Proceedings of the Ninth Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering Building an Earthquake-Resilient Society 14-16 April, 2011, Auckland, New

Zealand

Response of Out-of-Plumb Structures in Earthquake
T. Masuno, G.A. MacRae & V.K. Sadashiva
Department of Civil and Natural Resources Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.

A. Wada
Department of Architectural Engineering, Structural Engineering Research Centre, Suzukakedai Campus, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan.

ABSTRACT: No building is built perfectly plumb. The out-of-plumb may not just result from construction influences, but it may also occur as a result of permanent displacements after an earthquake. While there are methods to account for out-of-plumb for non-seismic design, such methods do not exist for seismic design, as the effect of different levels of out-of-plumb has not been quantified. It is desirable to know how a new building with a specified out-of-plumb is likely to behave in a earthquake, and how one which is out-of-plumb as a result of a previous earthquake may perform in an aftershock. In this research, the effect of building out-of-plumb is quantified. Simple models of structures with different amounts of out-of-plumb are made. These are designed with different levels of ductility and with different distributions of strength/stiffness over their height. Steel structures with elastic-perfectly plastic hysteresis loops are considered as these are considered to be most susceptible to large displacements. The structures are then subject to a suite of earthquake records using inelastic dynamic time history analysis to quantify the effect of out-of-plumb. Records from both directions are considered. Relationships between out of displacement and increase in peak and permanent displacement response are developed, and recommendations are made for estimation of response due to different out-of-plumb limits. 1 INTRODUCTION Traditional methods for the analysis of multi-storey structures in non-seismic zones are based on the use of elastic analysis. Modifications to the results obtained to account for many effects, such as in– plane P-delta effects, out-of plane bucking and plasticity effects are then used in a second step. Often these methods use effective length factors which are applied differently to the frame braced moments and sway moments (e.g. AISC 2005, NZS3404 1997). This requires that different analyses be conducted to obtain the braced-frame and sway-frame moments as shown in Figure 1. However, for seismic design of steel frames, such a rigorous analysis is not generally conducted. Because of the complexity of the traditional methods for non-seismic design, such as those given in Figure 1, new analysis methods have been developed. One of these is the Direct Analysis method (AISC 2005). Such a method uses higher order analysis to estimate the frame elastic moments directly. It uses the dependable, rather than nominal, member stiffnesses, and member residual stress effects are also included in the member stiffness. Also, frame out-of-plumb is considered explicitly. The out-ofplumb of 0.2% was used following the work of Surovek and White (2004). Neither residual stress effects nor out-of-plumb were considered in the traditional methods. After the moment demands are established, further modifications are still required to check the frame capacity. An even more powerful method of analysing non-seismic steel frames, an extension of the direct analysis method, has recently been developed. It is termed “Extended Direct Analysis (or EDA)” (Lu

Paper Number 061

the model reasonably realistically represents the real structure. for seismic design the effects of residual stress are not considered directly on member stiffness. These served as extreme practical limits for the analysis. (2010) that variation in response due 2 . Therefore. if the structure fails and collapses under the applied factored forces. P-δ) + Sway Frame For Mfsx (i. The SFB was modelled as shown in Figure 3 below. such as by a previous earthquake. therefore only the SFB model was used in this research. it was found that. et al. construction errors. The flexural beam was pinned at the bottom. 2004) which represents the flexural beam stiffness relative to shear beam at ith floor is computed using Equation 1 where E = Elastic Modulus. A study is being conducted on the significance of this (Lu 2011). No frame is perfectly plumb. mid height and bottom floor of 3. In the process of the research two structural models . and it may be out-of-plumb due to construction tolerances. Ii = moment of inertia at the ith floor level.N*1 V1 N*2 V2 N*3 V3 V1 V2 V3 N *1 R1 N *2 N *3 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 Original Frame = Nonsway Frame For Mfbx (i. P-∆) Figure 1: Obtaining braced and sway moments. and Koi = initial stiffness of the ith floor level. The mass at the level considered was increased as a ratio of the regular structure mass. work by Sadashiva et al. If the structure does not collapse then it is not satisfactory and member sizes may be increased.e.Shear-Beams (SB) and Shear-Flexural Beams (SFB) were compared. the effect of frame out-of-plumb is not normally considered. “What is the relationship between out-of-plumb and change in response?” It summarises the work of Masuno (2010). or due to it being deformed in some way. A rigid link between shear beam and flexural beam slaves the horizontal displacement of the joined nodes. They conducted studies to evaluate the effect of various types of vertical irregularity on structural response during seismic excitations. It is shown by Tagawa et al. Two classes of the structure stiffness distribution were designed (i) the Constant Stiffness ratio (CS) and (ii) the Constant Interstorey Drift Ratio (CISDR) shown in Figure 2. (2009) was used as part of this research so it is discussed below. as well as New Zealand engineers. Also. mass irregularity was characterized as mass increase in top. but it also considers frame plasticity with the dependable member strengths. in the mass irregularity study. From this comparison. Graduating undergraduate students from the University of Canterbury. However. 2009).e. it is used by a number of engineers in practice. 2 RELATED STUDIES No study is known to have been conducted on out-of-plumb in buildings. are aware of this method. A higher order plastic analysis considering moment-axial force interaction is therefore conducted. For example. EDA considers all the factors in the AISC Direct Analysis method. 9 and 15 storey height structures. Continuous column stiffness ratio αacci (MacRae et al. This paper aims to answer the question. then it is not satisfactory. unrealistically large soft-storey displacements occurred in structures modelled as SB. Because it is conducted using freely available software including the residual stresses associated with the NZ column curves. Because it also considers the dependable strength of a structure. Hi = storey height of the ith floor level. This is the topic of this paper. However. 5.

