You are on page 1of 106

Landspitali hospital seismic analysis

Bedward
Treatment

rao4n 2007-05-29

Day patient

REPORT
Report nr.:

Project nr.:

Dato:

333582

26. 1.2008

Client:

Landspitali hospital conceptual seismic analysis

Summary:

Rev.
Author:

Dato

Comment

Sign.
Sign.:

Svein dne Moe / Lars Petter Stormo


Controlled by:

Sign.:

Viggo Mhlum
Oppdragsansvarlig / avd.:

Oppdragsleder / avd.:

.Viggo Mhlum

Philip Mitusch

Content:
Introduction ......................................................................................... 1
Summary ............................................................................................ 1
Basis for design and calculations ....................................................... 5

1
2
3
3.1
3.2

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 5
Horizontal load resisting system ........................................................................ 5

3.2.1

Ductile wall characteristics ............................................................................ 5

3.2.2
Location of ductile walls ................................................................................ 6
3.3
Response Spectrum Method ............................................................................. 6
3.3.1

Analysis software .......................................................................................... 6

3.3.2

Modelling ....................................................................................................... 6

3.3.3

Loads and load factors .................................................................................. 6

3.3.4
Materials and material factors ....................................................................... 7
3.4
Seismic action.................................................................................................... 8
3.4.1

PGA............................................................................................................... 8

3.4.2

Elastic response spectrum ............................................................................ 8

3.4.3

Load directions .............................................................................................. 8

3.4.4

Behaviour factor ............................................................................................ 9

3.4.5
Importance class ........................................................................................... 9
3.5
Design criteria .................................................................................................... 9
3.5.1

P-Delta effects............................................................................................... 9

3.5.2

Limitation of inter-storey drift ....................................................................... 10

3.5.3

Limitation of axial loads ............................................................................... 10

Results .............................................................................................. 10
4.1
4.2

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 10
Maximum deformations ................................................................................... 10

4.2.1

Bed ward deformations ............................................................................... 11

4.2.2

Treatment deformations .............................................................................. 13

Day patient deformations ............................................................................ 15


4.2.3
4.3
Maximum axial stress ...................................................................................... 16
4.3.1

Bed ward structural walls stress.................................................................. 17

4.3.2

Treatment structural walls stress ................................................................ 19

4.3.3

Day patient structural walls stress............................................................... 21

Verification by hand calculations ...................................................... 22


5.1
5.2

References ....................................................................................... 24

rao4n 2007-05-29

Introduction ...................................................................................................... 22
Results ............................................................................................................. 23

i
26. 1.2008

sam
p:\162\333580 landspitali skisseprosjekt\06 beskrivelser\skisseprosjektbeskrivelse\design
documents_enclosures to sketch project\seismic\nuh-h001_s_00_99_14-06_dsd_001_04 main
uten front.doc

Appendix:

rao4n 2007-05-29

Appendix A Bed ward


Appendix B Treatment
Appendix C Day patient
Appendix D Verification by hand calculations

ii
26. 1.2008

sam
p:\162\333580 landspitali skisseprosjekt\06 beskrivelser\skisseprosjektbeskrivelse\design
documents_enclosures to sketch project\seismic\nuh-h001_s_00_99_14-06_dsd_001_04 main
uten front.doc

Introduction
A conceptual seismic design has been carried out for the new Landspitali University
Hospital located in Reykjavik, Iceland.
The main objective with this work has been to choose a robust lateral force resisting
system which complies with safety requirements in Eurocode 8 /1/.
The following buildings are treated in this report:

Bed ward
Treatment
Day patient

The building geometries have been modelled in a 3D finite element programme and
response spectrum analyses have been performed. The finite element analysis has
been verified by hand calculations using a simplified method /2/.
All structural walls designed for seismic forces are assumed fixed to the bedrock with
suitable anchoring. Foundations are assumed to be continuous under the
investigated buildings ensuring a well distributed action from the earthquake on the
buildings.

