×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Contact US

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis
2

ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

(OP)
When looking at the ASCE 7 Two Stage Analysis Procedure, there seems to be an anomaly that bothers me and I'm wondering others opinions/experience. In terms of seismic forces, it seems to me that the two stage procedure can be quite beneficial for the upper level light-framing, but can be penalizing on the lower rigid structure (and foundations).

What bothers me is that I could look at it per 12.2.3.1 (ASCE 7-10) for Vertical Combinations and potentially get an overall lower base shear/overturning on the building, but a higher distribution of forces on the upper levels. Or, I could look at it per 12.2.3.2 as a two-stage and get lower distribution of forces on the upper, but larger overall base shear and overturning for the building.

What I would really want to do is design the lower portion per 12.2.3.1 and the upper per 12.2.3.2. It seems pretty clear that is not the intent of the language of the code, but the practical side of me says that if I took the penalty on the upper framing by just using 12.2.3.1, I have a code-complaint lower portion of the structure with lower design forces. But if I design the upper per 12.2.3.2, all of a sudden that same dsign for the lower portion is not code compliant? How does the lower portion know what design methodology I used or what forces the upper levels were designed for?

In my particular current case, I'm looking at a building that is 4 stories of wood framing over 3 stories of P.T. slabs and concrete shear walls, so perhaps this anomaly is more severe than a single level rigid lower portion.

Am I way off on this type of practical thinking? Even if I am not, perhaps I am just yelling at the clouds.

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

Unfortunately I can't dig into this discussion in detail right now. But here is a link to a structure magazine which addresses similar concerns with the dual stage procedure. In my experience the penalty on the upper levels (wood floors carrying some proportion of concrete floor seismic mass) is hard to deal with, which seems to be the original intent of dual stage procedure.

https://www.structuremag.org/?p=19539

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

Quote (cdowney4)

Am I way off on this type of practical thinking?

I believe so. As with load path & stiffness in general, it's somewhat less important that your assumptions are correct and more important that they are consistent throughout your analysis. I don't like the idea of telling one story about the building's dynamic response for the upper levels and a different story for the design of the lower levels.

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

I guess there is a third option, which is to do a dynamic analysis of the entire structure. I think that would land somewhere between the two-stage and the ELF-single structure approaches.

I've heard some people are doing this for wood frames, but oh boy does it not look very fun.

-JA
try Calcs.app and let me know what you think

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

Quote (Sonofatkins)

I've heard some people are doing this for wood frames, but oh boy does it not look very fun.

As in light frame wood buildings? I'd be hard pressed to see the value in that given the wild uncertainty in the stiffness of wood panel shear walls.

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

@cdowney4 The article that I posted covered some specific concerns with dual stage that I think are a bit different from what you are saying. I am curious whether the presumption that dual stage overly penalizes the podium level is actually correct. A case-study would surely help, but it's gonna take some effort lol.

Both methods require scaling of the forces from the above structure to the below structure, and in a combined analysis, the seismic mass of the podium is all still represented, however some of it would be 'pushed up' into the building. I fail to see how the base shear would be less, and in my mind we should expect more overturning would be more if seismic mass of podium is distributed to higher levels. I guess we would just need to see some numbers on it. Sure the diaphragm load at the podium levels would be less using a combined analysis, but the MLFRS should see the same base shear at perhaps more overturning.

Although as @Sonofatkins and @KootK have pointed out, the dynamic analysis of lightframe wood construction is problematic. I think that using code required deflections as the basis for stiffness, one could use the a dynamic model to test the assumption of the dual stage analysis. Supposedly if you make the podium rigid enough it will become uncoupled from the upper structure, this could be tested with a dynamic study. I wouldn't go using the dynamic results for strength design but it could shed some light on the dual stage assumption.

Anyone have time to make a case-study for us? haha perhaps next time I'm traveling I could work up come models.

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

Quote (driftLimiter)

I am curious whether the presumption that dual stage overly penalizes the podium level is actually correct. A case-study would surely help, but it's gonna take some effort lol.

