Sie sind auf Seite 1von 121
Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 1/121 ROSE SCHOOL Seismic Retrofit

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 1/121

ROSE SCHOOL

Seismic Retrofit of a 6-storey office building

Seismic Isolation and Dissipation

Instructor: André Filiatrault, Phd, Eng.

Group 4

Kathy Sassun Giorgio Negrisoli Francisco Figueroa Dimitris Sotiriadis

18/7/2013

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 2/121 CHAPTER 0. Response to

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 2/121

CHAPTER 0.

Response to the Peer Review Suggestions

4

0.1 Response to the first Peer Meeting dated on July 04, 2013

4

0.2 Response to the second pier meeting

5

CHAPTER 1.

Building identification

6

1.1 Geometry and members schedule

6

1.2 P-M interaction

7

1.3 Curvature Ductility Capacity

10

1.4 Dynamic Characteristics

12

1.5 Pushover analysis

13

CHAPTER 2.

Retrieval and analysis of design ground motions

17

2.1 Peak Ground Acceleration

17

2.2 Peak Absolute Acceleration Response Spectrum

18

CHAPTER 3.

Analysis of the original building

22

3.1 Energy Balance

22

3.2 Plastic Hinging Distribution

25

3.3 Envelopes of Peak and Residual Inter-storey Drift

27

3.4 Envelopes of Peak Absolute Floor Accelerations

28

3.5 Performance evaluation criteria

30

3.5.1 Structural component

31

3.5.2 Non-structural component

34

CHAPTER 4.

Retrofit of Building with Hysteretic Dampers

37

4.1 Modeling of the hysteretic dampers

38

4.2 Preliminary design

38

4.3 Intermediate design phase

42

4.4 Final design solution

49

4.4.1 Structural and Non-Structural Performance Indices

CHAPTER 5.

54

4.4.2 Design of the steel braced dampers

55

Retrofit of Building with Viscous Dampers

56

5.1 Modeling of the viscous dampers

56

5.2 Preliminary design

56

5.3 Intermediate design phase

59

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 3/121 5.4.1 Damping ratio verification

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 3/121

5.4.1 Damping ratio verification

75

5.4.2 Design of steel braces and damper devices

76

5.4.3 Realist modeling of viscous dampers

77

CHAPTER 6.

Retrofit of Building with Lead-rubber Base Isolation bearings

82

6.1 Modeling of the isolators

82

6.2 Preliminary design

83

6.3 Intermediate analysis

85

6.4 Final Design

87

6.4.1

Structural and Non-Structural Performance Indices

93

CHAPTER 7.

Final decision for the optimum retrofit strategy

99

CHAPTER 8.

Assessment of optimum retrofit strategy for near-fault ground motion

101

8.1 Near fault ground motion (NF13)

101

8.2 Response of original building to NF13

102

8.3 Response of optimally retrofitted building to NF13

103

References

106

APPENDIX A Capacity Spectrum Method for the estimation of performance point of the building

107

APPENDIX B Viscous dampers device dimension according the design outcome of chapter 5

109

APPENDIX C Maximum plastic rotations

110

C.2 Phase 4: Retrofitted building with hysteretic

111

C.3 Phase 5: Retrofitted building with viscous dampers

112

C.4 Phase 6: Retrofitted building with base isolation

113

C.5 Phase 7: Retrofitted building with base isolation under NF13

114

APPENDIX D Energy balance

115

D.1 Phase 4: Retrofit with hysteretic dampers

115

D.2 Phase 5: Retrofit with viscous dampers

116

D.3 Phase 6: Retrofit with base isolation

117

D.4 Phase 7: Assessment of retrofitted building under near fault ground motion

118

APPENDIX E Actions on the base level

119

APPENDIX F Brace section verification against buckling and yielding strength

121

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 4/121 CHAPTER 0. Response to

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 4/121

CHAPTER 0. Response to the Peer Review Suggestions

0.1 Response to the first Peer Meeting dated on July 04, 2013

1. It is recommended to present the damping ratios for each mode of vibration for the original structure.

Damping ratio for each mode of vibration are presented in Table A.4 as recommended.

2. It is suggested to mark the natural periods of the original structure on the response spectrum plot.

Natural periods for each mode of vibration are presented in Figure 2.3 as recommended.

3. It is recommended that one single figure of plastic hinge distribution and the respective values of

maximum plastic rotation and maximum curvature ductility is provided for each of the three ground motions. We try to put all together the values for plastic hinge distribution and the respective plastic rotation but they are too many to understand just in one plot, so we preferred at the end to keep them separately.

4. It is suggested that the pushover analysis of the original structure is conducted for various load profiles

(i.e. uniform, triangular etc.) and comment on the response of the building for the different profiles. Different pushover analyses are conducted as suggested and presented in Figure 1.10: as expected the uniform distribution gives the higher strength, while the triangular ones gives a predictable simulation close to the first mode (the most accurate distribution in our opinions).

5. It is recommended to tabulate the peak values of major quantities of the original structure (for each

ground motion). Peak values of maximum and residual drifts and maximum accelerations are presented in Tables C1-2-3.

6. The performance of the original building is suggested to be evaluated per FEMA 356 or the capacity

spectrum method additionally to the performance index proposed. The performance of the original building in terms of capacity spectrum method is evaluated and presented at the end of Chapter 2.

7. For the retrofit scheme using hysteretic dampers, it is recommended that selected analysis results (i.e.,

inter-story drifts envelopes, residual drifts, peak floor accelerations, etc.) are plotted for each case in a

way that allows comparison and clearly identifies the final proposed design. More analysis results are plotted in Chapter 4 and compared in order to identifies the final solution.

8. For the preliminary and intermediate design of the retrofit scheme using hysteretic dampers, it is

recommended that more than one cross section distribution is considered and checked. Additionally, clearly identify the selection criterion for the braces’ cross sections. More than one cross section distribution is evaluated and the final selection of the braces’ cross sections is presented in Chapter 4.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 5/121 9. Large amount of

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 5/121

9. Large amount of results was presented which makes difficult for the reader to follow. It is suggested that the response of the building subjected to the critical motion (in terms of damage) for the phases of the preliminary and intermediate design is presented. Preliminary and intermediate design is presented for the critical motion in all the retrofitting phases.

0.2 Response to the second pier meeting

1.It is recommended to tabulate the peak values (i.e. inter storey drifts, residual drifts and accelerations) of major quantities of the original structure as well as for each of the final retrofit designs (for each ground motion). Peak values of major quantities that describe the performance of the structure were tabulated for each the retrofit strategies.