Summary

rao4n 2007-05-29

A lateral force resisting system with ductile concrete structural walls have been
investigated. The structural walls in the different buildings investigated are shown
with thick red lines in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3. Calculations with the chosen
layout show deformations and concrete stress which are acceptable for detail design.

1 of 28

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 1 Structural walls in Bed wards

2 of 28

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 2 Structural walls in Treatment department

3 of 28

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 3 Structural walls in Day patient building

4 of 28

Basis for design and calculations

3.1

Introduction
Basis for the design is Eurocode 8, EN1998-1-December 2004. EC8 is used as a
short form when referred to in this document.

3.2

Horizontal load resisting system


All buildings considered are designed as wall-equivavalent dual systems /1/ with
distributed concrete structural walls as primary seismic members. Ordinary vertical
forces are supported by columns designed as non seismic elements. For seismic
horizontal forces the roof and floors are acting like diaphragms and as collector
elements towards the concrete structural walls. The concrete structural walls are cast
in place and continuous from top to bottom of the buildings. Overturning moment
must be balanced by anchoring to the bed rock. A principal drawing is shown in
Figure 4.
Storey mass

Seismic load

Collector element

m
Column

m
Concrete structural wall
Reaction forces (red = tension and blue = compression)

Figure 4 Principal drawing of horizontal load resisting wall. Stapled lines show deformed shape

rao4n 2007-05-29

3.2.1

Ductile wall characteristics


The main energy dissipating mechanism for a ductile wall is the formation of a plastic
hinge in the lower part of the wall. To achieve this mechanism with concrete the wall

5 of 28

is designed such that yielding in the reinforcement on the tension side occurs before
concrete cracks in compression on the compression side.
3.2.2

Location of ductile walls


The location of the concrete structural walls is primarily around stair/elevator shafts
and electrical shafts. Concrete structural walls are if possible placed around the
perimeter of the building to avoid torsion modes. Additional walls are added if found
necessary by the analysis. Effort is made to meet architectural demands.

3.3

Response Spectrum Method


The methodology used for the structural response is a linear deterministic analysis
known as the Response Spectrum Method. The structural stiffness, mass and
damping are modelled in a finite element model. Then the free vibration
characteristics of the system are determined and the response spectrum analysis is
performed.

3.3.1

Analysis software
The analyses are carried out in the finite element method programme Robot
Millennium. For references see, http://www.robobat.com.

3.3.2

Modelling
All columns are modelled as continuous with fixed base and all slabs are modelled as
continuous plates. All structural walls are modelled with thickness 300mm. Non
structural walls and cladding are not modelled.
All buildings are modelled fixed at the ground level. Number of storeys and building
heights are given in Table 1.
Table 1 Number of storeys and building height

Building
Bed ward
Treatment
Day patient1)

Number of storeys
8
7
4 (10)

Building heigths [m]


32
28
16 (40)

1) The building has two levels

rao4n 2007-05-29

3.3.3

Loads and load factors


The ultimate limit state (ULS) is checked with the seismic acceleration ag = 1.4 m/s2.
The governing ground acceleration in limit sate ULS is taken as the PGA with a return
period of 475 years ref. the following section 3.4.1 multiplied with the seismic
importance factor given in section 3.4.5.

6 of 28

Gravity loads are evenly distributed on all floors. The values are shown in Table 2.
Table 2 Loads

Value [kN/m2]
10.3
8
7,5
4.0
0.75

Load type
Dead load slabs1)
Dead load roof1)
Dead load structural walls
Live load
Snow

1) All slabs are modelled with thickness t=300mm and remaining dead loads are
added with additional load cases.

Load factors for seismic load cases are shown in Table 3.


