Table 22: Parameters __________________________________________________________________________ 22  Table 23: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐02 ground motion.  ________________________________________ 31  Table 24: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐16 ground motion.  ________________________________________ 31  Table 25: Performance Indexes for structure retrofitted with hysteretic dampers compared to the original  performance.  ________________________________________________________________________________ 36  Table 26: Validation of damper element ___________________________________________________________ 43  Table 27: Summary of story stiffness ______________________________________________________________ 47  Table 28: Stiffness proportional Approach damping coefficients  ________________________________________ 51  Table 29: Constant Damping Approach damping coefficients  __________________________________________ 51  Table 30: First Mode proportional Approach damping coefficients  ______________________________________ 51  Table 31: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐02 ground motion.  ________________________________________ 56  Table 32: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐07 ground motion _________________________________________ 56  Table 33: Maximum plastic rotations for LA‐16 ground motion _________________________________________ 57  Table 34: Performance Indices for structure retrofitted with viscous dampers compared to existing building  performance.  ________________________________________________________________________________ 62  Table 35: Preliminary Design results  ______________________________________________________________ 70  Table 36: Summary of parameters to be studied in intermediate design __________________________________ 71  Table 37: Summary of Design Parameters __________________________________________________________ 75  Table 38: Performance Indexes for structure retrofitted with base isolation compared with existing performance.  85  Table 39: Summary of various retrofit options  ______________________________________________________ 87  Table 40: Performance level category _____________________________________________________________ 88  Table 41: Maximum plastic rotations for Near Fault ground motion in existing structure. ____________________ 90  Table 42: Performance Indexes of existing structure for near fault ground motion.  _________________________ 92  Table 43: Performance of existing and retrofitted structure for the near fault ground motion _________________ 96 

iii

 LA‐07 and LA‐16 _______________________________________________ 9  Figure 43: Peak total accelerations  _______________________________________________________________ 10  Figure 44: Performance Levels (FEMA 273) _________________________________________________________ 11  Figure 45: Locations of added bracing and hysteretic dampers (Configuration‐C1) __________________________ 14  Figure 46: Elasto‐Plastic Hysteresis _______________________________________________________________ 15  Figure 47: Fourier Spectra  ______________________________________________________________________ 16  iv .  _______________________________________________________ 3  Figure 4: Strength Degradation Model for Welded Beam‐Column Connections. Curvature. Time. ________________________________________ 5  Figure 6: Axial Load – Bending Moment Interaction Diagram  ___________________________________________ 7  Figure 7: Mode Shapes of the structure _____________________________________________________________ 2  Figure 8: Pushovers curves _______________________________________________________________________ 4  Figure 9: Top floor lateral displacement vs.  ________________________________________________________________ 2  Figure 3: Bi‐Linear Moment‐Curvature Model. _____________________________________________________________ 14  Figure 29: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA‐02  ___________________________________________________ 17  Figure 30: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA‐07  ___________________________________________________ 17  Figure 31: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA‐16  ___________________________________________________ 17  Figure 32: Inter‐story Drift – Time History LA‐02 ______________________________________________________ 4  Figure 33: Inter‐story Drift – Time History LA‐07 ______________________________________________________ 5  Figure 34: Inter‐story drift – Time History LA‐16 ______________________________________________________ 5  Figure 35: Peak inter‐story drifts for LA‐02. Plastic Hinge Location _____________________________________ 5  Figure 11: Pushover Curve ASCE 41 ________________________________________________________________ 5  Figure 12: Base Shear vs. __________________________________________________________________ 6  Figure 37: Residual inter‐story drifts for LA‐02. LA‐07 and LA‐16. time ______________________________________________________ 4  Figure 10: Deflected Shape ASCE 41 Pushover.  ___________________________________________ 6  Figure 36: Peak inter‐story drifts. beam member 58 end 2  _________________________________________________ 6  Figure 14: Moment vs. time – Column member 23 ____________________________________________________ 7  Figure 15: Moment vs. Time. LA‐07 and LA‐16 _________________________________________ 7  Figure 39: Acceleration time ‐ history for LA‐02  ______________________________________________________ 8  Figure 40: Acceleration time ‐ history for LA‐07  ______________________________________________________ 8  Figure 41: Acceleration time ‐ history for LA‐16  ______________________________________________________ 9  Figure 42: Peak acceleration for LA‐02. LA‐07 and LA‐16 _________________________________________ 7  Figure 38: Residual inter‐story drifts for LA‐02. ASCE 41. _____________________________ 4  Figure 5: Elevation view with position of all nodes and members. Member 58 end 2  __________________________________________________ 7  Figure 16: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 1  __________________________________________________________ 8  Figure 17: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 2  __________________________________________________________ 8  Figure 18: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 1  ___________________________________________________ 8  Figure 19: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 2  ___________________________________________________ 9  Figure 20: LA‐02 Ground Motion _________________________________________________________________ 10  Figure 21: LA‐07 Ground Motion _________________________________________________________________ 10  Figure 22: LA‐16 Ground Motion _________________________________________________________________ 11  Figure 23: Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra for 5% Damping _____________________________________ 11  Figure 24: Relative Velocity Response Spectrum _____________________________________________________ 12  Figure 25: Relative Displacement Response Spectrum  ________________________________________________ 12  Figure 26: Energy Components LA‐02  _____________________________________________________________ 14  Figure 27: Energy Components LA‐07  _____________________________________________________________ 14  Figure 28: Energy Components LA‐16. ____________________________________________________________ 6  Figure 13: Moment vs. building to be retrofitted ________________________________________________________ 2  Figure 2: Elevation view Axis A – E.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 List of figures Figure 1: Plan view.

  ________________________________________________ 33  Figure 69: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐16. _____________________________________________________ 34  Figure 75: Acceleration history of motion LA‐07. _____________________________________________________ 35  Figure 76: Acceleration history of motion LA‐16.  ________________________________________________ 33  Figure 70: Peak inter‐story drifts for LA‐02. __________________________________________ 56  v .  __________________________________________ 30  Figure 67: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐02. _____________________________________________________________ 54  Figure 97: Energy Components LA‐07.  __________________________________________________ 36  Figure 78: Flow Chart for hysteretic dampers optimum design  _________________________________________ 37  _ Figure 79: Location of added bracing and viscous dampers ____________________________________________ 38  Figure 80: Hysteretic Behavior of Viscous Dampers  __________________________________________________ 39  Figure 81: Plot showing comparison among viscous damping and Rayleigh damping  _______________________ 41  _ Figure 82: Model View _________________________________________________________________________ 42  Figure 83: Displacement time history  _____________________________________________________________ 42  Figure 84: Spring and viscous damper forces ________________________________________________________ 43  Figure 85: Spring and viscous damping force  _______________________________________________________ 43  Figure 86: Spectra accelerations for LA2 under different damping ratios __________________________________ 44  Figure 87: Spectra accelerations for LA7 under different damping ratios __________________________________ 45  Figure 88: Spectra accelerations for LA16 under different damping ratios _________________________________ 45  Figure 89: Spectra displacements for LA2 under different damping ratios _________________________________ 46  Figure 90: Spectra displacements for LA7 under different damping ratios _________________________________ 46  Figure 91: Spectra displacements for LA16 under different damping ratios ________________________________ 47  Figure 92: Optimum damping comparison (Stiffness Approach) _________________________________________ 52  Figure 93: Optimum damping comparison (Constant damping Approach)  ________________________________ 52  Figure 94: Optimum damping comparison (First Mode proportional Approach) ____________________________ 53  Figure 95: Optimum damping approach  ___________________________________________________________ 53  Figure 96: Energy Components LA‐02.  ________________________________________________ 32  Figure 68: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐07. _____________________________________________________ 35  Figure 77: Comparison of total peak accelerations. _____________________________________________________________ 54  Figure 98: Energy Components LA‐16  _____________________________________________________________ 55  Figure 99: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA‐02. 07 and 16  ________________________________________________ 33  Figure 71: Comparison of peak inter‐story drifts _____________________________________________________ 33  Figure 72: Residual inter‐story drifts  ______________________________________________________________ 34  Figure 73: Comparison of residual inter‐story drifts  __________________________________________________ 34  Figure 74: Acceleration history of motion LA‐02. ___________________________________________________ 55  Figure 100: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA‐07 and LA16.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 48: Preliminary design ____________________________________________________________________ 20  Figure 49: Sections ____________________________________________________________________________ 21  Figure 50: Alternative retrofit scheme considered in the analyses (Configuration‐C2) ________________________ 21  Figure 51: Optimum size study ___________________________________________________________________ 22  Figure 52: Optimum size study ___________________________________________________________________ 23  Figure 53: Optimum activation load study for HSS406‐C1  _____________________________________________ 24  Figure 54: Optimum activation load study for HSS304‐C1  _____________________________________________ 24  Figure 55: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304‐C1 _________________________________________ 25  Figure 56: Optimum Design _____________________________________________________________________ 25  Figure 57: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (1/1)  _____________________________________ 26  Figure 58: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (2/1)  _____________________________________ 26  Figure 59: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (3/1)  _____________________________________ 27  Figure 60: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (4/1)  _____________________________________ 27  Figure 61: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (1st Mode proportional)  ______________________ 28  Figure 62: Optimum Design _____________________________________________________________________ 28  Figure 63: Energy Components LA‐02  _____________________________________________________________ 29  Figure 64: Energy Components LA‐07  _____________________________________________________________ 29  Figure 65: Energy Components LA‐16  _____________________________________________________________ 30  Figure 66: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA‐02 and LA‐16.

  __________________________________________________ 81  Figure 133: Residual Inter‐storey drifts for Retrofitted structure.  _________________________________________ 94  Figure 152: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation.  _______________________________________________ 58  Figure 103: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐16 ________________________________________________ 59  Figure 104: Peak inter‐story drifts for LA‐02. _____________________________________ 94  Figure 153: Comparison of peak inter‐storey drifts. ______________________________________________________ 85  Figure 142: Flow chart for optimum design of base isolation systems ____________________________________ 86  Figure 143: Near fault ground motion horizontal component___________________________________________ 88  Figure 144: Energy components time history for Near Fault Ground motion. _______________________________________________ 77  Figure 124: Abscense of plastic hinges for LA‐02. _____________________________________________________ 84  Figure 140: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA‐16. ___________________________________________ 81  Figure 132: Comparison of Peak inter‐storey drifts. ___________________________________ 92  Figure 149: Inter storey ‐ drifts time history for retrofitted structure. _________________________________________________ 60  Figure 108: Acceleration history of motion LA‐02.  ____________________________________ 91  _ Figure 148: Energy components time history for Retrofitted structure.  ___________________________________________________ 60  _ Figure 109: Acceleration history of motion LA‐07. ___________________________________________ 77  Figure 125: : Interstory drift time history for LA‐02. ______________________________ 93  Figure 151: Acceleration time history for retrofitted structure.  ________________________________________ 89  _ Figure 146: Inter storey ‐ drifts time history for Near Fault ground motion. _____________________________________________________ 82  Figure 136: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA‐02. 07 and 16 _______________________________________________ 59  Figure 105: Comparison of peak inter‐story drifts ____________________________________________________ 59  Figure 106: Residual inter‐story drifts for LA‐02. ________________________________ 84  Figure 141: Comparison of peak accelerations. _______________________________________________ 76  Figure 122: Energy components time history for LA‐07.  ___________________________________________________ 80  Figure 130: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA‐16. ________________________________________________ 81  Figure 135: Acceleration time history for LA‐02.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 101: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐02.  ____________________________________ 93  Figure 150: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system. ________________________________ 82  Figure 137: Acceleration time history for LA‐07. ________________________________________ 81  Figure 134: Comparison of residual inter‐storey drifts. _______________________________________________ 76  Figure 123: Energy components time history for LA‐16.  ___________________________________________________ 79  Figure 128: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA‐07. ________________________________ 83  Figure 139: Acceleration time history for LA‐16.  __________________________________________________ 78  Figure 126: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA‐02. _____________________________________________________ 83  Figure 138: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA‐07. 07 and 16. ____________________________________________ 60  Figure 107: Comparison of residual inter‐story drifts.  _______________________________ 91  _ Figure 147: Acceleration time history for Near Fault ground motion.  _______________________________________________ 58  Figure 102: Inter‐story drift time history motion La‐07. _________________________ 79  Figure 129: Interstory drift time history for LA‐16. _________________________ 80  Figure 131: Peak Inter‐storey drifts for Retrofitted structure.  ___________________________________________________ 61  _ Figure 111: Comparison of total peak accelerations.  ______________________________ 89  Figure 145: Distribution of plastic hinges for Existing Structure.  __________________________________________________ 95  vi . _________________________ 78  Figure 127: Interstory drift time history for LA‐07.  ___________________________________________________ 61  _ Figure 110: Acceleration history of motion LA‐16. 07 and 16.  _________________________________________________ 62  Figure 112: Flow chart for optimum design for viscous dampers ________________________________________ 63  Figure 113: Modelling of Building Structure with Lead‐Rubber Base‐Isolation System  _______________________ 64  Figure 114: Components of Lead‐Rubber base isolation _______________________________________________ 65  Figure 115: Lead‐Rubber Bi‐Linear Model __________________________________________________________ 65  Figure 116: Spectral Displacement corresponding to effective period of the equivalent system ________________ 70  Figure 117: Optimum Fy study for k1=30kN/mm  ____________________________________________________ 72  Figure 118: Optimum Fy study for k1=45kN/mm  ____________________________________________________ 72  Figure 119: Optimum Fy study for k1=65kN/mm  ____________________________________________________ 73  Figure 120: Optimum Design ____________________________________________________________________ 73  Figure 121: Energy components time history for LA‐02.

 ______________________________________________________ 95  Figure 156: Performance of the existing building compared to the optimum retrofit strategy _________________ 96  Figure 157: Details for the composite section _______________________________________________________ 98  vii . ________________________________________________ 95  Figure 155: Comparison of peak accelerations.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 154: Comparison of residual inter‐storey drifts.

Different dissipation devices configuration will be assessed to determine the most efficient retrofitting solution in this structure. it is of vital importance to convince the building’s owners to have their buildings evaluated by a structural engineer who could assess the retrofitting necessity. Additionally. As a consequence. 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 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. The retrofitting strategies will be implemented in these moment frames.CHAPTER 1 – PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 Introduction In recent years. Structured employing W steel shapes and shear connection in all axes except in the moment frames in grids A and E. In most cases life-safety and the financial savings could be achieved after retrofitting an existing structure. These devices reduce the displacement demand over the structure through their capacity to venture into the plastic range. devices to isolate the structure from the ground motions have been used as well.486 meters. 1. 1 . 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 Description of the Building Structure The building is a six-storey steel structure with rectangular configuration in plan and in elevation (Figure 1).816 m2 (including the ground floor) and a roof area of approximately 803 m2. The building is located in a seismic Zone 4 with soil type S2 and was designed according to the 1994 UBC code requirements. With an inter-storey height of 3. The overall building floor area is approximately 4. Several devices with inelastic behavior have been introduced in order to protect structures against dynamics effects.810 meters except for the ground level 5.

