Structures congress 2017 buildings and special structures

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Structures Congress 2017 Buildings and Special Structures Selected Papers from the Structures Congress 2017 Denver, Colorado April 6–8, 2017 Edited by J G (Greg) Soules, P.E., S.E., P.Eng Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Structures Congress 2017 Buildings and Special Structures SELECTED PAPERS FROM THE STRUCTURES CONGRESS 2017 April 6–8, 2017 Denver, Colorado SPONSORED BY The Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) of the American Society of Civil Engineers EDITED BY J G (Greg) Soules, P.E., S.E., P.Eng Published by the American Society of Civil Engineers Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Published by American Society of Civil Engineers 1801 Alexander Bell Drive Reston, Virginia, 20191-4382 www.asce.org/publications | ascelibrary.org Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement made herein No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process, or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by ASCE The materials are for general information only and not represent a standard of ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations, statutes, or any other legal document ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus, product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefor The information contained in these materials should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its suitability for any general or specific application Anyone utilizing such information assumes all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent or patents ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S Patent and Trademark Office Photocopies and permissions Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE publications can be requested by sending an e-mail to permissions@asce.org or by locating a title in ASCE's Civil Engineering Database (http://cedb.asce.org) or ASCE Library (http://ascelibrary.org) and using the “Permissions” link Errata: Errata, if any, can be found at https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480410 Copyright © 2017 by the American Society of Civil Engineers All Rights Reserved ISBN 978-0-7844-8041-0 (PDF) Manufactured in the United States of America Structures Congress 2017 iii Preface Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved The Structures Congress has a robust technical program focusing on topics important to Structural Engineers The papers in the proceeding are organized in volumes Volume includes papers on Blast and Impact Loading and Response of Structures Volume includes papers on Bridges and Transportation Structures Volume includes papers on Buildings and Nonbuilding and Special Structures Volume includes papers on Other Structural Engineering Topics including; Business and Professional Practice, Natural Disasters, Nonstructural Systems and Components, Education, Research, and Forensics Acknowledgments Preparation for the Structures Congress required significant time and effort from the members of the National Technical Program Committee, the Local Planning Committee Much of the success of the conference reflects the dedication and hard work by these volunteers We would like to thank GEICO and Pearl for Sponsoring the Congress proceedings and supporting the Structures Congress in such a generous way The Joint Program Committee would like to acknowledge the critical support of the sponsors, exhibitors, presenters, and moderators who contributed to the success of the conference through their participation On behalf of our dedicated volunteers and staff, we would like to thank you for spending your valuable time attending the Structures Congress It is our hope that you and your colleagues will benefit greatly from the information provided, learn things you can implement and make professional connections that last for years Sincerely, J Greg Soules, P.E., S.E., P.Eng, SECB, F.SEI, F.ASCE © ASCE Structures Congress 2017 iv Contents Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Buildings Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Sloshing Mode Tuned Liquid Sloshing Dampers Installed in Tall Buildings U Y Jeong Eliminating the Exposure Category from Wind Design Pressure 13 Nicole Ellison and Frederick R Rutz Wind Load Prediction on Tall Buildings in a Stochastic Framework 24 M Gibbons, J Galsworthy, M Chatten, and S Kala Experimental Investigation of Deconstructable Steel-Concrete Shear Connections in Sustainable Composite Beams 34 Lizhong Wang, Mark D Webster, and Jerome F Hajjar Influence of Fastener Spacing on the Slip Modulus between Cold Formed Steel and Wood Sheathing 48 Weston Loehr, Bill Zhang, Hani Melhem, and Kimberly Krammer BRBM Frames: An Improved Approach to Seismic-Resistant Design Using Buckling-Restrained Braces 60 Leo Panian, Nick Bucci, and Steven Tipping Implications of Modeling Assumptions on the Loss Estimation for Shear Wall Buildings 72 Kristijan Kolozvari, Vesna Terzic, and Daniel Saldana Numerical Investigation of the Shear Buckling and Post-Buckling of Thin Steel Plates with FRP Strengthening 87 Mohamad Alipour, Alireza Rahai, and Devin K Harris Seismic Evaluation of Incremental Seismic Retrofitting Techniques for Typical Peruvian Schools 101 Gustavo Loa, Alejandro Muñoz, and Sandra Santa-Cruz Advanced Technical Issues Related to Wind Loading on Tall Building Structures in Consideration of Performance-Based Design 111 U Y Jeong and K Tarrant © ASCE Structures Congress 2017 ASCE 41-17 Steel Column Modeling and Acceptance Criteria 121 Daniel Bech, Jonas Houston, and Bill Tremayne Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Leveraging Cloud and Parametric Workflows to Accelerate Performance Based Seismic Design 136 Kermin Chok, Pavel Tomek, Trent Clifton, and Branden Dong Stability of Steel Columns in Steel Concentrically Braced Frames Subjected to Seismic Loading 143 Guillaume Toutant, Yasaman Balazadeh Minouei, Ali Imanpour, Sanda Koboevic, and Robert Tremblay Classifying Cyclic Buckling Modes of Steel Wide-Flange Columns under Cyclic Loading 155 Gulen Ozkula, John Harris, and Chia-Ming Uang Structural Behaviour of Demountable HSS Semi-Rigid Composite Joints with Precast Concrete Slabs 168 Abdolreza Ataei, Mark A Bradford, and Hamid R Valipour Topology and Sizing Optimization of Nonlinear Viscous Dampers for the Minimum-Cost Seismic