newzealandengineer (Structural)

(OP)

17 Oct 13 15:32
Hello community!
I have been reading the forums as well as my seismic design book regarding RSA. There are plenty
of comments and literature on what to do with the results (i.e. scaling it based on some comparison
of RSA shears versus some percentage of static linear static analysis shears).
But I still have trouble answering this basic question: What information does a RSA give you about
your building model that a simple linear static analysis won't give you? In other words, why and
when would anyone want to perform a RSA?
Thanks in advance.

jdgengineer (Structural)17 Oct 13 18:54

A linear static analysis assumes the response of the building is first mode dominant (inverted
triangle). This is generally true for relatively short regular structures. Tall buildings, and those with
structural irregularities have other modes that contribute significantly to the seismic response of a
building (torsion or whipping). By using the linear static approach you are neglecting the
contribution from these modes and therefore may be drastically under-designing your structure.
For a short regular structure, it's my understanding that a RSA analysis can achieve a more
economical solution. As the analysis is more thorough the code allows you to peel back some of the
conservatism in the linear static approach. ASCE 7-05 allows you to design for forces as low as 85%
of the linear static approach when the RSA approach is used. While depending on your structure you
may not end up with lower forces in some instances you will. Other codes, such as ASCE 41, have
no such limit and allow you to design only including the RSA approach even if the forces are
significantly lower than the linear static approach.
Hope that helps.

newzealandengineer (Structural)
(OP)

17 Oct 13 21:07
Thanks for your reply, jdgengineer.
It appears to me if I am going to perform any 3d computer modeling of a building, I might as well
perform an RSA because it is easy enough. According to my local code (New Zealand), I have to use
at least 80% of the static analysis for my RSA (i.e. 0.8*V_s / V_rsa is my scale factor when running
my RSA). So would it be true to say that a RSA only distributes this vertically in a more realistic
matter compared to the first mode, this means I have to increase the number of modes ETABS uses
to analyze the model in the Dynamic Analysis Form. Any thoughts on this?
I do notice that my particular software (ETABS) does NOT permit a non-linear RSA. My situation is
that I have compression struts within an infilled frame structure... I suppose I could artificially
reduce the stiffness of the "tensioned" members to trick the program into using compression only,
this just seems hokey. Does anyone have thoughts on this?
Modeling is fun! Yay box shaking!

jdgengineer (Structural)18 Oct 13 08:42

I agree if you are doing computer analysis you might as well use RSA. As different frequencies of
vibration excite different modal masses your distribution of forces (vertically and horizontally) and
total force will be different between this and the equivalent force method.
Per code requirements you need to increase the total number of modes in order to meet your
minimum modal mass participation (90% in asce 7-05)
I could be wrong on his, but I don't believe RSA theory applies to nonlinear systems. RSA is
essentially taking the linear response of the different fundamental frequencies of vibration and
adding them up to determine the total response. For nonlinear analysis one typically uses a
pushover curve (nonlinear static analysis) or time history analysis (nonlinear dynamic analysis). Both
of these, to an extent, can be done in ETABS. Although Perform would bet the more common
software for this.

JoshPlum (Structural)23 Oct 13 15:08

JDengineer is correct. RSA theory only applies to linear systems.
I have used the "hokey" method you describe.... But, only for pairs of braces. Essentially, I just use
50% of the stiffness for each brace in a tension / compression brace pair. That way, the lateral
stiffness of the structure is constant and I can do an RSA analysis. Now, I will generally need to
design the brace for twice the force that I get out of my analysis. But, otherwise, the analysis should
be pretty good.

newzealandengineer (Structural)
(OP)

23 Oct 13 19:10
That makes too much sense, JoshPlum. Thanks for the tip.