You are on page 1of 60

Seismic Analysis and Design

Of Structures
Using Response Spectra
Or

Time History Motions


BY

Ed Wilson
Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
February 24, 2010

SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION
On Advanced Numerical Modeling and Analytical Techniques
1. Personal Remarks 50 years experience of dynamic analysis
2. Seismic Analysis Using Response Spectra CQC3
3. Comparison with Direct Time History Dynamic Analysis
4. Retrofit of the San Mateo Bridge
_-

5. The Fast Non-Linear Analysis Method FNA Method


6. Retrofit of the Richmond San Rafael Bridge
7. Near Fault Seismic Analysis
8. Concluding Remarks

edwilson.org and ed-wilson1@juno.com


1882

Father Born In San Francisco Carpenter and


Walked Guard in S.F. after 1906 Earthquake

1931

Ed born in Ferndale CA Earthquake Capitol of USA

1950

Graduated - Christian Brothers HS in SAC.

1950 - 52

Sacramento Jr. College

1953 - 54

BS in Civil Eng. UC Berkeley

1953 - 54

DOT CA Bridge Dept. Ten Mile River Bridge

1955 - 57

US Army Korea Radio Repairman

1957 - 63

M.S. and D. Eng. With Prof. Ray Clough

1960

With Ray, Conducted the first Time-Histories


Earthquake Response of Buildings Bridges &
Dams. - Fifty Years Ago

1963- 65

Worked on the Apollo Program at Aerojet in


Sacramento - Designed Structures for 10

1965 -91

Professor at UC Berkeley

Loads

NINETEEN SIXTIES IN BERKELEY


1. Cold War - Blast Analysis
2. Earthquake Engineering Research
3. State And Federal Freeway System
4. Manned Space Program
5. Offshore Drilling
6. Nuclear Reactors And Cooling Towers

NINETEEN SIXTIES IN BERKELEY


1.

Period Of Very High Productivity

2.

No Formal Research Institute

3.
Free Exchange Of Information Gave
programs to profession prior to publication
4.

Worked Closely With Mathematics Group

5.

Students Were Very Successful

DYNAMIC ANALYSIS USING RESPONSE


SPECTRUM SEISMIC LOADING
Before the Existence of Inexpensive Personal Computers, the
Response Spectrum Method was the Standard Approach for Linear
Seismic Analysis

25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25

TIME - seconds

Figure 15.1a Typical Earthquake Ground Acceleration Percent of Gravity

10

2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
- 10
- 12

4
5
6
TIME - seconds

10

Figure 15.1b Absolute Earthquake Ground Displacements - Inches

y() MAX

20
18
16
14
12
10

Figure15.2bPseudoAccelerationSpectrum,

1.0 Percent Damping

5.0 Percent
Damping
PercentofGravity

6
4
2
0

PERIOD - Seconds

Figure 15.2a Relative Displacement Spectrum y (T)MAX Inches

100
90
80
1.0 Percent Damping
5.0 Percent Damping

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Sa y() MAX

PERIOD - Seconds

Figure 15.2b Pseudo-Acceleration Spectrum Percent of Gravity

Major Approximation
yT ( t ) y ( t ) u g ( t )

yT (t ) y (t ) ug (t )

Where
yT ( t ) The Total Displacement
y(t) The Displacement Ralative to the
Earthquake Ground Motion
u g (t) The Earthquake Ground Displacements
At the Base of the Structure

The loads are applied directly to the structure;


whereas, the real earthquake displacements are
applied at the foundation of the real structure.

Development of the Three Spectrum


y (t)n + 2 n n y (t)n + n2 y(t)n = p n1 u(t)g1 + p n 2 u(t)g 2 + p nz u(t)gz
Or, the 3 spectrum are produced by solution of the following three equation :
y (t)n + 2 n n y (t)n + n2 y(t)n = p n1 u(t)g1

S1 ( ) All positive numbers

y (t)n + 2 n n y (t)n + n2 y(t)n = p n2 u(t)g 2

S2 ( ) All positive numbers

y (t)n + 2 n n y (t)n + n2 y(t)n = p nz u(t)gz

S z ( ) All positive numbers

The 3 Spectrum are not a function of the properties of the structure

In Addition, All Spectrum Values Are Maximum Peak Values


The Time History Details of the Duration of the Earthquake
Have Been Lost

Examples of Three-Dimensional Spectra Analyses

Definition of Earthquake Spectra Input


90
S2
90
S1

Plan View
0

Three-Dimensional Spectra Analyses


Equal Spectrum from any direction CQC3 Method

Maximum Peak Column Moments - Symmetrical


All Values are Positive

Three-Dimensional Spectra Analyses


100/30 Spectrum Method

Maximum Peak Column Moments - Not Symmetrical


All Values are Positive

Summary of Multi-Component
Combination Rules
1. The 100/30 and 100/40 percent rules
have no theoretical basis.
2. The SRSS combination rule, applied
to equal spectra, produces identical
results for all reference systems and
requires only one analysis to produce
all design forces and displacements.