I was wondering the same, particularly once all of the penalties arising from mass and stiffness irregularities are properly applied to both methods. I've no reason do doubt OP's experience but the results are a bit of a surprise to me.

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

(OP)
Thank you all for the thoughts so far. I will re-visit my initial whack at the forces and see if I am correct, and then share some numbers. The project isn't ready for a full analysis yet, so I was just trying to gather my initial thoughts on my approach, and haven't even modeled anything yet. I will admit that I've only done a few podium projects in my career, so my ELFP spreadsheet that I've been using for years isn't quite equipped to automate the two-stage approach (although maybe it should and will be soon...)

By ELFP, when looking at the lower 3 stiff levels by themselves as part of the two-stage procedure, I was seeing a significant decrease in the estimated period as compared to looking at it as one building (with the lower 3 stiff levels plus the 4 upper flexible stories). It was about T(est)= Cu*Ta = 0.46 vs. 0.85. Hopefully I didn't make some simple error in my haste, but will come back here with my tail between my legs if I did.

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

Quote (driftLimiter)

I am curious whether the presumption that dual stage overly penalizes the podium level is actually correct

Quote (KootK)

but the results are a bit of a surprise to me

In my mind the penalty is from the base shear calculation using different period between the lower and upper structures. To exaggerate the situation, and get rid of the difference in R values for a second, consider a high-rise consisting of 36 story concrete tower sitting on a 4 story concrete podium.

Case 1: you have 1 overall period, Tcombined, and a total weight, Wcombined for a 40 story building. Base shear will be V = Cs(Tcombined)*Wcombined.

Case 2: you have podium and tower periods, Tp and Tt, and corresponding weights Wp + Wt = Wcombined. Base shear will be V = Cs(Tp)*Wp + Cs(Tt)*Wt.

For a tall building, the difference between Cs(Tp) and Cs(Tt) will be immense, because the podium will have a period of <0.5sec while the tower could be up at 5sec. One will be at the peak of the response spectrum, one will be in the long-period valley. The difference between Cs(combined) and Cs(Tt) will be negligible. They will likely be governed by the cutoff minimum value.

So a two stage approach has effectively stripped off some mass excited at a low Cs, and applied a high Cs to it. This is the 'penalty', I think.

-JA
try Calcs.app and let me know what you think

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

At the root of our discussion here is the fact that we are performing a simplified dynamic analysis. The overall structure, when combined analysis is used, has a big stiffness and mass discontinuity. It seems that the dynamic response of this type of structure is going to be different than a structure with a more uniform distribution of mass and shear. Perhaps some other mode shape carries more mass participation for the overall structure and it is this period that should be used to determine the base shear. ASCE7-16 C12.8.2 alludes to this oft unused principle regarding the period determination....

Quote (ASCE7-16 C12.8.2)

...The fundamental mode of a structure with a geometrically
complex arrangement of seismic force-resisting systems determined
with a three-dimensional model may be associated with
the torsional mode of response of the system, with mass participating
in both horizontal directions (orthogonal) concurrently.
The analyst must be attentive to this mass participation and
recognize that the period used to compute the design base shear
should be associated to the mode with the largest mass participation
in the direction being considered. Often in this situation,
these periods are close to each other....

I am so curious now how a detailed dynamic model would compare with both methods.

These issues remind me of a paper by Ed Wilson. Interestingly it used to be up publicly on his website and now the link is broken. It is a rather contentious article for an engineer if I do say so myself.
Here is the paper Link

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

What a fun read driftlimiter, thank you for the link.

I am all on board for the removal of response spectrum analysis! Too many odd quirks to it and the analysis often yields close to meaningless values taken at face value.

