CE 227 Homework #2 Solutions

Troy Morgan

Problem 3 Preliminary Code-based Estimates of Seismic

Design Forces
This is where we develop a set of actual forces, that we could use to design actual beams and columns,
using equations such as Mn Mu. These forces are based on a prescriptive set of instructions that do not
make a distinction between various performance goals. The forces are increased for structures with
higher importance, but these higher forces do not necessarily correspond to better seismic performance.

1994 UBC Provisions

1. First, we estimate the period using the formula T = 0.035 H0.75. This formula is based on linear
regression analysis of numerous structures of various lateral systems. This formula purposely
underestimates period, as to give a larger force demand for design. Using this period, and a
height of 40.5 ft, we get a period T = 0.56 sec.
2. Now that we have an estimate of period, we can estimate the base shear, given the floor weights,
the soil type, the location, and the importance. This equation is:

V =

ZIC
W
Rw

(1)

Where C = 1.25S/T2/3 (not to exceed 2.75), Rw = 12 (for SMRF), Z = 0.4 (for Zone IV), and S =
1.2 (for S2 for firm soils.) Plugging in W = Wi = 2,370 k + 2,370 k + 1,940 k = 6,680 k, we get
that the base shear for this building is V = 490.5 k, or 7.34% g. Lets not forget that this
corresponds to working stress, not ultimate (i.e. no load factors.)
3. Now, we have an estimate for the design base shear, we can distribute this shear up the height of
the building in a manner consistent with elementary dynamics, considering a single mode. The
equation for the story force at a level x in the building is given by:

Fx = V

wx hx
wi hi

(2)

4. Where V is the base shear defined above, wx is the weight of floor x, and hx is the height above
grade to floor x. Neglected here is the higher mode effects. Applying this equation, and
multiplying by 1.4 to bring the forces to ultimate level, we get the following distribution of story
forces and story shears in the building:

CE 227 Homework #2 Solutions

Troy Morgan

309 k
309 k

252 k
561 k

126 k
687 k

Figure 1: 1994 story forces and story shears (ultimate level)

1997 UBC Provisions

The 1997 UBC is the building code to which structures are currently designed in the State of California,
as it is the basis for the 2001 California Building Code (CBC.) This is first set of provisions to recognize
the effects of near-source ground motions, one reason for the increase in lateral forces for structures
located within 15 km of a major fault.
Here we repeat parts 1 through 4 above, using the 1997 UBC provisions. We should recognize that the
computation of story forces and story shears from above can simply be scaled by the 97 to 94 base shears.
The base shear equation for the 1997 UBC was modified to the following:

V =

Cv I
2.5C a I
W
W
RT
R

(3)

Here, Cv is the constant velocity term, Ca is the constant acceleration term, I is as above, and R is 8.5 (for
SMRF.) For Seismic Zone IV (in which Berkeley resides), Ca = 0.44Na, Cv = 0.64Nv (Na = 1.5, Nv =
1.28 for distance to fault 2 km.) Throwing all this into the above equation for base shear, we get that V
= 1297 kips, or 19.4% g. Note that this is an increase of 89% over the 1994 UBC, even including the
factor to account for ultimate vs. working stress. This increase is due to a) the near source factors and b)
higher peak ground acceleration for Zone IV.
We distribute the story forces and obtain story shears using the same set of equations as the 1994 UBC,
described above. Doing this, we get the distribution of forces and shear up the height of the building as
shown below.

CE 227 Homework #2 Solutions

Troy Morgan

584 k
584 k

476 k
1059 k

238 k
1297 k

Figure 2: 1997 story forces and story shears (ultimate level, as the code writers intended)

Okay, we have wrapped up forced based seismic design. The main thing to note here is that we have only
considered forces, not displacements. The building code is primarily a force-based method, where drifts
are checked at the end and compared to an arbitrary allowable drift. Also observe that the demands have
increased significantly between 1994 and 1997. This does not mean that earthquakes decided to become
more damaging to our built environment during these three years, only that the code writers sought to
make the provisions more closely reflect the seismic demands observed in recorded earthquakes. In both
cases, however, the design forces are based on assumptions which may not be valid depending on the
structure being designed, and the true behavior may vary substantially. It is this premise on which we
enter the next phase of these course, and attempt to develop a rational framework though which seismic
design may be objectively applied.

