Dissertation2008 Marinini

ISOLATIO ON SY YSTEM M FOR R PRE ECAS ST CON NCRE ETE BU UILD DINGS S
( (numeric cal modeling and structura al respon nse)
A Dissertation Su ubmitted in n Partial Fulfilment F of the Re equirement ts for the e Master Degree D in
Earthqu uake En ngineerin ng
By L Luca Mari inini
Supe ervisors: Prof. Rob berto Nasc cimbene Prof. Pao olo Riva 08 May, 200 Istituto Universita U ario di Stu udi Superio ori di Pavi ia Universit t degli St tudi di Pav via
The dissertation entitled Isolation system for precast concrete building (numerical modeling and structural response), by Luca Marinini, has been approved as partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Prof. Paolo Riva__________________________
Prof. Roberto Nascimbene_________________
Abstract
ABSTRACT
The recent development of Italian and European standards had a deep influence on precast structures design, with the introduction of dedicated chapters for static and seismic actions. The importance of connections is explicitly recognized, and the possibility of using energy dissipating connections is offered, with the support of experimental tests on representative specimens. A new type of hysteretic isolator was designed, in order to meet the code requirement of reliability (mechanical connection) and in the same time to provide good dissipation properties and economic efficiency; isolators have to be positioned between columns and cap beams or between cap beam and roof beam (in this work only this second interaction is investigated) to isolate the superstructure, emulating a concept similar to bridge deck isolation. During the normal life of the structure, thermal deformations of the superstructure are allowed with low frictional resistance, while in case of earthquake, the higher displacement level activates the energy dissipation mechanism, which consists of two bronze elements (washers), prestressed by high resistance bolts, sliding on a steel plate. After the earthquake, the system can be retrofit by replacing the two bronze elements, without any business interruption for the building. Since this is a new device, experimental investigations are required to characterize the behavior of the components and to verify the stability of the hysteretic loop of the assembly. For this scope, a frame test was designed and applied to a traction/compression machine installed in the laboratory of the Universit degli Studi di Bergamo. An analytical study is performed with the Finite Element Program Midas Gen with two main targets: implement the experimental results in a simple numerical model suitable for performing non-linear analyses and compare the seismic response of precast structures designed according to EC8, with standard and hysteretic connections. Finally, the Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) procedure is applied to the design of a representative precast structure, with standard and hysteretic connections, and the results are compared with those obtained with the Force Based Design (FBD) procedure.
Abstract
This work is carried out in cooperation with Ing. Pietro Spatti, who collaborated for the experimental test and the structural design, and performed the calibration of the numerical model for the isolator using an advanced Finite Element Program. Further information can be found in his dissertation entitled Isolation system for precast concrete buildings (numerical modeling of the components).
Keywords: isolation; experimental test; displacement based design;
ii
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Prof. Paolo Riva for introducing to me the topic of seismic isolation of precast buildings, for his motivation during this and the past works and for providing me with his proper guidance and support. In the same way, I want to thank Prof. Roberto Nascimbene for his helpfulness and availability as well as the patience during the analytical part of the work. I also appreciate CSP s.p.a. and Officine meccaniche Maffioletti (in the person of Ing. Alessandro Spadavecchia and Marcello Maffioletti respectively) for their financial commitment in this project.
iii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................... iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................... iv LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................. xi LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................................. xii 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation ............................................ 1 1.1. 1.2. 1.3. Fundamental concepts.............................................................................................................. 1 Categories of supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems ....................................... 4 Seismic isolation ...................................................................................................................... 4 1.3.1. Conceptual design and conventional approach ................................................................. 4 1.3.2. Pros and cons of seismic isolation in the context of structural performance evaluation .. 5 1.4. 1.5. 2. 2.1. Dissertation objectives ............................................................................................................. 6 Dissertation outline .................................................................................................................. 6 Passive I/D systems ................................................................................................................. 8 2.1.1. Energy formulation of the seismic problem ..................................................................... 8 2.1.2. Types of passive energy dissipating systems .................................................................. 10 2.1.3. Influence of passive energy dissipating systems on energy balance .............................. 10 2.1.4. Linear theory of seismic isolation................................................................................... 14 2.1.5. Basic dynamic response of structures with hysteretic dampers ...................................... 17 2.1.6. Approximate equivalent linearization ............................................................................. 19 2.1.7. Study of a nonlinear mechanical system incorporating hysteretic dampers ................... 20 2.2. Friction dampers .................................................................................................................... 26 2.2.1. Advantages and disadvantages of friction dampers and environmental effects ............. 27 iv
State of the art ................................................................................................................................. 8
Index
2.2.2. Numerical simulation of friction dissipators .................................................................. 28 2.2.3. Friction damper typologies: slotted-bolted connections ................................................. 28 2.2.4. Detailing aspects ............................................................................................................. 29 2.3. Code guidelines...................................................................................................................... 29 2.3.1. Italian seismic code......................................................................................................... 29 2.3.2. Eurocode 8 ...................................................................................................................... 30 2.3.3. F.E.M.A .......................................................................................................................... 30 2.4. 2.5. Foundation column superstructure interaction ................................................................. 31 Force-based and Displacement-based design ........................................................................ 35 2.5.1. Critical comparison between the two approaches........................................................... 35 2.5.2. Development of displacement-based design methods .................................................... 37 3. 4. Description of the isolation system ............................................................................................... 39 Experimental investigation ........................................................................................................... 43 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 43 Isolator components ............................................................................................................... 43 Loading protocol .................................................................................................................... 43 Experimental Setup ................................................................................................................ 45 4.4.1. Extensometer n 0 and 1 ................................................................................................. 46 4.4.2. Extensometer n 2 and 3 ................................................................................................. 47 4.4.3. Extensometer n 4 and 5 ................................................................................................. 47 4.5. 4.6. Monitored output quantities ................................................................................................... 48 Cycling tests quasi-static loading conditions ......................................................................... 48 4.6.1. P.T.F.E. ........................................................................................................................... 49 4.6.2. Washer ............................................................................................................................ 52 4.6.3. Rubber ............................................................................................................................ 56 4.6.4. Whole isolator system..................................................................................................... 59 4.7. 5. 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. Closing remarks ..................................................................................................................... 63 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 65 Numerical modelling of the isolation system ........................................................................ 65 Study on the response of a reinforced concrete column with top isolation ........................... 69 5.3.1. Steel fiber constitutive model ......................................................................................... 70 5.3.2. Concrete fiber constitutive model ................................................................................... 71 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. Test column............................................................................................................................ 73 Application of the isolation system to a test precast structure ............................................... 80 Closing remarks ..................................................................................................................... 94 Numerical modelLing of the isolation system .............................................................................. 65
Index
6.
Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) ................................................................................ 95 6.1. Design of the longitudinal internal frame (no isolation) ........................................................ 96 6.1.1. Displacement Design Spectrum ...................................................................................... 96 6.1.2. Geometric and Material properties ................................................................................. 96 6.1.3. Structural loads and masses ............................................................................................ 97 6.1.4. Design methodology ....................................................................................................... 97 6.2. 6.3. Design of the longitudinal internal frame (using isolator systems) ....................................... 99 6.2.1. Design methodology ....................................................................................................... 99 Closing remarks ................................................................................................................... 104 Experimental results ............................................................................................................ 105 Numerical Analyses ............................................................................................................. 106 Design implications ............................................................................................................. 107 Future developments ............................................................................................................ 107
7.
Conclusions and future developments ........................................................................................ 105 7.1. 7.2. 7.3. 7.4.
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 110 APPENDIX A....................................................................................................................................... A1 APPENDIX B ....................................................................................................................................... B1 APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................................... C1
vi
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page Figure 1.1. Catastrophic failure during Loma Prieta earthquake (1989) ................................................. 1 Figure 1.2. Performance-Based Design approach.................................................................................... 1 Figure 1.3. Rubber bearing tested on its maximum displacement ........................................................... 2 Figure 2.1. Rain flow analogy ............................................................................................................... 11 Figure 2.2. Rain flow analogy ............................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2.3. Parameters of 2DOF isolated system .................................................................................. 15 Figure 2.4. Classical modes of the combined system ............................................................................ 16 Figure 2.5. Single-degree-of-freedom system incorporating hysteretic damper.................................... 17 Figure 2.6. Steady-state response amplitude of single-degree-of-freedom with hysteretic damper under harmonic base excitation, kd/k = 0.55 .......................................................................................... 20 Figure 2.7. a) Single storey hysteretically damped structure b) Analogous nonlinear SDOF oscillator ........................................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 2.8. Hysteretic Characteristic of hysteretically damped structure .............................................. 22 Figure 2.9. Qualitative response of a bent of an isolated bridge ............................................................ 32 Figure 2.10. Equivalent global damping of two quasielastic viscous systems in series, applying a stiffness proportional damping concept ........................................................................................ 33 Figure 2.11. Equivalent global damping of a quasielastic systems in series with a hysteretic system, applying a stiffness proportional damping concept....................................................................... 34 Figure 2.12. Modified response spectrum to consider the equivalent viscous damping of the isolation system ........................................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 2.13. Force-Based Design Procedure ......................................................................................... 36 Figure 2.14. Generic hysteretic rule....................................................................................................... 37 Figure 2.15. Displacement-Based Design Procedure ............................................................................ 38 Figure 3.1. Render view of the isolating system .................................................................................... 39 Figure 3.2. Idealized behaviour of the isolator under static loads in the longitudinal direction ............ 40 vii
Index
Figure 3.3. Behaviour of the isolator subjected to static loads .............................................................. 41 Figure 3.4. Idealized behaviour of the dissipative part of the isolation system ..................................... 41 Figure 3.5. Idealized behaviour of the combined parts of the isolation system ..................................... 42 Figure 3.6. Behaviour of the isolator subjected to seismic loads ........................................................... 42 Figure 4.1. Testing machine ................................................................................................................. 45 Figure 4.2. Instruments n 0 and 1 ......................................................................................................... 46 Figure 4.3. Instruments n 2 and 3 ......................................................................................................... 47 Figure 4.4. Instruments n4 and 5 .......................................................................................................... 47 Figure 4.5. An unused PTFE ................................................................................................................. 49 Figure 4.6. 1 test split draw illustrating how the test is assembled ................................................... 49 Figure 4.7. Test on teflon after the machine setup ................................................................................. 50 Figure 4.8. Experimental setup of the 1st test ........................................................................................ 50 Figure 4.9. Loading path (the machine controls the displacement and the velocity which it varies with) ........................................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 4.10. Force versus Displacement behaviour of Teflon during the cycles ................................... 51 Figure 4.11. Comparison with the PTFE element after the test (on the left) and a unused element ...... 51 Figure 4.12. An unused washer ............................................................................................................. 52 Figure 4.13. 2 test split draw illustrating how the test is assembled ................................................. 52 Figure 4.14. Test on washer after the machine setup ............................................................................. 53 Figure 4.15. Experimental setup of the 2nd test .................................................................................... 53 Figure 4.16. Loading path ...................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 4.17. Force versus Displacement behaviour of a single washer during the cycles ..................... 54 Figure 4.18. The first cicle (dashed line) is very similar to the cycle n50 (continuous line), here represented with the Galdabini data capture (both displacement and force) ............................. 54 Figure 4.19. The original washer before the test and the three specimen tested. deformations are easily visible ........................................................................................................................................... 55 Figure 4.20. The third washer tested the groove due to the friction between bronze and steel is visible both to the left and to the right of the central hole ............................................................ 55 Figure 4.21. An unused rubber .............................................................................................................. 56 Figure 4.22. 3 test split draw illustrating how the test is assembled ................................................. 56 Figure 4.23. Experimental setup of the 3rd test ..................................................................................... 57 Figure 4.24. Loading path ...................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 4.25. Force versus Displacement behavior of the first rubber tested (three holes) .................... 58 Figure 4.26. Force versus Displacement behavior of the second rubber tested (single hole) ................ 58 Figure 4.27. 4 test split draw illustrating how the test is assembled and zoom on the isolator system used ........................................................................................................................................... 59
viii
Index
Figure 4.28. Test on whole isolator after the machine setup ................................................................. 60 Figure 4.29. Experimental setup of the 4th test ..................................................................................... 60 Figure 4.30. Loading path ...................................................................................................................... 60 Figure 4.31. Force versus Displacement behavior of the whole isolator system ................................... 61 Figure 4.32. Force versus Displacement linearization ........................................................................... 61 Figure 4.33. Elastic (red) and plastic (green) area for the evaluation of the effective damping ............ 62 Figure 4.34. Elastic (red) and plastic (green) area for the evaluation of the effective damping (20 mm displacement) ................................................................................................................................ 63 Figure 5.1. Kinematic hardening hysteresis model ................................................................................ 65 Figure 5.2. Non-linear elastic hysteresis model ..................................................................................... 65 Figure 5.3. Imposed displacements history - cyclic ............................................................................... 66 Figure 5.4. Imposed displacements history external loop................................................................... 66 Figure 5.5. Simplified hysteretic model................................................................................................. 67 Figure 5.6. Refined hysteretic model ..................................................................................................... 67 Figure 5.7. Comparison between experimental results and numerical models ...................................... 68 Figure 5.8. Discretization of a section in a fiber model ......................................................................... 69 Figure 5.9. Steel fiber constitutive model .............................................................................................. 70 Figure 5.10. Concrete fiber constitutive model ..................................................................................... 71 Figure 5.11. Geometric and load properties of the representative column ............................................ 73 Figure 5.12. Geometric and reinforcement properties of the R/C Column............................................ 74 Figure 5.13. Force displacement capacity curve for the column ........................................................... 75 Figure 5.14. Time history displacement of the node with concentrated mass ....................................... 76 Figure 5.15. Time history Base shear of the node with concentrated mass ........................................... 76 Figure 5.16. Time history displacement of the node with concentrated mass ....................................... 77 Figure 5.17. Time history Base shear of the node with concentrated mass ........................................... 77 Figure 5.18. Moment-rotation diagram of the base section ................................................................... 79 Figure 5.19. Structural layout of the prototype structure ....................................................................... 80 Figure 5.20. Rendering view of the prototype structure ........................................................................ 81 Figure 5.21. Render view of the connection - refined model ................................................................ 81 Figure 5.22. Wireframe view of a connection refined model ............................................................. 81 Figure 5.23. Render view of the connection - simplified model............................................................ 82 Figure 5.24. Wireframe view of a connection simplified model ........................................................ 82 Figure 5.25. Acceleration spectra of the three artificial earthquake ...................................................... 83 Figure 5.26. Acceleration spectrum of the vertical artificial earthquake ............................................... 83 Figure 5.27. Comparison between top column drift resulting from the RS and NLTH analyses .......... 89 Figure 5.28. Comparison between base shear resulting from the RS and NLTH analyses ................... 90
ix
Index
Figure 5.29. Comparison between drift levels of the isolated and non-isolated structures ................... 93 Figure 6.1. Fundamentals of Direct Displacement-Based Design ......................................................... 95 Figure 6.2. Structural model .................................................................................................................. 96 Figure 6.3. Displacement spectrum (Corner period = 4,0 sec) .............................................................. 96 Figure 6.4. Comparison among base shear resulting from the EC8 DCH, DDBD and DDBDiso models ......................................................................................................................................... 103 Figure 6.5. Comparison among drift resulting from the EC8 DCH, DDBD and DDBDiso models ... 103 Figure 7.1. Lateral view of the experimental test ................................................................................ 108 Figure 7.2. Frontal view of the roof beam ........................................................................................... 108 Figure 7.3. Details of anchor channels cast in the concrete blocks ..................................................... 108 Figure 7.4. Anchorage of the energy dissipating connections to the anchor channels ........................ 109
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page Table 1.1. Seismic Protection Systems, from [Christopoulos, 2006] ...................................................... 4 Table 3.1. Comnponents list .................................................................................................................. 39 Table 4.1. List of tests ............................................................................................................................ 44 Table 5.1. Simplified hysteretic model parameters ............................................................................... 67 Table 5.2. Refined hysteretic model parameters .................................................................................... 67 Table 5.3. Hysteretic areas and effective damping ................................................................................ 68 Table 5.4. Result summary for EC8 Design .......................................................................................... 73 Table 5.5. Time history displacement and base shear ........................................................................... 78 Table 5.6. Time history displacement and base shear ........................................................................... 78 Table 5.7. Results obtained for the four prototype structures analysed ................................................. 82 Table 5.8. Time history results for the model DCM-S .......................................................................... 84 Table 5.9. Time history results for the model DCH-S ........................................................................... 85 Table 5.10. Time history results for the model DCM-R ........................................................................ 86 Table 5.11. Time history results for the model DCH-R......................................................................... 87 Table 5.12. Time history results for the model DCH-R*....................................................................... 88 Table 5.13. Summary table of the time history analyses ....................................................................... 89 Table 5.14. Time history results for the model DCH-R with top isolation............................................ 91 Table 5.15. Time history results for the model DCH-R with top isolation............................................ 92 Table 5.16. Summary table of the time history analyses ....................................................................... 93 Table 6.1. Materials definition ............................................................................................................... 97 Table 6.2. Results obtained with the application of FBD EC8 and DDBD approach ......................... 100 Table 6.3. Time history results for the model DDBD.......................................................................... 101 Table 6.4. Time history results for the model DDBDiso ..................................................................... 102
xi
Index
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Aelastic (Ael) ag Ahysteresis (Apl) [C] c dc Dd Disol dlim dmax drx dry dx dy Dy Ec elsys Esd(t) esu Evb(t) ( t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) (t) eye {Fs}
Elastic strain energy for a complete cycle Peak ground acceleration Area under the Force-displacement curve Global viscous damping matrix Concrete cover Contact displacement Design displacement Isolator design displacement Limit displacement Maximum displacement (DDBD) Drift in x direction Drift in y direction Displacement in x direction Displacement in y direction Yield displacement Concrete elastic modulus System effective damping Energy dissipated by the supplemental damping system Steel ultimate strain Vibrational energy Work done by static load Absorbed energy Relative input energy Absolute input energy Relative kinetic energy at time t Absolute kinetic energy of the system at time t Energy dissipated by viscous damping Steel yield strain Global static loads applied to the structure
xii
Index
Fhd(t) Fl Flat Flim Fmw fpc fpce fsu fsue fw Fw fy Fy fye g Heff k kd kDE ke keff kG kpy kv Lhd Lp Lsp [M] m mb Mcol meff MPD p0 QD {r} Re
Nonlinear horizontal force Longitudinal steel diameter Horizontal lateral load Limit Force transmitted Medium tangential force on the washer Concrete strength Concrete overstrength Steel ultimate stress Steel ultimate overstrength Friction washer coefficient Transverse steel diameter Steel yield stress Yield curvature Steel yield overstrenght Gravity acceleration Effective height Lateral stiffness Lateral stiffness provided by the added damper Secant stiffness to the maximum displacement Horizontal stiffness Effective stiffness Global pier-bearing stiffness Secant stiffness to yielding Vertical stiffness Hysteretically damped system's parameter Plastic hinge length Strain penetration length Global mass matrix Superstructure mass Base mass above the isolation system Column base moment (DDBD) Effective mass (DDBD) Column base moment (due to PD effects) Amplitude of the equivalent applied load Stability index Vector coupling the direction of the ground motion input with the direction of the DoF of the structure Spectrum reduction factor
xiii
Index
s Sael Sad Sd ST t T TC, TD Teff Tel Tw Vb Vcol xDE xDV xe xeq xP xst {x(t)} { (t)} { (t)} {xg(t)} G 0 g q W
Frequency ratio Elastic acceleration response spectrum Design acceleration response spectrum Displacement response spectrum Soil coefficient Time variable Period Corner periods Effective period Elastic period (DDBD) Normal force on the washer Total base shear (DDBD) Column base shear (DDBD) Effective damping High viscous damping Equivalent damping Equivalent viscous damping Standard viscous damping Equivalent static lateral displacement Vectors of global displacements Vectors of global velocities Vectors of global accelerations Horizontal acceleration of the ground at time t Effective global ductility Natural circular frequency Ground excitation circular frequency Behaviour factor according to EC8 Weight
For all the symbols not listed here, further information can be found within the text.
xiv
Chapter 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation
1.
INTRODUCTION TO PASSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL DAMPING AND SEISMIC ISOLATION
1.1. Fundamental concepts The basic principles of conventional earthquake-resistant design that has been applied for the last 75 years is intended to ensure an acceptable safety level while avoiding catastrophic failures and loss of life. When a structure subjected to a design-level seismic ground motion does not collapse, and the occupants can evacuate it safely, it is considered that it has fulfilled its function, even though it may never be functional again. In the last decade, earthquake design passed through a complex, though relatively quick, process of development, based on the introduction of innovative design approaches. In particular, the rationalization Fig.1.1: Catastrophic failure during Loma Prieta earthquake (1989) of already known conceptual schemes based on the familiar Limit State Design approach, widely adopted for gravity load design, into more comprehensive Performance-Based Design philosophies that represents a significant shift in the conceptual design philosophy. A broad consensus between public, politicians and engineering communities seems to be achieved when promoting the emerging opinion that the excessively severe socioeconomical losses due to earthquake events, as observed in recent years in seismic-prone countries, should be nowadays considered unacceptable, at least Fig.1.2: Performance-Based Design approach for well-developed modern countries.
It could in fact be argued [Bertero, 1997] that the rapid increase in population, urbanization and economical development of our urban areas would naturally result into a generally higher seismic risk, defined as the probability that social and/or economical consequences of earthquake events will equal or exceed specific values at a site, or at various sites, or in an area during a specific exposure time. Even though the seismicity remains constant, the implications of business interruption (i.e. downtime) due to damage to the built environment are continuously increasing and should be assigned an adequate relevance in the whole picture of Seismic Risk, typically also defined as combination of Seismic Hazard and Vulnerability. As a result, more emphasis needs to be given to a damage-control design approach, after having assured that life safety and the collapse of the structure are under control (in probabilistic terms). Over the last half century, a large amount of research has been conducted into developing innovative earthquake-resistant systems in order to raise seismic performance levels while keeping construction costs reasonable. Most of these systems are designed to dissipate the seismic energy introduced into a structure by supplemental damping mechanism and/or designed to limit the transmission of seismic energy to the main structure by isolation of the main structural elements. Supplemental damping systems use special devices, activated through movements of the main structural system, which reduce the overall dynamic response due to mechanical energy dissipation. The main elements are protected by diverting the seismic energy to these mechanical devices that can be inspected and even replaced following an earthquake. Ideally, if all the seismic energy was absorbed by the mechanical dampers, the main structure would not sustain any damage. Seismic isolation systems involve the installation of isolators beneath the supporting points of a structure. For buildings, the isolators are usually located between the superstructure and the foundations while for bridges they are introduced between the deck and the piers. From an energy point of view, a seismic isolation system limits the transfer of seismic energy to the superstructure. Ideally, if no seismic energy is transmitted, the superstructure remains literally unaffected by a seismic attack. Conversely, the isolators must be capable of undergoing the movements imposed by the ground shaking, while maintaining their ability to carry gravity loads from the superstructure to the ground. To reduce the deformation of the Fig.1.3: Rubber bearing tested on its isolators and dissipate the seismic input maximum displacement energy, supplemental damping systems are also usually provided.
Maximum elastic seismic forces are usually felt by structures with natural periods in the range of 0.1 to 1 sec., with most severe responses in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 sec. The most important characteristic of seismic isolation is the lengthening of the vibrational period of the system associated with the increased flexibility of the isolation system. This period shift controls the amount of forces induced into the structure, while excessive displacements are controlled by providing supplemental damping to the seismic isolation system. These displacements occur at the seismic isolator level and must be accommodated. When a structure is equipped with either supplemental damping devices or seismic isolation systems, its seismic response is greatly altered. Although the intention of any seismic protection system is to improve the performance of a structure, because of the complexity of the dynamic response of structures to earthquake ground motions and the uncertainty associated with ground motion characteristics, this is not guaranteed. A thorough understanding of the impact of adding supplemental damping, or isolating, a structure, is therefore necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the system. We can distinguish two different types of isolators: the better known base isolation technique consists of inserting some special equipment (isolators) in the proximity of foundations. This equipment offers a high stiffness for vertical loads so that the structure is not subject to sinking, and a low stiffness for horizontal loads, which are peculiar of seismic events. This way all seismic effects are absorbed by the equipment, whereas the structure is subject to low oscillations and consequently to low strains. In a few words, base isolation is aimed to untie the ground-foundation system, so that the structure can be seen as it is floating on the ground during the seismic event, thus reducing the strains. On the other hand, dissipation systems are made by a series of devices inserted on the inside of the building frame using different techniques, with the aim of slowing down the structure oscillation and dispelling seismic energy; the dissipators are devices mounted among some elements of a building: during an earthquake they are subjected to movements which are relative to each other. When the structures oscillates, such devices slow down the vibration by dissipating viscous or friction energy, thus increasing the so called viscous coefficient and then reducing the strains on the structure itself. 1.2. Categories of supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems Supplemental damping systems can be divided in two categories: passive systems and semiactive/active systems. Passive energy dissipation system are intended to dissipate a portion of the seismic energy input to a structure without external power sources, such as actuators, power supplies, computers, etc., necessary for active control technology, and are activated by the movements of the main structural system. The main categories of supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems are reported in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Seismic Protection Systems, from [Christopoulos, 2006]
Conventional systems
Supplemental damping systems Passive Dampers Semi-Active/ Active Dampers Braces Tuned-Mass Variable Stiffness Variable Damping Piezoelectric Rheological
Isolation systems
Flexural Plastic Hinges Shear Plastic Hinges Yielding Braces
Metallic Friction Viscoelastic Viscous Tuned-Mass Self-Centering
Elastomeric Lead-Rubber High-Damping Rubber Metallic Lead-Extrusion Friction Pendulum
1.3. Seismic isolation 1.3.1. Conceptual design and conventional approach Looking at the seismic problems through the lens of an energy approach, it can be observed that the amount of earthquake energy filtered by the structure is partly dissipated and partly transformed in demand on structural members, and specifically: (i) first, the transmission of the input energy to the structure is related to the proximity of the input frequency content to the structural dynamic characteristics, basically the mass and the stiffness (i.e. the period), (ii) then, the structural capability of reducing the seismic demand on members relies on the possibility of dissipating the absorbed energy. The failure-mode-control approach relies on the effectiveness of selected sacrificial structural members (plastic hinge zones): the yielding in fact lengthens the fundamental period of the structure, and the hysteretic behaviour of the ductile components provides energy dissipation to damp the response motions. However, structural yielding is an inherently damaging mechanism and, even though the appropriate selection of the hinge locations and a careful detailing can ensure structural integrity, large deformations within the structure itself are required to withstand strong earthquake motions, possibly causing problems for components not intended to provide seismic resistance. Moreover, further problems occur in the detailing for the seismic design at a serviceability performance level, in costs and feasibility of repairing after a major event. In a different perspective, it was thought first to reduce substantially the transmission of the earthquake energy into the structure before damage occurs, and then to concentrate the energy dissipation in elements other then the structural members, i.e. in localised devices to be activated during the seismic event. In this sense, the concepts of period shift and energy dissipation by which seismic Isolation and Dissipation (I/D) Systems developed are similar to the conventional failure-mode-control approach, specifically: (i) the fundamental period of
4
the fixed-based structure is much shorter than the isolated period, associated with very small participation factors of the higher modes, and (ii) energy dissipation is then obtained through Added Damping derived from yielding, viscous and/or friction dissipation. However, the conceptual background of the modern I/D Systems differs fundamentally from conventional seismic strategies in the philosophy of how the earthquake attack is withstood: in an isolated structure, the damage, i.e. the displacement and the dissipation, are localized in components specially designed and distinct from the structural members. The structure is designed to be protected, and the development of ductility, plasticization and dissipation, rely exclusively on the I/D system properties, which are calibrated on the desired level of structural response. 1.3.2. Pros and cons of seismic isolation in the context of structural performance evaluation Some advantages appear evident: first, the level of damage is more safely controlled and confined to generally well-replaceable spots; then, some kind of I/D system not only damp and reduce the action demand on the structure, but even limit physically the amount of force transmittable to the structure. However, design of typically isolated structures deserves in some case particular concern. Practical isolation systems must tradeoff between the extent of force isolation and acceptable relative displacements across the isolation system during the earthquake motion. Acceptable displacements in conjunction with a large degree of force isolation can be obtained by providing damping, as well as flexibility in the isolator. In such a case, both the forces transmitted and the deformation within the structure are reduced, and the seismic design of the superstructure is considerably simplified, apart from the need for the service connections to accommodate the large displacements across the isolating layer. In addition, particular concern to the boundary condition of the structures is required, as the larger displacements resulting from the use of seismic isolation increase the possibility of pounding: collisions may occur between neighbouring structures due to their different phase vibrations. As the required ground motions for structures have increased in intensity, the isolation systems have increased in complexity, with the trend toward very large isolators combined with large viscous dampers. However, combining large viscous dampers with isolators underscores the extreme difficulty of getting the level of damping intrinsic to a hysteretic isolator system above 20% equivalent viscous damping when the displacements become large. As a result, in the attempt to control through damping the large displacements induced by the code-mandated motions, the use of supplemental dampers is forced, but, unfortunately, the dampers themselves drive energy into higher modes, thus defeating the primary reason for using isolation: the effects of added damping on the structural response have to be carefully considered, because they can be possibly detrimental. I/D devices also show some inherent problems: the properties of seismic isolation bearings, in fact, vary due to the effects of wear, ageing, temperature, history, nature of loading, etc. The concept of Property Modification Factors has been introduced by Constantinou et al. (1999) in order to characterize the variability of the nominal properties of an isolator and understanding the consequences on the device and structural response. A large variety of seismic isolation/dissipation devices have been developed all over the world. The most successful devices show simplicity and effectiveness of design, thus being reliable and economic to produce and install, and
incorporating low maintenance. Different I/D technologies act differently on the structural performance, improving some response and possibly worsening others: only an appropriate combination of a number of factors allows understanding if the structural performance improves after the application of a specific I/D system, and which is the best technology to be employed. Among these factors, the absolute maximum acceleration is a measure of the force level induced into the system, of the damage potential to non-structural elements and of potential injury to the occupants, the maximum absorbed energy is a measure of potential structural damage, whilst the residual displacement is an indicator of the structural damage and of repair costs; in addition, one should consider the maximum displacement ductility over the total duration of the seismic input, the number and the typology of failed and/or yielded elements, the presence of soft-mechanisms, the ductility distribution and the risk of pounding. As the whole thrust of seismic isolation is to shift the probable damage level from not repairable or repairable towards minor, and thereby to reduce the damage costs, the economic factors need also to be considered by an engineer wishing to decide whether a structure should incorporate seismic isolation: maintenance costs should be low for passive systems, though they may be higher for active seismic isolation, whilst the construction costs including seismic isolation usually vary by 5-10% from not isolated options. The design problem may be solved by means of a variety of possible structural forms and materials, with and without incorporating seismic isolation; the total costs and benefits of different solutions can be evaluated considering the value of having the structure or its contents in a undamaged or with reduced damage after an earthquake. In many cases such additional benefits render preferable the adoption of the seismic isolation option. 1.4. Dissertation objectives The objective of present work is to develop a new seismic isolation device for pre-cast structures: attention will focus on the characterization of the device and on the development of design guidelines, following both force-based and displacement-based approach. The present work is intended to provide a tool for the structural engineer, making him capable of modelling and designing the system within general structural engineering software and of finally recommending the optimum solution for each particular situation of seismic design or retrofit project. 1.5. Dissertation outline The second chapter presents: a state of the art review of passive I/D systems developed, including a description of their hysteretic properties and the property modification factors affecting their behavior; the energy formulation of the seismic problem, in order to introduce the basic concepts of seismic isolation, including code design guidelines and innovative approaches; a critical comparison between force-based and performance-based design procedure. The third chapter illustrates the conceptual behavior of the seismic isolation system, after a detailed description of the mechanical components.
The fourth chapter presents the results of the experimental tests performed at the University of Bergamo. The mechanical characterization regards both the single components and the assembled isolator. The fifth chapter illustrates the numerical modeling of the isolator, according to the experimental results and the numerical investigations reported in [Spatti, 2008]. Different modeling strategies are compared, and the behaviors of a test column and a representative structure with fix or energy dissipating connections are investigated. The sixth chapter presents the application of the Direct Displacement Based Design procedure to the representative precast structure studied in chapter five, and the results are compared with standard Force-Based Design. The seventh chapter summarizes the experimental and numerical results and presents possible future developments. Further details about the isolator geometry and material, test frame components and assemblage, and test execution are reported in Appendix A (materials properties), B (technical drawing of the system) and C (photographs).
Chapter 2. State of the art
2.
STATE OF THE ART
2.1. Passive I/D systems 2.1.1. Energy formulation of the seismic problem Since the main purpose of using supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems is to dissipate a significant portion of the seismic input energy and/or to isolate the structure from receiving this energy, it is natural to formulate the seismic problem within an energy framework. Considering a nonlinear MDOF system excited at the base by a horizontal translation from an earthquake ground motion, the governing differential equation is given by:
( t )} + { Fr ( t )} = [ M ]{r} x ( t )} + [C ]{ x xg ( t ) + { Fs } [ M ]{
(2.1)
Where: [M] is the global mass matrix [C] is the global viscous damping matrix which accounts for all inherent velocity dependent energy dissipating mechanism in the structure other than the inelastic hysteretic energy dissipated in the structural members.
( t )} and { x ( t )} x ( t )} , { x { are respectively the vectors of global accelerations, velocities and
displacements relative to the moving base at time t.
{F ( t )} is the vector of global nonlinear restoring forces at time t generated by the hysteretic
r
characteristics of the structural elements. is the vector coupling the directions of the ground motion input with the directions of the DOFs of the structure.
xg ( t ) is the horizontal acceleration of the ground at time t.
{r }
{Fs } is the vector of global static loads applied to the structure prior to and maintained during
the seismic excitation.
8
The energy formulation is obtained by integrating the work done by each element in equation (2.1) over an increment of global structural displacement {dx} :
r Ekr ( t ) + Evd ( t ) + Ea ( t ) = Ein ( t ) + Est ( t )
(2.2)
Where:
Ekr ( t ) is defined as the relative kinetic energy at time t :
Ekr ( t ) =
T 1 ( t )} [ M ]{ x ( t )} x { 2
(2.3)
Evd ( t ) is the energy dissipated by viscous damping from the beginning of the record up to time t :
( t )} [C ]{dx ( t )} Evd ( t ) = { x
T
(2.4)
Ea ( t ) is the absorbed energy from the beginning of the record up to time t, expresses as the sum of recoverable elastic strain energy and energy dissipated through hysteretic damping:
Ea ( t ) = {dx ( t )}
{F ( t )} = E ( t ) + E ( t )
r es h
T
(2.5)
r Ein ( t ) is the relative input energy from the beginning of the record up to time t :
r Ein xg ( t ) ( t ) = {dx} [ M ]{r}
(2.6)
Est ( t ) is the work done by static loads applied before and maintained during the seismic excitation from the moment of application of the forces up to time t :
Est ( t ) = {dx}
T
{Fs }
(2.7)
The energy balance expressed from eq. (2.2) is called relative formulation, as it doesnt account for the rigid body translation. The equivalent absolute formulation can be expressed as:
a Eka ( t ) + Evd ( t ) + Ea ( t ) = Ein ( t ) + Est ( t )
(2.8)
Where:
Eka ( t )
is defined as the absolute kinetic energy of the system at time t :

