G+12 Steel Building

Structural Analysis: Example 1
Twelve-story Moment Resisting Steel Frame
Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 1
Analysis of a 12-Story Steel Building

In Stockton, California
Building Description
12 Stories above grade, one level below grade

Significant
Configuration Irregularities
Special Steel Moment Resisting Perimeter Frame

Intended Use is Office Building
Situated on Site Class C Soils
Analysis Description
Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis (Section 12.8)

Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (Section
12.9)
Linear and Nonlinear Response History Analysis

(Chapter 16)
Overview of Presentation
Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis types
Overview of Equivalent Lateral Force analysis
Overview of Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
Overview of Modal Response History Analysis
Comparison of Results
Summary and Conclusions
Note: The majority of presentation is based on requirements provided by ASCE 7-05.
ASCE 7-10 and the 2009 NEHRP Provisions (FEMA P-750) will be referred to as applicable.
Describe Building
Describe/Perform steps common to all analysis
types
Plan at First Level Above Grade
Perimeter Moment
Frame
B
Gravity-Only Columns
Plans Through Upper Levels

Perimeter Moment
Frame
Perimeter Moment
Frame
Above Level 5
Above Level 9
Gravity-Only Columns
Section A-A
Thickened Slabs
Section B-B
3-D Wire Frame View from SAP 2000
Perspective Views of Structure (SAP 2000)
Describe Building
types
Seismic Load Analysis: Basic Steps

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Determine Occupancy Category (Table 1-1)

Determine Ground Motion Parameters:
SS and S1 USGS Utility or Maps from Ch. 22)
Fa and Fv (Tables 11.4-1 and 11.4-2)
SDS and SD1 (Eqns. 11.4-3 and 11.4-4)
Determine Importance Factor (Table 11.5-1)
Determine Seismic Design Category (Section 11.6)
Select Structural System (Table 12.2-1)
Establish Diaphragm Behavior (Section 11. 3.1)
Evaluate Configuration Irregularities (Section 12.3.2)
Determine Method of Analysis (Table 12.6-1)
Determine Scope of Analysis [2D, 3D] (Section 12.7.2)
Establish Modeling Parameters
Determine Occupancy Category
Occupancy Category = II (Table 1-1)

Ground Motion Parameters for Stockton
SS=1.25g
S1=0.40g
Determining Site Coefficients
Fa=1.0
Fa=1.4
Determining Design Spectral Accelerations

SDS=(2/3)FaSS=(2/3)x1.0x1.25=0.833
SD1=(2/3)FvS1=(2/3)x1.4x0.40=0.373
Determine Importance Factor,

Seismic Design Category
I = 1.0
Seismic Design Category = D

Select Structural System (Table 12.2-1)
Building height (above grade) = 18+11(12.5)=155.5 ft
Select Special Steel Moment Frame: R=8, Cd=5.5, 0=3

Establish Diaphragm Behavior

and Modeling Requirements
12.3.1 Diaphragm Flexibility.
The structural analysis shall consider the relative stiffness of diaphragms
and the vertical elements of the seismic forceresisting system. Unless a
diaphragm can be idealized as either flexible or rigid in accordance with
Sections 12.3.1.1, 12.3.1.2, or 12.3.1.3, the structural analysis shall
explicitly include consideration of the stiffness of the diaphragm (i.e.,
semi-rigid modeling assumption).
12.3.1.2 Rigid Diaphragm Condition.
Diaphragms of concrete slabs or concrete filled metal deck with spanto-depth ratios of 3 or less in structures that have no horizontal
irregularities are permitted to be idealized as rigid.
Due to horizontal irregularities (e.g. reentrant corners) the diaphragms
must be modeled as semi-rigid. This will be done by using Shell
elements in the SAP 2000 Analysis.
Determine Configuration Irregularities

Horizontal Irregularities
?
?
Irregularity 2 occurs on lower levels. Irregularity 3 is possible but need not be

evaluated because it has same consequences as irregularity 3. Torsional
Irregularities will be assessed later.

Vertical Irregularities
X
X
X
Irregularities 2 and 3 occur due to setbacks. Soft story and weak story irregularities
are highly unlikely for this system and are not evaluated.
Selection of Method of Analysis (ASCE 7-05)
Not applicable
System is not regular
Vertical irregularities
2 and 3 exist
ELF is not permitted:

Must use Modal Response Spectrum or Response History Analysis
Selection of Method of Analysis (ASCE 7-10)
ELF is not permitted:

Must use Modal Response Spectrum or Response History Analysis
Describe Building
types
Comments on use of ELF for This System

ELF is NOT allowed as the Design Basis Analysis.
However, ELF (or aspects of ELF) must be used for:
Preliminary analysis and design
Evaluation of torsion irregularities and
amplification
Evaluation of system redundancy factors
Computing P-Delta Effects
Scaling Response Spectrum and Response History
results
Determine Scope of Analysis

12.7.3 Structural Modeling.
A mathematical model of the structure shall be constructed for
the purpose of determining member forces and structure
displacements resulting from applied loads and any imposed
displacements or P-Delta effects.
The model shall include the stiffness and strength of elements
that are significant to the distribution of forces and deformations
in the structure and represent the spatial distribution of mass
and stiffness throughout the structure.
Note: P-Delta effects should not be included directly in the analysis.
They are considered indirectly in Section 12.8.7
Determine Scope of Analysis

(Continued)
Continuation of 12.7.3:
Structures that have horizontal structural irregularity Type 1a, 1b, 4, or
5 of Table 12.3-1 shall be analyzed using a 3-D representation.
Where a 3-D model is used, a minimum of three dynamic degrees of
freedom consisting of translation in two orthogonal plan directions
and torsional rotation about the vertical axis shall be included at each
level of the structure.
Where the diaphragms have not been classified as rigid or flexible in
accordance with Section 12.3.1, the model shall include representation
of the diaphragms stiffness characteristics and such additional
dynamic degrees of freedom as are required to account for the
participation of the diaphragm in the structures dynamic response.
Analysis of structure must be in 3D, and diaphragms must be modeled
as semi-rigid
Establish Modeling Parameters

Continuation of 12.7.3:
In addition, the model shall comply with the following:
a) Stiffness properties of concrete and masonry elements
shall consider the effects of cracked sections.
b) For steel moment frame systems, the contribution of
panel zone deformations to overall story drift shall be
included.
Modeling Parameters used in Analysis

1) The floor diaphragm was modeled with shell elements, providing
nearly rigid behavior in-plane.
2) Flexural, shear, axial, and torsional deformations were included in all
columns and beams.
3) Beam-column joints were modeled using centerline dimensions.
This approximately accounts for deformations in the panel zone.
4) Section properties for the girders were based on bare steel, ignoring
composite action. This is a reasonable assumption in light of the fact
that most of the girders are on the perimeter of the building and are
under reverse curvature.
Modeling Parameters used in Analysis

(continued)
5) Except for those lateral load-resisting columns that terminate at
Levels 5 and 9, all columns of the lateral load resisting system were
assumed to be fixed at their base.
6) The basement walls and grade level slab were explicitly modeled
using 4-node shell elements. This was necessary to allow the interior
columns to continue through the basement level. No additional lateral
restraint was applied at the grade level, thus the basement level acts
as a very stiff first floor of the structure. This basement level was not
relevant for the ELF analysis, but did influence the MRS and MRH
analysis as described in later sections of this example
7) P-Delta effects were not included in the mathematical model. These
effects are evaluated separately using the procedures provided in
section 12.8.7 of the Standard.
Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis

Compute Seismic Weight, W (Sec. 12.7.2)
Compute Approximate Period of Vibration Ta (Sec. 12.8.2.1)
Compute Upper Bound Period of Vibration, T=CuTa (Sec. 12.8.2)
Compute Analytical Natural periods
Compute Seismic Base Shear (Sec. 12.8.1)
Compute Equivalent Lateral Forces (Sec. 12.8.3)
Compute Torsional Amplification Factors (Sec. 12.8.4.3)
Determine Orthogonal Loading Requirements (Sec. 12.8)
Compute Redundancy Factor (Sec. 12.3.4)
Perform Structural Analysis
Check Drift and P-Delta Requirements (Sec. 12.9.4 and 12.9.6)
Revise Structure in Necessary and Repeat Steps 1-11
[as appropriate]
13. Determine Design-Level Member Forces (Sec. 12.4)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Notes on Computing the Period of Vibration

Ta (Eqn.12.8-7) is an approximate lower bound period, and is
based on the measured response of buildings in high seismic
regions.
T=CuTa is also approximate, but is somewhat more accurate
than Ta alone because it is based on the best fit of the
measured response, and is adjusted for local seismicity. Both
of these adjustments are contained in the Cu term.
CuTa can only be used if an analytically computed period,
called Tcomputed herein, is available from a computer analysis
of the structure.
Using Empirical Formulas to Determine Ta
From Table 12.8.2:

Ct=0.028
x=0.80
hn=18+11(12.5)=155.5 ft
Applies in Both Directions

Adjusted Empirical Period T=CuTa
SD1=0.373
Gives Cu=1.4
T = 1.4(1.59) = 2.23 sec

Applies in Both Directions
Use of Rayleigh Analysis to Determine Tcomputed
Fi
Wi
Tcomputed =
computed
n
computed =
g i Fi
i =1
n
W
2
i
i =1
Building has n Levels
Use of Rayleigh Analysis to Determine Tcomputed
X-Direction Tcomputed = 2.85 sec.

Y-Direction Tcomputed = 2.56 sec.
Periods Computed Using Eigenvalue Analysis
K = M
= Diagonal matrix containing circular frequencies

Mode Shape Matrix
Range of Periods Computed for This Example

Ta=1.59 sec
CuTa=2.23 sec
Tcomputed = 2.87 sec in X direction
2.60 sec in Y direction
Periods of Vibration for Computing

Seismic Base Shear
(Eqns 12.8-1, 12.8-3, and 12.8-4)
if Tcomputed is not available use Ta
if Tcomputed is available, then:
if Tcomputed > CuTa use CuTa
if Ta <= Tcomputed <= CuTa use Tcomputed
if Tcomputed < Ta use Ta
Area and Line Weight Designations
Area and Line Weight Values
Weights at Individual Levels
Total Building Weight=36,912 k.
Weight above grade = 30,394 k.
Calculation of ELF Base Shear

V = CSW
(12.8-1)
SDS
0.833
CS =
=
= 0.104
8 /1
R /I
SD1
0.373
CS =
=
= 0.021
T(R /I) 2.23(8 /1)
(12.8-2)
(12.8-3)
CS = 0.044SDS I = 0.044(0.833)(1) = 0.0307
(12.8-5)
Controls
V = 0.037(30394) = 1124 kips

Concept of Reffective
CuTa=2.23 sec
Cs=0.044SDSI=0.037 (controls)
Cs=0.021 from Eqn. 12.8-3
Reffective = (0.021/0.037) x 8 = 4.54

Issues Related to Period of Vibration and Drift

12.8.6.1 Minimum Base Shear for Computing
Drift
The elastic analysis of the seismic force-resisting
system for computing drift shall be made using the
prescribed seismic design forces of Section 12.8.
EXCEPTION: Eq. 12.8-5 need not be considered for
computing drift
12.8.6.2 Period for Computing Drift
For determining compliance with the story drift limits
of Section 12.12.1, it is permitted to determine the
elastic drifts, ( ), using seismic design forces based
on the computed fundamental period of the structure
without the upper limit (C T ) specified in Section
12.8.2.
xe
Using Eqns. 12.8-3 or 12.8-5 for Computing ELF

Displacements
CuTa=2.23 sec
T=2.60 sec
Use
T=2.87 sec
DONT Use
What if Equation 12.8-6 had

Controlled Base Shear?
0.5S1
Cs =
(R /I)
Eqn. 12.8-6, applicable only when S1 >= 0.6g
This equation represents the true response

spectrum shape for near-field ground motions.
Thus, the lateral forces developed on the basis of
this equation must be used for determining
component design forces and displacements used
for computing drift.
When Equation 12.8-5 May Control

Seismic Base Shear (S1 < 0.6g)
Cs
Seismic Base Shear

Drift
0.044SDSIe
CuTa
Ccomputed
Cs
Cs
0.044SDSIe
0.044SDSIe
CuTa Ccomputed
CuTa Ccomputed
When Equation 12.8-6 May Control

Seismic Base Shear (S1 >= 0.6g)
Cs
Seismic Base Shear

Drift
SDS/(R/Ie)
CuTa
Ccomputed
Cs
Cs
SDS/(R/Ie)
SDS/(R/Ie)
CuTa
Ccomputed
CuTa Ccomputed
Calculation of ELF Forces

Fx = CvxV
Cvs =
(12.8-11)
wx h k
(12.8-12)
k
w
h
ii
i=1
T=2.23
k
2.0
k=1.86
1.0
0.5
2.5
T
Calculation of ELF Forces (continued)
Inherent and Accidental Torsion

12.8.4.1 Inherent Torsion. For diaphragms that are not
flexible, the distribution of lateral forces at each level shall
consider the effect of the inherent torsional moment, Mt ,
resulting from eccentricity between the locations of the
center of mass and the center of rigidity. For flexible
diaphragms, the distribution of forces to the vertical
elements shall account for the position and distribution of
the masses supported.
Inherent torsion effects are automatically included in 3D
structural analysis, and member forces associated with such
effects need not be separated out from the analysis.

(continued)
12.8.4.2 Accidental Torsion. Where diaphragms are not flexible, the
design shall include the inherent torsional moment (Mt ) (kip or kN)
resulting from the location of the structure masses plus the accidental
torsional moments (Mta ) (kip or kN) caused by assumed displacement
of the center of mass each way from its actual location by a distance
equal to 5 percent of the dimension of the structure perpendicular to
the direction of the applied forces.
Where earthquake forces are applied concurrently in two orthogonal
directions, the required 5 percent displacement of the center of mass
need not be applied in both of the orthogonal directions at the same
time, but shall be applied in the direction that produces the greater
effect.

(continued)

Horizontal Irregularities
Application of Equivalent Lateral Forces

(X Direction)
Forces in Kips
Application of Torsional Forces

(Using X-Direction Lateral Forces)
Forces in Kips
Stations for Monitoring Drift for

Torsion Irregularity Calculations
with ELF Forces Applied in X Direction
Results of Torsional Irregularity Calculations

For ELF Forces Applied in X Direction
Result: There is not a Torsional Irregularity for Loading in the X Direction

Results of Torsional Irregularity Calculations

For ELF Forces Applied in Y Direction
Result: There is a minor Torsional Irregularity for Loading in the Y Direction

Results of Torsional Amplification Calculations

For ELF Forces Applied in Y Direction
(X Direction Results are Similar)
Result: Amplification of Accidental Torsion Need not be Considered

Drift and Deformation
Drift and Deformation (Continued)
Not strictly
Followed in this
Example due to very
minor torsion
irregularity
Drift and Deformation (Continued)

ASCE 7-05 (ASCE 7-10) Similar
ASCE 7-10
Computed Drifts in X Direction
Cd Amplified drift based on forces

from Eq. 12.8-5
Modified for forces based

on Eq. 12.8-3
Computed Drifts in Y Direction
Cd Amplified drift based on forces

from Eq. 12.8-5
Modified for forces based

on Eq. 12.8-3
P-Delta Effects
Px I
=
Vx hsx Cd
Eq. 12.8-16*
The drift in Eq. 12.8-16 is drift

from ELF analysis, multiplied by Cd
and divided by I.
*The importance factor I was inadvertently left out of Eq. 12.8-16 in ASCE 7-05. It is properly included in ASCE 7-10.
max
0.5
=
Cd
Eq. 12.8-17
The term in Eq. 12.8-17 is

essentially the inverse of the
Computed story over-strength.
P-Delta Effects for modal response spectrum analysis and modal response
history analysis are checked using the ELF procedure indicated on this slide.
P-Delta Effects
Marginally exceeds limit of 0.091 using =1.0. would be

less than max if actual were computed and used.
Orthogonal Loading Requirements

12.5.4 Seismic Design Categories D through F. Structures
assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F shall, as a
minimum, conform to the requirements of Section 12.5.3.
12.5.3 Seismic Design Category C. Loading applied to
structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C shall, as a
minimum, conform to the requirements of Section 12.5.2 for
Seismic Design Category B and the requirements of this section.
Structures that have horizontal structural irregularity Type 5 in
Table 12.3-1 shall the following procedure [for ELF Analysis]:
Continued on Next Slide

Orthogonal Loading Requirements

(continued)
Orthogonal Combination Procedure. The structure shall
be analyzed using the equivalent lateral force analysis
procedure of Section 12.8 with the loading applied
independently in any two orthogonal directions and the
most critical load effect due to direction of application of
seismic forces on the structure is permitted to be assumed
to be satisfied if components and their foundations are
designed for the following combination of prescribed loads:
100 percent of the forces for one direction plus 30
percent of the forces for the perpendicular direction;
the combination requiring the maximum component
strength shall be used.
ASCE 7-05 Horizontal Irregularity Type 5

Nonparallel Systems-Irregularity is defined to exist where the
vertical lateral force-resisting elements are not parallel to or
symmetric about the major orthogonal axes of the seismic
forceresisting system.
The system in question clearly has nonsymmetrical lateral force
resisting elements so a Type 5 Irregularity exists, and orthogonal
combinations are required. Thus, 100%-30% procedure given
on the previous slide is used.
Note: The words or symmetric about have been removed from the
definition of a Type 5 Horizontal Irregularity in ASCE 7-10. Thus, the
system under consideration does not have a Type 5 irregularity in
ASCE 7-10.
16 Basic Load Combinations used in ELF

Analysis (Including Torsion)
100% Eccentric
30% Centered
Combination of Load Effects
1.2D +1.0E + 0.5L + 0.2S

0.9D +1.0E +1.6H
E = Eh + Ev
E h = QE
( = 1.0)
E v = 0.2SDS
(SDS=0.833g)
Redundancy Factor
12.3.4.2 Redundancy Factor, , for Seismic Design
Categories D through F. For structures assigned to
Seismic Design Category D, E, or F, shall equal 1.3
unless one of the following two conditions is met, whereby
is permitted to be taken as 1.0:
a) Each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base
shear
in the direction of interest shall comply with Table 12.33.
b) Structures that are regular in plan at all levels
provided that the seismic forceresisting systems
consist of at least two bays of seismic forceresisting
perimeter framing on each
side of the structure in each orthogonal direction at
each
story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear.
The
number of bays for a shear wall shall be calculated as
the
length of shear wall divided by the story height or two
times
} See next slide
Structure
is NOT regular
at all
Levels.
Redundancy, Continued
TABLE 12.3-3 REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH STORY
RESISTING MORE THAN 35% OF THE BASE SHEAR
Moment Frames Loss of moment resistance at the beam-tocolumn connections at both ends of a single beam would not
result in more than a 33% reduction in story strength, nor does
the resulting system have an extreme torsional irregularity
(horizontal structural irregularity Type 1b).
It can be seen by inspection that removal of one beam in this structure will
not result in a result in a significant loss of strength or lead to an extreme
torsional irregularity. Hence = 1 for this system. (This is applicable to ELF,
MRS, and MRH analyses).
Seismic Shears in Beams of Frame 1 from ELF

Analysis
Seismic Shears in Girders, kips, Excluding Accidental Torsion

Seismic Shears in Beams of Frame 1 from ELF

Analysis
Seismic Shears in Girders, kips, Accidental Torsion Only

Describe Building
types
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis

Part 1: Analysis
Develop Elastic response spectrum (Sec. 11.4.5)
Develop adequate finite element model (Sec. 12.7.3)
Compute modal frequencies, effective mass, and mode shapes
Determine number of modes to use in analysis (Sec. 12.9.1)
Perform modal analysis in each direction, combining each
directions
results by use of CQC method (Sec. 12.9.3)
6. Compute Equivalent Lateral Forces (ELF) in each direction (Sec.
12.8.1
through 12.8.3)
7. Determine accidental torsions (Sec 12.8.4.2), amplified if necessary
(Sec. 12.8.4.3)
8. Perform static Torsion analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Part 2: Drift and P-Delta for Systems Without
Torsion Irregularity
1. Multiply all dynamic displacements by Cd/R (Sec. 12.9.2).
2. Compute SRSS of interstory drifts based on displacements at
center of
mass at each level.
3. Check drift Limits in accordance with Sec. 12.12 and Table 12.2-1.
Note: drift Limits for Special Moment Frames in SDC D and above
must be divided by the Redundancy Factor (Sec. 12.12.1.1)
4. Perform P-Delta analysis using Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
5. Revise structure if necessary
Note: when centers of mass of adjacent levels are not vertically
aligned the drifts should be based on the difference between the
displacement at the upper level and the displacement of the point on
the level below which is the vertical projection of the center of mass
of the upper level. (This procedure is included in ASCE 7-10.)

Part 2: Drift and P-Delta for Systems With
Torsion Irregularity
1. Multiply all dynamic displacements by Cd/R (Sec. 12.9.2).
2. Compute SRSS of story drifts based on displacements at the
edge of the building
3. Using results from the static torsion analysis, determine the drifts
at the same location used in Step 2 above. Torsional drifts
may be based on the computed period of vibration (without the
CuTa limit). Torsional drifts should be based on computed
displacements
multiplied by Cd and divided by I.
4. Add drifts from Steps 2 and 3 and check drift limits in Table 12.121.
Note: Drift limits for special moment frames in SDC D and above
5. Perform P-Delta analysis using Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
6. Revise structure if necessary

Part 3: Obtaining Member Design Forces
1. Multiply all dynamic force quantities by I/R (Sec. 12.9.2)
2. Determine dynamic base shears in each direction
3. Compute scale factors for each direction (Sec. 12.9.4) and apply to
respective member force results in each direction
4. Combine results from two orthogonal directions, if necessary (Sec.
12.5)
5. Add member forces from static torsion analysis (Sec. 12.9.5).
Note
that static torsion forces may be scaled by factors obtained in Step
3
6. Determine redundancy factor (Sec. 12.3.4)
7. Combine seismic and gravity forces (Sec. 12.4)
8. Design and detail structural components
Mode Shapes for First Four Modes
Mode Shapes for Modes 5-8
Number of Modes to Include

in Response Spectrum Analysis
12.9.1 Number of Modes
An analysis shall be conducted to determine
the natural modes of vibration for the structure.
The analysis shall include a sufficient number
of modes to obtain a combined modal mass
participation of at least 90 percent of the actual
mass in each of the orthogonal horizontal
directions of response considered by the
model.
Effective Masses for First 12 Modes
12 Modes Appears to be Insufficient

Effective Masses for Modes 108-119
Virtually the Same

as 12 Modes
118 Modes Required to Capture Dynamic Response of Stiff Basement

Level and Grade Level Slab
Effective Masses for First 12 Modes
12 Modes are Actually Sufficient to Represent the Dynamic Response of the

Above Grade Structure
Inelastic Design Response Spectrum

Coordinates
Cs (ELF)
0.85Cs (ELF)
Scaling of Response Spectrum Results (ASCE 7-05)

12.9.4 Scaling Design Values of Combined Response.
A base shear (V) shall be calculated in each of the two orthogonal
horizontal directions using the calculated fundamental period of the
structure T in each direction and the procedures of Section 12.8, except
where the calculated fundamental period exceeds (C )(T ), then (C )(T )
shall be used in lieu of T in that direction. Where the combined
response for the modal base shear (V ) is less than 85 percent of the
calculated base shear (V) using the equivalent lateral force procedure,
the forces, but not the drifts, shall be multiplied by
u
V
0.85
Vt
where
V = the equivalent lateral force procedure base shear, calculated in
accordance with this section and Section 12.8
V = the base shear from the required modal combination
t
Note: If the ELF base shear is governed by Eqn. 12.5-5 or 12.8-6 the force V
shall be based on the value of Cs calculated by Eqn. 12.5-5 or 12.8-6, as
applicable.
Scaling of Response Spectrum Results (ASCE 7-10)

12.9.4.2 Scaling of Drifts
Where the combined response for the modal base
shear (V ) is less than 0.85 C W, and where C is
determined in accordance with Eq. 12.8-6, drifts
shall be multiplied by:
t
CsW
0.85
Vt
Scaled Static Torsions

TX
+
TY
Apply Torsion as a Static Load. Torsions can be

Scaled to 0.85 times Amplified* EFL Torsions if the
Response Spectrum Results are Scaled.
* See Sec. 12.9.5. Torsions must be amplified because they are applied
statically, not dynamically.
Method 1: Weighted Addition of

Scaled CQCd Results
A = Scaled CQCd Results in X Direction
B = Scaled CQCd Results in Y Direction
A
B
Combination 1
Combination 2
0.3A
0.3B
A + 0.3B + |TX|
0.3A + B + |TY|
Method 2: SRSS of Scaled CQCd Results

A = Scaled CQCd Results in X Direction
B = Scaled CQCd Results in Y Direction
A
B
Combination
A
B
(A2+B2)0.5 + max(|TX| or |TY|)
Computed Story Shears and Scale Factors

from Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
X-Direction Scale Factor = 0.85(1124)/438.1=2.18

Y-Direction Scale Factor = 0.85(1124)/492.8=1.94
Response Spectrum Drifts in X Direction

(No Scaling Required)
Response Spectrum Drifts in Y Direction

(No Scaling Required)
Scaled Beam Shears from

Describe Building
types
Modal Response History Analysis

Part 1: Analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Select suite of ground motions (Sec. 16.1.3.2)

Develop adequate finite element model (Sec. 12.7.3)
Compute modal frequencies, effective mass, and mode Shapes
Determine number of modes to use in analysis (Sec. 12.9.1)
Assign modal damping values (typically 5% critical per mode)
Scale ground motions* (Sec. 16.1.3.2)
Perform dynamic analysis for each ground motion in each direction
Compute Equivalent Lateral Forces (ELF) in each direction (Sec. 12.8.1
through 12.8.3)
9. Determine accidental torsions (Sec 12.8.4.2), amplified if necessary
(Sec. 12.8.4.3)
10. Perform static torsion analysis
*Note: Step 6 is referred to herein as Ground Motion Scaling (GM Scaling). This is to
avoid confusion with Results Scaling, described later.
Modal Response History Analysis Part 2: Drift and

P-Delta for Systems Without Torsion Irregularity
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Multiply all dynamic displacements by Cd/R (omitted in ASCE 7-05).

Compute story drifts based on displacements at center of mass
at each level
If 3 to 6 ground motions are used, compute envelope of story
drift at each level in each direction (Sec. 16.1.4)
If 7 or more ground motions are used, compute average story
Check drift limits in accordance with Sec. 12.12 and Table 12.2-1.
Note: drift limits for Special Moment Frames in SDC D and above
Perform P-Delta analysis using Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
Revise structure if necessary
Note: when centers of mass of adjacent levels are not vertically aligned the drifts should be based on
the difference between the displacement at the upper level and the displacement of the point on the
level below which is the vertical projection of the center of mass of the upper level.(This procedure is
included in ASCE 7-10.)
Modal Response History Analysis Part 2: Drift and

P-Delta for Systems With Torsion Irregularity
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Multiply all dynamic displacements by Cd/R (omitted in ASCE 7-05).

