Seismic Design Considerations for the

Thirty-Meter Telescope

Mike Gedig, Dominic Tsang, Christie Lagally

Dynamic Structures Ltd.
Dec 3, 2007

Outline
Overview of TMT configuration
Seismic performance requirements
Load determination

Tools and methodologies

Preliminary results
Restraint design

Criteria and considerations

Overview of TMT configuration

TMT is a new generation of
Extremely 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 restrain
lateral motions during operation
Fundamental frequency ~ 2.2
Hz (including soil and
foundation)
3

Model Refinement - Overview

Finite Element Model
M1 Cell
M2

Elevation journal

Elevation structure

Elevation bearings (4)

M3

Nasmyth deck

Instrument support
structure

Azimuth structure

Azimuth track

Azimuth bearings (6)

Foundation and soil
springs
Pintle bearing (Lateral
hydrostatic shoe bearing)

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 elastically

2) 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 without
damage, and multiple MLE events with damaged seismic load resisting
elements.

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 with
similar 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

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)

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 frequency
Damping 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

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

4.0%
Damping <= 2%,
between 2 & 10 Hz

3.5%
3.0%

Damping Ratio, zeta, %

2.5%
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0

10
Natural Frequency, Fn, Hz

15

20

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 a
given time

Item

Results (Maximum values)

#1

#2

#3

90 mm

115 mm

96 mm

M2 support acceleration with stiff support

2.5g

2.3g

1.6g

M3 support acceleration with stiff support

1.7g

1.8g

1.8g

13000 kN

7800 kN

2000 kN

N/A

N/A

9 mm

Displacement at M2

Restraint force*
Restraint plastic deformation

* For comparison, base shear ~ 13300 kN using ASCE 7s equivalent lateral force procedure

10

Preliminary results
Time-history results
Below shows acceleration amplification from ground to top-end
Time-History Acceleration Results
2.5
Ground Motion
M2 Acceleration - Linear restraint
M2 Acceleration - Non-linear restraint

2.0
1.5
1.0

Acceleration, g

0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
Max values:
Ground: 0.31g
M2 - linear: 2.3g
M2 - nonlinear: 1.6g

-1.5
-2.0
-2.5
0

8
Time, s

10

12

14

16

11

Preliminary results
Time-history results
Below shows displacement amplification from ground to top-end
Time-History Displacement Results
0.15
Ground Motion
M2 Displacement - Linear restraint
M2 Displacement - Non-linear restraint
0.10

0.05

Displacement, m

0.00

-0.05
Max values:
Ground: 0.067m
M2 - linear: 0.115m
M2 - nonlinear: 0.096m

-0.10

-0.15
0

8
Time, s

10

12

14

16

12

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 be
utilized 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.

13

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

14

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 the

lateral HSB

Higher

Lower

Analysis complexity

Lower

Higher, requires use of timeconsuming 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

15

Seismic restraint design

Restraints with serial vs. parallel load path with lateral HSB
Serial
Force transmitted to structure

Parallel
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 majority
of 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 tolerance
requirements

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

16

Additional Slides

17

Damping
Damping is a major source of uncertainty in seismic design
Damping occurs through different mechanisms
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

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

18

Damping
Recommended design values for general steel structures

wide range of values

Source

Recommended Use

Damping Ratio

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE)

Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE)

3%
4%

Theory and Applications of

Earthquake Engineering, Chopra

Working stress level 0.5 of yield stress

At 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

Survey of structural damping coefficients in telescope design

Telescope

Damping Ratio

Atacama Cosmology Telescope

1%

Keck I & II Telescopes

1%

Giant Magellan Telescope

Very Large Telescope (VLT)
OWL 100m Telescope

0.5%, 2.0%
1%, 5%
1%, 1.5%

19

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
20