810 W 27 x 146 W 30 x 99 W 14 x 193 3.536 3. 2 .810 W 14 x 109 W 24 x 104 W 27 x 94 3.810 W 30 x 173 W 30 x 99 5.576 9.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT NO RTH TEAM 4 A B C D E 4 7.486 W 30 x 173 W 14 x 193 Gravity Columns Figure 2: Elevation view Axis A – E.144 36.810 W 24 x 76 3.144 Figure 1: Plan view.144 9.315 3 21.315 1 9.810 W 14 x 159 W 27 x 146 W 27 x 94 W 14 x 159 24.315 2 7. building to be retrofitted 1 2 3 W 24 x 76 W 14 x 109 W 24 x 104 4 3.144 9.945 7.

The panel zones of the beam-column connections are 3 . The inelastic response is concentrated in plastic hinges that could form at both ends of the frame members. 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. as per LRFD 1993 (AISC 1993). The columns are fixed at the ground level.02EI 1 1. 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.7 kPA Live Load Roof Floor 1. The plastic resistance at the hinges is based on expected yield strength of 290 MPa.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 1. At each floor.5 kPA Exterior Cladding 1. The design gravity loads are presented in Table 1: Design gravity loads.8 kPA Floor 4. and their length is set equal to 90% of the associated member depth. is considered for the columns of the structure.5 EI 1 p (p=0.02 (Figure 3). wind loads are based on the wind speed of 113 km/h and an exposure type B. Rigid-end offsets are specified at the end of the frame members to account for the actual size of the members at the joints. These plastic hinges are assigned a bi-linear hysteretic behavior with a curvature strain-hardening ratio of 0. except the gravity column that is assumed pinned at the base and at each level.0 kPA 3. An axial load-moment interaction. M 9 Bilinear Moment Curvature Model r=2% 0. The slab participation as a composite beam is not included.2 Modeling Assumptions The building was designed with the 1994 UBC code requirements.2Mp Mp Bending Moment 4. the frame is constrained to experience the same lateral deformation.8 kPA All seismic/dynamic analyses are performed using the nonlinear dynamic analysis computer program RUAUMOKO (Carr 1998).03 rad) 0 0 y Curvature ult 9  Figure 3: Bi-Linear Moment-Curvature Model. Table 1: Design gravity loads Dead Load Roof 3.

and a portion of the floor live load (0. All hysteretic energy must be dissipated through plastic hinging in the beams and the columns.4 0.002 s. 4 . the section properties are identical for both grid A and E. the weight of the exterior walls.8 0.. Strength Degradation Model 1 Multiplier on Yield Moment 0.6 0.01 0 0 5 10 11 11. P-delta effects are accounted for in the analyses. 1.55 15 Curvature Ductility Figure 4: Strength Degradation Model for Welded Beam-Column Connections.3 Member Properties For the moment-resisting frame. To capture the brittle failure of the welded beam-to-column connections.55.7 kPa). Rayleigh damping of 5% based on the first two elastic modes of vibration of the structure is assigned.2 0. The strength degradation begins at a curvature ductility of 11. All analyses are performed at a time-step increment of 0. At a curvature ductility of 11. the flexural strength degradation model shown in Figure 4. the strength reduces 1% of the yield moment. Gravity loads acting on the frame during the earthquake are the roof and floor dead loads.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 assumed to be stiff and strong enough to avoid any panel shear deformation and yielding under strong earthquakes. is introduced at the ends of the beam and column elements. 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.0.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT
25 27
3

TEAM 4
28
5

1

2

26

4

29

6

30

7

8

1 32

2 31 33
11

3 35
13

4

61

9

10

12

34

14

36

15

16

5 37 38

6 39
19

7

8 41
22

62

17

18

20

40
21

42

23

24

9

10

11

12

63

25

43

26

44
27

45

28

46
29

47

30

48

31

32

13

14 15 49 51
35

16

64

33

34

50

36

52
37

53

38

54

39

40

17 18 56

19

20

65

41

42

43

44

45

46

55

57

58

59

60

47

48

21

22

23

24

66

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 Shear Modulus Yield Stress σ G 200 77 GPa 290 MPa. .

5

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT

TEAM 4

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 Type 1, 2 3,4 5,6 7,8 9, 10 11, 12 13 - 16 17 - 20 21 - 24 Section W14x109 W24x104 W14x159 W27x146 W14x193 W30x173 W24x76 W27x94 W30x99 Member No. 1, 4, 5, 8 2, 3, 6, 7 9, 12, 13, 16 10, 11, 14, 15 17, 20, 21, 24 18, 19, 22, 23 25 - 36 37 - 48 49 - 60
(mm)

lp

D
(mm)

(mm2)

A

(mm4)

I

(KN-mm)

My

(KN)

Ny

328 550 343 626 354 696 547 616 678

364 611 381 696 393 773 608 684 753

20645 19742 30129 27678 36645 32774 14452 17871 18774

5.16E+8 1.29E+9 7.91E+8 2.34E+9 9.99E+8 3.41E+9 8.74E+8 1.36E+9 1.66E+9

8.22E+5 1.22E+6 1.20E+6 1.95E+6 1.47E+6 2.56E+6 8.34E+5 1.15E+6 1.28E+6

5987 5725 8737 8027 10627 9505 -

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
Member No. 1, 4, 5, 8 2, 3, 6, 7 9, 12, 13, 16 10, 11, 14, 15 17, 20, 21, 24 18, 19, 22, 23 25 - 36 37 - 48 49 - 60 Description Column Column Column Column Column Column Beam Beam Beam Section W14X109 W24X104 W14X159 W27X146 W14X193 W30X173 W24X76 W27X94 W30X99 Section Type 1,2 3,4 5,6 7,8 9, 10, 11, 12 13 - 16 17 - 20 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

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT

TEAM 4

-15000

-10000

Axial load (kN)

-5000

0 Sections 1,2 Sections 3,4 Sections 5,6 Sections 7,8 Sections 9,10 Sections 11,12 0 5E+5 1E+6 1.5E+6 2E+6 2.5E+6 3E+6

5000

10000

15000

Bending moment (kN-mm)

Figure 6: Axial Load – Bending Moment Interaction Diagram Table 5: Column axial load – moment interaction
N (kN) M (kN-mm) N (kN) Section 3,4 M (kN-mm) N (kN) Section 5,6 M (kN-mm) N (kN) Section 7, 8 M (kN-mm) N (kN) Section 9, 10 M (kN-mm) N (kN) Section 11, 12 M (kN-mm) Section 1, 2 -5987 0.0 -5725 0.0 -8737 0.0 -8027 0.0 -10627 0.0 -9505 0.0 -1198 8.21E+5 -1145 1.24E+6 -1748 1.23E+6 -1605 1.97E+6 -2125 1.52E+6 -1901 2.59E+06 0.0 9.12E+5 0.0 1.37E+6 0.0 1.36E+6 0.0 2.19E+6 0.0 1.69E+6 0.0 2.88E+6 0.0 9.12E+5 0.0 1.37E+6 0.0 1.36E+6 0.0 2.19E+6 0.0 1.69E+6 0.0 2.88E+6 5987 0.0 5725 0.0 8737 0.0 8027 0.0 10627 0.0 9505 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 momentcurvature relationship described by Figure 3. For each member it is possible to verify that the plastic curvature ∅ corresponds to a plastic rotation limit θ 0.03 rad. where in order to

7

20 21 .75E-5 7.0261 0.56E+6 8.74.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 calculate this plastic rotation it is necessary first to compute the yielding curvature ϕ and based on this value to calculate the plastic curvature ϕ .15E+6 1. 10.25E-5 4.36.17E-5 7.76E-5 5.0261 0.0261 0.99.75E-5 4. 1.75E-6 7. θ  ϕ l In the Table 6: Plastic Curvature of each element for a plastic Rotation limit θp are summarized the values for plastic rotation of all elements.22E+5 1.28E+6 5.E+8 2.2 W14x109 3.22E-5 8.61E-6 4.85E-5 8.8 9.E+8 1.E+9 7.12E-5 4.41.75E-6 4. 12 13 .0261 The rotation θp for all the members are less than the limit of 0.17E-6 7. Once plastic rotations reach the plastic limit (θ 0.) θp 328 550 343 626 354 696 547 616 678 8.13E-5 5.47E+6 2.91.29.4.24E-6 3.38E-6 3. Table 6: Plastic Curvature of each element for a plastic Rotation limit θp Member Section Type 1.16.02  The ultimate capacity can readily be found from the figure above as: ϕ  ϕ  ϕ Finally in order to find the plastic rotation of the members. 11.E+9 9.0 as shown in Figure 4. 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.2  ϕ   ϕ 0.03 rad the corresponding moments and curvatures can be found only by clearing the value of ϕ from equation 1.95E+6 1.77E-6 4.38E-5 3.24E-5 3.E+8 3.34. The yielding curvature is defined by the following expression: My   ϕ EI The plastic curvature is defined as: 0.4 5.4.E+9 8.66E-5 4.03 rad.61E-5 4.16 17 .97E-6 4.0261 0.34E+5 1.77E-5 4.6 7.66.20E+6 1.58E-5 8.0261 0.24E-5 0.85E-6 7. 8 .2 Strength Degradation Model The strength degradation model for all structural members states that the strength degradation begins at a curvature ductility of 11.0261 0.E+9 1.0261 0.37E-5 4.E+8 1.0261 0.24 W24x104 W14x159 W27x146 W14x193 W30x173 W24x76 W27x94 W30x99 (mm) lp (KN-mm) My (mm4) I (rad/mm) ϕy (rad/mm) ϕp (rad/mm) ϕu (rad.22E+6 1.E+9 7.97E-5 4.

4 5.79E-5 8.95E+6 1.16E+8 1. 12 13 .74E+8 1.47E-5 4.93E-5 9.21E-5 4.24 Section W14x109 W24x104 W14x159 W27x146 W14x193 W30x173 W24x76 W27x94 W30x99 lp (mm) My (KN-mm) (mm4) I ϕy (rad/mm) ϕp (rad/mm) ϕu (rad/mm) ∆M/My 0. 1.75E-6 4.11 9 .2 3.21E-5 9.03 rad. 10.77 2.75E-5 4.29E-5 4.51E-5 5.36E+9 1. the curvature ductility at failure is 11.34E+5 1.22E+6 1.45 0.20 4. Table 8: Frequencies and periods MODE 1 2 3 4 5 Frequency (Hz) Table 9: Mass participation ratios MODE 1 2 3 4 5 % Mass 87 96 99 100 100 Period (s) 0.24E-6 3.45E-5 8.23 0.23 0.22E+5 1.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 ϕ   θ l In accordance with Figure 3 the strength degradation should begin at a ductility ratio value of 11.20E+6 1.99E+8 3.96E-5 5.23 0.23 0.85E-6 9.6 7.30 0.34E+9 9.87E-5 4.47E+6 2.8 9.69E-5 5. with the plastic rotation of 0.20 21 .16 17 .41E+9 8.17E-6 7.91E+8 2.0 in which the ductility ratio ( ) is defined by:   ϕ ϕ Table 7: Curvature ductility capacity at failure Member Type 1.56E+6 8.15E+6 1.23 0.23 0.5 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).61E-6 4.94E-5 5. 11.16 0.42E-5 9. From the dynamic analysis.23 0.66E+9 7. The mode shapes for the frame were plotted in Figure 7.28E+6 5.29E+9 7.23 μ 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 328 550 343 626 354 696 547 616 678 8.23 0.31E-5 5.75E-6 7.00 1.15E-5 5. 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%).97E-6 4.77E-6 4.41 9.25 0.48E-5 4.38E-6 3.04 6.81E-5 Therefore.

1.5 0 0.4 in the equation 1.5 0 0.75 1 0 -1 -0. Fx  CvxV Cvx  wx hxk wh i 1 n k i i 2 .1 ASCE 41 lateral load pattern For this case the fundamental mode of vibration of the structure is T = 1. 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.6. (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.5 1 Figure 7: Mode Shapes of the structure 1.5 1 0 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 0 -1 0 -0.5 1 -1 -0.5 0. Pushover analysis results are generally dependent on the applied load distribution given to the structural model.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Mode 1 25 Mode 2 25 25 Mode 3 25 Mode 4 25 Mode 5 20 20 20 20 20 15 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0. three lateral load distributions along the height of the building were considered based on: (1) ASCE 41. Load distribution over height with total base shear of 1kN is shown in Table 10. Consequently.5 0 0.25 0.6 Pushover Analyses To assess the performance of the structure before carrying out more advanced analysis methods as non-linear time history analysis.8 (ASCE 41).30 s and k=1.

81 5.000 1. Table 12 shows load values for each floor level.095 0.81 3.81 5. 8% added to the top floor.53 2514.8 2514.486 Distribution 0.146 0.8 2599.134 0. Table 11: Lateral Load Distribution.53 2514.248 20.106 0.6.13 3.536 0.486 0.81 3.81 3.726 0.103 0.81 3.81 3.296 0.81 5.272 0.8 2514.205 13.000 3 floor 6 floor 5 floor 4 floor 3 floor 2 floor 1 Sum .8 2514.8 2514.044 1.8 2514.486 Elevation (m) 24.726 16.486 Elevation Distribution (m) 24.143 9.1 3.331 0.726 16.916 13.272 16.8 2514.486 Distribution 0.056 1.5 2514.486 Elevation (m) 24.173 0.8 2514.296 5. Linear vertical Weight (kN) H (m) floor 6 floor 5 floor 4 floor 3 floor 2 floor 1 Sum 1815.106 9.916 0. Table 12: Lateral Load Distribution.6.8 2514.3 New Zealand Code According to New zeland code a 92% of base shear distributes linear according to heights.81 3.81 3.8 2599.212 0.2 Linear vertical distribution The linear load distribution along the height of the building used for another pushover load pattern is shown in Table 11.061 1.296 5. New Zealand Code Weight (kN) 1815.000 1.81 3.81 3.916 13.8 2599.81 3.188 0.81 3. ASCE 41 Weight (kN) H (m) floor 6 floor 5 floor 4 floor 3 floor 2 floor 1 Total shear 1815.81 3.106 9.13 H (m) 3.230 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 10: Lateral Load Distribution.8 2514.088 5.536 20.536 20.

3500 3250 3000 2750 Base shear (kN) 2500 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Top floor lateral displacement (mm) 450 500 550 475. 3212. Figure 9 shows the steady increase of top floor lateral displacement versus time. Plastic Hinge Location)Figure 10.1 511.2 486. The structure fails at 8. 3172 ASCE 41 Linear NZ code Figure 8: Pushovers curves 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (s) 6 7 8 9 10 Displacement (mm) Figure 9: Top floor lateral displacement vs. 3269.35. no dynamic effects is present.8 sec. 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. according to ASCE 41 load pattern (Figure 11). the corresponding curves are plotted in Figure 8 indicating the failure point for the structure.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 For each of the three different load patterns for pushover analysis. 4 .14. which indicates that static pushover load increase is achieved.84.