Table 3 Load factors

Load type
Dead load
Live load
Snow
Earthquake

3.3.4

Load factor
1.0
0.3
0.2
1.0

Materials and material factors


In the calculations Youngs modulus and the shear modulus for the concrete
structural walls are reduced with 50% to account for reduced stiffness in the concrete
after cracking. Originally and reduced values are shown in Table 4.
Table 4 Material properties for structural walls

Material
Concrete B30
Youngs modulus
Shear modulus

Original value [N/mm2] Value used in calculations [N/mm2]


26000 N/mm2
11000 N/mm2

13000 N/mm2
5500 N/mm2

rao4n 2007-05-29

Material factor for concrete strength is 1.0.

7 of 28

3.4

Seismic action

3.4.1

PGA
The seismic action is described by peak ground acceleration with a return period of
475 years, see Figure 4. The PGA chosen for the seismic design is 1.0 m/s2.

Figure 5 Probabilistic determined PGA for Reykjavik with a return period of 475 year

3.4.2

Elastic response spectrum


The seismic action is described by the elastic response spectrum type 2 which is
suitable for earthquakes with magnitude < 5.5 on the Richter scale.

3.4.3

Load directions
The horizontal seismic action is described by two orthogonal independent
components represented by the same response spectrum.

rao4n 2007-05-29

The final load effect in each of the two principal directions are found by combining 1.0
x main direction with 0.3 x the orthogonal direction.
The vertical component is not included due to moderate span widths of the slabs.

8 of 28

3.4.4

Behaviour factor
The behaviour factor gives the potential reduction of forces from the response
spectrum analysis.
Energy dissipation level is set to medium (DCM). The behaviour factor is then
calculated according to EC8 5.2.2.2:
q = q0kw 1.5
q0 = 3.0* u/1
u/1 = 1,2
kw = (1 + 0 ) / 3 1 , but minimum 0.5
0 hwi/lwi = 1
kw = 0.67
q = 3*1,2*0.67 = 2.41

3.4.5

wall - or wall equivalent dual system


hwi=height of wall and lwi = length of wall

Importance class
All buildings analysed are classified as importance class IV, ref. EC8 4.2.5. The
Importance factor is set to 1.4.

3.5

Design criteria

3.5.1

P-Delta effects
Second order effects (P-Delta) is taken into account according to EC8 4.4.2.2
Below, a check of the Day patient building with 10 storeys is performed. The figures
used in the calculation are from the simplified response spectrum analysis ref.
Appendix D.
= Ptot*dr/(Vtot*h) < 0.10

Inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient

Ptot = 73.8 MN
dr = 0.0155
Vtot = 10.7 MN
h =4m

Total gravity load for seismic load case


Design inter storey drift:155mm/10 storeys = 15.5 mm
Base shear
Storey height

Calculate :

rao4n 2007-05-29

= 73.8*0.0155/(10.7*4) = 0.03 < 0.10


Conclusion:

9 of 28

For the Day Patient building with a height of 40 m and maximum displacement 155
mm, P-Delta effects can be neglected. Based on this result, P-Delta effects are
neglected for all building types investigated in this report.

3.5.2

Limitation of inter-storey drift


Maximum allowable inter-storey drift is limited to 0.005*H were H is storey height, ref.
EC8 4.4.3.2.
Example Outpatient 10 storey:
Maximum displacement in top of the structure is approximately 0.005*4*10 = 200mm.

3.5.3

Limitation of axial loads


Buckling of the structural walls is associated with a non ductile failure mode and thus
axial loads due to seismic forces is limited to maximum 40% of concrete compression
strength.
Axial normalised loads <0.4 ref EC8 5.4.3.4.1 (2)

Results

4.1

Introduction
Detailed results from the seismic analysis such as deformed geometry, Eigen
frequencies and Eigen modes are presented in Appendix A, B and C to this report.
The results most relevant for the conceptual design are shown in the following sub
sections.

4.2

Maximum deformations
The maximum deformations for each structure in the two principal directions are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5 Maximum displacement in principal directions

rao4n 2007-05-29

Structure
Bed ward
Treatment
Day patient
1) Ref. 3.5.2

Def. X-direction
[mm]
159.0
123.0
105.9

Def. Y-direction
[mm]
147.6
122.0
104.6

Limit 0.005H1)
[mm]
160
140
200

10 of 28

All calculated deformations are within the limits given in EC8.


