Sei sulla pagina 1di 14
SAMPLE NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS REPORT

SAMPLE

NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS REPORT

SAMPLE NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS REPORT
SAMPLE NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS REPORT
SAMPLE NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS REPORT
Project Description The project structure is a seven story, reinforced concrete moment frame. The lateral

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 north-south direction and four parallel frames, two of which consist of a single bay, in the east-west direction. In addition to the moment frame, gravity frames are distributed throughout the structure and run primarily in the north-south direction with several transfer frames in the east-west 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 FEMA-356, Prestandard and Commentary for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEMA-356 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 load-deformation curve is determined from the model considering the nonlinear behavior, including yielding, cracking, strength loss (if any), and P-D 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, bi-direction 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 chord-rotation model outlined in FEMA-356. 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

due to pure moment (beams) or due to the interaction of axial force and biaxial bending

Page 1 of 13

due to pure moment (beams) or due to the interaction of axial force and biaxial bending
due to pure moment (beams) or due to the interaction of axial force and biaxial bending
somewhat simplified representation of the beam or column behavior, the FEMA-type model is generally sufficiently

somewhat simplified representation of the beam or column behavior, the FEMA-type 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 chord-rotation model outlined in FEMA-356, with stiffness and strength properties based on the material properties and section geometry. Section strengths are taken equal to the ACI-318 specified values and section stiffness properties are taken as outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Effective Stiffness Values (from FEMA-356).

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 force-deformation 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 moment-rotation relationships are assumed to be elastic-perfectly plastic. A summary of the component properties is given in Appendix A.

summary of the component properties is given in Appendix A. Figure 1. Generalized Force-Deformation Relationship for

Figure 1. Generalized Force-Deformation Relationship for Concrete Components.

is given in Appendix A. Figure 1. Generalized Force-Deformation Relationship for Concrete Components. Page 2 of

Page 2 of 13

is given in Appendix A. Figure 1. Generalized Force-Deformation Relationship for Concrete Components. Page 2 of
is given in Appendix A. Figure 1. Generalized Force-Deformation Relationship for Concrete Components. Page 2 of
Strength Sections : Axial compression in columns is controlled by strength rather than ductility. In

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 strength-controlled 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, site-specific 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.

project site we obtain C C a v = = 0.528 1.024 . The resulting design

Page 3 of 13

project site we obtain C C a v = = 0.528 1.024 . The resulting design
project site we obtain C C a v = = 0.528 1.024 . The resulting design
Figure 2. Design Response Spectrum. In addition, static pushover load patterns must be defined in
Figure 2. Design Response Spectrum. In addition, static pushover load patterns must be defined in

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 north-south and east-west records from the El Centro earthquake were chosen with east-west 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.

of the allowable end rotations, assuming all elements are primary for gravity loads, is given in

Page 4 of 13

of the allowable end rotations, assuming all elements are primary for gravity loads, is given in
of the allowable end rotations, assuming all elements are primary for gravity loads, is given in
Table 2. Acceptance Criteria per FEMA-356. Plastic Hinge Rotation (radians) Performance Level Component IO LS

Table 2. Acceptance Criteria per FEMA-356.

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 Ground-5 Moment Resisting Frame Columns, Levels 6-Roof Gravity Frame Columns, Levels Ground-4 Gravity Frame Columns, Levels 5-Roof Transfer Frame Columns, Levels Ground-5 Transfer Frame Columns, Levels 6-Roof

.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.

Deformation-based 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. Strength-based 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 push-over 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 push-over 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.

and preliminary displacements are not equal a new bilinear curve is generated and the process continues.

