Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

SAMPLE

NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS REPORT


Page 1 of 13
Project Description
The project structure is a seven story, reinforced concrete moment frame. The lateral load
resisting system consists of two parallel frames in the north-south direction and four parallel
frames, two of which consist of a single bay, in the east-west direction. In addition to the
moment frame, gravity frames are distributed throughout the structure and run primarily in the
north-south direction with several transfer frames in the east-west direction.
Analysis Basis
Governing Documents: The design is governed by the 2001 California Building Code (CBC).
However, the code provides little guidance for nonlinear analysis. Therefore, extensive use is
made of FEMA-356, Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.
FEMA-356 provides guidelines for selecting component properties, including nonlinear force-
deformation characteristics and acceptance criteria. In addition, a nonlinear static analysis
procedure is detailed in the FEMA document, along with details of the nonlinear dynamic
analysis procedure specified by the CBC.
Analysis Procedures: The analysis was performed using two different procedures, the nonlinear
static procedure (NSP) and the nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP). The NSP is a pushover
analysis wherein the basic lateral load-deformation curve is determined from the model
considering the nonlinear behavior, including yielding, cracking, strength loss (if any), and P-
effects. A target displacement is then calculated based on the ground motion spectra for the site.
This displacement is meant to represent the maximum displacement that will be experienced by
the structure for the design basis earthquake. The acceptance criteria are compared to the
structure response at the target displacement level. If the structure response quantities (member
forces, nonlinear deformations, drifts, etc.) are below the acceptable values then the structure is
considered to have adequate lateral capacity. Earthquake motion in two orthogonal directions,
including combined motions, must be analyzed.
The second procedure (NDP) involves running full nonlinear dynamic analyses of the structure
for at least three ground motions. Again, bi-direction motion must be considered. The
maximum value of each response quantity from all of the analyses is determined and compared
to the acceptance criteria.
Model Details
The parking structure is modeled as a collection of beams and columns. The floor slabs are
assumed to be rigid, as is the foundation. This section outlines the choices made in modeling of
the structure.
Component Modeling: The beams and columns are modeled using the chord-rotation model
outlined in FEMA-356. This model assumes a plastic hinge can form at each end of the element
and that there is an inflection point at midspan. The hinges can form due to pure moment
(beams) or due to the interaction of axial force and biaxial bending (columns). Although a
Page 2 of 13
somewhat simplified representation of the beam or column behavior, the FEMA-type model is
generally sufficiently accurate for most structures and loading conditions, and has the great
advantage of having recommendations for the strength, stiffness, and failure properties. The
recommendations require that for concrete frames the panel zones are assumed rigid.
Component Properties: The component properties are based on recommendations in FEMA-
356. The moment resisting frame beams and columns, gravity frame beams and columns, and
transfer frame girders and columns are explicitly modeled as nonlinear elements. Each
component is modeled using the chord-rotation model outlined in FEMA-356, with stiffness and
strength properties based on the material properties and section geometry. Section strengths are
taken equal to the ACI-318 specified values and section stiffness properties are taken as outlined
in Table 1.
Table 1. Effective Stiffness Values (from FEMA-356).
Component Flexural Rigidity Shear Rigidity Axial Rigidity
Beams
g c
I E 5 . 0
w c
A E 4 . 0 -
Columns,
c g
f A P > 5 . 0
g c
I E 7 . 0
w c
A E 4 . 0
g c
A E
Columns,
c g
f A P < 3 . 0
g c
I E 5 . 0
w c
A E 4 . 0
s s
A E
The nonlinear behavior is assumed to be ductile. The basic force-deformation curve is shown in
Figure 1. Since no element is allowed to deform beyond the ductile limit and still meet the
acceptance criteria, no strength loss is modeled and all moment-rotation relationships are
assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic. A summary of the component properties is given in
Appendix A.
Figure 1. Generalized Force-Deformation Relationship for Concrete Components.
Page 3 of 13
Strength Sections: Axial compression in columns is controlled by strength rather than ductility.
In order to monitor the axial loads on the columns and to flag compression in excess of
allowable, axial strength sections were added to the column definitions. There is only one
damage level for strength-controlled components.
