Hindawi Publishing Corporation

Journal of Structures
Volume 2013, Article ID 679859, 14 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/679859

Research Article
Ultimate Seismic Resistance Capacity for Long Span Lattice
Structures under Vertical Ground Motions

Yoshiya Taniguchi
Osaka City University, Sugimoto-cho 3-3-138, Sumiyoshi-ku, Osaka 5588585, Japan

Correspondence should be addressed to Yoshiya Taniguchi; ytaniguchi@arch.eng.osaka-cu.ac.jp

Received 26 March 2013; Accepted 15 August 2013

Academic Editor: Aurélio Araújo

Copyright © 2013 Yoshiya Taniguchi. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Seismic resistance capacities of frame structures have been discussed with equilibrium of energies among many researchers. The
early one is the limit design presented by Housner, 1956; that is, frame structures should possess the plastic deformation ability
equivalent to an earthquake input energy given by a velocity response spectrum. On such studies of response estimation by the
energy equilibrium, the potential energy has been generally abandoned, since the effect of self-weight or fixed loads on the potential
energy is negligible, while ordinary buildings usually sway in the horizontal direction. However, it could be said that the effect of
gravity has to be considered for long span structures since the mass might be concerned with the vertical response. In this paper, as
for ultimate seismic resistance capacity of long span structures, an estimation method considering the potential energy is discussed
as for plane lattice beams and double-layer cylindrical lattice roofs. The method presented can be done with the information of
static nonlinear behavior, natural periods, and velocity response spectrum of seismic motions; that is, any complicated nonlinear
time history analysis is not required. The value estimated can be modified with the properties of strain energy absorption and the
safety static factor.

1. Introduction to present an estimation method for PGA at collapse. The

Long span and spatial structures have been utilized as a roof
structure of buildings including large space. They are often
used as a place of refuge or stronghold of rescue in a disaster
area. Then it is important for government or caretaker to
grasp ultimate seismic resistance capacity of such buildings
without regard to new or existing buildings in advance. They
might wish to know concretely the seismic motion level at
which structures reach a limit state if it would be subjected to
over design loads. The information would be just an ultimate
seismic resistance capacity of structures.
Seismic resistant capacities for long span structures have
been studied by many researchers all over the world. Among
them early on, Kato et al. [1] studied the static and dynamic
behaviors of long span beams against vertical loads to express
the quantitative earthquake resistant capacity in terms of
the first natural period and the slenderness ratio of upper
chord members. The selected measure was peak ground
acceleration (PGA) at dynamic collapse. Ishikawa and Kato
[2] studied the resistance capacity of double-layer lattice
domes under static loading and vertical earthquake motions
method was based on the results of static load-deflection
curves to reach the deflection level below the dead load.
Murata [3] numerically studied the maximum accelerations
of input earthquake motions leading to collapse for single-
layer lattice domes with varying the static safety factors.
Taniguchi et al. [4] also carried out time history response
analyses for double-layer cylindrical lattice roofs to estimate
the maximum acceleration of an input wave (PGA) at the
collapse recognized by a sudden increase of nodal displace-
ments and presented a prediction method of initial yield
and dynamic collapse accelerations with the limit state load
and response spectrum. Kumagai et al. [5] investigated the
static and dynamic buckling behavior of double-layer lattice
domes with various mesh patterns to compare the prediction
accuracy with the modified Dunkerley formulation.
The seismic response of structures has been analyzed
by many researchers in the past using methods of energy
equilibrium instead of a time history analysis. Among them,
the limit design presented by Housner [6] is found as an
early one. The method was to design the structure so that
it could plastically absorb energy equal to the earthquake
2 Journal of Structures

3,000 P

27,000 PGY

Figure 1: Plane lattice beam of X type (X). PLE

PGY
= avg.(max, min)
2,598

PGY
24,000 (= 𝛽 · PDL )

Figure 2: Plane lattice beam of Warren type (W).

