Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
NYA Isolation Designs
NYA has designed 12 isolated
buildings in the last 15 years
2
Several efforts to study and promote isolation
3
Why should we study this?
Recent Friction Pendulum buildings in the Bay Area alone:
Stanford Hospital
SF General Hospital
Mills Peninsula Hospital
UCSF Regenerative Medicine
Washington Hospital
Because we can
E-defense is a great data set for this
4
No Clear Design Direction
No clear basis for design assumptions being
used:
Limited references/design guides
Limited discussion in code
Based on Engineering judgment
Carried from past projects by on convention
and expectations of regulatory agencies
5
Prior Work
Largely from a research perspective
Uses research analysis programs
(OpenSees, 3DBASIS, etc.)
Focus on bearing models
Focus on best fit rather than
design assumptions
Does not reflect what designers
are doing now
Small scale
6
Blind Analysis Contest
Pretty simple predict a few response parameters
using only basic building info and input excitation
Strong competition:
~15 teams from research and industry
1st prize gets trip to Japan (during ski season!)
7
Blind Analysis Contest - Results
NYA landed in 4th place
Parameter Error From Test (%)
Not bad
Used typical design Isolator Displacement 11%
assumptions
Base Shear 14%
Drift 1 to 15%
8
Blind Analysis Contest What Now?
We were in the middle of design for Stanford Hospital
Does it matter?
Not really, still conservative with Phi factors and OSHPD requirements
9
Format of the Paper
Pretty basic :
Re-analyze the E-defense building using methods and
assumptions from common practice
consider different assumptions and compare to actual test data
Consider multiple ground motions instead of just one for B.A.
Contest
Compare to more detailed OpenSees model for a reality check
and to see if it is even possible to do any better
10
What is the State of Practice?
Seems to be minor variations of the same overall process
Common Assumptions/Methods:
NLRHA for large projects
X-Y (possibly Z) excitation
Linear Elastic frame and shell elements
Damping varies: 2% and 5%, 2% all, 1% and 2%, etc
Fast Nonlinear Analysis (FNA)
Isolator model using built in SAP elements - Bilinear, Parallel, or Series
Rigid Diaphragms
Isolator P-delta moments superimposed on NLRHA
11
State of Practice Applied to this Study
Item Modeling Assumption Notes
Fast Nonlinear Analysis See section Selection of
Analysis Method
(FNA) Analysis Method
Acceleration Input and
X-Y-Z
Analysis Directions
Linear-elastic frame and shell
Test building was known to
Model Elements elements and nonlinear link
remain linear elastic
elements
2% in all modes, 0% in first 3
See section Selection of
Damping (isolated) modes using Modal
Damping
Overwrites
Determined through a
Number of Modes used in sensitivity analysis - see
200
Analysis section Selection of Number
of Modes
Bilinear model (Sarlis and See section Isolator
Isolator Analytical Model
Constantinou 2010) Modeling
11.0% on outer surfaces, Determined from shake table
Isolator Friction 1.7% on inner surfaces (Dao sinusoidal test see section
et. al. 2013) Isolator Modeling
12
FNA vs. DI
Fast Nonlinear Analysis FNA and Direct Integration (DI) can give very
different results in SAP/ETABS for isolated structures
NYA discovered this simultaneously with the release of a Constantinou paper
Issue is Damping Leakage that introduces artificial damping to the isolators
Perception in practice is that DI is like broccoli and exercise if is more
difficult it must be better for you.
FNA allows direct specification of isolator contribution to damping matrix and
is much faster making it the clear choice for isolated structures in SAP/ETABS
12 FNA
Displacement [in]
8
DIM
4
-4
-8
-12
-16
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time [sec]
13
Isolator Modeling
Several Isolator Models Published: Isolator Friction:
Bilinear using single isolator Typically taken from isolator
embedded in SAP prototype tests.
Parallel model using 2 SAP We took them from sinusoidal
isolator elements tests on the table more accurate
Series model using multiple SAP Used first cycle zero displacement
isolator elements with gap friction
elements
0.2
FP1
FP2 0.15
Total FP
. 0.1
0.05
V/W
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
Displacement (in)
14
Number of Modes in the Analysis
Important but can be overlooked
FNA requires a significant number of modes to capture dynamics
More modes needed for more detailed parameters
Not easy to calculate, recommend doing a sensitivity study
15
Damping
FNA allows two methods of damping:
Mass and Stiffness Proportional
Direct specification of each mode
16
OpenSees Model
Sap results were also compared to an OpenSees model
OpenSees model:
More detailed
Had more work put into it (PHD thesis vs. Design Engineer after hours)
Used totally different methods and assumptions
Shared little with SAP model
Provided a second check beyond the test data
17
Results Modal Properties
Very good agreement without diaphragm constraints in SAP (~1-3% error)
Reduced accuracy with diaphragm constraints (~10% error)
Diaphragm constraints required for realistic floor spectra
1 Translation Y 0.678 sec 0.612 sec (-9.7%) 0.657 sec (-3.1%) 0.687 sec (1.3%)
2 Translation X 0.652 sec 0.598 sec (-8.3%) 0.644 sec (-1.2%) 0.666 sec (2.1%)
18
Results Isolator Displacement
Good agreement (~10% error)
OpenSees only slightly better (likely due to more detailed friction model)
Peak Isolator Displacements (cm)
Record Test SAP2000 OpenSees
100IWA 37 (-2.7%) (5.4%)
80TCU 53 (-11.3%) (1.9%)
70LGP 48 (-8.3%) (2.1%)
100TAK 53 (0.0%) (11.3%)
19
Residual Displacements
Residual displacements had no effect on peak displacements
Has been a topic in OSHPD review
10cm
initial
offset
20
Results Base Shear
SAP had good agreement (~10-15% Error)
21
Results Hysteresis Loops
Not used for design but helpful to verify model is performing as expected
Accuracy of both models was degraded with vertical excitation:
Without Vertical Excitation:
22
Results Drifts
Building was very stiff so drifts were small (0.2%) and ~1/10th of code drift limit
Small drifts more affected by measurement errors
Not really affected by vertical excitation
23
Results Floor Accelerations
Not usually used for design now, but gaining popularity with PBD
Records without Vertical Excitation:
24
Results Floor Accelerations
Records without Vertical Excitation:
25
Compare to Blind Analysis Contest
Some improvement for blind analysis ground motion:
26
Conclusions
SAP results compared well with test data and the OpenSees Model
Likely significantly more accurate than state of practice for fixed base design
27
Recommendations For Design
SAP or ETABS
Use FNA
Modal damping:
Small damping in isolated modes (~0-1%)
Slightly larger damping in superstructure modes (~2-3%)
Bilinear isolator model
Perform sensitivity study to determine number of modes
Use first cycle isolator friction (for nominal properties)
Do not include global P-Delta in analysis (SAP only)
Be careful with rigid diaphragms
Local isolator moments can be superimposed on NLRHA results
28
Future Work
Investigate ETABS Triple Pendulum element in ETABS
Look at effects of friction property modification factors
Look at how the code minimum equations relate to this
29
Thank You
Questions/Comments
30