2.For the retrofit scheme of base isolation, a preliminary approach was presented and discussed. It is suggested that further investigation (i.e. variation of elastic stiffness, yield force, post yield stiffness ratio) of the design/analysis parameters is performed before concluding on the final design. All the parameters mentioned were examined for the base isolation retrofit scheme, as suggested. The multiple analyses plots and results are shown in the corresponding chapter (chapter 6).

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 6/121 CHAPTER 1. Building identification

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 6/121

CHAPTER 1. Building identification

1.1 Geometry and members schedule

The building to be analyzed is a six story steel building, with three bays along the north-south direction of width 7.315 m each, and four bays in the east-west direction of width 9.144 m each. The first story is 5.486 m high, while other stories are 3.810 m. Gravity load of the building is deemed to be transferred primarily through gravity columns, while to resist earthquake loads the frames are provided in the exterior panels. This report deals with dynamic response of the building in north-south direction only. The building is symmetric about both its major axes, which allows for it be modeled as a representative two dimensional frame with appropriate consideration of mass of building active in different directions. Hence, only the half structure has been analyzed and only the exterior frame is considered for seismic analysis. Figure 1.1 shows the elevation view of the frame along with numbers assigned to various nodes (in shades) and members.

numbers assigned to various nodes (in shades) and members. Figure 1.1: Elevation view of the moment

Figure 1.1: Elevation view of the moment resisting frame considered for analysis.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 7/121 Table 1.1 presents the

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 7/121

Table 1.1 presents the properties of each member, such as member depth, cross-sectional area, yield axial force, yield moment etc.

Table 1.1: Properties of each member.

SECTION

MEMBER

DEPTH OF

CROSS SECTIONAL

MOMENT

YIELD BENDING

YIELD AXIAL

NUMBER

FRAME

MEMBER

OF INERTIA

MOMENT

FORCE

 

#

TYPE

(mm)

AREA (mm 2 )

(mm

4 )

(kNm)

(kN)

1

- 2

Steel column

363.70

2.064 E+04

5.160 E+08

9.120 E+05

5.987 E+03

3

- 4

Steel column

611.10

1.974 E+04

1.290 E+09

1.373 E+06

5.725 E+03

5

- 6

Steel column

380.50

3.013 E+04

7.910 E+08

1.364 E+06

8.737 E+03

7

- 8

Steel column

695.50

2.768 E+04

2.343 E+09

2.191 e+06

8.027 E+03

9 - 10

Steel column

393.20

3.664 E+04

9.990 E+08

1.687 E+06

1.063 E+04

11

- 12

Steel column

773.20

3.277 E+04

3.413 E+09

2.875 E+06

9.505 E+03

13

- 14

Giberson beam

607.60

1.445 E+04

8.741 E+08

9.500 E+05

0.000 E+00

15

-

16

17

- 18

Giberson beam

683.80

1.787 E+04

1.361 E+09

1.321 E+06

0.000 E+00

19

- 20

 

21

- 22

Giberson beam

753.10

1.877 E+04

1.661 E+09

1.483 E+06

0.000 E+00

23

-

24

1.2 P-M interaction

As was mentioned earlier, the building has been modeled as a two dimensional frames with appropriate consideration of sources of inertia forces in different directions. Entire analysis has been carried out using nonlinear analysis software RUAUMOKO (Carr 1998). The moment frame is considered to resist lateral loads due to earthquakes, while P-Δ effects are simulated using a gravity column. Rigid floor diaphragm assumption has been taken which is realized by restraining all the nodes at a horizontal level including that associated with gravity column to move together in horizontal direction. However, contribution of floors in the stiffness of beams has not been accounted for. Even though the structure is symmetric, there may be accidental eccentricity causing torsion. This, however, is considered to have small impact and has been ignored for the present analysis.

There are 12 columns, but only 6 types, that’s mean 6 types of axial/moment interaction diagram. The frame has been modeled from center to center. The rigidity of joints has been accounted for by providing rigid end offsets. All the inelastic action is assumed to take place at the ends of beams and columns and plastic hinges are assigned accordingly. Length of these plastic hinges is assumed to be 90% of the depth of corresponding member. The force-deformation relationship of the plastic hinges is considered to be bi-linear with 2% strain hardening. Moment and axial load capacities of the hinges are computed based on expected yield strength of A36 grade steel (290 MPa).

From the input file “building_2013.txt” is possible to obtain the information. The format of the row on the Ruaumoko file is “PYC PB MB M0 PC MC PYT IEND” and is represented on the next figure:

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 8/121 Figure 1.2: P-M interaction

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 8/121

Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 8/121 Figure 1.2: P-M interaction in Ruaumoko. Table 1.2

Figure 1.2: P-M interaction in Ruaumoko.

Table 1.2 with the values of P-M interaction is provided below, while Figure 1.3 show the interaction of axial load and moment capacity for various members.

Table 1.2: Interaction of axial load and moment capacity.

Column #

Point

[0,PYC]

[PB,MB]

[M0,0]

[PC,MC]

[0,PYT]

1-2

Axial [kN]

0

821000

912000

912000

0

Moment [kN-mm]

-5987

-1198

0

0

5987

3-4

Axial [kN]

0

1236000

1373000

1373000

0

Moment [kN-mm]

-5725

-1145

0

0

5725

5-6

Axial [kN]

0

1228000

1364000

1364000

0

Moment [kN-mm]

-8737

-1748

0

0

8737

7-8

Axial [kN]

0

1972000

2191000

2191000

0

Moment [kN-mm]

-8027

-1605

0

0

8027

9-10

Axial [kN]

0

1518000

1687000

1687000

0

Moment [kN-mm]

-10627

-2125

0

0

10627

11-12

Axial [kN]

0

2588000

2875000

2875000

0

Moment [kN-mm]

-9505

-1901

0

0

9505

kN

kN

kN

kN kN kN P-M interaction diagram -8000 Column 1&2 -6000 Column 3&4 -4000 -2000 0 2000

P-M interaction diagram

-8000 Column 1&2 -6000 Column 3&4 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 kN-mm 0.00E+00
-8000
Column 1&2
-6000
Column 3&4
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
kN-mm
0.00E+00
5.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.50E+06

P-M interaction diagram

-15000

-10000

-5000

0

5000

10000

15000

Column 9&10 kN-mm
Column 9&10
kN-mm

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 9/121

P-M interaction diagram

-10000 Column 5&6 -8000 Column 7&8 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
-10000
Column 5&6
-8000
Column 7&8
-6000
-4000
-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
kN-mm
0.00E+00
2.00E+06
4.00E+06
kN

Also is provided a plot with all the columns diagrams, in order to easily see the relation between them. The strongest columns are 11&12 and the weakest is columns 1&2

Note: The interaction is symmetric about the M=0.0 axis.