PDL

𝛿
input energy estimated by a velocity response spectrum. Kato O 𝛿LE 𝛼 · 𝛿LE
and Akiyama [7] defined the energy absorption associated Figure 3: Limit state load and limit state deformation.
to plastic deformations as the energy that contributed to the
development of structural damage. They carried out numeri-
cal studies with a 5-mass model for many cases, to confirm 400
validity of the limit design. As for the estimation method
with such energy index with respect to spatial structures, 300
Tada et al. [8] introduced gravity energy, defined by the
Total loads (kN)

product of the self-weight and vertical displacements, into

the input energy as a collapse index for double-layer grids. 200
It was shown that the double-layer grid began to collapse
when the earthquake energy input to the grid exceeded a 100
certain amount. Qiao et al. [9] investigated the dynamic
collapse behavior of a single-layer shallow lattice dome to
0
make clear the relationships between the maximum absorbed 0 200 400 600 800 1000
energies and the vibration modes and pointed out that the Vertical displacements (mm)
maximum absorbed energies would change corresponding to
vibration modes. As a further study of estimation method Xa Wa
for dynamic collapse level of seismic motions, Taniguchi Xb Wb
[10] treated plane lattice arches and double-layer cylindrical Figure 4: Load-deformation curves of models.
lattice roofs and defined a limit state load and a limit
state deformation representing an ultimate state, given by
the information of static nonlinear behavior under vertical center top chord members are larger than the others, denoted
loading. An estimation method of ultimate seismic resistance as small letter b. All nodes are assumed to be rigid jointed
capacity was presented with the static absorbed energy until since the joints may have sufficient strength and stiffness. The
an initial yield state and ultimate state, which is a kind of an static safety factor ], that represents the ratio of initial yield
extrapolation method. The method includes a modification load against the dead load including the self-weight, is treated
to improve the accuracy, considering the properties of elastic as a numerical parameter ] = 2, 3, 4. The section properties
and plastic strain energies of structures during a pushover of models are shown in Table 1.
analysis until an ultimate state. However, the method involves
a retrogression equation which includes an unknown quan-
tity. Then in this paper, the effect of static safety factors is 3. Analysis of the Nonlinear Behavior
investigated to make clear the meanings of the unknown
Nonlinear static analyses were carried out to grasp the
quantity in the modification equation, for lattice beams of two
nonlinear behavior of models, under vertical distributed
types, plane lattice arches, and double-layer cylindrical roofs
loads, which were nodal loads corresponding to the covered,
described in [10], to establish a consistent estimation method
area. In the static analysis the energy equilibrium is expressed
of the ultimate seismic resistance capacity.
as follows:

2. Numerical Model 𝐸 𝑒 − 𝐸𝐺 = 𝐸𝐹 , (1)

Numerical models are shown in Figures 1 and 2. They are where 𝐸𝑒 is the strain energy and 𝐸𝐺 is the potential energy
supported at the side ends, by roller and pinsupports. The performed by the product of the self-weight and vertical
models consist of two member types; all the members have displacements. 𝐸𝐹 is the energy done by the external loads.
the same section properties denoted as small letter a, and the 3 𝐸𝑒 consists of elastic strain energy 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 and the dissipation
Journal of Structures 3

500 500

400

Equivalent velocity of energy (cm/s)

400
Equivalent velocity of energy (cm/s)

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Vertical displacements (mm) Vertical displacements (mm)
(a) Xa4 (b) Xb4
500 500

400
Equivalent velocity of energy (cm/s)

400
Equivalent velocity of energy (cm/s)

300 300

200 200

100 100

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Vertical displacements (mm) Vertical displacements (mm)
e e
sV sV
F F
sV sV
G G
sV sV

(c) Wa4 (d) Wb4

Figure 5: Equivalent velocities of energy and center vertical deformations.

energy 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 done by plastic deformations. Each energy is where 𝑀 is the total mass of each model. The former
expressed as an equivalent velocity as follows: subscript 𝑠 denotes the static analysis. In this paper, 𝑠 𝑉𝐹 is
defined as static absorbed energy, and the maximum value
of 𝑠 𝑉𝐹 is considered as the maximum energy input to the
structure. The equivalent velocity of strain energy 𝐸𝑒 at the
2𝐸𝑒 √ 2𝐸𝐺 √ 2𝐸𝐹 maximum 𝑠 𝑉𝐹 is denoted as 𝑠 𝑉𝑓 . Further the equivalent
𝑒
𝑠𝑉 =
√ , 𝐺
𝑠𝑉 = , 𝐹
𝑠𝑉 = ,
𝑀 𝑀 𝑀 velocities of strain energy at the elastic limit load 𝑃LE and
(2) the limit state load 𝑃GY are denoted as 𝑠 𝑉LE and 𝑠 𝑉GY ,
4 Journal of Structures

Table 1: Section properties of models.