35.6) First yield (100.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 10: Deflected Shape ASCE 41 Pushover.3) Figure 11: Pushover Curve ASCE 41 5 . the first and second yield points are indicated in Figure 11. 3212. Plastic Hinge Location For Pushover curve for ASCE 41 load pattern.11. 2163.1) Second yield (104. In the same fashion the plot of base shear in time indicating first and second yield point in Figure 12.77. 2074. 3500 3250 3000 2750 2500 Base shear (kN) 2250 2000 1750 1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Top floor lateral displacement (mm) 450 500 550 (486.

The first yield corresponding to ASCE 41 pushover curve occured at the first floor midspan beam member 58 at 5.2 (s) M= -1478. -1800 Yield at 5.8 -1600 Bending moment (kN-m) -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (s) 6 7 8 9 10 Fail at 8. 2163.5.8 (s) Figure 12: Base Shear vs.8 Figure 13: Moment vs. ASCE 41. 2074. The moment–time and moment–curvature relations for beam member 58 and column 23 were plotted in Figure 13 and Figure 15.2. The second yield occurred in the first floor interior column member 23 at the bottom end at 5. Time.5s.6) Max base shear of 3212. beam member 58 end 2 6 .1 (kN) at 8.9 (s) M= -1779. Time. respectively with the yield point and failure point indicated.2 sec.3) Second yield (5.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 4000 3500 3000 Base shear (kN) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (s) 6 7 8 9 10 First yield (5.

Figure 17.8 -4. -1779. 7 . Figure 18 and Figure 19.8 -4E-5 -5E-5 -6E-5 Curvature (rad) Figure 15: Moment vs.5 (s) M= 2642700 TEAM 4 Figure 14: Moment vs. Moment in building members versus time are plotted in Figure 16. in column member 23. Curvature. -1478. which yielded second during the pushover. Member 58 end 2 First failure in the building occurred at 8. time – Column member 23 -1800 -1600 Bending moment (kN-m) -1400 -1200 -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 0 -1E-5 -2E-5 -3E-5 -4. for the each of the beam ends connected to the columns in the first floor in order to identify the failure instant.4517E-6.8 sec.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 3300000 3000000 2700000 Bending moment (kN-m) 2400000 2100000 1800000 1500000 1200000 900000 600000 300000 0 -300000 0 1 2 3 4 5 Time (s) 6 7 8 9 10 Fails at 8.9133E-5.8 (s) M= 3174800 Yields at 5.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 1800000 1600000 1400000 TEAM 4 Moment-End 1 (kN-mm) 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 -200000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Members Member 55 Member 57 Member 59 Time(s) Figure 16: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 1 0 -200000 -400000 Moment-End 2 (kN-mm) -600000 -800000 -1000000 -1200000 -1400000 -1600000 -1800000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Members Member 56 Member 58 Member 60 8.9 7 8 9 10 Time(s) Figure 17: 1st Floor Beam Failure at end 2 600000 300000 0 Moment-End 1 (kN-mm) -300000 -600000 -900000 -1200000 -1500000 -1800000 -2100000 -2400000 -2700000 -3000000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Members Member 21 Member 22 Member 23 Member 24 9.0 Time(s) Figure 18: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 1 8 .

8 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Time(s) Figure 19: Bottom Storey Columns Failure at end 2 9 .STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 3300000 3000000 2700000 Members Member 21 Member 22 Member 23 Member 24 TEAM 4 Moment-End 2 (kN-mm) 2400000 2100000 1800000 1500000 1200000 900000 600000 300000 0 -300000 0 1 8.

12 (s) Acceleration (g) 0. Three historical recording for ground motions in Los Angeles region.58g.6757g and is designated as LA-02 record. are used in the analysis mentioned early. The second ground motion (Figure 27) corresponds to the fault normal component of Landers Earthquake designated as LA-07 record.8 0.4 0.6 Peak acc.2 0 -0.6 -0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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.6 -0. -0.6 Acceleration (g) 0. 0.2 -0.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time (s) Figure 20: LA-02 Ground Motion 0. 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 0.08 (s) Time (s) Figure 21: LA-07 Ground Motion 10 .6757187 (g) at 2.2 0 -0.4 -0.4209786 (g) at 16. 0.8 0. 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 0.4 -0.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Peak acc.4 0. 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.2 -0.

25 2.705 (s) Time (s) Figure 22: LA-16 Ground Motion 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). 2 1.25 0.6 -0.75 2 2.2 0 1.75 1 1.4 1.5 Figure 23: Absolute Acceleration Response Spectra for 5% Damping 11 .25 Time (s) 1.6 TEAM 4 Acceleration (g) 0. -0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 0.6 0.5 1.8 0.2 -0.8 0.4 -0.2 0 -0.5795923 (g) at 2. relative velocity (Figure 24) and relative displacement (Figure 25) for each of the ground motions.4 0.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Peak acc.6 Absolute acceleration (g) La02 La07 La16 Fundamental period 0 0.8 1.4 0.5 0.2 1 0.

75 0.5 1. However that difference between the two records is not accentuated for relative displacement response.25 0 0 0.75 0.25 Relative displacement (m) 1 Fundamental period La02 La07 La16 0.25 0 0 0. Moreover. In the same fashion.5 0.75 1 1.75 2 2. 12 .25 0.25 2.25 0.5 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.5 La02 La07 La16 Fundamental period TEAM 4 Figure 24: Relative Velocity Response Spectrum 1.75 2 2.5 0.5 0.25 1 0. 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.25 2.5 2. it has a wide range of frequencies content.25 Time (s) 1.25 Time (s) 1.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 2. Although record LA-16 (Figure 22) is a short duration ground motion. the maximum velocity and displacement response is greater that for records LA-02 and LA-07 for almost all frequencies.75 1.5 0.5 1.25 2 Relative velocity (m/s) 1.75 1 1.5 1.

peak and residual interstory drifts and total floor accelerations. They includes energy quantities. 13 . member curvature ductility.1 Performance of the existing structure Energy balance Plots of the time history energy components are shown in Figure 26 to Figure 28 (LA-02.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 CHAPTER 3 . three of them are the internal energy components. strain) is achieved. For each analysis of the building under ground motions. 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 Figure 26 to Figure 28 five energy curves can be distinguished. damping. four output quantities are extracted to assess the existing building performance. LA-07 and LA16). viscous damping and absorbed (strain) energy. kinetic. Figure 26 to Figure 28 show that an energy balance between the input energy and the sum of the internal energy components (kinetic. The computer program RUAUMOKO and the post-processor DYNAPLOT were used to evaluate the performance of the original building structure.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. 2 2. 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. the fourth curve is the total energy and the last curve represents the input energy.

8E+6 1.8E+6 1.4E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 1.2E+6 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 6E+5 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 Time (sec. 14 .4E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 1.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 3E+6 TEAM 4 2.) Figure 26: Energy Components LA-02 1E+6 8E+5 Energy (kN-mm) 6E+5 4E+5 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2E+5 0 Time (sec.) Figure 27: Energy Components LA-07 3E+6 2.2E+6 6E+5 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 Time (sec.) Figure 28: Energy Components LA-16.

392 0. each energy component exhibits a particular pattern. LA16 excites larger kinematic energy at the beginning of the record. 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-07.43 67.16 Absorbed Energy (kN-m) 1152.675 Percentage (%) 39. Among three motions.07 LA . Although the energy time histories generated for the three ground motions varies considerably from one to another.61 2859. For each one of the ground motions the fraction of input energy absorbed by the building structure is shown in the Table 13.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 It can be seen that the input energy from LA02 and LA16 are equal and more than three times the input energy from LA07. For the absorbed energy two components can be distinguished.344 0.7 Fraction 0. for example the kinetic energy oscillates from zero (maximum deflections) to positive peaks (initial undeformed position). this is due to the long pause in the acceleration motion.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.02 LA .70 Total Energy (kN-m) 2942.7 912. The peak values of the absorbed energy for the three ground motions are detailed in Table 14. Table 13: Fraction of Input Energy Absorbed.19 34. Ground Motions LA . 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. 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.7 314. 15 .21 1930.

16 Peak Absorbed Energy (kN-m) 1241.02 LA .7 2000.07 LA .STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 14: Peak Absorbed Energy.07 LA . It is important to mention that program RUAUMOKO list members with ductility ratios greater than 1 ( 1 ).013 rad) are the lowest in comparison to LA-02 and LA-16 which indicates that LA-07 induces the minor inelastic action to the members.831) and the maximum plastic rotation (θp 0. the dark side of the plastic hinge indicates the side where the plasticization on the member is occurring.16 2.02 LA .13 0.16 0.08 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. 16 .2 Plastic Hinging Distribution EBE % 0. Ground Motions LA . 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.7 433. This indicates that the energy balance is achieved in the program. Table 15: Energy Balance Error. Ground Motions LA .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. It is shown that for LA-07 the maximum curvature ductility (μ 4.

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.. the limit rotation established as the failure criterion for the elements.015 rad. respectively.494 and a maximum plastic rotation of θp 0. Figure 29: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA-02 Figure 30: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA-07 Figure 31: Distribution of Plastic Hinges for LA-16 17 .710 and θp 0.03 rad.022 rad. For LA-02 the maximum values for ductility and plastic rotations are μ 5. however for this motion none of the structural members reaches plastic rotations of θp 0. It is clear that LA-16 causes the most severe damage to the members in the structure. Clearly the ground motion LA-16 produces the most severe damage.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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 μ 8..

3 θp 0.132 4.0103 0.0082 0.421 2.24E-05 3.0 348.1 329.475 3. 3 .0105 0.0037 0.98E-05 7.9 288.175 3.3 329.78E-05 4.8 347.252 4.84E-05 3.0081 0.84E-05 Ductility Lp(Int) μ 3.0149 0.24E-05 4.0142 0.24E-05 4.0088 0.949 4.7 77.84E-05 3.863 5.237 1.0144 0.24E-05 4.7 325.98E-05 4.0097 0.0142 0.84E-05 3.0120 0.0061 0.24E-05 4.971 2.0 257.0 369.84E-05 3.148 3.78E-05 4.710 4.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 16: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-02 ground motion Hinge Member Prop.995 5.0134 0.3 313.24E-05 4.0 180.0035 0.806 4.6 213.24E-05 4.24E-05 4.343 1.0089 0.3 177.78E-05 4.3 67.24E-05 4.0125 0.84E-05 3.24E-05 4.0 274.84E-05 3.5 111.809 2.8 73.718 4.7 125.24E-05 4.0049 0.5 229.5 102.351 3.555 5.158 3.7 107.0126 0.98E-05 7.0108 0.8 144.878 1.360 4.461 131.443 5.8 308.0060 0.0134 0.0119 0.409 1.0127 0.6 172.8 214.087 3.496 5.0116 0.0 255.1 190.78E-05 4.621 4.98E-05 7.78E-05 4.7 370.24E-05 4.0099 0.2 234.0090 0.2 267. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 21 22 23 24 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 10 12 12 10 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 21 22 23 22 23 24 Type Column Column Column Column Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Lp (mm) 328 328 328 328 547 547 547 547 547 547 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 ϕp 7.413 3.458 4.5 194.0032 0.78E-05 4.84E-05 3.84E-05 3.84E-05 3.0091 0.9 387.852 5.84E-05 3.84E-05 3.458 3.0073 0.0052 0.801 3.0111 0.146 5.0109 0.291 1.0142 Where the 8th column (Lp) is the plastic length of the hinge.5 207.

2 187.3 89.24E-05 4.844E-05 3.0105 4 .844E-05 3.1 313.0086 0.8 263.24E-05 4.050 3.616 2.0060 0.0 312.984E-05 7.844E-05 3.3 206. Hinge Member Prop.627 4.0043 0.844E-05 3.844E-05 3.426 3.984E-05 4.24E-05 4.0126 0.6 -144.24E-05 4.760 4.0048 0.0079 0.423 1.844E-05 3.342 1.5 100.24E-05 4.409 1.313 1.6 113.4 142.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 17: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-07 ground motion.451 3.0121 0.1 272.844E-05 3.637 2.0027 0.5 144.8 327.302 3.7 271.009 4.7 63.24E-05 4.0120 0.559 1.844E-05 Ductility μ -4.831 4.844E-05 3.0104 0.378 -4.0067 0.9 245.030 2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 39 41 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 12 12 19 19 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 21 22 23 22 23 24 Type Column Column Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Lp (mm) 328 328 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 ϕp 7.0089 0.844E-05 3.0038 0.887 3.0072 0.6 87.842 2.844E-05 3.025 Lp(Int) -143.5 289.9 θp -0.0101 0.24E-05 4.24E-05 3.8 157.4 232.263 4.844E-05 3.0115 -0.0037 0.0061 0.5 223.603 4.0111 0.0094 0.0115 0.

603 6.84E-05 3.6 64.604 1.3 402.611 1.9 409.0139 0.4 231.185 1.056 3.24E-05 4.5 88.0146 0.78E-05 4.98E-05 4.0042 0.516 5.0031 0.24E-05 4.0087 0.78E-05 4.84E-05 3.0042 0.0221 0. Hinge Member Prop.0220 0.98E-05 7.8 95.923 8.0079 0.116 1.0170 0.3 190.0152 0.6 185.818 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 21 22 23 24 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 10 12 12 10 14 15 14 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 21 22 23 22 23 24 Type Column Column Column Column Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Lp (mm) 328 328 328 328 547 547 547 547 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 ϕp 7.84E-05 3.7 550.24E-05 4.939 6.84E-05 3.7 549.0211 3 .325 4.84E-05 3.2 575.24E-05 4.7 441.0207 0.0161 0.9 509.164 1.7 98.889 1.0196 0.4 71.7 95.84E-05 3.554 1.2 235.84E-05 3.78E-05 4.398 1.8 248.24E-05 4.349 6.2 537.0212 0.84E-05 3.0030 0.6 68.169 5.24E-05 4.24E-05 4.0037 0.98E-05 7.3 275.552 3.7 116.488 8.679 8.24E-05 4.0 θp 0.84E-05 3.0098 0.199 1.0157 0.9 278.0105 0.0031 0.0041 0.24E-05 3.0100 0.8 379.84E-05 3.0201 0.0155 0.810 1.3 188.009 3.5 204.0029 0.0080 0.485 8.758 3.0195 0.84E-05 Ductility Lp(Int) μ 7.24E-05 4.518 8.0222 0.0049 0.84E-05 3.24E-05 4.7 418.098 251.2 507.24E-05 4.1 65.494 7.0041 0.035 7.115 7.98E-05 7.2 362.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 18: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-16 ground motion.78E-05 4.8 76.031 3.394 5.