Retrofitting of 3-D Frame Structures 179 Nicolò Pollini, Oren Lavan, and Oded Amir Structural Topology Optimization Considering Complexity 192 Saranthip Koh, May Thu Nwe Nwe, Payam Bahrami, Fodil Fadli, Cristopher D Moen, and James K Guest Cast Steel Replaceable Modular Links for Eccentrically Braced Frames 202 J Binder, M Gray, C Christopoulos, and C de Oliveira New Methods in Efficient Post-Tensioned Slab Design Using Topology Optimization 213 M Sarkisian, E Long, A Beghini, R Garai, D Shook, A Diaz, and R Henoch Design and Parametric Finite Element Analysis—A Thin Lightweight Two-Way Steel Flooring System 225 Eugene Boadi-Danquah, Brian Robertson, and Matthew Fadden Structural Form Finding of a Rope Sculpture 237 M Sarkisian, E Long, A Beghini, and N Wang Discussion of Tubular Steel Monopole Base Connections: The Base Weld Toe Crack Phenomenon; Crack Identification and a Proposed Severity Classification System 248 Brian R Reese and David W Hawkins © ASCE v Structures Congress 2017 Design and Theory of Passive Eddy Current Dampers in Building Structures 262 Mandy Chen and Lance Manuel Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Effect of Damaged Fireproofing on the Behavior of Structural Steel Members 275 Ataollah Taghipour Anvari, Mustafa Mahamid, and Michael J McNallan A Re-Evaluation of f’m—Unit Strength Method, Face Shell, and Fully Bedded Mortar Joints 287 N Westin and M Mahamid Parametric Study and Design Procedure for Skewed Extended Shear Tab Connections 301 Mutaz Al Hijaj and Mustafa Mahamid Scaffolding a Landmark: The Restoration of the Dome of the United States Capitol Building 319 Christopher P Pinto and Joelle K Nelson Achieving Column-Free Platforms—Design and Construction of Large Span Station Mezzanines on the Second Avenue Subway Project 329 Renée Grigson and Michael Voorwinde Evaluation of Full-Scale Adobe Brick Walls under Uniform Pressure 343 S Robert, H El-Emam, A Saucier, H Salim, and Scott Bade Experimental Study of Externally Flange Bonded CFRP for Retrofitting Beam-Column Joints with High Concrete Compressive Strength 354 Olaniyi Arowojolu, Muhammad Kalimur Rahman, Baluch Muhammad Hussain, and Ali-Al Gadhib Considerations in the Use of Side Load Pier Brackets 365 James Robert Harris and Kenneth Cobb Retrofitting of Flange Notched Wood I-Joists with Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer (GFRP) Plates 375 M Shahidul Islam and M Shahria Alam Multiple Hazards and Social Vulnerability for the Denver Region 386 A Rein Starrett and R B Corotis A Top Down Approach to Achieve Full System Modeling in Seismic Analysis and Design 406 F A Charney © ASCE vi Structures Congress 2017 Experimental and Numerical Investigation of Flexural Concrete Wall Design Details 418 A Behrouzi, T Welt, D Lehman, L Lowes, J LaFave, and D Kuchma Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Seismic Response Study of Degraded Viscous Damping Systems for Tall Buildings in China 434 H Ataei, M Mamaghani, and K Kalbasi Anaraki Topology Optimization and Performance-Based Design of Tall Buildings: A Spatial Framework 447 Xihaier Luo, Arthriya Suksuwan, Seymour M J Spence, and Ahsan Kareem Effects of Foundation Uplift on the Dynamic Response of Steel Frames 459 Mohammad Salehi, Amir Hossein Jafarieh, and Mohammad Ali Ghannad Performance-Based Wind and Seismic Engineering: Benefits of Considering Multiple Hazards 473 Kevin Aswegan, Russell Larsen, Ron Klemencic, John Hooper, and Jeremy Hasselbauer Effect of Drift Loading History on the Collapse Capacity of Deep Steel Columns 485 T.-Y Wu, S El-Tawil, and J McCormick Properties of and Applications with Full Locked Coil Rope Assemblies 495 K.-J Thiem and M Bechtold U.S Bank Stadium: Transparent Roof Steel Collaboration 503 R John Aniol, Rick Torborg, and Eric Fielder Advanced Analysis of Steel-Frame Buildings for Full Story Fires 515 Erica C Fischer and Amit H Varma Integrated Fire-Structure Simulation Methodology for Predicting the Behavior of Structures in Realistic Fires 527 Chao Zhang Structural Design, Approval, and Monitoring of a UBC Tall Wood Building 541 T Tannert and M Moudgil Adaptive Reuse of the Historical Ferdinand Building, Boston, MA 548 John Looney Fire Safety and Tall Timber Buildings—What’s Next? 556 David Barber © ASCE vii Structures Congress 2017 viii The New Tocumen International Airport South Terminal in Panama City, Panama 570 Andrea Soligon, Jeng Neo, and Xiaonian Duan Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Multi-Hazard Design of a New Emergency Communications Facility in St Louis, Missouri 582 Nathan C Gould, Richard Hoehne, and Michael Shea Prison Design in Haiti: Structural Challenges 592 David Dunkman, Christopher Hewitt, and Scott Hollingsworth Underpinning Historic Structures at Grand Central Station, New York 604 Yazdan Majdi and Richard Giffen Design of an Underground Viaduct for the Expansion of the Moscone Center 614 A Trgovcich, L Panian, and S Tipping Nonbuilding and Special Structures Extreme Wave Monitoring and In Situ Wave Pressure Measurement for the Cofferdam Construction of the Pingtan Strait Bridge 629 Zilong Ti, Shunquan Qin, Yongle Li, Dapeng Mei, and Kai Wei What We Learned from the Cooling Tower Foundation Design Challenges from a Revamp Project 643 Silky Wong and Abhijeet Yesare Design of Industrial Pipe Racks Using Modules, Pre-Assembled Units, and Stick-Built Construction 653 Xiapin Hua, Ron Mase, Khoi Ly, and Jkumar Gopalarathnam Ship Impact and Nonlinear Dynamic Collapse Analysis of a Single Well Observation Platform 668 Ahmed Khalil, Huda Helmy, Hatem Tageldin, and Hamed Salem Pile Cap Seismic Load Transfer to Soil 681 Eric Wey, Rollins Brown, Candice Kou, and C B Crouse Constructability Solutions for Temporarily Supporting 200’ Flare Stacks during Construction Modifications 693 Mateusz Prusak, Nicholas Triandafilou, Mustafa Mahamid, and Tom Brindley Custom Helical Pile Use for a Refinery Revamp: A Case Study 706 Eric Wey, Patrick Murray, Howard Perko, Malone Mondoy, and Paul Volpe © ASCE Structures Congress 2017 Structural Fatigue of Process Plant Modules during Ocean Transport 721 Alan Shive and Marco Camacho Innovative Use of FRP in Large-Diameter Piles for Vessel Impact 735 M A McCarty, V Zanjani, E Grimnes, and J Marquis Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Seismic Analysis and Design for Wine Barrel Storage Racks 745 Tauras Stockus and Tzong-Ying Hao Seismic Analysis and Design of a 