Safety factor ] Dead load Section size Section area Moment inertia
Model
𝑃DL (kN) 𝜑 × 𝑡 (mm) 𝐴 (cm2 ) 𝐼 (cm4 )
2 155.22
Xa 3 103.48 89.1 × 4.5 11.96 107
4 77.61
2 155.17
89.1 × 4.5 11.96 107
Xb 3 103.45 114.3×4.5 15.52 234
4 77.59
2 135.91
Wa 3 90.61 89.1 × 4.5 11.96 107
4 67.95
2 135.38
89.1 × 4.5 11.96 107
Wb 3 90.25 114.3×4.5 15.52 234
4 67.69
Young’s modulus 𝐸 (N/mm2 ) 205,000
Yield stress 𝜎𝑦 (N/mm2 ) 300

60 condition of tensile strain 3%, since it corresponds to about

the value of 𝛼 = 5 in the present work and may be in the
strain hardening region for usual steel materials. The values
Velocity response (cm/s)

40 𝑠 𝑉GY are estimated at the two factors 𝛼 = 3 and 6. The values

𝑠 𝑊𝑒 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 represent the ratio of the elastic strain energy 𝑠 𝑊𝑒
and the plastic strain energy 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 at 𝑠 𝑉GY .
20

4. Analysis of the Dynamic Properties

0
0.01 0.1 1 10 The results of free vibration analyses are shown in Table 3.
Natural period (s) The top 3 of effective mass ratios are shown in each table.
The natural periods are almost equal to each other since the
Figure 6: Velocity response spectrum of BCJ-L2.
stiffness of models is almost equal as shown in Figure 4.

respectively. The limit state load, as shown in Figure 3, is the

load bearing capacity at an ultimate state after peak. The limit
state deformation corresponding to the limit state load 𝑃GY
is represented by the limit state deformation factor 𝛼 and the
elastic limit deformation 𝛿LE . It should be noted that 𝑃LE may
be defined as another phenomenon, that is, elastic buckling.
The load-deformation curves of plane lattice beams are
shown in Figure 4. The horizontal axis represents the vertical
displacements of center bottom node. The results of Xb and
Wb do not show any reduction since they are yielded in
tensile axial loads. The results of Xa and Wa show some
reduction because of compressive member failure. Xa model
shows relatively gentle reduction than Wa since it has both
tensile and compressive member failures. The relationships
between three energies and vertical deformations of each
model are shown in Figure 5. The model Wa4 shows the peak
of 𝑠 𝑉𝐹 , and the other models do not show any peak in the
present work.
The equivalent velocities of strain energy are listed in
Table 2. The values 𝑠 𝑉𝑓 of Xa, Xb, and Wb are given by the
5. Time History Analysis
The dynamic elastoplastic behaviors are estimated by the
geometrical and material nonlinear analysis [10, 11]. The input
seismic waves are artificial waves, The building center of
japan (BCJ) level 2 and the two sin waves of the 1st natural
periods and the 110% of 1st ones. They are denoted as BCJ-
L2, SIN, and SIN10, respectively. The acceleration data from
0 to 60 seconds of BCJ-L2 are adopted. The velocity response
spectrum at 2% damping ratio is shown in Figure 6. The
sinusoidal waves are 20 seconds including the period of 4
second amplification. The sinusoidal wave SIN10 is adopted
to study the effect of lengthening natural periods by structural
plasticization. Consequently, the effect was not confirmed in
the present work.
The relationships between maximum input accelerations
and maximum vertical displacements are shown in Figure 7.
The tensile yield model b shows larger values than the
compressive yield model a. The compressive yield models,
Journal of Structures 5

Table 2: Equivalent velocities of strain energy and 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 /𝑠 𝑊𝑝 .

𝑠 𝑉GY (cm/sec) 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 /𝑠 𝑊𝑝
Model Safety factor ] 𝑠 𝑉LE (cm/sec) 𝑠 𝑉𝑓 (cm/sec)
𝛼 = 3.0 𝛼 = 6.0 𝛼 = 3.0 𝛼 = 6.0
2 99.15 236.98 174.27 244.24
Xa 3 121.43 290.25 213.44 299.14 0.21 0.15
4 140.26 335.21 246.51 345.52
2 95.99 291.38 201.89 297.00
Xb 3 117.37 356.72 247.06 363.33 0.30 0.12
4 135.46 411.81 285.05 419.34
2 103.30 103.30 118.69 143.94
Wa 3 126.41 126.41 145.33 176.23 0.06 0.04
4 146.04 146.04 167.79 203.49
2 100.01 310.82 212.54 312.88
Wb 3 122.27 380.71 260.12 382.95 0.29 0.12
4 141.10 439.55 300.28 442.03

Table 3: Natural vibration property.

