1 / 116

F. Naeim, S. Tileylioglu, A. Alimoradi and J. P. Stewart

IMPACT OF FOUNDATION MODELING ON THE ACCURACY OF RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS OF A TALL BUILDING Part II - Implementation. F. Naeim, S. Tileylioglu, A. Alimoradi and J. P. Stewart. Choice of Software (nonlinear capable). Commonly used for seismic analysis and design ETABS SAP2000 Perfrom-3D

emmanuel-garrett
Download Presentation

F. Naeim, S. Tileylioglu, A. Alimoradi and J. P. Stewart

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IMPACT OF FOUNDATION MODELING ON THE ACCURACY OF RESPONSE HISTORY ANALYSIS OF A TALL BUILDINGPart II - Implementation F. Naeim, S. Tileylioglu, A. Alimoradi and J. P. Stewart

  2. Choice of Software (nonlinear capable) • Commonly used for seismic analysis and design • ETABS • SAP2000 • Perfrom-3D • Public-domain (not user friendly) • OpenSees • General F.E. (if you are suicidal!) • Adina • Abaqus • Ansys • and more

  3. Spring ends constrained to the ground motion history Foundation walls modeled with the actual stiffness and strength MA Model

  4. Horizontal nonlinear springs and dashpots connected to the basement wall. Horizontal ground displacements are induced at the free end of each spring and dashpot. Note that the same configuration exists at the other end. Vertical nonlinear springs and dashpots connecting the top of rigid plate to the bottom of mat foundation. Rigid pedestal, free at the bottom and connected to a rigid plate at the top. Vertical and horizontal displacements induced at the bottom.

  5. Lateral Soil Springs Pedestals Vertical Soil Springs

  6. Footing for the gravity system Lateral Soil Springs

  7. Nonlinear ETABS Model (MA) • Vertical masses included • << Explain the difference between eigen and Ritz analysis >> • Eigenvalue analysis does not work • 50 Ritz vectors are utilized. • The first 12 mode shapes used as Ritz vectors • Subbasement deformations used as Ritz vectors • The gravity load was imposed as a ramp function followed by imposed horizontal and vertical ground displacements • Damping: 1% critical, except for modes 1 and 4 (1.8%).

  8. Comparison with system identification results

  9. Period Comparisons

  10. Recorded Mathematical Model

  11. Recorded Mathematical Model

  12. Recorded Mathematical Model(Baseline Corrected)

  13. Recorded Mathematical Model(Baseline Corrected)

  14. Recorded Mathematical Model

  15. Recorded Mathematical Model

  16. Recorded Mathematical Model

  17. Recorded Mathematical Model

  18. Recorded Mathematical Model

  19. Recorded Mathematical Model

  20. Recorded Mathematical Model

  21. Recorded Mathematical Model

  22. Recorded Mathematical Model

  23. Recorded Mathematical Model

  24. Recorded Mathematical Model

  25. Recorded Mathematical Model

  26. Recorded Mathematical Model

  27. Recorded Mathematical Model

  28. Recorded Mathematical Model

  29. Recorded Mathematical Model

  30. Recorded Mathematical Model

  31. Approximation #3b:Rigid soil beneath base slab and basement wall springs (tension allowed) with fixed ends INPUT MOTIONS: Free-Field Accelerations applied at the base

  32. Ritz Period Comparison

  33. MA 3B NOTE: 3B model reports relative displacements. MA results are absolute displacements.

  34. MA 3B NOTE: 3B model reports relative displacements. MA results are absolute displacements.

  35. MA 3B

  36. MA 3B

More Related