21,000-Gallon Frac Tank Considering the Fluid-Structure Interaction Effects for a FLEX Response at a Nuclear Power Station 758 Christine H Roy and Michael Mudlock Seismic Behavior of Cylindrical Fluid-Filled Steel Tanks 772 Erica C Fischer and Judy Liu A Comparison of Approximate Methods for Period Determination in Rack Structures 782 Andrew Hardyniec, Charles DeVore, and Jeffrey Travis © ASCE ix Structures Congress 2017 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Unanchored tanks exhibit buckling of tank walls at the base of the tank due to rocking of the tank during an earthquake This type of damage was observed after the 1980 Greenville-Mt Diablo earthquake at the Wente brothers vineyard (Niwa & Clough, 1982) Those tanks that were full and unanchored at the time of the earthquake were most damaged Buckling of tank walls against catwalk systems was observed after the 1980 Greenville-Mt Diablo earthquake as well Anchorage failure Anchorage of tanks to a concrete base is common practice throughout the wine industry However, this anchorage often fails, causing localized tank damage or overturning of tanks Anchorage failure was observed after the 1977 San Juan earthquake (Manos, 1991) Many wineries repaired their damaged tank anchorages and reduced the amount of fluid in their tanks after the earthquake The repairs included adding stiffeners, replacing broken anchors, or thickening the bottom course of the tank wall These repairs performed well during aftershocks (Manos, 1991) Anchorage failure was also observed after the 1980 Greenville-Mt Diablo and 2010 Maule earthquake The failures observed after the 2010 Maule earthquake were caused by insufficient edge distance and embed depth for the anchor, insufficient number of anchors used, and lack of reinforcement in the concrete podiums used for the tanks (Gonzales et al., 2013) These deficiencies were also observed after the 2012 Emilia and the 2013 Cook Strait earthquake (Brunesi et al., 2014; Rosewitz & Kahanek, 2014) and the 2014 South Napa earthquake (Fischer et al., 2016) Unanchored tank movement & pipe damage Not all the tanks observed after these earthquakes were anchored to the concrete base Rather, some tanks were left unanchored to alleviate the anchorage hold-down forces imposed into the tank walls While this may result in less damage to tank walls and the concrete base did not have to be repaired due to anchorage failure, the tanks are left to move or “walk” during the earthquake This movement can cause piping damage as the pipes are forced to move with the tanks As previously mentioned, tank movement was observed after the 2014 South Napa earthquake Tank movement observed after the 2010 Maule earthquake (Gonzales et al., 2013) was up to 20cm (8inch), which is very similar to the movement observed after the South Napa earthquake Brunesi et al (2014) report about 10cm of movement of legged tanks after the 2012 Emilia earthquake Tank damage in oil, water, and chemical industries The tank damage discussed in the previous section is not unique to the wine industry Rather, reconnaissance and observations after previous earthquakes has shown very similar damage to tanks in the oil, water, and chemical industries Tanks used in the water and oil industry tend to be significantly larger than those tanks used for the wine industry In addition to tank wall buckling, roof buckling is also commonly observed after earthquakes Due to the size of these tanks, the roof cannot span between the tank walls, and interior columns are used Commonly the tank roofs © ASCE 776 Structures Congress 2017 buckled or failed due to interior column failure (Hanson, 1973) This section will cover the same damage modes for those industries Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Buckling of tank walls Buckling of tank walls was observed after the 1964 Great Alaskan earthquake (Hanson, 1973) in both the water and oil industries Damage to tanks occurred mainly when tanks were full Tanks attempted to rock during the earthquake inducing large compressive stresses in the shell walls The rocking is caused by a combination of the ground acceleration and sloshing modes of the liquid inside of the tank (Hanson, 1973) Chile had installed over 2000 above-ground steel water tanks around the country for farming communities Due to the 2010 earthquake, 73 of these tanks collapsed due to insufficient design for ground shaking (Eidinger & Davis, 2012) Anchorage failure Water utility tanks were inspected around New Zealand after the 2010 Darfield earthquake Out of six steel tanks inspected, four of them had anchorage failure (Davey, 2010) These tanks had smaller anchors and fewer number of anchors than the undamaged tanks Unanchored tank movement & pipe damage After the 1984 Morgan Hill earthquake, United Technologies Chemical Systems Division Facility reported that one of their tanks “walked” about 15cm (6inch) from its original position (Swan et al., 1984) This movement caused damage to the piping system that was connected to the tank CURRENT DESIGN PRACTICE The current practice for design of stainless steel cylindrical fluid-filled tanks is governed by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) Welded Carbon Steel Tanks for Water Storage (AWWA D100-11) This standard considers two modes of imposed stresses in tanks walls, due to the high frequency movement of the tank itself (impulsive mode), and due to the low frequency sloshing of the liquid inside of the tank (convective mode) for anchored and unanchored tanks The standard uses the effective mass procedure and simplified design procedure which evaluate the imposed seismic forces on tanks using a linear static methodology The standard recognizes that certain water tanks are used to store emergency water supplies and must be functional after an earthquake The standard recommends using a more rigorous analysis procedure to design for functionality after an earthquake, however, does not provide guidance on how to this Motivated by tank damage observed after the 2007 Gisborne earthquake, the 20102011 Canterbury earthquakes, and most recently after the 2013 Cook Strait earthquakes, the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineers (NZSEE) updated the Seismic Design of Storage Tanks (NZSEE, 2009) to include performance criteria for designers This performance criteria is either a specific performance expectation or chosen ductility of the