(a) Xa

Natural period (sec) Effective mass ratio (%) Order

Mode no.
]=2 ]=3 ]=4 𝑋 direction 𝑍 direction 𝑋 𝑍
1 0.367 0.300 0.260 6.06 77.74 — 1
2 0.133 0.108 0.094 71.82 2.10 1 —
3 0.095 0.077 0.067 12.68 0.04 2 —
4 0.054 0.044 0.038 0.03 4.46 — 3
5 0.045 0.037 0.032 7.47 7.75 3 2
(b) Xb

Natural period (sec) Effective mass ratio (%) Order

Mode no.
]=2 ]=3 ]=4 𝑋 direction 𝑍 direction 𝑋 𝑍
1 0.356 0.290 0.252 6.86 77.42 3 1
2 0.131 0.107 0.092 70.50 2.70 1 —
3 0.093 0.076 0.066 14.09 0.13 2 —
4 0.054 0.044 0.038 0.11 3.97 — 3
5 0.044 0.036 0.031 6.63 7.98 — 2
(c) Wa

Natural period (sec) Effective mass ratio (%) Order

Mode no.
]=2 ]=3 ]=4 𝑋 direction 𝑍 direction 𝑋 𝑍
1 0.361 0.295 0.256 4.55 88.91 — 1
2 0.128 0.104 0.090 72.98 1.60 1 —
3 0.100 0.082 0.071 15.59 0.27 2 —
4 0.057 0.047 0.041 0.41 5.73 — 2
5 0.045 0.036 0.032 5.05 2.13 3 3
(d) Wb

Natural period (sec) Effective mass ratio (%) Order

Mode no.
]=2 ]=3 ]=4 𝑋 direction 𝑍 direction 𝑋 𝑍
1 0.350 0.286 0.248 5.29 88.68 3 1
2 0.126 0.103 0.089 71.34 2.13 1 3
3 0.099 0.081 0.070 17.76 0.48 2 —
4 0.057 0.047 0.040 0.21 5.24 — 2
6 Journal of Structures

2000 2000

1600 1600
Max. input acceleration (gal)

Max. input acceleration (gal)

1200 1200

800 800

400 400

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
Max. vertical displacements (mm) Max. vertical displacements (mm)

Xa2 Xb2 Wa2 Wb2

Xa3 Xb3 Wa3 Wb3
Xa4 Xb4 Wa4 Wb4
(a) Model X (b) Model W

Figure 7: Maximum input acceleration and maximum vertical displacement (BCJ-L2).

Table 4: Rise amount 𝑏 and 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 /𝑠 𝑊𝑝 .

𝛼 = 3.0 𝛼 = 6.0
Model Safety Factor ] Rise amount b from 𝑦 = 𝑥 Rise amount 𝑏 from 𝑦 = 𝑥
𝑠 𝑊𝑒 /𝑠 𝑊𝑝 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 /𝑠 𝑊𝑝
BCJ-L2 SIN SIN10 BCJ-L2 SIN SIN10
2 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.21 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.15
Xa 3 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.21 0.11 0.07 0.06 0.15
4 0.57 0.28 0.25 0.21 0.46 0.41 0.47 0.15
2 0.01 −0.02 −0.07 0.30 0.02 −0.01 −0.10 0.12
Xb 3 0.00 −0.01 −0.03 0.30 0.02 0.00 −0.03 0.12
4 0.02 0.03 −0.01 0.30 0.05 0.03 −0.01 0.12
2 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.04
Wa 3 0.07 0.08 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.04 0.04
4 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.09 0.07 0.04
2 0.05 0.04 0.01 0.29 −0.13 −0.14 −0.30 0.12
Wb 3 0.04 0.04 0.06 0.29 −0.04 −0.05 −0.14 0.12
4 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.29 0.05 0.08 −0.11 0.12

especially models Wa, show dynamic collapse phenomenon Wa showing compressive failure. The two results are not so
representing a sudden increase of displacements. different for Xb and Wb showing tensile failure.
The relationships of the strain energy and potential
energy are shown in Figure 8. In the figure, the curves given
by the static pushover analyses are also drawn as gray color 6. Effect of Static Safety Factors on Ultimate
lines. The black triangle marks represent the initial yield point Seismic Resistance Capacity
in the static analyses. The curves by time history analyses
almost coincide with the static curves until reaching the The ratio 𝑉GY /𝑉LE given by the time history analyses is com-
initial yield point. After the initial yield, the time history pared with the ratio 𝑠 𝑉GY / 𝑠 𝑉LE given by the static analyses,
responses are above the static results as for models Xa and as shown in Figure 9. The relationships of both ratios might
Journal of Structures 7

