Sei sulla pagina 1di 70

Univeris delgi

studi di Pavia

EUCENTRE

RELUIS Linea di ricerca N.4


July 2007 Meeting
Roma
3 Luglio 2007

12 unit di ricerca
Task
1

Argomento
Principi, aspetti generali, azione

UR
Pavia

2
3

Bologna
Ferrara

Strutture in calcestruzzo, a telaio


Strutture in calcestruzzo, a pareti e
miste
Strutture prefabbricate

Brescia

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Struttura in muratura
Strutture in acciaio
Strutture miste acciaio calcestruzzo
Strutture in legno
Ponti esistenti e di nuova costruzione
Strutture sismicamente isolate
Fondazioni superficiali e profonde
Strutture di sostegno

Genova
Napoli
Benevento
Trento
Milano Poli
Basilicata
Milano Poli
Perugia

Review of programme LINEA IV


1 ANNO

Definition of
general aspects
Definition of
specific aspects
Selection of case
studies
Design using
traditional
methods
Design using
displacementdisplacementbased methods
NonNon-linear timetimehistory analyses
Identification and
discussion of
issues
Specific
improvements to
the displacement
based method
ReRe-design and
verification
Development of
specific
guidelines
Development of a
model code and
general
commentary

2 ANNO

3 ANNO

DDBD fundamentals
me

Fu

Fn

rK i

Ki

he

Ke

y
(a) SDOF Simulation
60

(b) Effective Stiffness K e

40
Concrete Frame

20
Unbonded Prestressing

Displacement (m)

Steel Frame

Damping (%)

5%

0.5

Elasto-Plastic

0.4

10%

0.3

15%
20%
30%

0.2

0.1
Te

0
1

Displacement Ductility
(c) Equivalent damping vs. ductility

Period (seconds)
(d) Design Displacement Spectra

Sviluppo del progetto

1.

STRUTTURE CONSIDERATE

(progettate secondo la procedura DDBD)

Strutture a telaio in c.a. a differente


numero di piani e campate (in
particolare, da 1 a 6 piani e da 1 a 3
campate);
I materiali sono quelli comunemente
utilizzati
nella
pratica
corrente
(calcestruzzo Rck 300 ed acciaio Fe b
44 k;

Analisi dinamiche non lineari


Telaio 36 - Sintesi dei risultati

Nelle due figure seguenti sono sovrapposti i valori medi degli inviluppi degli
spostamenti e degli interstory drift ottenuti per 4 diversi gruppi di sismi.
altezza della struttura [cm]
2000

n piano

Inviluppo spostamenti massimi assoluti

Inviluppo drift massimi

1800
5

1600

1400
4

1200

1000

800
2

600

400

Sismi tipo 2 - ag = 0.35

Sismi tipo 2 - ag = 0.35

Sismi tipo 1.1 - ag = 0.35

Sismi tipo 1.1 - ag = 0.35

Sismi tipo 1.2 - ag = 0.35

Sismi tipo 1.2 - ag = 0.35

Sismi con Te>4s - ag = 0.35

Sismi con Te>4s - ag = 0.35

200

Sismi tipo 2 - ag = 0.50

Sismi tipo 2 - ag = 0.50


0

50

100

150

200

Spostamento orizzontale [mm]

250

300

0.5

1.5

Drift di piano [%]

2.5

3.5

Research Unit 3: RC Walls & Mixed

20 storey case study wall


structure examined.
Force-Based Design and
Displacement Based Design
undertaken.
Non-linear time-history
analyses undertaken to
consider performance.
Capacity design implications
considered.

Snellezza del muro h/l = 10,7

RU 3: Risultati - FBD
An. Dinamica (3 acc. Naturali)
An. Dinamica (7 acc. Naturali)
An. Dinamica (3 acc. Artificiali)
An. Dinamica (7 acc. Artificiali)
Approccio agli spostamenti
Amplificazione dinamica

60
50
Altezza [m]

40
30

25
Valori di duttilit [-]

70

20
15
10
5
0

20

3
4
5
Accelerogrammi artificiali
Duttilit richiesta
Duttilit richiesta media

10

Duttilit disponibile

0
0

10000

20000
30000
Momento [kNm]

40000

50000

70
An. Dinamica (3 acc. Naturali)
An. Dinamica (7 acc. Naturali)
An. Dinamica (3 acc. Artificiali)
An. Dinamica (7 acc. Artificiali)
Approccio agli spostamenti
Amplificazione dinamica

60

Altezza [m]

50

Confronto tra la duttilit richiesta dalla


serie di 7 accelerogrammi artificiali, la
duttilit richiesta media e la duttilit
disponibile calcolata con approccio alle
forze per CDA

40
30
20

FBD drifts not reported!!!