726 (mm) 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (s) Figure 32: Inter-story Drift – Time History LA-02 4 .8 (mm) 4th floor peak 51.56 (mm) 1st floor residual 39. Figure 32 to Figure 38 show the inter-story drift time history.72 (mm) Roof residual 2.74 (mm) 3rd floor peak 57.49 (mm) 3rd floor residual 23. Figure 32 to Figure 34 show the Inter-story peak drift time history of each floor for each motion.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.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 2.58 (mm) 5th floor residual 10. 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.13 (mm) 4th floor residual 21. the peak inter-storey drift and the residual inter-storey drift for each one of the three ground motions considered.26 (mm) 2nd floor residual 25.95 (mm) 5th floor peak 39.31 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Inter-storey drift (mm) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 0 10 20 30 Roof peak 26. 120 110 100 90 80 1st floor peak 98.94 (mm) 2nd floor peak 62.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT
50 40 30 20 10 Roof peak -18.7 (mm) 5th floor peak -25.54 (mm) Roof residual -0.2766 (mm) 4th foor peak -29.66 (mm) 5th floor residual -1.574 (mm) 4th floor residual -7.142 (mm)

TEAM 4

Inter-storey drift (mm)

0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 1st floor peak -83.38 (mm) -90 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof 3rd floor residual -17.56 (mm) 2nd floor residual -25.88 (mm)

3rd floor peak -41.85 (mm) 2nd floor peak -52.13 (mm)

1st floor residual -37.57 (mm)

Time (s)

Figure 33: Inter-story Drift – Time History LA-07
160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 -60 -70 -80 0 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof

1st floor peak 148.1 (mm) 2nd floor peak 84.37 (mm) 3rd floor peak 63.91 (mm) 4th floor peak 39.26 (mm) 5th floor peak 29.71 (mm) Roof peak 23.03 (mm)

Inter-storey drift (mm)

1st floor residual 19.84 (mm) 2nd floor residual 12.72 (mm) 3rd floor residual 11.03 (mm)

4th floor residual 5.82 (mm) 5th floor residual 2.227 (mm) Roof residual 0.6811 (mm)

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

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT

TEAM 4

Peak Inter-storey Drifts Peak Inter-storey Drifts Peak Inter-storey Drifts
Motion 02
25 2.5% drift 20 20 20 25

Motion 07
25

Motion 16

2.5% drift 2.5% drift

Height (m.)

Height (m.)

15

15

Height (m.)

15

10

10

10

5

5

5

0.7% drift 0 0 50 100 150 0 0 50

0.7% drift 0 100 150 0 50

0.7% drift 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

Height (m.)

15

10

Inter Storey Drifts LA-02 LA-07 LA-16 2.5% Drift (LS) 0.7% Drift (IO)

5

0 0 50 100 150

Displacement (mm.)

Figure 36: Peak inter-story drifts.

6

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT

TEAM 4

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
Motion 02
25 25

Motion 07
25

Motion 16

20

20

20

Height (m)

Height (m)

1% drift 10

1% drift 10

Height (m)

15

15

15

10

1% drift

5

5

5

0 0 50 100 150

0 0 50 100 150

0 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

Height (m)

15

10

Residual Inter-Storey Drifts LA-02 LA-07 LA-16 1% Drift (LS)

5

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

history for LA-02 1 0.history for LA-07 8 .9504587 0.2832824 2nd floor peak 0. in all cases the largest total acceleration is at the top floor.4 -0.5825688 4th floor peak 0. 1 Roof peak 0.2 -0.2697248 1st floor peak 0.8 0.8 -1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 3rd floor peak -0.4714577 -0.2770642 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Total acceleration (g) Time (s) Figure 40: Acceleration time .6 0.2 -0.8 -1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Roof peak 0.6 0.4893986 2nd floor peak -0.4 0.4 0.4 -0.5923547 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Total acceleration (g) Time (s) Figure 39: Acceleration time .8 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 As can be seen from these figures.2 0 -0.6092762 5th floor peak 0.2 0 -0.6 5th floor peak -0.3884811 4th floor peak 0.6 -0.3823649 3rd floor peak 0.5550459 1st floor peak 0.

LA-07 and LA-16 9 .75 1 Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Acceleration (g) Figure 42: Peak acceleration for LA-02.2 -0.75 1 0 0 0 0.4027523 1st floor peak 0.8 0. Motion 02 25 25 Motion 07 25 Motion 16 20 20 20 10 10 Height (m) 0 0.5 0.95g.25 0.3584098 2nd floor peak 0.8 -1 0 5 10 15 20 25 4th floor peak -0.2 0 -0.75 1 Height (m) Height (m) 15 15 15 10 5 5 5 0 0 0.6 -0. The peak acceleration for LA-02 in the top floor reaches a value of 0.history for LA-16 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.25 0.5123344 5th floor peak -0.4 -0.5197757 Roof peak -0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 1 0.3646279 TEAM 4 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Total acceleration (g) 30 Time (s) Figure 41: Acceleration time .5 0.25 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7851172 3r floor peak 0.

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.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 25 TEAM 4 20 Height (m) 15 Peak Acceleration LA-02 LA-07 LA-16 10 5 0 0 0. including member ductility. is introduced to quantify numerically the performance of a building.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. 2. It takes into account the effects of important response quantities. 10 . maximum residual drifts and peak acceleration.5 0.25 0. 5th and 6th floor) prevails in terms of peak interstorey drifts.5.75 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.5 Performance evaluation In this section a global measuring tool. 2nd and 3th floor) and LA-02 (4th. peak inter-story drifts. called a performance index (PI). 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.

μ and μ 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. 11 .STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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 ∆. And a is the peak total floor acceleration. a  a . These values are the worst case limit that a building is expected to have. 100 Where μ and μ are maximum curvature ductilities of column and beam. And  a is the limit for peak total floor acceleration.  The maximum curvature ductility occurred in a column  . w . representing the importance of the quantity towards the overall performance and design targets.  The maximum floor acceleration  .     w∆ .   w∆ . w∆ .  ∆ and  ∆ is the maximum values of the peak inter-story drift and residual drifts.  The maximum residual inter-story drift ∆ . The numerical expression for the PI is defined as follows:  ∆  μ  μ ∆ w . w . w∆ and w are assigned weights to the performance variables.  The maximum curvature ductility occurred in a beam  . These values represent response of the building under each ground motion.    w .  μ  μ  ∆  ∆ PI %   1   w     w     w∆    w∆     w  w . These weights add up to 100 and have been distributed with the aim of penalizing the most critical variable.

the PI will be in the form of  μ  μ 10. 11    25. which is ideal value that a structure only can get close to.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Based on FEMA 274. and 2.5% and 1% for LS.0% 0.7% and 0% for IO. ∆ 5% a  25. The weights for these variables are 30. 1g . Limits for other variables are chosen and presented in Table 19.5% 0. There variables considered most important are peak drift.5g 65 12 . 100 The value of PI can be from any negative value to 100%.75g 45 0% 0. Values of μ and μ are taken to be 11. Two thread holes are defined in this PI scale. the maximum ductility a member can reach in this project. column ductility and acceleration. According to FEMA 274.  ∆ and  ∆ will be of 5%. corresponding to the Immediate Occupancy (IO) and Life Safety (LS) limits. the weights are 10 and 10. the collapse prevention is chosen to be the lower bound limit for the structure. PI equal to zero means that the structure is at the collapse limit in an overall sense. 25 and 25 respectively. which hosts medical equipment sensitive to acceleration. limits for peak and residual drifts are 0. Therefore. A negative value of PI would mean the structure collapses. FEMA 274 does not limit the maximum floor acceleration so a reasonable upper bound value for this structure is set to be 1 . The reason for put more weight into acceleration is from the fact that the existing structure is hospital building. ∆   5% 100 10.7% 1. Therefore. 11   PI %   1    30. The weight for each quantity is chosen based on its importance in the performance of the building. For beam ductility and residual drift. Table 19: Reponse limit for different performance categories Variables  μ  μ ∆ ∆ a PI Limit for performance category LS IO 45% of 11 20% of 11 45% of 11 20% of 11 2.

49 μ 5. This index is within the [0.70 ∆ (%) 0.52 2.83 8.5% under LA16.50 4.45] range. the existing structure performance is from the collapse prevention limit to life safety.72 0. Based on the proposed performance index formulation.79 PI 46% 60% 36% The PI for the structure will be the smallest among the PI for each ground motion.71 4.49 ∆ (%) 1.61 0.80 1.41 8.95 0. 13 .68 0.36 a(g) 0. which means the structure passes the collapse prevention limit but stays below life safety limit. 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 Motion LA-02 LA-07 LA-16  μ 5. with maximum peak drift is higher than 2.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 According to FEMA 274. which will be 36% corresponding to LA16 motion.

14 . 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. LA7 and LA16). 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. nonetheless this approach is intended to improve the seismic performance of the building rather than prevent collapse. only the middle bay will be affected when installing dampers and braces).e.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. This system dissipates energy through the elasto-plastic hysteretic behavior shown in Figure 46. This retrofit scheme was selected because it minimizes the levels of intervention (i.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 CHAPTER 4 . For the final design other hysteretic damper locations will be studied. It was shown in the previous phase of the project that collapse is not reached under the considered ground motions.

Finally a comparison between the optimum design configuration and the original building will be presented in terms of energy balance. 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. as the braces would be installed to the existing building. it was specified that hollow steel sections (HSS) must be used for the cross braces. In addition. the system will behave either as an unbraced frame or as a fully braced frame.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 46: Elasto-Plastic Hysteresis For this retrofit. brace forces induced by dead loads were ignored in the analysis and design. envelopes of peak and residual inter-story drifts and envelopes of peak absolute floor accelerations. The selection of the cross sections for the diagonal braces is based on the recommendation by Filiatrault and Cherry (1988). 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. The merits of the optimum solution in terms of performance indices will also be discussed.40 15 . 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. which is expressed as: 0. The methods used to determine the slip load are based on design procedures provided by Christopoulos and Filiatrault (2006) as discussed below. plastic hinge distribution. In order to improve the behavior of hysteretic dampers in the structure composite sections composed by HSS sections will be also considered. These parameters are the activation load “Fa” and the bracing stiffness.

24 0.18 0.73s 0.1 Tg=1. The Q function depends on the Tg/Tu ratio and will be presented in the preliminary design. 3 Fourier Spectra For determining the predominant period of the design ground motions the Fast Fourier transform (FFT).28 Tg=0. 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 W a T T Q . which is an efficient method to compute the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) was used. Moreover.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Where Tb is the natural period of the fully braced structure and Tu is the natural period of the unbraced structure.68s Fourier Amplitude 0. g is the acceleration of gravity.7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 Frequency (Hz) Figure 47: Fourier Spectra 16 .5 0. Tg is the period of the ground motion and Q is a singled valued function. g T T Where W is the seismic weight of the structure.36 0. it shows that the optimum activation load is linearly proportional to the peak ground acceleration.2 0.3 0.4 0.42 0.54 0. 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. Furthermore.06 0 0.48 Fourier Spectra LA2 LA7 LA16 Tg=0. ag is the peak ground acceleration. This analysis was performed in the software SeismoSignal by inputting our design ground motions and running the FFT analysis.3 0.12 0.6 0. 0.

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. the best response of hysteretically damped structures occurs for small values of Tb/Tu. 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. 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.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Once the analysis is completed and the data is converted into a frequency domain format. Predominant periods corresponding to each ground motion are also shown in Figure 47. As a first trial an HSS406x406x15. 4 Preliminary design As mentioned above. 17 . Therefore the diagonal cross-braces were chosen with the largest possible cross-sectional area within the limits imposed by architecture.9 section and an HSS304X304X15. the peaks corresponding to the highest values o Fourier amplitudes were selected. cost and availability of material.9 are shown in the following page.9 section were selected among the largest possible sections according the AISC –provisions. which corresponds to large diagonal braces. The cross-braces were used along the six stories of the building.

01 Nf  0.676 g (Design Peak Ground Acceleration) Tb Tu Q  Tg Tu Tu   Tb  Tg  Tg  ( 0.9 kN i  1  Nf (Optimum activation shear)   56.683 s (Fundamental period of the braced structures) (Fundamental period of the unbraced structure) (Predominant period of the design ground motion LA2) Tb Tu Tg Tu  0.615 s Tu  1.04 Nf  0.579  ( 1.002  0.31)     1.2  180 Vs  i 1 2     Nf  Vo  (Story base shear.04 Nf  0. uniformly distributed) 18 .32   Tu  Tu Tu  Tu Q  1.3  180   46.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 W  14475 kN Nf  6 (Total seismic weight of the structure) (Number of floors) Tb  0.002 Nf )  1.25 Nf  0.24 Nf  0.42 if Tg  1  ( 0.524 ag  0.43 if 0   Tg 1 (Unknown single valued function) W Vo  Q ag g Vo  15451.304 s Tg  0.02)   1.472  0.

4  930.7  1287.2     930.2   kN Fa   930.4kN  1 (Optimum activation load for each damper)  1160. This performance levels are shown in dot gray lines and the values corresponding to this levels were calculated in Chapter 3.7 i  2  Nf Vs Fa  1 1 Vs Fa  i i 2 cos ( ) 2 cos (  ) Fa  1160.7  kN Vs   1287. 19 . 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.7  1287.2   930.2     930. 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).2  Likewise calculations were performed for ground motions LA7 and LA16 for determining the activation loads (See Table 21).STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4  1287.7    1287.7    1287.

In the intermediate design based on a comparative study aiming to improve the performance of our building. 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. Nonetheless for ground motion LA16 not significant improvement was found. Figure 49 shows a sketch of the proposed cross sections to be considered in the analyses. For this approach the activation load corresponding to each configuration were still calculated based on the procedure suggested by Christopoulos and Filiatrault (2006). 20 . In order to optimize the design we proceed to perform multiple analyses in RUAMOKO but this time considering different cross sections and braces configurations. Details on this composite section are presented in Appendix B.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. Regarding the members size we tried to get closer to the recommended ratio of Tb/Tu = 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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.4 and the design procedures provided by Christopoulos and Filiatrault (2006). 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.

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). (See Table 22 for reference) 21 .9 and HSS304x304x15. The HSS406x406x15.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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). A total of 21 analyses were performed since each alternative had to be evaluated for each of the three design ground motions specified. 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).

Batch files were also created in RUAMOKO to efficiently get the relevant results regarding our performances indices. performance indices were used to make a comparison between the different alternatives. Excel macros were used to get the relevant values used to compute the performance indices and accelerate the design process. A plot summarizing the performances indices obtained for each of the proposed configurations and the relevant member sizes are shown in the figure below. 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.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 It is important to mention that when pursuing an optimum design. These indices were presented in Chapter 3. Appendix A shows a detailed explanation on how the macro works. Figure 51: Optimum size study 22 .

23 . The selected configurations to be studied are the HSS406-C1.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 It can be seen in the previous figure that in overall all the proposed alternatives reached performances indices higher than the existing building. (See Figure 45. The higher PI corresponds to the composite section HSS406&304 in the brace configuration C2. This optimum activation study will be considered among the brace sizes and configuration that performed better in the previous comparison. It can be inferred from this graph that the closer we get to 0. For this study the optimum activation load were evaluated in the range of 200kN to 2000kN based on previous calculations (See Table 22). Nonetheless a study on the optimum activations loads will be performed in order to optimize the design.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. HSS406&304-C1 and HSS406&304C2. Analyses in RUAMOKO were performed for each configuration under study for activation load increments of 200kN. The same results are presented in the figure below but this time in terms of Tb/Tu. 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). Figure 46 and Figure 50 for details on the configurations and cross sections selected).