Structure Sections: The story shear can be obtained using structure sections. All of the columns
at a story are included in the section, and the shear force at the base of each column is summed to
give the total story shear. Structure sections were defined for shear in each direction at every
story.
Mass and Gravity Loads: The mass and dead load were obtained from the RAMFrame model
supplied by the Structural Engineer of Record. The loads included the self weight of the
members plus the additional dead load due to the members that were not modeled. Both
distributed loads on the elements and concentrated loads at the nodes were used to completely
model the dead load. All mass was assumed to be lumped at the center of mass, offset by code
defined distances to account for accidental torsion. No live load information was provided and
hence live loads were not included for this analysis, but typically 25% of the live load is applied
prior to performing the lateral load analyses.
Seismic Loads: The project was placed on hold at the point where seismic analyses were to be
performed. Therefore, site-specific earthquake loads were not obtained. However, in order to
demonstrate how the analysis would be completed, seismic loads were assumed using a
procedure similar to that required by the code and guidelines. Two types of seismic loads are
required - spectral and time history.
A design response spectrum is required for the Target Displacement method described in FEMA-
356 and a general spectrum for seismic loads is specified in the CBC and will be used for the
NSP. Values for C
a
and C
v
, acceleration and velocity seismic coefficients respectively, are
required. Assuming Seismic Zone 4, Soil Profile Type S
D
, and Seismic Source Type A located 5
km from the project site we obtain
024 . 1
528 . 0
=
=
v
a
C
C
.
The resulting design response spectrum is shown in Figure 2.
Page 4 of 13
Figure 2. Design Response Spectrum.
In addition, static pushover load patterns must be defined in order to calculate the lateral load-
drift relationship. Several load patterns are required by code including a uniform (proportional to
mass) vertical distribution and a distribution more closely approximating the first mode shape
(essentially triangular). Only the uniform load distribution was used for this analysis.
Earthquake time histories are required for the NDP. Normally, these would be obtained from the
Geotechnical Engineer and would be either generated specifically for the project site or derived
from existing earthquake records by scaling both the acceleration and time axes to match the
design response spectrum. For this sample calculation, the north-south and east-west records
from the El Centro earthquake were chosen with east-west record scaled to 30% of the original
accelerations.
Acceptance Criteria:
Three levels of earthquake protection are outlined in the FEMA guidelines, immediate
occupancy (IO), life safety (LS), and collapse prevention (CP). All three levels are included in
this analysis model, but it is likely that the LS level would be required for the project. The
acceptance criteria for all beam and column components are based on the plastic rotation at the
ends of the members. The allowable rotations are based on the transverse reinforcement and
level of shear in both the beams and columns. In addition, the beam allowable rotations consider
the amount of longitudinal reinforcement and the column allowable rotation is dependent upon
the axial load. A summary of the allowable end rotations, assuming all elements are primary for
gravity loads, is given in Table 2.
Page 5 of 13
Table 2. Acceptance Criteria per FEMA-356.
Plastic Hinge Rotation (radians)
Performance Level
Component IO LS CP
Moment Resisting Frame Beams .010 .020 .025
Gravity Frame Beams .010 .020 .025
Transfer Frame Girders .010 .020 .025
Moment Resisting Frame Columns, Levels Ground-5 .005 .012 .016
Moment Resisting Frame Columns, Levels 6-Roof .005 .015 .020
Gravity Frame Columns, Levels Ground-4 .005 .012 .016
Gravity Frame Columns, Levels 5-Roof .005 .015 .020
Transfer Frame Columns, Levels Ground-5 .005 .012 .016
Transfer Frame Columns, Levels 6-Roof .005 .015 .020
Limit States: Defining limit states can mean the difference between an analysis whose results
are easy to interpret and having just a series of numbers that must be further investigated. As
such, multiple limit states were defined to allow quick identification of the critical elements and
these states were grouped together to give an immediate overview of the response in relation to
the acceptance criteria. Of particular importance in this analysis were the life safety level limit
states.