600 600

450 450
Ve (cm/s)

Ve (cm/s)
300 300

150 150

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400
VG (cm/s) VG (cm/s)
(a) Xa4 (b) Xb4
250 500

200 400

150 300
Ve (cm/s)

Ve (cm/s)

100 200

50 100

0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
VG (cm/s) G
V (cm/s)
BCJ-L2 BCJ-L2
SIN SIN
SIN10 SIN10
(c) Wa4 (d) Wb4

Figure 8: Relationships between 𝑉𝑒 and 𝑉𝐺.

be on the diagonal line 𝑦 = 𝑥, if the dynamic effect would
be negligible. However, the model Xa shows the rise from the
diagonal line 𝑦 = 𝑥, and some dynamic effect is confirmed.
The rise amount and the ratio 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 are listed in Table 4.
Although the models Xa2 and Wa show clearly dynamic
collapse, the limit state deformation determined by the factor
𝛼 was adopted in order to compare with each other. The rise
amount b becomes larger as the safety factor ] is larger, for
compressive yield models Xa and Wa. It may be due to the
reason that the hysteresis dissipation energy becomes larger
as the dead load is smaller. The rise amount 𝑏 is small as for
tensile yield models Xb and Wb, regardless of any seismic
wave and safety factor ].
The differences between the strain energy at dynamic
behavior and static behavior are shown in Figure 10, to study
the relationships of the rise amount 𝑏 and components of
strain energy. The data treated is at the limit state defor-
mations. In the vertical axis, Δ represents the difference
8 Journal of Structures

4 4
y=x y=x
BCJ-L2 BCJ-L2
SIN SIN
SIN10 SIN10
3 3
VGY /VLE

VGY /VLE
2 2

1 1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
s GY /s VLE
V s VGY /s VLE

Xa2 (𝛼 = 3) Xa2 (𝛼 = 6) Xb2 (𝛼 = 3) Xb2 (𝛼 = 6)

Xa3 (𝛼 = 3) Xa3 (𝛼 = 6) Xb3 (𝛼 = 3) Xb3 (𝛼 = 6)
Xa4 (𝛼 = 3) Xa4 (𝛼 = 6) Xb4 (𝛼 = 3) Xb4 (𝛼 = 6)
(a) Xa (b) Xb
4 4
y=x y=x
BCJ-L2 BCJ-L2
SIN SIN
SIN10 SIN10
3 3
VGY /VLE

VGY /VLE

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
s VGY /s VLE s GY /s VLE
V

Wa2 (𝛼 = 3) Wa2 (𝛼 = 6) Wb2 (𝛼 = 3) Wb2 (𝛼 = 6)

Wa3 (𝛼 = 3) Wa3 (𝛼 = 6) Wb3 (𝛼 = 3) Wb3 (𝛼 = 6)
Wa4 (𝛼 = 3) Wa4 (𝛼 = 6) Wb4 (𝛼 = 3) Wb4 (𝛼 = 6)
(c) Wa (d) Wb

Figure 9: Relationship between 𝑠 𝑉GY / 𝑠 𝑉LE and 𝑉GY /𝑉LE .

Journal of Structures 9

0.8 1.5

0.6
1

0.4
0.5

ΔWe /s We
ΔEe /s Ee

0.2

0
0

−0.5
−0.2

−0.4 −1
−0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
b b
𝑒
(a) 𝑏 − Δ𝐸𝑒 / 𝑠 𝐸 (b) 𝑏 − Δ𝑊𝑒 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑒

1 1

0.8 0.8

0.6 0.6
ΔWp /s Wp
ΔWp /s Wp

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0

−0.2 −0.2
−0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
e e
b ΔE /s E
𝑒 𝑒
(c) 𝑏 − Δ𝑊𝑝 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 (d) Δ𝐸 / 𝑠 𝐸 − Δ𝑊𝑝 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝

Figure 10: Rise amount 𝑏 and Δ𝐸𝑒 / 𝑠 𝐸𝑒 , and Δ𝑊𝑒 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 , Δ𝑊𝑝 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 .

