Seismic Analysis for Dynamic Forces using FEM

Case Studies – I:
Nonlinear Time History Analyses

Durgesh C Rai
Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Kanpur 208016
CE620: Structural Dynamics/Dr Durgesh Rai/2011 1

Base Isolation

1
 Building Details

Front View

• Military Hospital
Shimla
3

Building Details

Side View

• Military Hospital
Shimla
4

2
 Building Details

Rear View

• Military Hospital
Shimla
5

Building Details

Rear View (Close-up)

• Military Hospital
Shimla
6

3
 Building Details…
• Salient Features
– Building has a basement and 5 upper level floors
which reduce in plan size as we go up!
– More weight in central part due to water tank and
larger column free spans
– Total Seismic Weight = 20,000 Ton
– Plan dimension Approx. 98 by 30 M
– Mix of Concrete = M25
– Lead Rubber Bearing (LRB) Isolator have been used
– LRB has been chosen because
• These are out of patent and hence many
manufacturers
• Cheaper than Friction Pendulum Bearing
• Smaller in size
• Time tested and proven in past Earthquakes
7

Structural analysis
• Modeling in SAP2000
– Other softwares were rejected as they don’t offer enough
capabilities to model and analyse non-linear isolators.
– SAP2000 offers Non-Linear analysis using Modal time
history as well as Direct Integration Time history.
– Isolators have been modelled using bilinear modelling
technique described in a research report and recommended by
several experts.
– Hospital building has also been provided with a few transfer
girders to avoid other problems in free movement of hanging
staircase and lifts.
– Staged analysis has been implemented to accurately predict
the effect of sinking column supports.

4
 Structural analysis …
• Modeling in SAP2000
– All floors have been modelled with actual stiffness and these
are allowed to move as flexible diaphragm. This helps in
capturing in-plane shear of the diaphragm.
– All roofs have been modelled as sloping roof with full shell
behaviour.
– Rigid end offsets of beam and column joints have been taken
into account.
– Non-prismatic sections have been modelled wherever beams
with notches have been provided.
– Building has been analysed for Dead, Live and DBE site
specific response spectra.
– Maxmimum 600 mm deep beams have been provided in
interior area to avoid problem in ducting and cabling.

Isolation Design
• Salient details
– Total Base Shear for Superstructure is 7.1% of Seismic
Weight
– Total Base Shear for Sub Structure is 14.2% of Seismic
Weight
– Lightly loaded columns on periphery are provided with sliders
– Total 16 columns rest on sliders.
– 8 No. LRB are of size 600x600 size with a lead plug of 150
mm dia.
– 72 no. LRB are of size 750X750 size with a lead plug of 175
mm dia.
– LRBs should provide for a damping of at least 15% critical
– Final fundamental period achieved is 2.1 seconds at DBE level
earthquake
– A displacement of about 125 mm at DBE earthquake and 250
mm at MCE level EQ is expected.
10

5
 Modal Analysis

• Mode 1 (Isolator)
2.035 s
11

Modal Analysis …

• Mode 2 (Isolator)
2.033 s
12

6
 Modal Analysis …

• Mode 3 (Isolator)
1.935 s
13

Modal Analysis …

• Mode 1 (Bldg)
0.475 s
14

7
 Modal Analysis …

• Mode 2 (Bldg)
0.472
15

Modal Analysis …

• Mode 3 (Bldg)
0.385 s
16

8
 Time History analysis
• Ground motion synthetic or recorded in similar tectonic
environment and source characteristics compatible to
design response spectrum

1.0 Synthetic
0.8 X

Acceleration (g)
0.5

0.3

0.0

-0.3

-0.5

-0.8

-1.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Period (s)

1.0

0.8 Y
0.5

Acceleration (g)
0.3

0.0

-0.3

Spectrum compatible -0.5

-0.8

synthetic ground motion -1.0

0 10 20 30
Period (s)
40 50

17

Time History analysis …

• Scaling real ground motions

2.5
Chamoli 1999
1.5 H-20
Acceleration (g)

0.5

-0.5

-1.5

-2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Period (s)

