seismic design considerations v2 mike gedig
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
1/20
1
Seismic Design Considerations for the
Thirty-Meter Telescope
Mike Gedig, Dominic Tsang, Christie LagallyDynamic Structures Ltd.
Dec 3, 2007
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
2/20
2
Outline
Overview of TMT configuration
Seismic performance requirements
Load determination
Tools and methodologies
Preliminary resultsRestraint design
Criteria and considerations
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
3/20
3
Overview of TMT configuration
TMT is a new generation ofExtremely Large Telescope
with a segmented primary
mirror diameter of 30m
Overall system mass is
estimated to be 1700T Including steel structural mass
of 1050T
System is supported on
bearings which allow rotations
about 2 axes and restrainlateral motions during operation
Fundamental frequency ~ 2.2
Hz (including soil and
foundation)
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
4/20
4
Model Refinement - Overview
Finite Element ModelM1 Cell
Elevation journal
Instrument support
structure
Nasmyth deck
Foundation and soil
springs
Azimuth structure
Azimuth track
Elevation structure
M2
Elevation bearings (4)
Azimuth bearings (6)
M3
Pintle bearing (Lateral
hydrostatic shoe bearing)
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
5/20
5
Seismic performance requirements
Two performance levels
1) Operational Basis Survival Condition (OBS): After a 200-year average
return period earthquake (EQ) event, structure shall be able to resume
astronomical observations and regular maintenance operations with
inspection lasting no longer than 6 hours
Structure is expected to behave elastically2) Maximum Likely Earthquake Condition (MLE): After a 500-year average
return period EQ event, structure shall be able to resume astronomical
observations and regular maintenance operations within 7 days
Minor damage at seismic load resisting elements are tolerated; the rest of
the system remains elastic
Telescope Structure System is required to sustain multiple OBS events withoutdamage, and multiple MLE events with damaged seismic load resisting
elements.
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
6/20
6
Load determination
Site-specific seismic hazard analysis
Seismic hazard analysis: uses information on local seismology and
geology, such as the location of surrounding faults, to calculate
earthquake event probability
Spectral matching: generates time histories that match a given design
spectrum from input time histories; input should correspond to site withsimilar seismicity and geology, and matching should consider
earthquake magnitude, distance and duration
Site response analysis: generates a time history at surface using an
input time history at bedrock level and a layered soil model
Commercial software EZ-FRISK will be used
Reference to technical codes
American Society of Civil Engineers Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures (ASCE7)
International Building Code (IBC)
Local building code
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
7/20
7
Load determination
FEA: perform both response spectrum and time-history analyses
Spectrum analysis is more straightforward but is restricted to linear
elements
Time-history analysis can provide more realistic results but is
computationally demanding
Solution: Create a simplified FE model representative of the full FEM
The complete telescope structure contains about 18,000 nodes
and 35,000 elements
Apply substructuring techniques to reduce the number of DOF
down to ~100 and cut computation time significantly
Stiffness distribution of original model is maintained
Mass distribution in the simplified model needs to be calibrated against
the that of the full model
Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to examine the effect of
uncertainties in some parameters (e.g. bearing stiffness, damping,
soil properties, etc)
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
8/20
8
Load determination
Other highlights of time-history analysis Soil / foundation is included in the FEM to evaluate ground effects
Rayleigh damping model will be used to define damping for time-history
analyses
Involves mass- and stiffness-matrix multipliers (alpha & beta), which
governs the damping ratio vs. modal frequencyDamping is a large uncertainty in seismic design, further discussion at the
end of presentation if time permits
Seismic restraint can be modeled with non-linear elements
Subsystem loads
There may be further load amplification for delicate components, e.g.M2, M3, and Nasmyth instruments, which are modeled as lumped
masses in the FEM
Local response spectra will be generated to examine this effect in terms
of support structure stiffness
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
9/20
9
Preliminary results
Analysis Assumptions Based on 500-yr return-period spectral and time-history data from
Dames & Moores Seismic Hazard Analysis report for Gemini
Seismic loads are applied to ground nodes in x-direction
Spectrum analysis
Based on D&M response spectra
Use 2% constant damping ratio
Transient analysis
Based on D&M Modified Mauna
Loa time history @ 30 deg.
