Research Summary
This capstone evaluated over 20 seismic design systems across four categories: lateral-force resisting systems, shock absorption mechanisms, and foundations.
METHODOLOGY
Each system was scored on criteria tailored to its category using a 1-5 scale. The highest-scoring systems were considered for the final design.
| Category | Criteria |
| Lateral Systems | Ductility, Stiffness, Residual Drift, Redundancy, Constructability,/Soil Compatibility Cost, Height Restrictions, Isolation Compatibility |
| Shock Absorption | Flexibility, Damping, Recentering, Displacement Capacity, Durability, Constructability, Cost |
| Foundations | Sediment Control, Lateral Capacity, Isolation Integration, Liquefaction Resistance, Soil-Structure Interaction, Constructability, Cost |
KEY RESEARCH FINDINGS
| Finding | Implication |
| SMF outperforms OMF and IMF | Higher ductility, no height limits, compatible with isolation |
| BRBF is the best braced frame | Eliminates buckling, stable energy dissipation, but adds stiffness |
| Composite shear walls outperform others | Higher ductility and energy dissipation, but still too stiff for isolation |
| FPS beats LRB for soft clay | Geometry-based, predictable, not sensitive to shaking duration |
| Viscous dampers beat others | No added stiffness, velocity-dependent, proven performance |
| Piles are essential for soft clay | Settlement control, lateral capacity, isolator support |
See the detailed table below explaining these elements.