tank The NZSEE recommendations for storage tanks © ASCE 777 Structures Congress 2017 include a 50-year return period for earthquakes and an importance factor that is chosen by the designer This option for the importance factor allows designers to consider tanks storing water for post-disaster public supply or emergency management and for tanks that contain contents that may put the public at risk if the tank is damaged (oil, chemicals) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved PREVIOUS RESEARCH Ground supported steel tanks are used to store a variety of liquids (e.g water, oil, wine, chemicals, etc.) As discussed previously, these tanks are vulnerable to damage or collapse during an earthquake Damage to water tanks can mean no potable water for a community directly following a disaster or lack of water for fire fighters to use as emergency backup Damage to oil tanks can result in severe fires as observed after the 1984 Great Alaskan earthquake (Hanson, 1973) During an earthquake, the tank walls can buckle due to large axial compressive stresses If the tank walls rupture, rapid loss of liquid can cause the top courses of the tank to buckle (Gonzales et al., 2013) High compressive stresses at the base of the tank can cause anchorage failures or rupture the tank wall (Swan et al., 1984; Marrow, 2002; Veletsos & Tang, 1990, Rondon & Guzy, 2016) Large base shear can cause unanchored tanks to slide Pipes are forced to move with the tanks When unanchored tanks rock and slide the piping equipment connected to the tank walls can be damaged (Zareian, et al., 2012) The governing codes for these tanks American Water Works Association (AWWA) D-100 (AWWA, 2011) The previous section discussed the basis of these codes This section will compare research findings with the provisions throughout these codes Research on the seismic performance of steel tanks has shown that the behavior of ground supported cylindrical steel tanks depends upon: (i) the anchorage type (anchored, unanchored), (ii) the foundation (rigid, flexible), (iii) the presence of a roof, and (iv) the ground motion Previous research has shown that unanchored tanks are controlled by uplift mechanisms and perform better when on a flexible foundation Both types of tanks are also influenced by the amount of liquid within the tank Tanks that are empty will not have amplified motion due to sloshing Tank anchorage must be designed to prevent rupture of anchorage attachments or pull-out failure of the anchors from the concrete base Simplified models developed by previous researchers (Marrow, 2002; Peek & Jennings, 1988; Housner, 1969; Jacobsen, 1949; Malhotra et al., 2000) calculate the base shear and overturning moments due to earthquake forces These models highlight that the liquid inside of the tank and the flexibility of the tank walls can amplify the base shear and overturning moments during an earthquake The models demonstrate that rigid or flexible foundations can significantly affect the dynamic response of these tanks (Veletsos & Tang, 1990; Leon & Kausel, 1986) These models have shown the compressive stresses determine from code-based analysis does not consider vertical compressive forces and the combination of vertical © ASCE 778 Structures Congress 2017 compressive stress, hoop stress, and bending stress to prevent yielding of the tank walls (Peek & Jennings, 1988) CONCLUSIONS Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Earthquakes continue to highlight the vulnerability of cylindrical steel tanks Damage to tanks used for water storage can result in lack of potable water for a community, damage to tanks used for oil storage can result in significant fires, and damage to tanks used for storage of wine or beer can result in loss of product and have an economic impact on businesses The authors presented a summary of the seismic performance of steel tanks during the 2014 South Napa earthquake This performance was compared with the seismic performance of tanks during previous earthquakes and shown to be very similar regardless of the industry (oil, water, wine) A summary of previous research has demonstrated that the code-based evaluation and design of these tanks underestimates the stresses in the tank walls due to sloshing of the liquid inside of the tank, foundation type, and anchorage Simplified modeling approaches have been developed by previous researchers that consider these amplified stresses (Marrow, 2002; Peek & Jennings, 1988; Housner, 1969; Jacobsen, 1949; Malhotra et al., 2000) These models demonstrate that further research is required to understand the seismic performance of these tanks and incorporate improved design procedures into the codes (AWWA D100-11, 2011; API 650, 2012) for engineers to reduce the risk of damage to these tanks during an earthquake REFERENCES American Petroleum Institute Standards (API) (2012) “Design and construction of large, welded, low-pressure storage tanks.” API 620, Washington, DC American Petroleum Institute Standards (API) (2012) “Welded steel tanks for oil storage.” API 650, Washington, DC American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2010) “Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures.” ASCE 7-10, Reston, VA American Water Works Association (AWWA) (2011) Welded Carbon Steel Tanks for Water Storage (AWWA D100-11) American Water Works Association Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) (2010) Design recommendation for storage tanks and their supports with emphasis on seismic design, Tokyo, Japan Brunesi, E., Nascimbene, R., Pagani, M., Beilic, D (2015) “Seismic performance of storage steel tanks during the May 2012 Emilia, Italy earthquakes.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 29(5) 10.1061/%28ASCE%29CF.19435509.0000628 City and Council of San Francisco (2016) San Francisco Water Power Sewer Completed Projects Retrieved from San Francisco Water Power Sewer: https://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=968 City of Bellevue (2013) Wastewater System Plan City of Bellevue: Bellevue, WA Davey, R.A (2010) Damage to potable water reservoirs in the Darfield earthquake Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineers, 43(4) © ASCE 779 Structures Congress 2017 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved EERI (2014) EERI Special Issue Report: M6.0 South Napa Earthquake of August 24, 2014 Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI) Learning from Earthquakes: San Francisco, CA Eidinger, J., Davis, C.A (2012) Recent earthquakes: Impacts for U.S water utilities Water Research Foundation: Denver, CO Fischer, E., Liu, J., and Varma, A (2016) "Investigation of Cylindrical Steel Tank Damage at Wineries during Earthquakes: Lessons Learned and Mitigation Opportunities." Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000283, 04016004 Goel, R K (2003) December 22, 2003 San Simeon Earthquake Gonzales, E., Almazan, J., Beltran, J., Herrera, R., & Sandoval, V (2013) Performance of stainless steel winery tanks during the 02/27/2010 Maule Earthquake Engineering Structures, 56, 1402-1418 Hanson, R.D (1973) Behavior of liquid-storage tanks in The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964 (pp 331-339) Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences Housner, G W (1969) Dynamic Analysis of Fluids in Containers Subjected to Accelerations In Nuclear Reactors and Earthquakes (p Appendix F) Washington, D.C.: W.S Atomic Energy Commission TID-7024 Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) (2005) “Guidelines for seismic design of liquid storage tanks; provisions with commentary and explanatory examples.” IITKGSDMA, Kanpur Jacobsen, L S (1949) Impulsive hydrodynamics of fluid inside a cylindrical tank and of fluid surrounding a cylindrical pier Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 39(3), 189-204 Leon, G S., & Kausel, A M (1986) Seismic analysis of fluid storage tanks Journal of Structural Engineering, 112, 1-18 Malhotra, P K., Wenk, T., & Wieland, M (2000) Simplified procedure for seismic analysis of liquid-storage tanks Structural Engineering International, 3, 197-201 Manos, G C (1991) Evaluation of the earthquake performance of anchored wine tanks during the San Juan, Argentina, 1977 earthquake Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 20, 1099-1114 Marrow, J (2002) The Seismic Vulnerability of the California Wine Industry - An Experimental Assessment Proceedings of the 2002 Structural Engineers Association of California Convention Santa Barbara, CA Niwa, A., & Clough, R W (1982) Buckling of cylindrical liquid-storage tanks under earthquake loading Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10, 107-122 Niwa, A., & Clough, R W (1982) Bukcling of Cylindrical Liquid-Storage Tanks under Earthquake Loading Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 10, 107-122 NZSEE (2009) Recommendations for seismic design of storage tanks, New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering Peek, R., & Jennings, P C (1988) Simplified analysis of unanchored tanks Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 16, 1073-1085 Risk Magement Solutions (RMS) (2003) 2003 San Simeon, California, Earthquake RMS © ASCE 780 Structures Congress 2017 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Rondon, A., Guzy, S (2016) Determination of localized stresses in shell above anchor bolt chairs attachments of anchored storage tanks Thin Walled Structures, 98B, 617-626 Rosewitz, J., & Kahanek, C (2014) Performance of wine storage tanks: Lessons from the earthquakes near Marlborough ASEC Conference - Structural Engineering in Australasia - World Standard Auckland, New Zealand Swan, S W., Miller, D D., & Yanev, P I (1984) The Morgan Hill Earthquake of April 24, 1984 - Effects on Industrial Facilities, Buildings, and Other Facilities Earthquake Spectra, 1, 457-568 UNI EN 14015 (2006) “Specification for the design and manufacture of site built, vertical, cylindrical, flat-bottomed, above ground, welded steel tanks for the storage of liquids at ambient temperature and above.” European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels, Belgium Veletsos, A S., & Tang, Y (1990) Soil-structure interaction effects for laterally excited liquid-storage tanks Journal of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 19(4), 473-496 Zareian, F., Sampere, C., Sandoval, V., McCormick, D L., Moehle, J., & Leon, R (2012) Reconnaissance of the Chilean Wine Industry Affected by the 2010 Chilean Offshore Maule Earthquake Earthquake Spectra, 28(S1), S503-S512 © ASCE 781 Structures Congress 2017 A Comparison of Approximate Methods for Period Determination in Rack Structures Andrew Hardyniec, Ph.D.1; Charles DeVore, Ph.D., P.E.2; and Jeffrey Travis, P.E., SE3 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, 4580 Weaver Parkway, Suite 100, Warrenville, IL 60555 E-mail: ahardyniec@exponent.com Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, 420 Lexington Ave., Suite 1740, New York, NY 10170 E-mail: cdevore@exponent.com Exponent Failure Analysis Associates, 4580 Weaver Parkway, Suite 100, Warrenville, IL 60555 E-mail: jtravis@exponent.com Abstract The seismic design of rack structures according to the Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI) MH16.1-08 standard requires calculation of the fundamental period in both the down-aisle and cross-aisle directions using “the structural properties and deformation characteristics of the resisting elements in a properly substantiated analysis” for seismic load determination A detailed finite element model provides accurate calculation of the rack structure’s natural periods but can be tedious for large rack structures The additional accuracy provided by the finite element approach can be impractical for evaluating large facilities containing several thousand storage racks Approximate methods for computing the natural period of rack structures can provide simplifications that enable tractable solutions for large facilities A discussion of approximate methods for period calculation, including approximate analytical methods and a reduced direct stiffness model, is presented with a comparison of periods computed using the approximate methods and the finite element method The accuracy of each period calculation procedure is compared and the implications for the resulting design calculations are discussed for various rack structures An analysis framework for systematically evaluating rack structures in large facilities using organized information about the rack structures with the approximate methods is also discussed INTRODUCTION The design of rack structures requires the consideration of many types of loading, including gravity loads from pallets and self-weight of the structural components, lateral loading from accidental impact of forklifts, and seismic loads In the