0.00E+00 2.00E+06 4.00E+06 P-M interaction diagram -11000 Column 1&2 Column 3&4 Column 5&6 Column
0.00E+00
2.00E+06
4.00E+06
P-M interaction diagram
-11000
Column 1&2
Column 3&4
Column 5&6
Column 7&8
-6000
Column 9&10
Column 11&12
-1000
4000
9000
kN-mm
0.00E+00
5.00E+05
1.00E+06
1.50E+06
2.00E+06
2.50E+06
3.00E+06
3.50E+06

Figure 1.3: Interaction of axial load and moment capacity for various members.

1.3 Curvature Ductility Capacity Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 10/121

1.3 Curvature Ductility Capacity

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 10/121

The criterion to define the failure at the plastic hinges is based on a plastic rotation of 0.03 radians as adopted by AISC (1997) for ductile steel moment resisting frames. Next task here is to verify whether the degradation model shown in Figure 2.2 does actually correspond to a plastic rotation of 0.03 radians for plastic hinges associated with each of the beams and columns.

Consequently, the bi-linear moment-curvature relationship shown in the figure below is adopted for all beam and column ends. In this figure, 0.2 Mp represents the moment increase due to strain hardening whereas φp is the plastic curvature corresponding to failure of the section.

plastic curvature corresponding to failure of the section. Figure 1.5: Characteristic moment-curvature relationship

Figure 1.5: Characteristic moment-curvature relationship for plastic hinge.

The first step here is to determine the plastic rotation at failure based on assumed degradation model, and input data for yield moment, flexural rigidity and hinge length. Yield curvature (Φy) is defined as the ratio of yield moment and flexural rigidity. Plastic rotation at failure can be obtained as a product of plastic rotation and associated hinge length.

Table 1.3 presents the calculation of plastic rotation at failure and curvature ductility for each of the beams and columns.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 11/121 Table 1.3: Plastic rotation

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 11/121

Table 1.3: Plastic rotation at failure and curvature ductility.

Section #

Type

M p (kNm)

I (mm 4 )

Φ y (m -1 )

Φ p (m -1 )

Φ u (m -1 )

L p (m)

Θ p (rad)

μ φ

1-2

Column

912

5.16E+08

0.00884

0.08837

0.09721

0.328

0.029

11

3-4

Column

1373

1.29E+09

0.00532

0.05322

0.05854

0.328

0.029

11

5-6

Column

1364

7.91E+08

0.00862

0.08622

0.09484

0.55

0.029

11

7-8

Column

2191

2.34E+09

0.00468

0.04676

0.05143

0.55

0.029

11

9-10

Column

1687

9.99E+08

0.00844

0.08443

0.09288

0.354

0.030

11

11-12

Column

2875

3.41E+09

0.00421

0.04212

0.04633

0.696

0.029

11

13-14

Beam

950

8.74E+08

0.00543

0.05434

0.05978

0.547

0.030

11

15-16

17-18

Beam

1321

1.36E+09

0.00485

0.04853

0.05338

0.616

0.030

11

19-20

21-22

Beam

1483

1.66E+09

0.00446

0.04464

0.04911

0.678

0.030

11

23-24

It is clear from the table that the plastic rotation at failure corresponding to the assumed data is reasonably close to the failure limit of 0.03 radian adopted by AISC (1997).

A sum of all the moment curvature relation are plotted as shown in Figure 1.5 and 1.6:

4000 3500 Columns 1-2 3000 Columns 3-4 2500 Columns 5-6 2000 Columns 7-8 1500 Columns
4000
3500
Columns 1-2
3000
Columns 3-4
2500
Columns 5-6
2000
Columns 7-8
1500
Columns 9-10
1000
Columns 11-12
500
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Moment (kNm)

Curvature (1/m)

Figure 1.5: Moment-curvature relationship for all the columns.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 12/121 4000 Beams 13-14-15-16 3500

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 12/121

4000 Beams 13-14-15-16 3500 Beams 17-18-19-20 3000 Beams 21-22-23-24 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0
4000
Beams
13-14-15-16
3500
Beams
17-18-19-20
3000
Beams
21-22-23-24
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
Moment (kNm)

Curvature (1/m)

Figure 1.6: Moment-curvature relationship for all the beams.

1.4 Dynamic Characteristics

Dynamics properties of a structure depend on its mass and associated stiffness. These values for different nodes and structural members, respectively, are reported earlier. Analysis was carried out to determine the natural periods of the structure along with modes of vibration associated with them. Table 1.4 lists the first five natural periods of the frame. Highest natural period, which usually governs the dynamic response is 1.3 sec.

Table 1.4: First five natural periods of the frame.

MODE

FREQUENCY

PERIOD

Participation

M

effective

DAMPING

DAMPING FREQ

 

(SEC)

factor

(%)

%

%

1 7.670 E-01

1.304 E+00

1.334

87

5.00E+00

7.66E-01

2 2.204 E+00

4.537 E-01

-0.482

96

5.00E+00

2.20E+00

3 4.040 E+00

2.475 E-01

0.214

99

7.50E+00

4.03E+00

4 6.411 E+00

1.560 E-01

0.118

100

1.12E+01

6.37E+00

5 9.002 E+00

1.111 E-01

0.08

100

1.55E+01

8.89E+00

For each of these 5 periods of vibration, the corresponding mode shape and the corresponding numerical values of each floor level are indicated in Table 1.5 and Figure 1.7 respectively:

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 13/121 Table 1.5: Numerical values

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 13/121

Table 1.5: Numerical values corresponding to the modal shapes.

