Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
4.1 Introduction
The chapter begins with a summary of the main findings of the Phase I Pilot
Study.
4.2.1 Objective
The main objective of this Pilot Study was to evaluate current numerical
definitions of short period buildings and evaluate various complex behaviors
that would need to be introduced to the analytical models in order to better
predict the recorded response of the Templeton Building and offer more
realistic predictions of its collapse capacity.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-1
Only the instrumented North (N) wing of the hospital (see Figure 4-1) was
analyzed in the pilot study as a stand-alone structure. The vertical elements
of the seismic force resisting-system (SFRS) of the North wing structure
consists of perimeter wood shear walls along with interior wood shear walls
in the east-west direction, as illustrated in Figure 4-2. The vertical wood
shear walls are made of 2 x 6 studs at 16’ o.c. sheathed with ½-inch plywood
on one side. The horizontal elements of the SFRS of the North wing consists
of wood roof diaphragms sheathed with ½-inch plywood. The building is
founded on concrete grade beams located below the wood shear walls and on
top of a 5 in. thick concrete slab on grade.
Figure 4-1 Photographs of the North (N) wing of the Templeton Hospital
(Courtesy of John Lawson).
51’
51’
21’-5”
21’5’’ 21’-5”
21’5’
87’ 87’ 110’10’’110’-10”
Roof diaphragm 8’2’’
inelastic springs
N (360o)
Figure 4-2 Vertical elements of the SFRS of the North wing of the
Wall inelastic spring Templeton Hospital.
N-S
4-2 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
E-W
Wall inelastic spring
instrumentation and a free-field instrument (installed after the 2003 San
Simeon earthquake). Instruments are located at the ground floor slab and on
the roof of the north and west wings of the building. Channel 2 (ground
floor) and Channels 4, 5 and 6 (roof) are oriented in the East (E) direction.
Channels 4 and 5 are near the top of shear walls at the north and south ends
of the North wing. Channel 6 is located on the diaphragm approximately at
the mid-point between Channels 4 and 5. The CSMIP record sets include
processed records, response spectra and Fourier spectra of each record.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-3
seismic forces to the vertical elements of the SFRS in order to
evaluate the increased flexibility due to complex behaviors caused by
the in-plane wood roof diaphragm. Note that a very small viscous
damping ratio of 0.1% of critical (nominally zero damping) was
introduced in Model 2 since hysteretic damping in both the vertical
wood shear walls and horizontal roof diaphragm were explicitly
considered.
Non-linear response history analyses were performed for each of the two
models under the ground motions recorded at the Templeton Hospital site
during the 2003 San Simeon Earthquake. Comparisons between predicted
and recorded acceleration time-histories in various locations of the building
were made in order to evaluate the effects of the different levels of
complexities included in the two models. Incremental dynamic analyses were
also conducted using the FEMA P695 Methodology (FEMA 2009) in order
to evaluate the effects of complex behaviors on the collapse capacity of the
building.
Figure 4-4 shows the pushover curves in each principal direction of the north
wing of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 1. The seismic
coefficient (base shear / seismic weight) at peak strength is close to 0.9 in
both directions indicating a very laterally strong building. The peak strength
of the building occurs at a drift ratio of 2% in the East-West direction and at
2.2% in the North-South direction.
4-4 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
North-South (360 degrees) East-West (90 degrees)
1
0.8
Seismic Coefficient
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Roof Drift Ratio (%)
Figure 4-5 shows the first two natural periods and mode shapes of the north
wing of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 1. The fundamental
periods of the building in the East-West and North-Direction are very close
to each other. A predicted fundamental period of 0.160 sec is consistent with
the dominant period of roof response of the north wing in the E direction of
about 0.2s (5Hz) measured during the 2003 San Simeon earthquake.
Y (in)
500 500
500
0
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 -500 0 500 1000 -500 0 500 1000
X (in) X (in) X (in)
Figure 4-6 compares the time histories of relative roof displacements (drifts)
and absolute roof accelerations measured in the East-West direction by
Channel 5 during the San Simeon earthquake against the predictions of Model
1. The model underestimates by approximately 35% both the measured peak
drift and acceleration. Significant differences between predicted and measured
response also occur throughout the dynamic response histories.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-5
Relative Roof drift
Channel 5 - EW Model 1a
0.6
0.4
0.2
Drift (%)
0
-0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.4 0.40%
-0.6 0.60%
-0.8
Time (sec)
Absolute roof acceleration
Channel 5 - EW Model 1a
1
0.8 0.79g
Acceleration (g)
0.6 0.51g
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Time (sec)
Figure 4-7 compares the time histories of relative roof displacements (drifts)
and absolute roof accelerations measured in the North-South direction by
Channel 9 during the San Simeon earthquake against the predictions of
Model 1. Again, the model significantly underestimates the measured peak
drift and acceleration and is unable to predict accurately the details of the
response histories.