10
0
0

1000

2000

3000
Taglio [kN]

4000

5000

Valori di duttilit [-]

RU 3: Risultati - DBD

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1

Duttilit richiesta

3
4
5
Accelerogrammi artificiali
Duttilit richiesta media

Duttilit disponibile

Confronto tra la duttilit richiesta dalla serie


di 7 accelerogrammi artificiali, la duttilit
richiesta media e la duttilit disponibile
calcolata con approccio agli spostamenti

RU 3: CONFRONTI CON DIVERSI PROGRAMMI DI


CALCOLO

Again design drift


appears to be
around 1.5%

Research Unit 4: Pre-cast structures


Definition of typical Italian precast concrete building layouts
Three different case studies:

elements

2. One storey PC building


with omega roof
elements

3. One storey PC building


with precast concrete
columns and long span
wood beams

8,40 m

750

1. One storey PC building


with double tee roof

0,00 m

Prof. Paolo RIVA


Ing. Andrea BELLERI

Unit di ricerca N.4


STRUTTURE PREFABBRICATE
RESEARCH PHASE DEFINITION

1.

d
M=Me

h=he
Ke,

Columns fixed at
the base and
pinned at the top,
the foundation
flexibility is not
taken into account.

2.

M=Me
h=he

K e,

As in phase 1 but
considering the
effect of foundation
flexibility

Kfoundation

3.

M=Me
h=he

4.

K e,

Kfoundation

Take into account the


different types of base
connection (pocket
foundation, grouted
sleeves);
foundation flexibility
taken into account

M
Me

h
he

K e,

Kfoundation

Considering the
effect of changing
the inflection point
along the column
due to the
presence of
column to beam
connections.

Unit di ricerca N.4


STRUTTURE PREFABBRICATE

Prof. Paolo RIVA


Ing. Andrea BELLERI

COLUMN TO FOUNDATION CONNECTIONS


PF

Planned to use experimental results to calibrate the parameters of the


hysteresis rule that will be used in the Finite Element analyses to validate
the DDBD procedure .

Section B-B

40

40
24

5
6

8 L=130

St. 16/10 L=250

St. 16/10 L=330

22 L=195

26 L=171

18 L=371

10

PF

Grout
EMACO S55

St. 8/10 L=166

22 L=72

Force-Drift
100

75

Lateral force (kN)

50

P-
25

0
-8

-7

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0
-25

-50

-75

Theoretical yield
-100

Drift (%)

Unit di ricerca N.4


STRUTTURE PREFABBRICATE

Prof. Paolo RIVA


Ing. Andrea BELLERI

FUTURE EFFORTS
1. Define a parametric procedure to determine the true column
point of inflection (due to the presence of top connections).
2. Model the behaviour of different types of column to foundation
connection.
3. Take into account foundation flexibility.
4. Define the DDBD procedure to take into account different
column to base connection types and validate it by means of
time history analyses.
5. Analyse the other case studies.
6. Continue the experimental survey.

Research Unit 5: Masonry structures


Displacement

and energy dissipation considered.


Case study structures under examination.

430

330

1200

330

330

RU5: Case Study structure 1


New Construction

2060

Principal
elevation
PLAN
(ground
storey)

RU5: Case Study structure 2


Existing Construction
existing solid block
a

is a(ground
section
of an
Structure
PLAN
storey)
+0.26

128

127

236

203

CAMERA

CAMERA
(h putrella=0000)
(h voltino=00000)

305

CAMERA

97

(h =340)
(h sotto trave=314)

230

110
260

117
223

120
298

225
260

masonry building.
Building has undergone changes with time and
possesses several weak elements and irregular
characteristics.
(h =340)
(h sotto trave=315

209

102

a=14

p= 30

208

129

+0.33

ANDRONE
(h chiave=348)
(h imposta=291)

230

0.00

385

203

CAMERA
(h =325)
(h trave=300)

108

210

a= 17.5

230

108
213

CAMERA
(h =345)
(h sotto trave=324)
CAMERA

180

360

180

110
177

230

112
179

110
181

CAMERA
(h =350)
(h sotto trave=312)

200

1150

Elevation of structural wall


a

Transverse section

182
330

200
320

(h =345)
(h sotto trave=324)

1160

470

CAMERA
(h chiave=346)
(h imposta=244)

Research Unit 6: Steel structures

Various displacement considerations and relations have


been developed for different frame configurations.
A trial DBD method has been developed for bucklingrestrained brace (BRB), moment resisting frame (MRF)
type structures and now concentrically braced frame (CBF)
structures.
Recent work has concentrated on design of CBF systems.
5 & 10-storey case study structures have been designed
and methodology performance assessed.