between the dynamic results and static ones. In the figures,
the interrelation is confirmed for total strain energy ratio
Δ𝐸𝑒 / 𝑠 𝐸𝑒 (Figure 10(a)) and plastic energy ratio Δ𝑊𝑝 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝
(Figure 10(c)), and any interrelation is not confirmed for
elastic strain energy ratio Δ𝑊𝑒 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 (Figure 10(b)), against
rise amount 𝑏. Since some interrelation is confirmed between
Δ𝐸𝑒 / 𝑠 𝐸𝑒 and Δ𝑊𝑝 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 (Figure 10(d)), the increase of strain
energy at dynamic behavior is due to the dissipation energy
by plastic deformations.
Then the relationships between Δ𝑊𝑝 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 and the rise
amount 𝑏 are illustrated for each model and safety factor, as
shown in Figure 11.
In Figure 11, the tensile yield models Xb and Wb are
distributed in the small range of two axes. However, the
compressive yield models Xa and Wa are widely distributed
in the positive range of horizontal axis. The fact may be due to
the plastic dissipation energy by yield hinges in compressive
members. As the safety factors are larger, they are distributed
10 Journal of Structures

1 0.06

0.04
0.75

0.02

ΔWp /s Wp
ΔWp /s Wp

0.5

0.25
−0.02

0 −0.04
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 −0.12 −0.08 −0.04 0 0.04 0.08
b b
(a) Xa (b) Xb
0.15 0.1

0.05

0.1

0
ΔWp /s Wp
ΔWp /s Wp

0.05 −0.05

−0.1

−0.15

−0.05 −0.2
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 −0.4 −0.3 −0.2 −0.1 0 0.1 0.2
b b

n=2 n=2
n=3 n=3
n=4 n=4
(c) Wa (d) Wa

Figure 11: Rise amount 𝑏 − Δ𝑊𝑝 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 .

in the right and upper range of the figures. It should be
noted that any interrelation was not confirmed between the
dissipation energy of damping and rise amount 𝑏.
7. Estimation Method of Ultimate
Seismic Capacity
The previous results of [10] are combined with the present
work to investigate the effect of safety factor ] on the rise
amount 𝑏. The previous results are listed in Table 5 for lattice
arch and double-layer cylindrical lattice roof as shown in
Figure 12. The letter P denotes both pin supports, and PR
denotes pin supports and roller supports. The number 1
represents all member sections being equal, and number
2 represents members consisting of several section prop-
erties. The same relationships are confirmed between the
rise amount 𝑏 and member yield type. As for model PR2,
although the static result shows tensile yield, the dynamic
Journal of Structures 11

Table 5: Previous results of lattice arch and double layer cylindrical lattice roof [10].

Safety 𝑉GY /𝑉LE Rise amount 𝑏 from 𝑦 = 𝑥

Model 𝑠 𝑉GY /𝑠 𝑉LE 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 /𝑠 𝑊𝑝 𝛼
factor ] BCJ-L2 KOBE TAFT BCJ-L2 KOBE TAFT
Plane lattice arch
1.74 1.82 1.89 — 0.08 0.15 — 0.01 3.0
P1 9.68
1.99 2.80 2.64 — 0.80 0.65 — 0.01 6.0
1.29 1.48 1.55 — 0.19 0.27 — 0.07 3.0
P2 10.51
1.58 2.01 1.78 — 0.44 0.21 — 0.02 6.0
1.28 1.33 1.47 — 0.06 0.19 — 0.03 3.0
PR1 5.17
1.58 1.61 1.73 — 0.04 0.15 — 0.01 6.0
2.08 2.07 2.71 — −0.01 0.63 — 0.29 3.0
PR2 3.56
3.05 2.93 3.85 — −0.12 0.81 — 0.14 6.0
Double-layer lattice roof
1.51 2.61 2.46 2.49 1.10 0.95 0.98 0.13 3.0
SSR1 6.34
1.97 3.08 2.65 3.36 1.11 0.68 1.39 0.05 6.0
1.42 2.65 2.21 2.11 1.23 0.79 0.70 0.10 3.0
SSR2 6.99
1.82 2.65 2.42 2.29 0.83 0.60 0.47 0.04 6.0

1.5
 = 2.00

.00
=3

0
4.0
=
30,000

1.2

Y 0.9
𝛼 · s We /s Wp

7
5.1
Z
X 26,540 =
0.6
(a)
6.34
=
2,120

.99
=6
0.3
5,640

 = 9.67
∘ 0
30
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Z
b

X k= 10.97 k = 0.33
Y k= 7.17 k = 0.32
(b) k= 1.84 k = 0.11
k= 0.51
Figure 12: Double-layer cylindrical lattice roof [10].
Figure 13: Relationships between rise amount 𝑏 and 𝛼 ⋅ 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 .