Compute story drifts based on displacements at edge of building
at each level
If 3 to 6 ground motions are used, compute envelope of story
If 7 or more ground motions are used, compute average story
Using results from the static torsion analysis, determine the drifts
at the same location used in Steps 2-4 above. Torsional drifts
may be based on the computed period of vibration (without the
CuTa limit). Torsional drifts should be based on computed displacements
multiplied by Cd and divided by I.
Add drifts from Steps (3 or 4) and 5 and check drift limits in Table 12.12-1.
Note: Drift limits for special moment frames in SDC D and above
Perform P-Delta analysis using Equivalent Lateral Force procedure
Revise structure if necessary

Part 3: Obtaining Member Design Forces
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Multiply all dynamic member forces by I/R

Determine dynamic base shear histories for each earthquake in each
direction
Determine Result Scale Factors* for each ground motion in each direction,
and apply to response history results as appropriate
Determine design member forces by use of envelope values if 3 to 6
earthquakes are used, or as averages if 7 or more ground motions are used.
Combine results from two orthogonal directions, if necessary (Sec. 12.5)
Add member forces from static torsion analysis (Sec. 12.9.5). Note
that static torsion forces may be scaled by factors obtained in Step 3
Determine redundancy factor (Sec. 12.3.4)
Combine seismic and gravity forces (Sec. 12.4)
Design and detail structural components
*Note: Step 3 is referred to herein as Results Scaling (GM Scaling). This is

to avoid confusion with Ground Motion Scaling, described earlier.
Selection of Ground Motions for MRH Analysis
3D Scaling Requirements, ASCE 7-10

For each pair of horizontal ground motion components, a
square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) spectrum shall
be constructed by taking the SRSS of the 5 percent-damped
response spectra for the scaled components (where an
identical scale factor is applied to both components of a pair).
Each pair of motions shall be scaled such that in the period
range from 0.2T to 1.5T, the average of the SRSS spectra
from all horizontal component pairs does not fall below the
corresponding ordinate of the response spectrum used in the
design, determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5.
ASCE 7-05 Version:
does not fall below 1.3 times the corresponding ordinate of the design
response spectrum, determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5 by
more than 10 percent.
3D ASCE 7 Ground Motion Scaling
SA
SA
SA
Unscaled
Unscaled
Unscaled
BSRSS
ASRSS
CSRSS
AY
AX
Period
Period
SA
Period
SA
Match Point
Average Scaled
SFA x ASRSS
SFC x CSRSS
SFB x BSRSS
ASCE 7
Period
Avg Scaled
ASCE 7
0.2T
T 1.5T
Period
Issues With Scaling Approach

No guidance is provided on how to deal with different
fundamental
periods in the two orthogonal directions
There are an infinite number of sets of scale factors that will

satisfy the criteria. Different engineers are likely to obtain
different sets of scale factors for the same ground motions.
In linear analysis, there is little logic in scaling at periods

greater than the structures fundamental period.
Higher modes, which participate marginally in the dynamic

response, may dominate the scaling process
Resolving Issues With Scaling Approach

No guidance is provided on how to deal with different
fundamental periods in the two orthogonal directions:
1. Use different periods in each direction (not
recommended)
2. Scale to range 0.2 Tmin to 1.5 Tmax where Tmin is the lesser
of the two periods and Tmax is the greater of the
fundamental
periods in each principal direction
3. Scale over the range 0.2TAvg to 1.5 TAvg where TAvg is the
average of Tmin and Tmax

Use Two-Step Scaling:
1] Scale each SRSSd Pair to the Average Period
SA
SA
SA
Scale Factor SA1
TAVG
Period
Scale Factor SC1
Scale Factor SB1
TAVG
Period
TAVG
Period
Note: A different scale factor will be obtained for each SRSSd pair

2] Obtain Suite Scale Factor S2
SA
SA
S2 times Average Scaled
Average Scaled
Match Point
ASCE 7
Avg Scaled
ASCE 7
TAvg
Period
0.2TAvg TAVG 1.5TAvg
Period
Note: The same scale factor S2 Applies to Each SRSSd Pair


2] Obtain Suite Scale Factor S2
3] Obtain Final Scale Factors:
Suite A: SSA=SA1 x S2
Suite B: SSB=SB1 x S2
Suite C: SSC=SC1 x S2
Ground Motions Used in Analysis
Unscaled Spectra
Average S1 Scaled Spectra
Ratio of Target Spectrum to Scaled SRSS

Average
Target Spectrum and SS Scaled Average
Match Point
Individual Scaled Components (00)
Individual Scaled Components (90)
Computed Scale Factors
Number of Modes for

ASCE 7-05 and 7-10 are silent on the number of modes to use in Modal
Response History Analysis. It is recommended that the same procedures
set forth in Section 12.9.1 for MODAL Response Spectrum Analysis be used for
Response History Analysis:

An analysis shall be conducted to determine the natural
modes of vibration for the structure. The analysis shall
include a sufficient number of modes to obtain a
combined modal mass participation of at least 90
percent of the actual mass in each of the orthogonal
horizontal directions of response considered by the
model.
Damping for
ASCE 7-05 and 7-10 are silent on the amount of
damping to use in Modal Response History Analysis.
Five percent critical damping should be used in all
modes considered in the analysis because the Target
Spectrum and the Ground Motion Scaling Procedures
are based on 5% critical damping.
Scaling of Results for

Modal Response History Analysis (Part 1)
The structural analysis is executed using the GM scaled earthquake
records in each direction. Thus, the results represent the expected
elastic response of the structure. The results must be scaled to
represent the expected inelastic behavior and to provide improved
performance for important structures. ASCE 7-05 scaling is as follows:
1) Scale all component design forces by the factor (I/R). This is
stipulated in Sec. 16.1.4 of ASCE 7-05 and ASCE 7-10.
2) Scale all displacement quantities by the factor (Cd/R). This
requirement
was inadvertently omitted in ASCE 7-05, but is included in Section
16.1.4 of ASCE 7-10.
Response Scaling Requirements when

MRH Shear is Less Than Minimum Base Shear
Base Shear
Inelastic GM
Inelastic ELF
ELF
MRH (unscaled)
MRH (scaled)
VELF
VMin
0.85VMin
Period
CuTa
Tcomputed

MRH Shear is Greater Than Minimum Base Shear
Base Shear
Inelastic GM
Inelastic ELF
ELF
MRH (unscaled)
No Scaling Required
VMin
Period
CuTa
Tcomputed

MRH Shear is Greater Than Minimum Base Shear
Base Shear
Inelastic GM
Inelastic ELF
ELF
MRS Unscaled
MRS Scaled
MRH (unscaled)
V
0.85V
VMin
Period
CuTa
Tcomputed
12 Individual Response History Analyses Required

1.
2.
3.
4.
A00-X: SS Scaled Component A00 applied in X Direction

A00-Y: SS Scaled Component A00 applied in Y Direction
A90-X: SS Scaled Component A90 applied in X Direction
A90-Y: SS Scaled Component A90 applied in Y Direction
5.
6.
7.
8.
B00-X: SS Scaled Component B00 applied in X Direction

B00-Y: SS Scaled Component B00 applied in Y Direction
B90-X: SS Scaled Component B90 applied in X Direction
B90-Y: SS Scaled Component B90 applied in Y Direction
9. C00-X: SS Scaled Component C00 applied in X Direction

10.C00-Y: SS Scaled Component C00 applied in Y Direction
11.C90-X: SS Scaled Component C90 applied in X Direction
12.C90-Y: SS Scaled Component C90 applied in Y Direction
Result Maxima from Response History Analysis

Using SS Scaled Ground Motions
Low >
High >
I/R Scaled Shears and Required 85% Rule

Scale Factors
Response History Drifts for

all X-Direction Responses
Load Combinations for Response History

Analysis
Envelope of Scaled Frame 1 Beam Shears

from Response History Analysis
Describe Building
types
Comparison of Maximum X-Direction

Design Story Shears from All Analysis
Comparison of Maximum X-Direction

Design Story Drift from All Analysis
Comparison of Maximum Beam Shears

from All Analysis
Describe Building
types
Required Effort
The Equivalent Lateral Force method and the
Modal Response Spectrum methods require
similar levels of effort.
The Modal Response History Method requires
considerably more effort than ELF or MRS.
This is primarily due to the need to select and
scale the ground motions, and to run so many
response history analyses.
Accuracy
It is difficult to say whether one method of analysis is
more accurate than the others. This is because each of
the methods assume linear elastic behavior, and make
simple adjustments (using R and Cd) to account for
inelastic behavior.
Differences inherent in the results produced by the
different methods are reduced when the results are
scaled. However, it is likely that the Modal Response
Spectrum and Modal Response History methods are
generally more accurate than ELF because they more
properly account for higher mode response.
Recommendations for Future Considerations

1. Three dimensional analysis should be required for all Response Spectrum and
Response History analysis.
2. Linear Response History Analysis should be moved from Chapter 16 into Chapter
12 and be made as consistent as possible with the Modal Response Spectrum Method.
For example, requirements for the number of modes and for scaling of results should
be the same for the two methods.
3. A rational procedure needs to be developed for directly including Accidental Torsion in
Response Spectrum and Response History Analysis.
4. A rational method needs to be developed for directly including P-Delta effects in
Response Spectrum and Response History Analysis.
5. The current methods of selecting and scaling ground motions for linear response
history analysis can be and should be much simpler than required for nonlinear
response history analysis. The use of standardized motion sets or the use of
spectrum matched ground motions should be considered.
6. Drift should always be computed and checked at the corners of the building.
Questions
Titleslide
StructuralAnalysis:Part1 1
Thisexampledemonstrates threelinearelasticanalysisproceduresprovidedbyASCE705:
EquivalentLateralForceanalysis(ELF),ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis(MRS),and
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysis.Thebuildingisastructuralsteelsystemwithvarious
geometricirregularities.ThebuildingislocatedinStockton,California,anareaofrelatively
highseismicactivity.
TheexampleisbasedontherequirementsofASCE705.However,ASCE710isreferredto
inseveralinstances.
Completedetailsfortheanalysisareprovidedinthewrittenexample,andtheexample
shouldbeusedastheInstructorsGuidewhenpresentingthisslideset.Many,butnotall
oftheslidesinthissethaveSpeakersNotes,andtheseareintentionallykeptverybrief.
FinleyCharney isaProfessorofCivilEngineeringatVirginiaTech,Blacksburg,Virginia.Heis
alsopresidentofAdvancedStructuralConcepts,Inc.,locatedinBlacksburg.Thewritten
exampleandtheaccompanyingslidesetwerecompletedbyAdvancedStructuralConcepts.
AdrianTola wasagraduatestudentatVirginiaTechwhentheexamplewasdeveloped,and
servedasacontractorforAdvancedStructuralConcepts.
Thisbuilding wasdevelopedspecificallyforthisexample.However,anattemptwasmade
todeveloparealisticstructuralsystem,witharealisticarchitecturalconfiguration.
ThesearethethreelinearanalysismethodsprovidedinASCE7.
TheEquivalentLateralForcemethod(ELF)isessentiallyaonemoderesponsespectrum
analysiswithcorrectionsforhighermodeeffects.ThismethodisallowedforallSDCBand
Cbuildings,andforthevastmajorityofSDCD,EandFbuildings.Notethatsomeformof
ELFwillberequiredduringtheanalysis/designprocessforallbuildings.
TheModalResponseSpectrum(MRS)methodissomewhatmorecomplicatedthanELF
becausemodeshapesandfrequenciesneedtobecomputed,responsesigns(positiveor
negative)arelost,andresultsmustbescaled.However,therearegenerallyfewerload
combinationsthanrequiredbyELF.MRScanbeusedforanybuilding,andisrequiredfor
SDCD,E,andFbuildingswithcertainirregularities,andforSDCD,E,andFbuildingswith
longperiodsofvibration.
ThelinearModalResponseHistory(MRH)methodismorecomplexthatMRS,mainlydue
totheneedtoselectandscaleatleastthreeandpreferablysevensetsofmotions.MRS
canbeusedforanybuilding,butgiventhecurrentcodelanguage,itisprobablytootime
consumingforthevastmajorityofsystems.
Thevastmajorityofthewritten exampleandthisslidesetisbasedontherequirementsof
ASCE705.TherequirementsofASCE710arementionedwhennecessary.WhenASCE7
10ismentioned,itisgenerallydonesotopointoutthedifferencesinASCE705andASCE
710.
Thestructureanalyzedisa3DimensionalSpecialSteelMomentresistingSpaceFrame.
Inthisbuildingalloftheexteriormomentresistingframesarelateralloadresistant.Those
portionsofFramesCandFthatareinterioratthelowerlevelsaregravityonlyframes.
ThegravityonlycolumnsandgirdersbelowthesetbacksingridsCandFextendintothe
basement.
Thisviewshowtheprincipalsetbacksforthebuilding.Theshadedlinesatlevels5and9
representthickeneddiaphragmslabs.
Notethatthestructurehas onebasementlevel.Thisbasementisfullymodeledinthe
analysis(thebasementwallsaremodeledwithshellelements),andwillleadto
complicationsintheanalysespresentedlater.
Alloftheperimetercolumnsextendintothebasement,andareembeddedinthewall.
(Thewallisthickenedaroundthecolumnstoformmonolithicpilasters).Thus,foranalysis
purposes,thecolumnsmaybeassumedtobefixedatthetopofthewall.
AllanalysisforthisexamplewasperformedonSAP2000.TheprogramETABS mayhave
beenamorerealisticchoice,butthiswasnotavailable.
Theseviewsshowthatthebasementwallsandthe floordiaphragmswereexplicitly
modeledinthreedimensions.Itistheauthorsopinionthatalldynamicanalysisshouldbe
carriedoutinthreedimensions.Whendoingsoitissimpletomodeltheslabsandwalls
usingshellelements.Notethataverycoarsemeshisusedbecausethedesireistoinclude
thestiffness(flexibility)oftheseelementsonly.Nostressrecoverywasattempted.If
stressrecoveryisimportant,amuchfinermeshisneeded.
ThegoalofthisexampleistopresenttheASCE7analysismethodologiesbyexample.
Thus,thisslidesetissomewhatlonger thanitwouldneedtobeifonlythemainpointsof
theanalysisweretobepresented.
Thestepspresentedonthisslidearecommontoallanalysismethods.Themainstructural
analysiswouldbeginafterstep10.Note,however,thataverydetailedsideanalysis
mightberequiredtoestablish diaphragmflexibilityandtodetermineifcertainstructural
irregularitiesexist.Onepointthatshouldbestressedisthatregardlessofthemethodof
analysisselectedinstep8(ELF,MRS,orMRH),anELFanalysisisrequiredforallstructures.
ThisistruebecauseASCE705andASCE710useanELFanalysistosatisfyaccidental
torsionrequirementsandPDeltarequirements.Additionally,anELFanalysiswouldalmost
alwaysbeneededinpreliminarydesign.
This structureisusedforanofficebuilding,sotheOccupancyCategoryisII.Notethat
analystsusuallyneedtorefertotheIBCoccupancycategorytablewhichissomewhat
differentthanshownonthisslide.ItisforthisreasonthatTable11asshownabovehas
beensimplifiedinASCE710.ItshouldalsobenotedthatassigninganOccupancyCategory
canbesubjective,andwhenindoubt,thelocalbuildingofficialshouldbeconsulted.
These coefficientsarenotparticularlyrealisticbecausetheywereselectedtoprovide
compatibilitywithanearlierversionofthisexample.ItisforthisreasonthatLatitude
Longitudecoordinatesarenotgiven.StudentsshouldbeadvisedthatLatitudeLongitude
ispreferabletozipcodebecausesomezipcodescoverlargegeographicareaswhichcan
haveabroadrangeofgroundmotionparameters.
Notethatthesitecoefficientsarelargerinareasoflowseismicity.Thisisbecausethesoil
remainselasticundersmallerearthquakes. Forlargerearthquakesthesoilisinelastic,and
thesiteamplificationeffectisreduced.NotethatforsiteclassesDandEthefactorFv can
goashighas3.5forsmallerearthquakes.Thus,forsuchsitesinthecentralandeastern
U.S.,thegroundmotionscanbequitelarge,andmanystructures(particularlycritical
facilities)maybeassignedtoSeismicDesignCategoryD.
InthisslidetheintermediatecoefficientsSMS andSM1 arenot separatelycomputed.Note

thatthesubscriptMstandsforMaximumConsideredEarthquake(MCE),andthesubscript
DinSDS andSD1 standsforDesignBasisEarthquake(DBE).TheMCEistheearthquakewith
a2%probabilityofbeingexceededin50years.InCalifornia,theDBEisroughlya10%in50
yeargroundmotion.IntheEasternandcentralU.S.theDBEissomewherebetweena2%
and10%in50yearevent.
NotethattheSDCisafactorofBOTHtheseismicityandintendeduse.For important
buildingsonsoftsitesinthecentralandEasternU.S.itispossibletohaveanassignmentof
SDCD,whichrequiresthehighestlevelofattentiontodetailing.Afewcodecyclesagothe
samebuildingwouldhavehadonlymarginalseismicdetailing(ifany).
Weenteredthisexampleknowingitwouldbea specialmomentframe,sosystemselection
wasmoot.However,thistablecanbeusedtoillustrateheightlimits(whichdonotapplyto
theSpecialSteelMomentFrame).Therequireddesignparametersarealsoprovidedby
thetable.
ThevaluesofR =8and0 arethelargestamongallsystems.TheratioofCd toR is
oneofthesmallestforallsystems.
Thediaphragmismodeled usingshellelementsinSAP2000.Onlyoneelementisrequired
ineachbayasallthatisneededintheanalysisisareasonableestimateofinplane
diaphragmstiffness.Ifdiaphragmstressesaretoberecoveredamuchfinermeshwould
berequired.
Torsional irregularitiesmustbedeterminedbyanalysis,andthisisdiscussedlaterinthe
example.Thestructureclearlyhasareentrantcornerirregularity,andthediaphragm
discontinuityirregularityisalsolikely.Note,however,thattheconsequencesofthetwo
irregularities(2and3)arethesame,sotheseareeffectivelythesameirregularity.
Thestructurehasanonparallelsystemirregularitybecauseofthenonsymmetricallayoutof
thesystem.NotethatinASCE710thewordsorsymmetricaboutinthedescription of
thenonparallelsystemirregularityhavebeenremoved,sothisstructurewouldnothavea
nonsymmetricalirregularityinASCE710.Thisisaconsequentialchangebecause
requirementsforthreedimensionalanalysisandorthogonalloadingaretiedtothe
presenceofatype5irregularity.
Thestructureinquestionclearlyhasthetwoirregularitiesnoted.
Onethingthatshouldbeillustratedonthisslide(andthepreviousslide)isthatthethere
arenoconsequencesifcertainirregularitiesoccurinSDCBandCsystems.Forexample,
VerticalIrregularities1,2,and3haveconsequencesonlyforSDCD,E,andF,thusthe
possibleoccurrenceoftheirregularitiesneednotbecheckedinSDCBandC.
TheELFmethodisallowedforthevastmajorityofsystems.ThemainreasonthatELFis
notallowedforthissystemisthat(1)itisinSDCD,and(2)ithasReentrant Cornerand
DiaphragmDiscontinuityIrregularities.ItisinterestingtonotethatELFisallowedinhigher
SDCevenwhentherearestiffness,weight,andweakstoryirregularities.Itseemsthatthis
wouldbemoreofadetrimenttotheaccuracyofELFthanthanwouldareenrtant corner.
NotethatTable12.61asshownintheslideisfromASCE705.Thetablehasbeen
simplifiedsomewhatforASCE710(seethenextslide),butthebasicconfigurationswhere
ELFareallowed/disallowedareessentiallythesame.
ThisisTable12.61fromASCE710.ThemaindifferencewithrespecttoASCE705isthat
building heightisthetriggerformakingdecisions,ratherthantheuseofT <3.5Ts.The
changewasmadebecausetherearescenariosundertheASCE705tablethatproduced
illogicalresults.Forexample,therewerescenarioswhereatallbuildingonsoftsoilin
SeattlecoulduseELF,whereasashorterbuildingonstiffsoilinNewYorkcouldnot.
Titleslide.
ItisimportanttonotethatALLseismicanalysisrequiresELFanalysisinoneformor
another.ThestatementthatELFmaynotbeallowedasaDesignBasisanalysismeans
thatthedesigndriftsandelementforcesmayneed tobebasedonmoreadvanced
analysis,suchasModalResponseSpectrumorResponseHistoryanalysis.
ThereisasignificantinconsistencyintherequirementthatPDeltaeffectsberepresented
inthemathematicalmodel.Infact,sucheffectsshouldNOTbeincludedinthemodel
becausetheyareevaluatedseparatelyinSection12.8.7.Additionally, directmodelingof
thestrengthoftheelementsisnotrequiredinlinearanalysis,butofcourse,wouldbe
neededinanyformofnonlinearanalysis.
Threedimensionalanalysisisrequiredforthissystem,andthediaphragmsmustbe
modeledassemirigidbecausethereentrant cornersprohibitclassificationofthe
diaphragmsasrigid.Regardlessofthisrequirement,itwouldbevirtuallyimpossibleto
modeltheexamplestructurein2dimensions.
Inmostcasesisiseasiertomodelastructureinthreedimensionsthanintwo.Thisisdue
tothefactthatmostmodernsoftwaremakesiteasytogeneratethemodel,and
assumptionsdonotneedtobemadeastothebestwaytoseparateoutthevarious
elementsforanalysis.Additionally,theuseofrigiddiaphragmsasawaytoreducethe
numberofDOFisnotneededbecausetheprogramscananalyzequitecomplex3Dsystems
inonlyafewseconds.Semirigiddiaphragmsareeasytomodelusingshellelements,and
verycoarsemeshesmaybeusedifitisnotdesiredtorecoverdiaphragmstresses.
No commentrequired.Seethenotesonthefollowingslide.
Mostofthesepointsareselfexplanatory.Itshouldbenotedthattheuseofcenterline
analysisinsteelmomentframesis usedbecauseithasbeenshownthatoffsettingerrors
leadtoreasonableresults.Theerrorsincenterlineanalysisarethat(a)sheardeformations
inthepanelzonesareunderestimated,and(b)flexuraldeformationsinthepanelzonesare
overestimated.Manyprogramshavemodelsthatcandirectlyincludepanelzonebeam
columnjointdeformations.Severalprogramsallowtheuseofrigidendzones,butthis
shouldneverbedonebecauseitdrasticallyoverestimatesthelateralstiffnessofthe
structure.
Thebasementwasmodeledbecauseitwasdesiredtoruntheinteriorcolumnsdownto
thebasementslab.
Thesearethebasicstepsrequiredforequivalentlateralforceanalysis.Eachofthesepoints
arediscussedinthefollowingseveralslides.
ItshouldbenotedthatthereisalotofdetailintheELFanalysis,andthusthisisnotatrivial
task.TherearenumerousrequirementsscatteredthroughoutASCE7,andsometimes
theserequirementsaresomewhatambiguous.AnyoneattemptinganELFanalysis(orany
otherASCE7analysisforthatmater)shouldreadtheentirerelevantchapters(11and12in
thiscase)beforebeginningtheanalysis.
Slideprovidescommentsoncomputingperiodof vibration.
Heretheheightforperiodcalculationsistakenastheheightabovegrade.Thisis
reasonablebecausethebasementwallsareverystiff,andbecausetheperimeter columns
areembeddedinpilastersthatarecastwiththewalls.
TheCu adjustmenttoperiodisallowedonlyif arational(Eigenvalue orRayleigh)analysisis

usedtocomputeaperiod.Thisadjustmentremovesaninherentconservatisminthe
statisticsusedtoderivetheempiricalformula,andadjustsforseismicity(recognizingthat
structuresinlowerhazardareasarelikelytobemoreflexiblethanstructuresinhighhazard
areas).TheperiodusedinbaseshearcalculationscannotexceedCuTa,butdriftsmaybe
computedonthebasisoftheperioddeterminedfromrationalanalysis.
If acomputermodelisavailableitiseasytoestimatetheperiodusingthisapproach.The
lateralloadpatternshouldbeofthesameapproximateshapeasthefirstmodeshape.An
uppertriangularpatternortheELFloadpatternwillusuallysuffice.
Both oftherationallycomputedperiodsexceedCuTa,soCuTa willbeusedintheELF

analysis.
TheperiodsfromtheEigenvalue analysisarethemostmathematicallyprecise.Asseen,
theseareveryclosethatthoseproducedbytheRayleighmethod(seepreviousslide).
PeriodscomputedusingtheRayleighmethodshouldgenerallybecloseto,butslightlyless
thanthosecomputedfromEigenvalue analysis.
Thisslidesimplysummarizestheperiodsfoundbythethreedifferentmethods.The
distributionofperiodsshownisnotuncommon.Itistheauthorsexperiencethatthe
computed periodisalmostalwaysgreaterthanCuTa formomentframes.
Thisslideprovidesa simplesummaryforchoosingtheperiodtouseforELFanalysis.
Thisslideissimplyakeyforuseindescribingmassescomputation(seefollowingslide).
Bothlinemassesandareamasseswereconsidered.
Slideshowscalculationsforcomputingareaandlineweights.
Thecalculationsfordeterminingtotalseismicweightareshown.Theequivalentlateral
forceswillbebasedontheweightofthestructureabovegrade(30,394kips)eventhough
thefullstructure,includingthebasement,ismodeled.
Thelocation oftheCMisneededbecausetheequivalentlateralforcesareappliedtothe
CMateachlevel.
This slideshowntheequationsthatareneededforcomputingthedesignbaseshear.
Equation12.84isnotneededbecausethestructuresperiodislessthanTL.Equation12.6
6isnotneededbecauseS1 <0.6g.
Equation12.85controlsthebaseshear.Notethatthisequationwasoriginallynotusedin
ASCE705(wherethetheminimumwasinsteadtakenas0.01W).Equation12.85as
shownaboveisincludedinasupplementtoASCE705,andisprovidedasshowninASCE
710.
ThisslideshowsthattheEffectiveR valueforthisstructureis4.54.Thus, theanticipated

economyinherentintheuseofR =8hasnotbeenrealized.
AlthoughbaseshearmaybecontrolledbyEquation12.85, thedriftscanbebasedonthe
baseshearcomputedfromEqn.12.83,andfurthermore,thecomputedperiodofvibration
maybeusedinlieuofCuTa fordriftcalculations.Thismeansthataseparatesetoflateral
forcesmaybecomputedforthepurposesofcalculatingdeflectionsinthestructure.
TheexceptionshownforASCE710didnotexistinASCE705,althoughmanyanalystsused
thisexceptionanyway.Thereasonisshownonthefollowingslide,wherethedeflections
basedonEqn.12.83and12.55arecompared.
ThisslideshowsEquations 12.83and12.85intheformofadisplacementspectrum.The
twoperiodsarefromtheEigenvalue analysis.IfEquation12.85isusedtocomputeforces
fordeterminingdrift,thedriftswouldincreaseexponentially,whichisnotrational.The
irrationalityisduetothefactthat12.85isaminimumbaseshearformula,andisNOTa
truebranchoftheresponsespectrum.
WhenEqn. 12.86controls,thedriftsmustbebasedonthelateralforcescomputedfrom
12.86.Notethatthisformulaisnotdependentonperiod.
TheargumentforrequiringthatEqn.12.86beusedfordriftcalculationsisthatit
representsthethetruespectralshapeitisnotaminimumbaseshearformula.
However,forlongerperiodbuildings,Eqn.12.86canleadtoirrationallylarge
displacementsbecausethedeflectionswillincreaseexponentiallywithperiod.
ThisslidesummarizestheuseofEquations12.83 and12.85whencomputingbaseshear
anddrift.
ThisslidesummarizestheuseofEquations12.83 and12.86whencomputingbaseshear
anddrift.
Thesearetheequationsfordeterminingthedistributionoflateralforcealongtheheight.
Theexponentk isdeterminedbyinterpolation.
Thelateralforcesarecomputedusingaspreadsheet.NotethattheforcesintheX andY
directionsarethesamebecausebothdirectionsarecontrolledbythesameminimumbase
shearformula,andbothhavethesameperiodofvibrationCuTa.
ThebasicanalysisassumptionsforELFaresummarizedhere.Andonthefollowingslide.
AssumptionsonELFanalysis,continued.
PreviousversionsofASCE7requiredthatbothaccidentalandinherenttorsionbeamplified
inhigherSDCs whenthereweresignificanttorsional irregularities.Thus,theinherent
torsionneededtobeseparatedoutfromtheresultsofa3Danalysis.InASCE705and
ASCE710,theinherenttorsionneednotbeamplified, soinherenttorsionneednotbe
separatedoutwhena3Danalysisisused.
Ifaplanaranalysisisperformed,itwillbenecessarytodeterminetheinherenttorsion
loadingandtransformitintoinplaneloadsontheframes.Suchcalculationsarenot
straightforward,thus3Dmodeling,whichmayseemtobecomplex,mayinfactbesimpler
than2Danalysis.
Thestructureanalyzedwillrequireaccidentaltorsionanalysisbecausethediaphragmsare
notflexible.
ExcerptofASCE7showingrequirementsforaccidentaltorsion.
Threedimensionalstructuralanalysisisrequiredtodetermineifthestructurehastorsion
irregularities.In theanalysis,theELFloadsdeterminedearlierareappliedata5%
eccentricityasrequired.Notethatthetorsionirregularitycalculationsarebasedon
interstory DRIFT,notstorydisplacement.Ontheotherhand,torsional amplification(when
required)isbasedonstorydisplacement,notdrift.
Intheanalysisthedirectlateralloadandthetorsional loadsareappliedseparately.The
directloadingisshownhere.Theseforces havebeencomputedtorepresentcenterof
massloadingonthediaphragms.Asimilarsetofforces(notshown)werecomputedinthe
Ydirection.
Theseforcesrepresentthe accidentaltorsionduetoXdirectionforcesappliedata5%
eccentricity.Asimilarsetofforces(notshown)werecomputedfortheYdirectionloading.
Thisslideshowsthestationsforwhichdisplacementswerecalculated todetermine
torsional irregularityduetolateralforcesappliedintheYdirection.
Thereisnotorsional irregularityforloadingintheXdirection.
Thereisaveryminortorsional irregularityalevel9forloadsappliedintheYdirection.It
wouldprobablybebesttoredesignthestructuretoeliminatetheirregularity.However,
theconsequencesoftheirregularityarenotsevere.
Notethatthedoubleentriesfordisplacementsinsomelocations(Levels5and9)isdueto
thesetbacks.Thiswasdiscussedonapreviousslidethatshowedthedeflection monitoring
stationsforthisloading.
Notorsional amplificationisrequiredforthisstructure.
ThisisdirectlyfromASCE7.Noadditionalcommentaryrequired.
ASCE7statesthatforstructureswithSignificantTorsional Deflections,themaximum drift