3. The CQC3 method should be used


where the horizontal orthogonal
components of the seismic input are
not equal.
4. In case of the seismic analysis of
structures near a fault, the fault
normal and parallel motions are not
equal.

In 1996 The CQC3 was Proposed


by
Professor Armen Der Kiureghian
As a Replacement for the
30%, 40% & SRSS Rules
For Multi-Component Seismic Analysis

2
Fpeak [ F0

2
F90

(1 a )

2(1 a ) F0 90 sin cos


2

2
( F0

2
2
F90 ) sin

1
2 2
Fz ]

Where " a" is the proportional constant


used to define the other horizontal spectrum
S 2 a S1
If a 1.0 The CQC3 method reduces to the SRSS rule

Design Checks of Three-Dimensional


Frame Members for Seismic Forces
In order to stratify various building codes, every
one-dimensional compression member within a
structure must satisfy the following
Demand/Capacity Ratio at all points in time:
P(t )

M 3 ( t ) C3
M 2 (t ) C2
R( t )

1.0
P(t )
P(t )
c Pcr
b M c 2 (1
) b M c 3 (1
)
Pe 2
Pe3

t = 0 = Static Loads Only

Where the forces acting on the frame element crosssection at time t are P(t ), M 2 (t ) and M 3 (t )
including the static forces prior to the application of
the dynamic loads. The empirical constants are code
and material dependent and are normally defined as
c and . b
Resistance factors
C 2 and C 3

Moment reduction factors

M c 2 and M c 3 Moment capacities


Pcr

Axial load capacity

Pe 2 and Pe 3 Euler bucking load capacities about the 2 an3 axis


with effective lengths approximated.

Design Checks of Three-Dimensional


Frame Members for Spectra Forces
For the case maximum peak spectra forces,
compression members within a structure must
satisfy the following Demand/Capacity Ratio
P (max)
R( t )

c Pcr

M 2 (max) C2
M 3 (max) C3

1.0
P (max)
P (max)
b M c 2 (1
) b M c 3 (1
)
Pe 2
Pe 3

Where P(max), M2(max) and M3(max) have been


Calculated by the CQC Method

The Retrofit of the San Mateo Bridge


Demand/Capacity Ratios were calculated using COC
forces using spectrum calculated from several threedimensional sets of earthquake motions.
Time-dependent Demand/Capacity Ratios were
calculated directly from the same set of earthquake
motions.
In general, the time-dependent Demand/Capacity Ratios
were approximately
the CQC forces.

50 percent

of the ratios using

Limitations of Response Spectrum Analysis


1. All forces and displacements obtained from a
Response Spectrum Analysis are Maximum Peak
Values and are all positive numbers.
2. The specific time the Maximum Peak Values occur
is different for every period.
3. Nonlinear Behavior CANNOT be considered in a
Response Spectrum Analysis.
4. Except for a single degree of freedom, a Response
Spectrum Analysis is an APPROXIMATE
METHOD
5. This is not Performance Based Design

SAP
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
PROGRAM
ALSO A PERSON
Who Is Easily Deceived Or Fooled
Who Unquestioningly Serves Another

From The Foreword Of


The First SAP Manual
"The slang name S A P was selected to
remind the user that this program, like
all programs, lacks intelligence.
It is the responsibility of the engineer to
idealize the structure correctly and
assume responsibility for the results.
Ed Wilson 1970

The SAP Series of Programs


1969 - 70

SAP

Used Static Loads to Generate Ritz Vectors

1971 - 72

Solid-Sap

Rewritten by Ed Wilson

1972 -73

SAP IV

Subspace Iteration Dr. Jgen

1973 74

NON SAP

New Program The Start of ADINA

Bathe

1979 Lost All Research and Development Funding


1979 80

SAP 80

New Linear Program for Personal Computers

1983 1987 SAP 80

CSI added Pre and Post Processing

1987 - 1990

Significant Modification and Documentation

SAP 90

1997 Present SAP 2000

Nonlinear Elements More Options


With Windows Interface

FIELD MEASUREMENTS
REQUIRED TO VERIFY
1. MODELING ASSUMPTIONS
2. SOIL-STRUCTURE MODEL
3. COMPUTER PROGRAM
4. COMPUTER USER

CHECK OF RIGID
DIAPHRAGM
APPROXIMATION
MECHANICAL
VIBRATION
DEVICES

FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF
PERIODS AND MODE SHAPES
MODE

TFIELD

TANALYSIS

Diff. - %

1.77 Sec.

1.78 Sec.

0.5

1.69

1.68

0.6

1.68

1.68

0.0

0.60

0.61

0.9

0.60

0.61

0.9

0.59

0.59

0.8

0.32

0.32

0.2

11

0.23

0.32

2.3

FIRST DIAPHRAGM
MODE SHAPE
15 th Period
TFIELD = 0.16 Sec.