Height [m]

Mode 1

Mode 2

Mode 3

Mode 4

Mode 5

24.54

1.00

1.00

1.00

-0.79

0.40

20.73

0.91

0.43

-0.35

1.00

-0.80

16.92

0.77

-0.26

-0.97

0.00

1.00

13.11

0.62

-0.67

-0.28

-0.88

-0.44

9.30

0.44

-0.77

0.66

-0.02

-0.62

5.49

0.27

-0.57

0.85

0.79

0.77

25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0.5 1
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
0.5
1

Mode 1

25 20 15 10 5 0 -1 0 1
25
20
15
10
5
0
-1
0
1

Mode 2

Mode Shape

25 20 15 10 5 0 -1 0 1
25
20
15
10
5
0
-1
0
1

Mode 3

25 20 15 10 5 0 -2 0 2
25
20
15
10
5
0
-2
0
2

Mode 4

25 20 15 10 5 0 -2 0 2
25
20
15
10
5
0
-2
0
2

Mode 5

Figure 1.7: Mode shapes corresponding to the first five natural modes of vibration.

1.5 Pushover analysis

In the pushover analysis, a lateral monotonic load is applied to a structure until the ultimate load is approached. The results of the pushover analysis depend on the lateral load distribution considered. In this case, more seismic loading distributions are assumed (first modal shape, uniform and triangle).

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 14/121 In our opinion, the

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 14/121

In our opinion, the most accurate is the first mode shape distribution because the 1 st mode of the building’s motion dominates in its dynamic behaviour as it shown in Table 1.4. The loading component at each floor was calculated as:

Figure 1.8 shows the deformed shape of the building during the pushover, indicating where the plastic hinges are formed:

pushover, indicating where the plastic hinges are formed: Figure 1.8: Deformed shape of the building during

Figure 1.8: Deformed shape of the building during the pushover.

It is clear that most of the hinges are formed on the beams’ ends. Hinges are also formed at the bottom of the ground floor columns. No other columns yield or fail demonstrating by that way a desirable failure mechanism of the structure. However, the collapse of the building occurs when many beams along with the columns’ base fail almost simultaneously.

The pushover analysis was carried out by applying loads as per load pattern recommended by IBC (2006) in a quasi-static manner with linearly increasing load at an interval of 1 s, while the analysis was performed at a time interval of 0.002 s.

The function used for the pushover is the linear function presented in Figure 1.9:

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 15/121 Pushover excitation function 3500

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 15/121

Pushover excitation function

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Force (kN)

time (sec)

Figure 1.9: Linear function for the pushover analysis.

Figure 1.10 shows location of first hinge formation in beam and column as well as failure in first structural member in the building. Expectedly, first column to develop a plastic deformation is in the first story at the base level, which is subsequently followed by plastic deformation in first beam on the first floor. The analysis was stopped immediately after failure in first member as it almost instantaneously triggered failure in other members causing instability in structure.

4000 3500 0.8V max 3000 2500 2000 1st mode distribution 1500 Triangle distribution Uniform distribution
4000
3500
0.8V max
3000
2500
2000
1st mode
distribution
1500
Triangle distribution
Uniform distribution
1000
1st beam
yield
1st column yield
500
1st failure
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Base Shear (kN)

Horizontal roof displacement (mm)

Figure 1.10: Pushover curve with the locations of hinge formation and first failure.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 16/121 Table 1.5: First yield

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 16/121

Table 1.5: First yield occurred for different pushover analysis.

DISTRIBUTION

MEMBER

STATE

Δ roof (mm)

V base (kN)

1st mode

Beam_57

1° yield

8.33 E+01

2.25 E+03

triangle

Beam_58

1° yield

9.73E+01

2.07E+03

uniform

Col_23

1° yield

8.19E+01

2.12E+03

Then, the values of the second member yielded are presented in Table 1.6:

 

Table 1.6: Second yield occurred for different pushover analysis.

 

DISTRIBUTION

MEMBER

STATE

Δ roof (mm)

V base (kN)

1st mode

Col_22

2° yield

7.74 E+01

2.13 E+03

triangle

Col_23

2° yield

1.00E+02

2.12E+03

uniform

Col_23

2° yield

8.37E+01

2.17E+03

The values of the first failure occurred for different members are presented in Table 1.7:

 

Table 1.7: First failure occurred for different pushover analysis.

 

DISTRIBUTION

MEMBER

STATE

Δ roof (mm)

V base (kN)

1st mode

Col_22

1° failure

3.59 E+02

3.59 E+03

triangle

Col_23

1° failure

4.64E+02

3.35E+03

uniform

Beam_60

1° failure

3.70E+02

3.57E+03

Ground acceleration (cm/sec 2 )

Ground acceleration (cm/sec 2 ) Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 17/121

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 17/121

CHAPTER 2. Retrieval and analysis of design ground motions

2.1 Peak Ground Acceleration

For each earthquake ground motion (la_01, la_07, la_014), using the same scales for the three time- histories, the acceleration time-history is evaluated and the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is clearly indicated by a black square. The acceleration data points for each of the ground motions were recorded at a time interval of 0.02 s. The peak ground accelerations (PGA) for the three motions were 0.452 g, 0.413 g and 0.644 s, respectively.

700

350

0

-350

-700

700

350

0

-350

-700

El Centro(la01) t=11.44sec PGA=452cm/sec^2 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
El Centro(la01)
t=11.44sec
PGA=452cm/sec^2
0 5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80

Landers(la07)

t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec
t=16.08sec

0 5

10

PGA=-413cm/sec^2 15 20 25 30
PGA=-413cm/sec^2
15
20
25
30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Northridge(la14)

700 350 0 -350 -700 0 t=4.32sec 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
700
350
0
-350
-700
0
t=4.32sec
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
PGA=-644.5cm/sec^2
Time (sec)
Figure 2.1: Acceleration time histories for the ground motions LA01, LA07 and LA14.
Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 18/121 By comparing the acceleration

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 18/121

By comparing the acceleration time histories of the ground motion records, it is possible to appreciate several differences in terms of amplitudes, frequency content and duration:

- Amplitude: the higher PGA is given by Northridge La14 with a difference of 40 and 50% with respect to El Centro and Landers respectively (this means that the other two records exhibits similar values of PGA).

Earthquake record

Acc (cm/sec 2 )

Acc(g)

El Centro (la01)

452.03

0.46

Landers (la07)

412.98

0.42

Northridge (la14)

644.49

0.66

- Frequency content: it is hard to compare the records by just looking at the acceleration time histories. The acceleration response spectra give more clear information on that.

- Duration: The significant duration is defined as the duration within which 5 to 95% of the total energy content of the record is included. Duration of strong shaking may be important for the response of structures as a ground motion with longer duration of strong shaking will impart larger amount of energy to a structure and will cause higher amount of damage. El Centro (La01) record has the longest duration, and considerable value of peaks can be appreciated also after 20 seconds, while the shortest duration is given by Northridge motion (La17).