RU6: CBF considerations


Individual brace response:
r = a + b c

F = 2.4 + 8.3

KL
r

tens

Fy
E

c F 1
=
= ( 2.4 + 8.3 )
y
2 2
comp

Typical Pushover
Vb

Possible
target point

Tension brace yielding

Ultimate state (max


compression brace
ductility)

Compression brace
buckling

ueff

RU6: Displacement contributions

i,d =

vi,dr vi,dl
L

2 br,i,d
sen 2 i

vb,i,d
hi

r
l
vb,i,d c,i,d
+ c,i,d
br,i,d + 2
+
2
hi

tg i +

r
l
c,i,d
+ c,i,d

2
sen i = i,d y

tg i

Storey drift components: column


axial deformations, brace axial
deformations and beam mid-span
deflection.

Relation between strain quantities


and brace ductility.

RU6: Case study


applications

10
9
8

3500

3500

3500
3500
3500
3500

Floor

3500

10 storey structure
Results for accurate
iterative method

Target
RHA Average
2s_R1
2s_R2
2s_R3
2s_R4
2s_R5
2s_R6
2s_R7

5
4
3
2

3500

3500

0
0

4000

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

u i (m)
1200
1000

600
400

Design

200

Pushover with brittle braces

Floor

Vb (kN)

800

Actual pushover
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3
ud (m)

0.4

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

0.5

Tension

Compression

Target
Capacity
RHA
-15 -13 -11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

RU6: Case study


applications

10
9
8

3500

3500
3500
3500
3500
3500

10 storey structure
Results for simplified
method

Floor

3500

Target
RHA Average
2s_R1
2s_R2
2s_R3
2s_R4
2s_R5
2s_R6
2s_R7

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

3500

3500

0.1

0.2

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200

Design

100

Analysis

0
0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Floor

V b (KN)

0.4

0.5

u i (m)

4000

0.3

0.25

ueff (m)

Pushover with real sections and


residual strength for compression
diagonals at the design displacements

Compression

Tension

Target
Capacity
RHA
-15 -13 -11

-9

-7

-5

-3

-1

Research Unit 7: Composite


Structures

Case study structures described.


Force based-design carried out. Intended to verify design
using displacement-based assessment.
3D structure modelled in SAP2000.
Parameters expected to influence behaviour of structures
identified.