4-6 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Relative roof displacement (drift)
0
-0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.4 0.41%
-0.6 0.64%
-0.8
Time (sec)
Absolute roof acceleration
0.8 Channel 9 - NS Model 1a
0.6 0.60g
Acceleration (g)
0.4 0.37g
0.2
0
-0.2 0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
Time (sec)
Figure 4-8 shows the pushover curves in each principal direction of the North
wing of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 2. Again, the seismic
coefficient (base shear / seismic weight) at peak strength is above 0.9 in both
directions indicating a very laterally strong building. Again, the peak strength
of the building occurs at a drift ratio of 2% in the East-West direction and at
2.2% in the North-South direction.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-7
North-South (360 degrees) East-West (90 degrees)
1
0.8
Seismic Coefficient
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Roof Drift Ratio (%)
Figure 4-9 shows the first three natural periods and mode shapes of the north
wing of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 2. Similar to Model 1,
the fundamental periods of the building in the East-West and North-South
directions are very close to each other. The fundamental period of 0.190 sec
predicted by Model 2 is almost identical to the dominant period of roof
response of the north wing in the E direction of about 0.2s (5 Hz) measured
during the San Simeon earthquake.
Y (in)
Y (in)
Y (in)
500 500
500
0
0 0
-500 0 500 1000 -500 0 500 1000 -500
X (in) X (in)
Figure 4-10 compares the central portions (20 to 30 sec) of time histories of
relative roof displacements (drifts) and absolute roof accelerations measured
in the East-West direction by Channel 5 during the San Simeon earthquake
against the predictions of Model 2. The model predicts almost exactly both
the measured peak drift and acceleration. In addition, almost perfect
correlation can be observed between the predicted and measured dynamic
4-8 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
response histories. This result indicates that the in-plane flexibility of the
roof diaphragm was an important contributor to the dynamic response of the
North wing of the Templeton hospital during the San Simeon earthquake.
Relative roof displacement (drift)
Channel
Channel 55 -- EW
EW Model 2a
Model 2a -- 0%
0% damping
damping
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
Drift (%)
Drift (%)
00
-0.2200
-0.2 22
10 24
20 26
30 28
40 30
50
0.58%
-0.4
-0.4 0.60%
0.58% - Predicted
-0.6
-0.6 0.60% - Measured
-0.8
-0.8
Time
Time (sec)
(sec)
Absolute roof acceleration 2nd Floor Plan
Channel
Channel55- -EW
EW Model
Model2a
2a--0%
0%damping
damping
11
0.8
0.8 0.79g - Measured0.79g
0.77g - Predicted 0.77g
Acceleration (g)
Acceleration (g)
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
00
-0.2
-0.2200 22
10 24
20 26
30 28
40 30
50
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
Time
Time(sec)
(sec)
Figure 4-11 compare the central portions (20 to 30 sec) of the time histories
of relative roof displacements (drifts) and absolute roof accelerations
measured in the North-South direction by Channel 9 during the San Simeon
earthquake against the predictions of Model 1. Again, Model 2 predicts
almost perfectly the measured drift and acceleration histories. The level of
drift level predicted by Model 2 (0.58%) is consistent with the observed
quasi-elastic response of the building during the San Simeon earthquake.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-9
Relative roof displacement (drift)
Channel
Channel 99 -- NS
NS Model 2a - 0% damping
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
(%)
Drift (%)
00
Drift
-0.2 20
-0.2 0 22
10 24
20 26
30 28
40 30
50
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6 0.61% - Predicted 0.61%
0.64% - Measured 0.64%
-0.8
-0.8
Absolute roof acceleration
Time
Time (sec)
(sec)
Absolute roof acceleration 2nd Floo
Channel
Channel 99 -- NS
NS Model
Model 2a
2a--0%
0%damping
damping
0.8
0.8
0.60g - Measured 0.60g
0.6
0.6 0.58g - Predicted
0.58g
(g)
Acceleration (g)
0.4
0.4
Acceleration
0.2
0.2
00
-0.2 0
-0.2 20 10
22 20
24 30
26 40
28 50
30
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.6
-0.8
-0.8
Time
Time (sec)
(sec)
Figure 4-12 shows the resulting bi-directional IDA curves and collapse
fragility curve predicted by Model 2. The median collapse capacity from the
analysis is 2.09 g. According to FEMA P695, this raw collapse capacity
needs to be multiplied by a bi-directional calibration factor of 1.2 to account
for bi-directional effects and by a spectral shape factor equal to 1.14 in this
case. The resulting FEMA P695 median collapse capacity then becomes 2.86
g. This FEMA P695 collapse performance is not consistent (i.e. an order of
4-10 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
magnitude too low) with the Office of Emergency Services (OES) Red Tag
data from the 1994 Northridge earthquake, as discussed in Chapter 2.
Fitted Lognormal Fragility
5 1
4 0.8
Sa (T=0.25 sec) [g]
P[Collapse]
3 0.6
2 0.4
Median( )=2.09 g
1 0.2
Variance( )= 0.39
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Max. interstory drift(%) Sa (T=0.25 sec) [g]
Figure 4-12 Bi-directional IDA curves and collapse fragility of the North wing
of the Templeton Hospital predicted by Model 2.
It is important to note that this excellent correlation was obtained despite the
consideration of non-structural wall finishes on the exterior walls (stucco on
the outside and gypsum wallboard on the inside) and of the interior gypsum
wallboard partition walls. Limited supplementary analyses incorporating wall
finishes in Model 2 showed very little difference in elastic dynamic response.
This can be attributed to the already very high lateral strength and stiffness of
the Templeton Hospital contributed by the wood shear walls, which
overwhelmed the effects of non-structural wall finishes. It is believed that the
effects of non-structural wall finishes will be more significant for the code-
compliant Chapter 3 archetype designs.