Earthquake record

Significant duration D (sec)

El Centro (la01)

24.26

Landers (la07)

22.28

Northridge (la14)

5.52

It appears that the Northridge earthquake, although it exhibits higher PGA, it may be less damaging that the other two because its duration is significantly lower compared to the El Centro and Landers earthquakes. Thus, structures which are hit by the Northridge earthquake will experience few loading cycles with high inertia forces while, on the other hand, structures under El Centro and Landers earthquakes will experience significantly more loading cycles with lower inertia forces.

2.2 Peak Absolute Acceleration Response Spectrum

For each earthquake ground motion (La01, La07, La14), the absolute acceleration response spectrum is

computed for 5% damping on a period range of 0.01 s to 2 s, by increment of 0.01 s and shows in Figure

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 19/121 La01, La07 and La14

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 19/121

La01, La07 and La14 correspond to El Centro, Landers and Northridge respectively. The fundamental period of the structure is around 1.3 seconds.

Response Spectrum la01

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Acceleration [g]
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Acceleration [g]

Time [s]

Response Spectrum la07

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Acceleration
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Acceleration [g]

Time [s]

Response Spectrum la14

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Acceleration [g]
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Acceleration [g]

Time [s]

Figure 2.2: Absolute acceleration response for the ground motions LA01, LA07 and LA14.

Information on the frequency content of the records and potential damage to structures can be obtained by comparing the acceleration response spectra.

- The El Centro record demonstrates higher Spectral acceleration values within period values ranging from 0.2 to 0.6 sec with the peak value being around 0.51 sec.

- Landers earthquake record demonstrates higher Spectral acceleration values within period values ranging from 0.16 to 0.8 sec with the peak value being around 0.72 sec.

- The Northridge record demonstrates higher Spectral acceleration values within period values ranging from 0.23 to 0.7 sec with the peak value being around 0.31 sec.

Thus, it could be said that the three records are more energetic in the same frequency range with the Landers record having the widest frequency range and the El Centro record having the narrowest one. Response spectra are the plot of peak response of a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system subjected to an earthquake ground motion. The three spectrums are plotted together in Figure 2.3 in order to compare better the different characteristics of the earthquakes.

Both absolute acceleration response and response spectra were calculated using a software for strong motion processing SeismoSignal (SeismoSignal 2010).

Spectral Acceleration (cm/sec2)

Spectral Acceleration (cm/sec2) Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 20/121 2500 2000

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 20/121

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

T5

T4

T3

T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14

T2

T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14
T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14
T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14
T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14

T1

T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14
T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14
T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14
La01 La07 La14
La01
La07
La14
T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14
T5 T4 T3 T2 T1 La01 La07 La14
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Period (sec) 45 La01
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Period (sec)
45
La01
T1
40
La07
La14
35
30
25
20
T2
T3
T4
T5
15
10
5
0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
Spectral Displacement (cm)

Period (sec)

Figure 2.3: Response spectra for the ground motions LA01, LA07 and LA14.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 21/121 The Northridge earthquake record

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 21/121

The Northridge earthquake record demonstrates the highest values in all the periods of interest. The other two records have similar values for periods larger than 0.67 sec while, for lower periods, the values of El Centro record are quite higher. It seems that for the considered structure, the Northridge earthquake (la14) will be more damaging in terms of spectral accelerations.

Kinetic, Damping,Elastic,Applied [kNmm]

Kinetic, Damping,Elastic,Applied [kNmm] Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 22/121 CHAPTER

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 22/121

CHAPTER 3. Analysis of the original building

3.1 Energy Balance

Energy in different forms (e.g., kinetic, strain, hysteretic) has been studied in order to understand the transfer of energy into the building due to a given ground motion and its pattern of dissipation with time. The input energy to a structure in the event of seismic shaking depends on frequency and energy content of earthquake as well as the dynamic properties of the structure.

The input energy is then dissipated by damping associated with the structure and plastic action in the structural members.

Figures 3.1-3.3-3.5 shows the kinetic, damping, strain and input energies associated with the structure subjected to LA01 ground motion and also the sum of kinetic, damping and strain energies along with the input energy to the structure.

At the end of earthquake elastic component of strain energy tends to reach a value of zero. Hence, it can be said that all the input energy is finally dissipated by damping or absorbed in hysteretic action. The energy balance between input and dissipated energy due to damping and plastic action has been presented for the three ground motions in Figures 3.2-3.4-3.6.

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

x 10 6

Energy - Time-LA01

Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work

Kinetic

Damping

Strain

Applied work

Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work
Kinetic Damping Strain Applied work

0

10

20

30

40

Time [s]

50

60

70

Figure 3.1: Input energy, kinetic energy, strain energy and energy dissipated due to damping associated with the building subjected to LA01 motion.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 23/121 Energy error - Time

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 23/121

Energy error - Time (Seconds)-LA01

2 (INPUT-ABSORVE)/INPUT 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 %
2
(INPUT-ABSORVE)/INPUT
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% ERROR

Time [s]

Figure 3.2: Energy error associated with the building subjected to LA01 motion.

Energy - Time-LA07 x 10 5 10 9 Kinetic Damping 8 Strain Applied work 7
Energy - Time-LA07
x 10 5
10
9
Kinetic
Damping
8
Strain
Applied work
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Kinetic, Damping,Elastic,Applied [kNmm]

Time [s]

Figure 3.3: Input energy, kinetic energy, strain energy and energy dissipated due to damping associated with the building subjected to LA07 motion.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 24/121 Energy error - Time

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 24/121

Energy error - Time (Seconds)-LA07

2 (INPUT-ABSORVE)/INPUT 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 %
2
(INPUT-ABSORVE)/INPUT
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% ERROR

Time [s]

Figure 3.3: Energy error associated with the building subjected to LA07 motion.

x 10 6

Energy - Time -LA14

3 2.5 Kinetic Damping Strain 2 Applied work 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20
3
2.5
Kinetic
Damping
Strain
2
Applied work
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Kinetic, Damping,Elastic,Applied [kNmm]

Time [s]

Figure 3.4: Input energy, kinetic energy, strain energy and energy dissipated due to damping associated with the building subjected to LA14 motion.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 25/121 Energy error - Time

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 25/121

Energy error - Time (Seconds)-LA14

2 (INPUT-ABSORVE)/INPUT 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 %
2
(INPUT-ABSORVE)/INPUT
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% ERROR

Time [s]

Figure 3.5: Energy error associated with the building subjected to LA14 motion.