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 53: Optimum activation load study for HSS406-C1 Figure 54: Optimum activation load study for HSS304-C1 24 .

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.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 55: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304-C1 The following plot summarizes the three previous analyses. Figure 56: Optimum Design 25 .

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Even though the HSS406&304-C2 configuration reached the higher performance. 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. we assumed for this case a uniform load redistribution along the height of the building. In order to deal with this uncertainty the way the forces were redistributed was studied. even though the second configuration present higher stiffness in the first floor with respect to the other floors. 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) Figure 58: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (2/1) 26 .

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 59: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (3/1) Figure 60: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (4/1) 27 .

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT

TEAM 4

Figure 61: Optimum activation load study for HSS406&304C2 (1st Mode proportional)

Figure 62: Optimum Design

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

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT

TEAM 4

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

Energy (kN-mm)

2.4E+6

1.8E+6

1.2E+6 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85

6E+5

0

Time (sec.)

Figure 63: Energy Components LA-02
Time History Energy Components
LA - 07
1.2E+6

1E+6

Energy (kN-mm)

8E+5

6E+5

4E+5 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

2E+5

0

Time (sec.)

Figure 64: Energy Components LA-07

29

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT

TEAM 4

Time History Energy Components
LA - 16
3E+6

2.4E+6

Energy (kN-mm)

1.8E+6

1.2E+6

6E+5

Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0

Time (sec.)

Figure 65: Energy Components LA-16 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

003 0.487 3.011 0.0027 0.84E-05 3.84E-05 3.377 θp 0.1 θp 0.98E-05 7.84E-05 3.0 98.542 3.008 0.84E-05 3.98E-05 7.010 0.010 0.0 145.1 294.218 2.9 268.24E-05 4.59 4.402 3.529 78.7 198.232 3.011 0.84E-05 3.8 116.088 2. Hinge Member Prop.24E-05 4.006 0.009 0.84E-05 3.84E-05 3.1 286.84E-05 3.401 2.0 197.7 267.9 184.95 4.055 1.84E-05 3.2 147.99 2.010 0.84E-05 3.008 0.6 47. 10 12 12 10 18 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 21 22 23 22 23 24 Type Column Column Column Column Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Lp (mm) 328 328 328 328 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 ϕp 7.24E-05 4.2 289.84E-05 Ductility Lp(Int) μ 1.010 0.012 0.0030 Table 24: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-16 ground motion.004 0.012 0.954 4.84E-05 3.008 0.5 249.2 305.8 307.24E-05 3.7 249.010 0.0031 0.24E-05 4.267 3.4 290. 1 2 3 50 52 54 22 22 24 Type Beam Beam Beam Lp (mm) 678 678 678 ϕp 3.185 1.98E-05 7.008 0.011 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 23: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-02 ground motion.21 3.537 3. Hinge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Member 21 22 23 24 38 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Prop.011 31 .84E-05 3.509 3.343 71.98E-05 4.3 254.9 243.3 67.009 0.343 3.675 4.441 1.156 80.006 0.24E-05 4.366 3.84E-05 Ductility Lp(Int) μ 1.676 4.84E-05 3.24E-05 4.005 1.004 0.748 4.279 48.2 148.006 0.

0895 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 5th floor residual -0.41 (mm) 2nd floor residual 0.33 (mm) 5th floor peak -9.424 (mm) Roof residual -0.47 (mm) Inter-Storey drift (mm) 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 0 10 20 30 40 Roof peak -6.Time history .9 (mm) 2nd floor peak 20.3 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof 1st floor residual 3.Time History .3 Peak and Residual Inter-Story Drifts Inter-Storey drift .403 (mm) 4th floor residual 0.Motion 02 25 20 15 1st floor peak 22.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 6.107 (mm) 5th floor residual -0.524 (mm) 3rd floor residual -0.26 (mm) Roof residual 0.Motion 07 15 12 9 Inter .307 (mm) 4th floor 5th floor Roof 60 70 80 90 100 Time (s) 32 .4 (mm) 3rd floor peak 21.44 (mm) 5th floor peak -15 (mm) 4th floor peak -18.9 (mm) 1st floor peak -17.3 (mm) 2nd floor residual 1.15 (mm) 3rd floor residual 0.63 (mm) 4th floor peak -13. Inter-Storey drift .6 (mm) 1st floor residual 3.208 (mm) 50 60 70 80 90 Time (s) Figure 67: Inter-story drift time history motion La-02.3 (mm) 3rd floor peak -16.Storey drift (mm) 6 3 0 -3 -6 -9 -12 -15 -18 0 10 20 30 40 50 Roof peak -3.7 (mm) 2nd floor peak -16.187 (mm) 4th floor residual -0.

8 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof 1st floor residual 28.Storey drift (mm) 40 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 0 3 6 3rd floor residual 19. Struc.) 15 Height (m. Struc. Struc.1 (mm) 60 50 2nd floor peak 55 (mm) 3rd floor peak 51.Time History . Inter-Storey drift . Peak Inter-storey Drifts 25 Comparison of peak inter-storey drifts 25 20 20 Height (m. Struc. Struc.1 (mm) 5th floor peak 18. Struc.93 (mm) Roof residual -1.85 (mm) Roof peak 7.2 (mm) 2nd floor residual 21.) Figure 70: Peak inter-story drifts for LA-02. LA-02 Orig. Struc. Struc.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 68: Inter-story drift time history motion La-07.5% Drift (LS) 0. 2.7% Drift (IO) 15 10 Inter Storey Drifts LA-02 Retrof. LA-16 Retrof.6 (mm) 4th floor peak 33.39 (mm) 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Time (s) Figure 69: Inter-story drift time history motion La-16. 5 5 0 0 50 100 150 Displacement (mm. Struc. LA-07 Orig.) 10 Inter Storey Drifts LA-02 Retrof.) 0 -150 -50 50 150 Displacement (mm. LA-07 Retrof. LA-16 Retrof. 07 and 16 Figure 71: Comparison of peak inter-story drifts 33 . LA-07 Retrof.1 (mm) 4th floor residual 9. LA-16 Orig.93 (mm) 5th floor residual 1.4 (mm) Inter .Motion 16 70 1st floor peak 66.

4 -0. LA-07 Orig.607 Roof peak 0. LA-16 Retrof. Struc. 34 . LA-02 Orig. Struc.2 -0.4 0. Struc. LA-07 Retrof.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (s) Figure 74: Acceleration history of motion LA-02.Motion 02 0. LA-16 Orig. Struc. Struc.494 0. LA-16 Retrof.2 0 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof -0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Comparison of residual Residual Inter-Storey Drifts 25 inter-storey drifts 25 20 20 Height (m) Height (m) 15 15 10 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts LA-02 Retrof.8 1st floor peak 0.6 2nd floor peak 0. 5 5 0 0 15 30 45 60 0 -60 -30 0 30 60 Displacement (mm) Displacement (mm) Figure 72: Residual inter-story drifts Figure 73: Comparison of residual inter-story drifts 6.364 3rd floor peak 0. Struc. 1% Drift (LS) 10 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts LA-02 Retrof. Struc.366 Total Acceleration (g) 0. Struc.4 Accelerations Acceleration History . LA-07 Retrof.416 4th floor peak 0.522 5th floor peak 0. Struc.

3 -0.2 -0.4 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Acceleration History .1 -0.1 -0.59 1st floor peak -0.6 -0. 35 .3 -0.528 5th foor peak -0.6 0.5 0.5 -0.Motion 16 0.1 0 -0.307 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Total Acceleration (g) 0.304 1st floor peak -0.3 0.Motion 07 0.7 0 5 10 15 20 25 3rd floor peak -0. Acceleration History .4 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4th floor peak -0.484 4th floor peak -0.461 2nd floor peak -0.2 Roof peak 0.389 2nd floor peak 0.34 Time (s) Figure 75: Acceleration history of motion LA-07.2 0.3 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Total Acceleration (g) 0.298 5th floor peak 0.4 -0.4 0.541 Roof peak -0.311 3rd floor peak 0.2 -0.1 0 -0.599 30 Time (s) Figure 76: Acceleration history of motion LA-16.

41 8.95 0.58% 63.50 4.06 0.36 a(g) 0.71 4.52 2.54 μ 1.44 1.79 PI 46% 60% 36% Ground Motion LA-02 LA-07 LA-16  μ 1.60 PI 77. We can notice on the table below that the performance of the structure was increased from 36% to 63%.68 0. Struc. LA-07 Orig.00 4. Table 25: Performance Indexes for structure retrofitted with hysteretic dampers compared to the original performance. LA-16 Orig.00 0. We can also notice that ductility ratios for LA16 were reduced from 8. 5 0 -1 -0.70 ∆ (%) 0. Struc. LA-16 Retrof.60g.5 to 4. Struc.80 1.5 1 Acceleration (g) Figure 77: Comparison of total peak accelerations. Struc. LA-02 Orig.54 ∆ (%) 0.56 a(g) 0.44 ∆ (%) 0.00 3.83 8.58 0.49 μ 5.90% 86.79g to 0.5 and the acceleration was slightly reduced from 0.19 1. Struc.06 0.49 ∆ (%) 1.61 0.61 0.72 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Comparison of total peak accelerations 25 20 Height (m) 15 10 Peak Acceleration LA-02 Retrof.5 0 0. Struc. Ground Motion LA-02 LA-07 LA-16  μ 5.07% 36 . LA-07 Retrof.39 0.

optimum activation load and optimum distribution of the dampers. 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. Figure 78: Flow Chart for hysteretic dampers optimum design 37 .STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 7 Flow Chart for Hysteretic dampers optimum design A flow chart summarizing the procedure to obtain the optimum design is shown below.

Brace forces induced by gravity loads will be ignored in the design of the bracing and viscous energy dissipating systems.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 CHAPTER 5 . 38 . as the braces would be installed to the existing building and that live loads will have a negligible effect on the bracing members. The bracing members must be designed to sustain the maximum load developed by the viscous damper. Figure 79: Location of added bracing and viscous dampers The retrofit system considered incorporates at one end of the bracing members. This system exhibits the elliptical hysteretic behavior shown in Figure 80. viscous damper connections with an axial force linearly proportional to the relative velocity between ends. as shown in Figure 79. 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.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.

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. 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 calculation of the damping constant can be determined for a given time history and damping level desired using the equation below. With these three parameters known. ˆ k 0T1 2 Where k0 are the spring constants. T1 the fundamental period of the building and CL are the damping coefficients. the fundamental natural period of the existing building and the target damping ratio(s) of the building retrofitted with viscous dampers. this ensures that classical normal modes will be maintained (Christopoulos and Filiatrault. which would cause a construction issue. 2006). 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. CL  The drawback of this procedure is that the dampers will be different at each floor level. By imposing the damping constants to be proportional to the inter-story lateral stiffness of the structure. 39 . and the maximum inter-story drifts are needed. Secondly. For this method.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 80: Hysteretic Behavior of Viscous Dampers 2 Procedures to calculate the damping coefficients Viscous dampers were installed at all floors. 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.

i CL   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. k the spring constants and d is the inter-story drift. 3 Modeling of dampers Before modeling the damper and in order to obtain the corresponding trial value of the fundamental period. 40 . Nd is the number of dampers. refer to the MathCAD calculations on the preliminary design. fictitious spring elements were modeled in RUAMOKO as brace elements.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 CL  1T1  ki i2 i 1 Nf    i2 cos 2  i i 1 Nd Where  is the inclination angle of the damper. A third approach was proposed by modifying the previous equation and assuming a damping coefficient distribution proportional to the first mode of vibration. Evd   i 1 Nd 2 2 ( i CL ) i2 cos 2  i T1 N 1 f Ees   ki i2 2 i 1 1  Evd 4 Ees Nf CL  1T1  ki i2 i 1    i3 cos 2  i i 1 Nd For the complete design protocol used the different approaches.

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. Having calculated the damping constants to be used in the model for the three approaches we proceeded to model the dampers. 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. This procedure was followed in the first approach only. approach) Time (s) Figure 81: Plot showing comparison among viscous damping and Rayleigh damping 41 . 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. In Figure 81 history displacements for the viscous damping using the different methods were plotted in conjunction with the Rayleigh damping. proving a good estimate of the damping coefficient and validating the behavior of the dampers. Displacement time history . A good correlation was found among the plots.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 The spring constants were determined as shown in Table 27 and the trial period needed to correct the stiffness was computed. Then the damping constants were assigned to these damper elements. but have different degrees of freedom.Motion 02 125 100 Top floor displacement (mm) 75 50 25 0 -25 -50 -75 -100 -125 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Rayleigh Damping.35% Viscous Dampers (Stiffness proportion approach) Viscous Dampers (Drift proportion approach) Viscous Dampers (Constant coeff. For the first approach were the damping constants varies along the height of the building multiple properties were defined. The phantom nodes were located at the same coordinates than the existing nodes.

See Table 26 for reference. force plot for the damper element under validation.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 4 Validation of the Damper element The dashpot element used in RUAMOKO was verified to ensure proper damping. see Figure 83. From this graph and following equations present in Figure 84 the values of K and C were calculated. 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. Lateral diplacement 80 60 40 Displacement (mm) 20 0 -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. 42 . A simplified model was proposed for the verification as seen in the figure below. The system was forced in motion by imposing a sinusoidal acceleration excitation of ü(t) = 3200(sin8t). Figure 82: Model View The displacement time history for the node with attached mass was plotted.

Therefore the DAMPER elements are proved to adequately respond and were implemented in the RUAMOKO model.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 84: Spring and viscous damper forces Spring and viscous damping force 8000 6000 3196 4000 79.9 kN-s/mm 43 .825. Table 26: Validation of damper element Assumed K=64 kN/mm C= 5 kN-s/mm Obtained K=63. -5074 -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.3 -6000 -8000 -80 -79. Damping coefficients were calculated in the preliminary design for the different approaches.9 kN/mm C=4.808. 5182.5 Force (kN) 2000 0 -2000 -4000 -3183.

46g 0.75 0. typically this level of damping is the maximum that can be achieved economically with currently available viscous dampers (Christopoulos and Filiatrault. 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). caps damping at 35%.6 2 2. it was determined that target damping ratios of 10%. 2 1. 2006).STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 5 Preliminary design The first step in the design process of the viscous dampers is to determine the target damping (ζ1) of the building for a desired performance level.5 1.5 0.2 LA2 Response Spectra 5% 10% 20% 30% 35% 0. 20% and 30% provided logical target damping ratios for the design iterations to determine the optimal design of the linear viscous dampers.28g 0.25 0 0 0.4 0. Previous research.25 1 0.2 1.4 2.27g Period Figure 86: Spectra accelerations for LA2 under different damping ratios 44 .75 Response Aceleration (g) 1. Using these spectra as a tool.8 1.8 3.