Finally, the FEMA P695 collapse performance predicted by the model of the
Templeton Hospital is not consistent (one order of magnitude too low) with
OES Red Tag data from the 1994 Northridge earthquake. Other modeling
features not considered in the pilot study (but considered in this report) may
also be important. More sophisticated modeling (e.g. three-dimensional
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-11
modeling with more accurate building response characteristics) needs to be
developed for this purpose.
The elastic flexural and axial stiffness of vertical wall studs are modeled
using 3D, two-node 12-degrees-of-freedom (DOF) elastic frame elements.
The vertical wall panel-to-framing assemblies are modeled using 6-DOF,
Frame-to-Frame (F2F) link elements. For this project, only one (lateral) DOF
of the F2F link element is activated to model the lateral non-linear cyclic
response of vertical walls sheathed with wood panels and other (non-
structural) materials.
4-12 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
30
F (u,Fu)
K0 1r K
A 2 0
20
1 G I
F0
F0
10 Kp K 0
0
K max
Force, F (kN)
F
FI 1
E B
0 O r4K0
1 C 1 120 C y c lic L o a d in g P r o to c o l
I
r3K0
Displacement (mm)
-10 80
A G
40
0 O
-20
D H
-40
D
-80
-30
-80 -40 0 40 80 120
Displacement, (mm)
Parameter
Definition
(see Fig. 4-13)
K0 Initial stiffness
F0 Force intercept of the asymptotic stiffness at ultimate strength
FI Zero-displacement load intercept
u Displacement at ultimate load
r1 Asymptotic stiffness ratio under monotonic load
r2 Post-capping strength stiffness ratio under monotonic load
r3 Unloading stiffness ratio
r4 Re-loading pinched stiffness ratio
Hysteretic parameter for stiffness degradation
Hysteretic parameter for stiffness degradation
The CUREE hysteretic rule is modified for this project in order to introduce a
user-defined residual strength of vertical walls. The post-capping strength
stiffness (r2K0) is replaced by an S-shaped curve anchored at a displacement
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-13
Dx and converging to pre-determined residual strength level at large
displacements, as shown in Fig. 4-14.
4-14 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
to foundation elements) and hold-down device flexibility, as described later.
The modeling methods and physical properties assigned to these individual
elements are briefly described in the following sections.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-15
The non-linear lateral cyclic response of the sheathing-to-framing
assembly.
The imperfect connectivity (e.g. uplift) between the end studs and
the sill plate.
Nodes
4 ft. or 8 ft.
0 ft. Wood top plate:
Elastic beam element
Node
End stud:
12-DOF elastic
10 ft. frame elements
Shear wall:
6-DOF F2F link element
with CUREE hysteresis rule
Concrete foundation:
Elastic beam element
0 ft.
Nodes
The building block could represent walls with various sheathing materials.
For this purpose, each sheathing material is assigned its individual CUREE
hysteretic rule parameters. The following FEMA P-807 combination rules
are applied for determining how different sheathing types interact when
applied to the same wall segment (FEMA 2012).
2. Walls sheathed with dissimilar materials are added with 100 percent
of the strength of the strongest sheathing type and 50% of the
strength for the other sheathing types. The stiffness of all materials
remain at 100% of their individual properties.
Table 4-2 defines the nine different individual vertical wall building blocks
(made of single sheathing materials) included in the archetype designs of
Chapter 3.
4-16 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Table 4-2 Definition of Individual Vertical Wall Building Blocks
Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
Building
Definition
Block ID
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-17
Table 4-3 CUREE Hysteretic Parameters for 8 ft. x 10 ft. Individual
Vertical Wall Building Blocks Contained in Chapter 3
Archetype Designs.
Building K0 F0 FI u
r1 r2 r3 r4 α β
Block ID [kip/in] [kip] [kip] [in]
OSB-Low 15.00 3.830 2.1600 1.91 0.0760 -0.0278 1.01 0.005 0.75 1.05
OSB-
15.00 8.120 2.5000 1.92 0.0760 -0.0463 1.06 0.005 0.75 1.04
Medium
OSB-High 24.00 13.00 4.8000 1.92 0.0760 -0.0463 1.02 0.005 0.77 1.15
OSB-
12.00 3.064 1.7280 1.91 0.0760 -0.0278 1.01 0.005 0.75 1.05
Nonstruc
Min Gyp 5.20 1.190 0.3352 0.96 0.1700 -0.0534 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Max Gyp 9.10 1.940 0.5363 0.96 0.1500 -0.0488 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Nonstruc
2.50 1.260 0.3352 0.96 0.4600 -0.1111 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Gyp
Stucco 25.00 4.000 1.3471 1.20 0.1335 -0.0266 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
Siding 1.13 0.600 0.0200 4.80 0.1700 -0.0373 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
Building K0 F0 FI u
r1 r2 r3 r4 α β
Block ID [kip/in] [kip] [kip] [in]
OSB-Low 5.0000 2.32 2.1600 1.91 0.076 -0.0417 1.01 0.005 0.75 1.05
OSB-
5.0000 4.99 2.5000 1.92 0.092 -0.0695 1.06 0.005 0.75 1.04
Medium
OSB-High 8.0000 7.98 4.8000 1.92 0.092 -0.0695 1.02 0.005 0.77 1.15
OSB-
4.0000 1.86 1.7280 1.91 0.076 -0.0417 1.01 0.005 0.75 1.05
Nonstruc
Min Gyp 1.7333 1.19 0.3352 0.96 0.090 -0.0801 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Max Gyp 3.0333 1.70 0.5363 0.96 0.090 -0.0732 1.45 0.017 0.38 1.09
Nonstruc
1.2500 0.63 0.1676 0.96 0.460 -0.1111 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
Gyp
Stucco 8.3333 2.53 1.3471 1.20 0.155 -0.0400 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
Siding 0.3767 0.41 0.0200 4.80 0.200 -0.0560 1.45 0.005 0.38 1.09
4-18 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Backbone Curves for 8 ft. x 10 ft. Wall Building Blocks (30%Fmax)
18
OSB Nonstruc
16 OSB Low
OSB Medium
14 OSB High
Gyp Min
12 Gyp Max
Gyp Nonstruc
Force (kip)
10 Stucco
Siding
0
0 5 10 15
Drift (%)
Figure 4-17 Comparison of backbone curves for 8 ft. x 10 ft. individual
vertical wall building blocks contained in Chapter 3 archetype
Backbone Curves for 4 ft. x 10 ft. Wall Building Blocks (30%Fmax)
designs.
