Upload
marins
View
244
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
curs utcb metode bazate pe deplasare
Citation preview
Comparison of Simplified Procedures for
Nonlinear Seismic Analysis of Structures
Dan Zamfirescu
To evaluate the suitability for practical application of different procedures based on:
• Accuracy
• Simplicity
• Transparency
• Theoretical background
Objective
Investigated Procedures
• ATC 40
• TriServices’ Manual 1996 (Freeman)
• FEMA 273 and 356
• BSL 2000
• N2 (EC8 – draft 2001)
• Yield Point Spectrum
• Chopra-Goel (Modal Pushover Analysis)
• Priestley
• Fardis - Panagiotakos (Elastic)
Investigated Procedures
Common Features
Common steps (exceptions Priestley and Fardis):
• Pushover analysis of the MDOF to the target displacement
• Bilinear approximation of the pushover curve (exception BSL)
• MDOF to SDOF transformation
• The use of the response spectrum for the assesment of target displacement
Common restriction
• Planar model (partial exceptions FEMA, N2)
Differences
• Response spectrum
– Inelastic (Chopra, FEMA, N2, Yield Spectra)
– Equivalent (overdamped) elastic using “substitute structure” (ATC 40, TriServices, BSL, Priestley)
• Elastic stiffness of structural components
• Distribution of lateral forces for pushover
• Displacement shape along the height
• MDOF to SDOF transformation
• Idealization of pushover curve (bilinear)
• Iterative procedure for the target displacement and for the bilinear idealization needed
• Graphic presentation
FEMA 273 & 356
• Pushover: two lateral load distributions
• Special rule for bilinear idealization (iteration needed for FEMA 356)
• Inconsistent MDOF to SDOF transformation
• Target displacement from nonlinear spectra:– T > TC – equal displacement rule with possible
correction
– T < TC – elastic displacement amplified
• No graphic representation
Chopra-Goel (Modal)
• Modal Pushover Analysis - the effect of higher modes is taken into account by combining several individual peak modal responses obtained from a pushover procedure.
• The pushover procedure is iterative due to the proposed bilinear idealization of the pushover curve.
• Advocates the use of computed, or simplified (Newmark-Hall) inelastic spectra.
ATC 40 & TriServices
• Known as “capacity spectrum method”
• Pushover: lateral load distribution according to the first elastic mode (basic variant)
• Target displacement (performance point) from equivalent elastic spectrum by a graphical iterative procedure
• Equivalent damping determined from
– dissipated energy based on idealized hysteretic loops (ATC 40)
– Newmark-Hall reduction factors for inelastic spectra (TriServices’ Manual)
• Iteration is needed
N2 - BSL 2000Comparison
Load Pattern
• According to assumed displacement shape
• 2 different shapes
MDOF SDOF• According to assumed
displacement shape
N2 BSL 2000
Load Pattern
• Consistent with the previous BSL
MDOF SDOF• According to first mode
shape
N2 - BSL 2000Comparison
Response Spectra
• Inelastic
For T < Tc
–
For T > Tc
– Sd = Sde – equal displacement rule
N2 BSL 2000
Response Spectra• Equivalent elastic
Simplified approach –m-displacement ductility of eq. SDOF
))1(1(*T
TR
R
SS cde
d m
m
im
imeqim
eq
eqim
W
Whh
h )1
1(4
1
m1)
2)
BSL 2000 – equivalent damping
Reduction Factor
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
Top Displacement (m)
Red
ucti
on
Facto
r
1) Fh 2) Fh SDOF
Reduction Factor
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Top Displacement (m)
Red
ucti
on
Facto
r
1) Fh 2) Fh SDOF
Frame Structure Wall Structure
Inelastic vs. Equivalent Elastic Spectrum
Sd
Sa
T*
Sae
m
Sd = Sde
Say
Sad
Dd*
Dy*
m1 (elastic)
S a
S d
= 0 ,5 %
= 3 0 %
sp e c t r e d e r a sp u n sb i p a r t i t e
42 2
sp e c t r u l c a p a c i t a t i i
F u
F
F n
y
K1
K e
R K i
INELASTIC EQUIVALENT ELASTIC
Simple Version of N2 in A-D Format
Damped spectra
Capacity diagram
N2 - BSL 2000Comparison
Response Spectra
• Initial elastic period (bilinear idealization)
• Solution – bilinear idealization function of the target displacement (FEMA 356). Result –iterative procedure.