shallincludetorsional effects.Thislanguageisvague,becauseitisnotclearwhat
significantis,anditisnotclearhowtorsional effectsshouldbeincluded(inherent
torsion,inherentplusaccidentaltorsion,inherentplusamplifiedaccidentaltorsion?).The
authorsassumedthatthisstructuredidnothavesignificanttorsional deflections,and
therebydidnotincludeaccidentaltorsionloadingintheanalysis.Inherenttorsionwas,of
course,includedintheanalysis.Deflectionswerecomputedatcenterofmass,notatthe
edgesofthebuilding.Asshownlater,thisbuildingisrelativelystiff,andthedriftsare
significantlylessthanallowed.Hadthedriftsbeenclosertothealloweddrifts,itmight
havebeenappropriatetodeterminethedriftsattheedgeofthebuilding.
Thisissuewasdiscussedinearlierslides.Inthepresentanalysisdriftiscomputedonthe
basisoflateralforcescomputedusingEqn.12.83withT =CuTa.Hasthedriftsfromthis
analysisexceededtheallowabledrift,areanalysiswouldhavebeenpermittedusingthe
periodsforRayleighorEigenvalue analysis.
ThedriftshavebeendeterminedonthebasisoflateralloadsfromEqn.12.85,andhave
beenmodified tobeconsistentwithEqn 12.83,whichusesCuTa astheperiodofvibration.
NotethatthecomputedperiodsfromEigenvalue analysiscouldhavebeenusedinstead,
andtheresultingdriftswouldbeevenlower.
IfthedriftshadbeenbasedonlateralforcesconsistentwithEqn.12.85,thedriftswould
havebeenexcessive.However,thecomputeddriftsaresignificantlylessthanthelimits
whentheadjustmentismade.
Thecommentsonthepreviousslideapplytothisslideaswell.
Thisslideprovidesthebasicexpressions usedinPDeltaanalysis.Notethatthedeflections
Deltainequation12.816arefortheanalysiswithout PDeltaeffectsincluded.
Forthisstructurethemaximum stabilityfactorof0.091ismarginallyexceededforthe
bottomthreelevelsofthestructure.However,thisisbasedonconservativeestimatesof
liveload,andtheBetafactorusedtocomputemax wastakenconservativelyas1.0.
Actualvaluesofthisfactorarelikelytobesignificantlylessthan1.0,sotheanalysiswill
proceedasifPDeltaprovisionsaresatisfied.
This structurehasatype5horizontalirregularityundertheprovisionsofASCE705,butnot
underASCE710.Thisisbecausethesymmetryrequirementincludedinthenonparallel
systemirregularityhasbeeneliminated(seeTable12.31).Asthisexamplewaswritten
principallyforaccordancewithASCE705,orthogonalloadingisincluded.Additionally,this
structureusesaperimetermomentframe,andthecornercolumnswillbeaffectedby
loadingfromtwodirections.
The100/30percentloadingisusedforthisstructure.
ThemodificationinASCE710issignificant,becausemanystructuresdeemedirregulardue
tononsymmetric systemsinASCE705arelongerirregular.Thus,orthogonalloadingmay
nolongerberequiredformaySDCD,E,andFstructures.
Thisslideshowsthe16basicseismicloadings thatarerequiredwhenaccidentaltorsion
andorthogonalloadingrequirementsaremet.Whenthetwobasicgravityloadingsare
included,itisseenthat32seismicloadcasesarerequired.
Thesearethebasicgravityplusseismicloadcombinations.Thesnow andhydrostaticloads
arenotapplicable,andarecrossedout.Therewouldbenorequirementtousethesimilar
loadcombinationsincludingtheoverstrength factor0,sothisisnotshown.Thetwo
gravityloadingsincombinationwiththe16seismicloadsproduceatotalof32seismicload
combinations.Thisisinadditiontothegravityonlyandgravitypluswindcombinations
thatwouldberequired.
Thestructureisnotregular,soonlysubparagraph(a)applies.
Itisveryclearthattheremoval ofasinglebeaminthishighlyredundantperimeter
momentframestructurewouldnotcauseanextremetorsional irregularityorareduction
instrengthofmorethan33percent.Theseredundancycalculationswouldonlybe
requiredforsystemswithonlyoneortwobaysofresistingframeineachdirection.Thus,
fortheStocktonbuilding,the factoristakenas1.0.
Thisslideprovidesthemaximum beamshearsinFrame1ofthestructure.Theseinclude
lateralloadsonly,withoutgravityandwithoutaccidential torsion.Accidentaltorsional
forcesareincludedseparately(seenextslide).Separationofthetorsional forcesfacilitates
thecomparisonoftheresultsfromthethreemethodsofanalysis.Additionally,the
torsional forcesdeterminedintheELFanalysiswouldbeused(withpossiblysome
reduction)intheresponsespectrumandresponsehistorycalculations.
ThesearetheaccidentaltorsionforcesonFrame1.Seealsothecommentsfortheprevious
slide.
NotethattheseforcesareapplicabletoallthreeanalysismethodsbecauseboththeMRS
andtheMRHmethodsapplyaccidentaltorsionusingtheELFprocedure.
Titleslide.Nocommentaryprovided.
Thesearethebasicstepsinamodalresponsespectrumanalysis.Manyofthestepsare
requiredforELFanalysis,sotheamountofadditionalworkisnotsubstantial,andthe
additionalworkthatisrequired(steps6,7,and8)isgenerallydonebythecomputer.
NotethatPDeltaeffectsarehandledinexactlythesamemannerasforELF.Thus,PDelta
effectsshouldnotbeincludedwhencomputingthemodeshapesandfrequencies.
ASCE7requiresthatdriftbecheckedatthecenterofmass,butthisisnoteasilydone
whenthemassesarenotverticallyaligned.ThenewASCE710provisionaddressesthe
problem.Driftscomputedatthecornersofthebuildingwouldbeconservative(exceeding
therequirementsforcenterofmasscalculations)andaremucheasiertocalculate.The
verticalalignmentapproachdescribedinASCE710wasusedintheexample.
Thisprocedurewouldbeusedforasystemwithsignificanttorsional displacements.Itwas
notrequiredforthebuildingunderconsideration.
Oneofthecomplicationstoresponsespectrumanalysisisthatmemberforcesmust
generallybescaledupsuchthatthebaseshearfromtheresponsespectrumanalysisisnot
lessthan85percentoftheELFshears.Accidentaltorsional forceswouldbescaledusing
thesamefactor.
This85percentruleprovidessomeincentiveforperformingMRSanalysisbecausethe15
percentreductioninbaseshearisusuallyallowed.Thisisduetothefactthatthe
computedperiodsbasedonEigenvalue analysisaregenerallymuchlongerthanperiods
computedusingCuTa.Note,however,thatintheunlikelycasethattheMRSanalysis
producesshearsgreaterthanthosefromELF,therearenoprovisionsforscalingtheresults
downtotheELFforces.
DeflectionscomputedfromMRSanalysismaybeuseddirectly,withoutscaling.Thisis
consistentwithallowingdeflectionstobebasedonthecomputedperiod,withouttheCuTa
limit,inELFanalysis.
ThisplotsimplyshowsthefirstfourmodeshapesandassociatedperiodsfromtheSAP
2000analysis.
Thenextfourmodeshapesareshownhere.Thereissignificantlateraltorsional interaction
becauseofthesetbacks.
Thisprovisionisbasedontheassumptionthattheheavybasementwallsandgroundlevel
slabarenotmodeledinthesystem.Thebasementhassignificantmass,andthatmass
doesnotappearuntilmodes100andaboveinthisstructure.Hadthestructurebeen
modeledasfixedatthebaseofthefirststorycolumns,onlythefirstdozenorsomodes
wouldberequiredtocapture85percentofthemassineachdirection.
TheauthorsbelievethattheASCE7languageshouldbemodifiedtoaccountforsuch
problems.Furthermore,asufficientmodesshouldbeusedtocapture85percentofthe
torsional mass.
Only82percentofthetotallateralmassiscapturedbymode12.Thethirdmodeis
principallytorsion,andwith12modesonly75percentofthetorsional massiscaptured.
Atmode108thelateralmasshasonlymarginallyincreased.Atmode112themass
associatedwiththebasementfinallyappearsintheYdirection.Thismassshowsupat
mode118intheXdirection.Thetorsional masshasstillnotreached85percent,evenat
mode119.
Onlythefirst12modeswereusedintheanalysis,asthiscapturedmorethan90percentof
themassineachdirection.
Thesearetheresponsespectrumordinatesusedintheanalysis.TheR factorisincludedin
thespectrum.
Aquestionarises whentheELFbaseshearisbasedontheabsoluteminimumof0.01W.
TheStandard isnotclearonwhetherthescalingwouldeffectivelylowerthisminimumto
0.0085W.Intheauthorsopinion,thescalingoftheMRSresultsshouldnotproduceabase
shearlessthantheabsoluteminimumof0.01W.
DriftsneedbescaledonlyiftheELFbaseshearisbasedonequation12.86.Thisis
consistentwiththerequirementsofELF.
TheMRSanalysisautomaticallyaccountsforinherenttorsion.Accidentaltorsionis
generallyincludedbydirectadditionofthetheELFstatictorsioneffects,scaledin
accordancewiththe85percentrule,ifapplicable.Notethatwhenstaticaccidental
torsionsareused,theymayneedtobeamplifiedinaccordancewithSection12.8.4.3.
Accidentaltorsionneednotbeamplifiedifisisincludedinthedynamicanalysis,
presumablybyphysicallyshiftingofthemasseccentricities.SeeSection12.9.5ofASCE7.
ThisisoneoftwoapproachestohandleorthogonalloadinginMRSanalysis.Theapproach
shownonthenextslideispreferred.
Thisapproach,whilenotspecificallydescribedinASCE7,ispreferred.Thismethodis
somewhatmoreconservativethanthemethodgivenonthepreviousslidebecauseitwill
provideauniformresistanceforallpossibleanglesofattackoftheearthquake.Programs
likeSAP2000andETABScanautomaticallyimplementthisprocedure(ortheprocedure
shownonthepreviousslide).
ThisslideshowsthemodalshearsforeachlevelascomputedusingtheMRSapproach.
TheXdirectionbaseshearis438.1kips,andtheYdirectionshearis492.8kips.Thus,allof
thestoryshearsandrelatedmemberforcesneedtobescaleupto0.85timestheELFbase
shearof1124kips.Thescalefactorsare2.18and1.94intheXandYdirections,
respectively.
Themodalstorydriftsinthesecondcolumncomedirectlyfromtheanalysis,andarenot
scaled.ThesedriftsalreadyincludetheeffectofR,whichwasincludedintheresponse
spectrum.Thestorydriftsaregenerallynotequaltothedifferenceinthetotaldrifts,as
thesearedeterminedindividuallyineachmodeandthenSRSSed.Thestorydriftsare
multipliedbyCd inthefourthcolumn.ThefinalCd scaleddriftsaresignificantlylessthan
theallowabledrifts,indicatingthatthisstructureisprobablytoostiffascurrentlydesigned.
ThesedisplacementswillbecomparedtotheELFandMRHdisplacementsattheendof
thisslideset.
Seepreviousslidefordiscussion
Thebeamshearsarefoundineachmode,andthencombinedbySRSS.Theshearsshown
onthisslidehavebeenscaledsuchthattheyareconsistentwith(85%scaled)scaledbase
shears.
TheseshearswillbecomparedtotheELFandMRHshearsattheendofthisslideset.
Titleslide.
ThisslideshowsthebasicstepsintheModalResponseHistorymethod.Manyofthesteps
arethesameasrequiredforELForMRSanalysis.Thelargestnewitemistheselection
andscalingofthegroundmotions,andtherunningofthedynamicanalysis.
Thisslideliststhestepsrequiredtodeterminedrift.Driftsaretakendirectlyfromthe
analysis,andneednotbescaledotherthanbytheratioofCd/R.Alldriftsarecalculatedat
thecenterofmass.
NotethatPDeltaeffectsarecheckedusingthesameprocedureasusedfortheELFand
MRSanalysis.Therefore,PDeltaeffectsshouldnotbeincludedinthedynamicanalysis.
Theonlydifferencebetweenthisslideandthepreviousslideisthatwhenthereare
significanttorsional deflections,thedriftshouldbecomputedatthecornerofthebuilding.
Thiswasnotdonehereasthestructuredidnothaveasignificanttorsional response.
Thisistheprocedurefordeterminingdesignseismicmemberforces.Thesignificantpoint
inthisslideisthatthescalingto85percentofthedesignbaseshearwillberequiredifthe
dynamicbaseshearsarelessthanthe85percentoftheELFshears.
The ASCE710requirementsforselectinggroundmotionareshownhere.Selectingan
appropriatenumberofrecordsthatsatisfythecriteriacanbechallengingbecausethere
arefewavailablerecordingsofdesignlevelgroundmotions.
Thereisageneralconsensusthatmoreisbetterwhenrunningresponsehistoryanalysis.
Iffact,ASCE7rewardstheengineerwhensevenormoremotionsareusedastheaverage
responseamongthesevenmaybeusedwhendeterminingdesignvalues.Thepeak
responsemustbeusediflessthansevenmotionsareincludedintheanalysis.Onemust
notusefewerthanthreerecordsunderanycircumstances.
ThescalingrequirementsforthegroundmotionsarebasedonASCE710.Thisresultsin
somewhatlowerscalefactorsthanusedinASCE705.
Hereitisimportanttonotethatthatthereareseveralsetsofscalefactorsappliedinthe
analysis:
(1) ScalingbyratioofI/R
(2) Groundmotionscalingasindicatedabove
(3) Scalingto85%ofELFbaseshear
Groundmotionsmustbescaledtobecompatiblewiththedesignspectrum.Thereare
numerouswastodoscaling,andthereisnoconsensusastowhichisthebestapproach.
InASCE710,thefirststepinscaling(for3Danalysis)istotakethesquarerootofthesum
ofthesquaresofthe5%dampedspectraforthetwoorthogonalcomponentsfromeach
earthquake.Next,eachoftheseSRSSspectraaremultipliedbyascalefactor.Then,the
averageofthethreeScaledSpectraiscomputed.Thechosenscalefactorsmustbe
establishedsuchthattheaveragespectraliesabovethedesignspectrafortheperiod
rangeof0.2T to1.5T,whereT istheperiodofvibrationofthestructure.
Intheexample,theMatchPointisthatpointatwhichthescaledaveragescaledspectrum
andthetargetspectrumhavethesameordinate.Intheexamplegiven,notehowthe
averagescaledspectralordinateisfarabovethetargetspectrumatthestructuresperiodof
vibration.ThisisoneoftheconsequencesintheASCE7method.
Thesepointsareinadditiontotheproblemdiscussedinthecommentaryinthelastslide.
Regardingthefirstpoint,theauthorschosetoscaletotheaverageofthetwofirstmode
fundamentalperiods.Anotherchoicewouldbetoscaleovertherangeof0.2timesthe
smallerperiodto1.5timesthelargerperiod.
Tosomethesecondpointisnotimportantbecauseitisunlikelythatdifferentengineers
wouldusethesamesetofgroundmotions.However,thecurrentmethodallowsthe
designertoapplyscalefactorsinaarbitrarymanner,andthisallowsthedesignertoscale
downoffendinggroundmotions.
Innonlinearanalysistheperiodselongate,soitmakessensetoconsiderthiswhenscaling.
Forlinearanalysis,theperiodsdonotchange,andthereisnoreasontoscaleatperiods
aboveT (unlessoneistryingtomanageuncertaintiesrelatedtocomputingT).
Thefinalpointisrelatedtotheproblemillustratedinthepreviousslide.Thehighermodes
dominatethescaling,eventhoughtheymaycontributeverylittletothedynamicresponse.
Asalreadymentioned,thethirdapproachwasusedinthisexample.
Inthisexampleatwostepscalingapproachisused.First,theSRSSofeachcomponentpair
arescaledtomatchthetargetspectrumattheperiodTavg.Thisfactorwillbedifferentfor
eachofSRSSspectra.
TheaverageofthescaledspectrawillmatchthetargetspectrumatTavg.Nowasecond
factorisappliedequallytoeachmotion(alreadyscaledonce)suchthatthescaledaverage
spectrumliesabovethetargetspectrumfrom0.2Tavg to1.5Tavg.
Thefinalscalefactorforeachmotionistheproductofthetwoscalefactors.Byuseofthis
approachallengineerswillarriveatthesamescalefactorsforthesamesetofmotions.
Theactualrecordsusedformtheanalysisareshowninthisslide.Theserecordscamefrom
thePEERNGAdatabase.TheyarereferredtoassetsA,B,andCherein.
Thisslideshowstheunscaled SRSSspectraforeachmotionpair,togetherwiththetarget
spectrum.
ThisslideshowstheaverageoftheS1scaledspectraforthethree earthquakes.Notethe
perfectmatchatthetargetperiod.
ThisslideshowstheratioofthetargetspectrumtotheS1 Scaledspectraoverthetarget
periodrange.
Thespectrum finalscaledspectrumiscomparedtothetargetspectrumhere.Thereisa
prettygoodmatchatperiodsbetween0.5secondsand5.0seconds,butthematchisnot
sogoodinthehighermodes.
Thisplotshowstheindividualscaledcomponentsinthe00direction.Notethatthe
component spectrafallbelowthetargetspectrabecausethecomponentsarenot
amplifiedbytheSRSSprocedure.TheSRSSofthecomponentpairswouldbecloserto
thetargetspectrum.
Seethecommentonthepreviousslide.
This slideshowsthefinalcomputedscalefactors.Notethateachcomponentpairreceives
itsownS1factor,andallrecordsusethesameS2factor.
Chapter16ofASCE7does notprovideguidanceonthenumberofmodestouseinmodal
responsehistoryanalysis.Itseemslogicaltofollowthesameproceduresasgivenin
Chapter12formodalresponsespectrumanalysis,andthiswasdonefortheexample
building.
Chapter 16ofASCE7doesnotprovideguidanceondampinginresponsehistoryanalysis.
Itseemslogicaltouse5%dampingineachmodeasthiswasusedinthedevelopmentof
theresponsespectra.Thus,5%wasusedintheexample.Note,howeverthethatuseof
5%dampinginnonlinearresponsehistoryanalysisisprobablyunconservative.Theuseof
alowervalue,say2%critical,isgenerallyrecommendedfornonlinearanalysis.
Thesepointsareexplainedinthefollowingslides.
Theresponsehistoryshearsshouldbescaledupto85%oftheminimumbaseshear.
NoscalingisrequiredwhentheMRHshearisgreaterthantheMinimumBaseShear.
Thisslidecomparesresponsespectrumscalingwithresponsehistoryscaling.
Thesearetheindividually scaledGMusedintheanalyses.
ThisslideshowsthemaximumresponsequantitiesfromtheSSscaledgroundmotions.
Thereisahugevariation(considering thefactthatallrecordswerescaledinasimilar
mannertothesametargetspectrum),withbaseshearsrangingfromalowof1392kipsto
ahighof5075kips.Thevariationin otherresponsequantitiesaresimilar.Itisdifficultto
determinethesourceofthesevariations,whichincludethescalingmethod,thedifference
betweencomponents,andhighermodeeffects.
Heretheindividualscalefactorsareprovided.Thesefactorsnormalizetheresponsesto
havethesamebaseshearasgivenby85percentoftheELFbaseshear.Itisnotablethatall
ofthegroundmotionshadtobescaledup.
Thecomputeddriftenvelopesareshownhere.Thedriftsshave beenscaledbyCd/R,but
no85%scalingisrequired.Aswiththeothermethods,thedriftsappeartobewellbelow
thelimits,indicatingthatthestructureisprobablytoostiff.
This slideshowsthevariousloadcombinations.Notethat100percentofthe85%scaled
motionswereappliedineachdirection.
Thisslideshowstheenvelopesofallofthe85%scaledbeamshearsonFrame1.These
willbecomparedtotheresultsfromtheothermethods attheendofthepresentation.
Titleslide.
Thestoryshearsare comparableduetothescalingoftheMRSandMRHresults.However,
itseemsthatheshearsintheupperlevelsarerelativelygreaterintheMRHanalysis.This
isprobablyduetothehigherspectralaccelerationinthehighermodes(whencomparedto
thetargetspectrum).
TheELFmethodproducesthelargestdrifts.However,thesedriftswerebasedona period
ofCuTa,andnotonthecomputedsystemperiod.Theresponsehistorydriftsarelargerat
theupperlevels,reflectingtheinfluenceofthehighermodes.
Again,thebeamshearsarelargerintheupperlevelswhencomputedusingresponse
history.Aswithdrift andstoryshear,thisisattributedtohighermodeeffectsaccentuated
byhighspectralaccelerationsatlowerperiods(whencomparedtothetargetspectrum).
Titleslide.
Slidecomparingrelativeeffortofvariousmethodsofanalysis.
Slidedescribesaccuracyinanalysis.
ThesearetheauthorsopinionanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsofASCEorBSSC.
Thisslide isintendedtoinitiatequestionsfortheparticipants.
4
Structural Analysis
Finley Charney, Adrian Tola Tola, and Ozgur Atlayan
StructuralAnalysis:Example1
TwelvestoryMomentResistingSteelFrame
Instructional Material ComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
StructuralAnalysis,Part1 1
Analysisofa12StorySteelBuilding
InStockton,California
InstructionalMaterialComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
BuildingDescription
12Storiesabovegrade,onelevelbelowgrade
SignificantConfigurationIrregularities
SpecialSteelMomentResistingPerimeterFrame
IntendedUseisOfficeBuilding
SituatedonSiteClassCSoils
4 StructuralAnalysis1
AnalysisDescription
EquivalentLateralForceAnalysis(Section12.8)
ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis(Section
12.9)
LinearandNonlinearResponseHistoryAnalysis
(Chapter16)
OverviewofPresentation
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysistypes
OverviewofEquivalentLateralForceanalysis
OverviewofModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
OverviewofModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
ComparisonofResults
SummaryandConclusions
Note:ThemajorityofpresentationisbasedonrequirementsprovidedbyASCE705.
ASCE710andthe2009NEHRPProvisions(FEMAP750)willbereferredtoasapplicable.
DescribeBuilding
Describe/Performstepscommontoallanalysis
types
ComparisonofResults
PlanatFirstLevelAboveGrade
PerimeterMoment
Frame
B
GravityOnlyColumns
PlansThroughUpperLevels
PerimeterMoment
Frame
PerimeterMoment
Frame
AboveLevel5
AboveLevel9
GravityOnlyColumns
SectionAA
ThickenedSlabs
SectionBB
3DWireFrameViewfromSAP2000
PerspectiveViewsofStructure(SAP2000)
DescribeBuilding
types
ComparisonofResults
SeismicLoadAnalysis:BasicSteps
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
DetermineOccupancyCategory(Table11)
DetermineGroundMotionParameters:
SS andS1 USGSUtilityorMapsfromCh.22)
Fa andFv (Tables11.41and11.42)
SDS andSD1 (Eqns.11.43and11.44)
DetermineImportanceFactor(Table11.51)
DetermineSeismicDesignCategory(Section11.6)
SelectStructuralSystem(Table12.21)
EstablishDiaphragmBehavior(Section11.3.1)
EvaluateConfigurationIrregularities(Section12.3.2)
DetermineMethodofAnalysis(Table12.61)
DetermineScopeofAnalysis[2D,3D](Section12.7.2)
EstablishModelingParameters
DetermineOccupancyCategory
OccupancyCategory=II(Table11)
GroundMotionParametersforStockton
SS=1.25g
S1=0.40g
DeterminingSiteCoefficients
Fa=1.0
Fa=1.4
DeterminingDesignSpectralAccelerations
SDS=(2/3)FaSS=(2/3)x1.0x1.25=0.833
SD1=(2/3)FvS1=(2/3)x1.4x0.40=0.373
DetermineImportanceFactor,
SeismicDesignCategory
I=1.0
SeismicDesignCategory=D
SelectStructuralSystem(Table12.21)
Buildingheight(abovegrade)=18+11(12.5)=155.5ft
SelectSpecialSteelMomentFrame:R=8,Cd=5.5,0=3
EstablishDiaphragmBehavior
andModelingRequirements
12.3.1DiaphragmFlexibility.
Thestructuralanalysisshallconsidertherelativestiffnessofdiaphragms
andtheverticalelementsoftheseismicforceresistingsystem.Unlessa
diaphragmcanbeidealizedaseitherflexibleorrigidinaccordancewith
Sections12.3.1.1,12.3.1.2,or12.3.1.3,thestructuralanalysisshall
explicitlyincludeconsiderationofthestiffnessofthediaphragm(i.e.,
semirigidmodelingassumption).
12.3.1.2RigidDiaphragmCondition.
Diaphragmsofconcreteslabsorconcretefilledmetaldeckwithspan
todepthratiosof3orlessinstructuresthathavenohorizontal
irregularities arepermittedtobeidealizedasrigid.
Duetohorizontalirregularities(e.g.reentrantcorners)thediaphragms
mustbemodeledassemirigid.ThiswillbedonebyusingShell
elementsintheSAP2000Analysis.
DetermineConfigurationIrregularities
HorizontalIrregularities
?
?
Irregularity2occursonlowerlevels.Irregularity3ispossiblebutneednotbe
evaluatedbecauseithassameconsequencesasirregularity3.Torsional
Irregularitieswillbeassessedlater.
VerticalIrregularities
X
X
X
Irregularities2and3occurduetosetbacks.Softstoryandweakstoryirregularities
arehighlyunlikelyforthissystemandarenotevaluated.
SelectionofMethodofAnalysis(ASCE705)
Notapplicable
Systemisnotregular
Verticalirregularities
2and3exist
ELFisnotpermitted:
MustuseModalResponseSpectrumorResponseHistoryAnalysis
SelectionofMethodofAnalysis(ASCE710)
ELFisnotpermitted:
MustuseModalResponseSpectrumorResponseHistoryAnalysis
DescribeBuilding
types
ComparisonofResults
CommentsonuseofELFforThisSystem
ELFisNOTallowedastheDesignBasisAnalysis.
However,ELF(oraspectsofELF)mustbeusedfor:
Preliminaryanalysisanddesign
Evaluationoftorsionirregularitiesand
amplification
Evaluationofsystemredundancyfactors
ComputingPDeltaEffects
ScalingResponseSpectrumandResponseHistory
results
DetermineScopeofAnalysis
12.7.3StructuralModeling.
Amathematicalmodelofthestructureshallbeconstructedfor
thepurposeofdeterminingmemberforcesandstructure
displacementsresultingfromappliedloadsandanyimposed
displacementsorPDeltaeffects.
Themodelshallincludethestiffnessandstrengthofelements
thataresignificanttothedistributionofforcesanddeformations
inthestructureandrepresentthespatialdistributionofmass
andstiffnessthroughoutthestructure.
Note:PDeltaeffectsshouldnotbeincludeddirectlyintheanalysis.
TheyareconsideredindirectlyinSection12.8.7
DetermineScopeofAnalysis
(Continued)
Continuationof12.7.3:
StructuresthathavehorizontalstructuralirregularityType1a,1b,4,or
5ofTable12.31shallbeanalyzedusinga3Drepresentation.
Wherea3Dmodelisused,aminimumofthreedynamicdegreesof
freedomconsistingoftranslationintwoorthogonalplandirections
andtorsionalrotationabouttheverticalaxisshallbeincludedateach
levelofthestructure.
Wherethediaphragmshavenotbeenclassifiedasrigidorflexiblein
accordancewithSection12.3.1,themodelshallincluderepresentation
ofthediaphragmsstiffnesscharacteristicsandsuchadditional
dynamicdegreesoffreedomasarerequiredtoaccountforthe
participationofthediaphragminthestructuresdynamicresponse.
Analysisofstructuremustbein3D,anddiaphragmsmustbemodeled
assemirigid
EstablishModelingParameters
Continuationof12.7.3:
Inaddition,themodelshallcomplywiththefollowing:
a) Stiffnesspropertiesofconcreteandmasonryelements
shallconsidertheeffectsofcrackedsections.
b) Forsteelmomentframesystems,thecontributionof
panelzonedeformationstooverallstorydriftshallbe
included.
10
ModelingParametersusedinAnalysis
1)Thefloordiaphragmwasmodeledwithshellelements,providing
nearlyrigidbehaviorinplane.
2)Flexural,shear,axial,andtorsionaldeformationswereincludedinall
columnsandbeams.
3)Beamcolumnjointsweremodeledusingcenterlinedimensions.
Thisapproximatelyaccountsfordeformationsinthepanelzone.
4)Sectionpropertiesforthegirderswerebasedonbaresteel,ignoring
compositeaction.Thisisareasonableassumptioninlightofthefact
thatmostofthegirdersareontheperimeterofthebuildingandare
underreversecurvature.
ModelingParametersusedinAnalysis
(continued)
5)Exceptforthoselateralloadresistingcolumnsthatterminateat
Levels5and9,allcolumnsofthelateralloadresistingsystemwere
assumedtobefixedattheirbase.
6)Thebasementwallsandgradelevelslabwereexplicitlymodeled
using4nodeshellelements.Thiswasnecessarytoallowtheinterior
columnstocontinuethroughthebasementlevel.Noadditionallateral
restraintwasappliedatthegradelevel,thusthebasementlevelacts
asaverystifffirstfloorofthestructure.Thisbasementlevelwasnot
relevantfortheELFanalysis,butdidinfluencetheMRSandMRH
analysisasdescribedinlatersectionsofthisexample
7)PDeltaeffectswerenotincludedinthemathematicalmodel.These
effectsareevaluatedseparatelyusingtheproceduresprovidedin
section12.8.7oftheStandard.
EquivalentLateralForceAnalysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
ComputeSeismicWeight,W (Sec.12.7.2)
ComputeApproximatePeriodofVibrationTa (Sec.12.8.2.1)
ComputeUpperBoundPeriodofVibration,T=CuTa (Sec.12.8.2)
ComputeAnalyticalNaturalperiods
ComputeSeismicBaseShear(Sec.12.8.1)
ComputeEquivalentLateralForces(Sec.12.8.3)
ComputeTorsionalAmplificationFactors(Sec.12.8.4.3)
DetermineOrthogonalLoadingRequirements(Sec.12.8)
ComputeRedundancyFactor(Sec.12.3.4)
PerformStructuralAnalysis
CheckDriftandPDeltaRequirements(Sec.12.9.4and12.9.6)
ReviseStructureinNecessaryandRepeatSteps111
[asappropriate]
13. DetermineDesignLevelMemberForces(Sec.12.4)
11
NotesonComputingthePeriodofVibration
Ta (Eqn.12.87)isanapproximatelowerboundperiod,andis
basedonthemeasuredresponseofbuildingsinhighseismic
regions.
T=CuTa isalsoapproximate,butissomewhatmoreaccurate
thanTa alonebecauseitisbasedonthebestfitofthe
measuredresponse,andisadjustedforlocalseismicity.Both
oftheseadjustmentsarecontainedintheCu term.
CuTa canonlybeusedifananalyticallycomputedperiod,
calledTcomputed herein,isavailablefromacomputeranalysis
ofthestructure.
UsingEmpiricalFormulastoDetermineTa
Ta Ct hnx
FromTable12.8.2:
Ct=0.028
x=0.80
hn=18+11(12.5)=155.5ft
Ta 0.028(155.5)0.8 1.59 sec

AppliesinBothDirections
AdjustedEmpiricalPeriodT=CuTa
SD1=0.373
GivesCu=1.4
T 1.4(1.59) 2.23 sec

AppliesinBothDirections
12
UseofRayleighAnalysistoDetermineTcomputed
Fi
Wi
Tcomputed
2
computed
n
computed
g i Fi
i 1
n
W
2
i
i 1
Buildinghasn Levels
UseofRayleighAnalysistoDetermineTcomputed
XDirectionTcomputed =2.85sec.
YDirectionTcomputed =2.56sec.
PeriodsComputedUsingEigenvalueAnalysis
K M 2
Diagonalmatrixcontainingcircularfrequencies
ModeShapeMatrix
Mode 1 T=2.87 sec
Mode 2: T:2.60 sec
13
RangeofPeriodsComputedforThisExample
Ta=1.59sec
CuTa=2.23sec
Tcomputed =2.87secinXdirection
2.60secinYdirection
PeriodsofVibrationforComputing
SeismicBaseShear
(Eqns 12.81,12.83,and12.84)
ifTcomputed isnotavailableuseTa
ifTcomputed isavailable,then:
ifTcomputed >CuTa useCuTa
ifTa <=Tcomputed <=CuTa useTcomputed
ifTcomputed <Ta useTa
AreaandLineWeightDesignations
14
AreaandLineWeightValues
Table 4.1-1 Area Weights Contributing to Masses on Floor Diaphragms
Area Weight Designation
Mass Type
Slab and Deck (psf)
Structure (psf)
Ceiling and Mechanical (psf)
Partition (psf)
Roofing (psf)
Special (psf)
Total (psf)
50
20
15
10
0
0
95
75
20
15
10
0
0
120
50
20
15
0
15
0
100
75
20
15
0
15
60
185
75
50
15
10
0
25
175
See Figure 4.1-4 for mass location. 1.0 psf = 47.9 N/m .
Table 4.1-2 Line Weights Contributing to Masses on Floor Diaphragms

Line Weight Designation
Mass Type
From Story Above (plf)
From Story Below (plf)
Total (plf)
60.0
93.8
153.8
93.8
93.8
187.6
93.8
0.0
93.8
93.8
135.0
228.8
135.0
1350.0
1485.0
See Figure 4.1-4 for mass location. 1.0 plf = 14.6 N/m.
WeightsatIndividualLevels
Table 4.1-3 Floor Weight, Floor Mass, Mass Moment of Inertia, and Center of Mass Locations
Level
Weight
(kips)
Mass
2/
(kip-sec in.)
R
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
G
1657
1596
1596
1596
3403
2331
2331
2331
4320
3066
3066
3097
6525
36912
4.287
4.130
4.130
4.130
8.807
6.032
6.032
6.032
11.19
7.935
7.935
8.015
16.89
Mass Moment of
Inertia (in.-kipsec2//radian)
2.072x10 6
6
2.017x10
2.017x10 6
2.017x10 6
5.309x10 6
6
3.703x10
3.703x10 6
3.703x10 6
9.091x10 6
6.356x10 6
6.356x10 6
6.437x10 6
1.503x10 7
X Distance to
C.M.
(in.)
1260
1260
1260
1260
1638
1553
1553
1553
1160
1261
1261
1262
1265
Y Distance to
C.M.
(in.)
1050
1050
1050
1050
1175
1145
1145
1145
1206
1184
1184
1181
1149
TotalBuildingWeight=36,912k.Weightabovegrade=30,394k.
CalculationofELFBaseShear
V CSW
(12.81)
CS
SDS
0.833
0.104
R /I
8 /1
CS
0.373
SD1
0.021
T(R /I) 2.23(8 /1)
(12.82)
(12.83)
CS 0.044SDS I 0.044(0.833)(1) 0.0307
(12.85)
Controls
V 0.037(30394) 1124 kips