2.5

1.5 H-290
Acceleration (g)

0.5

-0.5

-1.5

SRSS of scaled motion should -2.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
not fall below 1.4 times DRS Period (s)

between (T-1) to (T+2) s. Scaled by a factor of 5.65 for Chamoli

motions (PGA 0.36 g and 0.2 g)
18

9
 Time History analysis …

• Response
Resultant Displacement at isolation level
Synthetic 238 mm
Northridge 724 mm
Kobe 590 mm
Chile 493 mm
Chamoli 700 mm
El Centro 1940 565 mm
El Centro 1979 1314 mm

Average of all 7 661 mm

Average (excluding 1979 El Centro) 552 mm

Expected Design Displacement 350 mm

Revise isolator design (Increase damping)

19

Non-
proportinal
Damping

10
 San Francisco City Hall

21

San Francisco City Hall…

• San Francisco City Hall

• Renaissance architecture located in SF
Civic Center National Historic
Landmark District

• Built in 1913 at the same site where

previous city hall was destroyed in
1906 earthquake

• 5-storey office building, 94 by 124 m

in plan with central dome rising 90 m
above main floor
Lantern

• 27.5 m in diameter, the massive dome Dome

acts as a pendulum for seismic loads Drum

Octagon

• Damaged in 1989 Loma Prieta Pediment

Fourth
earthquake Third
Second
Main

22 Ground

11
 Modeling
• Building Characteristics

141
Lantern
1,185

Dome 766
1,500
Drum 9,013 8,967
Octagon
5,077
60
Pediment 24,768
45,625
Fourth
29,782
Third 57,500
24,892 38,000
Second
33,284 25,800
Main 38,016
Ground 204,000

Stick Model Floor Weight Story Stiffness

(9-story) (Kips) (Kips/In.)

• Non-uniform distribution of lateral strength and stiffness

23 • Second storey is soft storey: its stiffness is 12% of first storey

Pushover analysis
• Lateral Strength

• Storey Shear Strength ~0.11W

of which only 10% is due to ductile steel frame
24

12
 UNDAmPED Modes
• Dynamic Characteristics

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4 Mode 5 Mode 6 Mode 7 Mode 8 Mode 9

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
J

J
J

J
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 -1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-1 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 0 1 -1 0 1

Mode 1 2 3
Period (sec) 0.98 0.48 0.27 0.24 0.18 0.15 0.13 0.13
Base shear 68.6 7.3 6.8 0.4 1.3 0.1 18.3 5.7
(MN)

Supplemental damping required to control

both office and dome response
25

Strengthening :: Viscous EDDs

Dome & Drum

Strengthening

Location Of Lantern
EDDs (Typ)
Dome

Drum
Octagon
Pediment
Fourth
Third
Second
Main
Ground

New Drag Beams

(Typical)
New Grade Beams

Independent support system for EDDs

13 to 30% damping in dominant modes
Expected reduction in response is about 25-50%
26

13
 Strengthening :: Viscous EDDs…

40 EDDs with each to carry max. dissipation force of 2000 kN in main floor
level and 20 with a force capacity of 1400 kN at second floor
27

Time History Analysis

• Earthquake Ground Motions
El Centro Ground Motion

28

14
 Time History Analysis…

• Structural Damping Matrix

– Non-proportional damping matrix

29

Time History Analysis…

• TH Response
– Effectiveness of dampers

30

15
 Time History Analysis…

• Response
– Effectiveness of EDDs
Relativ e Floor Displn. (mm) Elastic Story Shear (MN)
9 9
8 8
with suppl. damping
7 7
without suppl. damping
6 6
5 5 with suppl. damping
without suppl. damping
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 10 20 30 40 0 50 100 150 200

• 40% reduction in storey drift for ‘soft’ main storey

• Significant reduction in shear resisted by building components
• Acceleration at lantern level were only 0.3g for El Centro motion
• Proposed strengthening with supplemental damping satisfactorily meets
and exceeds current Code requirements
31

