Static equivalent modeling of dynamic seismic forces for realizing

earthquake resistant spatial truss structures

*Zhiyuan Gao¹, †Koichiro Ishikawa1

1
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Fukui, Japan.
*Presenting author: 1340086909@qq.com
†Corresponding author: ishikawa@u-fukui.ac.jp

Abstract
This study deals with spatial truss structures composed of a double layer spatial truss dome
and two truss plate-type wall substructures subjected to horizontal earthquake motion.
Comparative investigations of the structures are also carried out by considering the structural
eccentricity varying the wall height. The equivalent static seismic force, which is hereinafter
referred to as the static seismic force, is calculated by the response spectrum method, and the
seismic force distribution and response deformation applied on the structure are analyzed and
investigated. The elastic seismic response analysis using static seismic force and the influence
of eccentricity on seismic response characteristics is carried out. In addition, a method to
calculate the static seismic force of medium and medium-sized large-span double-layer truss
dome is also proposed by considering the shape, height, span and support conditions of the
structure. The purpose of this study is to investigate an effect of the substructure on the
seismic static force because the roof truss structure with curved surface has higher stiffness. In
addition, the seismic response characteristics of long-span structures are different from those
of multi-story structures, which have the structural characteristics of its vertical response as
well as horizontal response to horizontal earthquake motion. Based on the elastic seismic
response analysis and the static analysis of the static seismic force calculated by the response
spectrum method, the seismic force distribution and deformation characteristics of the
analysis model with or without eccentricity are analyzed and discussed. It is seen that the
static equivalent modeling with the maximum effective mass ratio can be used to obtain the
seismic force distribution in this kind of long-span structure.
Keywords: Spatial truss structure, Truss wall, Truss dome, Horizontal earthquake motions,
Equivalent static seismic force, Seismic force distribution, Structural eccentricity.

Introduction
The in-plane stiffness of roof truss with curved surface is high, so the depth can be reduced
relative to the span. In addition, the seismic response of long-span structure is different from
that of multi-story structure, which has the structural characteristics of not only horizontal
vibration but also vertical response. Considering the shape, height, span and support
conditions, a method for calculating the static seismic force of medium and small-scale large-
span double-layer solid vault is also proposed.
In this study, the equivalent static seismic force, which is hereinafter referred to as static
seismic force, is calculated by the response spectrum method. The seismic force distribution
and the response deformation of the double-layer truss roof supporting the three-dimensional
truss walls are also carried out by the elastic dynamic analysis. In addition, the elastic static
analysis using the static seismic force are compared with the dynamic analysis and the effect
of the eccentricity on seismic response state is also investigated by the results of the both
analyses.
Analysis models
The analysis models are composed of roofs and walls integrated double-layer three-
dimensional truss structure as shown in Fig. 1. The one of the analysis models is generated
by the structural eccentricity in the Z direction in Fig.1(a). The two roof structures in Fig.1(a)
and (b) have the same structural characteristics as shown in Table 1. They have EP dome
shape with the curvature radii Rx1, Rx2, Rz1 and Rz2 in Fig. 2. The half open angles of the dome
have θ x = θ z = 30 ° along two directions such as X and Z directions.
The two wall structures with the different height are also shown in Fig. 3. The wall model H
is set to be the half height of wall model F.

(a) With eccentricity (b) Without eccentricity

Figure 1. Analysis model

Figure 2. Root type truss EP dome

 Table 1. Structural form of analysis models
Structural Ingredient
Analysis motel 1 2 3
classification direction
Half-open angle:θx (deg) 30 30 30
Radius of curvature of the
(m) 17.882 12.534 10.234
first chord: Rx1
X direction
Radius of curvature of the
(m) 16.882 11.534 9.234
first chord: Rx2
Span: Lx (m) 16.882 16.312 15.994
Roof
Half-open angle: θz (deg) 30 45 50
structure
Radius of curvature of the
(m) 15.000 15.000 15.000
Z direction first chord: Rzl
Radius of curvature of the
(m) 14.000 14.000 14.000
first chord: Rz2
Rise: H (m) 3.923 5.019 6.085
Layer spacing: d (m) 1.000 1.000 1.000
Height With
(m) 4.000 4.000 4.000
direction eccentricity
Y direction
Wall length: Without
(m) 8.000 8.000 8.000
structure Ly eccentricity
Z direction Column direction span: Lz (m) 14.000 14.000 14.000
Layer spacing: d (m) 1.000 1.000 1.000