15
ConceptofReffective
CuTa=2.23sec
Cs=0.044SDSI=0.037(controls)
Cs=0.021fromEqn.12.83
Reffective =(0.021/0.037)x 8=4.54

IssuesRelatedtoPeriodofVibrationandDrift
12.8.6.1 Minimum Base Shear for Computing
Drift
The elastic analysis of the seismic force-resisting
system for computing drift shall be made using the
prescribed seismic design forces of Section 12.8.
EXCEPTION: Eq. 12.8-5 need not be considered for
computing drift
12.8.6.2 Period for Computing Drift
For determining compliance with the story drift limits
of Section 12.12.1, it is permitted to determine the
elastic drifts, ( ), using seismic design forces based
on the computed fundamental period of the structure
without the upper limit (C T ) specified in Section
12.8.2.
xe
UsingEqns.12.83or12.85forComputingELF
Displacements
CuTa=2.23sec
T=2.60sec
Use
T=2.87sec
DONTUse
16
WhatifEquation12.86had
ControlledBaseShear?
Cs
0.5S1
(R /I)
Eqn.12.86,applicableonlywhenS1 >=0.6g
Thisequationrepresentsthetrueresponse
spectrumshapefornearfieldgroundmotions.
Thus,thelateralforcesdevelopedonthebasisof
thisequationmustbeusedfordetermining
componentdesignforcesand displacementsused
forcomputingdrift.
WhenEquation12.85MayControl
SeismicBaseShear(S1 <0.6g)
Cs
SeismicBaseShear
Drift
0.044SDSIe
CuTa
Ccomputed
Cs
Cs
0.044SDSIe
0.044SDSIe
CuTa Ccomputed
CuTa Ccomputed
WhenEquation12.86MayControl
SeismicBaseShear(S1 >=0.6g)
Cs
SeismicBaseShear
Drift
SDS/(R/Ie)
CuTa
Ccomputed
Cs
Cs
SDS/(R/Ie)
SDS/(R/Ie)
CuTa
Ccomputed
CuTa Ccomputed
17
CalculationofELFForces
Fx CvxV
Cvs
(12.811)
wx h k
(12.812)
w h
k
i i
i1
T=2.23
2.0
k=1.86
1.0
0
0.5
2.5
CalculationofELFForces(continued)
Table 4.1-4 Equivalent Lateral Forces for Building Responding in X and Y Directions
Fx
Level
wx
hx
Vx
Mx
k
Cvx
wxhx
x
(kips)
(ft)
(kips)
(kips)
(ft-kips)
R
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1657
1596
1596
1596
3403
2331
2331
2331
4324
3066
3066
3097
30394
155.5
143.0
130.5
118.0
105.5
93.0
80.5
68.0
55.5
43.0
30.5
18.0
-
20272144
16700697
14081412
11670590
20194253
10933595
8353175
6097775
7744477
3411857
1798007
679242
121937234
0.1662
0.1370
0.1155
0.0957
0.1656
0.0897
0.0685
0.0500
0.0635
0.0280
0.0147
0.0056
1.00
186.9
154.0
129.9
107.6
186.3
100.8
77.0
56.2
71.4
31.5
16.6
6.3
1124.5
186.9
340.9
470.8
578.4
764.7
865.5
942.5
998.8
1070.2
1101.7
1118.2
1124.5
2336
6597
12482
19712
29271
40090
51871
64356
77733
91505
103372
120694
Values in column 4 based on exponent k=1.865. 1.0 ft = 0.3048 m, 1.0 kip = 4.45 kN.
InherentandAccidentalTorsion
12.8.4.1InherentTorsion.Fordiaphragmsthatarenot
flexible,thedistributionoflateralforcesateachlevelshall
considertheeffectoftheinherenttorsionalmoment,Mt ,
resultingfromeccentricitybetweenthelocationsofthe
centerofmassandthecenterofrigidity.Forflexible
diaphragms,thedistributionofforcestothevertical
elementsshallaccountforthepositionanddistributionof
themassessupported.
Inherenttorsioneffectsareautomaticallyincludedin3D
structuralanalysis,andmemberforcesassociatedwithsuch
effectsneednotbeseparatedoutfromtheanalysis.
18
(continued)
12.8.4.2AccidentalTorsion.Wherediaphragmsarenotflexible,the
designshallincludetheinherenttorsionalmoment(Mt )(kiporkN)
resultingfromthelocationofthestructuremassesplustheaccidental
torsionalmoments(Mta )(kiporkN)causedbyassumeddisplacement
ofthecenterofmasseachwayfromitsactuallocationbyadistance
equalto5percentofthedimensionofthestructureperpendicularto
thedirectionoftheappliedforces.
Whereearthquakeforcesareappliedconcurrentlyintwoorthogonal
directions,therequired5percentdisplacementofthecenterofmass
neednotbeappliedinbothoftheorthogonaldirectionsatthesame
time,butshallbeappliedinthedirectionthatproducesthegreater
effect.
(continued)
HorizontalIrregularities
19
ApplicationofEquivalentLateralForces
(XDirection)
ForcesinKips
ApplicationofTorsionalForces
(UsingXDirectionLateralForces)
ForcesinKips
StationsforMonitoringDriftfor
TorsionIrregularityCalculations
withELFForcesAppliedinXDirection
20
ResultsofTorsionalIrregularityCalculations
ForELFForcesAppliedinXDirection
Result:ThereisnotaTorsionalIrregularityforLoadingintheXDirection
ResultsofTorsionalIrregularityCalculations
ForELFForcesAppliedinYDirection
Result:ThereisaminorTorsionalIrregularityforLoadingintheYDirection
ResultsofTorsionalAmplificationCalculations
ForELFForcesAppliedinYDirection
(XDirectionResultsareSimilar)
Result:AmplificationofAccidentalTorsionNeednotbeConsidered
21
DriftandDeformation
DriftandDeformation(Continued)
Notstrictly
Followedinthis
Exampleduetovery
minortorsion
irregularity
DriftandDeformation(Continued)
ASCE705(ASCE710)Similar
ASCE710
22
ComputedDriftsinXDirection
Table 4.1-7 ELF Drift for Building Responding in X Direction
1
2
3
Total drift from Story drift from Amplified story
Level
SAP2000
SAP2000
drift
(in.)
(in.)
(in.)
R
6.67
0.32
1.74
12
6.35
0.45
2.48
11
5.90
0.56
3.07
10
5.34
0.62
3.39
9
4.73
0.58
3.20
8
4.15
0.63
3.47
7
3.52
0.64
3.54
6
2.87
0.63
3.47
5
2.24
0.54
2.95
4
1.71
0.54
2.97
3
1.17
0.53
2.90
2
0.64
0.64
3.51
4
Amplified drift
times 0.568
(in.)
0.99
1.41
1.75
1.92
1.82
1.97
2.01
1.97
1.67
1.69
1.65
2.00
5
Allowable drift
(in.)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.32
Column 4 adjusts for Standard Eq. 12.8-3 (for drift) vs 12.8-5 (for strength).
1.0 in. = 25.4 mm.
Cd Amplifieddriftbasedonforces
fromEq.12.85
Modifiedforforcesbased
onEq.12.83
ComputedDriftsinYDirection
Table 4.1-8 ELF Drift for Building Responding in Y Direction
3
2
1
Level Total drift from Story drift from Amplified story
drift
SAP2000
SAP2000
(in.)
(in.)
(in.)
R
4.86
0.15
0.81
12
4.71
0.24
1.30
11
4.47
0.30
1.64
10
4.17
0.36
1.96
9
3.82
0.37
2.05
8
3.44
0.46
2.54
7
2.98
0.48
2.64
6
2.50
0.48
2.62
5
2.03
0.45
2.49
4
1.57
0.48
2.66
3
1.09
0.48
2.64
2
0.61
0.61
3.35
4
Amplified drift
times 0.568
(in.)
0.46
0.74
0.93
1.11
1.16
1.44
1.50
1.49
1.42
1.51
1.50
1.90
5
Allowable drift
(in.)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.32
Column 4 adjusts for Standard Eq. 12.8-3 (for drift) versus Eq. 12.8-5 (for strength).
1.0 in. = 25.4 mm.
Cd Amplifieddriftbasedonforces
fromEq.12.85
Modifiedforforcesbased
onEq.12.83
PDeltaEffects
Px I
Vx hsx Cd
Eq.12.816*
Thedrift inEq.12.816isdrift
fromELFanalysis,multipliedbyCd
anddividedbyI.
*TheimportancefactorI wasinadvertentlyleftoutofEq.12.816inASCE705.ItisproperlyincludedinASCE710.
max
0.5
Cd
Eq.12.817
Theterm inEq.12.817is
essentiallytheinverseofthe
Computedstoryoverstrength.
PDeltaEffectsformodalresponsespectrumanalysisandmodalresponse
historyanalysisarecheckedusingtheELFprocedureindicatedonthisslide.
23
PDeltaEffects
Table 4.1-11 Computation of P-Delta Effects for X Direction Response
Level
hsx (in.)
(in.)
150
1.74
PD (kips) PL (kips) PT (kips) PX (kips) VX(kips)

1656.5
315.0
1971.5
1971.5
186.9
0.022
12
150
2.48
1595.8
315.0
1910.8
3882.3
340.9
0.034
11
150
3.07
1595.8
315.0
1910.8
5793.1
470.8
0.046
10
150
3.39
1595.8
315.0
1910.8
7703.9
578.4
0.055
150
3.20
3403.0
465.0
3868.0
11571.9
764.7
0.059
150
3.47
2330.8
465.0
2795.8
14367.7
865.8
0.070
150
3.54
2330.8
465.0
2795.8
17163.5
942.5
0.078
150
3.47
2330.8
465.0
2795.8
19959.3
998.8
0.084
150
2.95
4323.8
615.0
4938.8
24898.1
1070.2
0.083
150
2.97
3066.1
615.0
3681.1
28579.2
1101.7
0.093
150
2.90
3066.1
615.0
3681.1
32260.3
1118.2
0.101
216
3.51
3097.0
615.0
3712.0
35972.3
1124.5
0.095
1.0 in. = 25.4 mm, 1.0 kip = 4.45 kN.
Marginallyexceedslimitof0.091using=1.0. wouldbe
lessthan max ifactual werecomputedandused.
OrthogonalLoadingRequirements
12.5.4 Seismic Design Categories D through F. Structures
assigned to Seismic Design Category D, E, or F shall, as a
minimum, conform to the requirements of Section 12.5.3.
12.5.3 Seismic Design Category C. Loading applied to
structures assigned to Seismic Design Category C shall, as a
minimum, conform to the requirements of Section 12.5.2 for
Seismic Design Category B and the requirements of this section.
Structures that have horizontal structural irregularity Type 5 in
Table 12.3-1 shall the following procedure [for ELF Analysis]:
ContinuedonNextSlide
OrthogonalLoadingRequirements
(continued)
Orthogonal Combination Procedure. The structure shall
be analyzed using the equivalent lateral force analysis
procedure of Section 12.8 with the loading applied
independently in any two orthogonal directions and the
most critical load effect due to direction of application of
seismic forces on the structure is permitted to be assumed
to be satisfied if components and their foundations are
designed for the following combination of prescribed loads:
100 percent of the forces for one direction plus 30
percent of the forces for the perpendicular direction;
the combination requiring the maximum component
strength shall be used.
24
ASCE705HorizontalIrregularityType5
Nonparallel Systems-Irregularity is defined to exist where the
vertical lateral force-resisting elements are not parallel to or
symmetric about the major orthogonal axes of the seismic
forceresisting system.
The system in question clearly has nonsymmetrical lateral force
resisting elements so a Type 5 Irregularity exists, and orthogonal
combinations are required. Thus, 100%-30% procedure given
on the previous slide is used.
Note: The words or symmetric about have been removed from the
definition of a Type 5 Horizontal Irregularity in ASCE 7-10. Thus, the
system under consideration does not have a Type 5 irregularity in
ASCE 7-10.
16BasicLoadCombinationsusedinELF
Analysis(IncludingTorsion)
100%Eccentric
30%Centered
CombinationofLoadEffects
1.2D 1.0E 0.5L 0.2S

0.9D 1.0E 1.6H
E Eh Ev
E h QE
E v 0.2SDS
( =1.0)
(SDS=0.833g)
25
RedundancyFactor
12.3.4.2 Redundancy Factor, , for Seismic Design
Categories D through F. For structures assigned to
Seismic Design Category D, E, or F, shall equal 1.3
unless one of the following two conditions is met, whereby
is permitted to be taken as 1.0:
a) Each story resisting more than 35 percent of the base
shear
in the direction of interest shall comply with Table 12.33.
b) Structures that are regular in plan at all levels
provided that the seismic forceresisting systems
consist of at least two bays of seismic forceresisting
perimeter framing on each
side of the structure in each orthogonal direction at
each
story resisting more than 35 percent of the base shear.
The
number of bays for a shear wall shall be calculated as
the
length of shear wall divided by the story height or two
times
th l
th f h
ll di id d b th t
h i ht f
}Seenextslide
Structure
isNOTregular
atall
Levels.
Redundancy,Continued
TABLE 12.3-3 REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH STORY
RESISTING MORE THAN 35% OF THE BASE SHEAR
Moment Frames Loss of moment resistance at the beam-tocolumn connections at both ends of a single beam would not
result in more than a 33% reduction in story strength, nor does
the resulting system have an extreme torsional irregularity
(horizontal structural irregularity Type 1b).
Itcanbeseenbyinspectionthatremovalofonebeaminthisstructurewill
notresultinaresultinasignificantlossof strengthorleadtoanextreme
torsionalirregularity. Hence=1forthissystem.(ThisisapplicabletoELF,
MRS,andMRHanalyses).
SeismicShearsinBeamsofFrame1fromELF
Analysis
8.99
10.3
10.3
17.3
18.9
19.0
27.7
28.1
29.5
33.4
33.1
35.7
34.8
34.7
32.2
30.3
13.2
36.4
35.9
33.9
37.8
23.7
41.2
40.1
38.4
41.3
25.8
43.0
40.6
39.3
41.7
26.4
R-12
12-11
11-10
10-9
9-8
8-7
7-6
6-5
14.1
33.1
33.8
36.5
35.5
37.2
24.9
24.1
37.9
32.0
34.6
33.9
34.9
23.9
24.1
37.0
33.3
35.1
34.6
35.4
24.6
22.9
36.9
34.1
35.3
34.9
35.9
23.3
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
SeismicShearsinGirders,kips,ExcludingAccidentalTorsion
26
SeismicShearsinBeamsofFrame1fromELF
Analysis
0.56
0.56
0.58
1.13
1.13
1.16
1.87
1.77
1.89
2.26
2.12
2.34
2.07
1.97
1.89
1.54
0.76
1.89
1.81
1.72
1.84
1.36
2.17
2.05
1.99
2.06
1.49
2.29
2.09
2.04
2.09
1.51
R-12
12-11
11-10
10-9
9-8
8-7
7-6
6-5
0.59
1.33
1.65
1.72
1.68
1.72
1.27
1.04
1.45
1.34
1.41
1.39
1.42
1.07
1.07
1.51
1.45
1.48
1.45
1.47
1.10
1.04
1.58
1.52
1.54
1.53
1.56
1.06
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
SeismicShearsinGirders,kips,AccidentalTorsionOnly
DescribeBuilding
types
ComparisonofResults
ModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
Part1:Analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
DevelopElastic responsespectrum(Sec.11.4.5)
Developadequatefiniteelementmodel(Sec.12.7.3)
Computemodalfrequencies,effectivemass,andmodeshapes
Determinenumberofmodestouseinanalysis(Sec.12.9.1)
Performmodalanalysisineachdirection,combiningeach
directions
resultsbyuseofCQCmethod(Sec.12.9.3)
6. ComputeEquivalentLateralForces(ELF)ineachdirection(Sec.
12.8.1
through12.8.3)
7. Determineaccidentaltorsions(Sec12.8.4.2),amplifiedifnecessary
(Sec.12.8.4.3)
8. PerformstaticTorsionanalysis
27
Part2:DriftandPDeltaforSystemsWithout
TorsionIrregularity
1. MultiplyalldynamicdisplacementsbyCd/R (Sec.12.9.2).
2. ComputeSRSSofinterstorydriftsbasedondisplacementsat
centerof
massateachlevel.
3. CheckdriftLimitsinaccordancewithSec.12.12andTable12.21.
Note:driftLimitsforSpecialMomentFramesinSDCDandabove
mustbedividedbytheRedundancyFactor(Sec.12.12.1.1)
4. PerformPDeltaanalysisusingEquivalentLateralForceprocedure
5. Revisestructureifnecessary
Note:whencentersofmassofadjacentlevelsarenotvertically
alignedthedriftsshouldbebasedonthedifferencebetweenthe
displacementattheupperlevelandthedisplacementofthepointon
thelevelbelowwhichistheverticalprojectionofthecenterofmass
oftheupperlevel.(ThisprocedureisincludedinASCE710.)
Part2:DriftandPDeltaforSystemsWith
TorsionIrregularity
1. MultiplyalldynamicdisplacementsbyCd/R (Sec.12.9.2).
2. ComputeSRSSofstorydriftsbasedondisplacementsatthe
edgeofthebuilding
3. Usingresultsfromthestatictorsionanalysis,determinethedrifts
atthesamelocationusedinStep2above.Torsionaldrifts
maybebasedonthecomputedperiodofvibration(withoutthe
CuTa limit).Torsionaldriftsshouldbebasedoncomputed
displacements
multipliedbyCd anddividedbyI.
4. AdddriftsfromSteps2and3andcheckdriftlimitsinTable12.12
1.
Note:DriftlimitsforspecialmomentframesinSDCDandabove
5. PerformPDeltaanalysisusingEquivalentLateralForceprocedure
6. Revisestructureifnecessary
Part3:ObtainingMemberDesignForces
1. MultiplyalldynamicforcequantitiesbyI/R(Sec.12.9.2)
2. Determinedynamicbaseshearsineachdirection
3. Computescalefactorsforeachdirection(Sec.12.9.4)andapplyto
respectivememberforceresultsineachdirection
4. Combineresultsfromtwoorthogonaldirections,ifnecessary(Sec.
12.5)
5. Addmemberforcesfromstatictorsionanalysis(Sec.12.9.5).
Note
thatstatictorsionforcesmaybescaledbyfactorsobtainedinStep
3
6. Determineredundancyfactor(Sec.12.3.4)
7. Combineseismicandgravityforces(Sec.12.4)
8. Designanddetailstructuralcomponents
28
ModeShapesforFirstFourModes
Mode 1 T=2.87 sec

st
(1 Mode Translation X)
Mode 2: T:2.60 sec

(1st Mode Translation Y)
Mode 3 T=1.57 sec

(1st Mode Torsion)
Mode 4 T=1.15 sec

(2nd Mode X)
ModeShapesforModes58
NumberofModestoInclude
inResponseSpectrumAnalysis
An analysis shall be conducted to determine
the natural modes of vibration for the structure.
The analysis shall include a sufficient number
of modes to obtain a combined modal mass
participation of at least 90 percent of the actual
mass in each of the orthogonal horizontal
directions of response considered by the
model.
29
EffectiveMassesforFirst12Modes
Table 4.1-13 Computed Periods and Effective Mass Factors (Lower Modes)
Effective Mass Factor, [Accum Mass Factor]
Period
Mode
(seconds)
X Translation
Y Translation
Z Rotation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2.87
2.60
1.57
1.15
0.975
0.705
0.682
0.573
0.434
0.387
0.339
0.300
0.6446 [0.64]
0.0003 [0.65]
0.0035 [0.65]
0.1085 [0.76]
0.0000 [0.76]
0.0263 [0.78]
0.0056 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0129 [0.80]
0.0048 [0.81]
0.0000 [0.81]
0.0089 [0.82]
0.0003 [0.00]
0.6804 [0.68]
0.0005 [0.68]
0.0000 [0.68]
0.0939 [0.78]
0.0000 [0.78]
0.0006 [0.79]
0.0188 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0193 [0.81]
0.0000 [0.81]
0.0028 [0.00]
0.0162 [0.02]
0.5806 [0.60]
0.0000 [0.60]
0.0180 [0.62]
0.0271 [0.64]
0.0687 [0.71]
0.0123 [0.73]
0.0084 [0.73]
0.0191 [0.75]
0.0010 [0.75]
0.0003 [0.75]
12ModesAppearstobeInsufficient
EffectiveMassesforModes108119
Table 4.1-14 Computed Periods and Effective Mass Factors (Higher Modes)
Effective Mass Factor, [Accum Effective Mass]
Period
(seconds)
X Translation
Y Translation
Z Rotation
Mode
VirtuallytheSame
0.0000 [0.79]
as12Modes
108
109
110
111
0.0693
0.0673
0.0671
0.0671
0.0000 [0.83]
0.0000 [0.83]
0.0000 [0.83]
0.0000 [0.83]
0.0000 [0.83]
0.0000 [0.83]
0.0354 [0.86]
0.0044 [0.87]
112
113
114
115
0.0669
0.0663
0.0646
0.0629
0.0000 [0.83]
0.0000 [0.83]
0.0000 [0.83]
0.0000 [0.83]
0.1045 [0.97]
0.0000 [0.97]
0.0000 [0.97]
0.0000 [0.97]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
116
117
118
119
0.0621
0.0609
0.0575
0.0566
0.0008 [0.83]
0.0014 [0.83]
0.1474 [0.98]
0.0000 [0.98]
0.0010 [0.97]
0.0009 [0.97]
0.0000 [0.97]
0.0000 [0.97]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0035 [0.80]
0.0000 [0.80]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
118ModesRequiredtoCaptureDynamicResponseofStiffBasement
LevelandGradeLevelSlab
EffectiveMassesforFirst12Modes
Table 4.1-13 Computed Periods and Effective Mass Factors (Lower Modes)
Effective Mass Factor, [Accum Mass Factor]
Period
Mode
(seconds)
X Translation
Y Translation
Z Rotation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
2.87
2.60
1.57
1.15
0.975
0.705
0.682
0.573
0.434
0.387
0.339
0.300
0.6446 [0.64]
0.0003 [0.65]
0.0035 [0.65]
0.1085 [0.76]
0.0000 [0.76]
0.0263 [0.78]
0.0056 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0129 [0.80]
0.0048 [0.81]
0.0000 [0.81]
0.0089 [0.82]
0.0003 [0.00]
0.6804 [0.68]
0.0005 [0.68]
0.0000 [0.68]
0.0939 [0.78]
0.0000 [0.78]
0.0006 [0.79]
0.0188 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0000 [0.79]
0.0193 [0.81]
0.0000 [0.81]
0.0028 [0.00]
0.0162 [0.02]
0.5806 [0.60]
0.0000 [0.60]
0.0180 [0.62]
0.0271 [0.64]
0.0687 [0.71]
0.0123 [0.73]
0.0084 [0.73]
0.0191 [0.75]
0.0010 [0.75]
0.0003 [0.75]
12ModesareActuallySufficienttoRepresenttheDynamicResponseofthe
AboveGradeStructure
30
InelasticDesignResponseSpectrum
Coordinates
Table 4.1-15 Response Spectrum
Coordinates
Sa
Sa(I/R)
0.333
0.0416
0.833
0.104
0.833
0.104
0.373
0.0446
0.249
0.0311
0.186
0.0235
0.149
0.0186
0.124
0.0155
Tm (seconds)
0.000
0.089 (T0)
0.448 (TS)
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
3.000
I = 1, R = 8.0.
Cs (ELF)
0.85Cs (ELF)
ScalingofResponseSpectrumResults(ASCE705)
12.9.4 Scaling Design Values of Combined Response.
A base shear (V) shall be calculated in each of the two orthogonal
horizontal directions using the calculated fundamental period of the
structure T in each direction and the procedures of Section 12.8, except
where the calculated fundamental period exceeds (C )(T ), then (C )(T )
shall be used in lieu of T in that direction. Where the combined
response for the modal base shear (V ) is less than 85 percent of the
calculated base shear (V) using the equivalent lateral force procedure,
the forces, but not the drifts, shall be multiplied by
u
0.85
V
Vt
where
V = the equivalent lateral force procedure base shear, calculated in
accordance with this section and Section 12.8
V = the base shear from the required modal combination
t
Note:IftheELFbaseshearisgovernedbyEqn.12.55or12.86theforceV
shallbebasedonthevalueofCs calculatedbyEqn.12.55or12.86,as
applicable.
ScalingofResponseSpectrumResults(ASCE710)
12.9.4.2 Scaling of Drifts
Where the combined response for the modal base
shear (V ) is less than 0.85 C W, and where C is
determined in accordance with Eq. 12.8-6, drifts
shall be multiplied by:
t
0.85
CsW
Vt
31
ScaledStaticTorsions
TX
+
TY
ApplyTorsionasaStaticLoad.Torsionscanbe
Scaledto0.85timesAmplified* EFLTorsionsifthe
ResponseSpectrumResultsareScaled.
*SeeSec.12.9.5.Torsionsmustbeamplifiedbecausetheyareapplied
statically,notdynamically.
Method1:WeightedAdditionof
Scaled CQCd Results
A =Scaled CQCd ResultsinXDirection
B =Scaled CQCd ResultsinYDirection
A
B
Combination1
Combination2
0.3A
0.3B
A +0.3B +|TX|
0.3A +B +|TY|
Method2:SRSSofScaled CQCd Results

A =Scaled CQCd ResultsinXDirection
B =ScaledCQCd ResultsinYDirection
A
B
Combination
A
B
(A2+B2)0.5 +max(|TX|or|TY|)
32
ComputedStoryShearsandScaleFactors
fromModalResponseSpectrumAnalysis
Table 4.1-16 Story Shears from Modal Response Spectrum Analysis
X Direction (SF = 2.18)
Y Direction (SF = 1.94)
Story
Unscaled Shear
Scaled Shear
Unscaled Shear
Scaled Shear
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
R-12
82.7
180
77.2
150
12-11
130.9
286
132.0
256
11-10
163.8
357
170.4
330
10-9
191.4
418
201.9
392
9-8
240.1
524
265.1
514
8-7
268.9
587
301.4
585
7-6
292.9
639
328.9
638
6-5
316.1
690
353.9
686
5-4
359.5
784
405.1
786
4-3
384.8
840
435.5
845
3-2
401.4
895
462.8
898
2-G
438.1
956
492.8
956
1.0 kip = 4.45 kN.
XDirectionScaleFactor=0.85(1124)/438.1=2.18
YDirectionScaleFactor=0.85(1124)/492.8=1.94
ResponseSpectrumDriftsinXDirection
(NoScalingRequired)
Total Drift from
R.S. Analysis Story Drift
(in.)
(in.)
Level
0.12
2.23
R
0.16
2.10
12
0.19
1.94
11
0.20
1.76
10
0.18
1.56
9
0.19
1.38
8
0.20
1.19
7
0.20
0.99
6
0.18
0.80
5
0.19
0.62
4
0.19
0.43
3
0.24
0.24
2
1.0 in. = 25.4 mm
Story
Drift Cd
(in.)
0.66
0.89
1.03
1.08
0.98
1.06
1.08
1.08
0.97
1.02
1.05
1.34
Allowable
Story Drift
(in.)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.32
ResponseSpectrumDriftsinYDirection
(NoScalingRequired)
Level
R
12
11
10
9
8
Total Drift from

R.S. Analysis Story Drift
(in.)
(in.)
0.06
1.81
0.09
1.76
0.11
1.67
0.12
1.56
0.13
1.44
0.16
1.31
1.15
7
0.99
6
0.92
5
0.65
4
0.46
3
0.26
2
1.0 in. = 25.4 mm
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.19
0.20
0.26
Story
Drift Cd
(in.)
0.32
0.49
0.58
0.67
0.70
0.87
Allowable
Story Drift
(in.)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
0.91
0.92
0.93
1.04
1.08
1.44
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.32
33
ScaledBeamShearsfrom
DescribeBuilding
types
ComparisonofResults
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysis
Part1:Analysis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Selectsuiteofgroundmotions(Sec.16.1.3.2)
Developadequatefiniteelementmodel(Sec.12.7.3)
Computemodalfrequencies,effectivemass,andmodeShapes
Determinenumberofmodestouseinanalysis(Sec.12.9.1)
Assignmodaldampingvalues(typically5%criticalpermode)
Scalegroundmotions*(Sec.16.1.3.2)
Performdynamicanalysisforeachgroundmotionineachdirection
ComputeEquivalentLateralForces(ELF)ineachdirection(Sec.12.8.1
through12.8.3)
9. Determineaccidentaltorsions(Sec12.8.4.2),amplifiedifnecessary
(Sec.12.8.4.3)
10. Performstatictorsionanalysis
*Note:Step6isreferredtohereinasGroundMotionScaling(GMScaling).Thisisto
avoidconfusionwithResultsScaling,describedlater.
34
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysisPart2:Driftand
PDeltaforSystemsWithout TorsionIrregularity
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
MultiplyalldynamicdisplacementsbyCd/R (omittedinASCE705).
Computestorydriftsbasedondisplacementsatcenterofmass
ateachlevel
If3to6groundmotionsareused,computeenvelopeofstory
driftateachlevelineachdirection(Sec.16.1.4)
If7ormoregroundmotionsareused,computeaveragestory
CheckdriftlimitsinaccordancewithSec.12.12andTable12.21.
Note:driftlimitsforSpecialMomentFramesinSDCDandabove
PerformPDeltaanalysisusingEquivalentLateralForceprocedure
Revisestructureifnecessary
Note:whencentersofmassofadjacentlevelsarenotverticallyalignedthedriftsshouldbebasedon
thedifferencebetweenthedisplacementattheupperlevelandthedisplacementofthepointonthe
levelbelowwhichistheverticalprojectionofthecenterofmassoftheupperlevel.(Thisprocedureis
includedinASCE710.)
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysisPart2:Driftand
PDeltaforSystemsWith TorsionIrregularity
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
MultiplyalldynamicdisplacementsbyCd/R (omittedinASCE705).
Computestorydriftsbasedondisplacementsatedgeofbuilding
ateachlevel
If3to6groundmotionsareused,computeenvelopeofstory
If7ormoregroundmotionsareused,computeaveragestory
Usingresultsfromthestatictorsionanalysis,determinethedrifts
atthesamelocationusedinSteps24above.Torsionaldrifts
maybebasedonthecomputedperiodofvibration(withoutthe
CuTa limit).Torsionaldriftsshouldbebasedoncomputeddisplacements
multipliedbyCd anddividedbyI.
AdddriftsfromSteps(3or4)and5andcheckdriftlimitsinTable12.121.
Note:DriftlimitsforspecialmomentframesinSDCDandabove
PerformPDeltaanalysisusingEquivalentLateralForceprocedure
Revisestructureifnecessary
Part3:ObtainingMemberDesignForces
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
MultiplyalldynamicmemberforcesbyI/R
Determinedynamicbaseshearhistoriesforeachearthquakeineach
direction
DetermineResultScaleFactors*foreachgroundmotionineachdirection,
andapplytoresponsehistoryresultsasappropriate
Determinedesignmemberforcesbyuseofenvelopevaluesif3to6
earthquakesareused,orasaveragesif7ormoregroundmotionsareused.
Combineresultsfromtwoorthogonaldirections,ifnecessary(Sec.12.5)
Addmemberforcesfromstatictorsionanalysis(Sec.12.9.5).Note
thatstatictorsionforcesmaybescaledbyfactorsobtainedinStep3
Determineredundancyfactor(Sec.12.3.4)
Combineseismicandgravityforces(Sec.12.4)
Designanddetailstructuralcomponents
*Note:Step3isreferredtohereinasResultsScaling(GMScaling).Thisis
toavoidconfusionwithGroundMotionScaling,describedearlier.
35
SelectionofGroundMotionsforMRHAnalysis
3DScalingRequirements,ASCE710
For each pair of horizontal ground motion components, a
square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) spectrum shall
be constructed by taking the SRSS of the 5 percent-damped
response spectra for the scaled components (where an
identical scale factor is applied to both components of a pair).
Each pair of motions shall be scaled such that in the period
range from 0.2T to 1.5T, the average of the SRSS spectra
from all horizontal component pairs does not fall below the
corresponding ordinate of the response spectrum used in the
design, determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5.
ASCE705Version:
does not fall below 1.3 times the corresponding ordinate of the design
response spectrum, determined in accordance with Section 11.4.5 by
more than 10 percent.
3DASCE7GroundMotionScaling
SA
SA
SA
Unscaled
Unscaled
Unscaled
BSRSS
ASRSS
CSRSS
AY
AX
Period
Period
SA
Period
SA
MatchPoint
AverageScaled
SFAx ASRSS
SFCx CSRSS
SFBx BSRSS
ASCE7
Period
Avg Scaled
ASCE7
0.2T
T 1.5T
Period
36
IssuesWithScalingApproach
Noguidanceisprovidedonhowtodealwithdifferent
fundamental
periodsinthetwoorthogonaldirections
Thereareaninfinitenumberofsetsofscalefactorsthatwill
satisfythecriteria.Differentengineersarelikelytoobtain
differentsetsofscalefactorsforthesamegroundmotions.
Inlinearanalysis,thereislittlelogicinscalingatperiods
greaterthanthestructuresfundamentalperiod.
Highermodes,whichparticipatemarginallyinthedynamic
response,maydominatethescalingprocess
ResolvingIssuesWithScalingApproach
Noguidanceisprovidedonhowtodealwithdifferent
fundamentalperiodsinthetwoorthogonaldirections:
1. Usedifferentperiodsineachdirection(not
recommended)
2. Scaletorange0.2Tmin to1.5Tmax whereTmin isthelesser
ofthetwoperiodsandTmax isthegreaterofthe
fundamental
periodsineachprincipaldirection
3. Scaleovertherange0.2TAvg to1.5TAvg whereTAvg isthe
averageofTmin andTmax
UseTwoStepScaling:
1]ScaleeachSRSSd PairtotheAveragePeriod
SA
SA
SA
ScaleFactorSA1
TAVG
Period
ScaleFactorSC1
ScaleFactorSB1
TAVG
Period
TAVG
Period
Note:AdifferentscalefactorwillbeobtainedforeachSRSSd pair
37
UseTwoStepScaling:
2]ObtainSuiteScaleFactorS2
SA
SA
S2 timesAverageScaled
AverageScaled
MatchPoint
ASCE7
Avg Scaled
ASCE7
TAvg
Period
0.2TAvg TAVG 1.5TAvg
Period
Note:ThesamescalefactorS2 AppliestoEachSRSSd Pair