Chevron
Bracing

16
 Building Details

• HP Building
Lankershim Boulevard, North Hollywood
33

Building Details…

• From inside…

34

17
 Building Details…

• HP Building during 1994 Northridge EQ

– Built in 1986
– 17 km ESE of epicenter
– Mw 6.7
– Focal depth 19 km

35

Building Details…

• HP Building
– Chevron-type CBFs for lateral loads

36

18
 Ground Motions Considered
• 1994 Northridge EQ ground motions
0.5
Acceleration (g)

0.31g at 8.04 s
-0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (s)

1.2
Spectral Accn. (g)

0.8 North Hollyw ood

UBC S
2
0.4

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
37 Period (sec)

1994 Northridge earthquake

• Damage
– Damage concentrated in second storey
(weakest storey) for a design level shaking
– Structural damage
• Buckling and fracture of tubular braces
• Failure of brace connections
• Lateral twisting of beams

38

19
 1994 Northridge earthquake…

• Damage…
– Non-structural damage confined to ceilings &
services in penthouse

39

1994 Northridge earthquake…

• Damage…
– N-S frames
FRAME J.5 FRAME E.5 FRAME D FRAME D FRAME A FRAME A FRAME D.5

1 2 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 8 9

W 24X62
W 14X99 W 14X99 W 14X99

6
5/1
4.54 m 4.54 m 4.85 m

0X
X1
10 W 24X68
TS
3/8
2X
GRAVITY COLUMNS

X1
12 W 24X68
TS
3/8
2X
X1
12 W 24X76 W 30X124 W 30X124
TS
W 14X145

/2

W 14X145
6.36 m

X1
4

W 14X176
X1
14

W 30X99
TS

W 14X176
4.54 m

INDEX:
TWISTING OF FLOOR GIRDERS
BUCKLING OF BRACES
10.91 m.
Typ. Bay Width FAILURE OF CONNECTIONS

40

20
 Seismic Evaluation
• Response Spectrum Analysis
– UBC 94 Design Spectrum

Modal story shears and Demand/Capacity Ratio

Floor Factored Story Shear Estimated Demand/Capacity
Level from RSA* Storey Capacity Ratio
(kN) (kN) (DCR)
Roof 6 582 15 086 0.44
Third 10 840 23 140 0.47
Second 13 911 23 140 0.60
First 15 753 30 216 0.52

* A load factor of 1.5 is used over UBC base shear

41

Seismic Evaluation…

• Validity of 2D Model
– Comparison with 3D Elastic ETABS Model
• Fundamental Period of 2D Model (0.72s)
lies between periods of 0.84-0.63s of
similar translational modes of 3D Model

Modal story shears from 2D and 3D-models

Floor Story Shear (kN)
Level 2D-Model 3D-Model ELF (UBC)
Roof 4 388 4 441 4 223
Third 7 227 7 031 7 062
Second 9 274 8 998 9 154
First 10 502 10 502 10 502
42

21
 Seismic Evaluation…

• Pushover Analysis
35000

– Inelastic analysis 28000

1
5

Base Shear (kN)

3
21000
2

14000
UBC Design Base Shear 4
(10 970 kN)
7000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Roof Displacement (mm)

J.5 E.5 D D A A D.5

5 5
GRVTY. COLMS.

4 5
4 4
4 4
2 2
4 4
3 3
5 5 4
3 3 4
4 3 4
1 1 5 2
4 4 4 5 4
4
3 3 3 5 5 3

43 INDEX: PLASTIC HINGING BRACE BUCKLING

Seismic Evaluation…

• Nonlinear time history analyses

– Ground motion recorded at North Hollywood

J.5 E.5 D D A A D.5

GRVTY. COLMS.

F F F F F F

F F F F F F

INDEX: PLASTIC HINGING BRACE BUCKLING F BRACE FRACTURE

44

22
 Seismic Evaluation…

• Nonlinear time history analyses…

– Catastrophic earthquakes (near field effect)
• Newhall & Sylmar ground Motions

45

Seismic Evaluation…

• Nonlinear time history analyses…

– Catastrophic earthquakes (near field effect)
• Newhall & Sylmar ground Motions

J.5 E.5 D D A A D.5

GRVTY. COLMS.