(a) Wall model F

(b) Wall model H

Figure 3. Wall type truss walls

Used members in the structures

The used member characteristics such as the cross-sectional area and the slenderness ratio are
determined by means of the allowable stress calculation conventional method. The snow load
and dead load are used as the design loads of the analysis models.
The analysis models are assumed to be built in a heavy snow area. The deepest snow load of
2m with the unit volume weight of snow 30N / m2 / cm is used as the snow load for the long-
term structural design. The uniform distributed weight for seismic response analysis is taken
to be 35% (0.7m) of the maximum depth (2m). The slenderness ratio of all the members such
as the upper chord, lower chord, and web is taken to be 60 in the wall structures. The cross-
sectional area of the members of the wall structures is determined by long-term allowable
stress calculation, as shown in Table 2.
The member slenderness ratio of the dome structure is taken to be 80 at the upper and the
lower chord members and 100 at the web members respectively. The member sectional area is
shown in Fig. 4.

(a) Upper chords members (b) Lower chord members (c) Web members

(D) Legend of member cross-sectional area

Figure 4. Cross-sectional area of roof members
Table 2. Area of roof and wall structures, cane supported with roof and wall
Used members for wall structure
Semi-
Upper and Slendernes Cane
closed Web
lower chord s ratio 60 members
angle members
members members
Cross-sectional
area of used
30 degrees 1600 2700 3200 2700
members
(mm2)

Comparison between elastic dynamic response analyses and response spectrum static
analyses by using static seismic forces
The seismic force distribution and deformation properties of this truss structure will be
analyzed and investigated based on the elastic seismic response analysis and the static
analysis using the static seismic force calculated from the response spectrum method. The
horizontal ground motion is acting for the longitudinal direction.
Seismic force distribution and deformation property based on seismic force distribution of
analysis model 1 without eccentricity
Fig. 5 shows the static seismic force using the 6th-order mode (natural period T6=0.146s) of
the analysis model without eccentricity. For the acceleration response spectrum, the observed
wave phase of El-Centro 1940 and the announced spectrum were set as the target spectra. The
reason for adopting the 6th-order mode is that the effective mass ratio is 0.95, which is the
largest value in the direction along the wall. The mode shape appears a shear deformation
type of the wall.

(a) Seismic force distribution (x-y plane) (b) Seismic force distribution (y-z plane)
Figure 5. Distribution map of static seismic force
The following seismic force distribution is recognized from this figure. That is, in the
distribution (y-z plane), the roof response acceleration applies the seismic force in the vertical
direction in a symmetrical distribution, and the walls response acceleration applies the seismic
force in the out-of-plane direction due to the thrust from the roof. In the distribution (x-y
plane), the roof receives a vertical seismic force in inverse symmetry, and the walls response
acceleration applies a horizontal seismic force with an inverted triangular distribution.
Regarding the seismic force acting on the roof cross section in the direction from the center
point of the wall in the girder direction, the seismic response analysis and static seismic force
are normalized and shown in Fig. 6 (a). The seismic force obtained by seismic response
analysis was calculated as follows. That is, at the time when the maximum response
acceleration in the girder direction of the center point of the upper surface of the dome
became maximum, the response accelerations of all the nodes were obtained from the time
history response analysis. Next, the seismic force is calculated by multiplying the mass of
each node by the response acceleration. It can be seen that the seismic response analysis and
static analysis have relatively close distributions from Fig. 6 (a).
Deformation properties in Fig. 6 (b) show the deformation diagram by the seismic response
analysis, and Fig. 6 (c) shows a deformation diagram of static analysis by applying static
seismic force. From this, the following can be confirmed for the roof structure. That is, in
static analysis, it floats forward in the distribution (y-z plane). On the other hand, a
deformation that sinks behind the girder appears. In the seismic response analysis, the same
deformation is seen, but compared to the static analysis, the roof plate is smoothly deformed
into a rigid body. The following was confirmed for the wall structure. That is, the outside of
the wall surface is deformed due to the thrust from the roof structure in the girder direction.
On the other hand, it was confirmed that the shear deformation property was shown in the
wall direction.
 Elastic seismic response analysis

Static analysis by static seismic force

(a) Normalized seismic force distribution

(b) Seismic response analysis (c) Static analysis by static seismic force
Figure 6. Comparison of seismic force distribution acting on the roof and deformation

Investigation of deformation properties of analysis model with and without eccentricity

The deformation properties of the reverse object can be confirmed on the roof with
eccentricity from the comparison of static analysis with and without eccentricity (Fig. 7).