United States, seismic forces control the design of rack structures in seismic regions of the western states but can control the design of rack components in higher seismic hazard areas of the central and eastern regions Rack structures resemble long slender © ASCE 782 Structures Congress 2017 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved buildings with braced frames resisting lateral forces in the short, or cross-aisle, direction and moment frames resisting lateral forces in the long, or down-aisle, direction Unlike buildings, however, the length of the rack structure in the downaisle direction can be much longer than that in the cross-aisle direction Additionally, multiple rack structures can be found within one storage facility, and large facilities can have several hundred rack structures, each composed of 10 to 40 individual storage racks Storage rack design is governed by the Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI) under RMI MH16.1 Because many municipalities in the United States have currently adopted the 2009 or 2012 edition of the International Building Code, the applicable code for rack structure design is RMI MH16.1-08 (RMI 2008) Seismic loading is applied through a procedure similar to the equivalent lateral force method in ASCE-7 (ASCE 2010), which requires the determination of the first mode period in both the down-aisle and cross-aisle directions However, the variability of rack components, size of rack structures, and number of rack structures in a facility can make determination of the first mode period of all rack structures cumbersome This study presents two alternative approximate approaches to creating a detailed finite element model for determining first mode periods in rack structures A comparison of the performance of the methods is presented for an example rack structure and a framework is discussed for efficiently evaluating all rack structures in a facility EXAMPLE RACK STRUCTURE Rack structures consist of parallel rack frames, referred to as upright frames, connected through beams arranged at different heights with varying lengths, known as bay profiles Two upright frames connected with beams arranged in a single bay profile is commonly referred to as a single storage rack Rack structures can be comprised of as few as one bay profile to more than 30 bay profiles Upright frames typically consist of either hot rolled sections of standard channel and angle shapes or cold-formed sections in a variety of cross-sections The upright frames used in this study include a 360-inch tall end frame (Figure 1a) and a 320-inch tall interior frame (Figure 1b) Vertical members consist of two C3x3.5 channel sections forming a hollow tube up to 130 inches reducing to a single channel section up to the full height Horizontal and bracing members on the interior frame are C3x3.5 channels in the first level, L2x2x1/8” angles in the second level, and L1-1/2x1-1/2x1/8” angles for all other levels All braces and horizontal members in the exterior frame are L11/2x1-1/2x1/8” angles Eccentric distances along the horizontal members between the angles and columns are 1-1/2” adjacent to the double channel sections to 2” adjacent to the single channel sections for both frames © ASCE 783 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Structures Congress 2017 784 (a) (b) Figure 1: (a) Exteriior and (b) Inteerior Upright Frrames (Courtessy of Exponent)) Thee rack structture, shown in Figure 2, consists off twenty bayy profiles w with three to fivee beam heig ght elevation ns and width hs of 58”, 966” and 134”” The assocciated beam sections with each bay wid dth are C3x3 3.5, C4x4.5, and C5x6.7 channels, reespectively A pallet p weightt of kips was w assumed d with each bbeam level oof the formeer three bay pro ofile widths accommodat a ting one, two o, and three ppallets, resppectively © ASCE Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved Structures Congress 2017 785 Figure 2: Full Rack Structure (Courrtesy of Exponen nt) AP PPROXIMA ATE ANALY YSIS METH HODS Tw wo analysis methods m werre considereed for determ mining the aapproximatee first mode perriod of both the t rack stru ucture in the down-aisle ddirection andd the individdual upright fram mes in thee cross-aislee direction: a reducedd direct stiiffness moddel and an app proximate an nalytical metthod utilizin ng either Rayyleigh’s Prinnciple in thee cross-aisle direection or FEMA 460 (FE EMA 2005) in the down-aisle directiion Red duced Direcct Stiffness Method M Thee reduced direct d stiffn ness method d, herein reeferred to aas the reducced model, nsiders the rack r structu ure as a set of interconnnected beaam elementss with each elem ment having g the same formulation f as a the directt stiffness m method Com mplexities in the geometry are simplifiied by replacing slopeed legs of ccolumns and eccentric ween the attaachment poiints of the bracing andd columns w with simple disttances betw geo ometry Also o, the elevattions of the beams are considered to be the same for all beaams at one pallet p locatio on Axial flex xibility of m members is nnot considereed and only masss from palleet loading accting in the horizontal h diirection is coonsidered Figure 3: Ra ack Structure Moment M Frame ((Courtesy of Exxponent) Forr period deteermination of the uprightt frames in tthe cross-aissle direction,, the frames are simplified by considerring the braaces as actinng through the work ppoint of the nnection betw ween the ho orizontal mem mbers and thhe columns,, and the slooped legs off colu umns are rep placed by strraight segmeents Additioonally, only the horizonntal stiffness com mponents of braces are considered c Mass M and stiiffness matriices are form med by only © ASCE Structures Congress 2017 considering the horizontal and rotational degrees-of-freedom at each joint, and an eigenvalue analysis is performed to obtain the first mode period Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved For period determination of rack structures in the down-aisle direction, the rack structure is considered as a set of parallel two-dimensional moment frames For this study, the example rack structure consists of two identical moment frames, as shown in Figure Because the joints between the columns and beams are in the same locations in each moment frame, the two moment frames are superimposed onto one two-dimensional moment frame As with analysis in the