RU7: Case study structures


24,00

31,00

B 280
HEHE
B 280

IPE 300

3,50

HE B 320
HE B 320

IPE 450

6,00

B 280
HEHE
B 280
B 280
HEHE
B 280

3,50

IPE 300

HE B 320
HE B 320

IPE 300

B 320
HEHE
B 320

3,50
3,50

12

,5

6,00

IPE 300

IPE 300
IPE 450

B 280
HEHE
B 280

68
,3 x

3,50

IPE 450

IPE 300

2,5

IPE 300

3,50

,3
68

,5

24,00

IPE 450

32,00
32,00

12

IPE 300
IPE 450

HE B 320

IPE 450

B 280
HEHE
B 280

16
8,3
x

3,50

IPE 450
IPE 450

HE
B 320

HE B 320
HE B 320

,3
68

IPE 450
2,5

B 320
HEHE
B 320

x1

3,50

HE B 320

12

,5

HE B 280

6,00

IPE 300

IPE 300
IPE 450
3,50

68
,3 x

IPE 300

IPE 300

IPE 450
IPE 450
1

B 280
HEHE
B 280

,3
68

2,5

HE B 320
HE B 320

x1

B 320
HEHE
B 320

IPE 450
IPE 450
3,50

IPE 300

HE B 320

IPE 450

HE B 320

IPE 300

68
,3 x

12

,5

IPE 300
IPE 450

IPE 450

HE B 320

3,50

IPE 450
IPE 450

HE B 320

B 280
HEHE
B 280

,3
68

IPE 450

2,5

HE B 320
HE B 320

x1

HE
B 320
HE
B 320

HE B 320

3,50

IPE 450
IPE 450
HE B 320

IPE 450

HE B 320

IPE 450

2,90
2,90

3,05

HE B 320

HE B 320

IPE 450

,5

HE B 280

6,00

IPE 300

HE
280
HE
BB
280

12

IPE 300
IPE 450
3,50

68
,3 x

IPE 300

IPE 300

IPE 450
IPE 450
1

HE B 320
HE B 320

,3
68

2,5
x1

HE
320
HE
BB
320

3,50

IPE 300

IPE 450
IPE 450

HE B 320

HE B 320

IPE 450

2,90
2,90

3,05

HE B 320 IPE 300

HE B 280

IPE 300

8,3

x1

2,5

Y5

4,00

1
6

IPE 300

HE
320
IPE B
450

IPE 450

IPE 450
HE
280
HE
BB
280

,3
68

Y4

HE B 320
HE B 320

2,5
x1

IPE 450

HE IPE
B 320
450
HE
320
HE
BB
320

HE B 320

Y3

4,00

IPE 450
HE B IPE
320450 IPE 450

IPE
IPE
450450
HE B 320

3,55

HE B 320

Y2

3,40
3,40

IPE 300

HE B 280
0,00

2,5

HE B 320
HE B 320

x1

IPE 450
IPE 450

2,90
2,90

3,05

IPE 300
HE B 320

HE B 280
HE B 280

HE B 280

IPE 300

HE B 280

x1

IPE 450

IPE 450

HE B 320

HE B 320

IPE 450

2,90
2,90

3,05

HE B 320

HE B 280

HE B 320

HE B 320

IPE 450
IPE 450

HE B 280

HE B 280

HE B 280

IPE 300
IPE 450

HE B 320

IPE 450

+ 4,00

X1
Y1

9-storeys of 3.5m
(ground storey 4m)

+ 7,50

+ 4,00

2,5

+ 11,00

+ 7,50

IPE 450

,3
68

B 320
HEHE
B 320

IPE 300

HE B 320

HE B 320

2,90
2,90

3,05

HE BIPE
320300

HE B 280

IPE 450

HE B 280
HE B 280

IPE 450

HE B 280

IPE 450

IPE 450

x1

IPE 450

B 320
HEHE
B 320

IPE 300

X2

IPE 300
IPE 450

+ 14,50

+ 11,00

HE B 320

68,3

16
8B,3320
HE

IPE 450
IPE 450

IPE 450

+ 14,50

IPE 450

IPE 450

IPE 450

,5

HE B 320x 12 IPE 450

IPE 300
IPE 450

IPE 450

HE B 280

IPE 450

+ 18,00

+ 18,00

X3

,3
68

2,5

IPE 450
HE B 320

HE B 320

IPE 450

2,90
2,90

3,05

HE B 320

IPE 300

HE B 320
280

HE B 320

IPE 450

+ 21,50

+ 21,50

IPE 450

x1

IPE 450
IPE 450

HE B 320

HE B 280

HE B 280

HE B 320

68,3

7,00

IPE 300
IPE 450

IPE 450

IPE 450

IPE 300

HE B 320

HE B 320

2,90
2,90

3,05

300
HEIPE
B 320

HE B 280

IPE 300

HE B 280

IPE 450
IPE 450

IPE 300
IPE 450

x1
HE B 320
2,5

6,00

+ 25,00

+ 25,00

IPE 450

IPE 450

IPE 300

X4

2,5

,3
HE 1B68320

IPE 450
IPE 450

+ 28,50

+ 28,50

IPE 450

6,00
7,00

3,50

3,05

x1

3,50

IPE 450

IPE 450
HE B 320

HE B 320

5,00

IPE 450
HE B 320

IPE 450

6,00
IPE 450

HE B 320

HE B 280

X5
HE B 280

HE B 280

IPE 300

6,00
6,00

5,00

31,00

2,90
2,90

+ 32,00

7,00
IPE 450

6,00

+ 32,00

HE B 320
HE B 320

7,00

Pianta piano tipo

6,00

B 320
HEHE
B 320

6,00

HE B 280
Y6

0,00

Moment
resisting
frame
in longitudinal
direction
Braced
frames
inPLAN
transverse
direction

RU7: General design progress

HE B 320

20,5

IPE 450

14,6

Case study structures dimensioned using a force-based


design approach.
Lamiera grecata tipo
A 55/P 600 HI-BOND
t = 1.5 mm Fe 430 h =55 mm
P

600
88,5

55

420,8

450

320

279

61,5

150

20,5

300

14,6

190

Solaio composto
calcestruzzo-lamiera grecata

10,7

IPE 300

HE B 280

55

150

Rete elettrosaldata 10/25

18

600

R2
5

R1
5

278,6

300

7,1

Profilo circolare cavo


formato a caldo

18

244

10,5
280

16
8,
3

280
150
10,7

12,5

Research Unit 8: Timber Structures


Case

study structures selected & described.


Characteristics of timber joint studied important
deformation parameters obtained. Design
displacement considerations made.
Displacement-based design methodology
developing.
Monte-Carlo simulations to probabilistically
evaluate performance of case study structures
currently underway.

RU8: Portal frame case study

Radial joint behaviour


studied intended that
joints yield.

RU8: Displacement considerations

Yield displacement composed of deformations from joint


+ frame. This is added to acceptable plastic deformation
to give design displacement.

Yield characteristics of single bolt control system yield disp.