UseTwoStepScaling:
2]ObtainSuiteScaleFactorS2
3]ObtainFinalScaleFactors:
SuiteA:SSA=SA1 xS2
SuiteB:SSB=SB1 xS2
SuiteC:SSC=SC1 xS2
GroundMotionsUsedinAnalysis
Table 4.1-20a. Suite of Ground Motions Used for Response History Analysis
NGA
Magnitude
Site
Record
Number
[Epicenter
Distance,
km]
Class
0879
7.28
[44]
0725
6.54
Number of
Points and
Digitization
Increment
7.35
PGA
(g)
Record
Name
(This
Example)
9625 @ 0.005
sec
Landers/LCN260*
0.727
A00
Landers/LCN345*
0.789
A90
2230 @ 0.01
sec
SUPERST/B-POE270
0.446
B00
SUPERST/B-POE360
0.300
B90
1192 @ 0.02
sec
TABAS/DAY-LN
0.328
C00
TABAS/DAY-TR
0.406
C90
[11.2]
0139
Component
Source Motion
[21]
* Note that the two components of motion for the Landers earthquake are apparently separated by an 85
degree angle, not 90 degrees as is traditional. It is not known whether these are true orientations, or of
there is an error in the descriptions provided in the NGA database.
38
Unscaled Spectra
AverageS1ScaledSpectra
RatioofTargetSpectrumtoScaledSRSS
Average
39
TargetSpectrumandSSScaledAverage
MatchPoint
IndividualScaledComponents(00)
IndividualScaledComponents(90)
40
ComputedScaleFactors
Set No.
Table 4.1-20b. Result of 3D Scaling Process

SRSS
Target
Designation
S1
ordinate at
Ordinate at
T=TAvg
T=TAvg
(g)
(g)
S2
SS
1
2
A00 & A90

B00 & B90
0.335
0.191
0.136
0.136
0.407
0.712
1.184
1.184
0.482
0.843
C00 & C90
0.104
0.136
1.310
1.184
1.551
NumberofModesfor
ASCE705and710aresilentonthenumberofmodestouseinModal
ResponseHistoryAnalysis.Itisrecommendedthatthesameprocedures
setforthinSection12.9.1forMODALResponseSpectrumAnalysisbeusedfor
ResponseHistoryAnalysis:

An analysis shall be conducted to determine the natural
modes of vibration for the structure. The analysis shall
include a sufficient number of modes to obtain a
combined modal mass participation of at least 90
percent of the actual mass in each of the orthogonal
horizontal directions of response considered by the
model.
Dampingfor
ASCE705and710aresilentontheamountof
dampingtouseinModalResponseHistoryAnalysis.
Fivepercentcriticaldampingshouldbeusedinall
modesconsideredintheanalysisbecausetheTarget
SpectrumandtheGroundMotionScalingProcedures
arebasedon5%criticaldamping.
41
ScalingofResultsfor
ModalResponseHistoryAnalysis(Part1)
ThestructuralanalysisisexecutedusingtheGMscaledearthquake
recordsineachdirection.Thus,theresultsrepresenttheexpected
elasticresponseofthestructure.Theresultsmustbescaledto
representtheexpectedinelasticbehaviorandtoprovideimproved
performanceforimportantstructures.ASCE705scalingisasfollows:
1)Scaleallcomponentdesignforcesbythefactor(I/R).Thisis
stipulatedinSec.16.1.4ofASCE705andASCE710.
2)Scalealldisplacementquantitiesbythefactor(Cd/R).This
requirement
wasinadvertentlyomittedinASCE705,butisincludedinSection
16.1.4ofASCE710.
ResponseScalingRequirementswhen
MRHShearisLessThanMinimumBaseShear
BaseShear
ELF
InelasticGM
MRH(unscaled)
InelasticELF
MRH(scaled)
VELF
VMin
0.85VMin
Period
CuTa
Tcomputed
MRHShearisGreaterThanMinimumBaseShear
BaseShear
InelasticGM
ELF
MRH(unscaled)
InelasticELF
NoScalingRequired
VMin
Period
CuTa
Tcomputed
42
MRHShearisGreaterThanMinimumBaseShear
BaseShear
InelasticGM
InelasticELF
ELF
MRSUnscaled
MRSScaled
MRH(unscaled)
V
0.85V
VMin
Period
CuTa
Tcomputed
12IndividualResponseHistoryAnalysesRequired
1.
2.
3.
4.
A00X:SSScaledComponentA00appliedinXDirection
A00Y:SSScaledComponentA00appliedinYDirection
A90X:SSScaledComponentA90appliedinXDirection
A90Y:SSScaledComponentA90appliedinYDirection
5.
6.
7.
8.
B00X:SSScaledComponentB00appliedinXDirection
B00Y:SSScaledComponentB00appliedinYDirection
B90X:SSScaledComponentB90appliedinXDirection
B90Y:SSScaledComponentB90appliedinYDirection
9. C00X:SSScaledComponentC00appliedinXDirection
10.C00Y:SSScaledComponentC00appliedinYDirection
11.C90X:SSScaledComponentC90appliedinXDirection
12.C90Y:SSScaledComponentC90appliedinYDirection
ResultMaximafromResponseHistoryAnalysis
UsingSSScaledGroundMotions
Low>
High>
Analysis
Maximum
base shear
(kips)
A00-X
A00-Y
A90-X
A90-Y
B00-X
B00-Y
B90-X
B90-Y
C00-X
C00-Y
C90-X
C90-Y
3507
3573
1588
1392
3009
3130
2919
3460
3130
2407
3229
5075
Time of
maximum
shear
(sec.)
11.29
11.27
12.22
13.56
8.28
9.37
8.85
7.06
13.5
4.64
6.92
6.88
Maximum
roof
displacement
(in.)
20.28
14.25
7.32
5.16
12.85
11.20
11.99
11.12
9.77
6.76
15.61
14.31
Time of
maximum
displacement
(sec.)
11.38
11.28
12.70
10.80
9.39
10.49
7.11
8.20
13.54
8.58
6.98
7.80
1.0 in. = 25.4 mm, 1.0 kip = 4.45 kN.
43
I/RScaledShearsandRequired85%Rule
ScaleFactors
(I/R) times maximum base
shear from analysis
(kips)
438.4
446.7
198.5
173.9
376.1
391.2
364.8
432.5
391.2
300.9
403.6
634.4
Analysis
A00-X
A00-Y
A90-X
A90-Y
B00-X
B00-Y
B90-X
B90-Y
C00-X
C00-Y
C90-X
C90-Y
Required additional scale factor for

V = 0.85VELF = 956 kips
2.18
2.14
4.81
5.49
2.54
2.44
2.62
2.21
2.44
3.18
2.37
1.51
1.0 kip = 4.45 kN
ResponseHistoryDriftsfor
allXDirectionResponses
Envelope of drift (in.) for each ground motion
Level
A00-X
A90-X
B00-X
B90-X
C00-X
C90-X
1.17
1.64
1.97
2.05
1.79
1.83
1.82
1.77
1.50
1.55
1.56
1.97
0.49
0.66
0.78
0.86
0.82
0.87
0.83
0.74
0.59
0.62
0.64
0.86
0.95
1.22
1.32
1.42
1.26
1.22
1.27
1.36
1.19
1.22
1.24
1.64
0.81
0.95
0.99
1.04
1.25
1.42
1.36
1.35
1.21
1.32
1.30
1.58
0.91
1.16
1.25
1.20
0.99
1.23
1.21
1.06
1.09
1.23
1.33
1.73
1.23
1.27
1.52
1.68
1.41
1.50
1.67
1.94
1.81
1.76
1.60
1.85
R
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
Envelope
of drift for
all the
ground
motions
1.23
1.64
1.97
2.05
1.79
1.83
1.82
1.94
1.81
1.76
1.60
1.97
Envelope
of drift
Cd/R
Allowable
drift
(in.)
0.85
1.13
1.35
1.41
1.23
1.26
1.25
1.33
1.24
1.21
1.10
1.35
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
4.32
1.0 in. = 25.4 mm.
LoadCombinationsforResponseHistory
Analysis
Earthquake
Load Combination for Response History Analysis

Loading X Direction
Loading Y Direction
Scale
Scale
Record
Factor
Record
Factor
1
A00-X
2.18
A00-Y
5.49
2
A90-X
-4.81
A90-Y
2.14
3
A00-X
-2.18
A00-Y
-5.49
4
A90-X
4.81
A90-Y
-2.14
5
B00-X
2.54
B00-Y
2.21
6
B90-X
-2.62
B90-Y
2.44
7
B00-X
-2.54
B00-Y
-2.21
8
B90-X
2.62
B90-Y
-2.44
9
C00-X
2.44
C00-y
1.50
10
C90-X
-2.36
C90-Y
3.18
11
C00-X
-2.44
C00-Y
-1.50
12
C90-X
2.36
C90-Y
-3.18
Load
Combination
44
EnvelopeofScaledFrame1BeamShears
fromResponseHistoryAnalysis
14.15
12.82
14.17
21.5
20.6
21.5
29.5
29.4
30.6
33.7
33.2
35.5
32.9
32.0
29.5
28.2
12.1
33.6
32.3
30.7
34.0
21.0
36.3
34.5
33.2
35. 7
22.0
39.0
35.3
34.5
36.2
22.8
R-12
12-11
11-10
10-9
9-8
8-7
7-6
6-5
15.1
32.9
33.9
35.8
35.6
36.0
24.6
25.0
38.5
33.6
35.6
35.5
35.7
24.7
23.7
35.7
33.1
34.3
34.2
34.3
24.0
21.6
34.3
32.3
33.1
33.0
33.5
21.9
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
DescribeBuilding
types
ComparisonofResults
ComparisonofMaximumXDirection
DesignStoryShearsfromAllAnalysis
Level
ELF
R
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
187
341
471
578
765
866
943
999
1,070
1,102
1,118
1,124
Modal
response
spectrum
180
286
357
418
524
587
639
690
784
840
895
956
Enveloped response
history
295
349
462
537
672
741
753
943
1,135
1,099
1,008
956
45
ComparisonofMaximumXDirection
DesignStoryDriftfromAllAnalysis
Level
ELF
R
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0.99
1.41
1.75
1.92
1.82
1.97
2.01
1.97
1.67
1.69
1.65
2.00
X Direction Drift
(in.)
Modal
response
spectrum
0.66
0.89
1.03
1.08
0.98
1.06
1.08
1.08
0.97
1.02
1.05
1.34
Enveloped
response
history
0.85
1.13
1.35
1.41
1.23
1.26
1.25
1.33
1.24
1.21
1.10
1.35
1.0 in. = 25.4 mm.

ComparisonofMaximumBeamShears
fromAllAnalysis
DescribeBuilding
types
ComparisonofResults
46
RequiredEffort
TheEquivalentLateralForcemethodandthe
ModalResponseSpectrummethodsrequire
similarlevelsofeffort.
TheModalResponseHistoryMethodrequires
considerablymoreeffortthanELForMRS.
Thisisprimarilyduetotheneedtoselectand
scalethegroundmotions,andtorunsomany
responsehistoryanalyses.
Accuracy
Itisdifficulttosaywhetheronemethodofanalysisis
moreaccuratethantheothers.Thisisbecauseeachof
themethodsassumelinearelasticbehavior,andmake
simpleadjustments(usingR andCd)toaccountfor
inelasticbehavior.
Differencesinherentintheresultsproducedbythe
differentmethodsarereducedwhentheresultsare
scaled.However,itislikelythattheModalResponse
SpectrumandModalResponseHistorymethodsare
generallymoreaccuratethanELFbecausetheymore
properlyaccountforhighermoderesponse.
RecommendationsforFutureConsiderations
1. Threedimensionalanalysisshouldberequiredforall ResponseSpectrumand
ResponseHistoryanalysis.
2. LinearResponseHistoryAnalysisshouldbemovedfromChapter16intoChapter
12andbemadeasconsistentaspossiblewiththeModalResponseSpectrumMethod.
Forexample,requirementsforthenumberofmodesandforscalingofresultsshould
bethesameforthetwomethods.
3. ArationalprocedureneedstobedevelopedfordirectlyincludingAccidentalTorsionin
ResponseSpectrumandResponseHistoryAnalysis.
4. ArationalmethodneedstobedevelopedfordirectlyincludingPDeltaeffectsin
ResponseSpectrumandResponseHistoryAnalysis.
5. Thecurrentmethodsofselectingandscalinggroundmotionsforlinearresponse
historyanalysiscanbeandshouldbemuchsimplerthanrequiredfornonlinear
responsehistoryanalysis.Theuseofstandardizedmotionsetsortheuseof
spectrummatchedgroundmotionsshouldbeconsidered.
6. Driftshouldalwaysbecomputedandcheckedatthecornersofthebuilding.
47
Questions
48
Example 2:
Six-story Moment Resisting Steel Frame
Instructional Materials Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples
Description of Structure
6-story office building in Seattle, Washington

Occupancy (Risk) Category II
Importance factor (I) = 1.0
Site Class = C
Seismic Design Category D
Special Moment Frame (SMF), R = 8, Cd = 5.5
Floor Plan and Gravity Loads

Special Moment
Frame
Girder
Load
Column
Load
P-Delta
Frame
Load
Elevation view and P-Delta Column

2
P-Delta
Frame
15-0 15-0
5 at 12-6=62-6
5-0
5 at 280=1400
Basement
wall
Member Sizes Used in N-S Moment Frames

Member
Supporting
Level
R
6
5
4
3
2
Column
Girder
Doubler Plate
Thickness (in.)
W21x122
W21x122
W21x147
W21x147
W21x201
W21x201
W24x84
W24x84
W27x94
W27x94
W27x94
W27x94
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.875
0.875
Sections meet the width-to-thickness

requirements for special moment frames
Strong column-weak beam

Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure
Approximate Period of Vibration
Fe
CuTa
Vdesign
Vdrift
Tcomp
design
Tcomp=2.05 sec (without P-Delta)

Tcomp=2.13 sec (with P-Delta)
Equivalent Lateral Force Procedure

Vertical Distribution of Forces
Equivalent Lateral Forces for Building Responding in N-S Direction

Fx
hx
Vx
Mx
Level
wx
Cvx
wxhxk
(kips)
(ft)
(kips)
(kips) (ft-kips)
x
R
2,596
77.5
1,080,327 0.321 243.6
243.6
3,045
6
2,608
65.0
850,539 0.253 191.8
435.4
8,488
5
2,608
52.5
632,564 0.188 142.6
578.0 15,713
4
2,608
40.0
433,888 0.129
97.8
675.9 24,161
3
2,608
27.5
258,095 0.077
58.2
734.1 33,337
2,621
15.0
111,909 0.033
25.2
759.3 44,727
2
15,650
3,367,323 1.000 759.3
Computer Programs NONLIN-Pro and DRAIN 2Dx

Shortcomings of DRAIN
It is not possible to model strength loss when using the
ASCE 41-06 (2006) model for girder plastic hinges.
The DRAIN model for axial-flexural interaction in
columns is not particularly accurate.
Only Two-Dimensional analysis may be performed.
Elements used in Analysis
Type 1, inelastic bar (truss) element
Type 2, beam-column element
Type 4, connection element
Description of Preliminary Model
Only a single frame (Frame A or G) is modeled.

Columns are fixed at their base.
Each beam or column element is modeled using a Type 2
element. For the columns, axial, flexural, and shear deformations
are included. For the girders, flexural and shear deformations are
included but, because of diaphragm slaving, axial deformation is
not included. Composite action in the floor slab is ignored for all
analysis.
All members are modeled using centerline dimensions without
rigid end offsets.
This model does not provide any increase in beam-column joint
stiffness due to the presence of doubler plates.
The stiffness of the girders was decreased by 7% in the
preliminary analyses, which should be a reasonable approximate
representation of the 35% reduction in the flange sections.
Moment rotation properties of the reduced flange sections are
used in the detailed analyses.
Results of Preliminary Analysis : Drift

Story
6
5
4
3
2
1
Story
6
5
4
3
2
1
Results of Preliminary Analysis Excluding P-delta Effects

Total Drift
Story Drift
Magnified
Drift Limit
(in.)
(in.)
Story Drift (in.)
(in.)
2.08
0.22
1.21
3.00
1.86
0.32
1.76
3.00
1.54
0.38
2.09
3.00
1.16
0.41
2.26
3.00
0.75
0.41
2.26
3.00
0.34
0.34
1.87
3.60
5.5
Results of Preliminary Analysis Including P-delta Effects

Total Drift
Story Drift
Magnified
Drift from
(in.)
(in.)
Story Drift (in.)
(in.)
2.23
0.23
1.27
1.24
2.00
0.34
1.87
1.84
1.66
0.40
2.20
2.23
1.26
0.45
2.48
2.44
0.81
0.45
2.48
2.47
0.36
0.36
1.98
2.01
5.5
Story Stability
Ratio,
0.0278
0.0453
0.0608
0.0749
0.0862
0.0691
Drift Limit
(in.)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.60
Results of Preliminary Analysis :

Demand Capacity Ratios (Columns-Girders)
0.973
1.033
Level R
0.595
0.971
1.826
1.060
3.025
Level 4
1.249
1.908
1.601
1.041
3.155
Level 2
3.345
2.922
1.203
3.085
1.882
3.189
1.550
2.903
2.850
1.712
1.857
1.550
1.074
2.626
2.773
3.198
2.903
1.482
1.692
1.857
0.671
1.935
2.357
2.782
3.198
1.082
1.482
1.693
1.098
1.826
2.366
2.782
3.406
Level 3
1.815
2.366
1.721
0.971
1.082
1.477
1.480
2.557
Level 5
1.082
1.084
1.837
Level 6
0.968
1.483
3.475
1.575
2.895
2.850
1.225
3.224
2.856
4.043

Demand Capacity Ratios (Panel Zones)
(0.839)
(1.422)
(1.427)
(1.427)
(1.429)
(0.899)
Level R
0.839
(1.656)
0.574
(3.141)
0.576
(3.149)
0.576
(3.149)
0.577
(3.149)
0.899
(1.757)
(2.021)
1.268
(3.774)
1.272
(3.739)
1.272
(3.732)
1.272
(3.779)
1.757
(2.092)
(2.343)
1.699
(4.334)
1.683
(4.285)
1.680
(4.285)
1.701
(4.339)
2.092
(2.405)
(1.884)
1.951
(3.598)
1.929
(3.567)
1.929
(3.567)
1.953
(3.605)
2.405
(1.932)
(1.686)
2.009
(3.128)
1.991
(3.076)
1.991
(3.076)
2.013
(3.132)
1.932
(1.731)
Level 6
1.656
Level 5
2.021
Level 4
2.343
Level 3
1.884
Level 2
1.686
1.746
1.718
1.718
1.749
1.731

Demand Capacity Ratios
The structure has considerable overstrength, particularly at the

upper levels.
The sequence of yielding will progress from the lower level girders
to the upper level girders.
With the possible exception of the first level, the girders should
yield before the columns. While not shown in the Figure, it should
be noted that the demand-to-capacity ratios for the lower story
columns were controlled by the moment at the base of the column.
The column on the leeward (right) side of the building will yield first
because of the additional axial compressive force arising from the
seismic effects.
The maximum DCR of girders is 3.475, while maximum DCR for
panel zones without doubler plates is 4.339. Thus, if doubler plates
are not used, the first yield in the structure will be in the panel
zones. However, with doubler plates added, the first yield is at the
girders as the maximum DCR of the panel zones reduces to 2.405.
Results of Preliminary Analysis:

Overall System Strength
Results of Preliminary Analysis:

Overall System Strength
Lateral Strength on Basis of Rigid-Plastic Mechanism
Lateral Strength
Lateral Strength
Lateral Load Pattern
(kips)
(kips)
Entire Structure
Single Frame
Uniform
3,332
1,666
Upper Triangular
2,747
1,373
Standard
2,616
1,308
As expected, the strength under uniform load is significantly greater than under
triangular or Standards load.
The closeness of the Standards and triangular load strengths is due to the fact
that the vertical-load-distributing parameter (k) was 1.385, which is close to 1.0.
Slightly more than 15 percent of the system strength comes from plastic hinges
that form in the columns. If the strength of the column is taken simply as Mp
(without the influence of axial force), the error in total strength is less than 2
percent.
The rigid-plastic analysis did not include strain hardening, which is an additional
source of overstrength.
Description of Model Used for Detailed

Structural Analysis
15-0
5 at 12-6=62-6
P-Delta
Frame
Description of Model Used for Detailed

Structural Analysis
Nonlinear static and nonlinear dynamic analyses require a

much more detailed model than was used in the linear
analysis.
The primary reason for the difference is the need to explicitly
represent yielding in the girders, columns, and panel zone
region of the beam-column joints.
Plastic Hinge Modeling and Compound Nodes
Compound nodes are used to model plastic hinges in girders and deformations in the panel
zone region of beam-column joints
Typically consist of a pair of single nodes with each node sharing the same point in space.
The X and Y degrees of freedom of the first node of the pair (the slave node) are constrained
to be equal to the X and Y degrees of freedom of the second node of the pair (the master
node), respectively. Hence, the compound node has four degrees of freedom: an X
displacement, a Y displacement, and two independent rotations.
Modeling of Beam-Column Joint Regions
Krawinkler beam-column joint model


Krawinkler model assumes that the panel zone has two resistance mechanisms
acting in parallel:
1. Shear resistance of the web of the column, including doubler plates and
2. Flexural resistance of the flanges of the column.
Fy = yield strength of the column and the doubler plate,

dc = total depth of column,
tp = thickness of panel zone region = column web + doubler plate thickness,
bcf = width of column flange,
tcf = thickness of column flange, and
db = total depth of girder.
Force-deformation behavior of panel zone region (Krawinkler Model)

Modeling Girders
The AISC Seismic Design
Manual
(AISC,
2006)
recommends design practices
to force the plastic hinge
forming in the beam away
from the column.
1. Reduce the cross sectional
properties of the beam at a
specific location away from
the column
2. Special detailing of the beamcolumn connection to provide
adequate
strength
and
toughness in the connection
so that inelasticity will be
forced into the beam adjacent
to the column face.
Reduced Beam
Section (RBS)
0.625 bbf
0.75 d b
Zero Length
Inelastic
Plastic Hinge
Rigid End Zone (0.5 d c )
Side view of beam element and

beam modeling
Modeling Girders
/7
/14
/7
Top view of
Reduced Beam
Section
25000
Moment, in-kips
20000
Moment curvature
diagram for
W27x94 girder
15000
10000
5000
bf
bf1
bf2
bf3
0.65 bf
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
Curvature, rad/in.
0.002
0.0025
0.003
Modeling Girders
0.003
Curvature, rad/in.
0.0025
Curvature Diagram
for Cantilever Beam
with
Reduced Beam
Section
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Cantilever beam length, in.
140
160
180
140
P3
120
P2
Force, kips
100
P1
80
60
Real F-D relationship
40
Trilinear F-D relationship
Force Displacement
Diagram for
W27x94 with
RBS
20
0
0
4
5
6
Displacement, in.
10
Modeling Girders
18000
16000
Moment, in-kips
14000
12000
10000
8000
W27x94
6000
W24x84
4000
2000
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
Rotation, rad.
0.04
0.05
0.06
Moment-Rotation Diagram for girder hinges with RBS
Modeling Columns
4,000
3,000
W21x201
W21x147
W21x122
Axial load, kips
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-2,000
-3,000
-4,000
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
Moment, in.-kips
20,000
30,000
40,000
Yield surface used for modeling columns
Results of Detailed Analysis: Period of Vibration

Periods of Vibration From Detailed Analysis (sec/cycle)
Model
Strong Panel
with
doubler plates
Weak Panel
without
doubler plates
Mode
1
2
3
1
2
3
P-delta Excluded P-delta Included

1.912
1.973
0.627
0.639
0.334
0.339
2.000
2.069
0.654
0.668
0.344
0.349
P-delta effects increases the period.

Doubler plates decreases the period as the model becomes stiffer with
doubler plates.
Different period values were obtained from preliminary and detailed
analyses.
Detailed model results in a stiffer structure than the preliminary model
especially when doubler plates are added.
Static Pushover Analysis
Pushover analysis procedure performed in this example

follows the recommendations of ASCE/SEI 41-06.
Pushover analysis should always be used as a precursor to
nonlinear response history analysis.
The structure is subjected to the full dead load plus 50
percent of the fully reduced live load, followed by the lateral
loads.
For the entire pushover analyses reported for this example,
the structure is pushed to 37.5 in. at the roof level. This value
is about two times the total drift limit for the structure where
the total drift limit is taken as 2 percent of the total height.
The effect of lateral load distribution, strong and weak panel
zones (doubler plates) and P-delta are investigated separately
in this example.

Effect of Different Lateral Load Distribution
In this example, three different load patterns were initially considered:
UL = Uniform load (equal force at each level)
ML = Modal load (lateral loads proportional to first mode shape)
BL = Provisions load distribution (Equivalent lateral forces used for preliminary analysis)
Lateral Load Patterns Used in Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis

Uniform Load Modal Load Provisions Load
Level
UL
ML
BL
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
R
15.0
85.1
144.8
6
15.0
77.3
114.0
5
15.0
64.8
84.8
4
15.0
49.5
58.2
3
15.0
32.2
34.6
2
15.0
15.0
15.0

2000
1800
Base shear, kips
1600
Response of strong
panel model to three
load patterns,
excluding P-delta
effects
1400
1200
1000
800
UL Loading
600
ML Loading
400
BL Loading
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
Roof displacement, in.
30
35
40
The Provisions states that the lateral load pattern should follow the shape of the
first mode. (ML Loading)

Static Pushover Curves with P-Delta Effects
= Sum of all column shears in 1st story
= Total vertical load on P-delta column
= P-delta column 1st story displacement
= 1st story height
2000
1500
Shear, kips
1000
Two base shear

components of
pushover
response
Column Shear Forces

Total Base Shear
P-Delta Forces
500
0
-500
-1000
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

1600
1400
Base shear, kips
1200
Response of strong
panel model to three
load patterns,
including P-delta
effects
1000
800
UL Loading
600
ML Loading
400
BL Loading
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Effect of P-Delta on Pushover Curve
1800
1600
Base shear, kips
1400
1200
Response of strong
panel model to
ML loads,
with and without
P-delta effects
1000
800
Excluding P-Delta
600
Including P-Delta
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Effect of P-Delta on Pushover Curve
160
"Tangent Stiffness", kips/in.
140
120
Tangent stiffness
history for
Strong Panel model
under ML loads,
with and without
P-delta effects
Excluding P-Delta
100
Including P-Delta
80
60
40
20
0
-20
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Effect of Panel zones (Doubler Plates) on Pushover Curve
1400
1200
Comparison of
weak panel zone
model with strong
panel zone model,
both including
P-delta effects
Base shear, kips
1000
800
Strong Panels
600
Weak Panels
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Static Pushover Analysis: Sequence and Pattern

of Plastic Hinging with NonlinPro

Sequence and Pattern of Plastic Hinging for Strong Panel Model
20
25
12
19
11
21
27
18
13
11
22
26
21
27
18
13
11
22
21
27
18
13
11
21
17
28
27
22
13
23
22
24
10
10
10
16
14
14
14
14
15

DCR Plastic Hinge Sequence Comparison for Girders and Columns
1.033
Level R
0.595
0.973
1.084
1.837
Level 6
0.971
1.480
1.249
1.908
1.041
1.601
3.155
Level 2
3.345
2.922
1.203
3.085
1.882
3.189
1.550
2.903
2.850
1.712
1.857
1.550
1.074
2.626
2.773
3.198
2.903
1.482
1.692
1.857
0.671
1.935
2.357
2.782
3.198
1.082
1.482
1.693
1.098
1.826
2.366
2.782
3.406
Level 3
1.815
2.366
3.025
0.971
1.082
1.477
1.721
1.060
Level 4
1.082
1.826
2.557
Level 5
0.968
1.483
3.475
1.575
2.895
2.850
1.225
3.224
2.856
4.043

DCR Plastic Hinge Sequence Comparison for Panel Zones
(0.839)
(1.422)
(1.427)
(1.427)
(1.429)
(0.899)
Level R
0.839
(1.656)
0.574
(3.141)
0.576
(3.149)
0.576
(3.149)
0.577
(3.149)
0.899
(1.757)
(2.021)
1.268
(3.774)
1.272
(3.739)
1.272
(3.732)
1.272
(3.779)
1.757
(2.092)
(2.343)
1.699
(4.334)
1.683
(4.285)
1.680
(4.285)
1.701
(4.339)
2.092
(2.405)
(1.884)
1.951
(3.598)
1.929
(3.567)
1.929
(3.567)
1.953
(3.605)
2.405
(1.932)
(1.686)
2.009
(3.128)
1.991
(3.076)
1.991
(3.076)
2.013
(3.132)
1.932
(1.731)
Level 6
1.656
Level 5
2.021
Level 4
2.343
Level 3
1.884
Level 2
1.686
1.746
1.718
1.718
1.749
1.731

Sequence and Pattern of Plastic Hinging for Strong Panel Model
1400
Total shear, kips
1200
15
1000
5
1
19 21
22 23
25
27
28
12
9
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
Drift, in.
25
30
35
40

Sequence and Pattern of Plastic Hinging for Weak Panel Model
53
48
56
21
23
54
60
24
47
53
13
70
8
2
33
57
5
13
11
9
14
32
10
69
36
50
26
23
34
29
37
26
52
66
20
23
62
58
56
55
62
8
10
67
38
64
3
45
42
31
60
6
22
38
65
64
3
46
40
31
59
6
22
63 36
1 41
44
26
61
4
21
16
15
17
11
19
35
28
39
27
11
18
35
28
39
27
10
21
43
51
20
49
12
68
5
34
25
37
27
30

DCR Plastic Hinge Sequence Comparison for Panel Zones
(0.839)
(1.422)
(1.427)
(1.427)
(1.429)
(0.899)
Level R
0.839
(1.656)
0.574
(3.141)
0.576
(3.149)
0.576
(3.149)
0.577
(3.149)
0.899
(1.757)
(2.021)
1.268
(3.774)
1.272
(3.739)
1.272
(3.732)
1.272
(3.779)
1.757
(2.092)
(2.343)
1.699
(4.334)
1.683
(4.285)
1.680
(4.285)
1.701
(4.339)
2.092
(2.405)
(1.884)
1.951
(3.598)
1.929
(3.567)
1.929
(3.567)
1.953
(3.605)
2.405
(1.932)
(1.686)
2.009
(3.128)
1.991
(3.076)
1.991
(3.076)
2.013
(3.132)
1.932
(1.731)
Level 6
1.656
Level 5
2.021
Level 4
2.343
Level 3
1.884
Level 2
1.686
1.746
1.718
1.718
1.749
1.731

Target Displacement
C 0 = 1,r 1 =
1,r =
1 =
C1 =
C2 =
Sa =
Te = Ti
Ki
=
Ke
Ti =
,
g=
modification factor to relate spectral displacement of an equal single degree of freedom system to
the roof displacement of the building multi-degree of freedom system.
the ordinate of mode shape 1 at the roof (control node)
the first mode participation factor
modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to displacements
calculated for linear elastic response.
modification factor to represent the effect of pinched hysteresis shape, cyclic stiffness
degradation and strength deterioration on maximum displacement response.
response spectrum acceleration, at the effective fundamental period and damping ratio of
the building in the direction under consideration.
effective fundamental period of the building in the direction under consideration
elastic fundamental period in the direction under consideration calculated by elastic dynamic
analysis.
elastic, and effective lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration.
acceleration of gravity

Target Displacement
Spectral acceleration, g
2.5
2% damped
horizontal
response spectrum
from ASCE 41-06
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
12
Period, sec
This spectrum is for BSE-2 (Basic Safety Earthquake 2)

hazard level which has a 2% probability of exceedence in
50 years.