N2 BSL 2000
Response Spectra
1) - Complicated for large structures. Advantage – no bilinear idealization.
2) - The yielding displace-ment has to be specified
Iteration is needed if perfor-mance has to be assesed.
Is heq easier to determine than inelastic spectra?
Priestley
MAIN STEPS:
• The plastic mechanism of the structure is assumed, based on simple calculations
• The global displacement and ductility capacity of the structure is determined, based on simplified formulas for yield and ultimate element rotations, assumed (PREDETERMINED) displacement shape, and drift limit values
• Substitute structure characteristics are based on ductility capacity
• The displacement demand is established using the substitute structure (equivalent elastic) method
• Compare demand and capacity (End of original procedure -1997)
• Iteration is needed for determination of actual demand! (For direct displacement-based design (new buildings), no iteration is required)
Fardis-Panagiotakos
ELASTIC ANALYSIS
similar to FEMA LSP and NZ code
• Determine secant stiffness (at yielding) of components using empirical relations for chord rotations
• Estimate the peak inelastic chord rotations from linear analysis using the equal displacement rule
Restrictions:
• The method is appropriate for structures having moment diagram in the inelastic range similar to the elastic one
• Restricted for structures having T > Tc
EXAMPLES
• Test example– 5 storey RC frame designed according EC8 (PGA =0.2g)
– 5 storey RC wall structure (only wall & wall + frame is considered to resist lateral forces)
• Seismic demand in terms of:– Top displacement
– Storey drifts
– Rotations and ductilities of components
• Was determined by:– All investigated procedures
– Nonlinear time-history analysis using 11 accelerograms calibrated to EC8 acceleration spectra
• Two ground motions intensities considered:– Spectral acceleration equal to EC8 elastic spectrum
– Spectral acceleration equal to twice EC8 elastic spectrum
Test Example
28 KN/m
21 KN/m
74.5 KN 99.7 KN
102.2 KN 100.6 KN
2.85m
2.85m
2.85m
2.85m
2.85m
5.4m 5.4m
25x55 cm
3f22 4f22
2f22
2f222f22
2f16
12f16
12f18
12f18
12f20
40x40 cm
12f16
Test Example
28 KN/m
21 KN/m
74.5 KN 99.7 KN
102.2 KN 100.6 KN
25x55 cm
2f20+1f16
2f16 8f16
40x40 cm
2f20
6f16
2f8/15cm
530x30 cm
2f20
6f16
390 KN
370 KN
2.85m
2.85m
2.85m
2.85m
2.85m2f20
6f16
2f8/15cm
530x30 cm
2f20
6f16
390 KN
370 KN
5.4m 5.4m
European Accelerograms Recorded on Stiff Soil
Frame Structure
Te= 0.38 s
Te= 0.95 s
Wall Structure
MDOF a SDOF
N2
mod1
N2
uni1
FEMA
mod2
FEMA
uni2
ATC
403
Triser-
vices4
MPA
Mode I5
MPA
Mode II5
BSL6
Fardis7
Priest
ley8
T(s) 0.95
0.97 0.88 0.86 0.87 0.90 0.91 0.19 - 1.59 1.55
cy 0.25 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.20 0.22 0.19 1.26 - - -
Sh 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - -
D F 1.26 1.00 1.30 1.20 1.26 1.26 1.26 0.37 1.26 1.00 1.35
Limit State 2
T - - - - 0.90 0.90 0.91 0.32 - - -
cy - - - - 0.21 0.23 0.23 1.26 - - -
Sh - - - - 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - -
D F - - - - 1.26 1.26 1.26 0.37 - - -
Frame Structure
MDOF a SDOF
Wall Structure
N2
mod1
N2
uni1
FEMA
mod2
FEMA
uni2
ATC
403
Triser-
vices4
MPA
Mode I5
BSL6
Priestley
8
T(s) 0.39
0.43 0.32 0.35 0.38 0.38 0.32 - 0.78
cy 0.26 0.23 0.19 0.25 0.23 0.24 0.20 - -
Sh 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 - -
D F 1.34 1.00 1.30 1.20 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34 1.34
Limit State 2
T - - - - 0.38 0.38 0.32 - -
cy - - - - 0.23 0.25 0.22 - -
Sh - - - - 0.02 0.00 0.00 - -