Deformation-based limit states were defined for the immediate occupancy, life safety, and
collapse prevention damage levels for the moment resisting beams and columns, gravity beams
and columns, and transfer girders and columns. Strength-based limit states were defined for each
of the column types, giving a total of 21 basic limit states. Since the life safety level limit states
are of primary importance they were grouped together for easy reference.
Analysis Results
The analysis results for both the nonlinear static and dynamic procedures are presented in this
section.
Nonlinear Static Procedure: The Target Displacement method is used to evaluate the push-over
analysis results. In this procedure a target displacement, meant to approximate the maximum
displacement expected during an actual earthquake, is calculated using the site response spectra
and some information about the structure. In this case Type 2 framing was assumed (better
structural performance appropriate for moment frames) along with a life safety performance
level. The actual target displacement calculation is an iterative process. A preliminary target
displacement is chosen and a bilinear approximation of the push-over curve is generated. Based
on the approximate curve the target displacement is calculated. If the calculated and preliminary
displacements are not equal a new bilinear curve is generated and the process continues.
Page 6 of 13
The area above and below the approximate curve should be equal and the bilinear curve should
intersect the actual curve at a strength equal to 60% of the effective yield strength, as defined by
the break in the bilinear curve. In practice it is often impossible to meet both of these criteria and
considerable judgment must be applied. Figure 3 illustrates one possible solution wherein the
areas are approximately equal but the strength at the intersection point is 80% of the effective
yield. Similarly, Figure 4 shows a solution where the 60% strength guideline is met, but the
areas above and below the curve are not equal.
Figure 3. Target displacement plot based on approximately equal areas.
Page 7 of 13
Figure 4. Target displacement plot based on matching the initial secant stiffness at 60% of the
effective yield strength.
In both of the target displacement plots the structure has failed to meet the acceptance criteria.
The maximum expected displacement is larger than the displacements at which the limit states
are met as indicated by the vertical red lines on the pushover curves. All of the limit states are
exceeded in Figure 3 while all limit states except collapse prevention for the beams are exceeded
in Figure 4.
Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure: A large number of response quantities are calculated at each
step for all of the elements in the model. Making use of limit states allows us to easily interpret
the results relative to the acceptance criteria using only a few basic plots. The Usage Ratio plot
shows the fraction of the allowable value of each limit state that is obtained at each step of the
analysis. Any usage ratio that exceeds 1.0 has failed to meet the criteria. This plot presents a
simple pass/fail representation of the analysis results and lets the user determine which limit
states are of concern. In order to obtain detailed information about the specific elements that
have failed the displaced shape plot is used. This plot shows, on the deflected shape of the
structure, exactly which elements have exceeded the limit states that have been chosen for
display.
The usage ratio plots showing the ratios for all limit states, only life safety level limit states, and
only strength-based limit states are shown in Figures 5 through 7 respectively. The results
indicate that the immediate occupancy limit state are greatly exceeded (usage ratio
approximately 2.5 for the moment resisting columns), the life safety limit state is just exceeded
(1.04 for the moment resisting columns), and the strength limit state is not exceeded.
Page 8 of 13
Figure 5. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic procedure showing all limit states.
Figure 6. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only life safety-level limit
states.
Page 9 of 13
Figure 7. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only strength-based limit
states.
While the usage ratios give a quick overall snapshot of the structure performance they do not
indicate if the damage is widespread or localized. Figure 8 shows the maximum usage ratio in
each element for all limit states. The usage ratio is color coded with red indicating a value
greater than 1.0. Although the maximum usage ratio is large, only four elements, all at the south
end of the structure, have exceeded any limit state. A handful of other elements have reached
between 70 and 100% of the allowable deformations.
Page 10 of 13
Figure 8. Deflected shape plot at end of nonlinear dynamic analysis showing the element-by-
element maximum usage ratio for all limit states.
Figure 9. Deflected shape plot at end of nonlinear dynamic analysis showing the element-by-
element maximum usage ratio for the life safety limit state.
Page 11 of 13
The situation is similar for the life safety level limit state as shown in Figure 9. In this case only
a single element has exceeded the allowable end rotation with one other element above 70%
utilization of the capacity. It is likely that, with only minor revision, the structure would be
acceptable for the applied earthquake load.