18
OSB Nonstruc
16 OSB Low
OSB Medium
14 OSB High
Gyp Min
12 Gyp Max
Gyp Nonstruc
Force (kip)
10 Stucco
Siding
0
0 5 10 15
Drift (%)
Figure 4-18 Comparison of backbone curves for 4 ft. x 10 ft. individual
vertical wall building blocks contained in Chapter 3 archetype
designs.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-19
Table 4-5 Definition of Vertical Wall Building Block Combinations
Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
Combo
Wall Type Description
ID
Exterior-6 Exterior Walls OSB-Med with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside face.
Exterior-7 Exterior Walls OSB-High with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside face.
OSB-Nonstruc with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on inside
Exterior-8 Exterior Walls
face.
OSB-Low both sides with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
Exterior-9 Exterior Walls
inside face.
OSB-Med both sides with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
Exterior-10 Exterior Walls
inside face.
OSB-High both sides with Stucco over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
Exterior-11 Exterior Walls
inside face.
OSB-Low both sides with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
Exterior-12 Exterior Walls
inside face.
OSB-Med both sides with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
Exterior-13 Exterior Walls
inside face.
OSB-High both sides with Siding over it, Nonstruc. Gyp. on
Exterior-14 Exterior Walls
inside face.
Interior-1 Interior walls Min. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-2 Interior walls Max. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-3 Interior walls Nonstruc. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-4 Interior walls OSB-Low one side, Nonstruc. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-5 Interior walls OSB-Med one side, Nonstruc. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-6 Interior walls OSB-High on one side, Nonstruc. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-7 Interior walls OSB-Low one side, Min. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-8 Interior walls OSB-Med one side, Min. Gyp. both sides.
Interior-9 Interior walls OSB-High on one side, Min. Gyp. both sides.
Party &
PartyCor-1 Min. Gyp. one side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-2 Max. Gyp. one side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-3 Nonstruc. Gyp. one side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-4 OSB-Low with Nonstruc. Gyp. same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-5 OSB-Med with Nonstruc. Gyp. Same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-6 OSB-High with Nonstruc. Gyp. Same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-7 OSB-Low with Min. Gyp. same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-8 OSB-Med with Min. Gyp. Same side.
Corridor Walls
Party &
PartyCor-9 OSB-High with Min. Gyp. Same side.
Corridor Walls
4-20 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Figures 4-19 and 4-20 compare the backbone force-displacement
relationships for the 8ft. x 10 ft. and 4ft. x 10 ft. building block combinations,
respectively, based on FEMA P-807 combination rules described earlier.
Figure 4-19 Comparison of backbone curves for 8 ft. x 10 ft. vertical wall
building block combinations contained in Chapter 3 archetype
designs.
Figure 4-20 Comparison of backbone curves for 4 ft. x 10 ft. vertical wall
building block combinations contained in Chapter 3 archetype
designs.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-21
For the purpose of comparison and validation of analysis results, a number of
characteristics response properties consistent with the FEMA P795
definitions (FEMA 2011) were calculated for the individual and
combinations of vertical wall building block backbone curves. Note that
FEMA P795 would require calculating these parameters based on cyclic test
results. However, because it has been shown experimentally that, the
monotonic and cyclic backbone curves for wood, gypsum and stucco wall
assemblies under seismic input are similar (Gatto and Uang 2001); the
monotonic backbone curves of the building blocks are used to calculate the
response parameters. These characteristic response parameters are:
The secant stiffness at 40% of the peak strength, K40, in the loading
portion of the force-displacement response.
The drift at 80% of the peak strength, u,80, in the post-capping
portion of the force-displacement response.
The maximum drift, u,max, in the post-capping portion of the force
displacement response. For the individual and combinations of
vertical wall building block backbone curves, u,max, is taken as the
drift level corresponding to the start of the residual strength plateau.
This response parameter is not included in FEMA P795 but is
introduced in this study because of the consideration of residual
strengths in the archetype models.
Tables 4-6 and 4-7 present the FEMA P795 characteristics response
parameters for the individual vertical wall building blocks and for the vertical
wall building block combinations, respectively.