Eka ( t ) =
T 1 a ( t )} [ M ]{ x a ( t )} x { 2
(2.9)
a Ein ( t ) is defined as the absolute input energy from the beginning of the record up to time t :
a Ein xa } [ M ]{r } dxg ( t ) ( t ) = { T
(2.10)
The absolute input energy of the system has a true physical meaning as it is defined as the total base shear integrated over the ground displacement. As observed by [Huang and Bertero, 1990], the input energy computed with both formulations is very similar for structural natural periods ranging from 0.1 to 5s, which covers most practical civil engineering structures. 2.1.2. Types of passive energy dissipating systems Passive energy dissipating systems can be divided into three different categories: displacement-activated devices, velocity-activated devices, and motion-activated devices. Displacement-activated devices dissipate energy through the relative displacement that occur between their connected points. These dampers are usually independent of the frequency of the motion. Also, forces generated by these devices on the structural elements are usually in phase with the internal forces resulting from shaking. Therefore, the maximum forces generated by the dampers occur simultaneously with the maximum internal forces that arise at the end of a vibration cycle corresponding to the peak transient deformation of the structure. Typical dampers falling in this category include metallic dampers, friction dampers and selfcentering dampers. Velocity activated devices dissipate energy through the relative velocities that occur between their connected points. The force-displacement response of these dampers usually depends on the frequency of the motion. Also, the forces generated by these devices in the structure are usually out-of-phase with the internal forces resulting from shaking. Therefore, the maximum forces generated by the dampers do not occur simultaneously with the maximum internal forces corresponding to the peak transient deformation of the structure. This results in lower design forces for the foundations. Typical dampers falling in this category include purely viscous and visco-elastic dampers. A motion activated device disturbs the flow of energy in the structure through the vibration of a secondary system. Tuned-Mass Dampers (TMDs) are examples of motion-activated devices. A TMD is a relatively small secondary mass-spring-dashpot system that is attached to a structure in order to reduce its dynamic response. The secondary system is tuned to be in resonance with the main structure on which it is installed. Under a dynamic excitation, the TMD resonates at the same frequency as the main structure but out-of-phase from it, thereby diverting the input energy from the main structure into itself. The input energy is dissipated by the inertia forces applied by the TMD on the main structure. These systems, usually installed on the roofs of buildings, have been proven effective in reducing wind-induced vibrations in high-rise buildings and floor vibrations induced by occupant activity. 2.1.3. Influence of passive energy dissipating systems on energy balance The introduction of an energy dissipating system into a structural system perturbs the energy balance during earthquake shaking. If the passive energy dissipation system is well designed, the perturbation will be beneficial to the structure. From a physical point of view, the energy perturbation can be visualized using the rain flow analogy.
10
The figure on the right illustrates a fictitious hangar with a retractable roof subjected to a rainstorm. The rainstorm symbolizes the earthquake input, while the amount of rain water entering the system represents the total seismic energy input into the structure. This amount of rain water entering the system depends on the extent of the roof opening, symbolizing the dependence of the input energy on the structural properties during Fig.2.1: Rain flow analogy an earthquake and emphasizing the fact that the input energy is not the same for every structure subjected to the same ground motion. If the roof is completely open, the structure would absorb all the seismic energy input generated at the site by the earthquake. This case symbolizes quasi-resonance between the ground motion and the dynamic response of the structure. If the roof is completely closed, the structure does not receive any seismic input energy. This situation corresponds to a perfectly isolated structure. The rain water entering the structure, symbolizing the seismic input energy, is collected just below the ceiling line, and is routed towards a kinetic energy pail. The amount of rainwater collected by this pail represents the kinetic energy generated by the masses of the structure as their inertia reacts to the seismic input energy transmitted to the structure. The hosepipe collecting the rainwater entering from the roof is equipped with a flow gauge in order to measure the total amount of seismic input energy transmitted to the structure. The rain water that slides down on each side of the closed portion of the roof symbolizes the amount of seismic input energy generated by the earthquake that is not transmitted to the structure, but is rather radiated back to the ground. In other words, not all the seismic input energy generated at the site is absorbed by the structure. As the masses of the structure vibrate, the structural elements deform and absorb strain energy. When the masses stop moving at the end of a cycle of vibration, the kinetic energy is transferred into strain energy. This process is illustrated in Fig. 2.1 by a two way oscillating pump connecting the bottom of the kinetic energy pail to the top of the strain energy pail and the bottom of the strain energy pail to the top of the kinetic energy pail. The flow rate of the pump is associated with the effective period of vibration of the structure. This pump is activated as long as rain water is still present in either of these two pails. The vibration of the structure can therefore be visualized as a constant transfer of kinetic energy into strain energy and vice-versa. The equivalent viscous damping of the structural system is symbolized by a
11
flow loss in the two-way oscillating pump between the kinetic energy pail and the strain energy pail. This flow loss is proportional to the flow rates transiting through the pump. This is analogous to the velocity dependence of the equivalent viscous damping model. The amount of lost rain water is collected permanently by a viscous damping pail symbolizing the amount of energy absorbed by equivalent viscous damping. It is of interest to note that the system composed of kinetic, strain and viscous damping energy pails represent a viscously damped linear elastic system. If only an initial amount of input energy is introduced to the system, resulting in a damped free-vibration response, rain water will be pumped between the kinetic and strain energy pails until all the rain water is transmitted to the viscous damping pail through losses in the pump. When the level of water in the strain energy pail reaches a critical level, some of the water is drained permanently into a hysteretic energy pail. The critical water level in the strain energy pail symbolizes the amount of strain energy that is absorbed by the structure before it starts deforming in the elastic range. The manometer in the strain energy pail indicates the maximum total (recoverable + hysteretic) strain energy absorbed by the structural elements at any time during the earthquake. This reading is directly related to the peak transient response of the structure. Therefore, damage in the structure is associated with both the amount of rain water accumulated in the hysteretic energy pail and the final reading of the manometer. The energy state of the structure at the end of the shaking is illustrated in Fig 2.2 (picture on the right). Both the kinetic and recoverable strain energy pails are empty as the structure comes to rest. If the structure remains in the elastic range of the material during the earthquake, all the input energy ends up in the equivalent viscous damping pail. If the structural elements experience inelastic deformations during the earthquake, a portion of the seismic input energy is also collected by the hysteretic energy pail.
Fig.2.2: Rain flow analogy
Therefore, the sum of the volumes of rain water collected by the equivalent viscous damping pail Vd and by the hysteretic energy pail Vh must be equal to the equivalent volume of rainwater recorded by the flow gauge Vin:
Vin = Vd + Vh
(2.11)
12
From the rain flow analogy discussed above, the strategies for incorporating supplemental damping and seismic isolation systems against earthquake attacks become obvious. Two possible intervention strategies are possible. The first strategy consist of minimizing (or even eliminating) the amount of rain water collected by the hysteretic energy pail that is directly linked to damage. This can be achieved by supplemental damping mechanisms. The other intervention strategy consists of reducing the size of the roof opening in order to minimize the amount of rain flow collected by the seismic input energy pail. This symbolizes the primary function of a seismic isolation system. The energy state of a structure equipped with a displacement-activated energy dissipating system can be described with another rain flow analogy, where a second critical rain water level is introduced in the strain energy pail. This second critical level is located below the level where the hysteretic energy pail is connected. This second critical rain water level represents the critical amount of strain energy that is absorbed by the structure when the supplemental dampers are activated. Once this second critical level of rain water in the strain energy pail is reached, some of the rainwater is drained permanently into a supplemental damping energy pail, thereby reducing the total energy flow into the structure. The energy state of a structure equipped with a velocity-activated energy dissipating system during seismic shaking can be described with another rain flow analogy, where the presence of the dampers causes an increase of flow loss in the two-way oscillating pump connecting the kinetic energy pail to the strain energy pail. This supplemental energy loss is symbolized by the rain water collected in a supplemental damping pail, thereby reducing once more the total energy flow into the structure. The energy state of a structure equipped with a motion-activated energy dissipation system such as a TMD can be described with another rain flow analogy, in which the introduction of a TMD draws a portion of the kinetic energy from the main system into a TMD kinetic energy pail. This diverted kinetic energy is then pumped from the TMD kinetic energy pail into the TMD strain energy pail, similarly to the main structure. Through this secondary two-way pump, losses in flow representing the energy dissipated through viscous damping in the TMD viscous damping pail. If the secondary system is perfectly tuned, the opening between the main systems kinetic energy pail and the secondary systems kinetic energy pail is large enough that all the seismic input energy falls directly into the TMD kinetic energy pail, without any energy being pumped into the main structures strain energy pail. Mathematically, the absolute energy balance equation (2.8) is modified by the introduction of a passive supplemental damping system as follows:
a Eka ( t ) + Evd ( t ) + Ea ( t ) + Esd ( t ) = Ein (t )
(2.12)
Where the term Esd ( t ) represents the energy dissipated by the supplemental damping system from the beginning of the earthquake up to time t, and the energy related to static loads is neglected.
13
It is very important to understand that for design purposes, the most desirable response of a structure equipped with a passive energy dissipating system is not necessarily associated with maximum energy dissipation by the dampers. This can be seen by defining the vibrational energy Evb ( t ) , which corresponds to the portion of the input energy at time t that has not been dissipated by viscous damping or by the supplemental damping system and that can potentially cause damage to the structure. The main structure is therefore best protected when Evb ( t ) is minimized at all times. From equation (2.12) it can be seen that the vibrational energy is equal to the sum of the kinetic energy and absorbed energy flowing in the system at time t:
Evb ( t ) = Eka ( t ) + Ea ( t )
(2.13)
From equations (2.12) and (2.13), the vibrational energy is also equal to the difference between the seismic input energy and the sum of the energy dissipated by viscous damping in the main structural elements and the supplemental dampers.
a Evb ( t ) = Ein ( t ) Esd ( t ) Evd ( t )
(2.14)
Equation (2.14) clearly shows that maximizing the energy dissipated by the supplemental dampers does not necessarily lead to a minimum vibrational energy, since the amount of input energy can also increase significantly. Therefore, the design strategy resides in minimizing the difference between the seismic input energy and the energy dissipated by the dampers. This result leads also to the conclusion that for design purposes, the optimum properties of the passive energy dissipating system selected depend on both the properties of the ground motion and of the structural system. 2.1.4. Linear theory of seismic isolation The linear theory of seismic isolation, given in details by Kelly [1996, 1999], is based on a two d.o.f. structural model, as shown in Fig. 2.3. The mass m represents the superstructure and mb the base mass above the isolation system. The stiffness and damping of the structure and of the isolation system are represented by ks, cs, kb and cb respectively. us, ub and ug are the absolute displacements of the two masses and of the ground, while relative displacements in equation (2.15) represent respectively the isolation system displacement and the interstorey drift. The basic equations of motion of the two degree-of-freedom model are given in equation ( 2.4 ), where M is the total mass.
vb = ub ug
vs = us ub
(2.15)
M m
b cb m v + s 0 m v
b kb 0 v + s 0 cs v
0 vb M v = m ks s
m 1 g u m 0
(2.16)
14
Fig.2.3: Parameters of 2DOF isolated system
The nominal frequencies and damping ratios of the system are obtained as follows:
s =
ks k >> b = b m M
2
(2.17) (2.18) (2.19)
= s b c c s = s ; b = b 2ms 2mb
is assumed to be in the range of 0-10-2. The solution of the (2.16) leads to the characteristic system frequencies in equations (2.20), approximated by the (2.21), where the mass ratio is defined as m/M:
12 =
2 1 2 2 2 b + s b s 2 (1 )
( (
) )
1/ 2 + 4b2s2
(2.20)
22 =
2 1 2 2 2 b + s b s 2 (1 )
1/ 2 + 4b2s2
12 = b2 (1 )
(2.21)
2 2 =
2 s
(1 + )
15
The equations (2.20) to (2.22) display respectively the classical modes of the combined system, shown in Fig. 2.4, the modal masses and the modal participation factors:
= {1, }
1T
(2.22)
2T
1 = 1, 1 (1 )
M1 = M (1 2 )
(2.23)
M2 = M
(1 ) 1 2 (1 )
Fig.2.4: Classical modes of the combined system
1 = 1
(2.24)
2 =
The found results reveal the basic concepts on which an isolation system relies: the participation factor of the second mode, responsible for the structural deformation, is in the order of magnitude of , and if the two frequencies are well separated it may be very small. Then, the second mode is shifted far from the typical range of strong motion frequencies. Since the participation factor of the second mode is very small, it is also almost orthogonal to the earthquake input: this means that in any case the input energy associated to the second mode structural frequency will not be inferred to the structure; the effectiveness of an isolation system consists in fact in deflecting energy through its orthogonality property rather than in absorbing it. Energy absorption is however another component of the isolation system. The modal damping ratios depend on the structural and the isolators damping: when they can be treated separately,
16
and the energy dissipation can be described just by linear viscous damping, simple relationships are found:
1 = b 1 2
(2.25)
2 =
s + b 1 1/ 2 (1 ) 2
1/2
A natural rubber isolation system may provide a degree of damping in the range of 5 to 20% of critical, and the structure generally of 2%: the common assumption of a structural damping of 5% of critical implies the occurring of some degree of damage to have occurred, that is avoided in isolated structures. The second equation of ( 2.13 ) shows that the structural damping is increased by the bearing damping, whose contribution might be significant in case of a s very small: high damping in the rubber bearings can contribute significantly to the structural mode. 2.1.5. Basic dynamic response of structures with hysteretic dampers To begin the study of the effect of hysteretic dampers on the dynamic response of structures, a generic hysteretic device is added to a simple single-degree-of-freedom linear system subjected to ground acceleration xg ( t ) , as shown in figure 2.5:
Fig.2.5: Single-degree-of-freedom system incorporating hysteretic damper
The equation of motion of the combined system can be written as:

( t ) + cx ( t ) + kx ( t ) + Fhd ( t ) = mx g ( t ) mx
(2.26)
Where m, c, and k are the mass, the equivalent viscous damping constant and the lateral ( t ) and stiffness of the structure, respectively; x ( t ) , x x ( t ) are the relative displacement, velocity and acceleration, respectively; Fhd ( t ) is the nonlinear horizontal force provided by the hysteretic damper.
17
We assume that the structure has no inherent viscous damping, and is subjected to harmonic base excitation given by:
xg ( t ) = ag sin g t = p0 sin g t m
(2.27)
Where g is the ground excitation circular frequency, ag is the peak ground acceleration and p0 the amplitude of the equivalent applied load. By nonlinear time-history dynamic analyses, the amplitude of the steady-state response can be obtained. If the amplitude of the response is normalized with respect to the excitation amplitude, the different effects of the added hysteretic damper on the response of the main structure can be seen. First, the frequency ratio s is defined as:
=
Where:
g 0
(2.28)
0 =
k + kd m
(2.29)
And where 0 is the natural circular frequency of the structure equipped with the damper before the damper is activated, k is the lateral stiffness of the bare frame and kd is the lateral stiffness provided by the added damper before it is activated. The equivalent static lateral displacement of the structure xst is defined as:
xst = p0 k
(2.30)
Finally, the lateral deflection of the system required to activate the hysteretic damper x0 can be expressed in terms of the activation load of the damper:
x0 =
Flat kd
(2.31)
where Flat is the horizontal lateral load that activates the damper. In Figure 2.6, the amplitude of the response A normalized by xst, is shown for systems with kd/k = 0.55 for different values of xst/x0. The ratio xst/x0 can be expressed as:
hd =
xst kd p0 = x0 k Flat
(2.32)
18
The hysteretically damped system's parameter hd is expressed as a function of both the lateral stiffness of the added damper with respect to the stiffness of the original structure (kd/k) and of the activation load of the damper relative to the amplitude of the applied excitation (p0/Flat). As can be seen in Figure 2.6 (for kd/k = 0.55) for values of hd above 0.85, the apparent natural frequency of the system with the hysteretic damper is similar to that of the initial system. The effect of the added damper is similar to an increase in the amount of viscous damping, with lower amplitudes of vibration for lower values of hd . However, for values of hd below 0.85, the apparent natural frequency of the system is affected by the addition of the hysteretic damper. The effect of the added damper is both to increase the amount of damping in the system and to alter its dynamic properties. The amount of damping also increases for decreasing values of hd . When hd is lower than 0.15, the natural period of the system becomes similar to that of the fully braced system. In this range, however, lower values of hd result in higher response amplitudes. In Figure 2.6, the system corresponding to the value of hd 0.45 , which exhibits the lowest response amplitude, is shown in dashed lines. The theoretical derivation leading to this optimal value is presented in the following paragraphs. Based on the above numerical results, the addition of hysteretic dampers to a system can be envisioned as having three possible effects: The addition of supplemental damping without significantly modifying the dynamic properties of the system ( hd 0.85 in Figure 2.6). The addition of supplemental damping along with a modification of the dynamic properties of the system that optimizes the use of the added damper ( hd = 0.45 in Figure 2.6). The addition of supplemental damping along with a significant effect on the dynamic properties of the system. This modification is the equivalent of adding a brace to the system ( hd 0.15 ) . The optimal use of hysteretic dampers will also be further discussed in the following paragraphs. 2.1.6. Approximate equivalent linearization From the results shown in Figure 2.6, it may be tempting to replace a nonlinear structure equipped with hysteretic dampers by a linear system with equivalent viscous damping. This equivalent viscous damping could be calculated from the amplitude of the nonlinear system at resonance (e.g. Filiatrault 2002). Linearization of the nonlinear system greatly simplifies the problem and provides an approximate estimate of the response of a structure equipped with hysteretic dampers for preliminary assessment for design purposes. This approach is reflected in current design and analysis guidelines for structures incorporating passive energy dissipation systems (ASCE 2000, BSSC 2003). It must be clearly understood, however, that this equivalent linearization for structures incorporating hysteretic dampers should be used only for preliminary design and for estimating the dynamic response. The addition of this equivalent viscous damping will
19
always cause a reduction of the dynamic response of a single-degree-of-freedom system for any seismic input signal. Because of the nonlinear nature of actual hysteretic devices, the results obtained with the linear system with equivalent viscous damping can be nonconservative.
Fig.2.6: Steady-state response amplitude of single-degree-of-freedom with hysteretic damper under harmonic base excitation, kd/k = 0.55
A linearization of the structure can be made by computing the effective period of vibration and the equivalent viscous damping for an equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system. For this purpose, a pushover analysis of the rehabilitated structure is carried out under a lateral load distribution consistent with the first mode shape of the structure in its fully braced condition. The effective stiffness can be calculated graphically, and the effective period can be computed using the effective lateral stiffness and the first modal weight of the structure:
Teff = 2
W1 gkeff
(2.33)
Nonlinear time-history dynamic analyses are required in order to fully assess the effects of hysteretic supplemental damping devices on the dynamic response of civil engineering structures. 2.1.7. Study of a nonlinear mechanical system incorporating hysteretic dampers An insight into the dynamic characteristics of structures equipped with hysteretic dampers can be gained by studying the steady-state response of an analogous nonlinear single-degree-offreedom (SDOF) oscillator subjected to harmonic excitation. This approach has been used extensively to characterize the behaviour of nonlinear SDOF systems exhibiting various hysteretic models [Caughey 1960, Jennings 1964, Iwan 1965, Masri 1975, Iwan and Gates
20
1979, Capecchi and Vestroni 1985, DebChaudhury 1985, Badrakhan 1988]. Although seismic excitation has much broader frequency content than harmonic motion, it can be assumed that when a structure is excited by seismic loading, large portions of its response may be characterized by a quasi-resonant state at its effective fundamental period of vibration. The study carried out in this section is particularly useful in revealing the nondimensional parameters governing the response of a simple structure equipped with hysteretic dampers. By extension, these same parameters will be useful in developing a strategy for obtaining the load that activates the damper in order to minimize the seismic response of the structure, as discussed later in this chapter. Consider, as shown in Figure 2.7.a), a single storey hysteretically damped structure excited by a harmonic base acceleration:
xg ( t ) = a g cos ( g t )
(2.34)
where ag, and wg are respectively the amplitude and the circular frequency of the base excitation. Provided that the bracing elements connecting the hysteretic damper to the main structural elements remain elastic in tension and compression, the structure can be represented by a nonlinear SDOF oscillator of mass m . The relative displacement of the SDOF oscillator with respect to the base is denoted by x(t) . The equation of motion of this system is given by:
d 2 x (t ) dt 2
( x, u, t ) = ma cos t + kb f g g
(2.35)
Where f ( x, u , t ) is the hysteretic restoring force normalized by the initial stiffness kb as shown in figure 2.7.b), and is defined by:
x ( x, u , t ) = f x0 + ( x x0 )
if if
0 x x0 x x0
(2.36)
where x is the displacement of the mass relative to the moving base, x0, is the lateral deflection required to activate the hysteretic damper, and a is the post-activation stiffness slope ratio, i.e. the ratio of the lateral stiffness of the structure in its unbraced condition ku, (after the damper is activated) to the initial lateral stiffness of the structure in its fully braced condition kb (before the damper is activated). Furthermore, a secondary stiffness parameter u is defined in terms of the stiffness values through:
u = 1
ku = 1 kb
(2.37)
21
Fig.2.7: a) Single storey hysteretically damped structure b) Analogous nonlinear SDOF oscillator
Fig.2.8: Hysteretic Characteristic of hysteretically damped structure
Finally, the lateral deflection required to activate the hysteretic damper xo can be expressed as:
x0 =
Flat kd
(2.38)
where Flat, is the horizontal lateral load that activates the damper and kd is the horizontal lateral stiffness provided to the system by the bracing member containing the damper (kd = kb - ku ). Note that the inherent damping of the original structure is neglected in order to simplify the analysis and also because it is assumed much smaller than the damping provided by the hysteretic damper. For the purpose of the derivation, the time variable t is changed to an non-dimensional variable t using:
= bt
(2.39)
22
Where wb is the natural circular frequency of the fully braced frame (before the damper is activated) given by:
b =
kb m
(2.40)
Carrying out the change of variable and dividing by m, equation (2.35) becomes:
d 2 x ( ) d
2
( x, u, ) = a cos + b2 f g
(2.41)
Where s is the excitation frequency ratio:
g b
(2.42)
To simplify the notation, the derivative with respect to t is denoted by the overdot symbol in 2 the following development. Dividing by b , equation (2.41) becomes:
( x, u , ) = x cos x ( ) + f st
(2.43)
Where xst is the static deflection defined by:
xst =
mag kb
(2.44)
Assuming that a steady-state response of the system exists, by analogy to the linear case, the solution to equation (2.43) is assumed to take the form:
x ( ) = A ( ) cos ( ( ) )
(2.45)
In the case where f ( x, u , ) is linear and elastic, A ( ) and ( ) are constants and represents respectively the amplitude and phase of the steady-state motion. In the proposed solution, although it is recognized that A ( ) and ( ) are not constants with respect to time, it is assumed that they vary slowly during a cycle of vibration. This method, originally proposed by Krylov and Bogoliubov [Minorsky 1947], has been used by many researchers to solve similar frequency response problems for various hysteretic rules. As mentioned earlier, the solution proposed by Caughey [1960] for bilinear elasto-plastic systems was the first of such applications and is used here to derive the frequency response of a hysteretically damped SDOF system. Defining = ( ) and differentiating equation (2.45) with respect to t yields:
( ) cos A ( ) sin + ( ) A ( ) sin ( ) = A x
(2.46)
23
By analogy to Lagranges method of variation of a parameter, one may impose the additional restriction:
( ) cos + ( ) A ( ) sin = 0 A
(2.47)
( ) has the same form as in the linear Equation (2.47) also assures that the expression of x case where f and A are independent of t: ( ) = A ( ) sin x
(2.48)
Differentiating again equation (2.48) with respect to t we obtain:

( ) sin 2 A ( ) cos + A ( ) ( ) cos x ( ) = A
(2.49)
Substituting equation (2.49) into (2.43) we get:

( A cos , u , ) = x cos ( + ( ) ) ( ) sin + A ( ) ( ) cos 2 A ( ) cos + f A st
(2.50) Equations (2.47) and (2.50) are used to define a system of two equations for two unknowns A ( ) and ( ) : First, equation (2.50) is multiplied by sin and equation (2.47) is multiplied by cos , and the two are subtracted:
( A cos , u , ) cos = x cos ( + ( ) ) sin ( ) + 2 A ( ) sin cos + f A st
(2.51) Then, equation (2.47) is multiplied by sin and equation (2.50) after the latter is multiplied by cos :
( A cos , u , ) cos = x cos ( + ( ) ) cos (2.52) ( t ) 2 A ( ) cos 2 + f A ( ) st
Since A ( ) and ( ) are assumed to be slow-varying, they will remain almost constant during one cycle. The time dependence of these two variables can be lifted by taking the averages of equations (2.51) and (2.52) over one cycle of vibration. In fact, since these two equations are verified for every value of t, they are also valid for the averages over one cycle. Equations (2.51) and (2.52) averaged over one cycle of yield:
+1 2 A
2
( A cos , u , ) sin d = x sin f st
(2.53)
24
And
2 A + 2 A
( A cos , u , ) cos d = x cos f st
(2.54)
and ( ) and denote the average values of A ( ) , ( ) , A ( ) over one Where A, , A cycle. Defining:
S ( A) = 1
( A cos , u , ) sin d f
(2.55)
And
C ( A) =
( A cos , u , ) cos d f
(2.56)
Equations (2.53) and (2.54) then become:

+ S ( A ) = x sin 2 A st
(2.57)
A + C ( A ) = xst cos 2 A
2
The evaluation of S ( A ) and C ( A ) is carried out by integrating the force-displacement response (hysteresis) by parts over each linear branch. Acknowledging that the hysteresis shape is symmetric, the integral over one full cycle can be carried out over one half cycle only (from =0 to =) and multiplied by two. The amplitude of the steady-state response A is first normalized:
A=
A x0
(2.58)
And
S ( A)
and
C ( A)
are also normalized by A:

S ( A) = S ( A) A
(2.59)
C ( A) = C ( A) A
25
It has been shown (Caughley 1960) that:

0 S ( A ) = u 2 * sin And 1 C ( A) = 1 * u * u + (1 u ) 2 sin 2 Where: for A < 1 for A > 1 for A < 1 for A > 1
(2.60)
(2.61)
1 * = cos 1
2 ( x0 / xst ) ( A / xst )
(2.62)
When the steady-state response is reached, the average values of the derivatives of A ( ) and and are equal to zero. Recallng equation (2.57), squaring and ( ) over one full cycle A adding the two equations eliminates the terms in and yields:
2 = C ( A)
( xst / A) + S 2 ( A)
(2.63)
Substituting equations (2.60) and (2.61) into equation (2.63) leads to the following transcendental steady-state amplitude solution:
xst 1 A 2 = 2 2 * 2 1 u * + (1 u ) u sin 2 * xst u sin A 2 (2.64)
for A 1 for A > 1
2.2. FRICTION DAMPERS In the case of friction dampers, the design philosophy to enhance the structural performance is to provide a way for the structure to yield without damaging the existing structural members: seismic energy is dissipated by mean of friction, i.e. by making steel plates sliding one against the other, while bolts hold the steel plates together providing the normal component of the friction force. Sliding plates are fixed to the cross braces and then clamped together. At a given sliding load, Py, the plates begin to slide and dissipate energy. Varying the sliding load will alter the seismic energy attracted by the structure.
26
Incorporating the braces adds initial lateral stiffness to the system, thus lowering the natural period of the structure and providing a margin over which the structure can shift its period if resonance is encountered: any time the current structural period attracts seismic energy enough to activate the friction dampers, the resonance phenomenon can be avoided by a period shift. When in fact at the low braced period the structure attracts large amounts of seismic energy, the structure begins to soften as the friction dampers begin to slip and dissipate energy: the reduced lateral stiffness of the structure, due to the dampers slippage, causes the desired period shift. If the braced natural period is moved far from the unbraced natural period, the structure will have a sufficient ability to soften.
2.2.1. Advantages and disadvantages of friction dampers and environmental effects These devices possess good characteristics of structural behavior. Some of their advantages are listed below:
They have high capacity of energy dissipation; compared to devices based on yielding of metals, friction dissipators possess a great capability of absorbing energy. This characteristic disappear with the wearing of the sliding surfaces. Their behaviour is not seriously affected by the amplitude, the frequency contents or the number of cycles of the driving force. They have a controllable friction force (through the pre-stressing normal force). Frictions dissipators are not affected by fatigue effects; the materials are low maintenance or even maintenance free. Friction dampers perform well in various environmental conditions such as temperature. The damper design is straightforward and low tech: the design does not require expensive engineering design costs or testing prior to implementation. Some potentially relevant disadvantages exhibited by Friction dissipators are: The energy dissipated per cycle is only proportional to the maximum displacement instead of the square of the same displacement, as in the case of viscous damping: this can be relevant for sudden pulses and for inputs stronger than those expected. Moreover, resonance peaks can not be properly cut. Durability is also a controversial issue, mostly due to the high sensitivity of the coefficient of friction to the conditions of the sliding surfaces. High frequencies can be introduced in the response, due to the frequent and sudden changes in the sticking-sliding conditions. The dynamic highly non-linear behavior of friction dissipators makes their numerical simulation very difficult. This situation has arisen some controversial issues, such as the possible introduction of high frequencies into the structural response, as well as the lack of studies of these devices when subjected to near-fault pulses.
27
Environmental effects might alter the frictional characteristic of the sliding interface. Critical conditions to be assessed in a design situation are: Localised heating of the contacting materials during slippage: on occasions, these thermal effects may alter the frictional response by causing material softening or by promoting oxidation. However, for the type of sliding systems typically encountered with friction dampers, system response will be barely sensitive to the relatively small variations in ambient temperature. Atmospheric moisture and contaminants: physic-chemical processes may be triggered by atmospheric moisture of contaminants, occurring at the material interfaces. These processes may change the physical and chemical character of the surfaces, thus significantly affecting the frictional response. Formation of oxide layers or scale on the exposed surfaces. Crevice corrosion (cathodic/anodic effect between exposed and inaccessible regions) and Bimetallic corrosion: in aggressive environments, corrosion may be a problem. It is necessary to rely on physical testing to determine the extent of corrosion expected in a given situation and to find out the potential effects on the frictional characteristics of a sliding system.
2.2.2. Numerical simulation of friction dissipators The dynamic behavior of friction dissipators is closely related to the contact theory since there are friction forces generated by sliding surfaces. Basically, the numerical simulation of friction dampers is based on the rectangular relationship friction force-displacement (Fig. 3.1, left). In order to carry out the numerical simulation of structures equipped with friction dampers, some computer programs have been written specifically with this purpose while others use commercial software packages such as DRAIN-2D, DRAIN-TABS, SADSAP, SAP2000NL or ADINA. Basically, the existing models fall into one of these two categories:
Models where the dynamic behaviour of the friction dissipators is described by the contact analysis and plasticity theory. Usually the equations of motion are solved by using Lagrange multipliers or penalty methods (e.g. ADINA). This approach can be accurate but it is costly in terms of computational effort. Simpler models where elasto-plastic laws for the friction dissipators are implemented in finite element models of the whole structure (DRAIN-2D, DRAINTABS, SADSAP, SAP2000NL).These models have been developed to simulate, approximately, the perfectly plastic shape of the hysteretic loops using an elastic-plastic hysteretic model and considering for the initial stiffness any big value to approach an 'ideal' vertical branch. This approach might lack of accuracy.
2.2.3. Friction damper typologies: slotted-bolted connections The simplest form of friction dampers are the Slotted-bolted Connections introduced at the end of conventional bracing members (Fig. 3.4). It is important to ensure that the slippage of the device occurs before the compressed braces buckle or yield. Each connection incorporates
28
a symmetric shear splice with slotted holes in the connecting plates extending from the bracing member: the slot length has to accommodate the maximum slip anticipated from the design earthquake. Disc spring washer can be used in the bolting assembly to accommodate the possible variation in the plate thickness due to the wear at the contact surfaces and to the temperature rise resulting from friction heating. Tests results performed by Pall et al. (1980) and Tremblay and Stiemer (1993) show that sliding connections can exhibit a very high energy dissipation capability under extreme loading conditions, provided that appropriate materials and bolt clamping forces are used.
2.2.4. Detailing aspects Bracing members shall be selected in order to minimize cost and optimize the building performance.
It is important in the detailing of the brace to avoid the that yielding of the sliding surfaces. It is possible (Fig. 3.5) to incorporate four or even six large diameter bolts in the oversized slots. Using these large diameter bolts will allow the total clamping force to be safely applied. These bolts will have to spread the clamping force over a sufficient area to ensure that localized compressions do not inhibit the sliding of the plates. Should this retrofit proposal be selected in terms of performance and cost, this is an important aspect to address.
2.3. Code guidelines Different kind of guidelines for isolator systems can be found in various codes; in this paragraph a comparison between three different code is made:
Italian seismic code (Ordinanza 3274/2003 and following updates); Eurocode 8 (European code for seismic design); FEMA --- (U.S. seismic code).
2.3.1. Italian seismic code The 11th chapter of the code gives mechanic limits for isolator devices dividing them into four categories:
Linear behaviour devices; Non linear behaviour devices; Viscous devices; Elastomeric devices;
For each type of isolator, the code gives the designer some limits; in the following part of this text, an elastomeric device will be studied: for this reason, in the following table only the limit for this device can be found. Ke = Fe/de is the horizontal stiffness;
29
Kv = Fv/dv is the vertical stiffness;

xe = Ed/(2pFd) is the equivalent damping, defined as the ratio between the dissipated energy during one complete cycle (Ed) and the elastic dissipated energy (2pFd)
The limits in the table are referred to the 3rd cycle of test of each device in respect to the design values:
2.3.2. Eurocode 8 The Eurocode 8 doesnt talk about generic isolator devices, but only about base isolated buildings (Part 1 chapter 10th).
General provisions given by the code are: Sufficient space between the superstructure and substructure shall be provided, together with other necessary arrangements, to allow inspection, maintenance and replacement of the devices during the lifetime of the structure; If necessary, the devices should be protected from potential hazardous effects, such as fire, and chemical or biological attack; Materials used in the design and construction of the devices should conform to the relevant existing norms.
A lot of guidelines are given by the code, with some numerical limits; a paragraph is related also to the structural analysis: equivalent linear analysis, simplified linear analysis, modalsimplified linear analysis and time-history analysis (all this type of analysis are allowed to verified the isolator designed). The final part of the paragraph gives the designer some procedure to verified the integrity of non structural elements.
2.3.3. FEMA The Federal Emergency Management Agency publication n.273 contains an entire chapter on base isolation and energy dissipation (Chapter 9). These systems are defined as relatively new and sophisticated concepts that require more extensive and detailed analysis than do most conventional rehabilitation schemes. Energy dissipation devices are classified, in chapter 9.3.3, as displacement-dependent devices (friction devices and metallic yielding devices) and velocity-dependent devices (solid and fluid Viscoelastic devices). Other devices include shape memory alloys, friction-spring assemblies with recentering capability, and fluid restoring force-damping devices.
30
General provisions given by the code are: Models of the energy dissipation system should include the stiffness of structural components that are part of the load path between energy dissipation devices and the ground, if the flexibility of these components is significant enough to affect the performance of the energy dissipation system. Displacement-dependent devices should be modeled in sufficient detail so as to capture their forcedisplacement response adequately, and their dependence, if any, on axial-shear-flexure interaction, or bilateral deformation response. Linear procedures are only permitted if it can be demonstrated that the framing system exclusive of the energy dissipation devices remains essentially linearly elastic for the level of earthquake demand of interest after the effects of added damping are considered. Further, the effective damping afforded by the energy dissipation shall not exceed 30% of critical in the fundamental mode.
Other system requirements concern the operating temperature, environmental conditions, wind forces, inspection and replacement, manufacturing quality control and maintenance procedures.
2.4. Foundation column superstructure interaction The concept of isolation and dissipation can be applied to a variety of complex systems, where isolating/dissipating devices could be inserted between different parts of the structural system with the purpose of dissipating energy, controlling relative displacements, and capacity-protecting structural elements against potentially brittle failure modes.
Common examples of application can be found in bridges, when the isolating system is located between pier top and deck, in frames braced with dissipative elements, in coupled shear walls and in different types of rocking structures. In most cases the response of such structures is not easily captured with simple design approaches and it is therefore always recommended to perform some non-linear time-history analysis at the end of the design process. An appropriate application of capacity-design principles may limit the non-linear response to the isolating/dissipating devices, simplifying the analysis. Bridges with isolated deck represent the simplest case to analyze, consisting on a serial system composed by the foundation pile isolation device superstructure (represented in Fig. 2.9).
31
Fig.2.9: Qualitative response of a bent of an isolated bridge
The global effective stiffness of each pier can be taken as equal to the secant stiffness to yielding ( K Py ), the effective stiffness of the isolating system located at its top as the secant stiffness to the expected maximum displacement ( K DE ). The global effective stiffness is therefore:
KG =
1 1 K Py + 1 K DE
(2.65)
Usually the global pier-bearing stiffness will be established to optimize response. The required effective stiffness of the damper can then be computed as a function of global stiffness and pier stiffness by inverting eq. (2.65), obtaining
K DE = K Py K G K Py K G
(2.66)
It should be noted that the effective stiffness of the isolator is not taken at the maximum displacement capacity of the isolator but at the expected displacement demand. The ratio between the two values, to be assumed in the design phase, will depend on the type of response of the isolator and on the desired protection. The soil-foundation-pier system is assumed to respond elastically, with a standard viscous damping ( P ) of, say, 5%. The isolating system could be characterized by a high viscous damping ( DV ) and by an essentially linear response, or by an effective damping ( DE ) equivalent to the dissipated hysteretic energy. In the first case the global damping ( G ) of the pier-isolator system can be calculated according to the following relation, which assumes a stiffness-proportional damping (Fig. 2.10):
32
1+2
h 1 1 1
h2 2
h1 + h2 1 + 2
e =
11 + 1 1 + 2
Foundation Pier
"Elastic" isolator
Total
Fig.2.10: Equivalent global damping of two quasielastic viscous systems in series, applying a stiffness proportional damping concept
G =
P P + D DV P + D
(2.67)
In the second case, the effective damping of the isolator should be evaluated as a function of its hysteretic response and of the expected ductility demand at the equivalent displacement. In the case of a response essentially elastic-perfectly plastic, the following relation applies:
2 1 1 D =
DE
(2.68)
While a smaller damping corresponds to thinner cycles. It is often convenient to express the hysteretic dissipation capacity of a damper giving the ratio of the area of its typical cycle to the area of a corresponding elastic-perfectly plastic cycle (i.e. an efficiency factor), in which case expression (2.68) can simply be factored by the calculated efficiency ratio. With a damper whose energy dissipating characteristics depend on ductility level, as above, the global ductility is reduced from the damper ductility as a consequence of additional flexibility of the pier. Thus using the nomenclature of Fig. 2.11, the effective global ductility G is related to the damper ductility by the expression:
G = 1 + ( D 1)
DE S + DE
(2.69)
33
The effective damping provided by the dissipator can then be found from eq.(2.68) using G instead of D , and reducing by the appropriate efficiency factor, as above. Global damping, incorporating structural damping provided by the pier is then found from eq.(2.67). In most cases, contribution of the viscous damping of the pier to the global damping is negligible, and can be conservatively ignored in the preliminary design phase.
D =
P +1 DE
D
G =
P S + DE
"Elastic" Foundation Pier
Damper
Total
Fig.2.11: Equivalent global damping of a quasielastic systems in series with a hysteretic system, applying a stiffness proportional damping concept.
In order to perform a dynamic modal analysis, a substitute structure model will be used, considering equivalent linear stiffness of the expected displacement and viscous damping equivalent to the energy dissipated by hysteresis; the structure will essentially be modelled using the following elements: Linear springs to simulate the soil-foundation system; Beam elements to simulate the piers, with an effective stiffness that takes cracking into account (i.e., a secant stiffness to the yield value); Spring elements to simulate the isolation system, with an effective stiffness that takes yielding into account (i.e., a secant stiffness to the design displacement); it may be necessary to perform iterative analyses to obtain the correct value of the design displacement; Beam elements to simulate the superstructure, with a stiffness corresponding to the uncracked value (pre-stressed sections).
If a complete model is used, the concept of equivalent damping would imply a different equivalent viscous damping for several structural elements, such as soil, foundation, cracked piers, yielded dampers, and undamaged superstructure. In general, a common value (2% or 5%) is adopted for all elements, with the exception of the dampers, which will be characterized by a much higher damping equivalent to their hysteresis cycles. If the commercial software available does not allow the selection of different damping ratios for
34
different elements, an appropriate correction of the response spectrum has been proposed as the only feasible solution for the problem. This correction is based on the observation that the equivalent damping of the isolation system is effective only for cycle that involve significant yielding of the damper, and this correspond to longer periods of vibration. It has therefore been proposed that the response spectrum be modified according to fig. 2.12 :
Fig.2.12: Modified response spectrum to consider the equivalent viscous damping of the isolation system
the result is a composite spectrum with a step between two spectra with different damping. The step corresponds to a period value close to, but less than, the period of vibration of the isolated structure (considering its equivalent stiffness), so that only modes effectively isolated fall into the reduced acceleration spectrum, while higher modes of vibration that do not involve isolator deformation are damped only by the structural viscous damping. The concept is clear and ingenious, but certainly not rigorous, and it is reasonable to expect problems when a clear distinction between isolated and not-isolated modes is not possible or when different periods of vibrations, involving different ductility demand from the dampers, are close to each other. These aspects should be considered before relying on results obtained from this kind of analysis.
2.5. Force-based and Displacement-based design In current design practice, seismic loads are expressed in terms of acceleration spectra, from which inertia forces are calculated and then applied to the structure as static loads. In recent years there has been a substantial research and design effort directed towards what has been generally termed Performance Based design. In the following paragraphs the two approaches will be analysed and compared. 2.5.1. Critical comparison between the two approaches According to some researcher, there are many fundamental problems with the force-based design procedure, particularly when applied to reinforced concrete or reinforced masonry structures. In order to examine these problems, it is first necessary to briefly review the forcebased design procedure (Fig. 2.13 taken from DDBD, Priestley, Calvi, Kowalsky).
35
Fig.2.13: Force-Based Design Procedure
The problems associated with force-based design can be summarized as follows: Force-based design relies on estimates of initial stiffness to determine the period and the distribution of design forces between different structural elements. Since the stiffness is dependent on the strength of the elements, this cannot be known until the design process is complete; Allocating seismic force between elements based on initial stiffness (even if accurately known) is illogical for many structures, because it incorrectly assumes that the different elements can be forced to yield simultaneously; Force-based design is based on the assumption that unique force-reduction-factors (based on ductility capacity) are appropriate for a given structural type and material.
Despite these criticisms it should be emphasized that current force-based seismic design, when combined with capacity design principles and careful detailing, generally produces safe and satisfactory designs. However, the degree of protection provided against damage under a given seismic intensity is very non-uniform from structure to structure.
36
2.5.2. Development of displacement-based design methods Deficiencies inherent in the force-based system of seismic design have been recognized for some time, as the importance of deformation, rather than strength, in assessing seismic performance has come to be better appreciated. Consequently a number of new design methods, or improvements to existing methods, have been recently developed. Initially the approaches were designed to fit and improve existing force-based design: these can be characterized as force-based/displacement checked, where enhanced emphasis is placed on realistic determination of displacement demand for structures designed to force-based procedures. Such methods include the adoption of more realistic member stiffnesses for deformation determination, and possibly use of inelastic time-history analysis, or pushover analysis, to determine peak deformation and drift demand. In the event that displacements exceed the code-specified limits, redesign is required.
A second type of approach, named displacement focused force-based approach, was introduced by Paulay: determining the yield displacement of members from section and structure geometry without a prior knowledge of strength and using the code drift limit as the design limit, it is possible to estimate the yield strength and, consequentially, the initial stiffness; elastic period and elastic displacement can thus be used to incrementally adjust the strength. A number of other design approaches have been recently developed, where the aim is to design structures so that they achieve a specified deformation state under the design-level earthquake. The most reliable approach utilizes the secant stiffness to maximum displacement, based on the substitute structure characterization and an equivalent elastic representation ofhysteretic damping at maximum response (trying to avoid the initial stiffness problem of the force-based design). These methods are classified as Direct-DisplacementBased Design methods (DDBD) because generally require little or no iteration to design. In fig. 2.14, it can be seen a generic hysteretic rule (in a force-displacement graph), showing the difference between initial and secant stiffness.
Fig.2.14: Generic hysteretic rule
In fig. 2.15 a generic procedure of DDBD can be seen: the starting point is clearly the design displacement (usually a code limit, based on displacement limit or a drift limit); one of the most important step is the estimation of the equivalent damping (step 2); thus made the designer able to go through the other steps, until the last check, the damping of the structure must be the same chosen at the beginning.
37
Fig.2.15: Displacement-Based Design Procedure
38
Chapter 3. Description of the isolation system
3.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ISOLATION SYSTEM
The isolation system studied in this dissertation can be classified as a mono-directional twostage friction damper: it works as a classical bearing system when subjected to thermal and static loads and as an hysteretic damper when subjected to seismic excitation. The image of the isolator and the list of pieces and materials are reported in Fig. 3.1 and table 3.1:
Fig. 3.1: Render view of the isolating system Table 3.1: Components list Name Quantity Material Object nr 1 LOWER PLATE 1 S275JRG2 2 INTERMEDIATE PLATE 1 S275JRG2 3 BOX 1 S275JRG2 4 LOWER POLYETHYLENE 1 PE 300 5 HIGHER POLYETHYLENE 1 PE 300 6 DOWEL 1 115MnPb14 7 RUBBER 1 NEOPRENE 8 BRONZE WASHER 2 PE 300 9 HOLD-WASHER 2 10 M2O BOLT 2
39
The isolator can be divided into three main parts: a hollow steel box (n.3 in the previous figure) which is to be cast in the concrete element with a proper anchorage system (not represented in the figure); a system of two steel plates (n.1 and 2 in the figure), the lower one sustained by a concrete member (beam or column) and the upper one connected to a steel dowel with enlarged head (n.6 in the figure), which can slide with a low friction thank to the interposed teflon sheets (n.4 and 5 in the figure); a system of two M20 bolt (n.10 in the figure) which connect the plates to an anchor channel (not represented in the figure), and impress a compression load on the bronze washers (n.8 in the figure);
The hollow steel box plays a fundamental role for the response of the isolator under static loads, as it allows relative movements in the order of 9mm between the two connected elements (e.g. due to thermal elongation) without activating the resistance of the two bronze washers. In the assemblage phase, the rubber element guarantee an exact centering of the dowel. The behavior of the system under static loads in the longitudinal direction is represented in the figure below:
Fig. 3.2: Idealized behavior of the isolator under static loads in the longitudinal direction
While the limit displacement is a design parameter, the limit force depends on the gravity load transferred by the bearing, multiplied by the friction coefficient of Teflon. After the limit displacement is reached, the larger part of the dowels gets in contact with the lower part of the steel box and the shear is transferred to the upper steel plate and the washers begin to work. A sketch of the kinematic behavior in the transverse (short) direction is reported in Fig. 4.4.
40
Fig. 3.3: Behavior of the isolator subjected to static loads
After this initial stage, the hysteretic loop of the two washers is involved in the response of the system. The idealized behavior of the system composed by the rubber, dowel and the two washers is represented in the figure below:
Fig. 3.4: Idealized behavior of the dissipative part of the isolation system
The initial increase in the transmitted force is due to the iperelastic behavior of the confined rubber under compression, then the dowels get into contact with the internal part of the steel box and transmit shear to the bronze washers. If the end of the available excursion is reached, additional force is transmitted by the steel plate. Here the contact displacement dc, the limit Force transmitted by the washers Flim and the limit displacement of the bolts dlim are design parameters. The hysteretic behavior of the assemblage can be obtained by summation in series of the two hysteretic loops. A sketch of the hysteretic behavior of the assembled isolator is reported in fig. 4.5.
41
Fig. 3.5: Idealized behavior of the combined parts of the isolation system
Fig. 3.6: Behavior of the isolator subjected to seismic loads
The resulting graph is obtained by summation of the force of the two mechanisms involved. The idealized hysteresis loop is typical of a friction damper, except from the initial part and the force inversion. As far as the transverse and vertical behavior are concerned, the isolator is supposed to be semi-rigid. The transverse shear is transferred to the dowel and the steel plates, while a possible uplift is prevented by the head of the dowel, which is larger than the inferior part of the steel box (the assemblage is possible thank to the elliptical form of the head). All the technical drawings of the system are reported in Appendix B.
42
Chapter 4. Experimental investigation
4.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
4.1. Introduction In this chapter, we focus the attention on the experimental investigations, which are aimed at studying the cyclic properties of the isolation device and its main components. Firstly, we describe the materials as well as the selected loading protocol. Subsequently, we provide the main characteristics of the material testing system used to carry out the tests and we introduce the mechanical properties that we want to evaluate for each components. Finally, we list and discuss the most important outcomes coming from the analysis of the results. 4.2. Isolator components This section is dedicated to the description of the available materials. All tests were carried out in the laboratory of the University of Bergamo (Dalmine): Teflon: The material consists of a commercial P.T.F.E. sheet with a thickness of 3mm, provided by A.T.I. gomma s.r.l. (Albano S. Alessandro, Italy). Its mechanical and physical properties can be found in Appendix A. Here we only report the declared friction coefficient, varying from 5 to 9%. Bronze: The material consists of a commercial hollow tube with an external diameter of 80mm and an internal diameter of 45mm, provided by Maffioletti s.r.l. (Brusaporto). Its mechanical and physical properties can be found in Appendix A. Here we only report the declared friction coefficient on a dry steel surface, varying from 16 to 22%. Rubber: The material consists of a commercial NR/SBR sheet, with a thickness of 15mm, provided by A.T.I. gomma s.r.l. (Albano S. Alessandro, Italy). Its mechanical and physical properties can be found in the Appendix A. Steel: The material consists of a commercial S275, provided by Maffioletti s.r.l. (Brusaporto). Its mechanical and physical properties can be found in Appendix A.
4.3. Loading protocol The loading protocol consists of cycles of increasing amplitude, without taking the specimens to failure. The tests were performed in displacement-control, in quasi-static conditions.
43
A summary of the experimental tests is reported in table 4.1:

Table 4.1: List of tests
Code
T01-dc T02-dc B01-dc B02-dc B02b-dc B03-dc B03b-dc B03c-dc B03d-dc R01-dc R02-dc R03-dc R04-dc R05-dc I01-dc
Name
Type
Notes
Teflon-steel friction 1 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm v=0.5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 160kN Teflon-steel friction 2 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5; 10; 20; 30) mm v=0.5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 160kN Bronze-steel friction 1 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm v=0.5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 45kN Bronze-steel friction 2 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm v=0.5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 45kN Bronze-steel friction 2b Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm v=2mm/sec Transverse prestress = 45kN Bronze-steel friction 3 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 45kN Bronze-steel friction 3b Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 40kN Bronze-steel friction 3c Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5;10;20;30;40) mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 40kN Bronze-steel friction 3d Displacement control - Cyclic 50x 20 mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 40kN Rubber stiffness 1 Displacement control - Cyclic 5x 10 mm Additional holes v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 10kN d=8mm Rubber stiffness 2 Displacement control - Cyclic 5x 10 mm Additional holes v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 10kN d=8mm Rubber stiffness 3 Displacement control - Cyclic 5x 10 mm Additional holes v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 10kN d=8mm Rubber stiffness 4 Displacement control - Cyclic 5x 10 mm Additional holes v=5mm/sec No Transverse prestress d=10mm Rubber stiffness 5 Displacement control - Cyclic 5x 10 mm v=5mm/sec No Transverse prestress Isolation device 1 Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5; 10; 20; 30; 40) mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 150kN Bolt preload = 20kN Isolation device 1b Displacement control - Cyclic 50x 40 mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 150kN Bolt preload = 20kN Displacement control - Cyclic 30x 40 mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 150kN Bolt preload = 40kN Force control - monotonic Fmax=30kN Transverse prestress = 150kN Bolt preload = 40kN Force control - monotonic Fmax=35kN Transverse prestress = 150kN Bolt preload = 40kN Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5; 10; 20; 30; 40) mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 150kN Bolt preload = 30kN
I01b-dc
I01c-dc
Isolation device 1c
I01d-fc
Isolation device 1d
I01e-dc
Isolation device 1e
I02-dc
Isolation device 2
44
I02b-dc
Isolation device 2b
Displacement control - Cyclic 3x (5; 10; 20; 30; 40) mm v=5mm/sec Transverse prestress = 150kN Bolt preload = 32.5 - 27.5kN
4.4. Experimental Setup Experimental tests were performed using a 50kN Galdabini Sun 5 multipurpose electric testing apparatus, property of the department of Design and Technology, University of Bergamo. In order to evaluate the properties of the components separately and of the whole assemblage, a test frame was designed, with the purpose of simulating uni-axial cyclic displacements with an applied vertical load on the isolator. The main parts of the frame are two S plates, connected to the grips by high-strength screws and to the auxiliary test plates by bolted connections. Two transverse steel profiles and two external screws were used to prestress the specimen, in order to simulate the gravity load on the isolator. To avoid parasitic friction forces, high-strength steel cylinders were used to support one of the two steel profiles.
Fig. 4.1:Testing machine
Four different test configuration were adopted (described in the following), in order to test the steel to Teflon and steel to bronze friction coefficients, the response of the rubber inside the steel box and the cyclic quasi-static behavior of the isolation system. The above mentioned loading protocols were input by using the Graphwork 4 software which controlled the displacement and the velocity of the machines grips. The load level was read by the built-in load cell. In order to eliminate the deformations of the test plates from the
45
results, six additional extensometer were attached to the specimens and the data were acquired using a Spider8 multi channel electronic PC measurement unit. The extensometers used were manufactured by Gefran s.p.a. and they have the features we can find in the technical sheet attached in Appendix A. The calibration of the extensometers was performed using the commercial software HBM Catman. 4.4.1. Extensometer n 0 and 1 This two extensometers (with an extension of 125 mm) were attached to the two test plates and they measured the relative displacement between them: the same data capture was done also from the built-in extensometer in the machine (including the deformations of the steel bars during the test). In the picture, we can see the instrument n1, positioned in the frontal part of the machine; the other one (Instrument n 0) was in the same position of this one, but in the back part. During the tests, they have to measure the same quantities along the time; if they dont, the two plates are not moving along a parallel direction and the test must be stopped. After the tests, when analysing data, we obtain the displacement needed simply using a medium value between the values given by the two instruments; Fig. 4.2: Instruments n 0 and 1 these data are more reliable than data obtained using the built-in data capture of the test machine, because they give precisely the displacement of the two test plates, without other interferences (like deformation of the steel bars used to apply the forces).
46
4.4.2. Extensometer n 2 and 3 This two extensometers (Instrument n2 with an extension of 50 mm, n3 of 25 mm) were attached to the two precompression steel profiles and they measured the rotation between them. In the picture, we can see the instrument n3, positioned in the frontal part of the machine; the other one (Instrument n 2) was in the same position of this one, but in the back part. During the tests, they measured data with opposite sign: the sum of these numbers, divided by the distance of the two instruments gives the rotation of the shapes; once again, if the rotation is excessive, the test must be stopped. After the tests, when analysing data, we obtain the same rotation used to control the tests correctness; moreover, other data can be purged by taking into account this small rotation of the shapes.
Fig. 4.3: Instruments n 2 and 3
4.4.3. Extensometer n 4 and 5 This two extensometers (Instrument n2 with an extension of 50 mm, n3 of 25 mm) were attached to the two precompression steel profiles and they measured the displacement of the shapes from the moving grip of the test machine.
Fig. 4.4: Instruments n4 and 5
Once again, when analysing data, we can clearly understand if the bending of the precompression bars (and consequently the movement of the
47
precompression shapes) has significantly modified data or not: then, if necessary, data can be purged. 4.5. Monitored output quantities In order to evaluate the cyclic performance of the isolation device and its components, a number of output quantities are considered. They are the friction coefficients, the equivalent viscous damping and the effective stiffness. The friction coefficient is evaluated as the ratio of the force which cause sliding to the force due to the transverse prestress. The equivalent viscous damping expresses the effectiveness of the isolator in vibration damping. It is expressed through the following equation:
eq =
1 Ahysteresis 4 Aelastic
Where Ahysteresis represents the area under the Force-displacement curve and Aelastic is the elastic strain energy for a complete cycle. The effective stiffness is computed through the expression:
K eff = Fmax Fmin umax umin
Where Fmax and Fmin are, respectively, the maximum and minimum force and umax and umin are, respectively, the maximum and minimum displacement. 4.6. Cycling tests quasi-static loading conditions In the following, we summarize the most important outcomes from the experimental tests undertaken on materials used in the isolator under quasi-static loading conditions: we want to investigate the frictional behavior of these materials when subjected to vertical loads. In Appendix A, we can find the technical sheets of these materials, given by the manufacturers.
48
4.6.1. P.T.F.E. The P.T.F.E. (polytetrafluoroethylene, also known as Teflon) is a polymer which molecule is based on fluorine and carbon; its characteristics of low static and dynamic friction made it the ideal material in order to avoid blocking or first detachment problems between the other elements of the isolator. In the first test, we press the P.T.F.E. between the two test steel plates using the precompression bars described in Chapter .: we can now apply the simulated horizontal load on the two plates, reading the relative displacement of the plates versus the force needed to generate this displacement.
Fig. 4.5: An unused PTFE
Fig. 4.6: 1 test split draw illustrating how the test is assembled
49
Fig. 4.7: Test on teflon after the machine setup
Fig. 4.8: Experimental setup of the 1st test
In figures 4.8 and 4.9, we can see the loading path versus time and the results in terms of force and displacement obtained on P.T.F.E.
30
20
Displacement (mm)
10
0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
-10
-20
-30
Time (sec) Fig. 4.9: Loading path (displacement and velocity control)
50
15000
10000
5000
Force (N)
0 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
-5000
-10000
-15000
Displacement (mm) Fig. 4.10: Force versus Displacement behavior of Teflon during the cycles
Using this graph, and knowing that the vertical simulated load in this test is roughly 160 kN, we can evaluate the friction coefficient for the P.T.F.E.:
f PTFE =
Fm 9,5 = 6% Tp 160
The technical sheet attached in the appendix set a range for the friction coefficient between 5% and 9%: the results obtained are in this range.
Fig. 4.11: Comparison with the PTFE element after the test (on the left) and a unused element
51
4.6.2. Washer The replaceable part of the system is a washer made of bronze: the mechanical properties of this material allow the isolator to dissipate energy during the earthquake via friction between the washer and the steel plate; therefore, the most important magnitudes are the torque we use to screw the bolt down to the washer (directly related to the vertical force we apply on the washer during its horizontal motion) and the friction coefficient between bronze and steel. Once the earthquake is gone, we can unscrew the bolt and replace the bronze washer: in this sense, we can see this element as a fuse, helping the isolator to dissipate energy during the earthquake and easily replaceable once it is burned. In the same way we did for the Teflon, in the second test, we press the washer between the two test steel plates and we use the precompression bars to simulate the internal load given with the torque in the real system; we could apply the simulated horizontal load on the two plates, reading the relative displacement of the plates versus the force needed to generate this displacement. Different tests are carried out to determine the importance of the internal load on the dissipated energy: the conclusion is that friction coefficient is independent of the load, whereas the dissipated energy is directly proportional to it; the more we screw the bolt, more energy the system will absorb during a single cycle.
Fig. 4.12: An unused washer
Fig 4.13: 2 test split draw illustrating how the test is assembled
52
Fig. 4.14: Test on washer after the machine setup
Fig. 4.15: Experimental setup of the 2nd test
The loading path and the force/displacement behavior of the washer is shown in figures 4.16 to 4.18.
45 35 25 15 5 -5 0 -15 -25 -35 -45 50 100 150 200 250
Displacement (mm)
Time (sec)
Fig. 4.16: Loading path
53
10000
5000
Force (N)
0 -45 -35 -25 -15 -5 5 15 25 35 45
-5000
-10000
Displacement (mm) Fig. 4.17: Force versus Displacement behavior of a single washer during the cycles
10000
5000
Force (N)
0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
-5000
-10000
Displacement (mm) Fig. 4.18: The first cicle (dashed line) is very similar to cycle n50 (continuous line), here represented with the Galdabini data capture (both displacement and force)
After the first test, we tried to understand the long term (fatigue) behavior of the washer: we carried out a 50 cycles test on the same washer we used in the previous test; the results obtained are encouraging, showing that the washer doesnt lose at all its dissipation capacity.
54
The last graph (previous page) is not purged from the error due to the test machine and its significantly different from the real one; however, this is not relevant for our purpose: the two cycles are very similar and this means that the washer maintains its capacity during the earthquake. As we did for the PTFE, using the graph in the previous page, we can roughly estimate the friction coefficient for the washer (that means bronze on steel):
fW = Fmw 7,5 = 18,8 % Tw 40
Fig. 4.19: The original washer before the test and the three specimen tested: deformations are easily visible
Fig. 4.20: The third washer tested the groove due to the friction between bronze and steel is visible both to the left and to the right of the central hole
55
4.6.3. Rubber In order to avoid the impact of the movable part of the system toward the box inside the concrete beam, we positioned a rubber element. This element has three holes: the central one in which the steel dowel, welded on the upper plate, pass through; the second and the third lateral holes have to allow the rubber expansion during compression of the element (when the isolator is moving).
Fig. 4.21: An unused rubber
The behavior is perfectly elastic and the rubber doesnt need any substitution after the earthquake.
For this third test, we dont need any vertical force simulation and we dont have to use the precompression bars; the rubber element is simply positioned, with a dowel welded on a steel plate and fixed to the first test plate, inside the box fixed to the second test plate. Two different type of element are investigated: the one shown before, with three holes and a second one, having only the central hole.
Fig. 4.22: 3 test split draw illustrating how the test is assembled
56
Chapte er 4. Experim mental investigation
Fig g. 4.23: Expe erimental setu up of the 3rd test t
15
10
Displacement (mm)
0 0 50 100
-5
-10
-15
Time (se ec)
Fig. 4.24: 4 Loading g path
57
2000 1500 1000 500
Force (N)
0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-500 -1000 -1500 -2000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.25: Force versus Displacement behavior of the first rubber tested (three holes)
2000
1500
1000
500
Force (N)
0 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 -500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
-1000
-1500
-2000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.26: Force versus Displacement behavior of the second rubber tested (single hole)
As we can notice from the graphs in the previous page, the rubber with three holes needs less force than the other one to be compressed and its behavior can be considered the best one from the point of view of the forces passing through the isolator.
58
4.6.4. Whole isolator system In the fourth and last test, we want to analyse the behavior of the whole isolator system; a modified isolator (the only differences are four holes in the lower steel plate, used to fix it to the second test plate) is positioned between the two test plate; the vertical load is simulated using the precompression bars (75 kN of post-tension for each bar) and, applying the simulated horizontal load on the two plates, we can read the relative displacement of the plates versus the force needed to generate this displacement.
Fig. 4.27: 4 test split draw illustrating how the test is assembled and zoom on the isolator system used
59
Fig. 4.28: Test on whole isolator after the machine setup
Fig. 4.29: Experimental setup of the 4th test
With this test, we want to obtain the real behavior of the isolator system during an earthquake; as done for the other test, the following graphs show the loading path and the force/displacement behavior.
45 35 25 15 5 -5 0 -15 -25 -35 -45 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Displacement (mm)
Time (sec)
Fig. 4.30: Loading path
60
25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 -5000 -10000 -15000 -20000 -25000 0 10 20 30 40 50
Force (N)
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.31: Force versus Displacement behavior of the whole isolator system
25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 -5000 -10000 -15000 -20000 -25000 0 10 20 30 40 50
Force (N)
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 4.32: Force versus Displacement linearization
With this result, using the linearization of the behavior, we can evaluate the effective damping for the system.
61
Fig. 4.33: Elastic (red) and plastic (green) area for the evaluation of the effective damping
The effective damping is: eff = 1 Apl 4 Ael
62
where Ael is the elastic area in the first graph (red area) and Apl is the plastic area in the second graph (green area), that means the area of the whole cycle.
Ael = Fd = 375 J 2
( F + Fi1 ) Apl = i di di1 ) = 1803 J ( 2

Using these numbers, we obtain:
eff 38 %
The same linearization for the evaluation of the effective damping can be done also with a smaller displacement of the isolator that means a smaller ductility for the structure; we calculate the eff for a ductility between 1.8 and 2.0 (with a displacement of 20 mm ).
Fig. 4.34: Elastic (red) and plastic (green) area for the evaluation of the effective damping (20 mm displacement)
Using these cycles, we obtain, once again: eff 38 % 4.7. Closing remarks This study involved the testing of an isolation system, composed of different elements and different materials, to determine their dissipation capacity in view of applications in earthquake engineering. The effects of friction coefficients, elastic and plastic properties of the materials are evaluated to judge the cyclic properties of the whole isolator system. P.T.F.E. sheet shows a good behavior: the friction coefficient between it and the steel plate has a very low value; this feature allow the upper steel plate to crawl over the other steel plate handing small forces on the beam at which it is fixed. After the earthquake, the residual deformation of the sheet is non influential on the future capacity of the element itself. The bronze washers, which are considered as the sacrificial elements in a capacity design perspective, show a friction coefficient with steel of approximately 15%-18%, and a stable hysteretic loop under cyclic testing, with a moderate damage due to sliding (this is not a problem as the replacement operation is very easy). The result is a fat hysteresis loop, typical of slotted-bolted connections. The bolt preload is a fundamental parameter, as it
63
governs the sliding force of the connection, thus for all the tests a calibrated wrench was used to determine the preload. The rubber element inside the steel box was tested only to ensure that its behavior remains perfectly elastic in the range of displacements induced by thermal elongations and that the force generated on the steel dowel is not excessive. Among the different geometric configurations tested, the solution with additional holes was chosen for the test of the assembly, as the force transferred to the steel dowel was lower (approximately one third) than the value obtained with the initial solution. The isolator system designed joins the properties of these tested elements; moreover, it can be set up to transmit to the beam only the horizontal forces the structure was designed for, allowing, at the same time, a maximum horizontal displacement of about 48 mm (including thermal deformations). The high effective damping evaluated of about 38% damps down vibrations during an earthquake and the hysteresis cycle absorbs energy, handing low horizontal forces on the beam it is fixed to (that means low horizontal forces on the columns base). Two coupled isolators, positioned on the principal and secondary beams, allow the structure to have the same behavior in the two orthogonal directions and to design the whole structural system of the building with a value of base shear and base moment reduced in proportion to the way the isolators are set up.
64
Chapter 5. Numerical modeling of the isolation system
5. NUMERICAL MODELING OF THE ISOLATION SYSTEM

