SAMPLE
NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Project Description
The project structure is a seven story, reinforced concrete moment frame. The lateral load resisting system consists of two parallel frames in the northsouth direction and four parallel frames, two of which consist of a single bay, in the eastwest direction. In addition to the moment frame, gravity frames are distributed throughout the structure and run primarily in the northsouth direction with several transfer frames in the eastwest direction.
Analysis Basis
Governing Documents: The design is governed by the 2001 California Building Code (CBC). However, the code provides little guidance for nonlinear analysis. Therefore, extensive use is made of FEMA356, Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA356 provides guidelines for selecting component properties, including nonlinear force deformation characteristics and acceptance criteria. In addition, a nonlinear static analysis procedure is detailed in the FEMA document, along with details of the nonlinear dynamic analysis procedure specified by the CBC.
Analysis Procedures: The analysis was performed using two different procedures, the nonlinear static procedure (NSP) and the nonlinear dynamic procedure (NDP). The NSP is a pushover analysis wherein the basic lateral loaddeformation curve is determined from the model considering the nonlinear behavior, including yielding, cracking, strength loss (if any), and PD effects. A target displacement is then calculated based on the ground motion spectra for the site. This displacement is meant to represent the maximum displacement that will be experienced by the structure for the design basis earthquake. The acceptance criteria are compared to the structure response at the target displacement level. If the structure response quantities (member forces, nonlinear deformations, drifts, etc.) are below the acceptable values then the structure is considered to have adequate lateral capacity. Earthquake motion in two orthogonal directions, including combined motions, must be analyzed.
The second procedure (NDP) involves running full nonlinear dynamic analyses of the structure for at least three ground motions. Again, bidirection motion must be considered. The maximum value of each response quantity from all of the analyses is determined and compared to the acceptance criteria.
Model Details
The parking structure is modeled as a collection of beams and columns. The floor slabs are assumed to be rigid, as is the foundation. This section outlines the choices made in modeling of the structure.
Component Modeling: The beams and columns are modeled using the chordrotation model outlined in FEMA356. This model assumes a plastic hinge can form at each end of the element and that there is an inflection point at midspan. The hinges can form due to pure moment (beams) or due to the interaction of axial force and biaxial bending (columns). Although a
Page 1 of 13
somewhat simplified representation of the beam or column behavior, the FEMAtype model is generally sufficiently accurate for most structures and loading conditions, and has the great advantage of having recommendations for the strength, stiffness, and failure properties. The recommendations require that for concrete frames the panel zones are assumed rigid.
Component Properties: The component properties are based on recommendations in FEMA 356. The moment resisting frame beams and columns, gravity frame beams and columns, and transfer frame girders and columns are explicitly modeled as nonlinear elements. Each component is modeled using the chordrotation model outlined in FEMA356, with stiffness and strength properties based on the material properties and section geometry. Section strengths are taken equal to the ACI318 specified values and section stiffness properties are taken as outlined in Table 1.
Table 1. Effective Stiffness Values (from FEMA356).
Component
Flexural Rigidity
Shear Rigidity
Axial Rigidity
Beams
Columns,
Columns,
P
P
> 0.5A f ¢
< 0.3A
f ¢
g
g
c
c
0.5E I 0.4E A 
 