F F F F F F

F F F F F F

F F FF F F F F F F F

F F F F F F

INDEX: PLASTIC HINGING BRACE BUCKLING F BRACE FRACTURE

46

23
 Bridges:
Elastomeric Pads
as Bridge Bearing

Bridge considered for Case Study

• Chengappa Bridge
– Longest bridge in Andaman Islands
– Constructed over Austen Strait along Andaman Trunk
Route
– 268 m long RC Bridge
– Simply supported over 13 cast-in-place piers
– 9.3 m wide bridge deck

Elevation of Chengappa Bridge

(Rai et al. - 2006)
48
48

24
 Deck Support System

• Bridge deck beam

simply rests over pier
cap
• Neoprene pads used as
bearings
• No fastening or shear
key provided to prevent
unseating
– Far from satisfactory
Typical Deck Support for bridge located in
(Rai & Murty - 2003)
Zone V
• 750 mm of seating
width provided
49
49

Location of Chengappa Bridge

North Andaman
Andaman Trunk Route

Austin
Strait

Chengappa
Bridge

Middle
Andaman

Satellite view of Andaman Islands

50 Source: Google Map 50

25
 Seismicity of the Region
• Identified as the most
severe seismic zone V
• The Indian lithosphere
subducts below the
Andaman Plate
– Causes regular seismic
shaking in the region
• Surrounded by thrust
fault and strike slip fault
• 92 earthquakes with M > 6
since 1973
– Within 1200 km radius Map of Seismicity in the
A&N Islands
Showing Earthquakes with M
> 5 (Dasgupta et al., 2000)

51
51

PSHA of the Bridge Site

• According to GSHAP (Bhatia et al., 1999)
– Maximum probable earthquake :: M8.5
– PGA for DBE :: 0.35g to 0.40g
(return period ~500 years)
• According to NDMA, India (Bhattacharjee, 2011)
– Maximum probable earthquake :: M8.4
– PGA for DBE :: 0.08g to 0.13g
(return period ~500 years)
– PGA for MCE :: 0.12g to 0.22g
(return period ~2500 years)

52
52

26
 Effects of 2004 Sumatra Earthquake

• Rai et al. (2006)

– Three middle spans displaced laterally by 700 mm
– Deck fell off the neoprene pad, causing vertical
displacement of about 220 mm
– Movement of other spans by 20 to 150 mm
– Structural damage to beam ends and pedestals only

Plan showing Lateral Displacement of Bridge Deck

53 (Rai et al. - 2006) 53

Ground Motion Characteristics

• Pan et al. (2006)

– Characterized 2004 Sumatra Earthquake ground
motion recorded at Singapore (910 Km from source)
– Concentrated with a frequency band of 0.04-0.1 Hz
– Observed PGA was 0.0005g

FFT Plot of x & y component

(Pan et al. - 2006)
54
54

27
 Ground Motion Characteristics…

• earthquake.usgs.gov
– Observation station: Port Blair
(~1000 Km from source)
• PGA = 0.27g
• PGV = 25 cm/s

– Observation station: Singapore

(~925 Km from source)
• PGA = 0.01g
• PGV = 0.8 cm/s

55
55

Ground Motion Characteristics…

• Sorensen et al. (2007)

– PGA shall be less than 200
cm/s2 (0.2g) in Andaman
Islands
– PGV shall be less than 20
cm/s in Andaman Islands
– Peak in PSA can be
expected near 4-4.5 s
period and less than 1 s
period

56
56

28
 FE Modeling in SAP2000
• Deck slab is modeled as thin plate
• Bearing is modeled as Friction Isolator link element
– Radius of sliding surface is considered as zero,
indicating flat surface (as interpreted by SAP2000)
– Friction coefficient m is calculated as 0.2
• All other elements are modeled as elastic beam-
column element
• Abutment is considered as rigid support
• Bottom of pile is restrained against all 6 degrees of
freedom
– Pile embedded inside rock by 3 m
– Soil structure interaction is ignored