2 1.6 0.3 0.25g 2.6 2 0.39g LA7 Response Spectra 5% 10% 20% 30% 35% 0.4 0.2 1.8 1.8 3.25 1 0.9 0.26g 0.4 0.5 1.2 Period Figure 87: Spectra accelerations for LA7 under different damping ratios 2 1.8 1.05 TEAM 4 Response Acceleration (g) 0.8 3.59g 0.75 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 1.45 0.4 2.60g 0.75 Response Acceleration (g) 1.15 0 0 0.25 0 0 0.99g LA16 Response Spectra 5% 10% 20% 30% 35% 2.6 2 0.4 2.2 Period Figure 88: Spectra accelerations for LA16 under different damping ratios 45 .75 0.5 0.2 1.

4 2.6 2 2.4cm 9.2 1.1cm 0 0 0.2 Period Figure 89: Spectra displacements for LA2 under different damping ratios 80 70 Response displacement (cm) 60 50 40 30 20 10 LA7 Response Spectra 5% 10% 20% 30% 35% 16.8 3.8 1.4 0.2 Period Figure 90: Spectra displacements for LA7 under different damping ratios 46 .9cm 1.0cm 9.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 64 56 TEAM 4 Response displacement (cm) 48 40 32 24 16 8 LA2 Response Spectra 5% 10% 20% 30% 35% 19.4 0.0cm 8.2 9.4 2.3cm 0 0 0.6 2 2.8 3.8 1.

Table 27 shows a summary of the stiffness calculated for each floor and the braces stiffness calculated at each floor. Then the required fundamental period of the fictitiously braced structure is computed.2 Period Figure 91: Spectra displacements for LA16 under different damping ratios 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. Table 27: Summary of story stiffness 47 . For this purpose a pair of 1000kN forces was applied at opposite direction at each floor. For both calculations the stiffness highlighted in gray on Table 27 were used. we proceed to compute the inter-story drifts in order to compute the inter-story stiffness needed for all the approaches.0cm 20.6 2 2. T 1t arg et  T1 2   1 Having defined the target fundamental period.0cm 18.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 64 56 TEAM 4 Response displacement (cm) 48 40 32 24 16 8 0 0 LA16 Response Spectra 5% 10% 20% 30% 35% 41.4 2. 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.2 1.5cm 0.8 1.2 on this chapter shows MathCAD worksheets used to calculate the damping coefficients using both the stiffness and the energy approach.1 and section 5.8 3.4 0. Section 5.

1 Stiffness proportional approach (Fundamental period of un-braced structure) (Assumed damping ratio) T1 2 1  1 T1  1. from Ruamoko)  T1target 2  T1tr2   1  T1target 2  T12     57   68    98  kN kfinal     110  mm  131     76  CL  kfinal T1 2  (Final spring constants) (Damping coefficient of each viscous damper)  12   14    20 kN s CL      23  mm  27     16  48 .04  T1tr  0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 5.67     123.30 T1target  (Target fundamental period of the structured braced with the fictitious springs) T1target  1.950 s (Fictitious spring constants at proposed locations.47 mm  164.25  kN ko   137.72   85.031s  70.2     95.304 s 1  0. from Ruamoko and proportional to drifts) kfinal  ko (Trial value of the fundamental period of the fictitious braced structure obtained with first trial spring constants.

09   0.65    170.304 s 1  0.2 Constant damping approach (Number of dampers) (Number of floors) (Fundamental period of umbraced structure) (Assumed damping ratio) Nd  6 Nf  6 T1  1.18     0.44  0.806     0.27  1  T1 CL  2   Nd (Fictitious spring constants at proposed locations.806   0.43    105.95   118.983   0.806     0.628s  kN mm 49 .15     0.18   0.71  kN k   190.806     0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 5. from Ruamoko and proportional to drifts) (Inclination angle of the dampers) (Inter-story drift at the storey where the damper is located ) i1  Nf k   2  i  i  i1 2 2  i cos  i    CL  22.30  97.14     0.40 mm  227.806   0.

806   0.65    170.40 mm  227.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 5.6  s  kN CLfm   21.806   0.18   0.27  (Inclination angle of the damper is defined on the left and Inter-story drift at the storey where the damper is located is defined on the right) i1  Nf k   2  i  i  i1 3 2  i cos  i    CL  117.806     0.983  1  T1 CL  2   Nd (Fictitious spring constants at proposed locations.3 First mode proportional damping (Number of dampers) (Number of floors) (Fundamental period of umbraced structure) (Assumed damping ratio) Nd  6 Nf  6 T1  1.44  0.95   118.7  50 .2     31.71  kN k   190.5     17.6   16.2  mm  21.43    105.15     0.806     0.09   0. from Ruamoko and proportional to drifts)  0.806     0.556s  kN mm CLfm CL   10.30  97.18     0.304 s 1  0.14     0.

Table 28: Stiffness proportional Approach damping coefficients Table 29: Constant Damping Approach damping coefficients Table 30: First Mode proportional Approach damping coefficients 51 . The MathCAD worksheet shown in section 5 in this chapter was used for different target damping ratios.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 6 Intermediate design 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%. 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.

Figure 92: Optimum damping comparison (Stiffness Approach) Figure 93: Optimum damping comparison (Constant damping Approach) 52 .STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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.

Therefore this method is chosen for the optimum design. 53 .STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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.

07 1.6E+6 3E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 2.1 Energy Balance For all the ground motions the energy absorbed by the viscous dampers is almost the same as the input energy.4E+6 1. Time History Energy Components LA .) Figure 96: Energy Components LA-02. Time History Energy Components LA . 7.2E+6 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 6E+5 0 Time (sec.02 3.2E+6 1E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 8E+5 6E+5 4E+5 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2E+5 0 Time (sec.) Figure 97: Energy Components LA-07.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 7 Final Design Third method design was chosen with 30% damping ratio and the response parameters under the three ground motions are presented below. 54 .8E+6 1.

Figure 99: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA-02. 55 .) Figure 98: Energy Components LA-16 7.16 3E+6 2.2 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 .8E+6 1.4E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 1.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Time History Energy Components LA .2E+6 6E+5 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 Time (sec.

0043 78.84E-05 Ductility Lp(Int) μ 1.98E-05 3.84E-05 3. Hinge 1 2 3 4 5 6 Member 22 23 56 57 58 59 Prop.173 1.210 1.8176 0. 12 12 22 23 22 23 Type Column Column Beam Beam Beam Beam Lp (mm) 328 328 678 678 678 678 ϕp 7.636 1.0031 53.661 0.0032 80.5636 0.0031 Figure 100: Distribution of plastic hinges for LA-07 and LA16.038 0.192 θp 38.98E-05 7. Table 32: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-07 ground motion Hinge 1 Member 57 Prop.84E-05 Ductility Lp(Int) μ 1.936 0.155 1.84E-05 3.0033 82.262 1.474 0.0030 85.84E-05 3. 23 Type Beam Lp (mm) 678 ϕp 3.309 0.061 θp 71.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 31: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-02 ground motion.0028 56 .

0060 0.7 125.24E-05 4.24E-05 4.9 156.097 113.049 1.0066 0.681 1.98E-05 7.0057 209.653 2.3 46. 11 3 3 1 2 4 4 2 5 7 7 5 6 8 8 6 9 11 11 9 10 12 12 10 Type Column Column Column Column Column Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Lp (mm) 696 328 328 328 328 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 ϕp 3.9 82.009 2.0069 0.0061 0.84E-05 3.0070 0.84E-05 3.0100 0.5 172.0056 0.196 2.0083 0.98E-05 7.0037 0.55 3.953 2.7557E-06 7.0052 0.0035 0.2 136.7 θp 0.2 189.98E-05 7.303 2.9 216.0060 0.158 1.332 2.0037 0.193 3.647 2.0081 57 .491 2.84E-05 3.289 2.9766 0.24E-05 4.2 91.24E-05 4.1 148.8 81.801 2.117 1.424 3.24E-05 4.417 1.9 126.84E-05 3.0069 0.2 200.84E-05 3.7 179.13 2.9 155.84E-05 3.84E-05 3.0035 0.628 1.326 2.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 33: Maximum plastic rotations for LA-16 ground motion Hinge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Member 19 21 22 23 24 38 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Prop.0039 0.84E-05 3.9 46.2 158.0004 0.2 87.24E-05 4.5 68.1 179.0077 0.98E-05 4.8 131.24E-05 3.0073 0.84E-05 3.84E-05 3.0029 0.84E-05 3.84E-05 Ductility Lp(Int) μ 1.345 2.0056 0.0054 0.817 2.7 132.

00142 (mm) 3rd floor residual 0.5 (mm) 1st floor residual 2.9 (mm) 1st floor peak -27 (mm) 30 40 50 2nd floor residual -0.Motion 02 35 30 25 20 1st floor peak 30.3 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Inter-Storey drift (mm) 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 0 10 20 30 40 Roof peak -6.00132 (mm) 2nd floor residual 0.6 (mm) 5th floor peak -11.Motion 07 20 15 10 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Inter .0108 (mm) 5th floor residual 0. 58 .Time history . Inter-Storey drift .000901 (mm) 3rd floor residual -0.1 (mm) 3rd floor peak -16.81 (mm) Roof residual 0.5 (mm) 2nd floor peak -19.876 (mm) 60 70 80 90 100 Time (s) Figure 102: Inter-story drift time history motion La-07.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 7.3 Peak and Residual Inter-Story Drifts Inter-Storey drift .1 (mm) 3rd floor peak -18.6 (mm) 2nd floor peak -17.0394 (mm) Roof residual -0.00111 (mm) 4th floor residual 0.53 (mm) 5th floor peak -9.Time History .0339 (mm) 50 60 70 80 90 Time (s) Figure 101: Inter-story drift time history motion La-02.67 (mm) 4th floor peak -13.Storey drift (mm) 5th floor residual -0.000684 (mm) 4th floor residual -0.00162 (mm) 1st floor residual -0.00891 (mm) 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 0 10 20 Roof peak -4.8 (mm) 4th floor peak -15.

6 (mm) Inter . Struc. LA-16 Orig. LA-16 Retrof. LA-07 Retrof. Struc.2 (mm) Roof 1st floor residual 11.Storey drift (mm) Time (s) Figure 103: Inter-story drift time history motion La-16 Peak Inter-storey Drifts 25 Comparison of peak inter-storey drifts 25 20 20 Height (m. 07 and 16 Figure 105: Comparison of peak inter-story drifts 59 . Struc.6 (mm) 30 20 10 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 -50 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Roof peak 9.4 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 3rd floor residual 10.3 (mm) 4th floor 5th floor 2nd floor residual 12.8 (mm) 2nd floor peak 38. Struc. LA-07 Retrof.6 (mm) Roof residual 0.) 0 -150 -50 50 150 Displacement (mm. Struc.Motion 16 60 50 40 1st floor peak 58.) Figure 104: Peak inter-story drifts for LA-02.) 15 Height (m.884 (mm) 5th floor peak 19. Struc.) 10 Inter Storey Drifts LA-02 Retrof. 2. 5 5 0 0 50 100 150 Displacement (mm.5% Drift (LS) 0. LA-16 Retrof.2 (mm) 4th floor peak 26. LA-07 Orig.143 (mm) 5th floor residual 0. LA-02 Orig. Struc.Time History . Struc.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Inter-Storey drift .7% Drift (IO) 15 10 Inter Storey Drifts LA-02 Retrof.71 (mm) 4th floor residual 4. Struc.8 (mm) 3rd floor peak 35.

8 Roof peak 0.6 Total Acceleration (g) 0. Struc.Motion 02 0. LA-07 Retrof. 60 .385 4th floor peak 0. 7.2 -0. 1% Drift (LS) 15 10 5 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts LA-02 Orig. Struc. Struc.4 0.468 2nd floor peak 0. Struc. LA-07 Orig. Struc. Struc. Acceleration History . LA-16 Retrof.35 3rd floor peak 0. Struc.4 Accelerations Figure 107: Comparison of residual inter-story drifts. LA-16 Orig.4 -0.2 0 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof -0.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (s) Figure 108: Acceleration history of motion LA-02. 5 0 0 15 30 45 60 Displacement (mm) 0 -60 -30 0 30 60 Displacement (mm) Figure 106: Residual inter-story drifts for LA02. Struc.47 5th floor peak 0. LA-07 Retrof. 07 and 16. LA-16 Retrof.64 1st floor peak 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts 25 Comparison of residual inter-storey drifts 25 20 20 15 Height (m) Height (m) 10 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts LA-02 Retrof. Struc.343 0. LA-02 Retrof.

Motion 07 0.2 -0.4 -0.05 -0.1 -0.515 4th floor peak -0.491 1st floor peak -0.25 0.7 0 5 10 15 20 25 2nd floor peak -0.264 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Time (s) Figure 109: Acceleration history of motion LA-07.2 -0.Motion 16 0.324 5th floor peak 0.564 5th floor peak -0.503 3rd floor peak -0.1 0.3 -0.2 Roof peak 0.6 -0.5 -0.15 0.35 0. Acceleration History .3 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Total Acceleration (g) 0.2 0.673 30 Time (s) Figure 110: Acceleration history of motion LA-16.243 2nd floor peak 0.05 0 -0.3 0.295 4th floor peak 0.25 -0.62 Roof peak -0.26 3rd floor peak 0.5 0.4 0.3 0 10 20 30 1st floor peak -0. 61 .15 -0.6 0.1 -0.1 0 -0.238 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Total Acceleration (g) 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Acceleration History .

36 ∆ (%) 0. Table 34: Performance Indices for structure retrofitted with viscous dampers compared to existing building performance.71 4. Summary of results are presented Table 34. Struc.70 ∆ (%) 0.80 1.49  μ 1. Significant ductility reduction is achieved when implementing viscous dampers.83 8.72 0. LA-16 Orig. LA-02 Retrof.5 1 Acceleration (g) Figure 111: Comparison of total peak accelerations.69 PI 46% 60% 36% PI 76% 88% 65% 62 .52 2.75 ∆ (%) 1.05 ∆ (%) 0.41 8.31 a(g) 0.58 0.5 0 0. Ground Motion LA-02 LA-07 LA-16 Ground Motion LA-02 LA-07 LA-16  μ 5.49 μ 1. LA-07 Orig. We can also notice Peak drift were reduced and overall the acceleration are reduced for all the motions. Struc. Struc.63 0.68 0.61 0.54 0.00 3. LA-07 Retrof. Struc. The performance of the structure improved from 36% to 65%.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Comparison of total peak accelerations 25 20 Height (m) 15 10 Peak Acceleration LA-02 Orig.50 4.01 0.01 μ 5.47 1.04 0. Struc.32 0. 5 0 -1 -0. LA-16 Retrof.95 0.00 3.79 a(g) 0.19 1. Struc.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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 .

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. 64 . a laminated rubber bearing and a lead core as seen in Figure 114. These isolation elements are comprised of two distinct components.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 CHAPTER 6 . 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. For this purpose. For modeling purposes.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. 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. The isolators will be installed between this link-frame and the top surface of the mat.