Strength of joint can be controlled (without significantly
changing yield displacement) by changing number of bolts.

RU8: Factors influencing target displacements

RU8: Factors influencing target displacements

Research Unit 9: New & existing


bridges

DDBD of regular concrete bridges. Comparison with force


based design. Verification with time history analyses.
DDBD of irregular concrete bridges. Comparison with force
based design. Verification with time history analyses.
DDBD of long span concrete bridges with limited ductile
piers and with/without in-plane movement joints.
Comparison with force based design. Verification with time
history analyses.

Activities of RU9 in the second year

Parametric study: regular bridges

H=7.5 m, 10 m, 12.5 m, 15 m

Activities of RU9 in the second year

Materials

Calcestruzzo
fc
40
Ec
30000
25
Wc
Acciaio
fy
455
Es
200000
43
dbl

[MPa]
[MPa]
[kN/m3]

Resistenza a compressione
Modulo elastico
Peso specifico

[MPa]
[MPa]
[mm]

Sforzo di snervamento
Modulo elastico
Diametro barre longitudinali

Abutmens: elastic behaviour, stiffness K=75000 kN/m, damping 8%,


displacement limit 100 mm
Deck: Iyy=44 m4

Pier diameter: from 2 m to 2.7 m


Pier design displacement limit:
4% of drift

Some results: regular bridge


H = 7.5 m
P1

P2

P3

A2

15.00

7.50

15.00

Mass[ton]
D

357
-

2.50
928
1.27

2.50
986
6.99

2.50
928
1.27

357
-

[%]

8.00

7.66

18.05

7.66

8.00

V [kN]

2223
75000

2432
36477
11825

4864
36477
16224

2432
36477
11825

2223
75000

A1

P1

P2

P3

A2

20.00

10.00

20.00

Mass[ton]
D

357
-

2.50
949
0.96

2.50
997
5.39

2.50
949
0.96

357
-

[%]

8.00

5.00

17.15

5.00

8.00

V [kN]

2800
75000

1660
33207
6094

3471
34709
8681

1660
33207
6094

2800
75000

A1

P1

P2

P3

A2

25.00

12.50

25.00

Mass[ton]
D

357
-

2.50
970
0.77

2.50
1007
4.38

2.50
970
0.77

357
-

[%]

8.00

5.00

16.31

5.00

8.00

V [kN]

3420
75000

885
22134
2603

2299
28737
4596

885
22134
2603

3420
75000

A1

P1

P2

P3

A2

30.00

15.00

30.00

Mass[ton]
D

357
-

2.50
991
0.64

2.50
1018
3.69

2.50
991
0.64

357
-

[%]

8.00

5.00

15.51

5.00

8.00

V [kN]

4006
75000

409
12282
1006

1273
19091
2120

409
12282
1006

4006
75000

H[m]
D[m]

M [kN*m]
Keff [kN/m]

1.2

Displacements [m]

A1

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Position [m]

SDOF parameters

H = 10.0 m

M [kN*m]
Keff [kN/m]

Displacements [m]

H[m]
D[m]

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

120

140

160

180

120

140

160

180

Position [m]

H =12.5 m

M [kN*m]
Keff [kN/m]

1.2

Displacements [m]

H[m]
D[m]

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0

20

40

60

80

100

Position [m]

H = 15.0 m

M [kN*m]
Keff [kN/m]

1.2

Displacements [m]

H[m]
D[m]

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0

Displacement Pattern

20

40

60

80

100

Position [m]

Limit Limit

Yield

H
sys
Dd
Meff
Teff
Keff
VB
SS

[m]
7.5
10
12.5
15
[%]
10.5
8.5
7.5
6.4
[m]
0.24
0.32 0.399 0.479
[ton]
2909 2948 2994 3039
[s]
1.4
1.73
2.08
2.38
[kN/m] 59005 38754 27313 21109
[kN]
14180 12394 10908 10101
[%]
31.4
45.2
62.7
79.3

Elastic Modal Superposition witha and w/o R

Effective and Modified Modal Superposition

Some results:
irregular bridge

H = 7.5 m
5

Moment [kN*m]

Moment [kN*m]

x 10

2
1
0

40

90

140
Position [m]

190

240

3
2
1
0

280

x 10

40

90

140
Position [m]

190

240

280

40

90

140
Position [m]

190

240

280

40

90

140
Position [m]

190

240

280

40

90

140
Position [m]

190

240

280

H = 10.0 m
5

Moment [kN*m]

Moment [kN*m]

x 10

2
1
0

40

90

140
Position [m]

190

240

3
2
1
0

280

x 10

H =12.5 m
5

Moment [kN*m]