The building received maximum energy from LA01 motion. Moreover, the percentage of strain energy for this motion is similar to the one of the La14 earthquake indicating that apparently these motions imposed similar maximum plastic deformation demand on the hinges, which is directly associated with structural damage.

3.2 Plastic Hinging Distribution

Pattern of plastic action in the building is presented for different ground motions. Absolute floor accelerations, as well as maximum drifts are studied under different ground motions to understand the demand on non-structural members.

Figures 3.6-3.8-3.10 present the distribution of plastic hinges and maximum ductility in different members for the building subjected to LA01, LA07 and LA14 motions, respectively.

Figures 3.7-3.9-3.11 present the distribution of plastic hinges and maximum plastic rotation in different members for the building subjected to LA01, LA07 and LA14 motions, respectively.

White balls indicate unidirectional hinging in the beams (yielding in only one direction), dark balls indicate yielding in the beams in both the direction, while white squares indicate unidirectional hinging in the columns and dark squares indicate yielding in the columns in both the direction. No indication for failure is represented since plastic rotation in the members is always less than 0.03 radians.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 26/121 LA01-Plastic Hinge Formation &

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 26/121

LA01-Plastic Hinge Formation & Max Ductility

     
       
       
       
       
       
 
Beam 1-Dir        

Beam 1-Dir

       

Beam 2-Dir

Column 1-Dir

2.3

2.3

1.1

2.4

2.4
2.4

1.3

2.1

2.1
2.1

1

1

Column 2-Dir

 
Column 2-Dir   1.6 1.6  

1.6

Column 2-Dir   1.6 1.6  

1.6

 
 

3.8

3.8
3.8

3.1

3.1
3.1

4.1

4.1
4.1

3.4

3.4
3.4

3.8

3.8
3.8

3

3
  3.8 3.1 4.1 3.4 3.8 3
  3.8 3.1 4.1 3.4 3.8 3

4.8

4.8
4.8

4.2

4.2
4.2

5.2

5.2
5.2

4.5

4.5
4.5

4.9

4.9
4.9

4

4
4.8 4.2 5.2 4.5 4.9 4
4.8 4.2 5.2 4.5 4.9 4

5.3

5.3
5.3

4.8

5.7

5.7
5.7

5.1

5.4

5.4
5.4

4.7

4.7
5.3 4.8 5.7 5.1 5.4 4.7
5.3 4.8 5.7 5.1 5.4 4.7

6.7

6.7
6.7
5.9

5.9

1.3

6.8

1.3 6.8
1.3 6.8
6.2

6.2

1.3

6.5

1.3 6.5
1.3 6.5

6.1

6.1
6.7 5.9 1.3 6.8 6.2 1.3 6.5 6.1
6.7 5.9 1.3 6.8 6.2 1.3 6.5 6.1

5.8

8

8

 
5.8 8   8.1 7

8.1

7

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 3.6: Plastic hinge formation and maximum ductility for LA01 motion.

LA07-Plastic Hinge Formation & Max Ductility

Beam 1-Dir        

Beam 1-Dir

   
Beam 1-Dir        
Beam 1-Dir        
Beam 1-Dir        
 
Beam 1-Dir        
Beam 1-Dir        
 

Beam 2-Dir

 
Beam 2-Dir  
Beam 2-Dir  

Column 1-Dir

     
     

Column 2-Dir

 

1.1

1.1
1.1
  1.1 1.5   1.1

1.5

1.5
1.5
  1.1 1.5   1.1
 

1.1

1.1
1.1
  1.1 1.5   1.1
  1.1 1.5   1.1

2.6

2.6
2.6

1.9

1.9
1.9

2.9

2.9
2.9

2.1

2.1
2.6 1.9 2.9 2.1   2.6 1.8
 

2.6

2.6
2.6

1.8

1.8
2.6 1.9 2.9 2.1   2.6 1.8
2.6 1.9 2.9 2.1   2.6 1.8

4.1

4.1
4.1

3.7

3.7
3.7

4.5

4.5
4.5

4

4
4.1 3.7 4.5 4   4.3 3.4
 

4.3

4.3
4.3

3.4

3.4
4.1 3.7 4.5 4   4.3 3.4
4.1 3.7 4.5 4   4.3 3.4

5.6

5.6
5.6

4.9

4.9
4.9

5.8

5.8
5.8

5.2

5.2
5.6 4.9 5.8 5.2   5.5 5
 

5.5

5.5
5.5

5

5
5.6 4.9 5.8 5.2   5.5 5
5.6 4.9 5.8 5.2   5.5 5

3.9

5.9

5.9

 

4.2

       
 
       
 
       
       
 
       
       
 
       
       
       
   

Figure 3.7: Plastic hinge formation and maximum ductility for LA07 motion.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 27/121 LA14-Plastic Hinge Formation &

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 27/121

LA14-Plastic Hinge Formation & Max Ductility

     
       
       
       
       
       
 
Beam 1-Dir        

Beam 1-Dir

       

Beam 2-Dir

Column 1-Dir

2.2

2.2

1.4

2.5

2.5
2.5

1.8

2.2

2.2 1.5
2.2 1.5

1.5

2.2 1.5

Column 2-Dir

 
Column 2-Dir   1.6 1.6  

1.6

Column 2-Dir   1.6 1.6  

1.6

 
 

4

4
4
3.5

3.5

4.6

4.6
4.6
3.8

3.8

4.2

4.2 3.2
4.2 3.2

3.2

4.2 3.2
  4 3.5 4.6 3.8 4.2 3.2
  4 3.5 4.6 3.8 4.2 3.2

5.9

5.9
5.9

5.1

1.1

6.1

1.1 6.1
1.1 6.1

5.4

1.1

5.8

1.1 5.8 5.1
1.1 5.8 5.1

5.1

1.1 5.8 5.1
5.9 5.1 1.1 6.1 5.4 1.1 5.8 5.1
5.9 5.1 1.1 6.1 5.4 1.1 5.8 5.1

6

6
6
5.6

5.6

5.6
5.6

1.4

6.5

1.4 6.5
1.4 6.5
6 1

6

1

6 1

6.2

6.2 5.3
6.2 5.3

5.3

6.2 5.3
6 5.6 1.4 6.5 6 1 6.2 5.3
6 5.6 1.4 6.5 6 1 6.2 5.3

6.9

6.9
6.9

6.2

6.2
6.2

7.1

7.1
7.1

6.5

6.5
6.5

6.8

6.8 6.3
6.8 6.3

6.3

6.8 6.3
6.9 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.8 6.3
6.9 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.8 6.3

5.6

7.6

7.6

6

 
   
 
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
 
 

Figure 3.8: Plastic hinge formation and maximum ductility for LA14 motion.