5.1. Introduction In this chapter, the isolation system is implemented in a numerical model suitable for performing non-linear analyses. A test column and a simple structure were designed according to Eurocode 8 procedure and then time-history analyses were performed in order to compare the behavior of the structure with standard connections and the structure equipped with Nexfuse-type supports. 5.2. Numerical modeling of the isolation system The isolation system was modelled using the commercial software MIDAS Gen V.7.30, capable of performing non linear static and dynamic analyses. Before performing numerical analyses on the complete structure, different modeling strategies were compared, combining simple truss elements and performing push-pull analyses in displacement control, in order to reproduce the experimental tests and obtain a model capable of representing the dissipated energy (area under the Force-displacement curve), the maximum transmittable force and the limit stop for displacements higher than the length of the buttonhole. This aspect will be discussed in the last part, as in the experimental tests the specimen was not taken to rupture. The hysteresis models used in the first phase are the kinematic hardening and the non-linear elastic models, described in the figures below:
Fig. 5.1: Kinematic hardening hysteresis model
Fig. 5.2: Non-linear elastic hysteresis model
65
The analysis type chosen was a push-pull curve, with two different types of imposed displacement, represented in figg. 5.3 and 5.4:
5 4 3 2
Displacement (cm)
1 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Step
Fig. 5.3: Imposed displacements history - cyclic
5 4 3 2
Displacement (cm)
1 0 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Step
Fig. 5.4: Imposed displacements history external loop
The first curve is meant to represent the experimental test, the second one only the external loop.
66
The assembly of constitutive rules are represented in figg. 5.5 and 5.6:
Name Type P1 [kN] P2 [kN] P3 [kN] D1 [mm] D2 [mm] D3 [mm]
NexFuse KH 7.5 15 15 2.5 14 48
End stop NLE 0.1 100 48 50
Fig. 5.5: Simplified hysteretic model
Table 5.1: Simplified hysteretic model parameters
Name Type P1 [kN] P2 [kN] P3 [kN] D1 [mm] D2 [mm] D3 [mm]
Teflon KH 5 5 5 2.5 10 48
Gap NLE 0.8 100 8 12
Bronze KH 10 10 10 5 10 48
End stop NLE 0.1 100 48 50
Fig. 5.6: Refined hysteretic model
Table 5.2: Refined hysteretic model parameters
The difference between the two hysteresis rules is that in the first model, bronze and Teflon friction are represented together and the loop is not able to represent the step in the behavior, while in the second case two springs in series are added and the behavior of the system box-rubber-washers is represented separately from the Teflon-steel friction. For the purpose of analysing large structures, the possibility of using simple models with enough accuracy is of primary importance. The parameters were determined in order to match with the experimental results and the numerical modeling reported in [Spatti, 2008].
67
The results obtained and the comparison with the experimental test are reported in fig. .5.7:
20000 Simplified model 15000 Abaqus model 10000 Experimental 5000 Refined model
Force (N)
0 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 -5000 0 10 20 30 40 50
-10000
-15000
-20000
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 5.7: Comparison between experimental results and numerical models
The experimental curve was modified in order to obtain similar level of first sliding and maximum force in positive and negative direction (there was a small asymmetry in the results, corrected with a rigid translation in the Force axis). The agreement is very good in terms of area of the hysteresis loop and the refined model is also able to reproduce with good approximation the initial behavior and the unloading-reloading branch. The brown dashed curve was obtained in another master dissertation [Spatti, 2008] using a specific software for 3D detailed FEM analyses. In the following table the results are compared in terms of effective damping and loop area:
Table 5.3: Hysteretic areas and effective damping
Model Loop Area [J] Elastic Area [J] Equivalent damping
Test 1803 342 42%
Test corr Simplified 1803 300 48% 1844 302 49%
Refined 1828 302 48%
The hysteretic loop areas are very similar for the three cases, while the equivalent damping are slightly different if we consider, for the determination of the elastic area, the small increase of force in the final part of the test. If we determine the elastic area using the same maximum force, the equivalent damping turns out to be very similar.
68
Chapte er 5. Numeric cal modeling g of the isola ation system
5.3. Study S on th he response e of a reinfo orced concr rete column with top isolation In orde er to compa are the respo onse of a str ructure with h standard rigid r connec ction to a to op-isolated structu ure, a repr resentative precast re einforced concrete c column is analysed using u the comm mercial softw ware MIDAS S Gen V.7.3 30, using fib ber models, , described i in the follow wing: The fib ber element t formulatio on adopted in i Midas Ge en is describ bed in Spac cone et al. (1 1996). It assum mes that: The sectio on maintain ns a plane in the proc cess of defo formation an nd is assum med to be perpendicular to the axis of the member. Accordingly A y, bond-slip between re einforcing bars and concrete c is not n consider red. The centro oidal axis of o the section is assume ed to be a st traight line throughout the entire length of the t beam element.
Fig. 5.8: Discretiz zation of a section in a fibe er model
In a fi iber model, the status of fibers is s assessed by b axial def formations correspond ding to the axial and a bending g deformati ions of the fibers. The e axial forc ce and bend ding momen nts of the section n are then calculated c fr rom the stre ess of each fiber. f Based d on the basi ic assumptions stated above, , the relatio onship between the def formations of o fibers and d the deform mation of th he section is give en below.
Where:
69
5.3.1. Steel fiber r constitutiv ve model Steel fiber f constit tutive mode el basically retains the curved sha apes approac ching the as symptotes define ed by the bilinear b kinematic hard dening rule e. The transition betw ween two as symptotes corresp ponding to the region ns of each unloading u path p and str rain-harden ning retains a curved shape. The farthe er the maxim mum deform mation poin nt in the dir rection of u unloading is s from the interse ection of th he asymptot tes, the smo oother the curvature c be ecomes in t the transitio on region. The co onstitutive model m is thu us defined by b the equat tion below:
Where e:
An im mage of the hysteresis h ru ule is report ted in fig.5.9:
Fig. 5.9: St teel fiber constitutive mod del
70
5.3.2. Concrete fiber f consti itutive mode del MIDA AS uses the e equation of envelop pe curve pr roposed by Kent and Park (1973 3) for the concre ete fiber con nstitutive model m of con ncrete under r compressio on. Tension n strength of concrete is igno ored. The eq quation of the t envelope curve for compressio on is noted below. This is a well known n material model for considerin ng the effe ect of incre eased comp pression st trength of concre ete due to la ateral confin nement.
Where e:
An im mage of the hysteresis h ru ule is report ted in fig.x.x xx:
F 5.10: Con Fig. ncrete fiber constitutive c m model
The co oncrete, wh hich has exc ceeded the ultimate u stra ain, is assum med to have e arrived at crushing, and as s such it is considered d unable to resist loads s any longe er. Kent and d Park sugg gested the follow wing equatio on in order to t calculate e the parame eters definin ng the abov ve envelope curve for a recta angular colu umn section n.
71
Where e:
Scott et e al (1982) ) proposed the followi ing equation n of ultimat te strain for r a laterally y confined rectangular colum mn:
When unloading takes place e on the abo ove envelop pe curve, th he unloadin ng path is defined d by the eq quations bel low, pointin ng towards a point ( p, 0) on the t strain a axis. When the strain reache es this point t, it moves to t the tensio on zone follo owing the strain s axis.
If the compressiv ve strain in ncreases aga ain the load d follows th he previous s unloading g path and reache es the envelo op curve.
72
5.4. Test column Geometric properties and loads applied to the representative column are displayed in fig. 5.11
590 kN
Top
Massless column Spectrum compatible ground acceleration
Intermediate
PGA = 0.3g Ground type B Concrete C45/55 Steel B450C
Fig. 5.11: Geometric and load properties of the representative column
The structural mass is connected to the column top with an elastic link, which represents the connection. For the case of the ideally fixed connection, stiffness properties are calculated in order to consider the constraint as rigid with respect to the RC column.
4 J 7 0.8 3E 3 3.57 10 2 = 2 12 = 1287 kN 3 3 H 11.3 m
Column cracked stiffness: Link stiffness:
Base
K link = 100000
kN m
The column is designed and detailed according to the rules of EC8 for DCH and DCM, with behavior factors q=4.5 and q=3. Following Eurocode 8 rules for dimensioning, we obtain:
Table 5.4: Result summary for EC8 Design
N [kN] H [m] M [kN/g] K [kN/m] T [sec] qDCH qDCM
590 11.3 59 1287 1.35 4.5 3
Sael [g] Sad [g] - DCH Sd [m] Vb [kN]
33.46% 7.43% 0.150 43.9 18% 603.8 69.46 11.77% 2.84
Sael [g] Sad [g] - DCM Sd [m] Vb [kN]
33.46% 11.15% 0.150 65.8 12% 844.3 82.19 13.93% 2.40
[%]
Mb [kNm] 1.3 Vbeff [kN] Sadeff [g] qeff
[%]
Mb [kNm] 1.1 Vbeff [kN] Sadeff [g] qeff
73
The results are obtained considering the increase in base shear due to second order effects and capacity design procedure, as prescribed by EC8. The effective behavior factor in terms of base shear is about 2.5, meaning that slenderness effects are somehow taken into account. Geometric and reinforcement properties are reported in fig. 5.12:
DCH St. 10 L=316 DCM St. 8 L=316 DCH St. 10 L=204 DCM St. 8 L=204
long. 2022
Fig. 5.12: Geometric and reinforcement properties of the R/C Column
The size of the column is dimensioned in order to respect the limit on stability index. The longitudinal and transversal reinforcement are dimensioned with the minimum code limits (1% for the longitudinal reinforcement, 12% and 8% for the stirrup mechanical ratio) The material properties entered in the program refers to the mean values, as prescribed in EC8 4.3.3.4.1. They are use to evaluate the quantities reported in the previous paragraph. Before performing non-linear analyses, the force-displacement behavior of the column is evaluated using the software CUMBIA, a set of Matlab codes to perform monotonic momentcurvature analysis and force-displacement response of reinforced concrete members of rectangular or circular section. The section analysis is performed by tabulating moment and curvature of the member section for increasing levels of concrete strain. The member response is obtained from the section moment-curvature results along with an equivalent plastic hinge length, as presented by Priestley, Seible and Calvi (1996). Shear deformations are computed following the procedure described in Priestley, Calvi and Kowalsky (2006). The shear strength envelope for the member is calculated using the revised UCSD shear model (Kowalsky and Priestley, 2000). The onset of buckling is determined according to two different models, one propose by Moyer and Kowalsky (2003) and the other proposed by Berry and Eberhard (2005). The constitutive models for the concrete and steel can be easily specified by the user. Nonetheless, the code has some default models. The default models for the unconfined and confined models are those proposed by Mander, Priestley and Park (1988). The default model for the steel is the same used by the King program (1986). The code allows the analysis of members subjected to axial load (tension or compression) and single or double bending.
74
The results obtained for the column in bi-directional bending are reported in the fig. 5.13:
Potential Deformation Limit States
180 160 140 120
No P-Delta With P-Delta
Bar Buckling
Force [kN]
100 80 60 40 20 0 0.00
=20%
P- Failure
Serviceability Zone
0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40
Damage control Zone

0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00
Ultimate Zone
1.10 1.20
Displacement [m]
Fig. 5.13: Force displacement capacity curve for the column
As expected, the column behavior is influenced by P- effects: for a displacement of 58cm and a force of 125kN the limit of 20% on the stability index (imposed by the code if simplified method are used) is reached, corresponding to a ductility capacity lower than 2.5 (yielding displacement of 23cm). P- failure is conventionally assumed at =30%, corresponding to a displacement of 87cm. For this kind of systems anyway, it is likely that the allowable drift governs the design, so that the displacement should be limited to 2.5% of the height, 28cm, leading to the consequence that the response of the column should remain almost elastic. In such conditions, the energy dissipation capacity of columns is extremely reduced, so it would be advisable to adopt low values for the behavior factor, otherwise the limit on displacements, implicit in the FBD procedure, will not be respected. Starting from the design elastic data, we can compare the behavior of the column with standard rigid connection and the top-isolated one. In order to design properly the isolation system, 3 different force-level, 10%, 15% and 20% of the vertical load are considered. For higher value of the force, analyses showed a behavior similar to the fixed-top column. The results are calculated with the refined and the simplified models for the isolator, reported in the previous paragraph. As the differences between the results of DCM and DCH columns are negligible, due to the fact that ductility is not involved, only DCH results are reported in figures 5.14 to 5.17.
75
Time history displacement - Refined model

40 30 20
Elastic link Hyst 10% Hyst 15% Hyst 20%
Displacement [cm]
10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time [sec]
Fig. 5.14: Time history displacement of the node with concentrated mass
Time history Base Shear - Refined model

200 150 100
Base shear [kN]
50 0 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time [sec]
Fig. 5.15: Time history Base shear of the node with concentrated mass
76
Time history displacement - Simplified model

40 30 20
Displacement [cm]
10 0 0 -10 -20 -30 -40 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time [sec]
Fig. 5.16: Time history displacement of the node with concentrated mass
Time history Base Shear - Simplified model

200 150 100
Base shear [kN]
50 0 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time [sec]
Fig. 5.17: Time history Base shear of the node with concentrated mass
77
The results in terms of maximum displacement and base shear are compared in the table below. For the refined model we obtained:
Table 5.5: Time history displacement and base shear
Model Rigid Hyst 10% Hyst 15% Hyst 20% Hyst 25%
Force [kN] 138.32 87.36 106.34 125.87 138.24
Displacement [cm] 28.82 17.11 20.90 25.69 28.62
For the simplified model we obtained:

Table 5.6: Time history displacement and base shear
Model Rigid Hyst 10% Hyst 15% Hyst 20% Hyst 25%
Force [kN] 138.32 90.11 115.07 121.94 136.68
Displacement [cm] 28.82 17.60 22.83 24.07 28.27
The difference in the results using the simplified model is always lower than 10%, meaning that the dissipation properties of the isolator described with the simpler model (loop area) are satisfactory for the purpose of evaluating maximum displacements and forces, even if the first sliding (Teflon friction) is not visible. In terms of step-by-step response, the differences are more evident, as the stiffness variations of the isolator cause period modifications for the whole column, influencing the response.
78
It is interesting to compare the moment-rotation diagram of the base section for the case of fixed column and top isolated with 10% sliding force:
Moment-Rotation diagram
2000 1500 1000
Fixed 10%
Moment [kNm]
500 0 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Rotation [rad/m]
Fig. 5.18: Moment-rotation diagram of the base section
We can see that the response in the case of rigid connection is inelastic, with low ductility levels, while for the top isolated column there is no excursion in the inelastic range. From this simple test, we can make the following consideration: The FBD procedure of EC8 was calibrated for frame structures, and does not seem to work very well for isolated column structures, which are very flexible and thus present a quasi-elastic response. The size of columns is determined to respect stability limits and the minimum reinforcement ratios govern the section design. It is advisable to work in low ductility classes and check the displacement limits at the beginning of the design phase; In case of isolated structures, the dissipative behavior can be assigned to the connections, while the R/C elements remain elastic. With a sliding force of 10-15%, displacements and base shear can be controlled, with possible optimization in vertical elements and foundation dimensions (no capacity design is required if the column remains elastic); As far as analyses are concerned, simple models can represent the behavior with enough accuracy, for the purpose of determining maximum displacements and forces.
79
5.5. Application of the isolation system to a test precast structure In order to test the effects of the application of the hysteretic connections in a real case, a simple precast structure was designed according to the rules of EC8. The layout of the structure is shown in the figure below:
Fig. 5.19: Structural layout of the prototype structure
The structural system consists of simply supported beams with 60x100 rectangular section, 10m spanning, and roof elements with wing profile, with 20m span, laying on isostatic columns. The foundation system is made of isolated precast footings, which are connected at the base floor level by an industrial pavement. Claddings are attached directly to the columns, spanning in the horizontal direction.
80
Fig. 5.20: Rendering view of the prototype structure
The structure was designed for a seismic zone 2 and an importance factor of 1.2. Different design choices (DCM or DCH) and modeling methods (refined or simplified models) were analysed. For the case of DCM a behavior factor of q=3 was adopted, while for DCH the suggested value of q=4.5 was used. The limit on column slenderness imposed by EC8 (1/10 of the shear span) was not considered, but a comparison was made with the refined DCH model. As far as the numerical modeling is concerned, the commercial software MIDAS Gen v7.30 was used to perform modal analyses and calculate the design actions. For the simpler model columns, beams and roof elements were modelled as beam elements connected at the same level (height of roof support), while for the refined model the element finite dimensions and the connection points were explicitly modelled.
Fig. 5.21: Render view of the connection - refined model
Fig. 5.22: Wireframe view of a connection refined model
For the refined model rigid links were used to connect the element axis to the point of connection and elastic links to represent the connections. The erection phase was considered by applying different boundary conditions to different load cases (the supports are not fixed when the gravity load is applied to the roof elements, but they are fixed when considering seismic loads).
81
Fig. 5.23: Render view of the connection - simplified model
Fig. 5.24: Wireframe view of a connection simplified model
For the simplified model, classic hinge connections are used, and the element axis are positioned at the extrados level of the beam. This model is not able to represent the different behavior in the two directions, but it is simple to generate and reduces the analysis time. In both cases the roof was not considered as a rigid diaphragm, because there isnt any rigid slab connecting the elements. The results obtained for the five models are summarized in table 5.7:
Table 5.7: Results obtained for the four prototype structures analysed
Model DCM-R DCM-S DCH-R DCH-S
Columns Footings Tx [cm] [cm] [sec] 75x75 80x80 80x80 85x85 475x475 520x520 500x500 500x500 620x620 1.49 1.41 1.32 1.26 0.63
Ty [sec] 1.38 1.41 1.22 1.26 0.58
Vbx [kN] 1067 1163 814 884
%W 9.0% 9.1% 6.6% 6.7%
Vby [kN] 1157 1163 885 884
% W dx [cm] dy [cm] 9.7% 9.1% 7.2% 6.7% 17.9 18.0 16.4 16.1 17.6 17.4 15.9 15.6 8.21
DCH-R* 100x100
1805 12.87% 2010 14.33% 8.71
The design process was controlled by the limits on displacements and second order effects. This second aspect was taken into account with the simplified method suggested by the Eurocode (stability index), which lead to base moment amplifications up to 20% of the analysis value. The imposed verification on the stability index gave as a consequence better results for the structures designed with lower behavior factor, suggesting that ductility cannot be fully exploited with high slenderness. The DCH-R* model was the only one without increment of internal actions due to second order effects.
82
The longitudinal and transversal reinforcement ratios were governed by imposed minimum, 1% (geometric) and 12% (mechanical ratio) respectively. The designed structures were then subjected to a set of three spectrum compatible terns of accelerograms, 2 in the horizontal and one in the vertical direction, generated with the software SIMQKE. The acceleration spectra are reported in the figures below:
Horizontal response spectra
1.2
1.0
0.8
Ag [m/s2]
TH 1 TH2 TH3 TH4 EC8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
t [sec]
Fig. 5.25: Acceleration spectra of the three artificial earthquake