D F - - - - 1.34 1.34 1.34 - -
Response spectrum
PGA=0.4g
PGA=0.2g
PGA=0.4g
PGA=0.2g
PGA=0.4g
PGA=0.2g
PGA=0.4g
PGA=0.2g
Time- history mean spectrum Time- history mean + StDev spectrum Resulting spectrum EC8 Elastic spectrum
Lateral Load Pattern
Frame
1
2
3
4
5
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Story Force / Base Force
Modal Ai BSL Uniform
Wall
1
2
3
4
5
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Story Force / Base Force
Modal Ai BSL Uniform
Results Displacements
Top Displacement (Drift) - Frame
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mean
M+StDev
Mean Synth
M+Stdev Synth
N2 mod
N2 uni
FEMA mod
FEMA uni
Chopra
ATC 40
TriServices
BSL
Priestley
% H
Sa 2Sa
Maximum Drift - Frame
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mean
M+StDev
Mean Synth
M+Stdev Synth
N2 mod
N2 uni
FEMA mod
FEMA uni
Chopra
ATC 40
TriServices
BSL
Priestley
% Hs
Sa 2Sa
Results – Maximum Plastic Rotations
Column Plastic Rotations - Frame
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
Mean
M+StDev
Mean Synth
M+Stdev Synth
N2 mod
N2 uni
FEMA mod
FEMA uni
Chopra
ATC 40
TriServices
BSL
Priestley
Fardis
rad
Sa 2Sa
Beam Plastic Negative Rotations - Frame
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Mean
M+StDev
Mean Synth
M+Stdev Synth
N2 mod
N2 uni
FEMA mod
FEMA uni
Chopra
ATC 40
TriServices
BSL
Priestley
Fardis
rad
Sa 2Sa
Results Displacements
Top Displacement (Drift) - Wall
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mean
M+StDev
Mean Synth
M+StDev Synth
N2 mod
N2 uni
FEMA mod
FEMA uni
Chopra
ATC 40
TriServices
BSL
Priestley
% H
Sa 2Sa
Maximum Drift - Wall
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Mean
M+StDev
Mean Synth
M+StDev Synth
N2 mod
N2 uni
FEMA mod
FEMA uni
Chopra
ATC 40
TriServices
BSL
Priestley
% H
Sa 2Sa
Results – Maximum Plastic Rotations
Maximum Plastic Rotation - Wall
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012
Mean
M+StDev
Mean Synth
M+StDev Synth
N2 mod
N2 uni
FEMA mod
FEMA uni
Chopra
ATC 40
TriServices
BSL
Priestley
rad
Sa 2Sa Wall Plastic Rotation Reduction
Wall + Frame
0 20 40 60 80 100
Mean
Mean Synth
N2 mod
N2 uni
FEMA mod
FEMA uni
Chopra
ATC 40
TriServices
BSL
diff %
Sa 2Sa
Features
Procedure Analysis Spectrum
Iteration Consistency of
MDOFSDOF
Graphic
Presentation
ATC 40 Pushover Equiv. El. Yes Yes (1st Mode) Yes
TriServices Pushover Equiv. El. Yes Yes (1st Mode) Yes
FEMA Pushover Inelastic Yes1
No No
BSL Pushover Equiv. El. Yes No Yes
N2 Pushover Inelastic No Yes Yes
Yield Spectra Pushover Inelastic No NA Yes
Chopra &
Goel
Pushover
(Several)
Inelastic Yes1
Yes (El. Modal
Shapes)
No/Yes2
Priestley (A) -
Equiv. El. Yes/No3
No No
Fardis &
Panagiotakos (B)
Linear Equal Disp. No Yes (Elastic) No
(A) - Predetermined plastic mechanism and displacement shape. Appropriate for regular structures.
(B) - Fundamental period T > Tc. Predetermined elastic displacement shape (global plastic mechanism). 1 Due to bilinear idealization 2 For each mode
3 For new structures (direct displacement-based design)
• The procedures generally yield results of adequate accuracy (particularly for T>Tc domain)
• Global quantities (top displacements, maximum drifts) more accurate then local ones (plastic rotations)
• Demand Spectrum – the most important parameter
• Final results show low sensitivity to characteristics of SDOF equivalent system
• BSL 2000 – most accurate results
• MPA without further simplifications – significantly more complex
• Main dilemma – inelastic demand spectra or equivalent elastic?
Conclusions