(a) With eccentricity (b) Without eccentricity

Figure 7. Comparison of deformation properties with and without eccentricity
Conclusions
The equivalent static seismic forces and deformations are investigated by means of the static
equivalent modeling of dynamic seismic forces for realizing earthquake resistant spatial truss
structures. It has been confirmed that the proposed method shows a good agreement with the
dynamic analysis of the spatial truss structures subjected to earthquake motion.
Whether there is eccentricity or not will affect the seismic response of the roof structure. The
eccentricity analysis model can clarify the seismic response of the wave caused by the roof
structure through the rigidity difference of the wall. In addition, no matter whether it is
eccentric or not, the roof structure will induce the wall seismic force due to the vertical
vibration. The wall structure also vibrates in the out of plane direction. The out of plane
bending deformation has been occurred due to the force.
The seismic force distribution could be obtained using the mode with the maximum effective
mass ratio in the case of this structure with a span of about 17 m. It was also confirmed that
the out-of-plane response of the lower wall structure was affected by the thrust of the vertical
vibration of the roof-type dome.

References
[1] Ishikawa, K. (2009) Effects of resonance between spatial structures and ceiling systems on the seismic
response”, Proceedings of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures (IASS) Symposium
2009, Valencia Evolution and Trends in Design, Analysis and Construction of Shell and Spatial Structures
Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain Alberto DOMINGO and Carlos LAZARO (eds.).
[2] Ishikawa, K., Kato S. (1997) Elastic-plastic dynamic buckling analysis of reticular domes subjected to
earthquake motion, International Journal of Space Structures, 12, 205-215.
[3] Ishikawa K, Okubo S, Hiyama , Kato S. 2000. Evaluation method for predicting dynamic collapse of double
layer lat-ticed space truss structures due to earthquake motion. In-ternational Journal of Space Structures,
Vol.15, 249–257.
[4] Okubo S, Hiyama Y, Ishikawa K, Wendel R, Fischer L. (2001) Load capacity and plastic deformable ability
of aluminum alloy double layer latticed wall subjected to plane load, IASS Symposium 2001, Nagoya,
TP101.
[5] Ishikawa K, Kato S. (1997) Elastic-plastic buckling analysis of reticular dome subjected to earthquake
motion. Interna-tional Journal of Space Structures, Vol.12, 205–215.
[6] Taniguchi Y, Gould P L, Kurano M. (2008) Earthquake input energy at dynamic collapse for double-layer
cylindrical Lattice roofs. Journal of the IASS, Vol.49,No. 2.
[7] Fan F, Shen S Z, Parke G A R. (2004) Theoretical and experi-mental study of vibration reduction in braced
domes using a viscous damper system. International Journal of Space Structures, Vol.19, No.4, 195-202.
[8] Midorikawa M. (2005) Performace-based seismic design provi-sions for buildings in Japan. Proceedings of
the IASS 2005, Vol.I, 307-316.
[9] Giuliani G C. (2002) Overview on the dynamic control of struc-tures. Proceedings of the IASS 2002:561-
567.
[10] Zeng Z P. 2007. Structural analysis and design of the latticed shell for Fujian Gymnasium. Journal of Spatial
Structures, Vol.13, No.2, 44-48.
[11] Ilzarbe L. Álvarez, M.J. Viles E. Tanco M. (2008) Practical ap-plications of design of experiments in the
field of engineer-ing. Abibliographical review, Qual. Reliab. Engng.Int., Vol.24, 417-428.
[12] European Committee for Standardization(CEN), Eurocode 8: Design of structures forearthquake resistance
Part 1: Gen-eral rules. (2004) seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998-1: 2004). Brussel.
[13] FEMA-356. (2000) NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic rehabili-tation of buildings. Building seismic safety
council, Wash-ington DC.
[14] Ishikawa, K. and Nagasaka, M. (2019) Evaluation method of performance to transmit horizontal seismic
loads to substructures of double layer truss domes built in heavy snow region considering vertical load
resistant capacity, Journal of structural construction engineering, AIJ, 84, 1325-1335.