The Fast Nonlinear Analysis Method


The FNA Method was Named in 1996
Designed for the Dynamic Analysis of
Structures with a Limited Number of Predefined
Nonlinear Elements

BASE ISOLATION

Isolators

BUILDING
IMPACT
ANALYSIS

FRICTION
DEVICE
CONCENTRATED
DAMPER

NONLINEAR
ELEMENT

GAP ELEMENT

BRIDGE DECK

ABUTMENT

TENSION ONLY ELEMENT

PLASTIC
HINGES
2 ROTATIONAL DOF

Degrading Stiffness Elements are in SAP 2000

Mechanical Damper
F = f (u,v,umax )

F = ku

F = C vN

Mathematical Model

First Application of the FNA Method - 1994


103 FEET DIAMETER - 100 FEET HEIGHT

NONLINEAR
DIAGONALS

BASE
ISOLATION

Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of


ELEVATED WATER STORAGE TANK

COMPUTER MODEL
92 NODES
103 ELASTIC FRAME ELEMENTS
56 NONLINEAR DIAGONAL ELEMENTS

600 TIME STEPS @ 0.02 Seconds

COMPUTER TIME
REQUIREMENTS
PROGRAM
ANSYS

INTEL 486

3 Days

ANSYS

CRAY

3 Hours

SADSAP

INTEL 486

( B Array was 56 x 20 )

( 4300 Minutes )
( 180 Minutes )
2 Minutes

EXAMPLE OF
FRAME WITH
UPLIFTING
ALLOWED

UPLIFTING
ALLOWED

Four Static Load Conditions


Are Used To Start The
Generation of LDR Vectors

EQ

DL

Left

Right

Column Axial Forces


600
400

LEFT
RIGHT

200
0
-200
-400
-600

TIME - seconds

10

Summary of Results for Building Uplifting Example


from Two Times the Loma Prieta Earthquake

Uplift

Max.
Max.
DisplaceColumn
0.05
ment
Force
Computer
(inches)
(kips)
Time

Without
14.6 Sec

With

15.0 Sec
Percent
Diff.

Max.
Base
Shear
(kips)

Max.
Base
Moment
(k-in)

Max.
Strain
Energy
(k-in)

Max. Uplift
(inches)

7.76

924

494

424,000

1,547

0.0

5.88

620

255

197,000

489

1.16

-24%

-33%

-40%

-53%

-68%

Confirmed by Shaking Table Tests


By Ray Clough on Three Story Frame

Advantages Of The FNA Method


1.

The Method Can Be Used For Both


Static And Dynamic Nonlinear Analyses

2.

The Method Is Very Efficient And


Requires A Small Amount Of
Additional Computer Time As
Compared To Linear Analysis

2.

The Method Can Easily Be Incorporated


Into Existing Computer Programs For
LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS.

MULTISUPPORT SEISMIC ANALYSIS

(Earthquake Displacements Input )

ANCHOR PIERS

Hayward Fault
East

San Andreas Fault


West

Eccentrically Braced Towers

Analysis and Design of Structures for


Near Fault Earthquake Motions
On the UC Berkeley Campus

Fault Normal and Parallel


Foundation Displacements are
Significantly Different
Used six different Time-History Earthquake
Motions for Nonlinear Dynamic Analyses

Hearst Mining Building Built in 1905 to 07


50 Yards from the Hayward Fault

Base Isolated in 2004

Near Fault Analysis and Design - SRC

Concluding Remarks
1. The 100/30 percent Rule should replaced by the
SRSS Rule - Until the CQC3 is implemented in SAP
2000.
2. Response Spectra Seismic Analysis is an Approximate
Method and is restricted to linear structural behavior
and may satisfy a design code. However, it may not
produce a Performance Based Design
3. In general, Nonlinear Time-History Analyses produce
more realistic results and can produce Performance
Based Design

4. Performance Based Design is using all the


information about the seismic displacement
loading on the structure and to the accurately
predict the nonlinear behavior and damage to the
structure.
5. All Code Based Designed Structures appear to be
based on Linear Analysis.
6. Nonlinear Seismic Analyses are possible due to:
New Methods of nonlinear analysis have been developed.
New Nonlinear Energy Dissipation and Simple Isolation
Device can be used.
The new inexpensive personal computer can easily
conduct the required calculations.

Floating-Point Speeds of Computer Systems


Definition of one Operation

A = B + C*D

64 bits - REAL*8

Year
1962

Computer
or CPU
CDC-6400

Operations
Per Second
50,000

Relative
Speed

1964

CDC-6600

100,000

1974

CRAY-1

3,000,000

60

1981

IBM-3090

20,000,000

400

1981

CRAY-XMP

40,000,000

800

1994

Pentium-90

3,500,000

70

1995

Pentium-133

5,200,000

104

1995

DEC-5000 upgrade

14,000,000

280

1998

Pentium II - 333

37,500,000

750

1999

Pentium III - 450

69,000,000

1,380

2003

Pentium IV 2,000

220,000,000

4,400

2006
2009

AMD - Athlon
Intel Core 2 Duo

440,000,000
1,200,000,000

8,800
25,000