4.2.1

Bed ward deformations

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 6 Maximum deformations with dominating x directional earthquake

11 of 28

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 7 Maximum deformations with dominating y directional earthquake

12 of 28

4.2.2

Treatment deformations

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 8 Maximum deformations with dominating x directional earthquake

13 of 28

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 9 Maximum deformations with dominating y directional earthquake

14 of 28

4.2.3

Day patient deformations

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 10 Maximum deformations with dominating x directional earthquake

15 of 28

Figure 11 Maximum deformations with dominating y directional earthquake

4.3

Maximum axial stress


Maximum axial concrete stress due to seismic loading is shown for each structure in
Table 6 and compared with maximum allowable concrete stress.
Table 6 Maximum normalized vertical load

Concrete stress [Mpa]


Limit [Mpa]
Horizontal dir.
Vertical dir.
Concrete B301)
26.242)
8.89
9.52
Bed ward
2)
26.01
10.88
9.52
Treatment
8.59
10.14
9.52
Day patient
1) The limit is calculated as 0.4*23.8 MPa = 9.52MPa
2) Local peak value which can be reduced by averaging over a bigger area and by
consider the behaviour factor.

rao4n 2007-05-29

Structure

The maximum values listed in Table 6 show somewhat high values, but the
values are located at discontinuity regions and considered as local peak values.
Maximum vertical concrete stress is shown in the figures below.

16 of 28

4.3.1

Bed ward structural walls stress

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 12 Vertical concrete stress with dominating x directional earthquake

17 of 28

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 13 Vertical concrete stress with dominating y directional earthquake

18 of 28

4.3.2

Treatment structural walls stress

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figur e 14 Vertical concrete stress with dominating x directional earthquake

19 of 28

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 15 Vertical concrete stress with dominating y directional earthquake

20 of 28

4.3.3

Day patient structural walls stress

rao4n 2007-05-29

Figure 16 Vertical concrete stress with dominating x directional earthquake

21 of 28

Figure 17 Vertical concrete stress with dominating y directional earthquake

Verification by hand calculations

5.1

Introduction

rao4n 2007-05-29

A simplified calculation with one degree of freedom is carried out for the 10 storey
building that is part of the Day patient structure. The results for the simplified
calculation are compared with results from the finite element calculation of the same
structure. For this comparison interaction with the lower part of the day patient
structure is neglected.
The simplified method that is used here is described in the Norwegian seismic code
NS3491-12 /2/ which complies with Eurocode 8.

22 of 28

Details from the simplified analysis is given in Appendix D.

5.2

Results
Table 7 Comparison of results from simplified analysis and finite element analysis

Dynamic mass
1.Eigen frequency
1.Eigen period
Maximum displacement
Base shear
Global seismic moment

Results simplified
analysis
7681 tonnes
1,25 Hz
0.8 s
50 mm
9.2 MN
238 MNm

Results finite element


analysis
7529 tonnes
0.34 Hz
2.96 s
155 mm
10.7 MN
201 MNm

The results in Table 7 show that the simplified method gives 14% lower base shear
and 18.4% higher global moment compared to the finite element analysis. This is
reasonably accurate for a simplified analysis which is primarily made for predicting
base shear. The calculations of dynamic properties show large differences. The finite
element model gives a more correct prediction of the dynamic properties mainly due
to higher accuracy of the stiffness in the model.

rao4n 2007-05-29

From this verification we find good agreement between global forces calculated in the
simplified method and the finite element analysis.

23 of 28

References

Eurocode 8, EN1998-1-December 2004


Norwegian code NS3491-12 Design actions Part 12: Seismic actions-December-2004

rao4n 2007-05-29

/1/
/2/

24 of 28

You might also like