cross-aisle direction, mass and stiffness matrices are formed by only considering the horizontal and rotational degrees-of-freedom at each joint and an eigenvalue analysis is performed on the system to obtain the first mode period Approximate Analytical Methods Two approximate analytical methods are used in this study to compute the fundamental period in both the cross-aisle and down-aisle directions These methods are presented to serve as an alternative approximate method These are a further simplification when compared to the reduced direct stiffness methods In the crossaisle direction the approximate analytical method is based on Rayleigh’s Principle and in the down-aisle direction FEMA 460 is used for period computation Rayleigh’s Principle is an energy-based principle that finds the fundamental period of a differential eigenproblem by minimizing the quotient of stiffness to mass integrated with a set of trial functions (a.k.a., Rayleigh’s Quotient) The formulation used in this study uses a single trial function that respects the boundary conditions of the upright frame The stiffness is defined as a continuous function that uses the column lateral stiffness for an unbraced panel, or region of the upright frame bound on top and bottom by horizontal members, and transformed column lateral stiffness using the parallel axis theorem for braced panels The mass is found by lumping the product weight at the specific beam heights The fundamental period calculated will be conservatively smaller than the actual period because stiffness is over-estimated and a minimization procedure is not used The procedure is computationally efficient and stable FEMA 460 provides an alternative down-aisle period calculation method based on an approximate analytical method The procedure assumes the restoring force in the down-aisle direction is provided by resistance in the beam-to-column connection and the base plate connection All flexibility is concentrated in the joints and the members are assumed to remain rigid As such, the assumed deformation is a leaning frame with rotation at the joints The method requires values for the stiffness of the connections which can be provided by testing data in accordance with RMI MH16.108 Section In this study, test data is not available, so the behavior of the connections is assumed to reflect the stiffness of the beams and columns with rigid connections, as consistent with the other analysis methods Therefore, the stiffness of the connections at the beam ends is assumed to be equivalent to the rotational stiffness of the corresponding beam in double curvature and the stiffness of the base © ASCE 786 Structures Congress 2017 787 plate connection is assumed to the stiffness of the column in single curvature up to the first beam level RESULTS COMPARISON Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved The example rack structure was analyzed using the approximate methods to determine the first mode period in the down-aisle direction and the cross-aisle direction for two upright frames The two upright frames considered were the end and first interior frames, herein referred to as frame FR1 and frame FR2, respectively A detailed finite element model was analyzed in STAAD.Pro V8i (Bentley 2015) and used as a basis for comparison The detailed model included self-weight Per the requirements of RMI (2008) and FEMA 460 (FEMA 2005), the mass associated with the pallet load was reduced to 67% of the full pallet mass for period calculation The resulting first mode period calculated from each method, shown in Table 1, indicates that the reduced model and Rayleigh’s Quotient return a period value that is lower than the period calculated from the detailed finite element models This behavior is expected as the approximate methods enforce restrictions on the structure that effectively stiffen the structure Both the reduced model and the approximate analytical methods reduce the number of degrees-of-freedom in the model by not considering vertical displacements The eccentric lengths between the bracing connections and columns in the upright frames add flexibility to the frames Neglecting this feature decreases the first mode period by stiffening the frame The FEMA 460 Method returns a first mode period that is very similar to the period from the finite element model and is slightly longer As with the other approximate methods, the assumptions of the FEMA 460 Method impose constraints on the structure, but the overall assumed behavior is similar to the behavior from the finite element model Though including the mass from the self-weight of the upright frames has a negligible effect, including the self-weight for the entire rack structure slightly increases the first mode period in the down-aisle direction for the finite element model Table 1: Calculated First Mode Period (s) Rack Structure (Down-Aisle) Frame FR1 (Cross-Aisle) Frame FR2 (Cross-Aisle) Finite Element Model Reduced Model Approximate Analytic Methods 1.24 1.08 1.25 0.40 0.23 0.28 0.62 0.30 0.39 In seismic design, decreasing the period used to calculate the seismic forces on a structure is conservative However, determining a more accurate period can decrease the seismic demands on the structure, potentially decreasing manufacturing costs through the use of smaller members To demonstrate the effects of applying the © ASCE Structures Congress 2017 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved approximate methods for calculating the seismic forces, four locations were chosen with varying seismic hazards: San Francisco, CA; Salt Lake City, UT; Memphis, TN; and Chicago, IL The 2012 Edition of the International Building Code (ICC 2012) was used to determine the risk-targeted mapped spectral response acceleration values for each site, and the seismic response was determined using the response spectrum defined in Section 2.6.3 of RMI MH16.1-08 Response modification factors (Rvalues) of and were applied in the down- and cross-aisle directions as recommended by RMI (2008) The resulting seismic response coefficient, Cs, for the rack structure in the down-aisle direction from each method, shown in Figure 4a, indicates that the resulting period from all methods returns a value from the curved portion of the response spectrum The period from the FEMA 460 Method was most similar to the period from the finite element model and produced similar base shear values from each location, as