4-22 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Table 4-6 FEMA P795 CUREE Characteristic Response Parameters for
Individual Vertical Wall Building Blocks Contained in
Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
Combo ID
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-23
Table 4-7 FEMA P795 CUREE Characteristic Response Parameters for
Vertical Wall Building Block Combinations Contained in
Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
4-24 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
4.3.4 Imperfect Connectivity between Wood Sill Plate and Concrete
Foundation
To model the influence of imperfect connectivity between the wood sill plate
and the concrete foundation on the response of the archetype designs of
Chapter 3, linear F2F link elements are introduced between the concrete
foundation and the wood sill plate, as illustrated in Fig. 4-21. The F2F link
elements represent the axial response of the anchor (shear) bolts at the
locations provided by the designs of Chapter 3. The wood sill plate is
modelled by elastic beam elements. The vertical DOFs of the F2F link
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-25
elements are released to model the separation between the wood sill plate and
the concrete foundation.
Wood Sill plate
(Elastic Beam element)
Nodes
Concrete foundation
Shear Bolt
0 ft. (Elastic Beam Element)
Springs
Nodes
KTsb
Contraction Elongation
KCsb
Compression
In tension, each F2F element is assigned a linear stiffness (KTsb) equal to the
tensile stiffness of the un-bonded portion of the shear bolt (Kb) in series with
the compression stiffness of the wood sill plate (Kw) under the plate washer:
K bK w
K Tsb
Kb Kw
[4-1]
E A E /R A pw Cb l 0.375
with : K b b b ; K w w ; Cb b
h h lb
where:
Eb = Young’s modulus of the shear bolt (29,000 ksi).
Ab = Cross-sectional area of the shear bolt.
h = Thickness of the wood sill plate (1.5 in. for 2x sill plates and 2.5
in. for 3x sill plates).
Ew = Young’s modulus of the wood sill plate parallel to grain (1700
ksi).
R = Reduction factor for Young’s modulus of the wood sill plate
perpendicular to grain taken as 30 in this study.
Apw = Cross-sectional area of the plate washer.
4-26 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
lb = bearing length between the plate washer and the wood sill plate.
The un-bonded length of a shear bolt is assumed equal to the thickness of the
wood sill plate (e.g. 1.5 in. for a 2 x 4 sill plate). The contact area between
the plate washer and the wood sill plate is multiplied by the bearing area
factor Cb from the 2015 NDS to obtain a more realistic effective contact area
between the plate washer and the wood still plate.
K Csb
E w /R w s [4-2]
h
where:
w = Width of the wood sill plate (3.5 in. for 2x4 and 2x6 sill plates
and 5.5 in. for 2x6 and 3x6 sill plates).
s = Spacing of the shear bolts.
Table 4-8 lists the physical properties and tensile stiffness values assigned to
the different anchor bolt and sill plate configurations included in the
archetype designs of Chapter 3. Table 4-9 list the corresponding compression
stiffness.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-27
Table 4-8 Physical Properties and Tensile stiffness for Anchor Bolt and
Sill Plate Configurations Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype
Designs.
Ab lb Apw Kb Kw KTsb
Configuration Cb
(in2) (in) (in2) (kip/in) (kip/in) (kip/in)
Table 4-9 Compression stiffness for Anchor Bolt and Sill Plate
Configurations Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
Configuration KCsb (kip/in)
2x4 sill plate; 1/2" or 5/8" diameter shear bolts spaced at 48" o.c. 6347
2x4 sill plate; 1/2" diameter shear bolts spaced at 40" o.c. 5289
2x4 sill plate; 1/2" diameter shear bolts spaced at 72" o.c. 9520
3x4 sill plate; 5/8" diameter shear bolts spaced at 40" o.c. 3173
3x4 sill plate; 3/4" diameter shear bolts spaced at 24" o.c. 1904
3x4 sill plate; 3/4" diameter shear bolts spaced at 12" o.c. 952
2x6 sill plate; 1/2" or 5/8" diameter shear bolts spaced at 48" o.c. 9973
2x6 sill plate; 1/2" diameter shear bolts spaced at 40" o.c. 8311
2x6 sill plate; 1/2" diameter shear bolts spaced at 72" o.c. 14960
3x6 sill plate; 5/8" diameter shear bolts spaced at 40" o.c. 4987
3x6 sill plate; 3/4" diameter shear bolts spaced at 24" o.c. 2992
3x6 sill plate; 3/4" diameter shear bolts spaced at 12" o.c. 1496
4-28 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
4.3.5 Imperfect Connectivity between Vertical Studs and Sill Plate
4 ft. or 8 ft.
Vertical wall
10 ft. building block
Sill plate:
Elastic beam element
0 ft. End Studs
Springs
Nodes
FyTes
KTes KTes
Contraction Elongation
KCes
Compression
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-29
tension is included. In compression, each F2F element is assigned a linear
stiffness (KCes) equal to the compression stiffness under a pack of studs:
E w /R AspCb
K Ces
h
L 0.375 [4-3]
with : Cb b
Lb
where:
The contact area between the pack of studs and the wood sill plate is
multiplied by the bearing area factor Cb from the 2015 NDS to obtain a more
realistic bearing area.
Table 4-10 lists the physical properties, tensile stiffness values and yield
strengths assigned to the different end studs springs for the wall
configurations included in the archetype designs of Chapter 3. Table 4-11
lists the corresponding compression stiffness.
4-30 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Table 4-10 Physical Properties, Tensile stiffness and Yield Strength for
End of Studs Configurations Contained in Chapter 3
Archetype Designs.
Nominal Ground Level Upper Floors
Shear
Strength
Combo ID Ktes FYTes Ktes FYTes
for 8'
Long Wall (kip/in) (kip) (kip/in) (kip)
(kip)
Exterior-1 10.64 26.59 2.66 13.30 1.33
Exterior-2 14.63 36.57 3.66 18.28 1.83
Exterior-3 20.63 51.58 5.16 25.79 2.58
Exterior-4 9.44 23.59 2.36 11.79 1.18
Exterior-5 7.34 18.36 1.84 9.18 0.92
Exterior-6 11.34 28.34 2.83 14.17 1.42
Exterior-7 17.34 43.34 4.33 21.67 2.17
Exterior-8 6.14 15.35 1.54 7.68 0.77
Exterior-9 16.64 41.60 4.16 20.80 2.08
Exterior-10 24.63 61.57 6.16 30.78 3.08
Exterior-11 36.63 91.57 9.16 45.79 4.58
Exterior-12 13.35 33.37 3.34 16.68 1.67
Exterior-13 21.34 53.34 5.33 26.67 2.67
Exterior-14 33.34 83.34 8.33 41.67 4.17
Interior-1 4.00 10.00 1.00 5.00 0.50
Interior-2 6.40 16.00 1.60 8.00 0.80
Interior-3 4.00 10.00 1.00 5.00 0.50
Interior-4 6.87 17.18 1.72 8.59 0.86
Interior-5 10.87 27.17 2.72 13.58 1.36
Interior-6 16.87 42.17 4.22 21.08 2.11
Interior-7 6.87 17.18 1.72 8.59 0.86
Interior-8 10.87 27.17 2.72 13.58 1.36
Interior-9 16.87 42.17 4.22 21.08 2.11
PartyCor-1 2.00 5.00 0.50 2.50 0.25
PartyCor-2 3.20 8.00 0.80 4.00 0.40
PartyCor-3 2.00 5.00 0.50 2.50 0.25
PartyCor-4 6.87 17.18 1.72 8.59 0.86
PartyCor-5 10.87 27.17 2.72 13.58 1.36
PartyCor-6 16.87 42.17 4.22 21.08 2.11
PartyCor-7 6.87 17.18 1.72 8.59 0.86
PartyCor-8 10.87 27.17 2.72 13.58 1.36
PartyCor-9 16.87 42.17 4.22 21.08 2.11
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-31
Table 4-11 Physical Properties and Compression Stiffness or End of
Studs Configurations Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype
Designs.
Asp Lb KCes
Configuration Cb
(in2) (in) (kip/in)
4-32 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
4.3.6 Imperfect Connectivity from Hold-Down Rods
Vertical
10 ft. wall
building
block Hold-down spring
0 ft.
0.02 KThdr
FyThdr
KThdr KThdr
Contraction Elongation
Compression
where:
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-33
Hf = Floor height (10 ft.).
A yield strength in tension (FyThdr ) is equal to the gross area yield strength of
the rod with 2% strain hardening:
Fyhdr A r Fyr
[4-5]
where Fyr is the yield strength of the steel rod (36 ksi).
Table 4-12 lists the physical properties, tensile stiffness values and yield
strengths assigned to the different hold-down rod springs for the different
hold-down rod configurations included in the archetype designs of Chapter 3.
4-34 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Table 4-12 Physical Properties, Tensile stiffness and Yield Strength for
Hold-down Rod Configurations Contained in Chapter 3
Archetype Designs.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-35
4.3.7 Imperfect Connectivity from Conventional Hold-Down Devices
Vertical
10 ft. wall
building
block
Hold-down spring
Concrete foundation
Elastic beam element
0 ft.
Hold-down springs
Force-displacement response
Tension
KThdd
FyThdd
KThdd KThdd
Contraction Elongation
Compression
4-36 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Table 4-13 Description and Physical Properties of Conventional Hold-
down Devices Contained in Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
KThdd FyThdd
Hold-down ID
(kip/in) (kip)
Vertical
10 ft. wall Steel strap springs
building
block
0 ft.
0.02 KTss
FyTss
KThss KThss
Contraction Elongation
Compression
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-37
initial stiffness (KThss) equal to the tensile stiffness of the gross section of the
strap:
E ss A ss
K Tss [4-6]
l ss
where:
Table 4-14 describes and lists the physical properties assigned to the various
steel straps contained in the archetype designs of Chapter 3.
4-38 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Concrete foundation
(Elastic Beam element)
Nodes
Soil
0 ft.
Springs
Fixed
base
Nodes
Soil springs Soil springs
Horizontal Force-displacement response Vertical Force-displacement response
Tension Tension
KTss
Contraction Elongation
Contraction Elongation
KCss KCss
FyCss
0.1KCss
Compression Compression
Two different sites were selected with different target values of average
shear-velocity down to 30 m (VS30). The first site is a soft site with VS30 =
1180 ft./sec, while the second site is a stiff site with VS30 = 590 ft./sec. The
non-linear soils springs were derived for a Seismic Design Category (SDC)
D only.
In the horizontal direction, only linear soil springs with stiffness KTss were
developed. For the archetype designs of Chapter 3, the connectivity of the
footing to the slab provides a large area, which would make the horizontal
soils strength very high. In the vertical direction, bilinear compression-only
soils springs were developed. The initial compression stiffness values of the
vertical soil springs, KCss, were developed using the relations by Gazetas and
Roesset (1976, 1979). A post yield stiffness of 10% of the pre-yield stiffness
was selected based on judgement and observations of typical shapes of lab
stress-strain curves for soft to medium dense soil materials. No viscous
damping was provided with the soils springs because of inability of the
Timber 3D software to accommodate discrete viscous dashpot elements.
Hysteretic soil damping is introduced when the vertical non-linear soils
springs yield. The yield strength of the vertical soil springs, FyCss, is based on
a soil friction angle of 30o and a vertical effective stress doubled from the
total stress to allow for matric suction effects.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-39
Table 4-15 lists the physical properties assigned to the various soil springs
included in the archetype designs of Chapter 3 considered for the Soil-
Structure Interaction (SSI)/foundation flexibility parametric study (see
Section 4.5.4). The horizontal and vertical stiffness values are provided in
units of stiffness per unit length. These values can be multiplied by a
tributary length for a given spring to compute the stiffness for that spring.
The Bearing capacity values for the vertical spring are provided in units of
force/area. These can be converted to a force capacity by multiplying by the
footing width and tributary length.
8 ft. long
27.7 42.0 8.4 358.7 483.9 71.4
Min/Max Gyp
4 ft. long
27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5
Min/Max Gyp
Nonstruc Gyp 27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5
MFD2B-F
8 ft. long
27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5
OSB
4 ft. long
27.7 40.9 5.6 358.7 470.4 33.3
OSB
OSB-Nonstruc 27.7 40.3 4.5 358.7 462.7 23.5
This section describes the various methods used to analyze the Chapter 3
archetype designs and the main response parameters that were calculated and
archived.
4.4.1 Overview
4-40 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Non-linear incremental dynamic analyses (IDAs) according to the
FEMA-695 methodology (FEMA 2009) for a defined set of MCER
ground motion intensities.
For each archetype, the IDAs were conducted for intensity stripes starting at
ST = 0.1 g. The intensity was increased by increments of 0.1g up to an
intensity level for which all (44) ground motions of the record set caused
collapse of the building model.
For each intensity stripe, 3D IDAs were conducted by applying the 22 FEMA
P695 far-field (FF) records (two components each) to the archetype model in
two orthogonal orientations (i.e., NS- EW and EW-NS orientations)
generating 44 response data for each response parameter of interest.
Therefore, the collapse statistics are based on 44 analyses. Note that in order
to represent realistic dynamic response and collapse mode at large
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-41
displacements, no inherent viscous damping was introduced in the archetype
models. From preliminary analysis results, it was found that even a small
amount of viscous damping generated significant artificial (an unrealistic)
restoring forces once the hysteretic damping from vertical wall building
blocks were near exhausted near collapse.
4-42 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Table 4-16 Description of Stripe Statistics Archived for Each Orthogonal
(NS and EW) directions of the Chapter 3 Archetype Designs.
non-surviving records.
5Calculated for each floor of multi-story archetypes.
Baseline archetypes are modeled with the “best estimate” of vertical wall
building blocks properties described in Section 4.3.3, including a residual
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-43
post-capping strength of 30% of the peak strength. The baseline archetypes
incorporate also typical types and configurations of nonstructural wall
components per Chapter 3 designs. A total of 28 baseline archetype models
were developed for each combination of light-frame wood building type (i.e.,
Commercial - COM, Multi-Family Dwelling - MFD and Single-Family
Dwelling - SFD), height (one, two and four stories) and seismic design level
(e.g., High Seismic - SDC Dmax, Very High Seismic - 1.5 x SDC Dmax and
Moderate Seismic - SDC Cmax).
Table 4-17 summarizes the set of baseline archetypes and their variants
included for parametric study of analytical modeling topics. Three different
types pf occupancy are considered: 1) commercial (COM) buildings, 2)
multi-family dwellings (MFD), and 3) Single-family dwellings (SFD).
Archetype ID nomenclature indicates whether the archetype is a “baseline”
model (e.g., COM2B) or a variant of the baseline model (e.g., COM2B-A for
the baseline model COM2B modified to include imperfect connectivity of
hold-down anchors). Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of variants
when two or greater variant archetype models are considered for the study.
4-44 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Table 4-17 Summary of Baseline and Variants of Short-Period Light-
Frame Wood Building Archetypes of Parametric Studies
Parametric Study Archetype ID
Arche- (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
type No. of Configu- Ultimate SSI/Founda- Imperfect Non-structural Mass
Type ID Arche- ration Collapse tion Connec- Finishes Distribution
types Flexibility
Capacity tivity
PG-1 – Commercial Buildings in High Seismic Areas
COM1 3 COM1B COM1B-F(2)
COM2 12 COM2B COM2B-C(6) COM2B-F(2) COM2B-A COM2B-NS COM2B-M
COM3 1 COM3B
PG-2 – Commercial Buildings in Very High Seismic Areas
COM4 3 COM4B COM4B-F(2)
COM5 4 COM5B COM5B-F(2) COM5B-A
COM6 1 COM6B
PG-3 – Commercial Buildings in Moderate Seismic Areas
COM7 1 COM7B
COM8 1 COM8B
COM9 1 COM9B
PG-4 – Multi-Family Residential Buildings in High Seismic Areas
MFD1 1 MFD1B
MFD2 12 MFD2B MFD2B-C(6) MFD2B-F(2) MFD2B-A MFD2B-NS MFD2B-M
MFD3 2 MFD3B MFD3B-A
PG-5 – Multi-Family Residential Buildings in Very High Seismic Areas
MFD4 1 MFD4B
MFD5 4 MFD5B MFD5B-F(2) MFD5B-A
MFD6 2 MFD6B MFD6B-A
PG-6 – Multi-Family Residential Buildings in Moderate Seismic Areas
MFD7 1 MFD7B
MFD8 1 MFD8B
MFD9 1 MFD9B
PG-7 – Single-Family Residential Buildings in High Seismic Areas
4 SFD1B SFD1B-NS(2) SFD1B-M
SFD1B
3 SFD1BC SFD1BC-NS(2)
10 SFD2B SFD2B-C(6) SFD2B-A SFD2B-NS(2)
SFD2B
3 SFD2BC SFD2BC-NS(2)
PG-8 – Single-Family Residential Buildings in Very High Seismic Areas
SFD3 1 SFD3B
SFD3A 1 SFD3AB
SFD4 2 SFD4B SFD4B-A
Performance Group PG-9 – Single-Family Residential Buildings in Moderate Seismic Areas
SFD5 1 SFD5B
SFD5A 1 SFD5AB
SFD6 1 SFD5B
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-45
4.5.2 Configuration (Height/Interior Walls) Parametric Study
The 28 baseline archetype models are used for the parametric study of
configuration. Response and collapse analysis results of baseline archetype
model reported in Chapter 5 provide the primary basis for evaluating short-
period light-frame wood building performance as a function of building
period (i.e., building height) for typical configurations of short-period
commercial, multi-family dwelling and single-family dwelling buildings.
4-46 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
basis for evaluating the effects of modeling SSI/flexibility on short-period
light-frame wood building performance.
Eight modified archetype models were developed for this parametric study.
Four, high seismic, baseline archetypes (COM2B, MFD2B, MFD3B and
SFD2B) and four, very high seismic, baseline archetypes (COM5B, MFD5B,
MFD6B and SFD4B) were modified to incorporate flexible anchorage (i.e.,
non-linear hold-down F2F link elements). The effects of imperfect
connectivity (hold-down) flexibility are expected to be more pronounced for
taller buildings with shorter lengths of shear wall (i.e., more susceptible to
overturning forces). Selection of four-story MFD building archetypes is
based on their taller height and the assumption that MFD building wall
segments are more susceptible to rocking and uplift than longer COM
building wall segments. Comparison of response and collapse results of the
analyses of these variant archetype models (with flexible connections) with
the results of the analyses of corresponding baseline archetypes models (with
rigid connections) will provide the basis for evaluating the effects of
modeling imperfect connectivity on short-period light-frame wood building
performance.
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-47
4.6 Summary
The methods used to develop and analyze the non-linear numerical models of
short-period light-frame wood buildings from the archetype designs of
Chapter 3 are at the cutting-edge of capabilities at the time of writing. The 78
archetype models developed for the six different parametric studies
conducted in this project provide for the first time the basis for evaluating the
effects of various modeling techniques and parameters on short-period light-
frame wood building performance. The results of the parametric studies are
described and discussed in Chapter 5.
ASCE 2010. “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,”
ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 7-10, American Society of Civil
Engineers, Reston, VA.
4-48 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1
Technology for the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Washington, DC, 336 p.
Folz, B., and Filiatrault, A. 2001. “Cyclic Analysis of Wood Shear Walls”,
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, 127(4), 433-441.
Koliou, M., Filiatrault, A., Kelly, D.J. and Lawson, J. 2014. “Numerical
Framework for Seismic Collapse Assessment of Rigid Wall-Flexible
Diaphragm Structures,” 10th US National Conference on Earthquake,
Anchorage, Alaska, Paper ID: 282.
Koliou, M., Filiatrault, A., Kelly, D.J. and Lawson, J. 2015. “Distributed
Yielding Concept for Improved Seismic Collapse Performance of
Rigid Wall-Flexible Diaphragm Buildings,” ASCE Journal of
Structural Engineering (in press).
Swensen, S., Acevedo, C., Jampole, E., Miranda, E., and Deierlein, G. 2014.
“Toward Damage Free Residential Houses Through UniBody Light-
Frame Construction with Seismic Isolation,” SEAOC 2014 83rd
Annual Convention Proceedings, 15 p.
Tokas, C. and Lobo, R. 2012. “Hospital Seismic Safety Program and Strong
Motion Instrumentation,” Proceedings of SMIP12 Seminar on
Utilization of Strong-Motion Data, Sacramento, CA, 111-124.
van de Lindt, Symans, M.D., Pang, W., Shao, X., and Gershfeld, M. (2012),
Seismic Risk Reduction for Soft-story Woodframe Building: The
ATC-116-1 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes 4-49
NEES-Soft Project”, 121th World Conference on Timber
Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand, Jul 16-19.
4-50 4: Modeling and Analysis of Short-Period Light-Frame Wood Building Archetypes ATC-116-1