intent.

We do not wish to change a physical design or create an overly-conservative structure

due to the difficulties / vagaries of applying a certain code provision. Fortunately, recent code
revisions are empowering engineers to do so better and more consistent with the intent of two-
stage analysis. However, there is still room to bridge the gap between practice and code intent.

(1) Systematize and simplify the transfer of scaled forces from upper structure to lower
structure:

Often in practice, whether due to analysis software limitations or simplicity of

explanation, seismic load demands from the flexible upper structure are applied statically to the
lower structure during analysis of the lower structure in a two-stage analysis, especially when a
two-model approach is used. This occurs regardless of what analysis methodology is used for
the upper structure. In many cases, due to the challenges of using a two-model approach and
applying forces to the lower structure, a one-model approach is used instead, eroding the original
intent of two-stage analysis to simply analysis. Depending on the manner in which the upper
structure affect the lower structure and to what degree, some uniform guidelines can be set to
simplify and systematize this process. For instance, a linear dynamic analysis may have been
used to design the upper structure, but if the scaled base shear and overturning moment from a
linear static analysis is within a certain range of a the linear dynamic analysis, the results from a
linear static analysis of the upper structure may be used to apply to the lower structure for the
lower structure's analysis.

(2) Clarify the intent of the R-factor provisions when applied to two-stage analysis:

Two-stage analysis stipulates that the two structures are so different in stiffnesses and
structural behavior (a very flexible upper structure on top of a stiff base) that it is acceptable to
analyze two structures separately as they almost behave independently in a structural sense. As
such, does the code intend to have R-factors applied independently to the two separate
structures? If so, can the intent of safety and redundancy of the code be addressed in ways more
specific to the application of two-stage analysis, such as requirements to design certain elements
of the upper-to-lower structure transition, and/or of the lower structure to overstrength load
cases?

In general we recommend that the code clarify whether the intent of two-stage analysis is
to utilize separate R-factors for the upper and lower portions in order to capture their respective
ductilities. Though ASCE 7-05 Section 12.2.3.1 states that the reactions above shall be
magnified by the ratio of R lower to R upper (assuming ρ lower = ρ upper ) when applied below unless
this ratio is less than one, it does not clearly indicate whether the two-stage analysis approach is
subject to the requirements of vertical combinations defined under the same section; specifically,
whether R-factors below need to be smaller or equal to all R-factors above.
 (3) Provide guidance for special cases, such as multi-tower applications:

In the unique case were multi-towers exist above a single podium, additional guidance is
needed with regards to a traditional single-stage analysis. The process for determining the
fundamental period of the overall structure per ASCE 7-05 Section 12.8.2 remains unclear when
applied to this type of structure. As demonstrated by analysis, the behavior of the towers resulted
in six primary modes of vibration (three in each principle direction), each with comparable mass
participation. Recommendations should be provided regarding which period to select or a more
refined procedure should be developed such as the “hybrid” model that has been presented in the
paper.

(4) Provide guidance for existing structures:

Although it was not the focus of this paper, we recommend that additional guidance be
provided in the code for Voluntary Seismic Improvements, specifically regarding the analysis of
existing structures using new code demands. Though design was not emphasized in the existing
hospital evaluation case study, it remained challenging to justify the adequacy of existing
elements to withstand the prescribed loading intended for new structures. Exceptions in the code
regarding demand should be included under these circumstances. ASCE 41-06 Chapter 10,
which is intended for partial retrofits, could be referenced as an alternative document for the
analysis of existing structures, but care should be taken as to not alter the intent of the voluntary
seismic improvement provisions currently listed in the code.

View publication stats