Page 5 of 13

and preliminary displacements are not equal a new bilinear curve is generated and the process continues.
and preliminary displacements are not equal a new bilinear curve is generated and the process continues.
The area above and below the approximate curve should be equal and the bilinear curve

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.

met, but the areas above and below the curve are not equal. Figure 3. Target displacement

Figure 3. Target displacement plot based on approximately equal areas.

and below the curve are not equal. Figure 3. Target displacement plot based on approximately equal

Page 6 of 13

and below the curve are not equal. Figure 3. Target displacement plot based on approximately equal
and below the curve are not equal. Figure 3. Target displacement plot based on approximately equal
Figure 4. Target displacement plot based on matching the initial secant stiffness at 60% of
Figure 4. Target displacement plot based on matching the initial secant stiffness at 60% of

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 strength-based 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.

state is just exceeded (1.04 for the moment resisting columns), and the strength limit state is

Page 7 of 13

state is just exceeded (1.04 for the moment resisting columns), and the strength limit state is
state is just exceeded (1.04 for the moment resisting columns), and the strength limit state is
Figure 5. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic procedure showing all limit states. Figure 6.
Figure 5. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic procedure showing all limit states. Figure 6.
Figure 5. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic procedure showing all limit states. Figure 6.
Figure 5.
Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic procedure showing all limit states.
Figure 6.
Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only life safety-level limit
states.
Figure 6. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only life safety-level limit states. Page

Page 8 of 13

Figure 6. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only life safety-level limit states. Page
Figure 6. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only life safety-level limit states. Page
Figure 7. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only strength-based limit states. While
Figure 7. Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only strength-based limit states. While

Figure 7.

Usage ratio plot for nonlinear dynamic analysis showing only strength-based 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.

any limit state. A handful of other elements have reached between 70 and 100% of the

Page 9 of 13

any limit state. A handful of other elements have reached between 70 and 100% of the
any limit state. A handful of other elements have reached between 70 and 100% of the
Figure 8. Deflected shape plot at end of nonlinear dynamic analysis showing the element-by- element
Figure 8. Deflected shape plot at end of nonlinear dynamic analysis showing the element-by- element
Figure 8. Deflected shape plot at end of nonlinear dynamic analysis showing the element-by- element
Figure 8.
Deflected shape plot at end of nonlinear dynamic analysis showing the element-by-
element maximum usage ratio for all limit states.
Figure 9.
Deflected shape plot at end of nonlinear dynamic analysis showing the element-by-
element maximum usage ratio for the life safety limit state.
dynamic analysis showing the element-by- element maximum usage ratio for the life safety limit state. Page

Page 10 of 13

dynamic analysis showing the element-by- element maximum usage ratio for the life safety limit state. Page
dynamic analysis showing the element-by- element maximum usage ratio for the life safety limit state. Page
The situation is similar for the life safety level limit state as shown in Figure

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 FEMA-356. 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.

and that minor revisions to the structure would allow it to pass the code requirements for

Page 11 of 13

and that minor revisions to the structure would allow it to pass the code requirements for
and that minor revisions to the structure would allow it to pass the code requirements for
Appendix A – Component Properties Beam Properties Component A g (in 2 ) I m

Appendix A – Component Properties

Beam Properties

Component

A g (in 2 )

I major (in 4 )

E c (ksi)

M y (k-in)

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

 

+11,592

Transfer Girders

840

42,875

3281

-14,892

Column Stiffness Properties

Component

A g (in 2 )

I major (in 4 )

I minor (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

3605 Gravity 576 13,824 13,824 4031 Transfer 720 27,000 17,280 4031 Page 12 of 13

Page 12 of 13

3605 Gravity 576 13,824 13,824 4031 Transfer 720 27,000 17,280 4031 Page 12 of 13
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)

Column Strength Properties

 

Axial Only

Balance Point

Bending Only

Component

C

(k)

T

(k)

P

(k)

M

2

(k-in)

M

3

(k-in)

M

2

(k-in)

M

3

(k-in)

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

988 3525 3525 9084 9084 Transfer 3240 433 1234 4409 5508 11,364 14,196 Page 13 of

Page 13 of 13

988 3525 3525 9084 9084 Transfer 3240 433 1234 4409 5508 11,364 14,196 Page 13 of
988 3525 3525 9084 9084 Transfer 3240 433 1234 4409 5508 11,364 14,196 Page 13 of