c g c 
w 

0.7E I c g 0.4E A c 
w 
E A c 
g 
0.5E I 0.4E A 
E A 

c g c 
w 
s 
s 
The nonlinear behavior is assumed to be ductile. The basic forcedeformation curve is shown in Figure 1. Since no element is allowed to deform beyond the ductile limit and still meet the acceptance criteria, no strength loss is modeled and all momentrotation relationships are assumed to be elasticperfectly plastic. A summary of the component properties is given in Appendix A.
Figure 1. Generalized ForceDeformation Relationship for Concrete Components.
Page 2 of 13
Strength Sections: Axial compression in columns is controlled by strength rather than ductility. In order to monitor the axial loads on the columns and to flag compression in excess of allowable, axial strength sections were added to the column definitions. There is only one damage level for strengthcontrolled components.
Structure Sections: The story shear can be obtained using structure sections. All of the columns
at a story are included in the section, and the shear force at the base of each column is summed to
give the total story shear. Structure sections were defined for shear in each direction at every
story.
Mass and Gravity Loads: The mass and dead load were obtained from the RAMFrame model supplied by the Structural Engineer of Record. The loads included the self weight of the members plus the additional dead load due to the members that were not modeled. Both distributed loads on the elements and concentrated loads at the nodes were used to completely model the dead load. All mass was assumed to be lumped at the center of mass, offset by code defined distances to account for accidental torsion. No live load information was provided and hence live loads were not included for this analysis, but typically 25% of the live load is applied prior to performing the lateral load analyses.
Seismic Loads: The project was placed on hold at the point where seismic analyses were to be performed. Therefore, sitespecific earthquake loads were not obtained. However, in order to demonstrate how the analysis would be completed, seismic loads were assumed using a procedure similar to that required by the code and guidelines. Two types of seismic loads are required  spectral and time history.
A design response spectrum is required for the Target Displacement method described in FEMA
356 and a general spectrum for seismic loads is specified in the CBC and will be used for the NSP. Values for C _{a} and C _{v} , acceleration and velocity seismic coefficients respectively, are required. Assuming Seismic Zone 4, Soil Profile Type S _{D} , and Seismic Source Type A located 5 km from the project site we obtain
C
C
a
v
=
=
0.528
1.024
.
The resulting design response spectrum is shown in Figure 2.
Page 3 of 13
Figure 2. Design Response Spectrum.
In addition, static pushover load patterns must be defined in order to calculate the lateral load drift relationship. Several load patterns are required by code including a uniform (proportional to mass) vertical distribution and a distribution more closely approximating the first mode shape (essentially triangular). Only the uniform load distribution was used for this analysis.
Earthquake time histories are required for the NDP. Normally, these would be obtained from the Geotechnical Engineer and would be either generated specifically for the project site or derived from existing earthquake records by scaling both the acceleration and time axes to match the design response spectrum. For this sample calculation, the northsouth and eastwest records from the El Centro earthquake were chosen with eastwest record scaled to 30% of the original accelerations.
Acceptance Criteria:
Three levels of earthquake protection are outlined in the FEMA guidelines, immediate occupancy (IO), life safety (LS), and collapse prevention (CP). All three levels are included in this analysis model, but it is likely that the LS level would be required for the project. The acceptance criteria for all beam and column components are based on the plastic rotation at the ends of the members. The allowable rotations are based on the transverse reinforcement and level of shear in both the beams and columns. In addition, the beam allowable rotations consider the amount of longitudinal reinforcement and the column allowable rotation is dependent upon the axial load. A summary of the allowable end rotations, assuming all elements are primary for gravity loads, is given in Table 2.
Page 4 of 13
Table 2. Acceptance Criteria per FEMA356.
Plastic Hinge Rotation (radians) Performance Level
Component 
IO 
LS 
CP 
Moment Resisting Frame Beams Gravity Frame Beams Transfer Frame Girders Moment Resisting Frame Columns, Levels Ground5 Moment Resisting Frame Columns, Levels 6Roof Gravity Frame Columns, Levels Ground4 Gravity Frame Columns, Levels 5Roof Transfer Frame Columns, Levels Ground5 Transfer Frame Columns, Levels 6Roof 
.010 
.020 
.025 
.010 
.020 
.025 