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.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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 second component of a lead-rubber bearing isolator is the lead core plug. The lead core element is introduced to compensate for this by providing an element to increase damping as well as to dissipate hysteretic energy. Figure 115: Lead-Rubber Bi-Linear Model 65 . The bi-linear hysteretic model is shown in Figure 115. The stiffness of the laminated rubber bearing is low. providing little damping by itself and as a result is susceptible to large lateral displacements. Consequently. the objective of the use of a base isolation system is to provide a shift of the structure’s 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. To model the Lead-rubber bearings in our RUAMOKO model we used a non-linear spring with a bi-linear hysteretic model.

 Overlap factor was fixed to 0.8(1 A' ) Ar  The thickness of the rubber was computed based on the following recommendation:    tr   Db 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 . k2 and Fy. 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. a fixed node was introduced at the ground level.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 If the mechanical properties based on experimental tests are not known. and Fy is the yield force at which the lead core starts to yield. Where k1 is the combined elastic stiffness of the laminated rubber and the lead core assemblage. A non-linear spring element was connected to the base node of one of the exterior bay columns.6.6 Ar  The diameter of the bearing was fixed based on the following recommendation: Db  xb 0.  A'  0. The preliminary approach was used to determine the bi-linear properties using a MathCAD worksheet developed linking the assumptions listed below. Next. The determination of the hysteretic model of the isolators is an iterative approach. The horizontal degrees of freedom at the base of all the column nodes at the ground level were released. The three parameters that define the bi-linear model are k1. k2 is the post-yield stiffness equal to the stiffness of only the laminated rubber. For modeling of the base isolators in RUAMOKO. the determination of the mechanical properties requires an iterative approach for the preliminary bearing design.

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. Having the equivalent stiffness we were able to calculate the equivalent period of the system and the equivalent damping as well.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 tr  2ts  The number of isolator was fixed to 6 to ensure enough redundancy. xb  S D 67 . 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. a spectral displacement corresponding to the equivalent period of the system was obtained. 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. 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. Then for the most critical spectral displacement spectrum (LA7). Fy   pyAp (1  GrAr ) 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. 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). k2  GrAr 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.

583 mm   tr  20 mm A1  OverlapFactor  Ar  416387 mm (Overlap area) (Maximum allowable vertical load) (Number of isolators) (Rounded number of isolators) Wmax  A1 Gr S w  8994 kN nisolators    BldgWtTotal Wmax    3.8( 1  OverlapFactor )  (Diameter of the rubber bearing) (Rounded rubber bearing) Dbearing  940 mm Ar     Dbearing  2 2     693978mm  2 (Rubber cross area) (Rubber thickness per layer) (Rounded rubber thickness) 2 tr    Dbearing 4 S    19.441   nisolators  6 68 .5 w  0. A1/A) (Shape factor for individual bearings) (Total Weight of structure) (Short-term failure strain of the rubber) (Allowable shear strain under gravity load xb Gr  1 MPa Gp  150 MPa kr  2000 MPa py  10 MPa xb  300 mm OverlapFactor  0.6 S  12  BldgWtTotal  30950kN v  4.5 mm  0.8 Dbearing       937.4 v  1.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 2 Preliminary Design (Rubber Shear Modulus) (Lead shear Modulus) (Rubber compression modulus) (Lead Shear Yield Strength) (Maximum seismic displacement of lead-rubber bearings) (Maximum overlap factor for individual bearings.

048  kN mm Tk1  nisolators  k1 2 nisolators  Fy 2 Fy TFy   1177.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 nlayers  20 hr  nlayers  tr  400 mm Dplug    Dbearing 3 (Number of rubber layers) (Total rubber height) (Lead plug diameter.132 (Equivalent damping of the system) 69 .735 k1  10 k2  17.626kN   Gp Ap  Gr Ar  52.67s (Equivalent period of the system) dy   22.63 mm beff  2 TFy ( xb  dy )   keff xb 2  0. taken between 1/3 and 1/6 of Dbearing) (Rounded lead plug diameter) 2 2    313.477 kN mm teff  2   Fy k1 BldgWtTotal keff g  2.877kN  keff     xb  k2  1   Fy  k1 xb   nisolators  keff  17.3494  (Lead rubber approximation of the lateral elastic stiffness) (Yield force of the bearing) (Total elastic stiffness of the system) (Total yield force of the system) (Equivalent Stiffness of the system) Fy  py  Ap   1      392.333mm    Dplug  315 mm Ap      Dplug  3    34636 mm  kN mm kN mm (Area of the lead plug) (Lead rubber Post-yield stiffness) k2  Gr Ar hr  1.

2% 300mm 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 k1 k2 Fy Value 52 kN/mm 5. limit and consequently the preliminary design was satisfied.2 kN/mm 1178 kN Having defined the Bi-linear Rubber-Lead parameters to be used for the equivalent non-linear spring element in RUAMOKO. 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.5 1 1.5 2 2. 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.5 3 3. These displacements were below the 300mm. 70 . time history analyses were performed for the three design ground motions.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT 640 560 TEAM 4 Spectral Displacement (mm) 480 400 320 240 160 80 0 0 0. As expected from the spectral displacements plots the motion LA7 governed the design since it presented the higher displacements.5 4 LA7 13.

Two values corresponding to the upper and lower bound ok k1 and one intermediate point ok k1. 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. 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. Since for our design Fy is primarily conditioned to the area of the plug. Db 2 Db  hr  3 3 Then for each value of k1 the optimum Fy was studied.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 3 Intermediate design Same assumptions that were used in the preliminary design will be followed. 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. Figure 118 and Figure 119 shows the performance indices obtained for each run. 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. 71 . Figure 117. The lower and upper bound were obtained by assuming different hr values contained in the following range boundaries as previously stated. Three values of k1 will be considered for the analyses.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 117: Optimum Fy study for k1=30kN/mm Figure 118: Optimum Fy study for k1=45kN/mm 72 .

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Figure 119: Optimum Fy study for k1=65kN/mm 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. Figure 120: Optimum Design 73 . This optimum configuration reached a performance index of 81%.

4kN  nisolators    BldgWtTotal Wmax    3.6 S  13 BldgWtTotal  30950kN v  4.077 mm   tr  20 mm A1  OverlapFactor  Ar  416387 mm (Overlap area) (Maximum allowable vertical load) (Number of isolators) (Rounded number of isolators) (Number of rubber layers) 74 Wmax  A1 Gr S w  9743.5 mm  0.5 w  0. Gr  1 MPa Gp  150 MPa kr  2000 MPa py  10 MPa xb  300 mm OverlapFactor  0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 MathCAD calculations to obtain the optimum parameters just presented are shown below.8 Dbearing    (Rubber Shear Modulus) (Lead shear Modulus) (Rubber compression modulus) (Lead Shear Yield Strength) (Maximum seismic displacement of lead-rubber bearings) (Maximum overlap factor for individual bearings.8( 1  OverlapFactor )  (Diameter of the rubber bearing) (Rounded rubber bearing) Dbearing  940 mm Ar     Dbearing  2 2     693978mm  2 (Rubber cross area) (Rubber thickness per layer) (Rounded rubber thickness) 2 tr    Dbearing 4 S    18. A1/A) (Shape factor for individual bearings) (Total Weight of structure) (Short-term failure strain of the rubber) (Allowable shear strain under gravity load) xb    937.4 v  1.176   nisolators  6 nlayers  34 .

Table 37: Summary of Design Parameters Parameter Diameter of the bearing Diameter of the plug Rubber thickness / number of layers Shape factor Number of isolators Value 940 mm 160 mm 20 mm / 34 13 6 75 .667mm  (Lead plug diameter.2056 Fy  py  Ap   1      249.021  k1  10 k2  10. taken with 1/3 and 1/6 of Dbearing) (Rounded lead plug diameter) Dplug  161 mm Ap      Dplug  2 2    20358 mm  kN mm kN mm 2 (Area of the lead plug) (Lead rubber Post-yield stiffness) (Lead rubber approximation of the lateral elastic stiffness) k2  Gr Ar hr  1.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 hr  nlayers  tr  680 mm (Total rubber height) Dplug     Dbearing  6    156.6 (Total elastic stiffness of the system) (Total yield force of the system) TFy   750 kN A summary of the optimum design is shown in Table 37.848kN   Gp Ap  Gr Ar kN mm (Yield force of the bearing) Tk1  nisolators  k1 2 nisolators  Fy 2  30.

Time History Energy Components LA .5E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 1.) Figure 121: Energy components time history for LA-02.07 2.5E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 1.2E+6 9E+5 6E+5 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 3E+5 0 Time (sec. This will reduce significantly the demand on the structure.8E+6 1.) Figure 122: Energy components time history for LA-07.8E+6 1. 76 . Time History Energy Components LA . The strain energy is mostly due to the yielding of the plug.02 1.2E+6 9E+5 6E+5 3E+5 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 Time (sec.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 4 Final Design We can see form the energy plots that in overall the input energy was reduced by half.1E+6 1.

5E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 1. 77 .8E+6 1. 07 and 16. No hinges were reported on the RUAMOKO output for the optimum base isolation design Figure 124: Abscense of plastic hinges for LA-02.16 1.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Time History Energy Components LA .2E+6 9E+5 6E+5 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3E+5 0 Time (sec.) Figure 123: Energy components time history for LA-16.

9 (mm) 5th floor peak -16.4 (mm) 4th floor peak -13.Time history .0154 (mm) 3rd floor residual -0.00949 (mm) 5th floor residual -0.6 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Inter-Storey drift (mm) 6 3 0 -3 -6 -9 -12 -15 -18 0 Roof peak -12.0209 (mm) 2nd floor residual -0.4 (mm) 10 20 30 40 1st floor residual -0.7 (mm) 1st floor peak -13.0226 (mm) 4th floor residual -0.1 (mm) 3rd floor peak -12.Motion 02 180 150 120 Inter-Storey drift (mm) 90 60 30 0 -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-02.0349 (mm) Roof residual -0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Inter-Storey drift . Inter-Storey drift .0177 (mm) 50 60 70 80 90 Time (s) Figure 125: : Interstory drift time history for LA-02.Motion 02 15 12 9 2nd floor peak -10.Time history . 78 .

4 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof 2nd floor residual -0.1 (mm) 12.Motion 07 200 150 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Inter-Storey drift (mm) Time (s) Figure 128: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA-07.5 10 5th floor peak 13.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Inter-Storey drift .Time History .0473 (mm) Inter .5 5 2.Motion 07 15 1st floor peak 14.5 -15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Roof peak 10.5 0 -2.0209 (mm) 4th floor residual -0. Inter-Storey drift .Time history .0283 (mm) 90 100 Time (s) Figure 127: Interstory drift time history for LA-07.6 (mm) 4th floor peak 12 (mm) 3rd floor peak 11.1 (mm) 2nd floor peak 9.Storey drift (mm) 7.0306 (mm) 1st floor residual -0. 79 .0239 (mm) 3rd floor residual -0.5 -10 -12.5 -5 -7.0128 (mm) 5th floor residual -0.72 (mm) Roof residual -0.

9 (mm) 1st floor peak -16.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Inter-Storey drift .078 (mm) Roof residual -0.Time History .5 (mm) 3rd floor peak -11.Motion 16 18 15 12 5th floor peak 15.0676 (mm) 4th floor residual -0.2 (mm) 2nd floor residual -0.Motion 16 250 200 150 Inter-Storey drift (mm) 100 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Time (s) Figure 130: Displacement time history for Bearings in Base isolation system LA-16.0929 (mm) 1st floor residual -0.Time history .Storey drift (mm) 9 6 3 0 -3 -6 -9 -12 -15 -18 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 2nd floor peak -11.101 (mm) 3rd floor residual -0. Inter-Storey drift .157 (mm) 5th floor residual -0.1 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Inter . 80 .7 (mm) 4th floor peak 13 (mm) Roof peak 12.0412 (mm) 21 24 27 30 Time (s) Figure 129: Interstory drift time history for LA-16.

Struc. LA-07 Retrof. Struc. 2. LA-16 Retrof. Struc. LA-16 Retrof. Struc. Struc. Struc. LA-16 Retrof. 81 . LA-07 Orig. Figure 134: Comparison of residual inter-storey drifts. LA-16 Retrof. Struc. Struc. Struc. 5 5 0 0 15 30 45 60 Displacement (mm) 0 -60 -30 0 30 60 Displacement (mm) Figure 133: Residual Inter-storey drifts for Retrofitted structure. Struc.7% Drift (IO) 15 10 Inter Storey Drifts LA-02 Orig. 15 10 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts LA-02 Orig.) 15 Height (m. LA-07 Retrof. Struc. Struc. Residual Inter-Storey Drifts 25 Comparison of residual inter-storey drifts 25 20 20 15 Height (m) Height (m) 10 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts 1% Drift (LS) LA-02 Retrof. LA-07 Retrof. 5 5 0 0 50 100 150 Displacement (mm.) Figure 131: Peak Inter-storey drifts for Retrofitted structure. Struc.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Peak Inter-storey Drifts 25 Comparison of peak inter-storey drifts 25 20 20 Height (m. LA-16 Orig. Struc. Struc. LA-07 Retrof. LA-07 Orig. LA-02 Retrof. Struc.) 0 -150 -50 50 150 Displacement (mm. Struc. LA-16 Orig.) 10 Inter Storey Drifts LA-02 Retrof. LA-02 Retrof.5% Drift (LS) 0. Figure 132: Comparison of Peak inter-storey drifts. Struc.

2 -0.35 0.263 2nd floor peak 0.172 4th floor peak 0.35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 5th floor peak -0.25 0.Motion 02 0.232 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Total Acceleration (g) Time (s) Figure 135: Acceleration time history for LA-02.3 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (s) Figure 136: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA-02.05 0 -0.45 Roof peak 0.15 -0. 82 .25 -0.25 -0.35 0.Motion 02 0.414 0.3 0.162 0.05 -0.15 0.264 3rd floor peak 0.2 Top bearing peak 0.05 -0.25 1st floor peak 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Acceleration History .1 -0.05 -0.15 0.1 0. Acceleration History .339 Total Acceleration (g) 0.15 -0.

Motion 07 0.1 -0.179 1st floor peak -0.159 2nd floor peak -0.172 5th floor peak -0.15 0.2 0.1 Total Acceleration (g) 0. Acceleration History .15 0.25 -0.25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Time (s) Figure 138: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA-07.05 -0.135 3rd floor peak -0.1 -0.Motion 07 0.2 0.217 -0.2 -0.2 -0. 83 .05 0 -0.1 Total Acceleration (g) 0.185 Roof peak -0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Acceleration History .05 -0.3 -0.15 -0.05 0 -0.326 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Time (s) Figure 137: Acceleration time history for LA-07.35 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 4th floor peak -0.15 Top bearing peak -0.