Target Displacement
Nonlinear force-displacement relationship between base shear and displacement

of control node shall be replaced with an idealized force-displacement curve. The
effective lateral stiffness and the effective period depend on the idealized forcedisplacement curve.
The idealized force-displacement curve is developed by using an iterative

graphical procedure where the areas below the actual and idealized curves are
approximately balanced up to a displacement value of
.
is the
displacement at the end of second line segment of the idealized curve and
is
the base shear at the same displacement.
should be a point on the actual force displacement curve at either the

calculated target displacement, or at the displacement corresponding to the
maximum base shear, whichever is the least.
The first line segment of the idealized force-displacement curve should begin at
the origin and finish at
, where
is the effective yield strength and
is the yield displacement of idealized curve.
The slope of the 1st line segment is equal to the effective lateral stiffness
,
which should be taken as the secant stiffness calculated at a base shear force
equal to 60% of the effective yield strength of the structure.

1400
y,Vy
1200
Base shear, kips
d,Vd
Actual and idealized

force displacement
curves for
STRONG panel model,
under ML load,
with P-delta effects
1000
800
600
Actual force Displacement
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
d,Vd
1200
y,Vy
Base shear, kips
1000
Actual and idealized

force displacement
curves for
WEAK panel model,
under ML load,
with P-delta effects
800
Actual Force Displacement
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40

Target displacement for strong and weak panel models
C0
C1
C2
S a (g)
Te (sec)
t (in.) at Roof Level
Drift R-6 (in.)
Drift 6-5 (in.)
Drift 5-4 (in.)
Drift 4-3 (in.)
Drift 3-2 (in.)
Drift 2-1 (in.)
Strong Panel
1.303
1.000
1.000
0.461
1.973
22.9
0.96
1.76
2.87
4.84
5.74
6.73
Weak Panel
1.310
1.000
1.000
0.439
2.069
24.1
1.46
2.59
3.73
4.84
5.35
6.12
Story drifts are also shown at the load level of target displacement.
Negative stiffness starts after target displacements for both models.
Response History Analysis

Modeling and Analysis Procedure
Response response history analysis method is used to estimate the

inelastic deformation demands for the detailed structure.
Three ground motions were used. (Seven or more ground motions is

generally preferable.)
The analysis considered a number of parameters, as follows:

- Scaling of ground motions to the DBE and MCE level
- With and without P-delta effects
- Two percent and five percent inherent damping
- Added linear viscous damping
Identical structural model used in Nonlinear Pushover Analyses and 2nd

order effects were included through the use of leaning column.
All of the model analyzed had Strong Panels (wherein doubler plated
were included in the interior beam-column joints).
Rayleigh Damping
Rayleigh proportional damping was used to represent viscous

energy dissipation in the structure.
The mass and stiffness proportional damping factors were initially
set to produce 2.0 percent damping in the first and third modes.
It is generally recognized that this level of damping (in lieu of the 5
percent damping that is traditionally used in elastic analysis) is
appropriate for nonlinear response history analysis.
C = M + K

2 w1 w3
w1 + w3
Structural frequencies and damping factors used in response history analysis.

(Damping factors that produce 2 percent damping in modes 1 and 3)
Model/Damping Parameters
Strong Panel with P-delta
Strong Panel without P-delta
1
(rad/sec)
3.184
3.285
3
(rad/sec)
18.55
18.81
0.109
0.112
0.00184
0.00181

Development of Ground Motion Records
Because only a two-dimensional analysis of the structure is performed using DRAIN,

only a single component of ground motion is applied at one time.
For the analyses reported herein, the component that produced the larger spectral
acceleration at the structures fundamental period was used.
A complete analysis would require consideration of both components of ground
motions, and possibly of a rotated set of components.
NGA
Magnitude,
Record
[Epicenter
Number Distance (km)]
Site
Class
Number of
Points and
Time step
Integration Time
Step used in
analyses
Component
Source
Motion
PGA
(g)
Record
Name
0879
7.28 , [44]
9625 @
0.005 sec
0.0005 sec
Landers /
LCN260
0.727
A00
0725
6.54 , [11.2]
2230 @
0.01 sec
0.001 sec
SUPERST/
B-POE360
0.300
B90
0139
7.35 , [21]
1192 @
0.02 sec
0.001 sec
TABAS/
DAY-TR
0.406
C90
2% damped
Pseudoacceleration, g
A00
Acceleration, g

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
50
5% damped
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
Acceleration, g
2% Damped
10
15
20
25
5% damped
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
Time, sec
10
15
20
Time, sec
25
Acceleration, g
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
0
Period, sec
2% Damped
C90
Period, sec
Time, sec
B90
5% damped
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
Period, sec
Ground Motion Scaling Procedure

1. Each spectrum is initially scaled to match the target spectrum at the structures
fundamental period.
2% Damped Response Spectrum
T1=1.973 sec.
6
5
2% Damped MCE Spectrum
4
3
2
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Period, sec
T1=1.973 sec.
0.2*T1
2. The average of the scaled spectra are re-scaled such that no ordinate of the scaled
average spectrum falls below the target spectrum in the range of periods between
4.5
0.2 and 1.5T.
4
Average of scaled EQ Windows

3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1.5*T1
1
0.5
0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Period, sec
3. The final scale factor for each motion consists of the product of the initial scale
factor (different for each ground motion), and the second scale factor (which is the
same for each ground motion).
Results of Response History Analysis

DBE Results for 2% Damped Strong Panel Model with P- Excluded / P- Included
Column Forces
Inertial Forces
Level
Total Roof
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
(a) Maximum Base Shear (kips)

Motion A00
Motion B90
Motion C90
1780 / 1467
1649 / 1458
1543 / 1417
1848 / 1558
1650 / 1481
1540 / 1419
(b) Maximum Story Drifts (in.)
Motion A00
Motion B90
Motion C90
13.55 / 14.75
26.80 / 32.65
14.57 /14.50
1.92 / 1.82
1.71 / 1.70
1.85 / 1.86
2.60 / 2.50
2.33 / 2.41
2.51 / 2.64
3.03 / 3.19
3.08 / 2.81
3.75 / 4.08
3.03 / 3.33
5.62 / 6.87
2.98 / 3.21
3.58 / 3.40
2.82 / 2.90
6.61 / 8.19
4.68 / 4.69
3.29 / 3.44
8.09 / 10.40
Limit*
NA
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.60 (4.50)
* Values in ( ) reflect increased drift limits provided by Sec. 16.2.4.3 of the Standard

MCE Results for 2% Damped Strong Panel Model with P- Excluded / P- Included
Column Forces
Inertial Forces
Level
Total Roof
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G

Motion A00
Motion B90
Motion C90
2181 / 1675
1851 / 1584
1723 / 1507
2261 / 1854
1893 / 1633
1725 / 1515
Motion A00
Motion B90
Motion C90
20.41 / 20.50
62.40 / 101.69
22.45 / 26.10
2.30 / 2.32
3.05 / 2.93
1.98 / 1.95
2.77 / 2.60
3.69 / 3.49
3.57 / 2.97
4.43 / 4.32
3.33 / 3.62
7.36 / 6.41
4.45 / 4.63
14.61 / 20.69
4.61 / 5.61
5.21 / 6.32
3.97 / 4.18
16.29 / 31.65
6.60 / 7.03
5.11 / 5.11
19.76 / 40.13
Limit*
NA
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
5.40

35
30
Displacement, in.
25
20
Response Histories of
Roof and First-story
Displacement,
Ground Motion A00
(DBE)
15
10
5
0
Total (Roof) with P-delta

Total (Roof) without P-delta
First Story with P-delta
First Story without P-delta
-5
-10
-15
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time, sec
1500
Base shear, kips
1000
500
Response History of
Total Base Shear,
Ground Motion A00
(DBE)
0
-500
-1000
Total Shear with P-Delta
-1500
Total Shear without P-delta
-2000
-2500
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time, sec
Energy Response History, Ground Motion A00 (DBE), including P-delta

effects

30

25
Displacement, in.
20
15
Response Histories of
Displacement,
Ground Motion B90
(MCE)
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
0
10
15
20
25
Time, sec
120
Displacement, in.
100

80
60
Response History of
Displacement,
Ground Motion A00
(MCE)
40
20
0
-20
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time, sec

0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ground velocity, ft/sec
Time, sec
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
30
35
40
45
50
Time, sec
Ground displacement, ft
Acceleration, g
A00 Motion Ground Acceleration, Velocity and Displacement
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0
10
15
20
25
Time, sec
40
45
50

A00 Motion tripartite Spectrum
10
50
2% Damping
5% Damping
0.
10
g
5
Pseudovelocity, ft/sec
0.
05
1
g
10
.0
1
0.
00
5f
t.
0.
0.
00
00
0.1
0.
00
01
05
0.
t.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
0.
g
0
1f
ft.
5
.0
ft.
0
0.
g
5
00
0.
ft.
0.
1
00
0.
0.01
0.01
0.1
5
00
10
Period, sec
Panel zone,max=
0.00411 rad
Girder,max=
0.03609 rad
Column,max=
0.02993 rad
Yielding locations for structure with strong panels subjected to MCE

scaled B90 motion, including P-delta effects

Comparison with Results from Other Analyses
Analysis Method
Equivalent
Lateral
Response Quantity
Forces
569
Base Shear (kips)
18.4
Roof Disp. (in.)
1.86
Drift R-6 (in.)
2.78
Drift 6-5 (in.)
3.34
Drift 5-4 (in.)
3.73
Drift 4-3 (in.)
3.67
Drift 3-2 (in.)
2.98
Drift 2-1 (in.)
NA
Girder Hinge Rot. (rad)
NA
Column Hinge Rot. (rad)
NA
Panel Hinge Rot. (rad)
NA
Panel Plastic Shear Strain
Note: Shears are for half of total structure.
Nonlinear Static
Pushover
Nonlinear
Dynamic
1208
22.9
0.96
1.76
2.87
4.84
5.74
6.73
0.03304
0.02875
0.00335
0.00335
1633
26.1
2.32
2.60
3.62
5.61
6.32
7.03
0.03609
0.02993
0.00411
0.00411

Reasons of the differences
between Pushover and Response
History Analyses
Scale factor of 1.367 was used for

the 2nd part of the scaling
procedure.
The use of the first-mode lateral

loading pattern in the nonlinear
static pushover response.
The higher mode effects shown in

the Figure are the likely cause of the
different hinging patterns and are
certainly the reason for the very
high base shear developed in the
response history analysis.
Comparison of inertial force patterns

Effect of Increased Damping on Response
Excessive drifts occur in the bottom three stories.

Additional strength and/or stiffness should be provided at these
stories.
Considered next, Added damping is also a viable approach.
Four different damper configurations were used.
Dampers were added to the Strong Panel frame with 2% inherent
damping.
The structure was subjected to the DBE scaled A00 and B90
ground motions.
P-delta effects were included in the analyses.
Modeling Added Dampers
Added damping is easily accomplished in

DRAIN by use of the stiffness proportional
component of Rayleigh damping.
Linear viscous fluid damping device can be

modeled through use of a Type-1 (truss bar)
element.
Adevice Edevice
kdevice =
Ldevice
Cdevice = device kdevice
Set damper elastic stiffness to negligible

value. k
= 0.001 kips/in.
device
device =
Cdevice
= 1000Cdevice
0.001
Modeling a simple damper
It is convenient to set Edevice = 0.001 and Adevice = Damper length Ldevice


Effect of different added damper configurations when SP
model is subjected to DBE scaled A00 motion, including Pdelta effects
1.86
2.64
4.08
6.87
8.19
10.40
1st combo
Damper
Coeff,
Drift,
kipin.
sec/in.
10.5
1.10
33.7
1.90
38.4
2.99
32.1
5.46
36.5
6.69
25.6
8.39
2nd combo
Damper
Coeff,
Drift,
kipin.
sec/in.
60
1.03
60
1.84
70
2.88
70
4.42
80
5.15
80
5.87
3rd combo
Damper
Coeff,
Drift,
kipin.
sec/in.
1.82
3.56
4.86
5.24
160
4.64
4.40
160
4th combo
Damper
Coeff,
Drift,
kipin.
sec/in.
1.47
2.41
56.25
3.46
56.25
4.47
112.5
4.76
112.5
4.96
1467
1629
2170
2134
2267
1558
1728
2268
2215
2350
10.1
20.4
20.2
20.4
No Damper
Level
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
Column
Base
Shear,kips
Inertial
Base
Shear,kips
Total
Damping,%
Drift,
In.
Drift
Limit
in.
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
4.50

Effect of different added damper configurations when SP model
is subjected to DBE scaled B90 motion, including P-delta effects
1.82
2.50
2.81
3.21
3.40
4.69
1st combo
Damper
Coeff,
Drift,
kipin.
sec/in.
10.5
1.11
33.7
1.76
38.4
2.33
32.1
2.67
36.5
2.99
25.6
3.49
2nd combo
Damper
Coeff,
Drift,
kipin.
sec/in.
60
0.86
60
1.35
70
1.75
70
2.11
80
2.25
80
1.96
3rd combo
Damper
Coeff,
Drift,
kipin.
sec/in.
1.53
2.11
2.51
2.37
160
2.09
1.87
160
4th combo
Damper
Coeff,
Drift,
kipin.
sec/in.
1.31
1.83
56.25
2.07
56.25
2.16
112.5
2.13
112.5
1.82
1458
1481
1485
1697
1637
1481
1531
1527
1739
1680
10.1
20.4
20.2
20.4
No Damper
Level
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
Column
Base
Shear,kips
Inertial
Base
Shear,kips
Total
Damping,%
Drift,
In.
Drift
Limit
in.
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
4.50
Roof Displacement, in.
Results of Response History Analysis :

Roof Displacements
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
4th Added Damper Combo (20% Total)

2% Inherent Damping
10
15
20
25
Roof Displacement
Response Histories
with added damping
(20% total) and
inherent damping (2%)
for B90 motion
Time, sec
40
30
20
10
0

2% Inherent Damping
-10
-20
0
10
20
30
40
Roof Displacement
Response Histories
with added damping
(20% total) and
for A00 motion
50
Time, sec
Results of Response History Analysis: Energy Plots

Energy Response History
with inherent damping
(2% total damping)
for A00 motion

with added damping of
4th combination
(20% total damping)
for A00 motion
Results of Response History Analysis: Energy Plots

with inherent damping
(2% total damping)
for B90 motion

with added damping of
4th combination
(20% total damping)
for B90 motion
Base shear, kips
Results of Response History Analysis: Base Shear

2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000

2% Inherent Damping
0
10
20
30
40
50
Inertial Base Shear

Response Histories
with added damping
(20% total) and
for A00 motion
60
Base shear, kips
Time, sec
2% Inherent Damping
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
0
10
15
20
25
Inertial Base Shear

Response Histories
with added damping
(20% total) and
for B90 motion
Time, sec
Results of Response History Analysis:

Deflected Shape of by NonlinPro for Added Damper Frame (4th
combination) During B90 Motion
Five different analytical approaches were used to estimate the deformation demands
in a simple unbraced steel frame structure:
1. Linear static analysis (the equivalent lateral force method)
2. Plastic strength analysis (using virtual work)
3. Nonlinear static pushover analysis
4. Linear dynamic analysis
5. Nonlinear dynamic response history analysis
Approaches 1, 3, and 5 were carried to a point that allowed comparison of results. The
results obtained from the three different analytical approaches were quite dissimilar.
Because of the influence of the higher mode effects on the response, pushover
analysis, where used alone, is inadequate.
Except for preliminary design, the ELF approach should not be used in explicit
performance evaluation as it has no mechanism for determining location and extent of
yielding in the structure.
Response history analysis as the most viable approach. However, significant

shortcomings, limitations, and uncertainties in response history analysis still exist.
In modeling the structure, particular attention was paid to representing possible

inelastic behavior in the panel-zone regions of the beam-column joints.
Questions?
Inthisexample,thebehaviorofasimple,sixstorystructuralsteelmomentresisting
frameisinvestigatedusingavarietyofanalyticaltechniques.Thestructurewas
initiallyproportionedusingapreliminaryanalysis,anditisthispreliminarydesign
thatisinvestigated.Theanalysiswillshowthatthestructurefallsshortofseveral
performanceexpectations.Inanattempttoimproveperformance,viscousfluid
dampersareconsideredforuseinthestructuralsystem.
Completedetailsfortheanalysisareprovidedinthewrittenexample,andtheexample
shouldbeusedastheInstructorsGuidewhenpresentingthisslideset.Many,butnotall
oftheslidesinthissethaveSpeakersNotes,andtheseareintentionallykeptverybrief.
StrusturalAnalysis:Part2 1
AccordingtothedescriptionsinASCE705Table 11,thebuildingisassignedtoOccupancy
Category II.ThisissimilartoRiskCategoryIIinASCE710Table1.51.
FromASCE705Table 11.51,theimportancefactor(I)is1.0.Importancefactorisprovided
inTable1.52inASCE710.Ie (seismicimportancefactor)is1.0forRiskCategoryII.
SiteclassificationisprovidedinStandard Table20.31.
SeismicdesigncategoryisprovidedinTables11.61and11.62inStandard.
Responsemodificationcoefficient(R),overstrength factor(o),anddeflectionamplification
factor(Cd)forseismicforceresistingsystemsareprovidedinTable
12.21inStandard.
Thelateralloadresistingsystemconsistsofsteelmomentresistingframesonthe
perimeterofthebuilding.Therearefivebaysat28ftoncenterintheNSdirection
andsixbaysat30ftoncenterintheEWdirection.Thelateralloadresistingsystem
consistsofsteelmomentresistingframesontheperimeterofthebuilding.
ForthemomentresistingframesintheNSdirection(FramesAandG),allofthe
columnsbendabouttheirstrongaxes,andthegirdersareattachedwithfully
weldedmomentresistingconnections.Theexpectedplastichingeregionsofthe
girdershavereducedflangesections,detailedinaccordancewiththeAISC34105
SeismicProvisionsforStructuralSteelBuildings(AISC,2005a).
FortheframesintheEWdirection(Frames1and6),momentresistingconnections
areusedonlyattheinteriorcolumns.Attheexteriorbays,theEWgirdersare
connectedtotheweakaxisoftheexterior(corner)columnsusingnonmoment
resistingconnections.Allinteriorcolumnsaregravitycolumnsandarenotintended
toresistlateralloads.Afewofthesecolumns,however,wouldbeengagedaspart
oftheaddeddampingsystemdescribedinthelastpartofthisexample.Withminor
exceptions,alloftheanalysesinthisexamplewillbeforlateralloadsactinginthe
NSdirection.AnalysisforlateralloadsactingintheEWdirectionwouldbe
performedinasimilarmanner.
Thetypicalstoryheightis12ft6in.withtheexceptionofthefirststory,whichhas
aheightof15ft.Thereisa5fttallperimeterparapetattheroofandone
basementlevelthatextends15ftbelowgrade.Forthisexample,itisassumedthat
thecolumnsofthemomentresistingframesareembeddedintopilastersformed
intothebasementwall.
PDeltaeffectsaremodeledusingtheleanerghostcolumnshowninFigureattherightof
themainframe.Thiscolumnismodeledwithanaxiallyrigidtrusselement.PDeltaeffects
areactivatedforthiscolumnonly(PDeltaeffectsareturnedoffforthecolumnsofthe
mainframe).ThelateraldegreeoffreedomateachlevelofthePDeltacolumnisslavedto
thefloordiaphragmatthematchingelevation.WherePDeltaeffectsareincludedinthe
analysis,aspecialinitialloadcasewascreatedandexecuted.Thisspecialloadcaseconsists
ofaverticalforceequaltoonehalfofthetotalstoryweight(deadloadplus50percentof
thefullyreducedliveload)appliedtotheappropriatenodeofthePDeltacolumn.
Priortoanalyzingthestructure,apreliminarydesignwasperformedinaccordance
withtheAISCSeismicProvisions.Allmembers,includingmiscellaneousplates,were
designedusingsteelwithanominalyieldstressof50ksi andexpectedyield
strengthof55ksi. Detailedcalculationsforthedesignarebeyondthescopeofthis
example.
ThesectionsshowninTablemeetthewidthtothicknessrequirementsforspecial
momentframes,andthesizeofthecolumnrelativetothegirdersshouldensure
thatplastichingeswillforminthegirders.Duetostrainhardening,plastichinges
willeventuallyforminthecolumns.
However,theseformunderlateraldisplacementsthatareinexcessofthose
allowedundertheDesignBasisEarthquake(DBE).Doublerplatesof0.875in.thick
areusedateachoftheinteriorcolumnsatLevels2and3,and1.00in.thickplates
areusedattheinteriorcolumnsatLevels4,5,6,andR.Doublerplateswerenot
usedintheexteriorcolumns.
Althoughthemainanalysisinthisexampleisnonlinear,equivalentstaticforcesare
computedinaccordancewiththeSection12.8oftheStandard.Theseforcesare
usedinapreliminarystaticanalysistodeterminewhetherthestructure,as
designed,conformstothedriftrequirementlimitationsimposedbySection12.12
oftheStandard.
Forthepurposeofanalysis,itisassumedthatthestructurecomplieswiththe
requirementsforaspecialmomentframe,which,accordingtoStandardTable12.2
1,hasthefollowingdesignvalues:
R=8
Cd =5.5
o =3.0
Notethattheoverstrength factor0 isnotneededfortheanalysispresented
herein.
InStandardsection12.8.6.2,itispermittedtodeterminetheelasticdriftsusingseismic
designforcesbasedonthecomputedfundamentalperiodofthestructurewithoutthe
upperlimitoncalculatedapproximateperiod(CuTa).Thus,anewsetoflateralforces(Vdrift
inFigure)werecalculatedandelasticdriftswerefoundusingtheseforces.Driftlimitations
ofStandardSection12.12weresatisfiedwiththeamplifieddrifts(driftinFigure)found
withthesenewsetoflateralforces.
VerticaldistributionoflateralforceswerecalculatedinaccordancewithStandardSection
12.8.3.
Thelateralforcesactingateachlevel(Fx)andthestoryshears(Vx)atthebottomofthe
storybelowtheindicatedlevelaresummarizedinthetable.Notethatthesearetheforces
actingonthewholebuilding.Thus,foranalysisofasingleframe,onehalfofthetabulated
valuesareused.
Lossofstrengthgenerallyoccursatplastichingerotationswellbeyondtherotational
demandsproducedundertheDBEgroundmotions.Maximumplasticrotationanglesof
plastichingeswerecheckedwiththevaluesinTable56ofASCE4106.
TherulesemployedbyDRAINtomodelcolumnyieldingareadequateforeventtoevent
nonlinearstaticpushoveranalysis,butleavemuchtobedesiredwheredynamicanalysisis
performed.Thegreatestdifficultyinthedynamicanalysisisadequatetreatmentofthe
columnwhenunloadingandreloading.
Twodimensionalanalysisisreasonableforthestructureconsideredinthisexample
becauseofitsregularshapeandbecausefullmomentconnectionsareprovidedonlyinthe
NSdirectionforthecornercolumns.
Pdeltaeffectsaremodeledusingtheleanerghostcolumnshownwhichislaterally
constrainedtothemainframe,asexplainedbefore.
TheresultsofthepreliminaryanalysisfordriftareshowninTablesforthe
computationsexcludingandincludingPdeltaeffects,respectively.Ineachtable,
thedeflectionamplificationfactor(Cd)equals 5.5,andtheacceptablestorydrift
(storydriftlimit)istakenas2%ofthestoryheightwhichisthelimitprovidedby
Standard Table 12.121.Asexplainedbefore,anewsetoflateralloadsbasedonthe
computedperiodoftheactualstructurewerefoundandappliedtothestructureto
calculatetheelasticdrifts.
WhenPdeltaeffectsareincluded,thedriftscanalsobeestimatedasthedrifts
withoutPdeltatimesthequantity1/(1),where isthestabilitycoefficientfor
thestory.AscanbeseeninbottomTable,backcalculateddriftvaluesfrom are
fairlyconsistentwiththerealresultsobtainedbyrunningtheanalyseswithPdelta
effects.Thedifferenceisalwayslessthan2%.
ForDCRanalysis,thestructureissubjectedtofulldeadloadplus0.5timesthefully
reducedliveload,followedbyequivalentlateralforcesfoundwithoutRfactor.Equivalent
lateralforcesareappliedtowardsrightintheanalyses.Pdeltaeffectsareincluded.
SincetheDCRsintheFigurearefoundfrompreliminaryanalyses,inwhichthecenterline
modelisused,doublerplatesarenotaddedintothemodel.
Forgirders,theDCRissimplythemaximummomentinthememberdividedbythe
membersplasticmomentcapacitywheretheplasticcapacityisZeFye.Ze istheplastic
sectionmodulusatcenterofreducedbeamsectionandFye istheexpectedyieldstrength.
Forcolumns,theratioissimilarexceptthattheplasticflexuralcapacityisestimatedtobe
Zcol(FyePu/Acol)wherePu isthetotalaxialforceinthecolumn.Theratiosarecomputedat
thecenterofthereducedsectionforbeamsandatthefaceofthegirderforcolumns.
Thevaluesinparentheses(inblue)representtheDCRswithoutdoublerplates.The
maximumDCRvalueswithanddoublerplatesaddedarehighlightedintheFigure.
SincetheDCRsinFigurearefoundfrompreliminaryanalyses,inwhichthecenterline
modelisused,doublerplatesarentaddedintothemodel.Thus,thedemandvalues
shownintheFigurearethesamewithandwithoutdoublerplates.However,sincethe
capacityofthepanelzoneincreaseswithaddeddoublerplates,theDCRsdecreaseatthe
interiorbeamcolumnjointsasthedoublerplatesareusedonlyattheinteriorjoints.As
maybeseeninFigure, theDCRattheexteriorjointsarethesamewithandwithout
doublerplatesadded.
Tofindthesheardemandatthepanelzones,thetotalmomentinthegirders(attheleft
andrightsidesofthejoint)isdividedbytheeffectivebeamdepthtoproducethepanel
shearduetobeamflangeforces.Thenthecolumnshearataboveorbelowthepanelzone
jointwassubtractedfromthebeamflangeshears,andthepanelzoneshearforceis
obtained.ThisforceisdividedbytheshearstrengthcapacitytodeterminetheDCRofthe
panelzones.
NotethatalthoughthemaximumDCRforthecolumns(4.043)isgreaterthanthe
maximumDCRforthebeams(3.475),itislikelythatthebeamwillyieldearlierthanthe
column.ColumnDCRgetsbiggerherebecauseofthehugeadditionalaxialcompressive
forcearisingfromtheseismicloadwhichwasappliedwithoutRfactor.
Thetotallateralstrengthoftheframeiscalculatedusingvirtualwork.
Intheanalysis,itisassumedthatplastichingesareperfectlyplastic.Girdershingeata
valueZeFye,andthehingesformatthecenterofthereducedsection(approximately15
inchesfromthefaceofthecolumn).Columnshingeonlyatthebase,andtheplastic
momentcapacityisassumedtobeZcol(FyePu/Acol).
Threelateralforcepatternsareused:uniform,uppertriangular,andStandard (wherethe
Standard patternisconsistentwiththeverticalforcedistributionprovidedinSlide7).
Therigidplasticanalysisdoesnotconsiderthetruebehaviorofthepanelzoneregionof
thebeamcolumnjoint.Yieldinginthisareacanhaveasignificanteffectonsystem
strength.
TheDRAINmodelusedforthenonlinearanalysisisshownintheFigure.
Indetailedmodel,Krawinklertypepanelzonesareaddedtothemodel.Plastichingesare
assignedatthereducedflangesections.PDeltaeffectsareincludedbyuseofalinear
columnsimilartopreliminarymodel.
Thedetailillustratesthetwomainfeaturesofthemodel:anexplicitrepresentation
ofthepanelzoneregionandtheuseofconcentratedplastichingesinthegirders.
Connectionelements(Type4)areusedforbothgirderplastichingesandpanelzone
panelandflangesprings.
Inmostcases,oneormorerotationalspringconnectionelements(DRAINelement
Type4)areplacedbetweenthetwosinglenodesofthecompoundnode,andthese
springsdevelopbendingmomentinresistancetotherelativerotationbetweenthe
twosinglenodes.Ifnospringelementsareplacedbetweenthetwosinglenodes,
thecompoundnodeactsasamomentfreehinge.
Krawinklermodelrepresentsthepanelzonestiffnessandstrengthbyan
assemblageoffourrigidlinksandtworotationalsprings.Thelinksformthe
boundaryofthepanel,andthespringsareusedtoprovidethedesiredinelastic
behavior.
TheKrawinklermodelassumesthatthepanelzonehastworesistancemechanisms
actinginparallel:
1.Shearresistanceofthewebofthecolumn,includingdoublerplates
2.Flexuralresistanceoftheflangesofthecolumn
Thecompleteresistancemechanism,intermsofrotationalspringproperties,is
showninFigure.Thistrilinear behaviorisrepresentedbytwoelasticperfectly
plasticspringsattheopposingcornersofthejointassemblage.
AsideviewofthereducedbeamsectionsisshowninFigure.Thedistancebetweenthe
columnfaceandtheedgeofthereducedbeamsectionwaschosenas
a =0.625bbf andthereducedsectionlengthwasassumedasb=0.75db.Bothofthese
valuesarejustatthemiddleofthelimitsstatedinAISC 358.Plastichingesofthebeams
aremodeledatthecenterofthereducedsectionlength.
Todeterminetheplastichingecapacities,amomentcurvatureanalysisofthecross
section,whichisdependentonthestressstraincurveofthesteelusedingirders,
wasimplemented.
FiguredemonstratesthemomentcurvaturegraphfortheW27x94girder.Asmay
beseeninthefigure,themomentcurvaturerelationshipisdifferentateachsection
ofthereducedlength.Thelocationsofthedifferentreducedbeamsectionsusedin
Figure1,namedasbf1,bf2,andbf3,canbeseeninFigure2.Notethat
becauseofcloselyadjacentlocationschosenfor0.65bfandbf3(SeeFigure1),
theirmomentcurvatureplotsarenearlyindistinguishablefromotherinFigure2.
Figure1showsthecurvaturediagramwhenthecurvatureductilityreaches20.The
curvaturedifference(bumpatthecenterofRBSinFigure)sectionislessprominent
whentheductilityissmaller.
Giventhecurvaturedistributionalongcantileverbeamlength,thedeflectionsat
thepointofload(tipdeflections)canbefoundbyusingthemomentareamethod.
Figure2illustratestheforce displacementrelationshipattheendofthespan
cantileverfortheW27x94withthereducedflangesection.
Toconverttheforcetipdisplacementdiagramintomomentrotationoftheplastic
hinge,thefollowingprocedureisfollowed.
1. Usingthetrilinear forcedisplacementrelationshipshowninpreviousslide
(Figure2),findthemomentattheplastichingeforP1,P2andP3loadlevels
andcallthemasM1,M2andM3.Tofindthemoments,thetipforces(P1,P2
andP3)weremultipliedwiththedifferenceofthespancantileverlengthand
theplastichingedistancefromthecolumnface.
2. Calculatethechangeinmomentforeachaddedload(Forex:dM1=M2M1).
3. Findtheflexuralrigidity(EI)ofthebeamgiventipdisplacementof1in.under
the1stload(P1inFigure2ofpreviousslide).
4. CalculatetherequiredrotationalstiffnessesofthehingebetweenM1andM2,
andthenM2andM3.
5. CalculatethechangeinrotationfromM1toM2,andfromM2toM3bydividing
thechangeinmomentfoundatStep2bytherequiredrotationalstiffness
valuescalculatedatStep4.
6. FindthespecificrotationsatM1,M2andM3usingthechangeinrotation
valuesfoundinstep5.NotethattherotationiszeroatM1.
7. Plotmomentrotationdiagramoftheplastichingeusingthevaluescalculatedat
Step1andStep6.
AllcolumnsintheanalysisweremodeledinDRAINwithType2elements.
Preliminaryanalysisindicatedthatcolumnsshouldnotyield,exceptatthebaseof
thefirststory.Subsequentanalysisshowedthatthecolumnswillyieldintheupper
portionofthestructureaswell.Forthisreason,columnyieldinghadtobe
activatedinalloftheType2columnelements.Thecolumnsweremodeledusing
thebuiltinyieldingfunctionalityoftheDRAINprogram,whereintheyieldmoment
isafunctionoftheaxialforceinthecolumn.TheyieldsurfacesusedbyDRAINfor
allthecolumnsinthemodelareshowninFigure.
Slideshows vibrationofperiodsofvibrationusingdifferentanalysisassumptions.
Slideisselfexplanatory.Describesprocedurefornonlinearstaticpushoveranalysis.
RelativevaluesoftheseloadpatternsaresummarizedinTable.Theloadshave
beennormalizedtoavalueof15 kipsatLevel 2.
FigureshowsthepushoverresponseoftheSPstructuretoallthreelateralload
patternswherePdeltaeffectsareexcluded.Ineachcase,gravityloadsareapplied
firstandthenthelateralloadsareappliedusingthedisplacementcontrol
algorithm.
Figure plotstwobaseshearcomponentsofthepushoverresponsefortheSP
structuresubjectedtotheMLloading.
ThekinkinthelinerepresentingPdeltaforcesoccursbecausetheseforcesare
basedonfirststorydisplacement,which,foraninelasticsystem,generallywillnot
beproportionaltotheroofdisplacement.
FigureshowsthepushoverresponseoftheSPstructuretoallthreelateralload
patternswherePdeltaeffectsareincluded.
TheresponseofthestructureunderMLloadingwithandwithoutPdeltaeffectsis
illustratedinFigure.
Clearly,Pdeltaeffectsareanextremelyimportantaspectoftheresponseofthisstructure,
andtheinfluencegrowsinsignificanceafteryielding.Thisisparticularlyinterestinginthe
lightoftheStandard,whichignoresPdeltaeffectsinelasticanalysisifthemaximum
stabilityratioislessthan0.10(seeSec.12.87).Forthisstructure,themaximumcomputed
stabilityratiois0.0862(seeSlide10),whichislessthan0.10andisalsolessthantheupper
limitof0.0909.TheupperlimitiscomputedaccordingtoStandard Equation 12.817andis
basedontheveryconservativeassumptionthat =1.0.
WhiletheStandard allowstheanalysttoexcludePdeltaeffectsinanelasticanalysis,this
clearlyshouldnotbedoneinthepushoveranalysis(orinresponsehistoryanalysis).
IntheProvisionstheupperlimitforthestabilityratioiseliminated.Wherethecalculated
isgreaterthan0.10,apushoveranalysismustbeperformedinaccordancewithASCE41,
anditmustbeshownthatthattheslopeofthepushovercurveispositiveuptothetarget
displacement.ThepushoveranalysismustbebasedontheMCEspectralaccelerationand
mustincludePdeltaeffects[andlossofstrength,asappropriate].Iftheslopeofthe
pushovercurveisnegativeatdisplacementslessthanthetargetdisplacement,the
structuremustberedesignedsuchthat islessthan0.10orthepushoverslopeispositive
uptothetargetdisplacement.
Thefirstsignificantyieldoccursataroofdisplacementofapproximately6.5 inchesandthat
mostofthestructuresoriginalstiffnessisexhaustedbythetimetheroofdisplacement
reaches13 inches.
ForthecasewithPdeltaeffectsexcluded,thefinalstiffnessshowninFigureis
approximately10.2kips/in.,comparedtoanoriginalvalueof139kips/in.Hence,
thestrainhardeningstiffnessofthestructureis0.073timestheinitialstiffness.
Thisissomewhatgreaterthanthe0.03(3.0percent)strainhardeningratiousedin
thedevelopmentofthemodelbecausetheentirestructuredoesnotyield
simultaneously.
WherePdeltaeffectsareincluded,thefinalstiffnessis1.6kipsperin.The
structureattainsthisnegativeresidualstiffnessatadisplacementofapproximately
23in.
Figureshowsthatthedoublerplates,whichrepresentapproximately2.0 percentofthe
volumeofthestructure,increasethestrengthandinitialstiffnessbyapproximately
10 percent.
ThisslideshowsamoviewhichisobtainedusingthesnapshottoolofNonlinPro.Yielded
displacedshapeshowingsequenceandpatternofplastichingingisdisplayed.
Itappearsthatthestructureissomewhatweakinthemiddletwostoriesandisrelatively
strongattheupperstories.Thedoublerplatesaddedtotheinteriorcolumnsprevented
panelzoneyielding.
Figureshowsthefirstyieldinglocationsofthegirder,columnandpanelzones.
Someobservations:
ThereisnohinginginLevels6andR.
ThereispanelzonehingingonlyattheexteriorcolumnsatLevels 4and5.Panelzone
hingesdonotformattheinteriorjointswheredoublerplatesareused.
HingesformatthebaseofalltheLevel 1columns.
PlastichingesforminallcolumnsonLevel 3andalltheinteriorcolumnsonLevel 4.
Thedemandcapacityratiosmatchtheplastichingeformationsequence,i.e.first
plastichingesformatthemaximumDCRsforcolumns,girdersandpanelzones.
ThehighestDCRwasobservedatthegirdersof3rd levelbeginningfromthebaysat
theleeward(right)side.Asmaybeseen,firstplastichingesformatthesame
locationsofthebuilding.
Asmaybeseeninthepreviousslidethefirstcolumnhingeformsatthebaseofthe
fifthcolumn.However,theDCRofthesixthcolumn(leewardside)isthemaximum.
Thisisduetohugeaxialcompressiveforcesthatreducethecapacityoftheleeward
sidecolumnwhenDCRiscalculated.NotethatifR=8isusedforthelateralloadof
DCRanalysis,thebaseofthefifthcolumnresultsinthemaximumDCRwhichwould
matchbetterwiththehingingsequenceofthepushoveranalysis.Inaddition,as
seenintheFigureofSlide37,basecolumnhingesformalmostsimultaneously.
Firstpanelzonehingeformsatthebeamcolumnjointofthesixthcolumnatthefourth
level(seeSlide37),andthisiswherethehighestDCRvalueswereobtainedforthepanel
zonesinpreliminaryDCRanalyses.
Diagramshowssequencingofplastichingeformationonapushovercurve.
Figureshowsthesequenceofthehingingonthepushovercurve.Theseeventscorrespond
tonumbersshowninFigureofSlide37.Thepushovercurveonlyshowsselectedevents
becauseanillustrationshowingalleventswouldbedifficulttoread.
AsmaybeseeninFigure,firstyieldingoccursinthepanelzoneswhendoublerplatesare
notused.PanelhingesofLevel4formfirst.
FigureshowsthesameplotdisplayedinSlide12(DCRofpanelzonesbypreliminary
analysis).Thevaluesinparentheses(inblue)representtheDCRswithoutdoublerplates.
AsmaybeseeninFigure,thehingesofthepanels,wherehighestDCRareobtainedfrom
preliminaryanalyses,formfirst(CompareFigurewiththeFigureinthepreviousslide).
Theformulaisfromsection3.3.3.3.2ofASCE41whichusesthecoefficientmethodfor
calculatingtargetdisplacement.
Spectralaccelerationatthefundamentalperiodofthestructurewasfoundfromthe2%
dampedhorizontalresponsespectrumasdescribedinSection1.6.1.5of
ASCE4106.
Slideexplainsstaticpushoveranalysis.
Targetdisplacementis22.9in.forStrongPanelmodeland24.1in.forWeakPanelmodel.
Negativetangentstiffnessstartsat22.9inchesand29.3inchesforstrongandweakpanel
models,respectively.Thusnegativetangentstiffnessstartsaftertargetdisplacementsfor
bothmodels.
SlidedescribesTargetDisplacements.
Thestructureissubjectedtodeadloadandhalfofthefullyreducedliveload,followedby
groundacceleration.Theincrementaldifferentialequationsofmotionaresolvedinastep
bystepmannerusingtheNewmark constantaverageaccelerationapproach.Timesteps
andotherintegrationparametersarecarefullycontrolledtominimizeerrors.Theminimum
timestepusedforanalysisisassmallas0.0005secondforthefirstearthquakeand0.001
secondforthesecondandthirdearthquakes.Asmallerintegrationtimestepisrequired
forthefirstearthquakebecauseofitsimpulsivenature.
Notethatand aredirectlyproportionalto.Toincreasethetargetdamping
from2 percentto5 percentofcritical,allthatisrequiredisamultiplyingfactorof2.5on
and.
SlidedescribesdevelopmentofgroundmotionrecordsforResponseHistoryAnalysis.
Slideshowstheaccelerationtimehistoriesandresponsespectraoftheselectedmotions.
Whenanalyzingstructuresintwodimensions,Section16.1.3.1ofthe Standard (aswellas