behavior includes compressive member yield to increase the

rise amount 𝑏 than model PR1. represents the strain absorption property of structures at a
The total results of compressive yield models are plot- limit state deformation. Consider
ted in Figure 13, according to (3) [10]. The horizontal axis
represents the rise amount 𝑏 that means the increase ratio 𝑠 𝑊𝑒
𝛼⋅ = 𝑘 ⋅ 𝑏. (3)
of dynamic results against static results. The vertical axis 𝑠
𝑊𝑝
12 Journal of Structures

10

8
y = 0.086x
R2 = 0.94
6

1/k
4

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
2
(Safety factor )

Figure 14: Relationships between safety factor ] and 1/𝑘.

In Figure 13, the data of Figure 9 and Tables 4 and 5 is plotted,
and the safety factor ] and the slope 𝑘 in (3) are shown. The
larger the safety factor ] is, the smaller slope 𝑘 becomes. It
shows that the large safety factors enlarge the rise amounts,
because more dissipation energy by cyclic deformations is
occurrs until a limit state, and consequently the rise amount
𝑏 becomes large.
In order to study the value of slope 𝑘, the relationships
between slope 𝑘 and safety factor ] are drawn in Figure 14.
The slope 𝑘 can be estimated with the safety factor since the
correlation coefficient is large.
Consequently the ultimate seismic capacity can be accu-
rately estimated with the information of 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 / 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 given by
a nonlinear static analysis and the limit state deformation
factor 𝛼 decided by a designer. The value estimated is finally
modified by the static safety factor ].
The flow chart of the estimation method presented is
shown as follows, (Figure 15).
Step 1. The static elastoplastic behavior is estimated under
the vertical loads corresponding to the distribution of mass,
until the static absorbed energy of (2) shows maximum
value or the limit state deformations are reached. The elastic
component of strain energy 𝑠 𝑊𝑒 and the plastic dissipation
energy 𝑠 𝑊𝑝 are calculated at the limit state.
Step 2. The seismic motion level at which structures become
in initial yield can be estimated with the equivalent velocity
𝑠 𝑉LE and the velocity response spectrum of seismic waves.
The equivalent velocity 𝑠 𝑉LE is determined at initial yield by
the nonlinear static analysis. If the natural mode of the largest
effective mass ratio would be adopted, the value estimated
might be in the safety region [10].
Step 3. The seismic motion level at which structures reach
the limit state deformation can be estimated with the value
𝑠 𝑉GY / 𝑠 𝑉LE . The seismic motion level obtained at Step 2 may
be multiplied by this value to obtain the seismic motion level
corresponding to the limit state deformation. If the value 𝑠 𝑉𝑓
is adopted instead of 𝑠 𝑉GY , that of dynamic collapse could be
obtained.
Step 4. The value obtained at Step 3 could be modified by the
rise amount 𝑏 that could be given by (3) and Figure 13. The
modification with the rise amount 𝑏 is not necessary in the
case that structures would reach a limit state deformation by
tensile member yield.
8. Conclusions
The main conclusions in the present work are listed as follows.
(1) The equivalent velocities 𝑉𝑓 , 𝑉GY of strain energy at
which structures reach dynamic collapse or a limit
state deformation could be accurately estimated with
the static safety factor being the ratio of initial yield
load against dead load.
(2) The increase of 𝑉𝑓 , 𝑉GY , at the case that structures are
subjected to the seismic motion level corresponding
to dynamic collapse or a limit state deformation, is
due to the plastic dissipation energy. The effect is small
at the conditions that the static safety factor V is small
or structures are in tensile yield.
(3) The ultimate seismic capacity can be estimated by
Figure 15 without any time history analysis.
Journal of Structures 13

Static pushover analysis

I

Estimation of s VLE at the initial yield

Is the analysis needed until the max. of static absorbed energy?

Yes No
Estimation of s Vf Estimation of s VGY
at the max. of static absorbed energy at the limit state deformation 𝛼𝛿LE

Estimation of elastic strain energy s We and plastic energy s Wp

Estimation of seismic motion level at initial yield

with s VLE and velocity response spectrum II

Estimation of seismic motion level

at dynamic collapse or limit state deformation III
by considering the proportion of s Vf /s VLE or s VGY /s VLE and Vf /VLE

(Judgment of modification)
In the static analysis, is the structure yielded IV
in tensile members?
Yes No

Modification with the following equation and

Modification is not Figure 13: 𝛼 · (s We /s Wp ) = k · b [1/k ∝ 2 ]
needed
Safety factor , limit state deformation factor 𝛼, and s We /s Wp

End

Figure 15: Flow chart of estimation method for ultimate seismic capacity.