57
57

3D Model

Concrete
Girders

Pier

Pile Cap

Pile

Actual Photo of Bridge Isometric view of

(Rai and Murty – 2003) SAP2000 Model 58
58

29
 Ground Motions

• Selection criteria
– DBE Scenario
• Recorded on rock with epicentral distance ranging
from 15 km to 1200 km
• Fault mechanism :: Thrust fault and Strike slip fault
– Sumatra Earthquake Scenario
• Should have similar characteristics
• Scaling criteria
– DBE Scenario
• PGA to be scaled to 0.54g
– Sumatra Earthquake Scenario
• PGA to be scaled to 0.20g

59
59

Ground Motions…

PGA (g)
ID Event Station Mw R
Major Minor

Pacific Palisades
GM1 Northridge-01, 1994 6.69 18.2 0.469 0.197
- Sunset

GM2 Tabas, Iran, 1978 Dayhook 7.35 20.6 0.406 0.328

Taft Lincoln
GM3 Kern County, 1952 7.36 43.5 0.178 0.156
School

GM4 Taiwan SMART1, 1986 SMART1 E02 7.30 71.4 0.143 0.136

TAPS Pump
GM5 Denali, Alaska, 2002 7.90 94.4 0.075 0.056
Station #09
GM6 Kocaeli, Turkey, 1999 Manisa 7.51 325 0.012 0.006
San Diego Gas
GM7 San Fernando, 1971 6.61 224 0.006 0.004
& Electric

GM6 and GM 7 are also used for Sumatra Earthquake Scenario.

60
60

30
 Comparison of Response Spectrum
Acceleration Response Spectrum
2.5
Scaled Mean Spectrum
IS:1893 Design Spectrum
Spectra of Scaled 7 motions
2
Spectral Acceleration (Sa/g)

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 61
61 Period (s)

Time History Analysis

• Damping
– Rayleigh damping is used with 5% damping at 1.8 s
and 0.1 s period
• Type of analysis
– Direct integration method of Non-linear time history
analysis is used
– HHT-a method is selected for numerical time
integration
• Ground Motion
– Two horizontal components of a ground motion are
applied along transverse and longitudinal direction of
the bridge

62
62

31
 Modal Analysis

Fundamental Mode along Transverse Direction

63 Period = 1.763 s 63

Modal Analysis…

Fundamental Mode along Longitudinal Direction

64 Period = 1.795 s 64

32
 The DBE Scenario

1800
GM1
1600 GM2
1400
Displacement (mm)

GM3
1200 GM4
1000 GM5
800 GM6
600 GM7
400 Average
200 Limit
0 Observed
1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Pier No
Transverse Displacement Profile of Deck Slab
65
65

The DBE Scenario…

1400
GM1
1200 GM2
Displacement (mm)

1000 GM3
GM4
800
GM5
600
GM6
400
GM7
200 Average

0 Limit
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Pier No
Longitudinal Displacement Profile of Deck Slab 66
66

33
 The DBE Scenario…

• Deck will loose contact with bearings

– Due to uplift of deck slab
– Desired frictional resistance can not be generated
– Further increases displacement demand
• Due to sliding

67
67

Behavior of Bearing

Bearing Axial Force Lateral Force-Deformation

Time History Curve of Bearing
68
68

34
 Improvement Suggestions
• Irregular bridges needs separate treatment
• Emphasize on requirement of arresters
– Shear pin reduces transverse bearing displacement
significantly
– No appreciable reduction noted in longitudinal bearing
displacement with the help of Linked slab
• Requires arresters to reduce relative movement
between bridge deck and substructure
– Vertical hold down device shall be used
• To prevent uplift of deck slab

69
69

Bridges:
Simply Supported
Bridge with Drop
Span

35
 Motivation
• Drop span in MSSS bridge
Bearings Slab
Girder

Pier Cap
Abutment

Pier

Foundation

71

Motivation…

Drop Span in MSSS bridge

Advantages Disadvantages
 Reduction in span  Two levels of bearing
length  Complex dynamic
 Reduced section of behaviour of drop span
girder  Failure of drop span
 Economical will disrupt the
functioning of bridge

72 7
2

36
 Motivation…

• Dynamic behaviour of Typical MSSS bridge

Bearing Girder Slab

Pier Cap

Abutment
Pier
Foundation
Design Vibration Unit
Design Vibration Unit (Transverse direction)
(Longitudinal direction)
Bearing Girder Slab