Conclusions
The structure was modeled for nonlinear seismic analysis according to the California Building
Code requirements and guidelines from FEMA-356. All significant nonlinear modes of behavior
were modeled using appropriate elements and member properties as required. Limit states for
immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention damage levels were chosen in
accordance with FEMA guidelines.
The results presented in this report are those that are most useful for determining the adequacy of
a design. Much additional information is available in RAM Perform including time histories of
displacements and element forces and hysteresis loops. However, while these plots are of
interest to researchers and can help provide insight into the actual behavior, their usefulness in
design is limited.
Although the project was halted before final results could be obtained, seismic loads
corresponding roughly to those expected at the site were generated and analysis results were
produced. The nonlinear static procedure indicated that the structure was not adequate for the
seismic loads. The target displacement method used in the NSP does not allow for determining
the extent of damage that exceeds the acceptance criteria, but merely the presence of at least one
member that has not met the requirements. The nonlinear dynamic procedure also indicated that
the structure was not acceptable, but further examination of the results showed that only a single
member failed to meet the life safety level acceptance criteria and that minor revisions to the
structure would allow it to pass the code requirements for the applied load.
Page 12 of 13
Appendix A Component Properties
Beam Properties
Component A
g
(in
2
) I
major
(in
4
) E
c
(ksi) M
y
(k-in)
Grid 6 Ground Level 1152 110,590 3281 13,572
Grid 6 Level 2 1152 110,590 3281 20,340
Grid 6 Level 3 1152 110,590 3281 18,336
Grid 6 Level 4 1152 110,590 3281 15,168
Grid 6 Level 5 1152 110,590 3281 12,216
Grid 6 Level 6 and Roof 1152 110,590 3281 8772
Grid 7, 15, 16 Ground Level 1274 127,460 3605 12,240
Grid 7, 15, 16 Level 2 1274 127,460 3605 18,240
Grid 7, 15, 16 Level 3 1274 127,460 3605 16,560
Grid 7, 15, 16 Level 4 1274 127,460 3605 13,920
Grid 7, 15, 16 Level 5 1274 127,460 3605 11,280
Grid 7, 15, 16 Level 6 and Roof 1274 127,460 3605 8160
Grid E, H Ground Level 980 98,040 3605 9240
Grid E, H Level 2 980 98,040 3605 14,280
Grid E, H Level 3 980 98,040 3605 12,600
Grid E, H Level 4 980 98,040 3605 10,080
Grid E, H Levels 5, 6, and Roof 980 98,040 3605 8160
Gravity Beams 525 26,797 3281
+3948
-13,872
Transfer Girders 840 42,875 3281
+11,592
-14,892
Column Stiffness Properties
Component A
g
(in
2
) I
major
(in
4
) I
minor
(in
4
) E
c
(ksi)
Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 1260 92,610 47,250 3605
Grid E, H 864 46,656 20,736 3605
Gravity 576 13,824 13,824 4031
Transfer 720 27,000 17,280 4031
Page 13 of 13
Column Strength Properties
Axial Only Balance Point Bending Only
Component C
(k)
T
(k)
P
(k)
M
2
(k-in)
M
3
(k-in)
M
2
(k-in)
M
3
(k-in)
Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 Ground Level 4536 1440 1800 16,794 23,515 26,448 37,032
Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 Levels 2 and 3 4536 1210 1800 13,861 19,398 24,840 34,764
Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 Level 4 and 5 4536 910 1800 11,771 16,461 22,680 31,716
Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 Level 6 and Roof 4536 756 1800 12,442 17,398 21,600 30,204
Grid E, H Levels Ground, 2, and 3 3110 1037 1234 9669 14504 14,808 22,212
Grid E, H Levels 4 and 5 3110 726 1234 6907 10,360 13,032 19,548
Grid E, H Levels 6, and Roof 3110 518 1234 5294 7944 11,844 17,772
Gravity 2592 346 988 3525 3525 9084 9084
Transfer 3240 433 1234 4409 5508 11,364 14,196