3.3 Envelopes of Peak and Residual Inter-storey Drift

Inter-story drift can be a good indicator of damage to structural and non-structural members. A lower value of inter-story drift may be associated with only non-structural damage, while higher value of inter- story drift may cause damage to structural members also.

The envelopes of inter-story drift and residual inter-story drift are computed to analyze the behavior of structural members.

Figure 3.12 shows the maximum inter-story drift and the residual drift ratios for different stories. Expectedly, the highest drift ratio is associated with first story for all the ground motions and it decreases for upper stories. Maximum inter-story drift in the building subjected to LA01, LA07 and LA14 motions are 2.4%, 1.8% and 2.3%, respectively. Also the residual drift decreases with higher story level: higher value of residual inter-story drift indicates higher level of damage sustained. The maximum values of residual inter-story drift ratios are 1.5%, 1.3% and 1.1%, respectively, for the ground motions LA01, LA07 and

LA14.

MAX DRIFT Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 28/121 RESIDUAL DRIFT

MAX DRIFT

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 28/121

RESIDUAL DRIFT

25 25 LA01 LA01 LA07 LA07 LA14 LA14 20 20 15 15 10 10 5
25
25
LA01
LA01
LA07
LA07
LA14
LA14
20
20
15
15
10
10
5
5
0
0
-3
-2
-1
0
1
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
Drift [%]
Drift [%]
Height [m]
Height [m]

Figure 3.9: Maximum and residual values of inter-story drift ratios for different stories of the building subjected to LA01, LA08 and LA09 motions.

3.4 Envelopes of Peak Absolute Floor Accelerations

A building subjected to an earthquake sustains damage depending on its own dynamic properties, and frequency content of ground motion and its amplitude. Similarly, a non-structural member sustains damage depending on the motion of the floor to which it is attached as well as its own dynamic properties. The strength demand on a non-structural member is directly related to the inertia forces associated with it, which in turn depends on maximum absolute acceleration of the floor. Hence, maximum absolute acceleration may be an important parameter to characterize strength demand on non-structural members or damage sustained by them.

Figure 3.13 shows the absolute acceleration of all the floors of the building subjected to the three ground motions. Expectedly, the maximum value of absolute floor accelerations are associated with top most floors, which are 0.78 g, 0.63 g and 0.88 g, respectively, for the building subjected to LA01, LA07 and LA14 ground motions.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 29/121 ACCELERATIONS 25 20 LA01

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 29/121

ACCELERATIONS

25 20 LA01 15 LA07 LA14 10 5 0 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
25
20
LA01
15
LA07
LA14
10
5
0
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Height [m]

Acceleration [g]

Figure 3.10: Maximum absolute acceleration for different stories of the building subjected to LA01, LA08 and LA09 motions.

Table 3.1: Peak values of the original structure excited by ground motion LA01.

EQK LA01

LEVEL

ENVELOPE ACC (g)

ENVELOPE DRIFTS (%)

RESIDUAL DRIFTS (%)

1 0.481

2.36

1.504

2 0.413

1.85

1.210

3 0.400

1.72

0.979

4 0.409

1.54

0.805

5 0.398

1.23

0.518

6 0.512

0.73

0.138

Table 3.2: Peak values of the original structure excited by ground motion LA07.

EQK LA07

LEVEL

ENVELOPE ACC (g)

ENVELOPE DRIFTS (%)

RESIDUAL DRIFTS (%)

1 0.401

1.82

1.084

2 0.284

1.59

0.974

3 0.280

1.23

0.637

4 0.308

0.83

0.269

5 0.384

0.68

0.072

6 0.402

0.50

0.021

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 30/121 Table 3.3: Peak values

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 30/121

Table 3.3: Peak values of the original structure excited by ground motion LA14.

EQK LA14

LEVEL

ENVELOPE ACC (g)

ENVELOPE DRIFTS (%)

RESIDUAL DRIFTS (%)

1 0.637

2.27

1.275

2 0.531

1.91

1.179

3 0.479

2.02

1.002

4 0.492

1.72

0.734

5 0.476

1.20

0.394

6 0.485

0.73

0.111

3.5 Performance evaluation criteria

The information given in sections 3.2 to 3.4 provides an image of the structural behaviour of the building under the considered ground motions. It is clear that collapse of the building (total or partial) is not expected as the plastic rotations of the yielded members remain within a safe range. However, formation of plastic hinges occurs in many members (mainly beams) along the whole height of the building with significant inelastic deformation concentrated in the three first floors. This fact indicates that significant repairing will be needed and in particular, the heavily damaged members will have to be replaced. Nevertheless, this will result in high repairing cost as the number of the heavily damaged members is expected to be significant. Thus, a global strengthening of the structure will be more economically feasible.

Moreover, the envelope of the expected storey drifts indicates extended damage to drift sensitive nonstructural components which will also increase the total cost of repairing. According to FEMA 356 the envelope of storey drifts obtained from the analysis corresponds to the damage control limit state (but also very close to Life Safety limit state). However, non-negligible residual drifts were obtained in the analysis with values greater than 1.5% up to the 3 rd floor. According to FEMA 356 these values exceed the limits set for the Life Safety Limit state and the previously stated opinion of uneconomical repair cost is strengthened by this fact. Also, significant residual drifts indicate the possibility of instability problems for the structure especially in the case of an aftershock.

As has been mentioned earlier, performance of a building in the event of an earthquake can be characterized by the drift it sustains as well as the residual drift ratio. The drift criteria partially covers the performance of non-structural components of the building as well, especially the ones which suffer damage depending on relative deformation. However, there are other categories of non-structural components which are sensitive to the absolute acceleration of the floor to which they are attached. Hence, a performance criteria should reasonably account for drift as well as floor acceleration during an earthquake.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 31/121 For the present study

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 31/121

For the present study a performance index (PI) has been developed, which is a function of maximum inter-story drift ratio, maximum residual inter-story drift ratio and maximum absolute floor acceleration across all the floor of a building.

