1 / 22

Analyzed building

Analyzed building. Four layouts of panel to structure connections. Numerical model of panels. Panels: Elastic response, Unlimited strength Connections with beams: – Unlimited strength. Roof beams. Semi-rigid/rigid diaphragm. Flexible diaphragm. Roof T beam. Roof TT beam.

ocean
Download Presentation

Analyzed building

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. Analyzed building

  2. Fourlayoutsof panel to structureconnections

  3. Numerical model ofpanels Panels: Elastic response, Unlimited strength Connections with beams: – Unlimited strength

  4. Roofbeams Semi-rigid/rigid diaphragm Flexible diaphragm Roof T beam Roof TT beam

  5. Threetypes of analysis • Modal analysis • Nonlinear static pushover analysis (N2 method; PGA = 0.18g, 0.36g and 0.6 g) • Nonlinear response history analysis (PGA = 0.18, 0.36 and 0.6 g)

  6. Response – Layouts I & II • As an assemblage of cantilever columns – the panels were isolated from main structural system • In the case of rigid and semi rigid diaphragm • In both cases roof beams acted as a rigid diaphragm • Same response in longitudinal and transverse direction • In the case of flexible diaphragm • Response in longitudinal and transverse direction was different

  7. Fundamentalmodes – Layouts I&II Semi-rigid/rigid diaphragm T1 = 1.19 sec: transverse dire. T2 = 1.16 sec: longitudinal dire. Flexible diaphragm T1 = 1.31 sec: transverse dire. T2 = 1.23 sec: longitudinal dire.

  8. Pushoveranalysis – Layouts I&IISemi-rigid (rigid) diaphragm Maximum displacement at 0,6g was 27 cm (good correlation with NRHA) Very limited yielding, even at 0,6g PGA = 0.36 g PGA = 0.60 g

  9. NRHA – Layouts I&IISemi-rigid (rigid) diaphragm Nonlinear response history analysis PGA = 0.6 g

  10. Limited yielding ofcolumnsLayouts I&II Design stiffness42850 kN/m Design strength 2171 kN (q = 3) No strength reduction 6513 kN „Actual strength“ 3200 kN „Actual stiffness“ 22000 kN/m „Actual“ pre-yielding stiffness is 25% of the gross cross-section stiffness

  11. Smallinitialstiffness • Normalized axial force less than 0.005 fck • Cracking moment (force) is quite low Equivalent pre-yielding stiffness

  12. Response – Layouts I & II:Semi-rigid (rigid) diaphragm

  13. Response – Layouts I & II:Flexible diaphragm

  14. Response – Layout III. & IV. Layout III. and IV. responded similarly and considerably different from the layouts I. and II. • considerably stiffer structures, since the panelswere included into the main structural system • no yielding: elastic models, with • unlimited strength of panels and connections

  15. Fundamentalmodes – Layout III Roof beams were not rigid enough to connect very stiff panels as a rigid diaphragm T1 = 0.54 sec: transverse direction T2 = 0.30 sec: longitudinal direction

  16. Response – Layout III:Rigid diaphragm

  17. Response – layout III:Null diaphragm

  18. DisplacementsLayout I versusLayout III III. LayoutPanels included into the main structural system I. Basic – isostatic layout of panel connections

  19. HystereticloopsLayoutI versusLayoutIII III. LayoutPanels included into the main structural system I. Basic – isostatic layout of panel connections

  20. Conclusions – Basiclayouts of panel connections • Due to the large flexibility of the columns the roof beams were stiff enough to respond as a rigid diaphragm. • The response of this building was essentially elastic even at the design seismic intensity of 0.36 g. • Yielding occurred at 2.4 % drift. • Maximum drift of 3.6 % at PGA 0.6g.

  21. Conclusions – Basic layouts of pannel connections • Limited yielding due to three sources of overstrength: • Material overstrength • Pre-yielding stiffness was much smaller then the 1/2 of the gross cross-section stiffness, used in the design • Number of columns was increased

  22. Conclusions – Other layouts of pannel connections • Buildings with layouts III. and IV. , were considerably stiffer than the basic building with isostaticconnections. • Maximum drift 2.3% at PGA = 0.6 g. • Roof beams could not connect the panels and columns as infinitely rigid diaphragms.   • The strength of the panels was not limited, neither the strength of the connections. • The base shear was considerably larger than in the structure with isostatic connections. • In further studies these strengths should be modelled more realistically

More Related