Set 2% damping for frequency
range of 2 to 10 Hz by applying
appropriate alpha & beta
damping values
Damping Ratio vs. Natural Frequency
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
0 5 10 15 20Natural Frequency, Fn, Hz
DampingRatio,zeta,
%
Damping
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
10/20
10
Preliminary results
Three sets of results #1: Spectrum analysis, all-linear system including seismic restraint
#2: Transient analysis, all-linear system including seismic restraint
#3: Transient analysis, all-linear structure with non-linear seismic restraint
For this third set of results, restraint is modeled as a bilinear spring with a
force limit of 2000 kN, i.e. behaves plastically if force limit is exceeded at agiven time
Item Results (Maximum values)
#1 #2 #3
Displacement at M2 90 mm 115 mm 96 mm
M2 support acceleration with stiff support 2.5g 2.3g 1.6gM3 support acceleration with stiff support 1.7g 1.8g 1.8g
Restraint force* 13000 kN 7800 kN 2000 kN
Restraint plastic deformation N/A N/A 9 mm
* For comparison, base shear ~ 13300 kN using ASCE 7s equivalent lateral force procedure
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
11/20
11
Preliminary results
Time-history results Below shows acceleration amplification from ground to top-end
Time-History Acceleration Results
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time, s
Acceleration,g
Ground Motion
M2 Acceleration - Linear restraint
M2 Acceleration - Non-linear restraint
Max values:
Ground: 0.31g
M2 - linear: 2.3g
M2 - nonlinear: 1.6g
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
12/20
12
Preliminary results
Time-history results Below shows displacement amplification from ground to top-end
Time-History Displacement Results
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time, s
Displacement,m
Ground Motion
M2 Displacement - Linear restraint
M2 Displacement - Non-linear restraint
Max values:
Ground: 0.067m
M2 - linear: 0.115m
M2 - nonlinear: 0.096m
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
13/20
13
Seismic restraint design
Restraint design criteria and strategies The restraints must not interfere with normal telescope operations
The restraints are the primary lateral-motion resisting devices during a
survival-level earthquake and protect the rest of the structure from
damages
Lateral load-resisting ability of lateral hydrostatic shoe bearing may beutilized to a limited degree
The structure and restraints should both behave elastically during an
operational-level earthquake
The restraints may behave inelastically during a survival-level
earthquake to keep the structural loads within the elastic level
The restraints should retain sufficient stiffness and strength to also
protect the structure against aftershocks
Telescope downtime in order to reset the seismic restraint must be
compatible with the observatory requirements with operational
considerations included in the design for repair and replacement,
structural re-alignment, and equipment re-calibration, etc.
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
14/20
14
Seismic restraint design
Design considerations Two fundamental restraint design choices:
1) Serial or parallel (or combination) load path with lateral hydrostatic bearing
(HSB)
2) Linear or Non-linear restraint
Type of non-linearity: friction, yielded component, buckling-restrained braces Factors that drive the restraint scheme choices:
Amount of forces transmitted to structure
Required load capacity of the lateral HSB
Analysis complexity
Analysis accuracy
Fabrication tolerance requirements
Installation tolerance requirements
Relative cost
Downtime
The goal is to protect the telescope structure with the simplest and
most economical restraint design
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
15/20
15
Seismic restraint design
Linear vs. non-linear restraints
Linear Non-linear
Force transmitted to structure Higher Lower, since seismic load is
limited by non-linear behaviour
Required load capacity of thelateral HSB Higher Lower
Analysis complexity Lower Higher, requires use of time-
consuming transient analysis
Analysis accuracy Use standard analysis methods
with confidence
More work is needed to verify
result accuracy
Fabrication tolerance
requirements
Similar
Installation tolerance
requirements
Similar
Downtime Short, since no damage Longer, to repair/replace
components
Relative cost Lower Higher repair/replacement costs
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
16/20
16
Seismic restraint design
Restraints with serial vs. parallel load path with lateral HSB
Serial Parallel
Force transmitted to structure Same if linear behaviour
Required load capacity of the
lateral HSB
Higher, since lateral HSB takes
the same load as the restraint
Lower, since the restraint can
be designed to take the majorityof loads
Analysis complexity Lower Higher; need to be concerned
about load sequence
Analysis accuracy Use standard analysis methods
with confidence
More work is needed to verify
result accuracy
Fabrication tolerancerequirements Lower Greater precision is required
Installation tolerance
requirements
Lower Greater effort required to align
components so they are loaded
as intended
Downtime Short, since no damage Longer, to repair/replace
components
Relative cost Lower Higher
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
17/20
17
Additional Slides
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
18/20
18
Damping
Damping is a major source of uncertainty in seismic design
Damping occurs through different mechanisms
Structural damping (complex-stiffness damping)
proportional to vibration amplitude
different damping levels for different design earthquakes
range of 0.5% to 2% will be considered for TMT as conservative values
Damping Type Energy Absorption Mechanism
Base/soil damping Frictional interactions or movement between soil particles and/or the foundation
Frictional damping Friction between bolted joints, restraints, attached walkways, cables and hoses, etc.
Viscous damping Drag from air or wind as the structure vibrates in a medium
Control system damping Mechanical, magnetic or hydraulic damping mechanisms (active or passive)
Structural damping Inter-molecular interactions in the material from which the structure is made
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
19/20
19
Damping
Recommended design values for general steel structures wide range of values
Survey of structural damping coefficients in telescope design
Telescope Damping Ratio
Atacama Cosmology Telescope 1%
Keck I & II Telescopes 1%
Giant Magellan Telescope 0.5%, 2.0%
Very Large Telescope (VLT) 1%, 5%
OWL 100m Telescope 1%, 1.5%
Source Recommended Use Damping Ratio
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)
Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)
3%
4%
Theory and Applications ofEarthquake Engineering, Chopra
Working stress level 0.5 of yield stressAt or just below yield stress
2-3% 5-7%
Handbook of Structural
Engineering, Chen & Lui
Unclad welded steel structures*
Unclad bolted steel structures*
0.3%
0.5%
*recommended for low amplitude vibration
-
8/10/2019 Seismic Design Considerations v2 Mike Gedig
20/20
20
Damping
Measured damping coefficients damping can be calculated by instrumenting a structure with
accelerometers
structure can be excited by instrumented hammer or by existing loads
such as wind
damping values are typically low because vibration amplitude is low,and are too conservative for design
Statistical analysis of damping coefficients
Bourgault & Miller evaluated damping coefficients for 22 space-based
structures
For frequency range 0.14-9.99Hz, damping coefficient has mean 1.9%and standard deviation 1.58%
Gamma probability density function for space-based structures may be
used for other structures, such as buildings