CE 227 Homework #2 Solutions

Troy Morgan

Problem 4 Free Vibration Analysis

This problem is meant to revisit some of the free-vibration analysis you probably did in CE 225. Here,
instead of setting up a stiffness and mass matrix, then solving the eigenvalue problem to determine natural
frequencies (eigenvalues) and their associated mode shapes (eigenvectors) we use some software that is
conveniently set up for this purpose. It may be useful in the future to look at the mass and stiffness
matrices, but for know we will only concern ourselves with the output quantities.

Part A
For our building, a single moment frame may be modeled, since the frames are symmetric and all have
identical weight tributary thereto. The framing in the moment frames has been provided (based on a 1994
UBC compliant lateral design), as have the floor weights. These floor weights are inclusive of all sources
of dead load, which include steel weights, concrete slabs, MEP, fireproofing, cladding, and partitions.
The live loads, which are only 50 psf, should not be included as part of the seismic mass, since this load is
transient, and very unlikely to be even partially present in a seismic event. A notable exception to the
omission of live load in seismic weight is for libraries, storage warehouses, and other facilities where bulk
storage is present.
Figures 3, 4, and 5 show the modes of vibration for the first periods of the building. Table 2 lists the
mode shapes for the first three periods, normalized to the roof modal ordinate.

Figure 3: Mode 1, T = 1.09 seconds

CE 227 Homework #2 Solutions

Troy Morgan

Figure 4: Mode 2, T = 0.37 seconds

Figure 5: Mode 3, T = 0.21 seconds

Table 2: Mode shapes for first three modes

Roof
2
1
Base

Mode 1
1.00
0.69
0.30
0

Mode 2
1.00
-0.77
-0.97
0

Mode 3
1.00
-2.39
2.75
0

Part B
The 1997 UBC estimate of period for this structure, based on the empirical formula T = 0.035 H0.75 is
0.56 seconds. This is almost half of the computed fundamental period. There are two likely explanations
for this discrepancy:
1. The UBC estimate of period is intentionally lower than the actual computed period because, in
the context of a force-based design, this is conservative. Since the base shear is larger for shorter
periods, the demands that the structural elements would be designed for are larger for shorted
periods. This leads to larger structural elements, hence the conservatism. We will see later how
this sort of thinking may be detrimental to the performance of the structure.

CE 227 Homework #2 Solutions

Troy Morgan

2. The framing, as provided, was sized based on a 1994 UBC force-based analysis. While the
members in the moment frame may be stronger that required by the code, the steel sections have
not been sized to limit drifts. It would be expected that, were you to calculate the drift demands
even under the 1994 UBC spectrum, these would be well in excess of the 2.5% we typically
consider to be the life safety minimum. More on this later
The computed mode fundamental mode shape (listed in Table 2 above) is very close to that implied by the
UBC. As we discussed, the UBC assumes a linear mode shape, that is, one whose modal ordinates at
each level are proportional to the height above fixity. A comparison of the UBC-assumed and computed
mode shapes is presented below in Figure 6.
45

Computed Mode Shape

40

UBC Implied Mode

Shape

35

Height (ft.)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

Modal ordinate

Figure 6: Comparison of UBC implied and computed mode shapes

Part C
Releasing rotational fixity at the base of the columns will obviously lead to an elongation of the natural
period of moment-frame structure, and a change in the mode shape. The first three periods of the
structure become T1 = 1.6 sec (increase of 48%), T2 = 0.45 sec (increase of 23%) and T3 = 0.23 sec
(increase of 8%). There is clearly less change at the higher modes. The new mode shapes are shown
below in Table 3.
Table 3: Mode shapes for first three modes (after release of base rotational fixity)

Roof
2
1
Base

Mode 1
1.00
0.84
0.58
0.00

Mode 2
1.00
-0.34
-0.92
0.00

Mode 3
1.00
-2.13
1.67
0.00