6. structure height. (2009) are also used in this study. the allowable out-of-plumb changes with height. Specific details on how the members were sized are available in Sadashiva et al.1%-2.2% (or 1/500) (e. The structure is also assumed to have equal storey height.g. Structures were designed according to the Equivalent Static Method in NZS1170. m. Rayleigh damping with a critical damping ratio of 5% was used in the first mode and the mode corresponding to the number of storeys in the structure (Carr 2004). Because out-of-plumb building structures such as those described in this study also have an eccentric moment.01% are considered. The frame of the structure is modelled as shear beams and continuous flexure columns slaved together. 2. 3 MODELLING AND EVALUATION APPROACH The models used in the studies by Sadashiva et al.5m. The number of stories (N) considered in this study are 3. A value representing that of the seismic columns alone was therefore selected.8% and target design ductility’s (similar to lateral force reduction factors) of 1. To minimize problems related to out-of-plumb. The basic structure was designed as an ordinary building in Wellington close to the fault on site class C. it can be expected that these structures will also have a tendency for larger displacements in the direction in which they are leaning. Structures were designed with a target interstorey drift of 1. each multi-storey structure is assumed to have a constant lumped mass. A bilinear hysteresis loop with bi-linear factor of 1% was used in the study. 9 and 15. For taller structures. AISC 2005 or NZS3404 1997). the moment tended to cause extra deformation in the direction in which the moment was applied. and that associated with the continuity of all the columns at a level is small. 4 and 6. design codes limit the amount of construction out-ofplumb. Structures with out-of-plumb ranging from 0. of 20. Both CISDR and CS models were used as in Figure 3.5 (2004).000 kg at each floor. (2009). A study by MacRae and Kawashima (1993) and Yeow (2010) looked at the behaviour of bridge columns subject to axial force and moment before earthquake shaking occurred. They showed that during earthquake shaking. That is.5% with step of 0.Forces Deflection profile Deflection profile (a) Constant Stiffness (CS) (b) Constant Interstorey Drift Ratio (CISDR) Shear beam Flexural beam Figure 2: Two classes of stiffness distribution models Figure 3: SFB model to αacci between that associated with the continuity of the seismic columns alone. the maximum out-of-plumb is 0. α cci = E Ii H i3 K oi (1) The RUAUMOKO (Carr 2004) computer program was used to run inelastic dynamic time-history analysis subjected to 20 earthquake records with a specified design interstorey drift ratio. These 3 . mass irregularity and structural ductility factor. h = 3. For short structures.

[MPR or MRR (out-of-plumb)]/ [MPR or MRR (perfectly straight)] 4 EFFECT OF OUT-OF-PLUMB The increase in response due to out-of-plumb (OOP) increased due to ductility (duc or µ). From the information obtained. the median peak response (MPR) and the median residual response (MRR) was normalized with the MPR or MRR from initially perfectly plumb models. The two programmes were automated to run analysis and the desired output values were extracted in the process. Thus the peak demand is increased by less than 10% and the total peak displacement relative to perfectly plumb is likely to be 2. NMPR = 0.2% with target ductility of 4 and a target drift of 2% is likely to have a NMPR = 2 %* (0.072 × µ × N × OOP (%) + 1 5 EXAMPLE For example. The total displacement relative to the perfectly plumb value at (4) (5) (3) 4 . The residual response is very dependent on the hysteresis loop characteristics (MacRae and Kawashima 1993). then the NMPR = 3. (2009). This model was more critical than the CS model. period and level of out-of-plumb. perfectly plumb models and models with initial out-of-plumb were analysed. The dynamic inelastic time history computer programme RUAUMOKO (Carr 2004) was used in this project to run the analysis. Pdelta effects were considered. Bi-linear hysteresis loop with bi-linear factor of 1% was used for shear beams and continuous column of the model. a 10 storey structure with a construction out of plumb of 0. 2002) where xi is the peak or residual storey drift ratio from the ith record and n is the number of earthquake records considered. To evaluate the effect of out-of-plumb. The twenty SAC (2000) earthquake ground motion records for Los Angeles with probability of exceedance of 10% in 50 years were used. Each record was used for each design ductility (i. and residual response.15% + 0.structures were entered into the programme in their deformed configuration before the seismic analysis started. NMPR. number of stories (N) and increased initial out-of-plumb.2% + 1) = 2. then in the opposite direction. lateral force reduction factor). The predictions are compared to the actual results for the case in Figure 4. Input files for RUAUMOKO are generated using MATLAB (2009). Critical damping of 5% was adopted from study of Sadashiva et al. but the residual response is always less than the peak response.35%. If a structure has a permanent drift at the end of an earthquake of 2%.46% if the same earthquake as that above occurs.e.2% = 2. One example is shown in Figure 4 for a 9 storey frame with the CISDR model. When they were applied they were run both in one direction.0091*4*10*0. Normalization was done using Equation 3. were computed assuming a lognormal distribution according to Equation 2 (Cornell et al. Equations 4 and 5 were developed to estimate the median effect of out-of-plane for the most critical (CISDR) model peak response. NMRR. so that directional trends in displacement from individual records did not affect the results.15%. The residual displacement response increases faster than the median peak response. ˆ x= ⎛1 ⎜ ⎜n e⎝ ∑ ln( xi ) ⎟ ⎟ i =1 n ⎞ ⎠ (2) In order to compare the response.0091 × µ × N × OOP (%) + 1 NMRR = 0. The median peak and residual interstorey drifts ratio (ISDR). .