Acknowledgments [2] K. Ishikawa and S. Kato, “Earthquake resistant capacity and

The author gives special thanks to Ms. Risa Fukushima and
Ms. Yuki Kadotsuka for their numerical works. This work is
partially supported by project research 2010 of the Graduate
School of Engineering, Osaka City University, and JSPS
KAKENHI Grant 24656325, Grants-in-Aid for Exploratory
Research, Japan.
References
[1] S. Kato, K. Ishikawa, and Y. Yokoo, “Earthquake resistant
capacity of long span trusses structures a study on trsussed
beam due to vertical earthquake motions,” Journal of Structural
and Construction Engineering, no. 360, pp. 64–74, 1986.
collapse mechanism of dynamic buckling on double layer
latticed domes under vertical motions,” in Proceedings of the
SEIKEN-IASS Symposium on Nonlinear Analysis and Design for
Shell and Spatial Structures, pp. 569–576, 1993.
[3] M. Murata, “Dynamic characteristics of single layer reticu-
lar domes subjected to vertical and horizontal earthquake
motions,” Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering,
no. 571, pp. 103–110, 2003.
[4] Y. Taniguchi, M. Kurano, F. Zhang, and T. Saka, “Limit state load
and dynamic collapse estimation for double-layer cylindrical
latticed roofs,” in Proceedings of the IASS International Sympo-
sium New Olympics New Shell and Spatial Structures, p. DR13,
2006, Extended Abstracts and CD-ROM of IASS-APCS.
14 Journal of Structures

[5] T. Kumagai, Y. Taniguchi, T. Ogawa, and M. Masuyama,

“Static and dynamic buckling behavior of double-layer latticed
domes with various mesh patterns,” in Proceedings of the IASS
International Symposium New Olympics New Shell and Spatial
Structures, p. BK10, 2006, Extended Abstracts and CD-ROM of
IASS-APCS.
[6] G. W. Housner, “Limit design of structures to resist earth-
quakes,” in Proceedings of the World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, pp. 5-1–5-13, Berkley, Calif, USA, 1956.
[7] B. Kato and H. Akiyama, “Energy input and damages in
structures subjected to sever earthquakes,” Transactions of
Architectural Institute of Japan, no. 235, pp. 9–18, 1975.
[8] M. Tada, M. Hayashi, and T. Yoneyama, “An improvement of
seismic capacity of double-layer space trusses using force limit-
ing devices,” in Proceedings of the IASS International Symposium
on Spatial Structures: Heritage, Present and Future, vol. 2, pp.
1085–1092, Milan, Italy, 1995.
[9] F. Qiao, N. Hagiwara, and T. Matsui, “On the relation between
absorbed energy and dynamic collapse of a single-layer shallow
latticed domes,” Journal of Structural and Construction Engi-
neering, no. 531, pp. 117–124, 2000.
[10] Y. Taniguchi, “Seismic motion level of dynamic collapse or
limit state deformation for lattice arch and cylindrical roof,” in
Proceedings of the Structural Engineers World Congress, p. 176,
Como, Italy, 2011, Abstract Book and CD-ROM.
[11] M. Murata, SPACE, Meijo University, Nagoya, Japan, http://
wwwra.meijo-u.ac.jp/labs/ra007/space/index.htm.
 International Journal of

Rotating
Machinery

International Journal of
The Scientific
Engineering Distributed
Journal of
Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporation

http://www.hindawi.com
World Journal
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensors
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Sensor Networks
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

Control Science
and Engineering

Advances in
Civil Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Submit your manuscripts at

http://www.hindawi.com

Journal of
Journal of Electrical and Computer
Robotics
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

VLSI Design
Advances in
OptoElectronics
International Journal of

International Journal of
Modelling &
Simulation
Aerospace
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Volume 2014
Navigation and
Observation
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
in Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

International Journal of
Chemical Engineering
Hindawi Publishing Corporation
http://www.hindawi.com
International Journal of
Antennas and Active and Passive Advances in
Propagation Electronic Components Shock and Vibration Acoustics and Vibration
Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014 http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014