Vertical response spectra
1.2
1.0
0.8
Ag [m/s2]
0.6
TH4 EC8
0.4
0.2
0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
t [sec]
Fig. 5.26: Acceleration spectrum of the vertical artificial earthquake
83
The results obtained in terms of displacement, drift and base shear for each column are reported in the tables 5.8 to 5.13:
Table 5.8: Time history results for the model DCM-S
Simplified model - DCM Column P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 dx [cm] 33.80 33.82 33.80 33.98 33.98 33.98 34.04 34.04 34.04 34.03 34.04 34.03 33.95 33.95 33.95 33.75 33.77 33.75 dy [cm] 34.14 34.16 33.96 34.15 34.16 33.96 34.15 34.16 33.96 34.15 34.16 33.96 34.15 34.16 33.96 34.15 34.16 33.96 drx [%] 3.13% 3.13% 3.13% 3.15% 3.15% 3.15% 3.15% 3.15% 3.15% 3.15% 3.15% 3.15% 3.14% 3.14% 3.14% 3.12% 3.13% 3.12% dry [%] 3.16% 3.16% 3.14% 3.16% 3.16% 3.14% 3.16% 3.16% 3.14% 3.16% 3.16% 3.14% 3.16% 3.16% 3.14% 3.16% 3.16% 3.14% Vbx [kN] 236.21 245.82 236.29 233.97 198.59 234.72 233.94 198.48 234.65 233.76 198.58 234.67 233.75 198.57 234.99 238.33 249.40 238.13 Vby [kN] 284.88 285.22 284.20 291.90 212.99 291.74 295.30 212.13 295.26 295.15 211.96 295.17 291.27 212.39 291.43 282.78 283.94 283.36
84
Table 5.9: Time history results for the model DCH-S
Simplified model - DCH Column P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 dx [cm] 37.58 37.61 37.60 37.74 37.74 37.74 37.80 37.80 37.80 37.78 37.78 37.78 37.69 37.70 37.69 37.51 37.53 37.50 dy [cm] 37.36 37.56 37.57 37.36 37.56 37.57 37.36 37.56 37.58 37.36 37.56 37.58 37.35 37.56 37.58 37.35 37.56 37.58 drx [%] 3.48% 3.48% 3.48% 3.49% 3.49% 3.49% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.49% 3.49% 3.49% 3.47% 3.47% 3.47% dry [%] 3.46% 3.48% 3.48% 3.46% 3.48% 3.48% 3.46% 3.48% 3.48% 3.46% 3.48% 3.48% 3.46% 3.48% 3.48% 3.46% 3.48% 3.48% Vbx [kN] 225.41 246.85 225.60 224.49 193.27 224.68 224.74 193.47 224.94 224.82 193.46 224.98 224.72 193.31 224.84 231.97 241.09 232.20 Vby [kN] 234.37 236.15 233.76 241.15 190.32 241.02 243.69 191.26 243.65 243.75 191.21 243.74 241.23 190.00 241.34 233.38 235.09 233.81
85
Table 5.10: Time history results for the model DCM-R
Refined model - DCM Column P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 dx [cm] 17.94 18.19 17.92 26.50 26.38 26.49 33.55 33.40 33.52 33.53 33.38 33.50 26.51 26.39 26.49 17.93 18.23 18.01 dy [cm] 21.22 34.33 21.11 21.49 34.49 21.37 21.67 34.61 21.56 21.66 34.60 21.56 21.46 34.49 21.37 21.19 34.34 21.09 drx [%] 1.66% 1.68% 1.66% 2.45% 2.44% 2.45% 3.11% 3.09% 3.10% 3.10% 3.09% 3.10% 2.45% 2.44% 2.45% 1.66% 1.69% 1.67% dry [%] 1.96% 3.18% 1.95% 1.99% 3.19% 1.98% 2.01% 3.20% 2.00% 2.01% 3.20% 2.00% 1.99% 3.19% 1.98% 1.96% 3.18% 1.95% Vbx [kN] 173.96 222.90 172.81 170.44 169.02 168.24 162.87 168.83 164.51 162.95 168.72 162.94 169.57 168.79 168.63 174.17 221.95 173.70 Vby [kN] 142.30 133.62 142.13 187.13 153.21 186.70 227.07 169.17 223.71 227.34 169.38 221.48 186.51 153.08 185.56 142.33 133.62 143.00
86
Table 5.11: Time history results for the model DCH-R
Refined model - DCH Column P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 dx [cm] 17.47 17.72 17.46 25.42 25.30 25.40 32.32 32.17 32.29 32.29 32.14 32.26 25.40 25.28 25.38 17.38 17.67 17.46 dy [cm] 20.38 32.09 20.30 20.64 32.24 20.56 20.83 32.38 20.76 20.82 32.38 20.75 20.61 32.24 20.55 20.34 32.10 20.28 drx [%] 1.62% 1.64% 1.62% 2.35% 2.34% 2.35% 2.99% 2.98% 2.99% 2.99% 2.98% 2.99% 2.35% 2.34% 2.35% 1.61% 1.64% 1.62% dry [%] 1.89% 2.97% 1.88% 1.91% 2.99% 1.90% 1.93% 3.00% 1.92% 1.93% 3.00% 1.92% 1.91% 2.99% 1.90% 1.88% 2.97% 1.88% Vbx [kN] 175.62 209.79 174.02 174.11 161.81 171.14 169.43 162.65 169.39 169.37 162.80 169.28 173.48 162.97 172.68 174.14 209.16 174.89 Vby [kN] 145.03 135.51 144.44 182.96 147.74 180.50 230.68 168.83 222.58 230.65 168.95 222.52 183.20 147.42 180.23 144.45 135.82 144.89
We can see that in all the cases the results obtained in terms of displacement are higher than the prevision from the elastic analysis, leading to drift levels higher than 2.5%.
87
Table 5.12: Time history results for the model DCH-R*
Refined model DCH Col100 Column P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 dx [cm] 9.43 9.98 9.58 16.31 16.28 16.35 22.14 22.10 22.15 22.13 22.09 22.14 16.28 16.26 16.33 9.50 9.95 9.46 dy [cm] 14.14 25.47 14.18 14.42 25.66 14.47 14.59 25.82 14.62 14.61 25.81 14.59 14.45 25.63 14.41 14.16 25.42 14.12 drx [%] 0.87% 0.92% 0.89% 1.51% 1.51% 1.51% 2.05% 2.05% 2.05% 2.05% 2.05% 2.05% 1.51% 1.51% 1.51% 0.88% 0.92% 0.88% dry [%] 1.31% 2.36% 1.31% 1.33% 2.38% 1.34% 1.35% 2.39% 1.35% 1.35% 2.39% 1.35% 1.34% 2.37% 1.33% 1.31% 2.35% 1.31% Vbx [kN] 267.75 341.99 267.39 276.92 295.11 276.59 273.58 290.30 273.34 273.79 289.87 273.54 277.46 294.64 277.19 268.83 341.01 268.90 Vby [kN] 182.61 173.07 181.83 248.11 218.32 248.51 304.15 258.25 311.27 304.00 258.22 311.23 248.17 217.96 248.39 180.71 173.26 183.17
If the limit on column slenderness is respected, the drift level remains below 2.5% for the design earthquake.
88
Table 5.13: Summary table of the time history analyses
Model DCM-R DCM-S DCH-R DCH-S DCH-R*
Vbx [kN] 2798.6 4871.3 2804.4 3986.7 3713.4
%W 19.63% 39.94% 18.88% 31.75% 22.15%
Vby [kN] 2896.8 4000.3 2952.1 3820.8 4559.8
%W 20.31% 32.80% 19.88% 30.43% 27.19%
dx [cm] 33.55 34.04 32.32 37.80 22.15
dy [cm] 34.61 34.16 32.38 37.58 25.82
drx [cm] 3.11% 2.89% 2.99% 3.20% 2.05%
dry [cm] 3.20% 2.89% 3.00% 3.18% 2.39%
We can see that for DCM design, the maximum base shear is higher than for DCH, while the displacement is similar. For all the cases, the ductility level in terms of displacements is lower than 2 (value referred to the isostatic column presented in the previous chapter), very different from the behavior factor suggested by the EC8. Also the displacements are different from the values obtained in the elastic analyses.
Drift at the column top
3.5%
Elastic Time history
3.0% Damage control li it
2.5%
Drift [%]
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0% DCM-R DCM-S DCH-R DCH-S DCH-R*
Model
Fig. 5.27: Comparison between top column drift resulting from the RS and NLTH analyses
The general trend observed for the test column is confirmed for the whole structure. The inelastic demand in columns is very low, but the maximum displacements are higher than predicted by the elastic analyses. If foundation flexibility would be taken into account,
89
displacements would be even higher, leading to an increase of P- effects. The damage control limit, assumed equal to 2.5%, could be increased to 3% for precast structures, because claddings are attached isostatically and do not interfere with the deformation of the structure. The model with the largest column size, respecting the EC8 limit on slenderness, is the only one which can guarantee acceptable displacement levels when subjected to the design earthquake. In terms of base shear, the results obtained reflect the use of the mean material properties and the strain hardening of the steel material model in the non linear analyses. The results obtained are reported in the table below:
Total base shear
6000
Elastic Time history
5000
Base shear [kN]
4000
3000
2000
1000
0 DCM-R DCM-S DCH-R DCH-S DCH-R*
Model
Fig. 5.28: Comparison between base shear resulting from the RS and NLTH analyses
If we consider that the design shear is calculated on the basis of capacity design consideration on the column flexural capacity (which is generally overdesigned), the difference would be smaller. The total shear capacity of the column is much more higher than the acting shear. In order to reduce the displacement and drift levels and increase the dissipated energy, the hysteretic system can be applied to the top of beam and columns. As suggested by the preliminary analyses on the test column, the sliding force levels considered are 10% and 15% of the vertical load. The results in terms of force and displacements are reported in the tables 5.14 to 5.16, for the case of DCH-R model, which can be considered as the usual designers choice:
90
Table 5.14: Time history results for the model DCH-R with top isolation
Simplified model DCH 10% Sliding force Column P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 dx [cm] 11.36 12.43 11.35 15.69 15.65 15.74 19.72 19.71 19.81 19.74 19.67 19.73 15.64 15.61 15.70 11.34 12.36 11.35 dy [cm] 10.84 16.37 10.78 12.28 17.06 12.25 13.26 17.09 13.29 13.26 17.08 13.25 12.24 17.03 12.28 10.77 16.36 10.83 drx [%] 1.05% 1.15% 1.05% 1.45% 1.45% 1.46% 1.83% 1.83% 1.83% 1.83% 1.82% 1.83% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.05% 1.14% 1.05% dry [%] 1.00% 1.52% 1.00% 1.14% 1.58% 1.13% 1.23% 1.58% 1.23% 1.23% 1.58% 1.23% 1.13% 1.58% 1.14% 1.00% 1.52% 1.00% Vbx [kN] 151.50 175.98 151.69 152.06 146.72 159.61 145.57 134.66 161.04 161.43 133.45 147.39 158.70 149.63 151.11 153.10 176.35 153.45 Vby [kN] 129.44 129.13 127.71 187.29 138.55 193.61 204.47 160.90 208.92 204.64 161.07 206.99 185.34 140.50 192.40 131.45 129.33 124.56
The displacement refers to the column top. At the isolators level theres an increase due to the deformation of the hysteretic bearing, with a maximum displacement increase of 48mm.
91
Table 5.15: Time history results for the model DCH-R with top isolation
Simplified model DCH 15% Sliding force Column P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 dx [cm] 13.48 14.77 13.45 17.53 18.58 17.65 21.94 21.96 21.99 21.95 21.95 21.96 17.62 18.58 17.55 13.50 14.76 13.46 dy [cm] 12.76 16.01 12.74 14.87 17.50 14.89 16.24 18.68 16.23 16.25 18.59 16.24 14.88 17.42 14.92 12.73 15.99 12.80 drx [%] 1.25% 1.37% 1.25% 1.62% 1.72% 1.63% 2.03% 2.03% 2.04% 2.03% 2.03% 2.03% 1.63% 1.72% 1.62% 1.25% 1.37% 1.25% dry [%] 1.18% 1.48% 1.18% 1.38% 1.62% 1.38% 1.50% 1.73% 1.50% 1.50% 1.72% 1.50% 1.38% 1.61% 1.38% 1.18% 1.48% 1.19% Vbx [kN] 154.04 182.89 154.08 161.14 139.12 161.37 162.70 138.70 161.94 162.53 138.71 162.84 161.29 137.97 160.91 158.20 185.05 155.65 Vby [kN] 120.15 133.10 120.53 190.23 137.91 189.60 209.82 161.11 208.85 211.03 161.12 208.34 191.83 138.05 190.23 120.18 133.13 120.32
92
Table 5.16: Summary table of the time history analyses
Model DCH-R DCH-Is10 DCH-Is15
Vbx [kN] 2798.6 2750.9 2797.2
%W 19.63% 18.56% 18.84%
Vby [kN] 2896.8 2306.6 2674.2
%W 20.31% 15.56% 18.01%
dx [cm] 33.55 19.81 21.99
dy [cm] 34.61 17.09 18.68
drx [cm] 3.11% 1.83% 2.04%
dry [cm] 3.20% 1.58% 1.73%
From table 5.15 we can see that the displacement level at the column top is always lower than 2/3 of the value obtained for the original design, while the base shear is similar. A graphical comparison is reported in the figures below:
3.5%
3.0% Damage control limit Yielding drift
2.5%
Drift [%]
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0% DCH-R DCH-Is10 DCH-Is10tot DCH-Is15 DCH-Is15tot
Model
Fig. 5.29: Comparison between drift levels of the isolated and non-isolated structures
If we consider the drift level at the column top (for the columns verification), we can see that the response is elastic (below the yielding drift) for the isolated structures, while for the non isolated one theres an excursion in the inelastic range, with the transcendence of the damage control limit. The drift level of the whole structure is slightly higher, because of the concentrated displacement at the isolators level (48mm). In terms of base shear, the differences are negligible, because the maximum value is reached at the yielding displacement.
93
5.6. Closing remarks In this chapter, the experimental results exposed in chapter 4 were translated in a numerical model to be implemented in nonlinear analyses. Two different modeling strategies were investigated, one more refined (capable or reproducing the initial plateau due to Teflon sliding) and one simplified (trilinear with kinematic hardening). The main properties to reproduce were identified in the maximum sliding force and the hysteresis loop area. The end stop behavior was represented via a nonlinear elastic spring acting in parallel to the isolator. Simple test on truss acting in parallel and on a single column with top isolation showed that both model are capable of reproducing the experimental results, and the differences between the refined and the simplified model are always lower than 10%, thus for large models it is advisable to use the latter, which can reduce analysis time. In the second part of the chapter, a test column was designed according to the EC8 procedure, in ductility class High and Medium, and then a set of spectrum compatible accelerograms was generated in order to perform non linear time-history analyses on the original structures and on the structure with top isolation, with sliding forces of 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% of the applied weight. Very useful design indication emerged: The design procedure of EC8 should be used carefully for slender structures, because the behavior factors suggested in the code were calibrated for standard frame structures. If the geometric constraint reported in 5.4.1.2.2 (1) of the code is respected (Section size larger than 1/10 of the height for a cantilevering precast column), drift limits are satisfied (but the columns are overdesigned), otherwise a preliminary check of the yielding displacement of the column is strongly recommended, so that realistic values of q can be chosen (for very slender structures the response can be elastic); The choice of an unrealistic value for the behavior factor leads to excessive drift levels in the nonlinear analyses (up to 3%), very different from the elastic prevision; The application of a top isolation system can reduce substantially the displacements at the column top (up to 50%), for the same capacity of the base section; For the typology investigated, the optimal sliding force is approximately 10% of the vertical load.
In the last part of the chapter, nonlinear analyses were performed on a test precast structure. The results obtained were very similar to the case of the single column, with drift levels of about 3% for the structure designed with EC8. The influence of stability was evident, since the design phase was governed by respect of displacements and stability index rather than capacity of the elements. The application of the top isolation system with 10% sliding force can reduce the displacement level of approximately 2/3, while the base shear remains almost the same. In order to investigate the design opportunities offered by the isolation system, in the next chapter the structure will be design using a displacement-based approach.
94
Chapter 6. Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD)
6.
Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD)
As already said in Chapter 2, the design procedure known as Direct Displacement Based Design (DDBD) has been developed over the past ten years with the aim of mitigating the deficiencies in current force-based design. The fundamental difference from force-based design is that DDBD characterizes the structure to be designed by a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) representation of performance at peak displacement response, rather than by its initial elastic characteristics.
Fig. 6.1: Fundamentals of Direct Displacement-Based Design
In the pictures above, we can appreciate the main steps for applying DDBD, starting from a Multi Degree of Freedom Structure and finishing with an estimation of its period (passing through the Single Degree of Freedom analogy):
95
6.1. Design of the longitudinal internal frame (no isolation) We can analyse the series of columns of a pre-cast building connected by beams trying to find out their longitudinal response in the same way we do for bridge piers.
Fig. 6.2: Structural model
As illustrated in the picture, our structure has 6 columns with ten meters spacing. 6.1.1. Displacement Design Spectrum Using the parameters taken from EC8, we can evaluate the Design Spectra: ag=0,3g; ST=1,2 soil); TC=0,5 sec; TD=4,0 sec (2sec in the EC8 version);
Fig. 6.3: Displacement spectrum (Corner period = 4,0 sec)
(Firm
The peak response displacement and the relative Displacement Design Spectrum are:
max = 2,5ag ST
TCTD = 0, 224 m 4 2
6.1.2. Geometric and Material properties We analyse 6 squared columns (75 x 75 cm), 10,8 m height, supporting a cap beam with a section of 0,6 x 1,0 m.
96
Pre-cast concrete and steel rebars were considered with the properties listed in the following:
Table 6.1: Materials definition
Concrete strength Concrete overstrength Concrete elastic modulus Steel yield stress Steel yield overstrength Steel yield strain Steel ultimate stress Steel ultimate overstrength Steel ultimate strain Longitudinal steel diameter Transverse steel diameter Concrete cover
fpc = 45 MPa fpce = 1,3 fpc = 58 MPa Ec = 38240 MPa fy = 450 MPa fye = 1,1 fy = 495 MPa eye = 0,25% fsu = 60 MPa fsue = 1,1 fsu = 66 MPa esu = 10% Fl = 24 mm Fw = 10 mm c = 50 mm
In the previous table, we can see strengths applied to seismic design: we can now try to design the system columns starting from these data. 6.1.3. Structural loads and masses In order to evaluate the response of the system, we have to know the vertical loads acting on the structure (mainly the weight of the structural elements) and the horizontal loads expressed as inertia of the structural mass during the earthquake movement. 6.1.4. Design methodology We consider the cap beam as rigid, and the piers fixed at the base, as they are connected by an industrial pavement. In the longitudinal direction we can analyse the supporting frames as cantilevers, whose heights correspond to the point of support of the superstructure. In this design, we can distinguish two different type of column: the two lateral columns and the central columns (the dimension are equal, the tributary area on each, change). In DDBD, we have to find a effective height at which the masses acting on the structure are positioned: for all the columns is 11,3 m (the real height of the column, plus half of the height of the cap beam).
97
Evaluating the neutral axis depth and the limit state curvature for each section, we can say that the concrete strain governs; using semi empirical equations, we can estimate the strain penetration length (LSP = 0,261 m) and the plastic hinge length (LP = 1,052 m). Once again, using semi empirical equations, we can see that the yield displacement for a column of this size (0,75 x 0,75 x 10,3 m) is quite a large number:
y =
(H 3
eff
+ LSP ) = 0,309 m
2
in particular if we compare the yield displacement with the maximum displacement governed by the allowable drift (3%):
d = 3% Heff = 0,339 m
We can immediately notice that the displacement ductility is about 1: the system response is almost elastic; now, we have to combine the damping of the system to evaluate an effective damping that have to be associated to the SDF system. As the abutments are considered to be unrestrained in the longitudinal direction, the total shear will be shared by the piers (Having assumed as a design choice to have the same reinforcement ratio, the shear will be distributed inversely proportional to the height of the piers). As the displacement is the same for all the piers, the system damping can be found in the following way:
lsys
(H ) = H
6 i =1 li effi 1 effi
= 6, 26%
With this damping, we can evaluate the reduction factor and scale the displacement spectrum:
0, 07 R = 0, 02 + lsys
0,5
= 0, 921
Now, we have all the elements to calculate the properties of the frame (elastic period, effective mass, effective stiffness and base shear):
Tel = 3, 294 sec meff = 429 ton keff = 1561 kN Vb = 529 kN m
The base shear is distributed to the columns in inverse proportion to their heights: in this case, they have the same height, that means they have the same base shear.
98
Vcol = 88 kN M col = 996 kNm
We have now to check P-D effects on the columns (we use the stability index):
WP dl = 27,1% M col
This value is quite large and we have to take into considertion P-D effects during the design; re-evaluating base bending moment and base shear, we obtain:
M P = WP dl M col = M col + M P = 1266 kNm Vcol = M col = 112 kN H eff
Using these values, we can now design the reinforcement for this type of column. As the ductility demand is lower than 1.5, EC2 design rules can be applied. 6.2. Design of the longitudinal internal frame (using isolator systems) Starting from the same frame shows before, we can now consider the studied isolator system positioned in between the column and the cap beam: in this way, the superstructure is supported on friction bearings with a maximum displacement of 45 mm and an effective damping of approximately 38%. General consideration (like displacement spectrum) as well as material properties are the same: the only difference is the reinforcement of the column. 6.2.1. Design methodology We want the column to remain elastic during the earthquake: the energy dissipation have to be concentrated in the isolator; for this reason, the target displacement is the sum of a displacement of the column that is less than its yield displacement (we consider 50%) and the maximum displacement of the isolator.
d = ( 0,7 y + isol ) = 26,1 cm
that corresponds to a drift of about 2,1%.
For this reason, we can say that the piers remain elastic during the earthquake and their equivalent damping is the elastic damping, taken equal to 5%. To find the effective damping we need to take into account the shear force and the displacement in the elements, doing an energy-based average. We finally obtain an increased (with respect to the analysis without isolators) effective damping:
eff = 10,7%
99
As done before, the reduction factor is:
R = 0,743
The properties of the frame will be:
Tel = 3,145 sec meff = 429 ton keff = 1710 kN Vb = 447 kN m
We can distribute the base shear in proportion to the columns and find out the base moments:
Vcol = 75 kN M col = 842 kNm
We have now to check P-D effects on the columns:
WP dl = 24,7% M col
In this example, we re-evaluate base bending moment and base shear and we notice that there is a small difference between the value obtained before and the new ones:
M col = 1086 kNm Vcol = M col = 96 kN H eff
Once again, using these values, we can design the reinforcement for the columns, applying EC2 design rules. The results obtained are reported in the following table:
Table 6.2: Results obtained with the application of FBD EC8 and DDBD approach
Columns Footings Model FBD-DCH DDBD DDBDiso [cm] 80x80 75x75 75x75 [cm] 500x500 440x440 400x400
longit. Rebars 2022 2824 2820
transv. Rebars 10@120 10@240 10@240
The advantage in the application of the DDBD procedure is evident, in particular when the isolation system is used, as the dissipative behaviour is concentrated in the connections while
100
columns remain elastic. In this way, the application of capacity design to the foundations and to the column in shear is not necessary. In order to validate the design procedure, non-linear time history analyses were performed, with three set of spectrum compatible accelerograms, generated with the software SIMQKE. The results are reported in the following tables and graphs:
Table 6.3: Time history results for the model DDBD
Refined model - DDBD Column P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 dx [cm] 16.10 16.28 16.11 24.84 24.78 24.81 30.80 30.64 30.78 30.77 30.61 30.76 24.81 24.76 24.80 16.14 16.28 16.07 dy [cm] 18.23 29.92 18.24 18.54 30.10 18.54 18.73 30.21 18.71 18.72 30.19 18.71 18.53 30.05 18.51 18.22 29.84 18.19 drx [%] 1.49% 1.51% 1.49% 2.30% 2.29% 2.30% 2.85% 2.84% 2.85% 2.85% 2.83% 2.85% 2.30% 2.29% 2.30% 1.49% 1.51% 1.49% dry [%] 1.69% 2.77% 1.69% 1.72% 2.79% 1.72% 1.73% 2.80% 1.73% 1.73% 2.79% 1.73% 1.72% 2.78% 1.71% 1.69% 2.76% 1.68% Vbx [kN] 180.26 257.00 179.52 182.79 217.21 182.83 183.42 207.56 183.39 183.37 207.62 183.36 182.74 217.15 182.68 179.53 256.38 179.65 Vby [kN] 156.59 158.10 157.17 240.36 186.01 241.10 290.43 222.86 291.50 290.28 222.85 291.32 238.76 186.41 241.12 156.91 158.50 157.00
101
Table 6.4: Time history results for the model DDBDiso
Refined model - DDBDiso Column P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 P13 P14 P15 P16 P17 P18 dx [cm] 11.62 12.44 11.61 15.68 15.64 15.71 17.79 17.83 17.82 17.80 17.83 17.79 15.68 15.64 15.70 11.64 12.43 11.58 dy [cm] 11.79 15.17 11.69 12.84 15.89 12.79 13.47 15.95 13.46 13.47 15.96 13.44 12.79 15.91 12.83 11.72 15.18 11.77 drx [%] 1.08% 1.15% 1.08% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.65% 1.65% 1.65% 1.65% 1.65% 1.65% 1.45% 1.45% 1.45% 1.08% 1.15% 1.07% dry [%] 1.09% 1.40% 1.08% 1.19% 1.47% 1.18% 1.25% 1.48% 1.25% 1.25% 1.48% 1.24% 1.18% 1.47% 1.19% 1.09% 1.41% 1.09% Vbx [kN] 127.43 155.20 127.37 151.79 122.47 151.04 150.83 121.88 150.49 150.51 121.65 150.82 151.22 121.29 151.83 127.07 154.15 127.36 Vby [kN] 108.32 113.43 107.90 177.70 125.65 168.56 181.00 138.45 180.51 182.11 140.28 179.54 177.55 126.12 177.03 108.35 113.42 107.83
102
Total base shear

