1 / 18

3D PUSHOVER ANALYSIS: THE ISSUE OF TORSION

ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT LABORATORY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE. 3D PUSHOVER ANALYSIS: THE ISSUE OF TORSION . COMPILED GREGORY G. PENELIS ANDREAS J. KAPPOS. 12 th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering LONDON – SEPTEMBER 2002. INTRODUCTION.

freja
Download Presentation

3D PUSHOVER ANALYSIS: THE ISSUE OF TORSION

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. ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTLABORATORY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE 3D PUSHOVER ANALYSIS: THE ISSUE OF TORSION COMPILED GREGORY G. PENELIS ANDREAS J. KAPPOS 12th European Conference on Earthquake EngineeringLONDON – SEPTEMBER 2002

  2. INTRODUCTION • Torsional strain is often observed on damaged buildings after earthquakes • This effect is more transparent in the nonlinear response of stuctures (I.e. severe damage) • The nonlinear analysis of buildings is gradually being introduced in codes and guidelines (ATC-40, FEMA 273 & 356, HAZUS, RISK-UE etc)- mainly by utilising the more perceptible by the practicing engineer PUSHOVER ANALYSIS.

  3. INELASTIC TORSION TO DATE: STATE OF THE ART • Two “categories” of reports: (Α) The theoretical study of inelastic torsion (Β) The design of torsionally restrained new buildings • From these: • The static eccentricity is modified as the elastic center CR shifts towards the center of shear CS. (PAULAY). • The limit surfaceBST (BASE SHEAR TORSION) defined by triads of points corresponding to different failure mechanisms (Chopra).

  4. From the state of the art the issue of nonconvergence between static nonlinear analysis and dynamic nonlinear analysis is obvious. • All approaches seem to be case sensitive to the excitation • The modal loads (elastic) seem to be the load vector approximating the dynamic nonlinear analysis better

  5. SCOPE OF WORK • The primary results of a 3D static nonlinear analysis methodology for the assessment of the vulnerability of structures which converges with the results of 3D dynamic nonlinear analysis. Α) Definition of an appropriate load vector for the static nonlinear analysis Β) Definition of the equivalent single dof oscillator for the spectral assessment of the vulnerability under a specific excitation. C) The introduction of the excitation.

  6. PRINCIPLES OF THE METHODOLOGY Α) LOAD VECTOR: One that causes the same displacement and torque on a structure using static linear analysis as the ones calculated by elastic spectral dynamic analysis (icluding all important modes).A kind of modal loads… Β) EQUIVALEN SDOF OSCILATOR:(For translation & torque) The methodology of Saidi& Sozen (1981) which defined the sdof oscillator for translation was modified to take into account the torsional effect. C) SPECTRA: Mean normalised inelastic acceleration-displacement spectra (ADRS)

  7. ONE STOREY BUILDING (1) • Selection of accelerograms (3-5) which are normalised (acc.Pga or Ι) • Calculation of the mean elastic spectra of the selected accelerograms and execution of spectral dynamic analysis in order to define the elastic translation and rotation of the center of mass. • The displacement vector of step 2 is used as a constraint in order to calculate the corresponding load vector. • Calculation of the modification factors for the sdof oscillator..

  8. ONE STOREY BUILDING (2) ψδ = P1/M1 (1) ψΜ = -1 (2) c1 = (m  uy22 + Jm  θz22) / m uy2 (3) c2 = (uy2  ψδ + ψM  θz2 )/ ψδ(4) m* = muy2 (5) Where ψδ, ψΜ: parameters related to the modal loads, P1, M1 : the load vector defined by step 3 c1, c2: parameters for the tranformation of a mdof to a sdof system, In general parameter c1corresponds to displacements and parameter c2to loading.

  9. static υ y1 elastic normalization P1 uy2 = 1 } } Þ } Þ } θz1/uy1 θ z1 Analysis with constraint of displacement vector θ z2 = M1 Μέσο φάσμα επιταχύνσεων 12 10 ) 2 Ac 8 c 6 Elastic (m/ CM 4 se c 2 0 0 1 2 3 Τ( sec) Translation – Rotation: υ θ y1, z1 Excitation

  10. ONE STOREY BUILDING (3) • Pushover analysis with the load vector at Center of Mass (P1, M1). The P-δ curve of the multi dof-> single dof usingc1, c2 Ρ* = c2 p/m* δ* = c1 uy (6) • For the selected accelerograms the mean inelastic normalised spectra (A-D) are calculated. The demand is defined for several ductilities (I.e.Fajfar-Dolsek, 2000) • The P-δ curve of the sdof is plotted on the demand spectraand the performace point is defined. This is the target displacement of the sdof -> u*targ. • The target displacement of the mdof is calculated utarg = u*targ / c1 (7) and the target rotation (Rtarg) as it is defined by the pushover analysis(P-θ curve) of the mdof for the target dispacement utarg

  11. Torsionally Restrained Torsionally Unrestrained RESULTS - COMPARISON Α) Comparison of theP-δand Ρ-θ curvesof the pushover analysis (steps 1-3 &5) with the corresponding dynamic envelope Β) Calculation of the target displacement and rotation using pushover analysis with inelastic spectra and comparison with the results of nonlinear time history analysis.

  12. Α) P-δ and Ρ-θ curves • The dynamic envelope is calculated for the 1st set of 4 accellerograms using: T.UR :40 time history nonlinear analysis T.R.: 80 time history nonlinear analysis

  13. TORSIONALLY UNRESTRAINED TORSIONALLY RESTRAINED

  14. Β) TARGET DISPLACEMENT & ROTATION The4 selectedaccelerograms scaled to pga= 0.4g • 6% deviation in displacementand 2% in rotation for the torsionally unrestrained building. • 3.7% deviation in displacementand 6.8% in rotation for the torsionally restrained building.

  15. CONCLUSIONS - COMMENTS • The Ρ-δ and Ρ-θ curves of the pushover analysis approximate the dynamic envelope • The target displacement and rotation are accurately calculated for the one storey building • The implementation for multi storey buildings is yet to come Problems - Observations Α) Adaptive pushover analysis Change in Κ -> [Φ] -> [V, T]

  16. Mean inelastic normalised spectra Mean inelastic spectra without normalisation Β) Mean inelastic normalised spectra / Highly damped spectra

  17. C) Inconsistency of t-h inelastic analysis?

  18. Dynamic Envelope MaxV -> disp & rot Maxdisp -> V & rot

More Related