S&T - www.re-tug.com

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

My overall impression of this is that, for the right kind of building:

1) The simplified, two stage, ELF analysis method should be sufficiently accurate and;

2) The "punishing" loads that the two stage method produces on the podium level are the right loads. This makes perfect sense to me for the "right" kind of building because:

a) If it's flexible over very rigid, as intended, then there's little doubt about the upper stories delivering load to the lower as if the lower were a fixed base.

b) If it's flexible over very rigid, as intended, then the standard shear building approximation that throws faux mass from the podium up to the upper structure is invalid. The substantial mass inertia of the podium structure belongs with the podium structure.

The trick is in determining what kind of buildings are the "right" ones. And, frankly, I feel that we could do this much better than ASCE currently does it. See my proposal below where the metric of interest would be something like del_2 / del_1 < 0.1 (or whatever limit makes sense). In particular, note how this would play out differently for two very different kind of buildings:

a) Buildings where the podium LFRS enforces a matching rotation of the upper LFRS would be far less likely to qualify for two stage. Less concrete towers.

b) Buildings where the podium LFRS does not enforce a matching rotation of the upper LFRS would be more likely to qualify for two stage. More light frame over tanks.

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

(OP)
OK, I am back with some numbers to share, and it seems to be what I thought.

For my building, when doing the Two-Stage procedure, I’m finding the total base shear and total base overturning to be about 78% and 36% higher, respectively, compared to looking at the entire structure as one building with the lower R value.

BUT, when looking at is as one building, the base shear and overturning for the wood framing increase by about 77% and 62% respectively.

For those looking to play along at home and check my numbers, here’s what I have.
- 7 structured levels
- Level 4 (third structured level) is the podium. Levels below are concrete shear walls (R = 5). Levels above are wood (R = 6.5).
- ASCE 7-10, Ss = 0.352, S1 = 0.106, TL = 6, Ct = 0.20, x = 0.75
- Soil Site Class C
- Snow pf = 33.6 psf


Level Mass (k) Height Above Grade (ft)
2 (concrete) 4347 k 9.00
3 (concrete) 4347 k 21.00
4 (concrete) 5541 k 33.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 (wood) 1108 k 43.67
6 (wood) 1108 k 54.33
7 (wood) 1108 k 65.00
8 (wood) 1294 k (w/ 20% snow) 76.67


These are my results:

BASE OF BUILDING:
Analysis Approach Vb (k) – TOTAL @ BASE Mb (k-ft) – TOTAL @ BASE
One Building (R = 5) 530 24,107
Two-Stage (R = 6.5 & 5) 945 (78% increase) 32,878 (36% increase)

BASE OF WOOD FRAMING:
Analysis Approach Vw (k) – @ WOOD base Mw (k-ft) - @ WOOD base
One Building (R = 5) 271 (77% increase) 8,154 (62% Increase)
Two-Stage (R = 6.5) 153 5,032


I will hold my thoughts for a moment and let the numbers speak for themselves. If anyone sees any errors or flaws, let me know.

RE: ASCE 7 Two Stage Seismic Analysis

(OP)
Sorry for the bad format on the tables. I wrote my message elsewhere and then cut and pasted it here. The tabs/indents didn't come thru properly...

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members! Already a Member? Login


Resources

Low-Volume Rapid Injection Molding With 3D Printed Molds
Learn methods and guidelines for using stereolithography (SLA) 3D printed molds in the injection molding process to lower costs and lead time. Discover how this hybrid manufacturing process enables on-demand mold fabrication to quickly produce small batches of thermoplastic parts. Download Now
Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM)
Examine how the principles of DfAM upend many of the long-standing rules around manufacturability - allowing engineers and designers to place a part’s function at the center of their design considerations. Download Now
Taking Control of Engineering Documents
This ebook covers tips for creating and managing workflows, security best practices and protection of intellectual property, Cloud vs. on-premise software solutions, CAD file management, compliance, and more. Download Now

Close Box

Join Eng-Tips® Today!

Join your peers on the Internet's largest technical engineering professional community.
It's easy to join and it's free.

Here's Why Members Love Eng-Tips Forums:

Register now while it's still free!

Already a member? Close this window and log in.

Join Us             Close