FEMA (2000) indicates different levels of maximum inter-story drift ratios and residual inter-story drift ratios associated with various levels of performance of structural components, namely Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CO). A vertical component of a steel moment frame building is expected to perform at IO for a drift ratio of 0.7%, LS for 2.5% and CO for a drift ratio of 5%, while for these performance levels the respective values of residual inter-story drift ratios are 0%, 1% and 5%.

3.5.1 Structural component

In order to describe the structural performance of the structure, an appropriate index has to be defined. Since the maximum drift ratio among the floors is used to describe the non structural components performance, it was deemed that the most appropriate parameters to be used are the plastic ductility index and the maximum residual drift ratio. The plastic ductility damage index is defined as

where, μ is the curvature ductility demand and the μ ult is the curvature ductility capacity of a structural element. According to literature (K. Arjomandi et al. 2009), this damage index is related to the FEMA 356 limit states as shown below:

Table 3.4: Correspondence between FEMA 356 limit states and plastic ductility damage index (Arjomandi et al., 2009).

FEMA 356 Limit States

IO

DC

LS

CP

Plastic ductility

0.00

0.11

0.36

0.68

IO= Immediate Occupancy, DC= Damage control, LS= Life Safety, CP= Collapse Prevention

The limit value for the IO limit state was considered too conservative and thus a modified value was chosen as 0.05. In order to define one plastic ductility damage index to represent the whole structure, the following procedure was implemented:

The plastic ductility index for all the structural members was calculated. Obviously for the members that didn’t yield the index value was zero.

Then the floor average DDI was calculated accounting for all the members of each floor (yielded or not).

As a global DDI the maximum floor DDI was chosen.

Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 32/121 For the residual drifts,

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 32/121

For the residual drifts, the FEMA 356 performance limit states were considered and are given below:

Table 3.5: FEMA 356 limit states for residual drifts values.

FEMA 356 Limit States

IO

DC

LS

CP

Residual drift

0.001

0.005

0.01

0.05

It should be mentioned that the limit for the Damage Control is not given but, since this limit state lies between the IO and the LS limit states and is considered significant for the description of the performance of the building, the average between the limits of IO and DC was taken. As an index of that parameter, the maximum residual drift ratio among the floors was considered. The combination of two parameters was based on weighting average. The DDI was chosen to contribute by 60% and the maximum residual drift ratio by 40 %. The value of DDI was divided by 10 so that the two indices are of the same order of magnitude.

For the original building the parameters were calculated as:

Earthquake La14 (Northridge)

The corresponding limits were calculated as:

Earthquake La07 (Landers)

Earthquake La01 (El Centro) Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 33/121

Earthquake La01 (El Centro)

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 33/121

In figure 3.14, the estimation of the performance of the building, using the pushover curve, is presented. In this procedure, the Capacity Spectrum method is used as suggested in ATC-40.

1000 900 La14_ξ=32.4% 800 La01_ξ=23% Capacity curve 700 La07_ξ=18% 600 IO 500 LS 400 300
1000
900
La14_ξ=32.4%
800
La01_ξ=23%
Capacity curve
700
La07_ξ=18%
600
IO
500
LS
400
300
200
100
dpi=12 cm
dpi=15cm
dpi=22 cm
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Sa(cm/sec^2)

Sd (cm)

Figure 3.11: Capacity Spectrum method for the original building.

In this procedure, the building is transformed to an equivalent SDOF system and its response to every earthquake is obtained through an iterative procedure used to obtain correct values of SDOF horizontal displacement and damping ratio. In figure 3.14, it is shown that the building performs within the limits of Life Safety limit state, in contrast to the index described before. However, in this method, only the first mode of vibration is considered. This fact leads to an underestimation of the roof displacement of the building with respect to the NLTH analysis.

Table 3.6: Capacity Spectrum method results and comparison with NLTH analysis.

EQK

U SDOF (mm)

U roof (mm)

max drift (%)

max drift _NLTH (%)

La01

150

200

0.97

2.36

La07

120

160

0.78

1.82

La14

220

294

1.42

2.27

3.5.2 Non-structural component Group 4 Final Project – Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 34/121 For

3.5.2 Non-structural component

Group 4 Final Project Seismic Isolation and Dissipation Page 34/121

For non-structural component, some indications about the maximum deformation are given by FEMA 356. However, the same is not easily available in literature for the performance of non-structural components based on maximum absolute floor acceleration concerned. A paper by Badillo-Almaraz et al. (2007) which presents the results of experimental study on different kinds of suspended ceiling systems subjected to various levels of peak floor accelerations is used in this analysis, and average values for different kinds of ceiling systems were considered to represent various levels of damage. Another paper is also take as a reference to represent the levels of damage due to acceleration for the free standing sensitive equipment like computers, bookcases etc. An analytical study by Burningham et al. (2007) gives some insight into the behavior of free standing non- structural equipment subjected to floor accelerations.

In Table 3.7 the performance of nonstructural components is summed for two limit state (Immediate occupancy and Life Safety):

Table 3.7: performance of nonstructural components

 

NON-STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS

 
 

RESPONSE SENSITIVITY

 

PERFORMANCE

 
 

SENSITIVITY

Life Safety

Immediate Occupancy

 

COMPONENT

Acc.

Def.

 

ARCHITECTURAL

 
 

Exterior Skin Adhered Veneer Anchored Veneer Glass Blocks Prefabricated Panels Glazing system

       

S

P

0.02

 

0.01

S

P

0.02

0.01

1

S

P

0.02

0.01

S

P

0.02

0.01

S

P

>1.25 Dp

>1.5X1.25Dp

 

Partition

       

2

Heavy

S

P

0.01

 

-

Light

S

P

0.01

0.005

 

Ceilings

       

Undersized tiles

P

0.9 g

 

0.7 g

3

Undersized tiles with clips Normal-sized tiles Normal-sized tiles with clips Normal-sized tiles w/o compression post

P

NR

2

1.25

g

P

1.05

g

0.85

g

P

1.60

g

1.00

g

P

1.00

g

0.60

g

4

Doors required for Emergency Services

S

P

0.01

 

0.005

 

FURNISHING AND INTERIOR EQUIPMENT

 

1

Storage Racks

P

 

0.5g

 

0.25g

2

Bookcases

P

 

1.25g

 

0.5g

3

Computer Access Floors

P

 

1.25g