.010 
.020 
.025 

.005 
.012 
.016 

.005 
.015 
.020 

.005 
.012 
.016 

.005 
.015 
.020 

.005 
.012 
.016 

.005 
.015 
.020 
Limit States: Defining limit states can mean the difference between an analysis whose results are easy to interpret and having just a series of numbers that must be further investigated. As such, multiple limit states were defined to allow quick identification of the critical elements and these states were grouped together to give an immediate overview of the response in relation to the acceptance criteria. Of particular importance in this analysis were the life safety level limit states.
Deformationbased limit states were defined for the immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention damage levels for the moment resisting beams and columns, gravity beams and columns, and transfer girders and columns. Strengthbased limit states were defined for each of the column types, giving a total of 21 basic limit states. Since the life safety level limit states are of primary importance they were grouped together for easy reference.
Analysis Results
The analysis results for both the nonlinear static and dynamic procedures are presented in this section.
Nonlinear Static Procedure: The Target Displacement method is used to evaluate the pushover analysis results. In this procedure a “target displacement”, meant to approximate the maximum displacement expected during an actual earthquake, is calculated using the site response spectra and some information about the structure. In this case Type 2 framing was assumed (better structural performance – appropriate for moment frames) along with a life safety performance level. The actual target displacement calculation is an iterative process. A preliminary target displacement is chosen and a bilinear approximation of the pushover curve is generated. Based on the approximate curve the target displacement is calculated. If the calculated and preliminary displacements are not equal a new bilinear curve is generated and the process continues.
Page 5 of 13
The area above and below the approximate curve should be equal and the bilinear curve should intersect the actual curve at a strength equal to 60% of the effective yield strength, as defined by the break in the bilinear curve. In practice it is often impossible to meet both of these criteria and considerable judgment must be applied. Figure 3 illustrates one possible solution wherein the areas are approximately equal but the strength at the intersection point is 80% of the effective yield. Similarly, Figure 4 shows a solution where the 60% strength guideline is met, but the areas above and below the curve are not equal.
Figure 3. Target displacement plot based on approximately equal areas.
Page 6 of 13
Figure 4.
Target displacement plot based on matching the initial secant stiffness at 60% of the effective yield strength.
In both of the target displacement plots the structure has failed to meet the acceptance criteria. The maximum expected displacement is larger than the displacements at which the limit states are met as indicated by the vertical red lines on the pushover curves. All of the limit states are exceeded in Figure 3 while all limit states except collapse prevention for the beams are exceeded in Figure 4.
Nonlinear Dynamic Procedure: A large number of response quantities are calculated at each step for all of the elements in the model. Making use of limit states allows us to easily interpret the results relative to the acceptance criteria using only a few basic plots. The Usage Ratio plot shows the fraction of the allowable value of each limit state that is obtained at each step of the analysis. Any usage ratio that exceeds 1.0 has failed to meet the criteria. This plot presents a simple pass/fail representation of the analysis results and lets the user determine which limit states are of concern. In order to obtain detailed information about the specific elements that have failed the displaced shape plot is used. This plot shows, on the deflected shape of the structure, exactly which elements have exceeded the limit states that have been chosen for display.
The usage ratio plots showing the ratios for all limit states, only life safety level limit states, and only strengthbased limit states are shown in Figures 5 through 7 respectively. The results indicate that the immediate occupancy limit state are greatly exceeded (usage ratio approximately 2.5 for the moment resisting columns), the life safety limit state is just exceeded (1.04 for the moment resisting columns), and the strength limit state is not exceeded.
Page 7 of 13
Page 8 of 13
Figure 7.
Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only strengthbased limit states.
While the usage ratios give a quick overall snapshot of the structure performance they do not indicate if the damage is widespread or localized. Figure 8 shows the maximum usage ratio in each element for all limit states. The usage ratio is color coded with red indicating a value greater than 1.0. Although the maximum usage ratio is large, only four elements, all at the south end of the structure, have exceeded any limit state. A handful of other elements have reached between 70 and 100% of the allowable deformations.
Page 9 of 13
Page 10 of 13
The situation is similar for the life safety level limit state as shown in Figure 9. In this case only
a single element has exceeded the allowable end rotation with one other element above 70%
utilization of the capacity. It is likely that, with only minor revision, the structure would be acceptable for the applied earthquake load.
Conclusions
The structure was modeled for nonlinear seismic analysis according to the California Building Code requirements and guidelines from FEMA356. All significant nonlinear modes of behavior were modeled using appropriate elements and member properties as required. Limit states for immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention damage levels were chosen in accordance with FEMA guidelines.
The results presented in this report are those that are most useful for determining the adequacy of
a design. Much additional information is available in RAM Perform including time histories of
displacements and element forces and hysteresis loops. However, while these plots are of interest to researchers and can help provide insight into the actual behavior, their usefulness in design is limited.
Although the project was halted before final results could be obtained, seismic loads corresponding roughly to those expected at the site were generated and analysis results were produced. The nonlinear static procedure indicated that the structure was not adequate for the seismic loads. The target displacement method used in the NSP does not allow for determining the extent of damage that exceeds the acceptance criteria, but merely the presence of at least one member that has not met the requirements. The nonlinear dynamic procedure also indicated that the structure was not acceptable, but further examination of the results showed that only a single member failed to meet the life safety level acceptance criteria and that minor revisions to the structure would allow it to pass the code requirements for the applied load.
Page 11 of 13
Appendix A – Component Properties
Beam Properties
Component 
A _{g} (in ^{2} ) 
I _{m}_{a}_{j}_{o}_{r} (in ^{4} ) 
E _{c} (ksi) 
M _{y} (kin) 
Grid 6 – Ground Level Grid 6 – Level 2 Grid 6 – Level 3 Grid 6 – Level 4 Grid 6 – Level 5 Grid 6 – Level 6 and Roof 
1152 
110,590 
3281 
±13,572 
1152 
110,590 
3281 
±20,340 