ASCE710)givesthefollowinginstructionsforscaling:
Thegroundmotionsshallbescaledsuchthattheaveragevalueofthe5percentdamped
responsespectraforthesuiteofmotionsisnotlessthanthedesignresponsespectrumfor
thesiteforperiodsrangingfrom0.2T to1.5T whereT isthenaturalperiodofthestructure
inthefundamentalmodeforthedirectionofresponsebeinganalyzed.
ThescalingrequirementsinProvisions Part3ResourcePaper 3aresimilar,exceptthatthe
targetspectrumforscalingistheMCER spectrum.Inthisexample,theonlyadjustmentis
madeforscalingwhentheinherentdampingistakenas2 percentofcritical.Inthiscase,
thegroundmotionspectraarebasedon2 percentdamping,andtheDBEorMCEspectrum
isadjustedfrom5 percentdampingto2 percentdampingusingthemodificationfactors
giveninASCE41.
Thescalingproceduredescribedabovehasadegreeoffreedominthattherearean
infinitenumberofscalingfactorsthatcanfitthecriterion.Toavoidthis,atwostepscaling
processisusedwhereineachspectrumisinitiallyscaledtomatchthetargetspectrumat
thestructuresfundamentalperiod,andthentheaverageofthescaledspectraarere
scaledsuchthatnoordinateofthescaledaveragespectrumfallsbelowthetarget
spectrumintherangeofperiodsbetween0.2T and1.5T.Thefinalscalefactorforeach
motionconsistsoftheproductoftheinitialscalefactorandthesecondscalefactor.
Part (a)ofeachtableprovidesthemaximumbaseshears,computedeitherasthesumof
columnforces(includingPdeltaeffectsasapplicable),orasthesumoftheproductsofthe
totalaccelerationandmassateachlevel.Ineachcase,theshearscomputedusingthetwo
methodsaresimilar,whichservesasacheckontheaccuracyoftheanalysis.Hadthe
analysisbeenrunwithoutdamping,theshearscomputedbythetwomethodsshouldbe
identical.AsexpectedbaseshearsdecreasewhenPdeltaeffectsareincluded.
Thedriftlimitsinthetable,equalto2 percentofthestoryheight,arethesameasprovided
inStandard Table 12.121.Standard Section 16.2.4.3providesfortheallowabledrifttobe
increasedby25 percentwherenonlinearresponsehistoryanalysisisused;theselimitsare
showninthetablesinparentheses.Provisions Part2statesthattheincreaseindriftlimitis
attributedtothemoreaccurateanalysis,andthefactthatdriftsarecomputedexplicitly.
Driftsthatexceedtheincreasedlimitsareshowninboldtextinthetables.
It isinterestingthatPDeltaeffectsmoreorlessreducesthedriftsforB90motion.These
valuesarethemaximumvaluesthoughi.e.theydontnecessarilyoccuratthesametime.
Thelimitsare1.5timesthoseallowedbyStandard Section 12.2.1. The50 percentincrease

indriftlimitsisconsistentwiththeincreaseingroundmotionintensitywhenmovingfrom
DBEtoMCEgroundmotions.
EarthquakeA00resultsin62.40inchdisplacementattherooflevelandapproximately
between15 to20inchdriftsatthefirstthreestoriesofthestructure.Thesestorydrifts
arewellabovethelimits.WhenPdeltaeffectsareincludedwiththesamelevelofmotion,
roofdisplacementincreasesto101.69incheswithapproximately20 to40inch
displacementatthefirstthreestories.
ItisclearfromPart (b)ofTablesthatGroundMotionA00ismuchmoredemandingwith
respecttodriftthanaretheothertwomotions.ThedriftsproducedbyGroundMotion
A00areparticularlylargeatthelowerlevels,withthemoreliberaldriftlimitsbeing
exceededinthelowerfourstoriesofthebuilding.WhenPdeltaeffectsareincluded,the
driftsproducedbyGroundMotionA00increasesignificantly;driftsproducedbyGround
MotionsB90andC90changeonlyslightly.
Figure 1showsresponsehistoriesofroofdisplacementandfirststorydriftforthe
2 percentdampedSPmodelsubjectedtotheDBEscaledA00groundmotion.Twotrends
arereadilyapparent.First,thevastmajorityoftheroofdisplacementisduetoresidual
deformationinthefirststory.Second,thePdeltaeffectincreasesresidualdeformationsby
about50percent.Suchextremedifferencesinbehaviordonotappearinplotsofbase
shear,asprovidedinFigure2.
TheresidualdeformationsshowninFigure1maybereal(duetoactualsystembehavior)or
mayreflectaccumulatednumericalerrorsintheanalysis.Numericalerrorsareunlikely
becausetheshearscomputedfrommemberforcesandfrominertialforcesaresimilar.
Iftheanalysisisaccurate,theinputenergywillcoincidewiththetotalenergy(sumof
kinetic,damping,andstructuralenergy).DRAIN2Dproducesindividualenergyvaluesas
wellastheinputenergy.AsseeninFigure,thetotalandinputenergycurvescoincide,so
theanalysisisnumericallyaccurate.Wherethisaccuracyisindoubt,theanalysisshouldbe
rerunusingasmallerintegrationtimestep.
ItisinterestingtocomparetheresponsecomputedforGroundMotionB90withthat
obtainedforgroundmotionA00.WhilethereissomesmallresidualdeformationinFigure
1(B90motion),itisnotextreme,anditappearsthatthestructureisnotindangerof
collapse.(Thecorrespondingplasticrotationsarelessthanthosethatwouldbeassociated
withsignificantstrengthloss.)
AsmaybeseeninFigure2,whenMCEtypeA00motionisused,residualdeformations
againdominate(astheDBEcase),andinthiscasethetotalresidualroofdisplacementwith
PdeltaeffectsincludedisfivetimesthatwithoutPdeltaeffects.Thisbehaviorindicates
dynamicinstabilityandeventualcollapse.
Thecharacteristicofthegroundmotion(A00)thatproducestheresidualdeformationsis
notevidentfromthegroundaccelerationhistoryorfromtheaccelerationresponse
spectrum.Thesourceofthebehaviorisquiteobviousfromplotsofthegroundvelocityand
grounddisplacementhistories.
Thegroundvelocityhistoryshowsthataverylargevelocitypulseoccursapproximately
10 secondsintotheearthquake.Thisleadstoasurgeingrounddisplacement,also
occurringapproximately10 secondsintotheresponse.Thesurgeingrounddisplacementis
morethan8 feet,whichissomewhatunusual.
TheunusualcharacteristicsofGroundMotionA00maybeseeninFigure whichisa
tripartitespectrum.
Thecirclesonthefigurerepresentyieldingatanytimeduringtheresponse;consequently,
yieldingdoesnotnecessarilyoccuratalllocationssimultaneously.Thecirclesshownatthe
upperleftcornerofthebeamcolumnjointregionindicateyieldingintherotationalspring,
whichrepresentsthewebcomponentofpanelzonebehavior.Thereisnoyieldinginthe
flangecomponentofthepanelzones,asseeninFigure.
YieldingpatternsfortheothergroundmotionsandforanalysesrunwithandwithoutP
deltaeffectsaresimilarbutarenotshownhere.Asexpected,thereismoreyieldinginthe
columnswhenthestructureissubjectedtotheA00groundmotion.
Themaximumplastichingerotationsareshownwheretheyoccurforthecolumns,girders,
andpanelzones.
Tablecomparestheresultsobtainedfromtheresponsehistoryanalysiswiththose
obtainedfromtheELFandthenonlinearstaticpushoveranalyses.Recallthatthe
baseshearsinthetablerepresenthalfofthetotalshearinthebuilding.Asitwas
discussedbefore,2%dampedMCEbasedspectrumwasusedforthepushover
analysis.Tobeconsistent,theresultsof2%dampedMCEscaledB90motionwas
usedforthenonlineardynamicanalysispartofthetable.Inaddition,thelateral
forcesusedtofindtheELFdriftsinSlide7weremultipliedby1.5tomakethem
consistentwiththeMCElevelofshaking.TheELFanalysisdriftvaluesincludethe
deflectionamplificationfactorof5.5.Theresultstabulatedasresultsofpushover
analysisareobtainedattheloadleveloftargetdisplacement.
Figureshowstheinertialforcesfromthenonlinearresponsehistoryanalysesatthetimeof
peakbaseshearandtheloadsappliedtothenonlinearstaticanalysismodelatthetarget
displacement.
Slidesummarizesresultsofresponsehistoryanalysis.
Baseshearincreaseswithaddeddamping,soinpracticeaddeddampingsystemsusually
employnonlinearviscousfluiddeviceswithasofteningrelationshipbetweenthe
deformationalvelocityinthedeviceandtheforceinthedevice,tolimitbaseshearswhen
deformationalvelocitiesbecomelarge.
Thisvalueofdevice isfortheaddeddamperelementonly.Differentdampersmayrequire
differentvalues.Also,adifferent(global)valueof isrequiredtomodelthestiffness
proportionalcomponentofdampingintheremainingnondamperelements.
ModelingthedynamicresponseusingType 1elementsisexactwithinthetypical
limitationsoffiniteelementanalysis.Usingthemodalstrainenergyapproach,DRAIN
reportsadampingvalueineachmode.Thesemodaldampingvaluesareapproximateand
maybepoorestimatesofactualmodaldamping,particularlywherethereisexcessive
flexibilityinthemechanismthatconnectsthedampertothestructure.
Fourdifferentaddeddamperconfigurationsareusedtoassestheireffectonstorydrifts
andbaseshear. Theseconfigurationsincreasetotaldampingofthestructurefrom
2 percent(inherent)to10and20 percent.Inthefirstconfigurationaddeddampersare
distributedproportionallytoapproximatestorystiffnesses.Inthesecondconfiguration,
dampersareaddedatallsixstories,withlargerdampersinlowerstories.Sincethe
structureseemstobeweakatthebottomstories(whereitexceedsdriftlimits),dampers
areconcentratedatthebottomstoriesinthelasttwoconfigurations.Addeddampersare
usedonlyatthefirstandsecondstoriesinthethirdconfigurationandatthebottomfour
storiesinthefourthconfiguration.
Basedonthissupplementaldamperstudy,itappearstobeimpossibletodecreasethe
storydriftsfortheA00groundmotionbelowthelimits.Thisisbecauseoftheincremental
velocityofGroundMotionA00causessuchsignificantstructuraldamage.Thedriftlimits
couldbesatisfiedifthetotaldampingratioisincreasedto33.5 percent,butsincethatis
impracticaltheresultsarenotreportedhere.Thethirdconfigurationofaddeddampers
reducesthefirststorydriftfrom10.40inchesto4.40inches.
AlloftheconfigurationseasilysatisfydriftlimitsfortheB90groundmotion.Whilethe
systemwith10 percenttotaldampingissufficientfordriftlimits,systemswith20 percent
dampingfurtherimproveperformance.Althoughconfigurations3and4havethesame
amountoftotaldampingasconfiguration2,storydriftsarehigheratthetopstoriessince
dampersareaddedonlyatlowerstories.
AddeddampersreducetheroofdisplacementforbothA00andB90groundmotions.
AsFigure2showsaddeddampersreduceroofdisplacementsignificantlybutdonot
preventresidualdisplacement fortheA00groundmotion.
Asshouldbeexpected,addingdiscretedampingreducesthehystereticenergydemandin
thestructure(designatedasstructuralenergyinFigures).Areductioninhystereticenergy
demandforthesystemwithaddeddampingcorrespondstoareductioninstructural
damage.
Again,addingdiscretedampingreducesthehystereticenergydemand,whichresultsina
reductioninstructuraldamageforB90motion.
Asmaybeseen,addeddampersaremoreefficientintermsofenergydissipationforB90
motionthanA00motion(Seepreviousslide).
Figuresshowhowaddeddampingincreasesbaseshear.Especially,forA00motion,the
maximumbaseshearincreasesmorethan50%.
ThisslideshowsamoviewhichisobtainedusingthesnapshottoolofNonlinPro.Displaced
shapeofthe4th combinationaddeddamperframeunderB90motionisdisplayed.
SummaryandConclusions.
Slideprompts participantstoaskquestions.
4
Structural Analysis
Finley Charney, Adrian Tola Tola, and Ozgur Atlayan
Example2:
SixstoryMomentResistingSteelFrame
InstructionalMaterialsComplementingFEMAP751,DesignExamples
DescriptionofStructure
6storyofficebuildinginSeattle,Washington
Occupancy(Risk)CategoryII
Importancefactor(I)=1.0
SiteClass=C
SeismicDesignCategoryD
SpecialMomentFrame(SMF),R =8,Cd =5.5
FloorPlanandGravityLoads
SpecialMoment
Frame
Girder
Load
Column
Load
PDelta
Frame
Load
ElevationviewandPDeltaColumn
1
150 150
5at126=626
50
PDelta
Frame
Basement
wall
5at280=1400
MemberSizesUsedinNSMomentFrames
Member
Supporting
Level
R
6
5
4
3
2
Column
Girder
Doubler Plate
Thickness (in.)
W21x122
W21x122
W21x147
W21x147
W21x201
W21x201
W24x84
W24x84
W27x94
W27x94
W27x94
W27x94
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.875
0.875
Sectionsmeetthewidthtothickness
requirementsforspecialmomentframes
Strongcolumnweakbeam
EquivalentLateralForceProcedure
ApproximatePeriodofVibration
Fe
CuTa
Vdesign
Vdrift
Tcomp
y
design
Tcomp=2.05sec(withoutPDelta)
Tcomp=2.13sec(withPDelta)
EquivalentLateralForceProcedure
VerticalDistributionofForces
Equivalent Lateral Forces for Building Responding in N-S Direction

hx
Vx
Mx
Fx
Level
wx
Cvx
wxhxk
(kips)
(ft)
(kips)
(kips) (ft-kips)
x
R
2,596
77.5
1,080,327 0.321 243.6
243.6
3,045
6
2,608
65.0
850,539 0.253 191.8
435.4
8,488
5
2,608
52.5
632,564 0.188 142.6
578.0 15,713
4
2,608
40.0
433,888 0.129
97.8
675.9 24,161
3
2,608
27.5
258,095 0.077
58.2
734.1 33,337
15.0
111,909 0.033
25.2
759.3 44,727
2
2,621
15,650
3,367,323 1.000 759.3
ComputerProgramsNONLINProandDRAIN2Dx
ShortcomingsofDRAIN
Itisnotpossibletomodelstrengthlosswhenusingthe
ASCE4106(2006)modelforgirderplastichinges.
TheDRAINmodelforaxialflexuralinteractionin
columnsisnotparticularlyaccurate.
OnlyTwoDimensionalanalysismaybeperformed.
ElementsusedinAnalysis
Type1,inelasticbar(truss)element
Type2,beamcolumnelement
Type4,connectionelement
DescriptionofPreliminaryModel
Onlyasingleframe(FrameAorG)ismodeled.
Columnsarefixedattheirbase.
Each beam or column element is modeled using a Type 2
element. For the columns, axial, flexural, and shear deformations
are included. For the girders, flexural and shear deformations are
included but, because of diaphragm slaving, axial deformation is
not included. Composite action in the floor slab is ignored for all
analysis.
Allmembersaremodeledusingcenterlinedimensionswithout
rigidendoffsets.
This model does not provide any increase in beamcolumn joint
stiffness due to the presence of doubler plates.
The stiffness of the girders was decreased by 7% in the
preliminary analyses, which should be a reasonable approximate
representation of the 35% reduction in the flange sections.
Moment rotation properties of the reduced flange sections are
used in the detailed analyses.
ResultsofPreliminaryAnalysis:Drift
Results of Preliminary Analysis Excluding P-delta Effects
Total Drift
Story Drift
Magnified
Drift Limit
Story Stability
(in.)
(in.)
Story Drift (in.)
(in.)
Ratio,
2.08
0.22
1.21
3.00
0.0278
1.86
0.32
1.76
3.00
0.0453
1.54
0.38
2.09
3.00
0.0608
1.16
0.41
2.26
3.00
0.0749
0.75
0.41
2.26
3.00
0.0862
0.34
0.34
1.87
3.60
0.0691
Story
6
5
4
3
2
1
5.5
Results of Preliminary Analysis Including P-delta Effects

Total Drift
Story Drift
Magnified
Drift from
(in.)
(in.)
Story Drift (in.)
(in.)
2.23
0.23
1.27
1.24
2.00
0.34
1.87
1.84
1.66
0.40
2.20
2.23
1.26
0.45
2.48
2.44
0.81
0.45
2.48
2.47
0.36
0.36
1.98
2.01
Story
6
5
4
3
2
1
5.5
Drift Limit
(in.)
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.60
ResultsofPreliminaryAnalysis:
DemandCapacityRatios(ColumnsGirders)
1.033
Level R
0.973
0.595
1.837
Level 6
2.557
2.366
2.366
2.903
3.345
2.357
1.857
2.922
2.850
2.626
1.203
3.085
1.882
3.189
1.550
2.903
1.074
1.712
2.773
3.198
1.550
0.671
1.935
1.482
1.692
1.857
3.198
1.601
3.155
Level 2
1.826
2.782
1.908
3.406
1.041
1.098
1.082
1.482
1.693
2.782
1.249
Level 3
1.477
1.721
3.025
0.971
1.082
1.815
1.480
1.060
Level 4
1.082
1.826
0.971
Level 5
0.968
1.084
1.483
3.475
1.575
2.895
2.850
1.225
3.224
2.856
4.043
DemandCapacityRatios(PanelZones)
(0.839)
(1.422)
(1.427)
(1.427)
(1.429)
(0.899)
Level R
0.839
(1.656)
0.574
(3.141)
0.576
(3.149)
0.576
(3.149)
0.577
(3.149)
0.899
(1.757)
(2.021)
1.268
(3.774)
1.272
(3.739)
1.272
(3.732)
1.272
(3.779)
1.757
(2.092)
(2.343)
1.699
(4.334)
1.683
(4.285)
1.680
(4.285)
1.701
(4.339)
2.092
(2.405)
(1.884)
1.951
(3.598)
1.929
(3.567)
1.929
(3.567)
1.953
(3.605)
2.405
(1.932)
(1.686)
2.009
(3.128)
1.991
(3.076)
1.991
(3.076)
2.013
(3.132)
1.932
(1.731)
Level 6
1.656
Level 5
2.021
Level 4
2.343
Level 3
1.884
Level 2
1.686
1.746
1.718
1.718
1.749
1.731
DemandCapacityRatios
Thestructurehasconsiderableoverstrength,particularlyatthe
upperlevels.
Thesequenceofyieldingwillprogressfromthelowerlevelgirders
totheupperlevelgirders.
Withthepossibleexceptionofthefirstlevel,thegirdersshould
yieldbeforethecolumns.WhilenotshownintheFigure,itshould
benotedthatthedemandtocapacityratiosforthelowerstory
columnswerecontrolledbythemomentatthebaseofthecolumn.
Thecolumnontheleeward(right)sideofthebuildingwillyieldfirst
becauseoftheadditionalaxialcompressiveforcearisingfromthe
seismiceffects.
ThemaximumDCRofgirdersis3.475,whilemaximumDCRfor
panelzoneswithoutdoublerplatesis4.339.Thus,ifdoublerplates
arenotused,thefirstyieldinthestructurewillbeinthepanel
zones.However,withdoublerplatesadded,thefirstyieldisatthe
girdersasthemaximumDCRofthepanelzonesreducesto2.405.
OverallSystemStrength
OverallSystemStrength
Lateral Strength on Basis of Rigid-Plastic Mechanism
Lateral Strength
Lateral Strength
Lateral Load Pattern
(kips)
(kips)
Entire Structure
Single Frame
Uniform
3,332
1,666
Upper Triangular
2,747
1,373
Standard
2,616
1,308
Asexpected,thestrengthunderuniformloadissignificantlygreaterthanunder
triangularorStandardsload.
TheclosenessoftheStandards andtriangularloadstrengthsisduetothefact
thattheverticalloaddistributingparameter(k)was1.385,whichiscloseto1.0.
Slightlymorethan15percentofthesystemstrengthcomesfromplastichinges
thatforminthecolumns.IfthestrengthofthecolumnistakensimplyasMp
(withouttheinfluenceofaxialforce),theerrorintotalstrengthislessthan2
percent.
Therigidplasticanalysisdidnotincludestrainhardening,whichisanadditional
sourceofoverstrength.
DescriptionofModelUsedforDetailed
StructuralAnalysis
150
5at126=626
PDelta
Frame
DescriptionofModelUsedforDetailed
StructuralAnalysis
Nonlinearstaticandnonlineardynamicanalysesrequirea
muchmoredetailedmodelthanwasusedinthelinear
analysis.
Theprimaryreasonforthedifferenceistheneedtoexplicitly
representyieldinginthegirders,columns,andpanelzone
regionofthebeamcolumnjoints.
PlasticHingeModelingandCompoundNodes
Compoundnodesareusedtomodelplastichingesingirdersanddeformationsinthepanel
zoneregionofbeamcolumnjoints
Typicallyconsistofapairofsinglenodeswitheachnodesharingthesamepointinspace.
TheXandYdegreesoffreedomofthefirstnodeofthepair(theslavenode)areconstrained
tobeequaltotheXandYdegreesoffreedomofthesecondnodeofthepair(themaster
node),respectively.Hence,thecompoundnodehasfourdegreesoffreedom:anX
displacement,aYdisplacement,andtwoindependentrotations.
ModelingofBeamColumnJointRegions
Krawinklerbeamcolumnjointmodel
Krawinkler modelassumesthatthepanelzonehastworesistancemechanisms
actinginparallel:
1. Shearresistanceofthewebofthecolumn,includingdoubler platesand
2. Flexuralresistanceoftheflangesofthecolumn.
Fy =yieldstrengthofthecolumnandthedoubler plate,
dc =totaldepthofcolumn,
tp =thicknessofpanelzoneregion=columnweb+doubler platethickness,
bcf =widthofcolumnflange,
tcf =thicknessofcolumnflange,and
db =totaldepthofgirder.
Forcedeformationbehaviorofpanelzoneregion(KrawinklerModel)
ModelingGirders
The AISC Seismic Design
Manual
(AISC,
2006)
recommends design practices
to force the plastic hinge
forming in the beam away
from the column.
Reduced Beam
Section (RBS)
1. Reduce the cross sectional

properties of the beam at a
specific location away from
the column
2. Special detailing of the beam
column connection to provide
adequate
strength
and
toughness in the connection
so that inelasticity will be
forced into the beam adjacent
to the column face.
0.625 bbf
0.75 d b
Zero Length
Inelastic
Plastic Hinge
Rigid End Zone (0.5 d c )
Sideviewofbeamelementand
beammodeling
ModelingGirders
/7
/14
/7
Topviewof
ReducedBeam
Section
25000
Moment, in-kips
20000
Momentcurvature
diagramfor
W27x94girder
15000
10000
5000
bf
bf1
bf2
bf3
0.65 bf
0
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
Curvature, rad/in.
0.002
0.0025
0.003
ModelingGirders
0.003
Curvature, rad/in.
0.0025
CurvatureDiagram
forCantileverBeam
with
ReducedBeam
Section
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Cantilever beam length, in.
140
160
180
140
P3
120
P2
Force, kips
100
P1
80
60
Real F-D relationship
40
Trilinear F-D relationship
ForceDisplacement
Diagramfor
W27x94with
RBS
20
0
0
4
5
6
Displacement, in.
10
ModelingGirders
18000
16000
Moment, in-kips
14000
12000
10000
8000
W27x94
6000
W24x84
4000
2000
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
Rotation, rad.
0.04
0.05
0.06
MomentRotationDiagramforgirderhingeswithRBS
ModelingColumns
4,000
3,000
W21x201
W21x147
W21x122
Axial load, kips
2,000
1,000
0
-1,000
-2,000
-3,000
-4,000
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
Moment, in.-kips
20,000
30,000
40,000
Yieldsurfaceusedformodelingcolumns
ResultsofDetailedAnalysis:PeriodofVibration
Periods of Vibration From Detailed Analysis (sec/cycle)
Model
Strong Panel
with
doubler plates
Weak Panel
without
doubler plates
Mode
1
2
3
1
2
3
P-delta Excluded P-delta Included

