0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

84 Aufrufe14 SeitenSep 25, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

84 Aufrufe

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Pushover Analysis Explained-Rahul
- ANSYS Tutorial_ Beam Cross Sections - EDR
- ansys
- E-Lampinator Brochure
- Evaluation of the Effect of Infill Walls on Seismic Performance of RC Dual Frames (Razzaghi, Et Al. 2015)
- ansys
- Earthquak Analysis in Ansys
- ANSYS Tutorial - APDL and Remote Solve - EDR
- ANSYS Workbench Explicit - EDR
- Ansys Mapdl Export
- Communicative Classroom.docx
- Fragility Curve for Different MCR Ratio
- WCEE2012_2151
- v72-122
- Seismic Design Considerations for Tall Buildings_Dissertation2008-PhamTuan[1]
- A9
- KCI_4_2004_11_591(C).pdf
- Assessment
- Strong Column Weal Beam
- Seimic Design Calculation

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

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

- Pushover Analysis Explained-RahulHochgeladen vonjacopap
- ANSYS Tutorial_ Beam Cross Sections - EDRHochgeladen vonAnthony Ruth
- ansysHochgeladen vonAjay Sastry
- E-Lampinator BrochureHochgeladen vonJellena Freimann
- Evaluation of the Effect of Infill Walls on Seismic Performance of RC Dual Frames (Razzaghi, Et Al. 2015)Hochgeladen vonJose Manuel
- ansysHochgeladen vonvarshasdm1987
- Earthquak Analysis in AnsysHochgeladen vonIgor Gjorgjiev
- ANSYS Tutorial - APDL and Remote Solve - EDRHochgeladen vonvahidss
- ANSYS Workbench Explicit - EDRHochgeladen vonKasia
- Ansys Mapdl ExportHochgeladen vonSuparerk Sirivedin
- Communicative Classroom.docxHochgeladen voncamiulatina
- Fragility Curve for Different MCR RatioHochgeladen vonpratyush
- WCEE2012_2151Hochgeladen vonBoby culius
- v72-122Hochgeladen vonptqc2012
- Seismic Design Considerations for Tall Buildings_Dissertation2008-PhamTuan[1]Hochgeladen vonsuheilbugs
- A9Hochgeladen vonvasil877
- KCI_4_2004_11_591(C).pdfHochgeladen vonshuangyaksa
- AssessmentHochgeladen vonAvinashValas
- Strong Column Weal BeamHochgeladen vonlance lancelotti
- Seimic Design CalculationHochgeladen vonRaja Mohamed
- Review PDFHochgeladen vonparth daxini
- 11 Ch4 5 Pushover AnalysisHochgeladen vonWan Fikri Darmawan
- PBD FEMA 440.pdfHochgeladen vonGalih Putra
- Pushover Analysis of Diagrid StructureHochgeladen vonStructure department
- 3Hochgeladen vonMohinuddin Ahmed
- 2006 1EEES Pietra Pinho AntoniouHochgeladen vonAdel Adel
- Report 03-05 Bridge FoundationsHochgeladen vonAlvaro Carranza
- Seismic_Analysis_and_Comparison_of_IS_18.docxHochgeladen vonPabitra Kumar Puhan
- SSI and Influence Factors in an Underground Electrical SubstationHochgeladen vonYorman Laguna Pascual
- sdarticleHochgeladen vonCarlos Andres Gualdron

- Distributed Ledger Technology for Decentralization of Manufacturing ProcessesHochgeladen vonricardobonilla
- Simplified_methods_of_yieldng Structures With Damp SystemsHochgeladen vonricardobonilla
- Composites for Construction - Structural Design With FRP Materials (Malestrom)Hochgeladen vonBogdan Taut
- API 579Hochgeladen voncheveresan123
- Flat Jack TestingLourencoHochgeladen vonHaluk Sesigür
- 0045-7949%2886%2990035-0Hochgeladen vonricardobonilla
- Structural Analysis of Piping Systems-rp-d101_2008-10Hochgeladen vonalprieto2003
- j.phpro.2012.05.095Hochgeladen vonricardobonilla
- WCEE2012_0056Hochgeladen vonD Toño Toro
- WCEE2012_0071Hochgeladen vonricardobonilla
- Bunkers Convention in Force November 2008Hochgeladen vonricardobonilla
- Bunker OilHochgeladen vonricardobonilla
- InTech-Seismic Performance of Masonry BuildingHochgeladen vonricardobonilla
- 6533_1Hochgeladen vonEr Ravinder Reddy Devireddy
- JurisdictionHochgeladen vonIndia Contract

- Chap 7 Reynolds ExpHochgeladen vonClarissa Gomez
- Elzaki Transform Homotopy Perturbation Method for Solving Gas Dynamics EquationHochgeladen vonesatjournals
- Hand Loading Tips for 9mmHochgeladen vonAhmad Mahrous Aboulsoud
- 7010_s12_qp_12Hochgeladen vonungoofaaruschool
- HW1Hochgeladen vonAllan Katende
- Energy EfficiencyHochgeladen vonbenson
- PWM Management for 3-Phase BLDC Motor Drives Using the ST7MC-CD00041736Hochgeladen vondcesenther
- Relay Selection 20guideHochgeladen vonciubaa
- Ba 761117Hochgeladen vonTheerayoot
- Bang Gia SelecHochgeladen vonnguyentrongdaidhhh
- DAV Cgi SheetingHochgeladen vonसिलन सुवाल
- Automated Software Testing Term Paper1Hochgeladen vonChristina Hepzy
- Exhibitors List - PackEx_IFTI_2012.pdfHochgeladen vonMahesh Bankar
- operationandmaintenanceofdieselpowergeneratingplants-140908214336-phpapp01Hochgeladen vonGhufran Hyder
- Extraction microwave seaweed galactansHochgeladen vonAnette Vargas Machuca
- Cincom-L12Hochgeladen vonasilka68
- ICME 2019 Deadline ExtendedHochgeladen vonanup880
- Methods and Technologies Analysis of The Real-Time Traffic Transmission Requests ServicingHochgeladen vonTI Journals Publishing
- 0299_936_0_SYS_HY_EL_EN_144Hochgeladen vonapi-19483250
- LS Nav - Product Overview and Licensing GuidelinesHochgeladen vonharikiran
- Development of Time Estimation Model for Multistoried Building Structural SystemsHochgeladen vonAnurag Gogna
- MC_V0_B000_TOC_v7_0_1_PDFHochgeladen voncassindrome
- Modelsim UserHochgeladen vonhemantsaxna
- Cisco.ActualTests.640-864.v2012-07-05.by.meh123Hochgeladen vonAnxo Alonso Da Rosa
- HCD-DR330.pdfHochgeladen vondocetallico
- DLS-5 Training PresentationHochgeladen vonDumitru Cristian
- 9.6.2bHochgeladen vonRyan Fisher
- Chapter 07 Plumbing Fixtures Fixture Fittings and Plumbing AppliancesHochgeladen vonBenjie Latriz
- CV Europass 20180814 Sopaj en (1)Hochgeladen vonLirim Sopaj
- Baker Oil Tool_SSV CatalogHochgeladen vonHardev Singh

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.