1152 
110,590 
3281 
±18,336 

1152 
110,590 
3281 
±15,168 

1152 
110,590 
3281 
±12,216 

1152 
110,590 
3281 
±8772 

Grid 7, 15, 16 – Ground Level Grid 7, 15, 16 –Level 2 Grid 7, 15, 16 –Level 3 Grid 7, 15, 16 –Level 4 Grid 7, 15, 16 –Level 5 Grid 7, 15, 16 –Level 6 and Roof 
1274 
127,460 
3605 
±12,240 
1274 
127,460 
3605 
±18,240 

1274 
127,460 
3605 
±16,560 

1274 
127,460 
3605 
±13,920 

1274 
127,460 
3605 
±11,280 

1274 
127,460 
3605 
±8160 

Grid E, H – Ground Level Grid E, H –Level 2 Grid E, H –Level 3 Grid E, H –Level 4 Grid E, H –Levels 5, 6, and Roof 
980 
98,040 
3605 
±9240 
980 
98,040 
3605 
±14,280 

980 
98,040 
3605 
±12,600 

980 
98,040 
3605 
±10,080 

980 
98,040 
3605 
±8160 

+3948 

Gravity Beams 
525 
26,797 
3281 
13,872 
^{+}^{1}^{1}^{,}^{5}^{9}^{2} 

Transfer Girders 
840 
42,875 
3281 
14,892 
Column Stiffness Properties 

Component 
A _{g} (in ^{2} ) 
I _{m}_{a}_{j}_{o}_{r} (in ^{4} ) 
I _{m}_{i}_{n}_{o}_{r} (in ^{4} ) 
E _{c} (ksi) 
Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 
1260 
92,610 
47,250 
3605 
Grid E, H 
864 
46,656 
20,736 
3605 
Gravity 
576 
13,824 
13,824 
4031 
Transfer 
720 
27,000 
17,280 
4031 
Page 12 of 13
Column Strength Properties
Axial Only 
Balance Point 
Bending Only 

Component 
C (k) 
T (k) 
P (k) 
M 2 (kin) 
M 3 (kin) 
M 2 (kin) 
M 3 (kin) 
Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 – Ground Level Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 – Levels 2 and 3 Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 – Level 4 and 5 Grid 6, 7, 15, 16 – Level 6 and Roof 
4536 
1440 
1800 
16,794 
23,515 
26,448 37,032 

4536 
1210 
1800 
13,861 
19,398 
24,840 34,764 

4536 
910 
1800 
11,771 
16,461 
22,680 31,716 

4536 
756 
1800 
12,442 
17,398 
21,600 30,204 

Grid E, H –Levels Ground, 2, and 3 Grid E, H –Levels 4 and 5 Grid E, H –Levels 6, and Roof 
3110 
1037 
1234 
9669 
14504 
14,808 22,212 

3110 
726 
1234 
6907 
10,360 
13,032 19,548 

3110 
518 
1234 
5294 
7944 
11,844 17,772 

Gravity 
2592 
346 
988 
3525 
3525 
9084 
9084 
Transfer 
3240 
433 
1234 
4409 
5508 
11,364 14,196 
Page 13 of 13
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.