reflected in the associated base shear forces calculated from each method in Table Because the period from the FEMA 460 Method was longer than the period from the finite element model, it returned base shear forces that were 1% lower than those from the finite element model for each location However, the differences were small, ranging from about 0.1 kips in Chicago to about 0.4 kips in San Francisco The reduced model returned a base shear that was 14% larger than that from the finite element model for each location, with differences ranging from 0.7 kips in Chicago to 4.5 kips in San Francisco However, these differences are applied across the 21 upright frames that comprise the rack structure Additionally, the design of the upright frames is frequently governed by either the seismic loads in the cross-aisle direction or gravity loads, and the design of the beams is often governed by pallet loads Each approximate method is also capable of incorporating linear spring models at the ends of the beams to represent flexibility at these connections This additional flexibility will elongate the period in the down-aisle direction, which places the responses from each modeling approach further down the response spectrum curve where the response is less sensitive to changes in period The results in the cross-aisle direction are similar to those in the down-aisle direction The upright frames are braced-frame systems which are stiff and typically characterized by a short period The two frames chosen for comparison are heavily loaded for their locations in the rack structure and subsequently return the longest periods Even though the exterior frame FR1 was heavily loaded, all three methods returned periods associated with the plateau of the response spectrum, as shown in Figure 4b, and, as a result, produced the same base shear, as presented in Table As an interior frame, frame FR2 carries twice the load of frame FR1 with the same number of beam levels As a result, the finite element model returned a period near the transition between the plateau and curved portions of the response spectrum while the period from the reduced model and Rayleigh’s Quotient were associated with the plateau of the response spectrum for all locations In the highest and lowest seismic hazard regions, San Francisco and Chicago, the periods from all models were associated with the plateau of the response spectra The difference in base shear between the finite element model and the approximate models was about 0.5 kips in © ASCE 788 Structures Congress 2017 789 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved both Salt Lake City and Memphis, M or 12% and 5% of the ttotal base shhear in each locaation, respecctively As demonstrated d d from these results, assuuming that thhe response of the t frames in n the cross-aaisle directio on is associatted with the plateau of thhe response speectrum insteaad of calculaating the periiod is a reasoonable but conservative approach (b) (a) (c) Figure 4: Sp pectral Responsse in the (a) Dow wn-Aisle Directtion and the Crross-Aisle Direcction for (b) Framee FR1 and (c) Frame F FR2 (Cou urtesy of Expon nent) Table T 2: Rack Structure S Base S Shear (kips) San n Francisco, CA Salt Lake City, UT Meemphis, TN Chiicago, IL © ASCE Fin nite Elementt Model 31.5 26.7 19.6 4.9 Reduuced Model 36.0 30.5 22.4 5.6 Approoximate Analyticc Methods 331.1 226.3 119.4 44.8 Structures Congress 2017 790 Table 3: Frame FR1 Base Shear (kips) Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by RMIT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on 01/05/19 Copyright ASCE For personal use only; all rights reserved San Francisco, CA Salt Lake City, UT Memphis, TN Chicago, IL Finite Element Model 2.51 2.46 1.85 0.36 Reduced Model 2.51 2.46 1.85 0.36 Approximate Analytic Methods 2.51 2.46 1.85 0.36 Table 4: Frame FR2 Base Shear (kips) San Francisco, CA Salt Lake City, UT Memphis, TN Chicago, IL Finite Element Model 5.03 4.39 3.23 0.72 Reduced Model 5.03 4.93 3.71 0.72 Approximate Analytic Methods 5.03 4.93 3.71 0.72 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS The results of analyzing the example rack structure demonstrate that the approximate methods can produce results that are reasonable when compared to the results from a detailed finite element model The maximum increase in base shear over the results from the finite element model was about 0.2 kip per frame when evenly distributed in the down-aisle direction and 0.5 kips in the cross-aisle direction Though the difference in computational time for calculating the periods in the downand cross-aisle directions is trivial for individual analyses, the advantages of the approximate methods are in the time saved in the analysis process Building the finite element model can take a significant amount of time, which is compounded when faced with evaluating a storage building with multiple rack structures in different configurations The approximate methods are simple to program and require minimal information about the properties of the rack structures and their upright frames As a result, the approximate methods can be automated and incorporated into a framework capable of simultaneously evaluating all rack structures in a storage building In response to the needs of clients, Exponent has created a framework that imports information about the geometry, material properties, and loading of rack structures in a storage building and evaluates their design capacity This framework is implemented using custom-designed computer programs to automate the analysis and assist the evaluation of the each storage rack in a large-scale facility By automating a large portion of the analysis, considerable cost savings are provided while sacrificing none of the fidelity and conservatism of typical full-scale analysis model © ASCE ... personal use only; all rights reserved Structures Congress 2017 Buildings and Special Structures SELECTED PAPERS FROM THE STRUCTURES CONGRESS 2017 April 6–8, 2017 Denver, Colorado SPONSORED BY The... on Blast and Impact Loading and Response of Structures Volume includes papers on Bridges and Transportation Structures Volume includes papers on Buildings and Nonbuilding and Special Structures. .. of 0.016 ft f for water, 0.066 for laand and Daveenport’s 1.644 ft for trees and single-sstory buildings and 3.3 ftt buildings bbetween one and two stories and ft for CE 2010) taller buiildings