1.912
1.973
0.627
0.639
0.334
0.339
2.000
2.069
0.654
0.668
0.344
0.349
Pdeltaeffectsincreasestheperiod.
Doubler platesdecreasestheperiodasthemodelbecomesstifferwith
doubler plates.
Differentperiodvalueswereobtainedfrompreliminaryanddetailed
analyses.
Detailedmodelresultsinastifferstructurethanthepreliminarymodel
especiallywhendoubler platesareadded.
StaticPushoverAnalysis
Pushover analysis procedure performed in this example

follows the recommendations of ASCE/SEI 4106.
Pushover analysis should always be used as a precursor to
nonlinear response history analysis.
The structure is subjected to the full dead load plus 50
percent of the fully reduced live load, followed by the lateral
loads.
For the entire pushover analyses reported for this example,
the structure is pushed to 37.5 in. at the roof level. This value
is about two times the total drift limit for the structure where
the total drift limit is taken as 2 percent of the total height.
The effect of lateral load distribution, strong and weak panel
zones (doubler plates) and Pdelta are investigated separately
in this example.
EffectofDifferentLateralLoadDistribution
Inthisexample,threedifferentloadpatternswereinitiallyconsidered:
UL=Uniformload(equalforceateachlevel)
ML=Modalload(lateralloadsproportionaltofirstmodeshape)
BL=Provisions loaddistribution(Equivalentlateralforcesusedforpreliminaryanalysis)
Lateral Load Patterns Used in Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis
Uniform Load Modal Load Provisions Load
Level
UL
ML
BL
(kips)
(kips)
(kips)
144.8
85.1
15.0
R
114.0
77.3
15.0
6
84.8
64.8
15.0
5
58.2
49.5
15.0
4
34.6
32.2
15.0
3
15.0
15.0
15.0
2
2000
1800
Base shear, kips
1600
Responseofstrong
panelmodeltothree
loadpatterns,
excludingPdelta
effects
1400
1200
1000
800
UL Loading
600
ML Loading
400
BL Loading
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
TheProvisions statesthatthelateralloadpatternshouldfollowtheshapeofthe
firstmode.(MLLoading)
10
StaticPushoverCurveswithPDeltaEffects
=Sumofallcolumnshearsin1st story
=TotalverticalloadonPdeltacolumn
=Pdeltacolumn1st storydisplacement
=1st storyheight
2000
1500
Shear, kips
1000
Twobaseshear
componentsof
pushover
response
Column Shear Forces

Total Base Shear
P-Delta Forces
500
0
-500
-1000
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1600
1400
Base shear, kips
1200
Responseofstrong
panelmodeltothree
loadpatterns,
includingPdelta
effects
1000
800
UL Loading
600
ML Loading
400
BL Loading
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
EffectofPDeltaonPushoverCurve
1800
1600
Base shear, kips
1400
1200
Responseofstrong
panelmodelto
MLloads,
withandwithout
Pdeltaeffects
1000
800
Excluding P-Delta
600
Including P-Delta
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
11
EffectofPDeltaonPushoverCurve
160
"Tangent Stiffness", kips/in.
140
120
Tangentstiffness
historyfor
StrongPanelmodel
underMLloads,
withandwithout
Pdeltaeffects
Excluding P-Delta
100
Including P-Delta
80
60
40
20
0
-20
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
EffectofPanelzones(DoublerPlates)onPushoverCurve
1400
1200
Base shear, kips
1000
Comparisonof
weakpanelzone
modelwithstrong
panelzonemodel,
bothincluding
Pdeltaeffects
800
Strong Panels
600
Weak Panels
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
StaticPushoverAnalysis:SequenceandPattern
ofPlasticHingingwithNonlinPro
12
SequenceandPatternofPlasticHingingforStrongPanelModel
20
25
19
12
11
21
27
18
13
11
22
26
21
27
18
13
11
22
21
27
18
13
11
21
17
28
27
22
13
23
22
24
10
10
10
16
14
14
14
15
14
DCR PlasticHingeSequenceComparisonforGirdersandColumns
1.033
Level R
0.595
0.973
1.837
Level 6
0.971
3.025
Level 4
1.249
1.908
3.406
Level 3
1.041
1.601
3.155
Level 2
3.345
1.575
2.895
2.850
1.483
3.475
1.550
2.903
2.922
1.882
3.189
1.550
2.903
1.203
3.085
1.857
3.198
1.074
2.626
1.712
2.773
1.857
3.198
1.482
2.357
1.692
2.782
0.671
1.935
1.482
2.366
1.693
2.782
1.082
1.826
1.477
2.366
1.721
1.098
1.082
1.815
1.480
1.060
0.971
1.082
1.826
2.557
Level 5
0.968
1.084
1.225
3.224
2.850
2.856
4.043
DCR PlasticHingeSequenceComparisonforPanelZones
(0.839)
(1.422)
(1.427)
(1.427)
(1.429)
(0.899)
Level R
0.839
(1.656)
0.574
(3.141)
0.576
(3.149)
0.576
(3.149)
0.577
(3.149)
0.899
(1.757)
(2.021)
1.268
(3.774)
1.272
(3.739)
1.272
(3.732)
1.272
(3.779)
1.757
(2.092)
(2.343)
1.699
(4.334)
1.683
(4.285)
1.680
(4.285)
1.701
(4.339)
2.092
(2.405)
(1.884)
1.951
(3.598)
1.929
(3.567)
1.929
(3.567)
1.953
(3.605)
2.405
(1.932)
2.009
(3.128)
1.991
(3.076)
1.991
(3.076)
2.013
(3.132)
1.932
(1.731)
Level 6
1.656
Level 5
2.021
Level 4
2.343
Level 3
1.884
(1.686)
Level 2
1.686
1.746
1.718
1.718
1.749
1.731
13
SequenceandPatternofPlasticHingingforStrongPanelModel
1400
Total shear, kips
1200
15
1000
5
1
2223
19 21
25
27
28
12
9
800
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
Drift, in.
25
30
35
40
SequenceandPatternofPlasticHingingforWeakPanelModel
53
56
21
48
23
54
60
24
47
58
53
13
70
8
9
14
66
20
38
64
3
45
42
31
60
6
22
38
65
64
3
46
40
31
59
6
22
63 36
1 41
44
26
61
4
21
16
15
17
11
19
26
32
23
62
29
37
52
62
10
69
36
2
50
26
33
57
5
23
13
34
11
56
10
35
35
11
28
18
39
27
43
55
49
12
68
5
25
21
27
20
34
10
28
39
51
67
37
27
30
DCR PlasticHingeSequenceComparisonforPanelZones
(1.422)
(0.839)
(1.427)
(1.427)
(1.429)
(0.899)
Level R
0.839
(1.656)
0.574
(3.141)
0.576
(3.149)
0.576
(3.149)
0.577
(3.149)
0.899
(1.757)
(2.021)
1.268
(3.774)
1.272
(3.739)
1.272
(3.732)
1.272
(3.779)
1.757
(2.092)
(2.343)
1.699
(4.334)
1.683
(4.285)
1.680
(4.285)
1.701
(4.339)
2.092
(2.405)
(1.884)
1.951
(3.598)
1.929
(3.567)
1.929
(3.567)
1.953
(3.605)
2.405
(1.932)
2.009
(3.128)
1.991
(3.076)
1.991
(3.076)
2.013
(3.132)
1.932
(1.731)
Level 6
1.656
Level 5
2.021
Level 4
2.343
Level 3
1.884
(1.686)
Level 2
1.686
1.746
1.718
1.718
1.749
1.731
14
TargetDisplacement
C 0 1, r 1
1, r
1
C1
C2
Sa
K
Te Ti i
Ke
Ti
modificationfactortorelatespectraldisplacementofanequalsingledegreeoffreedomsystemto
theroofdisplacementofthebuildingmultidegreeoffreedomsystem.
theordinateofmodeshape1attheroof(controlnode)
thefirstmodeparticipationfactor
modificationfactortorelateexpectedmaximuminelasticdisplacementstodisplacements
calculatedforlinearelasticresponse.
modificationfactortorepresenttheeffectofpinchedhysteresisshape,cyclicstiffness
degradationandstrengthdeteriorationonmaximumdisplacementresponse.
responsespectrumacceleration,attheeffectivefundamentalperiodanddampingratioof
thebuildinginthedirectionunderconsideration.
effectivefundamentalperiodofthebuildinginthedirectionunderconsideration
elasticfundamentalperiodinthedirectionunderconsiderationcalculatedbyelasticdynamic
analysis.
elastic,andeffectivelateralstiffnessofthebuildinginthedirectionunderconsideration.
accelerationofgravity
TargetDisplacement
Spectral acceleration, g
2.5
2
2%damped
horizontal
responsespectrum
fromASCE4106
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
12
Period, sec
ThisspectrumisforBSE2(BasicSafetyEarthquake2)
hazardlevelwhichhasa2%probabilityofexceedencein
50years.
TargetDisplacement
Nonlinearforcedisplacementrelationshipbetweenbaseshearanddisplacement
ofcontrolnodeshallbereplacedwithanidealizedforcedisplacementcurve.The
effectivelateralstiffnessandtheeffectiveperioddependontheidealizedforce
displacementcurve.
Theidealizedforcedisplacementcurveisdevelopedbyusinganiterative
graphicalprocedurewheretheareasbelowtheactualandidealizedcurvesare
approximatelybalanceduptoadisplacementvalueof.isthe
displacementattheendofsecondlinesegmentoftheidealizedcurveandis
thebaseshearatthesamedisplacement.
shouldbeapointontheactualforcedisplacementcurveateitherthe
calculatedtargetdisplacement,oratthedisplacementcorrespondingtothe
maximumbaseshear,whicheveristheleast.
Thefirstlinesegmentoftheidealizedforcedisplacementcurveshouldbeginat
theoriginandfinishat,whereistheeffectiveyieldstrengthand
istheyielddisplacementofidealizedcurve.
Theslopeofthe1st linesegmentisequaltotheeffectivelateralstiffness,
whichshouldbetakenasthesecantstiffnesscalculatedatabaseshearforce
equalto60%oftheeffectiveyieldstrengthofthestructure.
15
1400
Base shear, kips
d,Vd
y,Vy
1200
Actualandidealized
forcedisplacement
curvesfor
STRONGpanelmodel,
underMLload,
withPdeltaeffects
1000
800
600
Actual force Displacement
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
d,Vd
1200
y,Vy
Base shear, kips
1000
Actualandidealized
forcedisplacement
curvesfor
WEAKpanelmodel,
underMLload,
withPdeltaeffects
800
Actual Force Displacement
600
400
200
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Target displacement for strong and weak panel models
C0
C1
C2
S a (g)
Te (sec)
t (in.) at Roof Level

Drift R-6 (in.)
Drift 6-5 (in.)
Drift 5-4 (in.)
Drift 4-3 (in.)
Drift 3-2 (in.)
Drift 2-1 (in.)
Strong Panel
1.303
1.000
1.000
0.461
1.973
22.9
0.96
1.76
2.87
4.84
5.74
6.73
Weak Panel
1.310
1.000
1.000
0.439
2.069
24.1
1.46
2.59
3.73
4.84
5.35
6.12
Storydriftsarealsoshownattheloadleveloftargetdisplacement.
Negativestiffnessstartsaftertargetdisplacementsforbothmodels.
ResponseHistoryAnalysis
ModelingandAnalysisProcedure
Responseresponse historyanalysismethodisusedtoestimatethe
inelasticdeformationdemandsforthedetailedstructure.
Threegroundmotionswereused.(Sevenormoregroundmotionsis
generallypreferable.)
Theanalysisconsideredanumberofparameters,asfollows:
ScalingofgroundmotionstotheDBEandMCElevel
WithandwithoutPdeltaeffects
Twopercentandfivepercentinherentdamping
Addedlinearviscousdamping
IdenticalstructuralmodelusedinNonlinearPushoverAnalysesand2nd
ordereffectswereincludedthroughtheuseofleaningcolumn.
AllofthemodelanalyzedhadStrongPanels(whereindoubler plated
wereincludedintheinteriorbeamcolumnjoints).
16
RayleighDamping
Rayleighproportionaldampingwasusedtorepresentviscous
energydissipationinthestructure.
Themassandstiffnessproportionaldampingfactorswereinitially
settoproduce2.0percentdampinginthefirstandthirdmodes.
Itisgenerallyrecognizedthatthislevelofdamping(inlieuofthe5
percentdampingthatistraditionallyusedinelasticanalysis)is
appropriatefornonlinearresponsehistoryanalysis.

2

w1 w3
C M K
w1 w3
Structural frequencies and damping factors used in response history analysis.

(Damping factors that produce 2 percent damping in modes 1 and 3)
1
(rad/sec)
3.184
3.285
Model/Damping Parameters
Strong Panel with P-delta
Strong Panel without P-delta
3
(rad/sec)
18.55
18.81
0.109
0.112
0.00184
0.00181
DevelopmentofGroundMotionRecords
BecauseonlyatwodimensionalanalysisofthestructureisperformedusingDRAIN,
onlyasinglecomponentofgroundmotionisappliedatonetime.
Fortheanalysesreportedherein,thecomponentthatproducedthelargerspectral
accelerationatthestructuresfundamentalperiodwasused.
Acompleteanalysiswouldrequireconsiderationofbothcomponentsofground
motions,andpossiblyofarotatedsetofcomponents.
NGA
Magnitude,
Record
[Epicenter
Number Distance (km)]
Site
Class
Numberof Integration Time

Pointsand
Stepusedin
Timestep
analyses
Component
Source
Motion
PGA
(g)
Record
Name
0879
7.28,[44]
9625@
0.005sec
0.0005sec
Landers /
LCN260
0.727
A00
0725
6.54,[11.2]
2230@
0.01sec
0.001sec
SUPERST/
BPOE360
0.300
B90
1192@
0.02sec
0.001sec
TABAS/
DAYTR
0.406
C90
0139
7.35,[21]
2% damped
A00
Acceleration, g
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
50
5% damped
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
Acceleration, g
2% Damped
B90
10
15
20
25
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
15
20
Acceleration, g
Time, sec
25
Period, sec
2% Damped
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
0
5% damped
2.5
Time, sec
C90
Period, sec
Time, sec
5% damped
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
Period, sec
17
GroundMotionScalingProcedure
1. Eachspectrumisinitiallyscaledtomatchthetargetspectrumatthestructures
fundamentalperiod.
2% Damped Response Spectrum
T1=1.973sec.
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Period, sec
T1=1.973sec.
0.2*T1
2. Theaverageofthescaledspectraarerescaledsuchthatnoordinateofthescaled
averagespectrumfallsbelowthetargetspectrumintherangeofperiodsbetween
0.2and1.5T. 4.5
4
3.5
Average of scaled EQ Windows

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
1.5*T1
0
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3.0
Period, sec
3. Thefinalscalefactorforeachmotionconsistsoftheproductoftheinitialscale
factor(differentforeachgroundmotion),andthesecondscalefactor(whichisthe
sameforeachgroundmotion).
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis
DBE Results for 2% Damped Strong Panel Model with P- Excluded / P- Included
Column Forces
Inertial Forces
Level
Total Roof
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G

Motion A00
Motion B90
Motion C90
1780 / 1467
1649 / 1458
1543 / 1417
1848 / 1558
1650 / 1481
1540 / 1419
Motion A00
Motion B90
Motion C90
13.55 / 14.75
14.57 /14.50
26.80 / 32.65
1.71 / 1.70
1.92 / 1.82
1.85 / 1.86
2.33 / 2.41
2.60 / 2.50
2.51 / 2.64
3.03 / 3.19
3.08 / 2.81
3.75 / 4.08
3.03 / 3.33
2.98 / 3.21
5.62 / 6.87
2.82 / 2.90
3.58 / 3.40
6.61 / 8.19
3.29 / 3.44
4.68 / 4.69
8.09 / 10.40
Limit*
NA
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.00 (3.75)
3.60 (4.50)
* Values in ( ) reflect increased drift limits provided by Sec. 16.2.4.3 of the Standard
MCE Results for 2% Damped Strong Panel Model with P- Excluded / P- Included
Column Forces
Inertial Forces
Level
Total Roof
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G

Motion A00
Motion B90
Motion C90
2181 / 1675
1851 / 1584
1723 / 1507
2261 / 1854
1893 / 1633
1725 / 1515
Motion A00
Motion B90
Motion C90
20.41 / 20.50
22.45 / 26.10
62.40 / 101.69
3.05 / 2.93
2.30 / 2.32
1.98 / 1.95
3.69 / 3.49
2.77 / 2.60
3.57 / 2.97
4.43 / 4.32
3.33 / 3.62
7.36 / 6.41
4.45 / 4.63
4.61 / 5.61
14.61 / 20.69
3.97 / 4.18
5.21 / 6.32
16.29 / 31.65
5.11 / 5.11
6.60 / 7.03
19.76 / 40.13
Limit*
NA
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
4.50
5.40
18
35
30
Displacement, in.
25
20
ResponseHistoriesof
RoofandFirststory
Displacement,
GroundMotionA00
(DBE)
15
10
5
0

-5
-10
-15
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time, sec
1500
Base shear, kips
1000
500
0
ResponseHistoryof
TotalBaseShear,
GroundMotionA00
(DBE)
-500
-1000
Total Shear with P-Delta

Total Shear without P-delta
-1500
-2000
-2500
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time, sec
EnergyResponseHistory,GroundMotionA00(DBE),includingPdelta
effects
30

25
Displacement, in.
20
15
ResponseHistoriesof
RoofandFirststory
Displacement,
GroundMotionB90
(MCE)
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
0
10
15
20
25
Time, sec
120
Displacement, in.
100

80
60
40
ResponseHistoryof
RoofandFirststory
Displacement,
GroundMotionA00
(MCE)
20
0
-20
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Time, sec
19
Acceleration, g
A00MotionGroundAcceleration,VelocityandDisplacement
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Ground velocity, ft/sec
Time, sec
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
30
35
40
45
50
Ground displacement, ft
Time, sec
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
0
10
15
20
25
45
Time, sec
50
A00MotiontripartiteSpectrum
10
2% Damping
g
50 5% Damping
10
Pseudovelocity, ft/sec
1
0.
5
g
g
0.
05
1
g
10
.0
1
0.
00
5
0.
00
1
0.
ft.
00
05
ft.
0.1
0.
00
01
ft.
0.
1
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
ft.
1
0.
g
05
0.
01
0.
ft.
g
5
00
0.
g
g
1
g
00
0.
05
00
0.
0.01
0.01
0.1
10
Period, sec
Panel zone,max=
0.00411 rad
Girder,max=
0.03609 rad
Column,max=
0.02993 rad
YieldinglocationsforstructurewithstrongpanelssubjectedtoMCE
scaledB90motion,includingPdeltaeffects
20
ComparisonwithResultsfromOtherAnalyses
Analysis Method
Equivalent
Lateral
Forces
569
Base Shear (kips)
18.4
Roof Disp. (in.)
1.86
Drift R-6 (in.)
2.78
Drift 6-5 (in.)
3.34
Drift 5-4 (in.)
3.73
Drift 4-3 (in.)
3.67
Drift 3-2 (in.)
2.98
Drift 2-1 (in.)
NA
Girder Hinge Rot. (rad)
NA
Column Hinge Rot. (rad)
NA
Panel Hinge Rot. (rad)
NA
Panel Plastic Shear Strain
Note: Shears are for half of total structure.
Response Quantity
Nonlinear Static
Pushover
Nonlinear
Dynamic
1208
22.9
0.96
1.76
2.87
4.84
5.74
6.73
0.03304
0.02875
0.00335
0.00335
1633
26.1
2.32
2.60
3.62
5.61
6.32
7.03
0.03609
0.02993
0.00411
0.00411
Reasonsofthedifferences
betweenPushoverandResponse
HistoryAnalyses
Scalefactorof1.367wasusedfor
the2nd partofthescaling
procedure.
Theuseofthefirstmodelateral
loadingpatterninthenonlinear
staticpushoverresponse.
Thehighermodeeffectsshownin
theFigurearethelikelycauseofthe
differenthingingpatternsandare
certainlythereasonforthevery
highbasesheardevelopedinthe
responsehistoryanalysis.
Comparisonofinertialforcepatterns
EffectofIncreasedDampingonResponse
Excessivedriftsoccurinthebottomthreestories.
Additionalstrengthand/orstiffnessshouldbeprovidedatthese
stories.
Considerednext,Addeddampingisalsoaviableapproach.
Fourdifferentdamperconfigurationswereused.
DamperswereaddedtotheStrongPanelframewith2%inherent
damping.
ThestructurewassubjectedtotheDBEscaledA00andB90
groundmotions.
Pdeltaeffectswereincludedintheanalyses.
21
ModelingAddedDampers
Addeddampingiseasilyaccomplishedin
DRAINbyuseofthestiffnessproportional
componentofRayleighdamping.
Linearviscousfluiddampingdevicecanbe
modeledthroughuseofaType1(trussbar)
element.
Adevice Edevice
Ldevice
Cdevice devicekdevice
kdevice
Setdamperelasticstiffnesstonegligible
value.=
0.001 kips/in.
k
device
device
Cdevice
1000 Cdevice
0.001
Modelingasimpledamper
Itisconvenienttoset Edevice =0.001andAdevice =DamperlengthLdevice

EffectofdifferentaddeddamperconfigurationswhenSP
modelissubjectedtoDBEscaledA00 motion,includingP
deltaeffects
1.86
2.64
4.08
6.87
8.19
10.40
1st combo
Damper
Drift,
Coeff,
kipin.
sec/in.
10.5
1.10
33.7
1.90
38.4
2.99
32.1
5.46
36.5
6.69
25.6
8.39
2nd combo
Damper
Drift,
Coeff,
kipin.
sec/in.
60
1.03
60
1.84
70
2.88
70
4.42
80
5.15
80
5.87
3rd combo
Damper
Drift,
Coeff,
kipin.
sec/in.
1.82
3.56
4.86
5.24
160
4.64
160
4.40
4th combo
Damper
Drift,
Coeff,
kipin.
sec/in.
1.47
2.41
56.25
3.46
56.25
4.47
112.5
4.76
112.5
4.96
1467
1629
2170
2134
2267
1558
1728
2268
2215
2350
10.1
20.4
20.2
20.4
No Damper
Level
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
Column
Base
Shear,kips
Inertial
Base
Shear,kips
Total
Damping,%
Drift,
In.
Drift
Limit
in.
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
4.50
EffectofdifferentaddeddamperconfigurationswhenSPmodel
issubjectedtoDBEscaledB90 motion,includingPdeltaeffects
1.82
2.50
2.81
3.21
3.40
4.69
1st combo
Damper
Drift,
Coeff,
in.
kipsec/in.
10.5
1.11
33.7
1.76
38.4
2.33
32.1
2.67
36.5
2.99
25.6
3.49
2nd combo
Damper
Drift,
Coeff,
in.
kipsec/in.
60
0.86
60
1.35
70
1.75
70
2.11
80
2.25
80
1.96
3rd combo
Damper
Drift,
Coeff,
in.
kipsec/in.
1.53
2.11
2.51
2.37
160
2.09
160
1.87
4th combo
Damper
Drift,
Coeff,
in.
kipsec/in.
1.31
1.83
56.25
2.07
56.25
2.16
112.5
2.13
112.5
1.82
1458
1481
1485
1697
1637
1481
1531
1527
1739
1680
10.1
20.4
20.2
20.4
No Damper
Level
R-6
6-5
5-4
4-3
3-2
2-G
Column
Base
Shear,kips
Inertial
Base
Shear,kips
Total
Damping,%
Drift,
In.
Drift
Limit
in.
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
4.50
22
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:
RoofDisplacements
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20

2% Inherent Damping
10
15
20
25
RoofDisplacement
ResponseHistories
withaddeddamping
(20%total)and
inherentdamping(2%)
forB90motion
Time, sec
40
30
20
10
0

2% Inherent Damping
-10
-20
0
10
20
30
40
RoofDisplacement
ResponseHistories
withaddeddamping
(20%total)and
inherentdamping(2%)
forA00motion
50
Time, sec
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:EnergyPlots
EnergyResponseHistory
withinherentdamping
(2%totaldamping)
forA00motion
withaddeddampingof
4th combination
(20%totaldamping)
forA00motion
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:EnergyPlots
withinherentdamping
(2%totaldamping)
forB90motion
withaddeddampingof
4th combination
(20%totaldamping)
forB90motion
23
Base shear, kips
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:BaseShear
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
-2500
-3000

2% Inherent Damping
0
10
20
30
40
50
InertialBaseShear
ResponseHistories
withaddeddamping
(20%total)and
inherentdamping(2%)
forA00motion
60
Base shear, kips
Time, sec
2% Inherent Damping
2000
1500
1000
500
0
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
0
10
15
20
25
InertialBaseShear
ResponseHistories
withaddeddamping
(20%total)and
inherentdamping(2%)
forB90motion
Time, sec
ResultsofResponseHistoryAnalysis:
DeflectedShapeofbyNonlinPro forAddedDamperFrame(4th
combination)DuringB90Motion
Fivedifferentanalyticalapproacheswereusedtoestimatethedeformationdemands
inasimpleunbraced steelframestructure:
1. Linearstaticanalysis(theequivalentlateralforcemethod)
2. Plasticstrengthanalysis(usingvirtualwork)
3. Nonlinearstaticpushoveranalysis
4. Lineardynamicanalysis
5. Nonlineardynamicresponsehistoryanalysis
Approaches1,3,and5werecarriedtoapointthatallowedcomparisonofresults.The
resultsobtainedfromthethreedifferentanalyticalapproacheswerequitedissimilar.
Becauseoftheinfluenceofthehighermodeeffectsontheresponse,pushover
analysis,whereusedalone,isinadequate.
Exceptforpreliminarydesign,theELFapproachshouldnotbeusedinexplicit
performanceevaluationasithasnomechanismfordetermininglocationandextentof
yieldinginthestructure.
Responsehistoryanalysisasthemostviableapproach.However,significant
shortcomings,limitations,anduncertaintiesinresponsehistoryanalysisstillexist.
Inmodelingthestructure,particularattentionwaspaidtorepresentingpossible
inelasticbehaviorinthepanelzoneregionsofthebeamcolumnjoints.
24
Questions?
25

G+12 Steel Building

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

G+12 Steel Building

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Structural Analysis: Example 1

Twelve-story Moment Resisting Steel Frame

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 1

Analysis of a 12-Story Steel Building

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 2

12 Stories above grade, one level below grade

Special Steel Moment Resisting Perimeter Frame

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 3

Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis (Section 12.8)

Linear and Nonlinear Response History Analysis

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 4

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 5

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 6

Plan at First Level Above Grade

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 7

Plans Through Upper Levels

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 8

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 9

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 10

3-D Wire Frame View from SAP 2000

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 11

Perspective Views of Structure (SAP 2000)

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 12

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 13

Seismic Load Analysis: Basic Steps

Determine Occupancy Category (Table 1-1)

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 14

Determine Occupancy Category

Occupancy Category = II (Table 1-1)

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 15

Ground Motion Parameters for Stockton

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 16

Determining Site Coefficients

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 17

Determining Design Spectral Accelerations

Instructional Material Complementing FEMA P-751, Design Examples

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 18

Determine Importance Factor,

Seismic Design Category = D

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 19

Select Structural System (Table 12.2-1)

Building height (above grade) = 18+11(12.5)=155.5 ft

Select Special Steel Moment Frame: R=8, Cd=5.5, 0=3

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 20

Establish Diaphragm Behavior

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 21

Determine Configuration Irregularities

Irregularity 2 occurs on lower levels. Irregularity 3 is possible but need not be

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 22

Determine Configuration Irregularities

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 23

Selection of Method of Analysis (ASCE 7-05)

ELF is not permitted:

Structural Analysis, Part 1 - 24

Selection of Method of Analysis (ASCE 7-10)