Figure 7.

Primary modes of vibration

During the review process, there was disagreement regarding the approach used for
determining the fundamental periods. The classification of the global lateral system was debated
because the overall structure is neither fully a moment frame, nor fully a shear wall system. The
category of “all other structural systems” (ASCE 7-05 Table 12.8-2) was explored for calculating
the approximate fundamental period. However, the adjustment of these values saw a dramatic
reduction in the period magnitudes, which in turn increased the base shear and hence the
demands on the new shear walls and drag elements. The reality is that the true fundamental
periods of the structure will fall somewhere in between that of a complete moment frame system
and that of a complete shear wall system, but the code does not currently provide an accurate
method for capturing these contributions. Given the ambiguity of the code with regards to
classification of the overall lateral system, it was necessary to explore a third approach which
combines concepts of both the single and two stage analyses.

Third Analysis: Hybrid. The hybrid approach utilizes a single model of the full structure,
identical in its structural elements to the model used for the single-stage analysis. The four major
key considerations that have been repeated throughout this case study were revisited, beginning
with the placement of seismic mass, which is fully unique to the hybrid approach. Out of
practicality, four versions of the model were made. In each version, only one of the four
substructures was assigned mass. For instance, the first model only had mass placed in the north
tower with zero mass assigned to the remaining towers and podium; the second version only had
mass assigned to the south tower, and so forth (Figure 8). Having run the response spectrum
analysis for each model, the dynamic story shears were extracted and simultaneously applied as
static story forces to a fifth model containing zero mass. From there, the standard static analysis
(based on dynamic load distributions) was performed with the various directional combinations
to account for orthogonal effects.
 Figure 8. Hybrid model – mass separately assigned to each substructure
With regards to period selection, the fundamental periods from the modal analysis of
each tower and podium were obtained and compared with the respective code maximums. The
separation of mass assignments made it feasible to study each substructure independently,
allowing for the determination of the code maximums based on the respective lateral systems of
the substructures. The hybrid approach thus avoided the code ambiguity surrounding the
classification of a single global lateral system encountered in the single stage approach. Similar
to the single-stage analysis, an R-factor of 3 was assigned to the entire structure and
directionality of the tower reactions had already been accounted for by the response spectrum
SRSS combination. The resulting base shear using this approach was very similar in magnitude
to the base shear from the two-stage approach. The demands on the shear walls and drags were
also similar in value.

Observations. The hybrid model provided a reasonable approach to the analysis of the hospital
structure by working around the shortcomings of the single and two stage analyses while
combining the advantages of both. The use of a single model allowed for the stiffness at the
transition between the upper and lower portions to be captured directly by the model. This
provided a more realistic representation of the tower boundary conditions and thus produced
more accurate force distributions above. Furthermore, the variable placement of seismic mass
allowed each substructure to be analyzed independently much like the two-stage approach. Thus,
the hybrid approach is highly recommended as an alternative analysis method to either the single
or two-stage approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the intent of two-stage analysis is to enable engineers to analyze two
different structures, one much stiffer than the other, separately in order to simplify analysis
without sacrificing much of the integrity of the analysis. However, taking advantage of two-
stage analysis provisions has created challenges of its own. As engineers, we are interested in a
reasonably accurate structural analysis, resulting in a safe physical design satisfying the code