Pier Cap

Abutment
Pier
Vibration is transferred through Foundation
one level of connector
73

Motivation…

 Dynamic behaviour of Typical MSSS bridge with drop span over

the pier

Bearings Slab
Girder

Pier Cap
Abutment
Design Vibration Unit
Pier
(Transverse direction)
Foundation

Bearings Slab
Girder
Design Vibration Unit
(Longitudinal direction) Pier Cap
Abutment

Pier

Foundation

 Vibration of drop span depends upon vibration of main span and

pier – Complex behaviour
74

37
 Study Bridge

Bearings Slab 30m 6.7m

Girder

Pier Cap
Abutment

Pier

1 Foundation 2 3 4

No. of Span – 4, Main span - 30m , Drop span - 6.7m

• All structural components are designed as per IRC

guidelines
 Load calculation – IRC -6 (2010)
 Reinforced concrete design – IRC -21 and IS 456
 Prestressed concrete design – IRC – 18 and IS 1343
 Bearing design – IRC -83 (Part1)
75

Bearing
• Steel bearings used in bridges constructed in 60s
till 90s were mainly of two types
 Rocker Bearing (Fixed)
 Rocker & Roller Bearing (Expansion)

Rocker (R)

t4
t1 Top Plate

t 2 t4 Saddle Plate
t3 Top Plate
t2
Anchor Pin
t1 Rollers (D)
t4 Bottom Plate
25 Grout t3
Grout
w

Rocker w

76 Rocker & Roller

76

38
 Finite Element Modeling
• Bridge is modeled in SAP2000 V 14.0

Structural SAP2000 Element

component
Girder, cross Linear elastic beam element
girder, cantilever
beam
Column Elastic beam column element
with P-M3 hinges at top and
bottom
Abutment Fixed support element
Foundation Fixed support element
Bearing Multi-linear plastic link
element with user defined
stiffness and strength
77

Finite Element Modeling… Bridge

Fundamental Mode along Transverse direction

78 Period = 0.396s

39
 Finite Element Modeling… Bridge

Second Mode along Longitudinal direction

79 Period = 0.33s

Finite Element Modeling… Bearing

Finite Element Modeling of Rocker and Rocker & Roller bearings is

done in ABAQUS to know the force deformation behavior of bearings
under static loading in lateral direction
 Plates are modeled as 3D solid deformable parts. 3D hex and 3D tet
elements are used to mesh different parts of the assembly
 Linear elements are used rather higher order elements, to effectively
model contact interfaces
 Plates are mild steel whereas pintels are cast iron is modeled as
elastic perfectly plastic material. They are modeled as elastic perfectly
plastic material
 Contact between sliding surfaces are defined as friction (penalty) in
tangential direction and hard contact in normal direction
 Vertical load equal to the weight of superstructure and a horizontal
displacement of 1.5 mm is applied on top plate
 Bottom plate is assumed to be fixed

80

40
 Finite Element Modeling… Bearing
Rocker (R)

Anchor Bolt
Top Plate
t3 Top Plate
t2 Bottom Plate
Anchor Pin
Grout
t1 Bottom Plate 625
t4
25 Grout
825
w
Front Elevation
Side Elevation 1,400.0

kN
1,200.0

1,000.0

Force (kN) 800.0

600.0

Top plate 400.0

200.0
Bottom plate
0.0
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60

ABAQUS Model Displacement (mm)

81

Finite Element Modeling… Bearing

1,400.0
kN

1,200.0

1,000.0
Force (kN)

800.0

600.0

400.0

200.0

0.0
-0.20 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60

Displacement (mm)
82

41
 Finite Element Modeling… Bearing

Anchor Bolts
t4 Top Plate
t1 Top Plate

Saddle Plate
Saddle Plate
t 2 t4
Stopper Plate
Roller
Rollers (D)
t3
625
Grout

825

w
Front Elevation
Side elevation

Top plate

Saddle plate ABAQUS Model

Roller

Bottom plate

83

84

42