DDBD Fundamentals

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 1.1 - ag = 0.35
Sismi con Te>4s - ag = 0.35
Sismi con Te>4s - ag = 0.35
200

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 (3 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
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

with precast concrete
columns and long span
wood beams
8,40 m
750

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

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

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
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)

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

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

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
15
30
45
FSB+SMA
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)

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

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

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

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
Strain limits
Drift limits
Material Strengths
Sample Pages
Design displacement
profile for different
structural types.
Guidelines for the

formation of equivalent
SDOF systems
Sample Pages
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

DDBD Fundamentals

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

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

DDBD Fundamentals

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Univeris delgi

RELUIS Linea di ricerca N.4

Strutture in calcestruzzo, a telaio

Review of programme LINEA IV

(b) Effective Stiffness K e

Sviluppo del progetto

(progettate secondo la procedura DDBD)

Strutture a telaio in c.a. a differente

Analisi dinamiche non lineari

Inviluppo spostamenti massimi assoluti

Inviluppo drift massimi

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

Sismi tipo 2 - ag = 0.50

Sismi tipo 2 - ag = 0.50

Spostamento orizzontale [mm]

Drift di piano [%]

Research Unit 3: RC Walls & Mixed

20 storey case study wall

Snellezza del muro h/l = 10,7

Confronto tra la duttilit richiesta dalla

FBD drifts not reported!!!

Valori di duttilit [-]

Confronto tra la duttilit richiesta dalla serie

RU 3: CONFRONTI CON DIVERSI PROGRAMMI DI

Again design drift

Research Unit 4: Pre-cast structures

2. One storey PC building

3. One storey PC building

1. One storey PC building

Prof. Paolo RIVA

Unit di ricerca N.4

Take into account the

Unit di ricerca N.4

Prof. Paolo RIVA

COLUMN TO FOUNDATION CONNECTIONS

Planned to use experimental results to calibrate the parameters of the

St. 16/10 L=250

St. 16/10 L=330

St. 8/10 L=166

Lateral force (kN)

Unit di ricerca N.4

Prof. Paolo RIVA

Research Unit 5: Masonry structures

and energy dissipation considered.

RU5: Case Study structure 1

RU5: Case Study structure 2

Elevation of structural wall

Research Unit 6: Steel structures

Various displacement considerations and relations have

RU6: CBF considerations

Tension brace yielding

Ultimate state (max

RU6: Displacement contributions

Storey drift components: column

Relation between strain quantities

RU6: Case study

Pushover with brittle braces