Moment [kN*m]

x 10

2
1
0

40

90

140
Position [m]

190

240

3
2
1
0

280

x 10

H = 15.0 m
5

Moment [kN*m]

Moment [kN*m]

x 10

2
1
0

40

Design

90

140
Position [m]

190

THA Average

240

280

EMS with R

x 10

3
2
1
0

EMS no R

EffMS

MMS

Better moment
prediction when
using effectivestiffness modal
superposition
(EffMS)

VP,i

P,i
H P,i

Long span concrete bridges with limited ductile piers and with/without inplane movement joints
Bridge dimension and shape from real condition
significant irregularities in span and pier heights.

limited ductility,

Some different assumption in comparison previous analyses:


moment capacities are different at different pier bases. The distribution of
shear force is estimated by:

VP,i

P,i

(Ductile column)

H P,i
P ,i P ,i (Elastic column)
VP ,i
H P,i

P,i=moment capacity of ith pier


as a percentage of the moment
capacity of critical pier.

discretized pier elements with lumped masses have to be considered


Secant stiffness from:

E c I sec top

N 1

H 3 N 1 Fi h i2
= VB Fi
+
i =1

3 i =1 2

hi

H
3

3D fiber element model for non linear time-history analyses


Software: OPENSEES
version 1.7.3
(Fenves et al 2006)

A Revised Effective Modal Superposition is applied:


effective modal superposition with 5% damped acceleration spectrum is
used to estimate the abutment shear and deck transverse moment.
effective modal superposition with design displacement spectrum scaled
down by appropriate system damping is used to calculate the flexural
moment demand at the potential plastic hinge locations (when higher
modes are equally important as first inelastic mode)

Some results: bridge with in-plan movement joint


Deck properties
Second moment of area
Cross
sectional
(m4) about local
Z-axis
area (m2) X-axis Y-axis
19.24 10-set 297.44
647.4

Pier properties

Revised effective modal


superposition results
M
(MNm)
D
(rad/m)
(%)

Abut 1

Pier 1

Pier 2

Pier 3

Pier 4

Abut 2

---

570

470

440

390

---

-----

0.81x10-3 1.12x10-3 0.63x10-3 0.55x10-3


1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0

-----

FBD results
V (kN)
MN
(MNm)
(%)

Sectional
Dimension (m) along local
Y-axis
Z-axis thickness area (m2)
4
7
1.2
20.64
Second moment of area (m4)
X-axis
Y-axis
Z-axis
10-set
101.36
35.76

Substitute structure parameters

Abut 1
4850

Pier 1
29500

Pier 2
22500

Pier 3
16600

Pier 4
19400

Abut 2
3100

-----

1355
4

960
2.5

700
2.5

880
2.5

-----

sys (%)
8.93

sys (m)
0.726

Msys (Mt)
10230

Tsys(s)
4

Ksys (s)
25250

VB (kN)
18330

M (%)
39.08
SS (%)
12.70%

Research Unit 10: Structures with


passive control (isolation) devices
Tentative

displacement-based design methodology


for both isolated bridges and isolated buildings
proposed.
Building case study structure selected (4-storey RC
frame), bridge case study structure still being
decided on.
Different isolation systems listed & equivalent
viscous damping considered.
Some issues identified for further study.
Important phases of research listed.
Collaboration with other groups not requested.

Previous Activities of RU10

Implementation and verification of a DDBD procedure for BIBuildings

Discrepancies between DDBD predictions and NTHA results


0

5 00

1 000

1 5 00

2 000

Elasto-Plastic system (EP)


with r=1.5%

(mm)

700

600

700

SAPi

500

200

300

JPN

400

SAP2

500

600

STOREY SHEAR
FORCES

floor
3rd floor

400

SAP

SAPAV

300

200

200

SAP2000
100

Isolation
Systems

100

TLD

4th floor

400

300

ULD

600

base displ.
500

DDBD

(mm)

Case Study

1st floor

JPN
TLD

100

DDBD
0

2nd floor

150

40%

Dt/Dlim

ULD
DDBD

Isolator

2 00

60%

250

80%

Target Displacement/Limit Displacement (%)

3 00

100%
0

100

200

300

400

500

600
Shear (KN)

1. Rubber Devices (RD)

5. Steel-PTFE Sliding Bearings (SB) + RD

2. Added Damping RDs (ADRD)

6. SB + SMA devices with/out viscous dampers (VD)

3. Elasto-Plastic systems (EP)

7. Friction Pendulum Systems (FPS) with/out VD

4. Lead-Rubber Bearings (LRB)

8. SB + Steel Hysteretic Device (SHD)

Activities of RU10 in the second year


MOTIVATION: observation of appreciable discrepancies in terms of both max.
base displacement and max. storey shear forces between DDBD predictions
and NTHA results for some Isolation Systems
Evaluation of
enhanced
equivalent
static force
Distributions