& Clifton G. 2004. Peng B. Ziemian R.A. University of Canterbury. storey number and design ductility. & Kawashima K.A. 2009. Department of Civil Engineering.J.Y. This is likely to be unsatisfactory and the structure may require replacement. Christchurch.H.46% = 5. & Foutch D.8 duc=6 1. 1993. 2005. Extended direct analysis of steel frames.6 1. N=9) 2.A.C.C.. 128(4). MacRae G. 526-533. NZ Society of Structural Engineering (SESOC) Journal. 2011. Ruaumoko 2D Inelastic dynamic time-history analysis program... Inc.4 Actual µ=4 duc=1 APPROXIMA 2. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC FEMA steel moment frame guidelines. Effect of column stiffness on braces frame seismic behaviour. Carr A. d) An example of how peak displacement increase due to out-of-plumb was provided. c) The rate of increase in residual interstorey displacement was almost an order of magnitude more sensitive to out-of-plumb than was peak displacement..C.46%. b) Based on the observed response equations were developed to estimate the likely median increase in response for different levels of initial out-of-plumb. 30. Hahn C. 22(2). Residual stress effects on the seismic performance of steel frames. structures with a greater number of storeys and those with greater design ductility’s also tend to have greater response. In addition. Cornell C. University of Canterbury.. Lu A.H. American Institute of Steel Construction. Master’s Dissertation. 5 . 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper is similar to a paper titled “Effect of building out-of-plumb on seismic response”. MacRae G. Journal of Structural Engineering. to be published in the proceedings of SEE6 Tehran Conference (2011). 2004.2 duc=2 TE µ=2 2 duc=4 µ=6 1. The seismic response of bilinear oscillators using Japanese earthquake records.F. REFERENCES: AISC. Fatemeh J..5 1 1.. Lu A. 2002.5 OOP (%) 2 2. & Roeder C.A.A.Normalised Peak Response the end of the earthquake is therefore likely to be 2% + 3.5 Figure 4: Comparison of actual and approximated peak responses – 9 storey CISDR design 6 CONCLUSIONS A number of analyses were conducted on shear-type structures to evaluate the effect of out-of-plumb on their performance.4 1.2 1 0 0.O. Christchurch. Kimura Y.W. Responses (CISDR. Specification for Structural Steel Buildings. It was shown that: a) Greater initial out-of-plumb generally causes greater response increases relative to structures with no initial out-of-plumb. Journal of Research of the Public Works Research Institute. MacRae G. New Zealand.Y. Hamburger R.

Yeow T. Tagawa H. Wellington. Determination of structural irregularity limits.S. Matlab R2009b. Christchurch. Transactions of the Architectural Institute of Japan.W. New Zealand. MATLAB. Standards New Zealand. University of Canterbury. 2000. Undergraduate Report. 130 (3). Wellington.A. MacRae. L. NZS 3404:1997. AIJ. New Zealand. 2009. University of Canterbury.A. 130(8). 2004. 1997. I: Overview. Alternative Approaches for elastic analysis and design of steel frames. Seismic behaviour of cantilever bridge columns... Journal of Structural Engineering. Christchurch. 381-391. Bulletin of The New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. Journal of Structural and Constructional Engineering. 288-301.E.Mass irregularity example. 2004. 2010. Masuno T. New Zealand. 761-770. G. 42(4).The SAC steel project. Ca. 2010.5:2004. 6 .continuous solumn effects in steel moment frames in perspective of dynamic stability (Part 2). Inc. Standards New Zealand.L. Sadashiva V. & Lowes. & Deam B. Response of multi-storey structures with initial out-of-plumb. New Zealand. The MathWork . steel moment-resisting frame structures.Journal of Structural Engineering. SEAOC-ATC-CUREE . Berkeley. Steel Structures Standard. Continuous column effects of gravity columns in U. 75(650). Structural Design Actions Part 5: Earthquake actions New Zealand. 2010. Surovek-Maleck A.K. MacRae G. & White D. NZS 1170. Undergraduate Report. 2009. SAC.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful