See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271367646

Two Stage Analysis: Implementation Challenges

Conference Paper · April 2013

DOI: 10.1061/9780784412848.192

CITATIONS READS

0 427

4 authors, including:

Ngai-Chi Chung
Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance
2 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ngai-Chi Chung on 07 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Two Stage Analysis: Implementation Challenges

Michael Allen1, Ngai-Chi Chung1, Alfred Tran2, Daniel Zepeda2

1
Degenkolb Engineers, Suite 500, 235 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94104
2
Degenkolb Engineers, Suite 1115, South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90071

ABSTRACT

Two-stage analysis has been performed by structural engineers since its introduction to
the code in the 1988 Uniform Building Code. This analysis procedure simplifies the analysis
and design of a flexible structure supported by a rigid structure while allowing proper base shear
scaling and use of R-factors of the two structures. However, despite its original intent, two-stage
analysis can prove to be difficult to implement in complicated structures. Through our
experience with the design of two new hospitals and evaluation of one existing hospital, we
highlight to practicing seismic engineers and code developers some challenges and
recommendations regarding (a) code interpretation and intent of the two-stage analysis
provisions, (b) application, idealization and modeling of boundary conditions and soil springs,
and (c) use and limitations of analysis models and software.

INTRODUCTION

Two-stage analysis has been performed by designers since its introduction to the code in
the 1988 Uniform Building Code. Currently, two-stage analysis is permitted to be used to
simplify the analysis and design of a flexible upper structure above a rigid lower structure,
provided that the upper structure is at least 10 times stiffer than the lower structure. Then, the
two structures can be analyzed and designed separately, using appropriate values of R and ρ.
However, implementing two-stage analyses can pose its own unique challenges.

Since the rigid lower structure supports the flexible upper structure above, it must be
designed to resist the loads coming from above. The reactions from the upper structure are
required to be amplified by the ratio of R/ρ of the upper structure over R/ρ of the lower structure
(commonly known as “base shear scaling”), and applied at the top of the lower structure (also
known as the “transition”). Through our experience with the design of two new hospitals and
evaluation of one existing hospital, we hope to share our insights on the practical application and
future direction of the two-stage analysis methodology.

NEW DESIGN: COMPARING TWO CALIFORNIA HOSPITALS

Degenkolb Engineers designed two new hospital structures, both located in high-seismic
region in California, and designed and reviewed by OSHPD under the 2007 California Building
Code (CBC). One is an award-winning new hospital design in Oakland (Figure 1): an 8-story
steel buckling-restrained braced frame (BRBF) above a 2-story special reinforced concrete shear
wall (SRCSW) basement, supported by continuous footings. The other is a new hospital design
in San Francisco (Figure 2): a 4-story steel BRBF above a 1-story SRCSW basement, supported
by drilled piers.

Figure 1. Oakland hospital structure Figure 2. San Francisco hospital: elevation view

Both hospitals utilize two-stage analysis as the upper BRBFs are much more flexible than
the lower SRCSW basement, simplifying analysis and reasonably capturing the behavior of the
structures under seismic loads. However, the crucial difference between the two hospital is that
the Oakland hospital used two computer models for the two-stage analysis, while the San
Francisco hospital used only one.

Two-Model Approach. For the Oakland hospital, two separate computer models are built (one
for upper, one for lower) so two engineering teams could work simultaneously in designing,
analyzing, and optimizing the two structures individually.

Modeling the Upper Structure. The 8-story BRBF upper structure is modeled in ETABS, and
analyzed with linear dynamic analysis (response spectrum). Only the seismic load resisting
system (SLRS) is modeled in ETABS, as the gravity framing is modeled and analyzed in a
separate model. The steel beams and columns are standard W-shapes, with moment-resisting
beam-column connections. Where there is a BRB gusset plate at a beam-column connection, an
appropriately-sized rigid offset is provided to account for the location of the highest moment.
The BRB braces are custom-defined axial elements to reflect the exact BRB stiffnesses; these
elements are pin-ended. Rigid and semi-flexible diaphragms, and seismic masses at Level 3 and
above are modeled as per code requirements.

Though the BRB braces end at Level 2, the BRBF frame columns extend continuously
down to the Basement. This is captured in our model by modeling continuous columns down to
the basement, and providing displacement restraints (i.e. “pinning”) for the column at Level 2, 1,
and Basement. This is a conservative idealization as it assumes the lower structure shear wall
does not provide any rotational resistance to the base of the upper structure (the only rotational
restraint is provided by the continuous columns); this allowed the engineer to quickly iterate and
optimize the upper structure design in conjunction with the BRB manufacturer.

However, the 2007 CBC (since modified in the 2010 CBC), Section 1614A.1.4g states
that “If separate models are used to design the upper and lower portions, the model boundary
conditions of the upper portion shall be compatible with actual strength and stiffness of the
supporting elements of the lower portion.” Per this provision, the reviewer requested that the
engineer investigate modeling the potential sliding “worst-case” behavior of the elevated north
footing at Level 1 (Figure 3). A rough analysis comparison proved that the difference in the
upper structure’s behavior is negligible.

Modeling the Lower Structure. The 2-story SRCSW lower structure is modeled in SAP, and
analyzed with nonlinear static analysis. We preferred continuous footings over piers due to their
obvious advantage in construction cost and schedule. Though a nonlinear analysis introduces a
significant increase in analysis time, it is the only way to capture the nonlinear nature of the soil
behavior (lack of tensile strength to resist foundation uplift) beneath the continuous footings
supporting the shear walls. However, this restricted our analysis options to only linear static
analysis, as linear dynamic analysis could not be performed with the nonlinear soil springs in
place.

However, the 2007 CBC (since modified in the 2010 CBC), Section 1614A.1.4h states
that the rigid lower structure must be “classified as being regular”, unless dynamic analysis is
used. Hence, we must create a regular lower structure to continue with our analysis approach.

Challenges in Implementation of Two-Model Approach. Applying the scaled seismic forces

from the upper structure to the lower structure was quite a challenge indeed. For each load case,
including positive and negative mass eccentricity (i.e. accidental torsion) cases, the forces from
the upper structure were input into the lower structure model. The forces include: global frame
shear which results in horizontal line loads applied on the top of the shear wall, and global frame
overturning moment which results in local column axial load applied on the top of the shear wall
(Figure 3).Since the upper structure is analyzed with linear dynamic analysis, accidental torsion
cases provide only absolute values, with no directionality. The only way to account for
accidental torsion is to manually calculate the torsional moment for each diaphragm, then
manually add these directional moments the upper structure, for each eccentricity case.
Figure 3. Applying shear and overturning forces from upper structure ; location of potential
sliding at elevated footing.

This is a challenge resulting solely from using two separate models. In our case, using
one model for both the upper and lower structure analysis would be very difficult and even
prohibitive because (a) two separate models allowed two separate teams of engineers to work on
the two structures simultaneously, and (b) linear dynamic analysis cannot be performed on
nonlinear soil springs.

One-Model Approach. The San Francisco hospital was able to use a one-model approach to
two-stage analysis. Linear dynamic analysis was performed on both the lower and upper
structure as the foundation was supported by drilled piers, which can be modeled as linear base
springs. With a one-model approach, no manual transfer of upper structure loads onto the
lower structure is required since it is automatically performed in the computer model. The base
shear scaling of the upper structure is quite simple to implement: first, determine the base shear
of the BRB structure above; second, scale the linear dynamic analysis forces such that the shear
at the “transition” equals the required base shear above. The drilled piers are simply designed to
resist the capacity-level forces, consisting mostly of the BRB-capacity forces.

Learnings. From our experience in the design of these two new hospital structures, we learned
that:

(a) Recent code revisions regarding two-stage analysis will save engineers modeling and
analysis iterations without sacrificing the integrity of the analysis;
(b) A two-model approach may save time in workflow-sharing and analysis, but can have
other shortcomings relative to a one-model approach;
(c) The inability to perform response spectrum analysis with a structure containing nonlinear
elements produces challenges to engineering analysis, and may discourage the use of
certain physical engineering schemes.
EVALUATION OF AN EXISTING CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL

Degenkolb Engineers examined a Southern California hospital built in the 1970s. The
main building of the medical campus consists of three seismically-separated 6-story concrete
moment frame towers situated above a single 2-story concrete shear wall podium (Figure 3). A
partial retrofit project was conducted on this building to mitigate two major deficiencies
identified under the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Division
(OSPHD) HAZUS 2010 evaluation program. The first of these is a torsional irregularity
deficiency that occurs at the two podium levels where only three of the four major plan
dimensions contain full length shear walls. The proposed retrofit adds two new shear walls along
the vacant fourth plan dimension (Figure 4). The second deficiency centers on the load path of
existing compression-only mechanical splices found in numerous columns throughout the
structure. The proposed retrofit provides steel plates on the exterior of the columns to transfer
load across the locations of the deficient splices.

Although this is an existing structure, OSHPD HAZUS 2010 program required that our
partial retrofit be based on the Voluntary Seismic Improvement (VSI) provisions outlined in the
2010 California Building Code (CBC) Section 3404A.5 which is based on the 2009 International
Building Code (IBC) Section 3404.5. The VSI provisions require all new structural elements to
be designed and detailed per the requirements of new building design. To meet the challenges
involved with analyzing existing structures of irregular geometry and multiple lateral systems
using new code requirements, three different analysis methodologies were performed.

Figure 3. Main hospital looking north Figure 4. Main hospital looking south

First Analysis: Two-Stage. The first analysis executed involved a three-dimensional, pin-
based, rigid diaphragm, linear dynamic model using SAP2000. A site specific response spectra
was implemented into the model. Given the natural structural and geometric characteristics of the
main building, the two-stage analysis methodology was selected for the overall building analysis.
The concrete moment frame towers above provide sufficient flexibility relative to the much
stiffer shear wall basement to meet the stiffness requirements of the two-stage procedure outlined
in ASCE 7-05 Section 12.2.3.1. A total of four pin-based models were used, one for each of the
towers and one for the podium structure.

In order to provide directionality to the internal member forces, the dynamic story shears
within the towers and podium were extracted and reapplied as static force distributions at the
C.O.M. of each diaphragm. The tower reactions (base shears), appropriately scaled per the
requirements of 2010 CBC Section 1615A.1.8, were applied at the projections of the C.O.M. of
each tower and onto the top level of the podium as static loads (Figures 5 and 6). The following
key items were thoroughly considered prior to each analysis: selection of the appropriate R-
factors, selection of the fundamental periods, direction of applied loads, and placement of
seismic mass. An R-Factor of 3 was used for the upper portions (ordinary concrete moment
frame) whereas an R-Factor of 4 was used for the lower portion (ordinary concrete shear wall)
per Table 12.2-1 of ASCE 7-05. The fundamental periods were obtained through modal analysis
of the respective models and compared to the code maximums discussed in ASCE 7-05 Section
12.8.2. The tower reactions were applied in the same direction as a conservative approach to
account for the dynamic phasing of the towers. This procedure maximizes demand on the new
shear walls. Building mass was concentrated at the floor levels for all models. It should be noted
that the podium model did not contain any mass from the towers. The effect of the tower masses
was captured by the magnitude of the tower reactions, applied as previously described.

Figure 5. Elevation view and applied forces. Figure 6. Plan view of applied tower forces.

During the review process there was concern with the R-Factor selection for the upper
and lower portions of the structure. According to ASCE 7-05 Section 12.2.3.1, the structure
contains a vertical combination of lateral force resisting systems under which the R-Factor “used
for design at any story shall not exceed the lowest R that is used in the same direction at any
story above that story.” This requirement was placed in the code to discourage a low ductility
structure over a ductile structure. Doing so may potentially result in a soft-story below the
transition; however, two-stage analysis specifically requires the bottom structure to be much
stiffer than the upper structure and should alleviate such concerns. Although the two-stage
analysis methodology may be viewed as a special case when analyzing existing structures which
do not meet the requirements of standard vertical combinations, both ASCE 7-05 and the 2010
CBC remain silent on the issue. Since using a uniform R-factor negates the primary benefits of a
two-stage analysis, the analysis approach was revised to a traditional single-stage analysis with
an R-Factor of 3 for the entire structure.

Second Analysis: Single-Stage. The two stage analysis models were combined and a second
analysis was performed using the full structure to carry out the linear dynamic response spectrum
analysis. Though a single stage analysis does not allow for the use of separate R-factors of the
upper and lower portions of the structure, it does contain several inherent benefits that aid in the
analysis process. First, a single model is easier to maintain, especially when compared to the four
models used in the previous analysis. Second, the stiffness at the transition between the upper
and lower portions is directly captured by the model. And lastly, application of the tower
reactions no longer needs to be conservatively applied in a single direction because the dynamic
phasing of the towers is captured by the response spectrum analysis SRSS combination.

The key items discussed in the previous section were reconsidered for the single model.
An R-factor of 3 was assigned to the entire structure. The seismic mass was concentrated at each
floor level. And as stated earlier, the directionality of the tower reactions was captured through
the response spectrum SRSS. It should be noted however that orthogonal effects were accounted
for through 8 directional combinations (±100X±30Y / ±30X±100Y). Loads were applied as
static load distributions to represent the dynamic story shears as done in the two-stage analysis.
Determination of the fundamental periods proved to be less straightforward. Six primary modes
resulted from the modal analysis with one translational mode in each principle direction for each
tower (Figure 7). The modal analysis showed negligible mass participation due to the
acceleration of the podium, even with 90% total mass participation. This implies that the overall
structure behaves predominantly as a moment frame with the flexibility inherent to this type of
system. Each of the primary modal periods was compared to the respective code maximums. C t
= 0.016 and x = 0.9 (concrete moment frames). These were then used for calculating the
approximate fundamental period, T a (ASCE 7-05 Table 12.8-2). The modes with the smallest
periods in each respective direction were selected as the fundamental modes of vibration with the
conservative intent of yielding the largest linear static base shear per ASCE 7-05 Section 12.8.
The resulting base shear was roughly 50% of the base shear obtained in the first analysis using
the two-stage methodology. The increased demands on the shear walls resulting from the use of
R=3 was thus more than offset by the reduced seismic base shear. However, the demands in the
drag elements remained relatively unchanged as these forces are dependent on the change in
story shear distributed to the new walls between levels.
 Figure 7. Primary modes of vibration
During the review process, there was disagreement regarding the approach used for
determining the fundamental periods. The classification of the global lateral system was debated
because the overall structure is neither fully a moment frame, nor fully a shear wall system. The
category of “all other structural systems” (ASCE 7-05 Table 12.8-2) was explored for calculating
the approximate fundamental period. However, the adjustment of these values saw a dramatic
reduction in the period magnitudes, which in turn increased the base shear and hence the
demands on the new shear walls and drag elements. The reality is that the true fundamental
periods of the structure will fall somewhere in between that of a complete moment frame system
and that of a complete shear wall system, but the code does not currently provide an accurate
method for capturing these contributions. Given the ambiguity of the code with regards to
classification of the overall lateral system, it was necessary to explore a third approach which
combines concepts of both the single and two stage analyses.

Third Analysis: Hybrid. The hybrid approach utilizes a single model of the full structure,
identical in its structural elements to the model used for the single-stage analysis. The four major
key considerations that have been repeated throughout this case study were revisited, beginning
with the placement of seismic mass, which is fully unique to the hybrid approach. Out of
practicality, four versions of the model were made. In each version, only one of the four
substructures was assigned mass. For instance, the first model only had mass placed in the north
tower with zero mass assigned to the remaining towers and podium; the second version only had
mass assigned to the south tower, and so forth (Figure 8). Having run the response spectrum
analysis for each model, the dynamic story shears were extracted and simultaneously applied as
static story forces to a fifth model containing zero mass. From there, the standard static analysis
(based on dynamic load distributions) was performed with the various directional combinations
to account for orthogonal effects.
 Figure 8. Hybrid model – mass separately assigned to each substructure
With regards to period selection, the fundamental periods from the modal analysis of
each tower and podium were obtained and compared with the respective code maximums. The
separation of mass assignments made it feasible to study each substructure independently,
allowing for the determination of the code maximums based on the respective lateral systems of
the substructures. The hybrid approach thus avoided the code ambiguity surrounding the
classification of a single global lateral system encountered in the single stage approach. Similar
to the single-stage analysis, an R-factor of 3 was assigned to the entire structure and
directionality of the tower reactions had already been accounted for by the response spectrum
SRSS combination. The resulting base shear using this approach was very similar in magnitude
to the base shear from the two-stage approach. The demands on the shear walls and drags were
also similar in value.

Observations. The hybrid model provided a reasonable approach to the analysis of the hospital
structure by working around the shortcomings of the single and two stage analyses while
combining the advantages of both. The use of a single model allowed for the stiffness at the
transition between the upper and lower portions to be captured directly by the model. This
provided a more realistic representation of the tower boundary conditions and thus produced
more accurate force distributions above. Furthermore, the variable placement of seismic mass
allowed each substructure to be analyzed independently much like the two-stage approach. Thus,
the hybrid approach is highly recommended as an alternative analysis method to either the single
or two-stage approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe that the intent of two-stage analysis is to enable engineers to analyze two
different structures, one much stiffer than the other, separately in order to simplify analysis
without sacrificing much of the integrity of the analysis. However, taking advantage of two-
stage analysis provisions has created challenges of its own. As engineers, we are interested in a
reasonably accurate structural analysis, resulting in a safe physical design satisfying the code
intent. We do not wish to change a physical design or create an overly-conservative structure
due to the difficulties / vagaries of applying a certain code provision. Fortunately, recent code
revisions are empowering engineers to do so better and more consistent with the intent of two-
stage analysis. However, there is still room to bridge the gap between practice and code intent.

(1) Systematize and simplify the transfer of scaled forces from upper structure to lower
structure:

Often in practice, whether due to analysis software limitations or simplicity of

explanation, seismic load demands from the flexible upper structure are applied statically to the
lower structure during analysis of the lower structure in a two-stage analysis, especially when a
two-model approach is used. This occurs regardless of what analysis methodology is used for
the upper structure. In many cases, due to the challenges of using a two-model approach and
applying forces to the lower structure, a one-model approach is used instead, eroding the original
intent of two-stage analysis to simply analysis. Depending on the manner in which the upper
structure affect the lower structure and to what degree, some uniform guidelines can be set to
simplify and systematize this process. For instance, a linear dynamic analysis may have been
used to design the upper structure, but if the scaled base shear and overturning moment from a
linear static analysis is within a certain range of a the linear dynamic analysis, the results from a
linear static analysis of the upper structure may be used to apply to the lower structure for the
lower structure's analysis.

(2) Clarify the intent of the R-factor provisions when applied to two-stage analysis:

Two-stage analysis stipulates that the two structures are so different in stiffnesses and
structural behavior (a very flexible upper structure on top of a stiff base) that it is acceptable to
analyze two structures separately as they almost behave independently in a structural sense. As
such, does the code intend to have R-factors applied independently to the two separate
structures? If so, can the intent of safety and redundancy of the code be addressed in ways more
specific to the application of two-stage analysis, such as requirements to design certain elements
of the upper-to-lower structure transition, and/or of the lower structure to overstrength load
cases?

In general we recommend that the code clarify whether the intent of two-stage analysis is
to utilize separate R-factors for the upper and lower portions in order to capture their respective
ductilities. Though ASCE 7-05 Section 12.2.3.1 states that the reactions above shall be
magnified by the ratio of R lower to R upper (assuming ρ lower = ρ upper ) when applied below unless
this ratio is less than one, it does not clearly indicate whether the two-stage analysis approach is
subject to the requirements of vertical combinations defined under the same section; specifically,
whether R-factors below need to be smaller or equal to all R-factors above.
 (3) Provide guidance for special cases, such as multi-tower applications:

In the unique case were multi-towers exist above a single podium, additional guidance is
needed with regards to a traditional single-stage analysis. The process for determining the
fundamental period of the overall structure per ASCE 7-05 Section 12.8.2 remains unclear when
applied to this type of structure. As demonstrated by analysis, the behavior of the towers resulted
in six primary modes of vibration (three in each principle direction), each with comparable mass
participation. Recommendations should be provided regarding which period to select or a more
refined procedure should be developed such as the “hybrid” model that has been presented in the
paper.

(4) Provide guidance for existing structures:

Although it was not the focus of this paper, we recommend that additional guidance be
provided in the code for Voluntary Seismic Improvements, specifically regarding the analysis of
existing structures using new code demands. Though design was not emphasized in the existing
hospital evaluation case study, it remained challenging to justify the adequacy of existing
elements to withstand the prescribed loading intended for new structures. Exceptions in the code
regarding demand should be included under these circumstances. ASCE 41-06 Chapter 10,
which is intended for partial retrofits, could be referenced as an alternative document for the
analysis of existing structures, but care should be taken as to not alter the intent of the voluntary
seismic improvement provisions currently listed in the code.

View publication stats