4500 4000 3500
Base shear [kN]
3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 DCH-R DCH-Is10 DCH_Is15 DDBD DDBDiso
Model
Fig. 6.4: Comparison among base shear resulting from the EC8 DCH, DDBD and DDBDiso models

3.5% Damage control limit 3.0%
2.5% Yielding drift
Drift [%]
2.0%
1.5%
1.0%
0.5%
0.0% DCH-R DCH-Is10 DCH_Is15 DDBD DDBDiso
Model
Fig. 6.5: Comparison among drift resulting from the EC8 DCH, DDBD and DDBDiso models
103
Observing the tables 6.2 to 6.4 and the figures 6.4 and 6.5, we can make the following considerations: If the FBD approach is used, the behaviour factor should be chosen after an evaluation of the yielding displacement of columns. For slender elements, the response can be quasi-elastic, thus it is advisable to increase the longitudinal and decrease the transversal reinforcement (confinement is not necessary); Using the DDBD approach, the drift level is a designers choice, and the ductility demand can be checked in the initial stage of the design. Using this approach, it is easier to recognize that the response is essentially elastic; The DDBD procedure applied to the isolated structure is capable of reproducing the increased dissipation of the system, provided by Nexfuse connections, and the results obtained with non-linear time history analyses showed a good agreement in terms of response.
6.3. Closing remarks Using isolator systems between columns and the cap beam, we have a significant decrease of the dimensions of the columns (and clearly of the section area and the concrete needed). We decided, in the design process, to ensure that the columns can resist, more or less, to the same base moment and base shear (despite the reduction in size) both in the design with and without isolation. In this way, using isolators, we have a reduction of the maximum displacement reached by the central point of the cap beam and we dissipate energy during the hysteresis of the systems. After the earthquake, columns are still elastic and all the damage will be concentrated in the washers of the isolators.
104
Chapter 7. Conclusions and future developments
7.
CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
This study involved experimental and numerical investigations on a prototype energy dissipating connection for precast structures. The importance of a reliable, efficient and economic type of connection for precast structures is incontrovertible and it is recognized by all the modern codes, which provide general design guidelines and demand the development and testing of the systems to the manufacturers. In the first part of the dissertation the mechanical properties of the prototype isolator and its components were investigated, confirming the quality of the conceptual design of the system. In the second part of the dissertation numerical investigation were performed in order to verify the applicability of the connections to representative precast structures and the economic implications. The adoption of energy dissipating connections can reduce the inelastic demand on columns without involving the global dissipation capacity, leading to a more economic and safe structural design. 7.1. Experimental results The experimental tests were performed with the aim of characterizing the behavior of the single mechanical components and the global behavior of the connection. PTFE sheets showed a very low friction coefficient with the steel plate (in the range of 3-4%), necessary to allow thermal deformations without transferring excessive forces between the connected elements (roof beam and supporting beam or beam and column). The cyclic behavior was stable, without any significant damage or strength reduction after a consistent number of cycles. The bronze washers, which are considered as the sacrificial elements in a capacity design perspective, showed a friction coefficient with steel of approximately 15%-18%, and a stable hysteretic loop under cyclic testing, with a moderate damage due to sliding (this is not a problem as the replacement operation is very easy). The result is a fat hysteresis loop, typical of slotted-bolted connections. The bolt preload is a fundamental parameter, as it governs the sliding force of the connection, thus for all the tests a calibrated wrench was used to determine the preload. The rubber element inside the steel box was tested only to ensure that its behavior remains perfectly elastic in the range of displacements induced by thermal deformations and that the force generated on the steel dowel is not excessive. Among the different geometric configurations tested, the solution with additional holes was chosen for the test of the
105
assembly, as the force transferred to the steel dowel was lower (approximately one third) than the value obtained with the initial solution. The final test on the whole isolator confirmed the conceptual design previsions: a two-stage frictional behavior, a fat and stable hysteresis loop and limited damages to the bronze washers and the Teflon sheet under the steel box. Different bolt preload levels were tested (including a simulated asymmetric condition) to investigate the variation of the sliding force. All the test were performed in cyclic conditions, and reached a maximum displacement of 40mm, corresponding to a ductility level of about 4. In accordance to EC8 provisions, three full cycle at the maximum amplitude were performed, resulting in a very low decrease of the transmitted force due to the reduction of bolt preload, without any significant damage in the capacity protected components. The effective damping calculated on the basis of the hysteresis loop reached the considerable value of 38%. 7.2. Numerical Analyses On the basis of the experimental tests, an extensive numerical investigation was performed, in order to compare the performance of different modelling options and investigate the effects of the applications of hysteretic connections on a representative precast structure. In the first part of chapter 5, two models for the isolation system were calibrated to match the experimental results: a refined model capable of reproducing two sliding levels (Teflon friction and Bronze friction sliding forces) and the end stop behavior and a simplified model consisting of a trilinear curve plus the end stop behavior. Both models gave satisfactory results in terms of loop area and transmitted force. In the second part of chapter 5, a test column was designed according to EC8 provisions, for a PGA=0.3g, in DCH and DCM classes. After the design, the top isolation was applied, and the optimal level of sliding force (around 10% of the vertical load) was determined by comparing different options. The behavior of the test column with 25% sliding force was equivalent to that of the fixed-connection column. The beneficial effect of the isolation system in limiting top displacements and base shear is evident, with maximum reductions of nearly 35% respect to the fixed connection case. In the last part of chapter five, a single-story representative precast structure with isolated columns was designed according to EC8 provisions, for different ductility classes (DCH and DCM) and with different modeling strategies (explicit modeling of connections eccentricity and simplified modeling). If the very demanding limit on column size is not respected (one tenth of the column height), the structural design is governed by damage limitation and respect of the stability coefficient. The choice of the behavior factor should be consistent with the yielding displacement of the column, (the values suggested for standard frame structures are unrealistic), otherwise the drift limit implicit in the code procedure of 2.5% cannot be respected, as resulting from the non-linear analyses. The application of the isolation system to standard designed structures reduced consistently the drift level (under 2.5%) and the inelastic demand on columns, with insignificant variations on the maximum base shear (related to the column capacity at yielding).
106
In the sixth chapter, the Direct Displacement Based Design procedure was applied to the test structure, resulting in a more effective design in both cases of fixed connections (the structural response is quasi-elastic and the drift limit in the time history analyses is respected) and energy dissipating connections (the increased effective damping is considered in the design phase, with a reduction of column reinforcement). In order to solve some numerical problems, the EC8 displacement spectrum was modified according to EN1998-2 7.5.4 provisions, and the constant velocity branch was extended up to 4 seconds. The base shear values obtained with the DDBD procedure was approximately 10% of the gravity load, confirming the indications of the study performed on the test column. 7.3. Design implications The numerical investigations and the DDBD procedure demonstrated the structural effectiveness of the application of energy dissipating connections to precast structures in seismic areas, and the inadequacy of code provisions for frame structures in the case of isolated columns systems. For the examined structural type, consisting of very flexible isostatic columns, the contribution of the added damping is fundamental for the reduction of displacements and base shear. A structural optimization can be obtained if the effective damping and stiffness of the connections are considered at the beginning of the design phase, and the hysteretic behavior is moved from the column base to the connections. 7.4. Future developments This dissertation focused on the characterization and numerical implementation of an energy dissipating connection, which can provide considerable advantages from the structural and economical point of view. The prototype connection tested was designed to connect roof beams with primary beam elements, but in the numerical analyses the experimental results were used to model also beam-column connections, without considering response modifications due to axial load variations. This was made under the assumption that in terms of global behavior, the response of a connection subjected to a tensile force is balanced by the response of the compressed connection (the torsion acting on beams is transferred as a force couple in the isolators). The real behavior of such a connection should be deeply investigated and the system composed by the steel box and flat head dowel need to be verified against uplift. Another important aspect concerns the experimental testing of the system connected to real structural elements, for the verification of the influence of the anchor channels used to fix the bolts and the anchorage of the steel box in the wing profile in the global response. At the time the authors writing, a test on a real-scale roof beam supported by four energy dissipating connections has been planned. The test is described in figg. 7.1 to 7.4:
107
Fig. 7.1: Lateral view of the experimental test
The roof beam, 20m long, is connected with two anchorage concrete blocks. A central steel frame with an electro mechanic jack is used to apply a force in the longitudinal direction.
Fig. 7.2: Frontal view of the roof beam
The steel boxes of the isolators are cast in the concrete roof beam. Holes are provided to allow the operations of bolt preload.
Fig. 7.3: Details of anchor channels cast in the concrete blocks
A set of anchor channel is cast in each concrete block, to allow multiple test in case of failure.
108
Fig. 7.4: Anchorage of the energy dissipating connections to the anchor channels
This test will be used to refine the numerical models and to check that the end stop behavior is not fragile. Possible optimization of the components will be studied. The applicability of the system to different structural configurations and for areas of lower seismicity will be the subject of further research. The end scope of the research work is the development of a designers manual, that can be used by practicing engineers to obtain good estimate of the structural elements dimensions and reinforcement with simplified procedures. Only in case of non-standard structures refined analyses will be necessary.
109
References
REFERENCES
ASCE [2000], "Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings", FEMA-356, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. Badrakhan, F. [1988] "Dynamic Analysis of Yielding and Hysteretic Systems by Polinomial Approximations", Journal of Sound and Vibration, No. 125 (1), pp. 23-42 Berry, B.P., Eberhard, M.O. [2005], Practical Performance Model for Bar Buckling, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol.131, No. 7. Bertero, V. V. [1995] "Tri-Service Manual Methods", Vision 2000, Part 2, Appendix J, Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento. Capecchi, D., Vestroni, F., [1985] "Steady-State Dynamic Analysis of Hysteretic Systems", Journal of Engineering Mechianics, American Society of Civil Engineering,No. 111 (12), pp. 1515-1531 Caughey, T.K. [1960] "Sinusoidal Excitation of a System with Bilinear Hysteresis", Journal of applied Mechanics, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, No. 27 (4), pp. 640-643 Christopoulos, C., Filiatrault, A. [2006] Principles of Passive Supplemental Damping and Seismic Isolation, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy Costantiniou, M.C., Tsopelas, Kasalanati, A., Wolf, E.D. [1999] "Property modification factors for Seismic Isolation Bearings", Technical Report MCEER-99-0012, Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, NY. DebChaudhury, A. [1985] "Periodic Response of Yielding oscillators", Journal of Engineering Mechanics, American Society of Civil Engineering,No. 111 (8),pp. 977-994. Eurocode 8, "Design of structures for earthquale resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings", UNI-EN 1998-1:2005 Filiatrault, A. [2002] Elements of Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dyamics - Second Edition, Polytechnical International Press, Montreal, QC, Canada. Iwan, W.D. [1965] "The Steady-State Response of the Double Bilinear Hysteretic Model", Journal of Applied Mechanics, American Society of Mechanical Engineering, No. 32, pp. 921-925. Iwan, W.D., Gates, N.C. [1979] "Estimating Earthquake Response of Simple Hysteretic Structures", Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineering, No.105, EM3, pp. 391-405.
110
References
Jennings, P.G. [1964], "Periodic Response of a General Yielding Structure", Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, (EM2),pp. 131-166. Kelly, J.M. [1990] "Base isolation Linear Theory and Design", Earthquake Spectra, No. 6 (2),pp. 223244 Kent, D.C.,Park, R. [1971], "Flexural members with confined concrete", Journal of the structural division, ASCE, No.97, pp. 1969-1990 King, D.J., Priestley, M.J.N., Park, R. [1986] "Computer Programs for Concrete Column Design". Research Report 86/12, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zaeland, May 1986. Kowalsky, M.J., Priestley, M.J.N. [2000] "Improved Analytical Model for Shear Strength of Circular Reinforced Concrete Columns in Seismic Regions, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 97, No.3 Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N., Park, R. [1988] "Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for Confined Concrete", ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No.8 Masri, S.F. [1975] "Forced Vibration of the Damped Bilinear Hysteretic Oscillator", Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, No. 57 (1), pp. 106-112. Minorsky, N. [1947] Nonlinear Mechanics, J.W. Edwards, Ann Arbor, Michigan Moyer, M.J., Kowalsky, M.J. [2003] Influence of tension Strain on Buckling of Reinforcement in Concrete Columns, ACI Structural Journal, Vol. 100, No.1. Ordinanza P.C.M. 20 Marzo 2003, n. 3274, "Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica" Pall, A.S., Marsh, C., Fazio, P. [1980] "Friction Joints for Seismic Control of Large Panel Structures", Journal of Prestressed Concrete Institute, No. 25 (6), pp. 38-61 Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M., Kowalsky, M.J. [2006] Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy. Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., Calvi, G.M. [1996] Seismic Design and retrofit of Bridge Structures, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Spacone, E., Filippou, F.C., Taucer, F.F. [1996]. "Fiber Beam-Column Model for Nonlinear Analysis of R/C Frames. I: Formulation." Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25, N. 7., pp. 711-725. Spatti, P. [2008], Isolation system for Precast Buildings (numerical modelling of the components), MSc Dissertation, European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk (ROSE School), University of Pavia, Italy.
Tremblay, R., Stiemer, S.F. [1993] "Energy dissipation Through Friction Bolted Connections in Concentrically Braced Steel Frames", ATC 17-1 Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation, and Active Control, No. 2, pp. 557-568
111
Appendix A - Materials
Appendix A Materials
A.1. PTFE
A1
A2
A3
A4
A.2. Rubber
A5
A.3. Bronze In this graph, we can see the behaviour of the bronze used to built washers (Force [daN] versus Deformation [mm]).
A6
Appendix B - Drawings
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
Appendix C Photograps
Appendix C Photographs
Fig. C.2: Fig. C.1: Test plate n1
Fig. C.3: Test plate n2
Fig. C.4: Cylinders
Fig. C.5: How to assemble cylinders on the test plate
C1
Fig. C.6: Precompression profile n1
Fig. C.7: Precompression profile n2
Fig. C.8: Bolt 10 (long)
Fig. C.9: Bolt 10 (short)
Fig. C.10: Screw threaded 24 (Traction bar)
Fig. C.11: Screw threaded 20 (Precompression bar)
Fig. C.12: Thick plate (1 test)
Fig. C.13: Thick blocks (1/2/3/4 tests)
C2
Fig. C.14: Eyelet plate (1/2/3 tests)
Fig. C.15: Teflon (1 test)
Fig. C.16: L blocks (2/4 tests)
Fig. C.17: Hold washer (2 test)
Fig. C.18: Washer (2 test)
Fig. C.19: Dowel plate (2 test)
Fig. C.20: Rubber plate (3 test)
Fig. C.21: Full rubber (3 test)
C3
Fig. C.22: Three holes rubber (3 test)
Fig. C.23: Lower plate (4 test)
Fig. C.24: Teflon (4 test)
Fig. C.25: Upper dowel plate (4 test)
Fig. C.26: Steel box (4 test)
Fig. C.27: How to assemble isolator (1)
C4
Appendix C Phot tograps
Fig. C.30: How H to assem mble isolator (4) (
Fig. C.3 31: How to as ssemble isola ator (5)
Fig. C.3 33: How to as ssemble isola ator (7)
Fig g. C.35: Rotat te the steel bo ox
Fig. C.37: How to assemble isolat tor (10)
C5
Fig. C.38: Once the dowel is in the steel box, it remains fix to the upper plate
Fig. C.39: Isolator parts overlapped
C6

Dissertation2008 Marinini

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Dissertation2008 Marinini

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

ISOLATIO ON SY YSTEM M FOR R PRE ECAS ST CON NCRE ETE BU UILD DINGS S

( (numeric cal modeling and structura al respon nse)

Earthqu uake En ngineerin ng

By L Luca Mari inini

Prof. Paolo Riva__________________________

Prof. Roberto Nascimbene_________________

Keywords: isolation; experimental test; displacement based design;

State of the art ................................................................................................................................. 8

Chapter 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation

INTRODUCTION TO PASSIVE SUPPLEMENTAL DAMPING AND SEISMIC ISOLATION

Chapter 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation

Chapter 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation

Chapter 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation

Table 1.1: Seismic Protection Systems, from [Christopoulos, 2006]

Flexural Plastic Hinges Shear Plastic Hinges Yielding Braces

Metallic Friction Viscoelastic Viscous Tuned-Mass Self-Centering

Elastomeric Lead-Rubber High-Damping Rubber Metallic Lead-Extrusion Friction Pendulum

Chapter 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation

Chapter 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation

Chapter 1. Introduction to passive supplemental damping and seismic isolation

Chapter 2. State of the art

STATE OF THE ART

displacements relative to the moving base at time t.

Chapter 2. State of the art

is defined as the absolute kinetic energy of the system at time t :

Chapter 2. State of the art

a Ein xa } [ M ]{r } dxg ( t ) ( t ) = { T

Chapter 2. State of the art

Chapter 2. State of the art

Chapter 2. State of the art

Chapter 2. State of the art

Chapter 2. State of the art

Fig.2.3: Parameters of 2DOF isolated system

(2.17) (2.18) (2.19)

Chapter 2. State of the art

Fig.2.4: Classical modes of the combined system

Chapter 2. State of the art

Fig.2.5: Single-degree-of-freedom system incorporating hysteretic damper

The equation of motion of the combined system can be written as:

Chapter 2. State of the art

Chapter 2. State of the art

Chapter 2. State of the art

Chapter 2. State of the art

Chapter 2. State of the art

Fig.2.8: Hysteretic Characteristic of hysteretically damped structure

Chapter 2. State of the art

Where s is the excitation frequency ratio:

Where xst is the static deflection defined by:

Chapter 2. State of the art

Differentiating again equation (2.48) with respect to t we obtain:

Substituting equation (2.49) into (2.43) we get:

( A cos , u , ) cos = x cos ( + ( ) ) sin  ( ) + 2 A ( ) sin cos + f A st

( A cos , u , ) sin d = x sin f st

Chapter 2. State of the art

( A cos , u , ) cos d = x cos f st

Equations (2.53) and (2.54) then become:

are also normalized by A:

Chapter 2. State of the art

It has been shown (Caughley 1960) that:

xst 1 A 2 = 2 2 * 2 1 u * + (1 u ) u sin 2 * xst u sin A 2 (2.64)

for A 1 for A > 1

Chapter 2. State of the art

Chapter 2. State of the art

a Ein xa } [ M ]{r } dxg ( t ) ( t ) = { T

( A cos , u , ) cos = x cos ( + ( ) ) sin ( ) + 2 A ( ) sin cos + f A st