PROPOSED
SOLUTIONS
Evaluation of
enhanced
damping ratios
&/or damping
reduction factors

Experimental
Numerical

Experimental Shaking table and PseudoDynamic Tests on different reducedscale Models of multi-storeys BIBuildings
NTHAs of 3-, 5-, 8-storey building Models
equipped with different ISs (SAP2000)

Same iterative procedure as in

Blandon and Priestley [2005]


FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS OF THE DDBD
PROCEDURE FOR BI-BUILDINGS

BI-buildings with inelastic superstructure

Activities of RU10 in the second year


Results of the study
Elasto-Plastic systems (EP)
1.25

1
0.9

=20

Ashour
Tolis Faccioli

ff

=10

f / i
f/
i

1.50

SSN
prEC8

0.8

FR-ESP

0.7

1.00

=30

0.75

=50

JPN
N-H

0.5

=40

0.50

CHINA

0.6

Wu Hanson

0.4

EC8

0.3

optim.
r=0 %

0.00
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

=60

i (%)

0.1

r=5 %
r=10 %

=70

70

10

20

30

40

50

SB + SMA devices without viscous dampers

60

70

1
0.9

1.50

1.00

Ashour

f/i

2.00

r=1.5 %
r=3 %

0.2

0.25

Tolis Faccioli

0.8

SSN

0.7

prEC8

0.6

FR-ESP
CHINA

0.5

JPN

0.4

0.50

0.00
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

N-H

0.3

Wu Hanson

0.2

EC8

0.1

40

Iter. Proc.

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

optim.
70

Activities of RU10 in the second year


Results of the study

Reviewed DDBD
DDBD

2.5 2.5

1.5

1.5

ERROR <10%
t

ERROR <15%

DAVmax(SAP)/D

2.5

SB + SMA devices without VD


3

DAVmax(SAP)/D

Elasto-Plastic systems (EP)

Reviewed DDBD
DDBD

1.5

2.5

1.5

exact predictions
1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0
Dy=10mm, r=1% Dy=20mm, r=0% Dy=10mm, r=1% Dy=15mm, r=3%
Dd/Dlim=40%
Dd/Dlim=60%
Dd/Dlim=60%
Dd/Dlim=60%

0
Dy=5mm, r=5% Dy=5mm, r=3% Dy=10mm, r=5% Dy=5mm, r=1%
b=0.5, FR=10% b=0.3, FR=5% b=0.5, FR=2.5% b=0.5, FR=2.5%
Dd/Dlim=40%
Dd/Dlim=60%
Dd/Dlim 80%
Dd/Dlim=100%

Forze statiche equivalenti Confronti sperimentali


345.0

90.0

S3
150.0

Pi=f( T2/T1, T1/Tf; Tis/Tf )

150.0

S2
90.0

mi ai
Fi = Vb
mi ai

Linear (e)

97.5

S1
Celle di carico

353.0

Bilinear (g)
Parabolic (f)

S0

Tavola Vibrante

0 0.5 1
a: experimental
b: uniform (ITA)
c: triangular (ITA/USA)
a
b

S3

d: trapezoidal (JPN)
e: linear
f: parabolic
b

d
e
f
g

S3

S2

d
e
f
g

S1
15

c
d
e

S3

c
e

30

S1
45

LDRB
PGA=0.54g;Tiso/Tbf=3.56

d
f
g
a

a
b
c
d
e
f
g
a
b
c
d
e
f
g

d
e
f
g
a
b

kN0

g: bilinear

f
g
a
b

S2

1.5 2 2.5

c
d

S2

e
g

a
b
c
d
e
f
g

S1
15

30

45 0

FSB+SHD
PGA=0.31g;Tiso/Tbf=4.26

15

30

45

FSB+SMA
PGA=0.54g;Tiso/Tbf=3.86

Research Unit 11: Deep & shallow foundations


Attivit svolta nel corso del secondo anno di ricerca
1. Simulazione numerica delle prove sperimentali eseguite
su tavola vibrante presso il PWRI, mediante il codice di
calcolo 4GL (Paolucci, 1997)
2. Calibrazione ed utilizzo del modello costitutivo SFCM, allo
scopo di creare abachi che descrivano il decadimento
della rigidezza e lincremento di smorzamento del sistema
terreno - fondazione

Simulazione delle prove sperimentali su tavola vibrante (PWRI)


Fondazione modello posta su tavola vibrante, sollecitata con diversi segnali sismici

Simulazione delle prove sperimentali su tavola vibrante (PWRI)

0.5
0.25
0
-0.25
-0.5
0.5
0.25
0
-0.25
-0.5

no degr.

degr.
5.5

M/ V B

M/ V B

M/ V B

Case
Case2-2
2-2

7.5

9.5

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2

Time (s)

11.5

13.5

observed
simulated
5.5

6.5

15.5

Creazione di abachi mediante il modello SFCM

Obiettivo:

Simulazione di prove cicliche, per mettere in


evidenza linfluenza di vari parametri progettuali
sullandamento delle curve di decadimento della
rigidezza e di variazione dello smorzamento

Calibrazione dei parametri del modello:


prove sperimentali eseguite ad Ispra (TRISEE, 1998)

Creazione di abachi mediante il modello SFCM


Analisi ed interpolazione dei risultati rigidezza rotazionale
1

La disposizione dei punti dipende


unicamente dal fattore di sicurezza
1,200000

0.6

1,000000

0.4

0,800000

Vmax/V

0.2

K /K 0

K / K0 (-)

0.8

K0

1
1 + a m

0,600000

0,400000

0
1E-005

0.0001

0.001

rotazione (rad)

0.01

0.1

0,200000

0,000000
0,000100

0,001000

0,010000
rotazione (rad)

0,100000

1,000000

Creazione di abachi mediante il modello SFCM


Analisi ed interpolazione dei risultati rigidezza traslazionale
1

La disposizione dei punti dipende dal


fattore di sicurezza e dal valore di h/B

0.6

1,200000
0.4

KT

1,000000
0.2

KT0

1
1 + b n

0,800000
KT/KT0

KT / KT0 (-)

0.8

0
1E-006

1E-005

0.0001

0.001

spostamento normalizzato u/B (m)

0.01

0,600000

0,400000

0,200000

0,000000
0,000010

0,000100

0,001000

0,010000

spostam ento u/B (-)

0,100000

1,000000

Creazione di abachi mediante il modello SFCM


Analisi ed interpolazione dei risultati smorzamento
0.8

La disposizione dei punti dipende


unicamente dal fattore di sicurezza

0.7

0.5

0,9
0,8

0.4

0,7
0.3

smorzamento (-)

smorzamento (-)

0.6

0.2
0.1

0
1E-005

0.0001

0.001

rotazione (rad)

0.01

0.1

= c + d

0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0
0,000100

0,001000

0,010000
rotazione (rad)

0,100000

1,000000

Creazione di abachi mediante il modello SFCM


Verifica: confronto con i dati sperimentali:
PWRI

1,2

Rigidezza rotazionale - sabbia densa


(VMAX/V=29.7 - a=5192.13, m=1.02)

Rigidezza rotazionale - sabbia mediamente addensata


(VMAX/V=16.3 - a=653.02, m=0.788)

0,9

0,8

abaco

0,6
0,4

abaco

0,7

sperimentali
K/K0 (-)

K/K0 (-)

0,8

sperimentali

0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2

0,2

0,1

0
0,00001

0,0001

0,001

0,01

rotazione (rad)

0,1

0
0,00001

0,0001

0,001

0,01

rotazione (rad)

0,1

Sintesi risultati ottenuti

Validazione su dati da tavola vibrante di un modello semplice per lo


studio dellinterazione dinamica suolo-struttura in campo non-lineare.
lineare
Calibrazione del modello costitutivo SFCM sulla base di prove
sperimentali cicliche su modelli di grande scala, e creazione di abachi
che descrivano il decadimento della rigidezza e lincremento di
smorzamento del sistema terreno - fondazione

Research Unit 12: Retaining Structures

Summary of progress for Linea IV


Available

literature appears to be well


researched.
Some useful DDBD recommendations are
emerging likely that draft model code can
be formed.

Book on Displacement Based Seismic


Design of Structures

New book released 2007


with a lot of material
relevant to Linea IV.
Chapter 14 includes the
basics of a draft code for
DBD.

Sample Pages
Info to be proposed:
Design motions

Performance Criteria

Sample Pages
Info to be proposed:
Strain limits
Drift limits

Material Strengths

Sample Pages
Info to be proposed:
Design displacement
profile for different
structural types.

Guidelines for the


formation of equivalent
SDOF systems

Sample Pages
Info to be proposed:
Equivalent viscous
damping expressions

Effective period &


stiffness approach
Design base shear and
equivalent lateral forces.

... e Capacity Design?

Likely scope of draft model code

RC frames
RC walls & frame-walls
PC structures capanone
Unreinforced masonry
structures
Steel structures MRFs,
CBFs, BRB frames
Composite structures MRFs

Timber structures
capanone con nodi anulare
Bridges RC: Regular &
Irregular
Isolated structures
Retaining structures
paratia a cuneo
Foundation Structures
piled and pad footings

Grazie