6 -0.25 -0.15 -0.1 -0.211 4th floor peak -0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Acceleration History .4 0.25 0.Motion 16 0.181 3rd floor peak -0.2 Top bearing peak -0.3 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 Time (s) Figure 140: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation LA-16.05 0 -0.234 Roof peak -0.4 -0.1 0 -0.2 -0.2 0.3 -0.3 Total Acceleration (g) 0.423 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof 10 15 20 25 30 Time (s) Figure 139: Acceleration time history for LA-16.Motion 16 0.15 Total Acceleration (g) 0.7 0 5 2nd floor peak 0. 84 .1 0.2 0.185 1st floor peak -0.1 -0.6 0.5 0. Acceleration History .213 5th floor peak -0.284 -0.5 -0.05 -0.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Comparison of total peak accelerations 25 20 Height (m) 15 10 Peak Acceleration LA-02 Orig.41 0.00 0.00 <1. Struc. LA-16 Orig. The building performance increases from 36% to 81%.41 ∆ (%) 0.80 1.00 ∆ (%) 1.70 ∆ (%) 0.42 PI 46% 60% 36% PI 84% 81% 81% 85 . Struc.79 a(g) 0.41 8. LA-16 Retrof.50 4.5 0 0.71 4. LA-07 Retrof. LA-02 Retrof.00 <1. The building behaves in the elastic range.36 0. Table 38: Performance Indexes for structure retrofitted with base isolation compared with existing performance.5 1 Acceleration (g) Figure 141: Comparison of peak accelerations.33 0.00 a(g) 0.00 μ 5.36 ∆ (%) 0.00 <1. 5 0 -1 -0.49 μ <1. Existing LA-02 LA-07 LA-16 Retrofitted LA-02 LA-07 LA-16  μ 5. LA-07 Orig. and therefore the residual drifts in the superstructure were zero.95 0.43 0.49  μ <1.68 0. Struc. Struc.83 8.61 0.00 <1. Struc.72 0. Struc.00 0.52 2. there is no plastic hinging formation.

STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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 .

83 4.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.49 8.06 0.56 0.93 2.00 0.63 1.54 3.36 0.58 0.79 Structure retrofitted with Hysteretic Dampers 1.41 0.42 Existing Structure 9.04 0.39 4.05 0.00 0.61 8.00 0.44 0.86 0.33 1. N.70 0.06 0. 87 .97 0.743 10.36 0.  μ μ ∆ (%) ∆ (%) a g PI 46% 60% 36% 78% 87% 63% 76% 88% 65% 84% 81% 81% 20% 82% Existing Structure 5.69 Structure retrofitted with Base Isolation 1.01 0.46 0.05 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 CHAPTER 7 .489 The performance of all retrofit options compared against the performance levels in the PI scale is summarized in the next chart.52 0.54 0.32 3.F.41 2.00 0.33 1. Table 39: Summary of various retrofit options Ground Motion LA-02 LA-07 LA-16 LA-02 LA-07 LA-16 LA-02 LA-07 LA-16 LA-02 LA-07 LA-16 N.00 0.00 0.95 4. 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.71 5.47 0.88 1.61 1.75 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 3.72 0.00 0.913 Optimum Retrofitted Structure 1.19 1.68 0.9 3.F.58 0.43 0.44 0.49 2.19 1.00 1.00 0.60 Structure retrofitted with Viscous Dampers 1.31 0.68 0. In this table all the retrofit schemes are compared.50 1.41 1.54 1.

2.75 -1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Period Figure 143: Near fault ground motion horizontal component 88 . Rinaldi Receiving Station FF 1 0.89g at 2.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 40: Performance level category CP Existing Structure Hysteretic Damping Viscous Damping Base Isolation X (36%) X (63%) X (65%) X (81%) LS IO 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.5 km) during the 1994 Northridge earthquake (Moment Magnitude = 6. The ground motion has a PGA of 0.17 Jan 94. Northridge.25 0 -0. called NF13.75 Ground motion NF13 Response Aceleration (g) 0. This ground motion. has been derived from one horizontal component of the ground motion recorded at the Rinaldi station (distance = 7.25 -0.69 sec.7).5 0.04:31PST.1 Near-Fault Ground Motion The optimally retrofitted structure will be analyzed under a particular historically derived nearfault ground motion.5 -0.

M.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 2.8E+6 4.8E+6 1. The energy plots show a significant contribution of strain energy due to plastic hinge formation in the structure as seen in Figure 145.6E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 3E+6 2. 89 . Figure 145: Distribution of plastic hinges for Existing Structure.4E+6 1.2 Assessment of the existing structure under near fault ground motion As expected the structure experienced significant damage.Existing Structure Near Fault G. 4.2E+6 3.) Figure 144: Energy components time history for Near Fault Ground motion.2E+6 6E+5 0 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy Time (sec. Energy Components Time History .

005 0.3 496.009 0.0 611.013 0.76E-05 7.757 1.73 4. 11 3 3 1 2 4 4 2 5 7 7 5 6 8 8 6 9 11 11 9 10 12 12 10 13 14 15 14 15 16 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 Type Column Column Column Column Column Column Column Column Column Column Column Column Column Column Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Beam Lp (mm) 550 550 626 626 696 696 354 354 696 696 696 696 354 354 547 547 547 547 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 616 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 678 ϕp 4.84E-05 Ductility μ 1.37E-05 4.873 3.514 1.321 6.005 0.8 107.78E-05 4.24E-05 4.011 0.5 162.7 153.197 Lp(Int) 71.6 746.1 94.568 2.485 1.016 0.017 0.1 758.84E-05 3.0 336.74E-05 4.6 242.74E-05 4.24E-05 4.76E-05 7.297 1.84E-05 3.2 142.003 0.1 119.24E-05 4.5 99.327 6.024 0.485 10.013 0.24E-05 4.315 4.672 6.8 96.023 9.6 259.204 1.84E-05 3.023 6.013 0.84E-05 3.24E-05 4.019 0.629 7.043 2.028 0.016 0.025 0.1 57.4 452.028 0.011 0.4 91.004 0.004 0.263 2.87 4.4 256.5 651.003 0.0 135.006 0.84E-05 3.1 163.529 2.007 0.8 628.159 5.006 0.6 586.6 θp 0.84E-05 3.7 261.6 315.5 300.274 9.212 4.817 1.4 429.24E-05 4.012 0.918 6.0 269.8 176.154 9.501 4.8 623.9 3.76E-05 3.84E-05 3.2 660.023 0.3 69.006 0.2 309.749 2.743 8.005 0.24E-05 4.78E-05 4.0 458.025 0.376 5.012 0.7 174.4 469.007 0.605 9.011 0.018 0.24E-05 4.025 0.65 9.84E-05 3.24E-05 4.78E-05 4.37E-05 7.76E-05 3.0 417.759 7. Hinge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Member 6  7  14  15  18  19  21  21  22  22  23  23  24  24  32  33  34  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  Prop.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Table 41: Maximum plastic rotations for Near Fault ground motion in existing structure.024 90 .9 278.003 0.8 163.477 2.007 0.24E-05 4.37E-05 3.602 9.006 0.751 10.018 0.24E-05 3.78E-05 4.591 2.37E-05 7.17E-05 4.76E-05 3.539 2.84E-05 3.12 4.2 160.007 0.84E-05 3.24E-05 4.024 0.84E-05 3.021 0.184 1.010 0.76E-05 3.17E-05 3.

91 .8 (mm) 1st floor peak -183 (mm) -200 0 3 6 9 15 18 21 Time (s) Figure 146: Inter storey .M. 1 0.drifts time history for Near Fault ground motion.5 Total Acceleration (g) 0.75 -1 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 5th floor peak -0.75 0.582 Roof peak -0.88 (mm) Roof residual 3. 200 3rd floor peak 74.25 0 -0.5 -0.3 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof 12 5th floor residual 8.509 1st floor peak -0.3 (mm) 0 4th floor residual 17.492 4th floor peak -0.3 (mm) 2nd floor peak -97.2 (mm) 3rd floor residual 22.9 (mm) Roof peak 26.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Inter-Storey drift Time history .Existing Structure Near Fault G.913 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Time (s) Figure 147: Acceleration time history for Near Fault ground motion.3 (mm) 4th floor peak 50.Existing Structure Near Fault G.1 (mm) 1st floor residual 108 (mm) Inter-Storey drift (mm) 100 2nd floor residual 17.462 3rd floor peak -0.463 2nd floor peak -0. Acceleration Time History .29 (mm) -100 5th floor peak 34.25 -0.M.

) Figure 148: Energy components time history for Retrofitted structure. 3E+6 2.9 ∆ (%) 3. Ground Motion N.60% 2.F.743 μ 10. Energy Components Time History .2E+6 6E+5 Kinetic Energy Viscous Damping Strain Energy Total Energy Input Energy 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 Time (sec.33 ∆ (%) 1. M.  μ 9.3 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. 92 .97 a(g) 0.4E+6 Energy (kN-mm) 1.8E+6 1.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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.Retrofit with Bae Isolation Near Fault G.913 PI 19.

Retrofit with Base Isolation Near Fault G. 150 0 Inter-Storey drift (mm) -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.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Inter-Storey drift time history .21 (mm) Roof residual 0.drifts time history for retrofitted structure. 93 .735 (mm) 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof Time (s) Figure 149: Inter storey . 20 15 10 1st floor residual 2.81 (mm) 3rd floor residual 1.4 (mm) Inter-Storey drift (mm) 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 Roof peak -13. Displacement history .82 (mm) 2nd floor residual 1.M.Lead Rubbers Base Isolation Near Fault G.67 (mm) 4th floor residual 1.3 (mm) 4th floor peak -14.4 (mm) 2nd floor peak -16.M.5 (mm) 1st floor peak -25.3 (mm) 5th floor peak -17.8 (mm) 3rd floor peak -16.1 (mm) 5th floor residual 1.

25 -0.75 0.25 2nd floor peak -0.257 Roof peak -0.5 0 3 6 9 Time (s) Figure 151: Acceleration time history for retrofitted structure. 0.M.M.Retrofit with Base Isolation Near Fault G.231 1st floor peak -0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Acceleration Time History .35 0.198 0.05 -0.Lead Rubbers Base Isolation Near Fault G.15 Total Acceleration (g) 0.5 Total Acceleration (g) 3rd floor peak 0. 94 .5 5 7.265 4th floor peak 0.489 -0.15 -0.5 10 12. 0.25 5th floor peak 0.25 0.35 -0.5 15 17.5 Base Isolation peak -0.229 0 1st floor 2nd floor 3rd floor 4th floor 5th floor Roof 12 15 18 21 -0.436 Time (s) Figure 152: Acceleration time history for bearings in base isolation. Acceleration History .5 20 22.05 -0.45 0 2.

Base Isolation 10 10 5 5 0 -200 -100 0 100 200 0 -120 -60 0 60 120 Displacement (mm.) Height (m) 15 Inter Storey Drifts 2.5 0 0.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 Peak Inter-storey Drifts 25 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts 25 20 20 Height (m.) Displacement (mm) Figure 153: Comparison of peak inter-storey drifts.7% Drift (IO) Existing Structure Retrof. Peak Accelerations 25 20 Height (m) 15 Peak Acceleration Existing Structure Retrof. Figure 154: Comparison of residual inter-storey drifts.5% Drift (LS) 0.5 1 Acceleration (g) Figure 155: Comparison of peak accelerations. Base Islation 10 5 0 -1 -0. 95 . Base isolation 15 Residual Inter-Storey Drifts 1% Drift (LS) Existing Structure Retrof.

F.75% and overall reduction of all the parameters shown in Table 43.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 The retrofitted structure performed well under the near-fault effect.97 a(g) 0. Table 43: Performance of existing and retrofitted structure for the near fault ground motion Existing N.489 PI 81. 96 . 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. The increase in performance compared to the original structure is shown in Figure 156.F.743 μ 10. Other than that the super structure performs well in the elastic range with a performance index of 81.60% Retrofitted N.9 ∆ (%) 3.05 a(g) 0.00 ∆ (%) 0.33 ∆ (%) 1.913 PI 19.75% 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.  μ <1. Nonetheless the allowable bearing displacement was exceeded by 180 mm.  μ 9.46 ∆ (%) 0.00 μ <1.

Finally another VBA Script was coded to set all the Performance Indexes determined in each of the runs in one graph. it chooses the necessary values from these tables to compute the Performance Index for that run. Moreover in order to assess the overall performance of the set of runs done.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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. Then. a VBA Script was coded to do this task. 97 . ductility in beam and columns. This code reads RUAMOKO output files and synthesizes the information into a single Excel file per run. drifts. it extracts the corresponding values to generate comparison graphs for acceleration.

The stiffener in the small HSS is introduced to enable the composite behavior of the two HSS if there is bending. There is no direct welding between the two HSS sections.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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.       Figure 157: Details for the composite section 98 . The inside HSS with the stiffeners is slided into the bigger section and the cover plate is applied and welded to both HSS sections.

99 . (3) Roberts Cervantes Gonzalo and (4) Rosas Espinoza Jorge. It is recommended to justify the use of three performance indexes. the members of Team #4.First Meeting" On April 15. - Shall you have questions regarding the above suggestions/recommendations. Peer Review Panel Members Maria Koliou Maikol Del Carpio Ramos Response: An activation load study was carried out and presented for the second review. (2) Gonzalez Sanchez Efrain. 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. It is suggested to combine the three performance indexes in one to better identify the performance level of the structure. namely. 2011. do not hesitate to contact us. Three indices were combined in one single index as suggested and presented in the second review. (1) Nguyen Nam Hoai. met with the Peer Review Panel to discuss the progress of the CIE 626 class project.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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 . It is recommended to investigate different activation load distributions of along the height of the building. Three different performance indexes were presented. Team #4 presented the progress of phase 4 (hysteretic dampers retrofit) of the project. preliminary case studies were presented assuming a uniform activation load distribution.

Team #4 presented results of phase 4 (hysteretic dampers). Envelopes of responses of the three ground motions should be used to compare different retrofit cases. and phase 6 (base isolation) of the project. the members of Team #4. please do not hesitate to contact us. 2011.e. - Shall you have questions regarding the above suggestions/recommendations.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 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. 100 . 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. Peer Review Panel Members Maria Koliou Maikol Del Carpio Ramos Response: Plots include the inter-story drift ratios (%) as well as the absolute value. met with the Peer Review Panel to discuss the progress of the CIE 626 class project.. (1) Nguyen Nam Hoai. (2) Gonzalez Sanchez Efrain. phase 5 (viscous dampers). inter-story drift ratios (%). namely. Performance indices were calculated for each ground motion therefore they were presented separately. peak accelerations (g). etc). (3) Roberts Cervantes Gonzalo and (4) Rosas Espinoza Jorge.

IUSS Press. DC 101 . Federal Emergency Management Agency – ASCE (1997) “FEMA 274 Commentary on the NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings” Washington.NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings” Washington.. Italy.L. A. M. DC. Federal Emergency Management Agency – ASCE (1997) “FEMA 273 . Romero. p913-925. (2003) “An Optimum Retrofit Strategy for Moment Resisting Frames with Nonlinear Viscous Dampers for Seismic Applications” Engineering Structures 25.STRUCTURAL CONTROL PROJECT TEAM 4 REFERENCES Christopoulos C. M. and Martinez-Rodrigo. and Filiatrault. (2006) “ Principles of Passive Supplemental Damping and Seismic Isolation”.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful