D.BRUCIAFREDDO -Torre Galleria Ferrari - Valutazione Del Comfort Per Azioni Antropiche

www.diegobruciafreddo.
com
Any question don't hesitate to contact me! Enjoy reading!
POLITECNICO DI MILANO
Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale
Scuola Master F.lli Pesenti

Master in
Progettazione Sismica delle Strutture per Costruzioni Sostenibili
The new observation tower for the Galleria Ferrari

Area in Maranello: structural earthquake and comfort
design
Relatore:
Ing. Pietro Crespi
Ing. Francesco Iorio
Allievo
Diego Bruciafreddo
a.a. 2010/2011
Tipo di attivit o settore

Date
Lavoro o posizione ricoperti
Principali attivit e responsabilit
Nome e indirizzo del datore di lavoro

Date
Lavoro o posizione ricoperti
Principali attivit e responsabilit
Nome e indirizzo del datore di lavoro
Ingegneria Strutturale
01/09/2010 30/09/2010
Progettista Strutturale
Progetto Strutturale di un edificio a sei elevazioni fuori terra pi piano interrato, irregolare in pianta e in
elevazione, di un edificio in c.a. in zona ad alta sismicit (ag/g 0.38) in classe di duttilit B. Il
comportamento sismico stato ottimizzato mediante ladozione di una scala alla Giliberti.
Studio Tecnico Arch. Antonino Leonello
10/03/2007 al 10/06/2007
Tirocinio Formativo
Attivit sperimentale di modellazione e calcolo della risposta sismica locale.
MECMAT Dipartimento di Meccanica e Materiali dellUniversit degli Studi Mediterranea di Reggio
Calabria
Istruzione e formazione
Date
Titolo della qualifica rilasciata
Febbraio 2011 Maggio 2012

Master di II livello in Progettazione antisismica delle strutture per costruzioni Sostenibili
Principali tematiche/competenze
professionali acquisite
Tecniche di progettazione per la mitigazione del rischio sismico sia su strutture nuove che esistenti.
Competenze specialistiche nellambito della modellazione del comportamento dinamico delle strutture.
Titolo della tesi e argomenti
The new observation tower for the Galleria Ferrari Area in Maranello: structural earthquake and
comfort design
Progettazione strutturale della nuova torre panoramica a Maranello per la Galleria Ferrari. Sono state
effettuate analisi dinamiche non lineari incrementali con modellazione a fibre (IDA) per la valutazione
del comportamento sismico e analisi dinamiche lineari per la valutazione del livello di confort a seguito
delle vibrazioni di natura antropica sullo sbalzo di 12 m.
Nome e tipo d'organizzazione

erogatrice dell'istruzione e formazione
Date

Livello nella classificazione nazionale o
internazionale
Date
Livello nella classificazione nazionale o
internazionale
Autovalutazione
Pagina 2/3 - Curriculum vitae di
Cognome/i Nome/i
Politecnico di Milano Scuola Master F.lli Pesenti

Novembre 2007 Dicembre 2010
Laurea Specialistica in Ingegneria Civile Progettazione strutturale
Progettazione di strutture e opere geotecniche;
Comportamento dinamico delle strutture sotto lazione del sisma e del vento;
Valutazione e mitigazione del potenziale di collasso progressivo negli edifici;
Valutazione della vulnerabilit sismica di edifici esistenti in c.a. mediante analisi non lineari
La tesi tratta la valutazione del grado di vulnerabilit di un edificio esistente irregolare in pianta
mediante lutilizzo di analisi dinamica non lineare con modelli a plasticit diffusa.
Universit degli studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria
110 e lode con menzione di merito
Ottobre 2004 Novembre 2007
Laurea Ingegneria Civile
Competenze base di Analisi Matematica, Fisica,Scienza e Tecnica delle Costruzioni e Geotecnica
Risposta Sismica Locale
Valutazione della variazione dellinput sismico in relazione alle condizioni locali del sito.
Universit degli studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria
110 e lode con menzione di merito
Comprensione
Parlato
Per maggiori informazioni su Europass: http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu

Unione europea, 2002-2010 24082010
Scritto
Ascolto
Livello europeo (*)
Inglese
Francese
Lettura
Interazione orale
Produzione orale
B2 Livello intermedio C1 Livello Avanzato B2 Livello intermedio B2 Livello intermedio C1 Livello avanzato
A2
Livello
Elementare
B1 Livello Intermedio A2
Livello
Elementare
A2
Livello
elementare
A2 Livello elementare
(*) Quadro comune europeo di riferimento per le lingue
Capacit e competenze sociali - Sono particolarmente predisposto a lavorare in team cercando sempre di comprendere e di risolvere i
problemi al meglio al fine di ottenere i risultati previsti.
- Sono dotato di un forte senso di volont e di capacit di problem solving anche nelle situazioni pi
dinamiche.
-Sono dotato di un ottimo spirito di adattamento anche nelle situazioni pi complesse e sono pienamente
disponibile a trasferte in tutto il mondo.
-Buona capacit di comunicazione e motivazione ottenuta grazie a unampia esperienza di impartizione
di lezioni private a un buon numero di studenti universitari ( ad oggi circa 60 )
Capacit e competenze
organizzative
Capacit e competenze tecniche
Capacit e competenze
informatiche
Altre capacit e competenze

Patente
Gestione di progetti e gruppi di lavoro
Ingegnere strutturista con capacit progettazione di strutture non tradizionali e complesse.

Si elencano le principali competenze specialistiche in aggiunta alle competenze base di utilizzo del
computer:
Ottima conoscenza Excel+VBA
Ottima Conoscenza programma per Modellazione FEM STRAUS7
Ottima Conoscenza Programma per Modellazione Fem MIDAS GEN
Ottima Conoscenza Programma Per Modellazione FEM SAP200
Capacit di utilizzo e apprendimento in tempi rapidi di tutti i programmi di modellazione FEM
Ottima conoscenza dei linguaggi di programmazione VBA, C++
Ottima conoscenza del programma di Calcolo MATLAB
Ottima conoscenza del pacchetto OFFICE
Ottima conoscenza di AUTOCAD
Runner amatoriale con partecipazione a eventi , nuoto;
A, B
Ulteriori informazioni Referenze e Curriculum Vitae dettagliato su richiesta

Autorizzo il trattamento dei miei dati personali ai sensi del Decreto Legislativo 30 giugno 2003, n. 196
"Codice in materia di protezione dei dati personali". (facoltativo, v. istruzioni)
Firma
Pagina 3/3 - Curriculum vitae di

Cognome/i Nome/i
Per maggiori informazioni su Europass: http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu

Unione europea, 2002-2010 24082010
ABSTRACT IX
<1>Limit state design for reinforced concrete structures................................................ 1
1.1 THE BORN OF LIMIT STATE DESIGN: THE MODEL CODE .............................................................................. 1
1.2 METHODS OF DESIGN OF CONCRETE STRUCTURES .................................................................................... 3
1.2.1
The Allowable Stress Method (ASM) ..................................................................................... 4
1.2.2
Load Factor Method (LFM) ................................................................................................... 4
1.2.3
Limit state Method (LSM) ..................................................................................................... 4
1.3 THE LIMIT STATE DESIGN APPROACH ...................................................................................................... 5
1.3.1
Characteristic load and characteristic strenghs .................................................................... 5
1.3.2
Partial safety factors for loads and material strengths ........................................................ 7
1.3.2.1
1.3.2.2
1.3.3
1.3.3.1
1.3.3.2
1.3.3.3
Partial Safety Factor for load ..................................................................................................... 7

Partial Safety Factor for Material Strengths ............................................................................. 7
The performance requirements of structures :the limit states ............................................. 7

Ultimate Limit States ....................................................................................................................... 8
Serviceability Limit states ................................................................................................................ 9
Robustness..................................................................................................................................... 10
1.4 THE ISSUE OF VIBRATION CONTROL OF FLOOR ......................................................................................... 11

1.4.1
Description of the walking load .......................................................................................... 12
1.4.2
Determination of the floor response ................................................................................... 15
1.4.2.1
1.4.2.2
1.4.2.3
1.4.3
1.4.3.1
1.4.3.2
1.4.4
1.4.4.1
1.4.4.2
1.4.4.3
1.4.4.4
Floor response for a single combination of step frequency and persons weight ......................... 15
Design value of the floor response ................................................................................................ 16
Hand Calculation method .............................................................................................................. 16
Classification of vibrations .................................................................................................. 17

Quantity to be assessed ................................................................................................................. 17
Floor classes ................................................................................................................................... 18
Hand calculation method -Design procedure...................................................................... 19

Determination of eigenfrequency and modal mass....................................................................... 19
Determination of damping ............................................................................................................ 19
Determination of the floor class .................................................................................................... 20
System with more than one eigenfrequency ................................................................................. 22
<2>Non linear structural analysis for seismic design ..................................................... 23

2.2 THE ROLE AND THE USE OF NONLINEAR ANALYSIS IN SEISMIC DESIGN ........................................................... 23
2.3 STIFFNESS, RESISTANCE AND DUCTILITY: KEY POINTS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS ............................................. 24
2.4 EQUATION OF MOTION OF AN ELASTIC-PLASTIC SYSTEM ............................................................................ 24
2.5 LINEAR ELASTIC EQUIVALENT ANALYSIS: BEHAVIOR FACTOR Q .................................................................... 25
2.5.1
MDOF analysis .................................................................................................................... 27
2.6 NON LINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS: PUSHOVER ............................................................................................. 28
2.6.1
Non linear static analysis for a SDOF system ...................................................................... 28
2.6.1.1
2.6.1.2
2.6.1.3
2.6.2
2.6.2.1
Step 1: Load increasing .................................................................................................................. 29

Step 2: Linearization of capacity curve .......................................................................................... 29
Step 3: Performance Point Evaluation ........................................................................................... 30
Pushover analysis for MDOF systems ................................................................................. 30

Analysis Methods, Modeling and Outcome ................................................................................... 31
2.7 NON LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 31

2.7.1
Newmarks method for a SDOF system .............................................................................. 33
2.7.1.1
2.7.2
Newmarks method : stability ........................................................................................................ 34
Direct time history integration for a MDOF system ............................................................ 34
VI
2.8 INCREMENTAL DYNAMIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 37
2.9 NONLINEAR STATIC VERSUS NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS .................................................................... 38
2.10
QUALITY ASSURANCE OF BUILDING ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 38
<3>Model of structure for non linear analysis ............................................................... 41

3.1 MODELS TO DESCRIBE THE STRUCTURAL BEHAVIOR .................................................................................. 42
3.2 NON LINEAR BEHAVIOR OF R.C. STRUCTURES .......................................................................................... 43
3.2.1
Geometric non linearity ...................................................................................................... 44
3.2.2
Mechanical non linearity .................................................................................................... 46
3.2.2.1
3.2.3
Distributed versus concentrated Plasticity elements .................................................................... 48
Stress-Strain relation for non linear analysis ...................................................................... 49
3.2.3.1
Stress-strain relation for r.c. section .............................................................................................. 49
3.2.3.1.1Kent and Park Model ........................................................................ 50

3.2.3.1.2Menegotto and Pinto Model ............................................................ 52
<4>The new redevelopment of areas adjacent to the Galleria Ferrari .......................... 55

4.1 THE REDEVELOPMENT OF AREAS ADJACENT TO THE GALLERY FERRARI .......................................................... 55
4.1.1
The design competition: Plaza and Tower Galleria Ferrari ................................................. 56
4.1.2
The winning project ............................................................................................................ 58
<5>
The structural design of the new area in Maranello 63
5.1 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 63

5.1.1
National Codes .................................................................................................................... 63
5.1.2
UNI EN documents .............................................................................................................. 64
5.1.3
European codes ................................................................................................................... 65
5.1.4
Other documents ................................................................................................................ 65
5.2 BUILDING DESCRIPTION ...................................................................................................................... 65
5.3 CONCEPT DESIGN.............................................................................................................................. 75
5.3.1
Preliminary design of the panoramic terrace ..................................................................... 75
5.3.1.1
5.3.1.2
5.3.1.3
5.3.1.4
5.3.2
5.3.2.1
5.3.2.2
5.3.3
5.3.4
5.3.4.1
Gravity load analysis ...................................................................................................................... 76

Design against deflection control .................................................................................................. 77
Design against vibration control .................................................................................................... 78
Structural size of elements ............................................................................................................ 82
Preliminary composite floor design .................................................................................... 84

Design against vibration control .................................................................................................... 85
Deflection check ............................................................................................................................ 87
Preliminary design of subbeam........................................................................................... 88

Preliminary design of post tensioning force ........................................................................ 90
Estimate of post-tensioning force.................................................................................................. 90
5.4 MATERIALS ..................................................................................................................................... 92

5.4.1
Concrete 28/35 ................................................................................................................... 92
5.4.2
Rebar B450C ....................................................................................................................... 92
5.4.3
Structural steel S355 ........................................................................................................... 92
VII
5.5 LOAD ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................................ 93
5.5.1
Vertical loads ...................................................................................................................... 93
th
5.5.1.1
5.5.1.2
5.5.1.3
5.5.2
5.5.3
All levels under the 10 ................................................................................................................. 93

th
11 level ........................................................................................................................................ 93
Coverture ....................................................................................................................................... 94
Snow load............................................................................................................................ 94
Wind load ............................................................................................................................ 96
5.5.3.1
5.5.3.2
5.5.3.3
5.5.3.4
5.5.4
Basic Value ..................................................................................................................................... 96

Basic velocity pressure ................................................................................................................... 97
Exposure coefficient ...................................................................................................................... 97
Wind Pressure ................................................................................................................................ 98
Seismic load ........................................................................................................................ 99
5.5.4.1
5.5.4.2
5.5.4.3
5.5.4.4
5.5.4.5
Geoseismic analysis ....................................................................................................................... 99

Phase 1......................................................................................................................................... 100
Phase 2......................................................................................................................................... 101
Phase 3.2 SLE spectra................................................................................................................... 102
Phase 3.3 SLV and SLC spectra ..................................................................................................... 103
5.6 STRUCTURAL FEM MODEL ................................................................................................................ 105

5.7 MODAL ANALYSIS FOR SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ..................................................................................... 106
5.8 MODEL CHECK ............................................................................................................................... 110
5.8.1
Self weight check .............................................................................................................. 110
5.8.2
Pre stress force check ........................................................................................................ 111
5.8.3
Fundamental period check................................................................................................ 113
5.8.4
Lateral wind load check .................................................................................................... 114
5.9 SLS CHECK .................................................................................................................................... 115
5.9.1
Limit state for deflection control....................................................................................... 115
5.9.1.1
5.9.1.2
Load combination ........................................................................................................................ 115

Horizontal displacement check .................................................................................................... 116
5.9.1.2.1Check in x direction ........................................................................ 117

5.9.1.2.2Check in y direction ........................................................................ 120
5.9.1.3
Vertical displacement check ........................................................................................................ 123
5.9.1.3.1Cantilever subjected to all loads in frequently combination ......... 123

5.9.1.3.1Cantilever subjected only to live loads in frequently combination 124
5.9.2
Serviceability limit state of vibration control .................................................................... 125
5.10
ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES: REINFORCEMENT DESIGN AND CHECK ............................................................ 129
5.10.1 Load combination ............................................................................................................. 129
5.10.1.1
5.10.1.2
5.10.2
Reinforcement design ....................................................................................................... 130
5.10.2.1
5.10.2.1
5.10.3
<6>
Longitudinal rebar...................................................................................................................... 132

Stirrups ...................................................................................................................................... 133
Uls check ........................................................................................................................... 137
5.10.3.1
5.10.3.1
5.10.3.2
5.11
5.12
Seismic combination .................................................................................................................. 129

Comparatition between wind load and seismic load ................................................................. 130
Composite axial force-bending check ........................................................................................ 137

Shear check ................................................................................................................................ 138
Steel member check .................................................................................................................. 138
RESUME ................................................................................................................................... 139

APPENDIX A LOAD CASE RESUME ....................................................................................... 140
The new tower in Maranello: Performance evalutation under seismic load 147
VIII
6.1 STRUCTURAL MODEL ....................................................................................................................... 147
6.1.1
Base Structural model check ............................................................................................. 149
6.1.1.1
6.1.1.2
6.1.2
Mass comparison ......................................................................................................................... 149

Mode shapes and Mode properties comparison ......................................................................... 150
Inelastic material properties ............................................................................................. 151
6.1.2.1
6.1.2.2
6.1.2.3
Constitutive model and parameter confined concrete ................................................................ 151

Constitutive model and parameter for unconfined concrete ...................................................... 153
Constitutive model for rebar ....................................................................................................... 154
6.1.3
Fiber division of section and inelastic hinge...................................................................... 155
6.2 PERFORM IDA ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 157
6.2.1
Ground acceleration selection .......................................................................................... 158
6.2.1.1
6.2.1.2
6.2.1.3
6.2.2
Reference spectra ........................................................................................................................ 158

The main parameters selection ................................................................................................... 158
Records ........................................................................................................................................ 160
Performing the analysis .................................................................................................... 162
6.2.2.1
6.2.2.2
6.2.2.3
6.2.3
6.2.4
Looking at accuracy ..................................................................................................................... 163

Looking at convergency ............................................................................................................... 164
Looking at robustness .................................................................................................................. 164
The limits state check........................................................................................................ 164

The response under design earthquake ............................................................................ 165
6.2.4.1
6.2.5
Consideration............................................................................................................................... 176
IDA curve ........................................................................................................................... 176
6.2.5.1
6.2.5.2
6.2.5.3
6.2.5.4
6.2.5.5
6.2.5.6
6.2.5.7
IDA curve H(2) .............................................................................................................................. 176

IDA curve H(3) .............................................................................................................................. 179
IDA curve H(4) .............................................................................................................................. 181
IDA curve H6 ................................................................................................................................ 183
Ida curve H(7) .............................................................................................................................. 185
IDA curve H(8) .............................................................................................................................. 187
IDA curve H(9) .............................................................................................................................. 189
6.2.6
Summarization of IDA curve and limit states check .......................................................... 190
6.3 BASE SHEAR VERSUS TOP DISPLACEMENT ............................................................................................. 192
<7>
Conclusions 147
REFERENCES 149
IX
ABSTRACT
The structural project of the new panoramic tower for the redevelopment of the Galleria
Ferrari has been done in this thesis.
The tower design has been made, specifically, versus vibration control due to human activities
and versus the seismic load. Two peculiarities have made this project not standard in order to
accomplish the limit state requirement associated to the vibration control (serviceability condition)
and the seismic load (Ultimate state conditions). The first one peculiarity, related to the vibration
control, is the panoramic terrace cantilevered for rc core of the tower for 12 meters, which also
requires a seismic analysis for the vertical component. The second one is the presence of two
overtures in the sections near of the base of the core which disturb the plastic excursion of this
region under seismic load.
The approach was to follow the integrally structural design path from the architectonic design
and after to perform evaluation under seismic load by using non linear dynamic incremental
analysis.
<1>
Limit State Design of reinforced
concrete structures
PREVIEW
In this opening chapter, the limit state design is presented. Exactly, this chapter speaks
about the LSD in the most important building codes. Particular attention is shown about the
serviceability limit states of vibration control because the advices in the European and Italian
code are not very clear.
1.1
The born of Limit State Design: The Model Code
Before the last two decades of last century reinforced concrete designers were
concerned more with the safety against failure of their structures than with durability under
service conditions. Thus, the theoretical calculations for design were based on classical elastic
theory using fictitious modulus of elasticity and geometrical properties for reinforced concrete
element and a permissible working stresses. The date of the creation of the European
Committee for Concrete (Comite European du Beton), called CEB, in 1953, can be said as the
date when the limit state design, otherwise called strength and performance criterion, was
born. The initiative for this came from the reinforced concrete contractors of France. The
Committee has its headquarters at Luxembourg. Its objective are the coordination and
synthesis of research on safety, durability and design calculation procedures, for practical
application to construction. Their first recommendations for reinforced concrete design were
published in 1964.
Later, under the leadership of Yves Guyon (well known for his expertise on prestressed
concrete), the CEB established technical collaboration with the International Federation for
prestressing (Federation International de la Preconstrainte), called FIP. Recommendations for
international adoption for design and construction of concrete structures were published by
them in June 1970 and the CEB-FIP Model Code for Concrete Structures was proposed in
1977. These efforts formed the solid bases for the creation of an International Code of
Practice. Trough these publications a unified code for design of both reinforced and
prestressed reinforced concrete structures was developed.
Chapter 1
According to the above model code, structural analyses, for determination of section
design values are to be carried by elastic analysis, but the final design of the concrete
structures is to be done by the principles of limit state theory.
The model code was to be a model from which each country was to write its national
code, based on its stage of development but agreeing on important points, like method of
design for bending, shear, torsion, etc., to the model code.
The basis had to be scientifically rigorous, but compromises could be made because of
inadequacy of data on the subject for any region.
The British were the first to bring out a code based on limit state approach as
recommended by the CEB-FIP in 1970. This code was published as Unified Code for
structural concrete, i.e. CP 110 (1972). Other Countries in Europe and United States adopted
similar codes, and today most countries follow codes based on the principles of Limit state
Design.
India followed suit during the third revision of Is code 456 in 1978, and the provisions
of the limit state design (as regards concrete strength, durability and detailing) were
incorporated in the revised code IS 456 (1978) in Sections 1-4. However, for design
calculations to asses the strength of an R.C. member, the choice of either limit state method or
working stress method has been left to the designer (Section 5 and 6) with the hope that with
time, the working stress method will be completely replaced by the limit state method. Many
of the Provisions of the IS code are very similar to the BS approach.
The fourth revision of the code published in June 2000 as IS 456 (2000) specifies that
R.C. structural elements shall normally be designed by Limit State Method. Allowable-Stress
Method is to be used only where Limit State Method cannot be used conveniently.
Accordingly, the status of working stress method as an alternative method of design has been
discontinued in the current code.
A uniform approach to design, with reference to the various criteria, is the dream of al
designers with an international outlook, but it is bound to take many more years to come into
effect. In the USA, the code used for general design of reinforced concrete structures in the
Building Code Requirement for Reinforce Concrete ACI 318 (1999). The general principles
of limit states design are named as strength and serviceability method in the above code. In
European countries the code used is the Eurocode (EC), composed by 9 parts whit their
national application document (NAD). Not all parts are related with rc design, for example
EC3 is about the steel structures. Every country can use both Eurocodes and its code but, at
the same time, the national codes are changing to be very similar to the Eurocodes. The aim is
to use only one code for all member countries.
As research in various aspects of concrete design in still being carried out in many
countries and these countries are anxious that the results of these latest research are reflected
in their national codes, it will take a long time for all the codes in the world to be the same. It
is therefore advisable that a designer be aware of at least the general prevision of the codes of
other countries too. For this purpose, in this chapter and in many parts of this thesis the
provisions of most important codes are briefly discussed and compared.
2
Limit State Design of Reiforced Concrete Structures in building codes
As has happened in other scientific fields, new ways of thinking replace the old ways. In
scientific circles, this is generally referred to as a paradigm shift. Limit state design should
therefore be looked upon as a paradigm, a better way of explaining certain aspects of reality
and a new way of thinking about old problems. Thus, it should be learned and taught with its
own philosophy, and not as an extension of the old elastic theory.
1.2
Methods of Design of Concrete Structures
Reinforced concrete members are allowed to be designed according to existing codes of

practice by one of the following two methods:
1. The method of theoretical calculations using commonly accepted procedures of
calculations;
2. The method of experimental investigations.
The first one is employed for design of commonly used structures. These methods
consist of numerical calculations based on the procedures prescribed in codes of practices
prevailing in the country. Such procedures are based on one of the following methods of
design:
1. The allowable stress method or the working stress method, also known as the elastic
method;
2. The load factor method;
3. The limit state method.
The experimental methods are used only for unusual structures and are to be carried out
in a properly equipped laboratory by test on scaled models according to model analysis
procedures or tests on prototype of the structure.
The theoretical methods themselves are the result of extensive laboratory tests and field
investigations. Safe and universally accepted methods of calculation based on strength of
materials and applied mechanics have been derived from these laboratory investigations and
are codified into national codes.
The code of practice used in Italy is D.M. 14 Gennaio 2008, briefly called NTC08. This
document is related to Eurocodes (so similar that a lot of parts are just the Italian translation)
and, as written in NTC08, these latter can be used directly or when the provisions in NTC08
need more details. All new reinforced concrete structures built in Italy are required to follow
the provisions of these codes. Looking to some other parts in the world, the American practice
follows the ACI 318 (1999), the Australian practice AS 3600, in India the IS 456 (2000).
The common denominator in the code mentioned above is that the reinforced concrete
members should normally be designed by limit state method.
This section deals briefly with the various theoretical methods of design mentioned
above.
Chapter 1
1.2.1 The Allowable Stress Method (ASM)

This method of design was evolved around 1900 and was the first theoretical method
accepted by national codes of practice for design of reinforced concrete sections. It assumes
that both steel and concrete act together and are perfectly elastic at all stages so that the
modular ratio (ratio between moduli of elasticity of steel and concrete) can be used to
determine the stresses in the steel and concrete. This methods adopts permissible stresses
which are obtained by applying specific factors of safety on material strength for design. It
uses a factor of safety about 3 with respect to cube strength for concrete and a factor of safety
about 1.8 with respect to yield strength for steel.
Even though structures designed by this method have been performing their functions
satisfactorily for many years, it has three major defects. First, since the method deals only
with the elastic behavior of the member, it neither shows its real strength nor gives the true
factor of safety of the structures against failure. Second, allowable stress method results in
larger percentages of compression steels than is the case while using limit state design, thus
leading to uneconomic sections while dealing with compression member or when
compression steel is used in bending members. Third, the modular ratio itself is an imaginary
quantity. Because of creep and nonlinear stress-strain relationship, concrete and steel in the
sections are calculated on the basis of elastic behavior of the composite section. An imaginary
modular ratio which may be either a constant in value for all strengths of concrete or one
which varies with the strength of concrete is used for calculation of the probable stresses in
concrete and steel.
A widely used value of modular ratio was 15. Hovewer, it should be noted that modular
ratio dependent of concrete strength and steel strength, the value of modulus of concrete
which change for creep, shrinkage etc so to keep in count these is essential for the concrete
designer interested to understand all features of the structural behavior et not only the safety
against collapse.
1.2.2 Load Factor Method (LFM)

A major defect of the allowable stress method of design is that it does not give a true
factor of the safety against failure but only the status of safe structure. To overcome this, the
ultimate load method of design was introduced, pioneer was the U.S.A. in 1956. In this
method, the strength of the R.C. section at working load is estimated from the ultimate
strength of the section. The load factor is defined as the ratio of the ultimate load that the
section can carry to the working load it has to carry. Usually, R.C. structures are designed for
suitable separate load factors for the dead loads and for live loads with additional safety factor
for strength of concrete.
1.2.3 Limit state Method (LSM)

Even though the load factor method based on ultimate load theory at first tended to
discredit the traditional elastic approach to design, the engineering profession did not take to
such design very readily. Also, steadily increasing knowledge brought the merits of both
elastic and ultimate theory into perspective. It has been shown that whereas ultimate theory
4
gives a good idea of the strength aspect, the serviceability limit states are better shown by the
elastic theory only.
Since a rational approach to design of reinforced concrete did not mean simply adopting
the existing elastic and ultimate theories, new concepts with a semi-probabilistic approach to
design were found necessary. The proposed new method had to provide a framework which
would allow designs to be economical and safe. This new philosophy of design was called the
Limit State Method (LSM) of design. It has been already adopted by many of the leading
countries of the world in their codes as he only acceptable method of design of reinforced
concrete structures.
1.3 The Limit State Design approach

A structure is said to have reached its limits state, when the structures as a whole or in
part becomes unfit for designed use during its expected life. The limit state of a structure is
the condition of its being not fit for its intended use, and limit state design is a philosophy of
design where one designs a structure so that it will not reach any of the specified limit states
during the expected life of the structure.
Many types of limit states or failure conditions can be specified. The two major limit
states which are usually considered are the following:
1. The Ultimate Limit States (ULS) which deals with the strength and stability of the
structure under the maximum overload it is expected to carry. This implies that no part
or whole of the structure should fall apart under any combination of expected
overload.
2. The serviceability limit states which deals with conditions such as deflection, cracking
of the structure under service loads, durability (under given environment in which the
structure has been placed), excessive vibration etc.
Limit state design should ensure that the structure will be safe as regards the various
limit state conditions, in its expected period of existence. Hence the limit state method design
is also known as strength and serviceability method of design.
1.3.1 Characteristic load and characteristic strenghs

Structures have to carry dead and live loads. Both arent knowable by deterministic way
because of themselves nature. Only a statistical value of loads can be defined. The maximum
working load that the structure has to withstand and for which it is to be designed is called the
characteristic load. Thus there are characteristic dead load and characteristic live loads.
Similar, the strengths that one can safely assume for materials (steel and concrete) are called
characteristic strengths.
Chapter 1
Figure 1. 1 Characteristic strength and its failure probability
The characteristic values are related to specified fractiles in the statistical distribution of
load or strength. Exactly, for the load is commonly used the fractile 95%, in other words a
load value so big than only 5 times on 100 the structure have to carry a bigger value. For the
strength, instead, the value is so small then 95 times on 100 the effective value is bigger than
the characteristic.
A lot of physical phenomena follow the normal distribution as well the load and the
strength can be treated by this law. In a normal distributions, obtaining of fractiles, is directly
related to mean value and standard deviations according to the below equation:
= +
=
[1.1]
[1.2]
The value of the constant for the 5 per cent chance, in a normal distribution, is 1.64.
Figure 1. 2Characteristic strength and characteristic load
1.3.2 Partial safety factors for loads and material strengths

Having obtained the characteristic loads and characteristic strengths, the design loads
and design strengths are obtained by the concept of partial safety factors. Partial safety factors
are applied both to loads o the structure and to strength of materials. By partial safety factor
the designer can keep in count the stochastic nature of loads and strength of materials. These
factors are now explained.
1.3.2.1 Partial Safety Factor for load

The load to be used for ultimate strengths design is also termed as factored load. Using
the partial safety factor for load simply means that for calculation of the ultimate load for
design, the characteristic load has to be multiplied by the partial safety factor denoted by the
symbol . This may be regarded as the overload factor for which the structure has to be
designed. Thus the load obtained by multiplying the characteristic load by the partial safety
factor is called the factored load, and is given by
=
[1.3]
Structures will have to be designed for this factored load.

It is extremely important to remember that in limit state design, the design load is
different from that used in elastic design. It is the factored loads, and not the characteristic
load, which are used for the calculation of design values.
1.3.2.2 Partial Safety Factor for Material Strengths

The grade strength of concrete is the characteristic strength of concrete, and the
guaranteed yield of steel is the characteristic strength of steel. Calculation to arrive at the
characteristic material strength of materials by using statistical theory takes into account only
the variation of strength between the test specimens. It should be clearly noted that the above
procedure does not allow for the possible variation the strength of the test specimen and the
material in the structure. This feature is kept in count by the follow equation to calculate the
factored strength
=

[1.4]
This simply means that the strength to be used for design should be used the reduced value of
the characteristic strength by the factor denoted by the partial safety factor for the material.
1.3.3 The performance requirements of structures :the limit states

During its expected period of existence the structure have to do the performance for
which it was built. This performance levels, as already written before, are clearly divisible in
two main categories:
7
Chapter 1
Ultimate Limit States (ULS)

Serviceability Limit states (SLS)
One category more need to be keep in count, as written in NTC08

Robusteness
Let us write what kind of performance level is required in one or in other one. Helped
by Italian national code, which is referred to Eurocode, the follow subchapters explain briefly,
for each limit state, the performance that the structure will be show during its expected life.
1.3.3.1 Ultimate Limit States
The Ultimate Limit States are related to safety in its strictly meaning, they are linked to
collapse or other kinds of structural failure which can be dangerous for the safety of persons
or doing big environmental or social problems.
When a ULS is overcome, the structure cannot return to the initial state and this
situation defines the collapse of structure.
1. Ultimate strength condition
The ultimate strength of the structure or member should allow n overload. For this
purpose, the structure should be designed by the accepted ultimate load theory to
carry specific overload. This may be in-flexure, compression, shear, torsion or
tension and against it every structure have to be checked.
2. Overall stability
The structure or a part of it, thought as a rigid body, have to offer stability against
accidental loads.
3. Big deflections or deformations
It is important that the maximum deflections or deformations, in one ultimate scene,
is limited.
4. Fatigue collapse
When structure or one part of that fails for the action of cyclic load.
5. Fail of frames or joints for time related phenomena
Phenomena, like viscosity, can change the stress distribution in frame sections
respect to the initial checked value
6. Instability
Checked that the structure or one part of it have just one stability configuration.
7. Fire resistance
The structure is able to resist for a determinate time when it is subjected to the fire
action. This capacity is identified by the acronym REI when:
-R Load bearing capacity: to provide strength and stability of the building;
-E Integrity: to keep the element intact;
-I Insulation: to keep the temperature low on the unexposed side of the element,
expressed in minutes.
An element fulfilling all these basic criteria for 30 minutes will be classified REI 30.
8
For seismic action there are two ultimate limit state.

1. Life safety
After earthquake the structure shows breakage, or collapses, only in non
structural elements . The structural elements are seriously damaged from which
a big part of her stiffness against the lateral load is lost. However, the structure
still offers resistance and rigidity against vertical loads and a residual safety
against horizontal seismic actions.
2. Collapse prevention
After earthquake the structure shows serious damages and collapses of nonstructural elements and heavy damages to the structural elements; the structure
still has a residual safety against vertical load and a little residual safety to the
seismic horizontal action.
1.3.3.2 Serviceability Limit states
Serviceability Limit states are related to functionality of structure, they are associated
with the capacity of the structure to fit for its intended use. When a SLS is overcome, the
structure can or cannot return to the initial state. On the first case the damages and the
deformations are reversible and the structure comes back to its initial conditions when the
cause, which has generated them, finishes. The second situation is the opposite. The
serviceability limit states deal with conditions such as deflection, cracking of the structure
under service loads, durability (under a given environment in which the structure has been
placed), excessive vibration.
Let us define the main SLS.
1. Deflection condition (without stability lost)
Deflections and deformations which dont compromise the global or local stability
but they are so big to compromise the functionality, the use or the aspect of
construction.
2. Local damages
Local damages like a steel cover lost can compromise durability, performance and
aspect.
3. Vibration control
The vibration control upon serviceable loads is fundamental to achieve an
acceptable comfort level
4. Durability condition
The structure should be fit for its environment.
Like ULS there are two SLS for seismic load.
1. Immediate Occupancy
Chapter 1
The post-earthquake damage state that retains the pre-earthquake design strength
and stiffness, and is safe to occupy. Some minor structural repairs may be
appropriate but not necessary to make the building safe occupy.
2. Damage Control Range
After earthquake the structure (structural elements, non structural elements,
equipments etc.) suffers some damage but not so great as undermining the safety of
persons or as compromising the stiffness and resistance against lateral and vertical
load. In the post-earthquake the structure can be used entirely or in a large part.
1.3.3.3 Robustness
Robustness for a structure is when it is able to dont show damages much bigger than
the cause which has generated them. In other words is important that the local damage will be
confined just in a little part of structure when this part suffers damage, also heavy, due an
exceptional load like fire, gas explosion, vehicle impact.
This property can be achieved when the structure has an alternative load path able to
bridge the failed elements.
The main design rules whit which one can design structure with robustness behavior
are:
Privilege the columns resistance with respect to that of the beams (SCWB Strong
Columns Weak Beams);
Privilege shear resistance with respect to the flexure resistance. In other words
member have to fail for shear and not or flexure:
Check with attention the interaction between structural part and non structural part;
Design the structural detailing to allow load transferring.
10
Figure 1. 3 The focus on disproportionate collapse followed the Ronan Point disaster 0f 1968, which is the
classical example of robustness problem. In the collapse one wall panel sustained damage, due a gas explosion,
causing the whole corner of the building to give way.
It is important to note that all above rules are the same rules applied in seismic design hence,
seismically designed structure, already has an implicit capacity to show robustness.
1.4 The issue of vibration control of floor

The issue or vibrations, together with deflections issue, are important for the design of
new structures. Indeed, modern materials and constructions processes, e.g. composite floor
system or pre-stressed flat concrete slabs with high strength of materials, are capable of
fulfilling large span floor structures with a minimum number of intermediate columns or
walls. These slender floor structures have in common, that their design is usually not
controlled by ultimate limit state verifications but by serviceability criteria, i.e. deflections or
vibrations.
Whereas for ultimate limit state verifications and for the determination of deflections
and durability design codes provide sufficient rules, the calculation and assessment of floor
vibrations in the design stage has still a number of uncertainties. These uncertainties are
related to:
11
Chapter 1
A suitable design model including the effects of frequencies, damping, displacement

amplitudes, velocity and acceleration to predict the dynamic response of the floor
structure with sufficient reliability in the design stage;
The characterization of boundary conditions for the model;
The shape and magnitude of the excitation
The assessment of the floor response in relation to the use of the floor and the
degree of vibration tolerance of the users.
A recent project funded by the Research Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS), has resulted
in a method for verifying the performance of floors with respect to human induced
vibration. The method, referred to as the one step root mean square method (OS-RMS),
has been published in a Dutch guideline and a European guideline. The Dutch guideline
describes the complete method whereas the European guideline is limited to the socalled hand calculation.
1.4.1 Description of the walking load

Walking differs from running as one foot keeps continuously contact to the ground
while the other foot moves. It can be described by the time history f walking load as a
periodic function with a period, T, equal to the inverse of the step frequency:
=
1

[1.5]
A standard walking load is defined as a series of consecutive steps whereby each step
load (or footfall) is described by a polynomial [1.6]. The normalized step load is given by:
"

=
= =

!#$
!
0,
0 <
< 0 )*
[1.6]
Where G is the persons mass and is the total time during which one footis in contact with
the ground. The coefficients ! depend on the step frequency, , and are given in Table 1.
The duration of a single step, not to be confused with period is given by the following
formula:
= 2.6606 1.757 + 0.3844 5
[1.7]
The step load describes the different phases of the contact between foot and ground as
shown in Figure 1.4. Figure 1.5 gives examples of the time history of the contact forces
during one footfall for two different step frequencies.
12
Figure 1. 4 Movement phases of legs and feet during walking

Table 1. 1 Coefficients K1 to K8 for given step frequency, fs
One individual walking cannot be the basis for the design of floors for vibration comfort but a
representative loading has to be found which covers a relevant majority of loading scenarios.
Hence, the loading is described in a statistical manner.
13
Chapter 1
Figure 1. 5 Example of the time history of the normalized

contact force for two different step frequencies
Statistical distributions of monitored case studies have shown that the step frequencies
are not correlated with the distribution of body weight, hence two probability distribution
functions are sufficient to describe the statistical variation of the loading. In the calculations
of the response, a total of 700 combinations of step frequency and body weigth (35 step
frequencies and 20 body weights). Each combinations leads to a response with a probability
of occurrence described by a joint probability of occurrence function as shown in Figure 1.6.
Figure 1. 6 Frequency distribution of body mass and step

frequency for a population of 700
The limit states mentioned in the preceding paragraphs have a clearly way to check
them in the Eurocodes as well in the NTC08 but it isnt true for the serviceability limit state of
vibration control. Both codes prescribe that the SLS of vibration control must be checked but
dont give any equations or other indications valid to solve this issue (only the advice to
14
design the floor to have natural frequencies higher than 3 Hz), just they recall to the scientific
literature . This paragraph gives a simplified way to assess the vibration control under human
vibration.
1.4.2 Determination of the floor response

The dynamic response of a floor structure due to walking is determined by the loading
characteristic, as described in the last paragraph, and by the structural dynamic properties of
the floor. The characteristic of the floor are described in terms of a mobility frequency
response function, FRF, or transfer function. Using this function in combination with the
standard walking load, the response of floor is obtained. The transfer function method can be
applied where the floor response is obtained either by measurement or by finite element
calculations.
In obtaining the transfer function, the excitation point and response points do not
necessarily have to coincide. Further, it is assumed that the excitation point is kept fixed, that
is, the walking path is not taken into consideration. The response point should be selected
where nuisance is to be expected and the excitation point should correspond to a point in the
walking path.
As a rule, either the locations leading to the largest mobility or the locations
representing the most practical situation should be selected. For most floors the excitation and
response point can be selected in the middle of the floor.
1.4.2.1 Floor response for a single combination of step frequency and persons weight
The one step root mean square value (OS-RMS) represents the response of a floor that
is brought into vibration due to a person walking on that floor. It is obtained from the
measured or simulated floor mobility and the standard walking load function for a person with
given weight and walking pace.
The OS-RMS value is defined as the root mean square value over a given interval of the
frequency weighted velocity response at a point on the floor. The interval is selected starting
from the highest peak in response, see Figure 1.6. From this definition, it follows that the
interval corresponds to period, , between one step and the next.
The weighted response is obtained by applying the following weighting function:
67 =
1

89
:1 + ;< =

[1.8]
Where < = 5.6 6> and 89 is the reference velocity which is taken as 1.0 mm/s.
Because of division by a reference velocity, the weighted response and the OS-RMS value are
dimensionless.
15
Chapter 1
1.4.2.2 Design value of the floor response

The design value of the floor response takes into account the possible statistical
variation in the loading. It is determined as the 90% upper limit of the OS-RMS value and can
be obtained by carrying out the following two steps:
1. Determination of the responses of the floor for all possible load combinations: step
frequency from 1.64 Hz to 3 Hz and body mass from 30 Kg to 125 Kg in steps
opportunely selected. An example of the response of one floor as a function of step
frequency and body weight is presented in the follow Figure 1.7.
2. Determination of the cumulative frequency distribution of OS-RMS values. From the
relative frequency (probability) of each step frequency and body weight combination,
the cumulative frequency of the OS-RMS value is obtained. The 90% upper limit is
defined as the OS-RMS90 design value.
Figure 1. 7 Vibration response for defined ranges of step frequency and body mass
1.4.2.3 Hand Calculation method

It is also possible to follow a simplified approach, which avoids having to calculate the
mobility function of a floor and carrying out statistical analysis. This approach, referred to as
hand calculation method, ca be applied when a floor is adequately described by a single
degree of system consisting of a mass connected to a spring and damper. The OS-RMS90
design value is obtained directly as a function of the dynamic parameters which describe such
a system, i.e., the mass ?, the stiffness , and the damping ratio @.
16
The function can be obtained by applying the steps described in the previous paragraph
for the mobility function of system with one degree of freedom.
In applying the hand calculation method, the dynamic properties of the floor structure
need to be determined. In general, it is sufficient to the determine the following parameters for
the first mode of vibration:
-
Natural frequency
Modal mass
Damping value
The first and the second parameters can be easily estimated using formulas in classical
text of structural dynamics. The damping, instead, is considered as a combination of damping
effects arising from:
-
The type of material used in the structure;

Furniture ed equipement;
Permanent installations and finishing (such as lighting and ceiling);
When the mode frequency and the frequency of steps are identical, resonance can lead
to very large response amplitudes. Resonance can also occur for higher harmonics of the step
frequency, i.e. where a multiple of the step frequency coincides with the natural frequency. In
the transfer function method these possible resonance effects are implicitly taken into account.
For the hnd calculation method, however, higher modes need to be taken explicitly into
consideration.
Where higher floor modes may be relevant for design, modal mass and frequency
should be determined for each mode I of interested and the OS-RMS90 value is determined by
a SRSS rule.
A BC< = : A BC<,!
!
[1.9]
1.4.3 Classification of vibrations

1.4.3.1 Quantity to be assessed
The perception fo vibrations by persons and the associated annoyance depends on
several aspects. The most important are:
The direction of the vibration. The issue of floor vibration is related only to
vertical vibrations.
The posture of people such a standing, laying or sitting;
17
Chapter 1
The courrent activity of an occupant is of relevance for his or her perception of

vibrations, for example, persons working in the production of a factory will
perceive vibrations differently to those working in an office;
Additionally, age and health of affected people may play a role in determing the
level of annoyance perceived.
Thus the perception of vibrations varies between individuals and can be judges in a way
that fulfils the expectations of comfort for the majority of people.
It soul be considered that the vibrations levels, which is object of this paragraph, are
relevant for the comfort of the occupants only. They are not relevant for structural integrity.
Aiming at an universal assessment procedure for human induced vibration it is
recommended to adopt the, above presented, OS-RMS as a measure for assessing floor
vibrations. Exactly the OS-RMS90, defined as the 90 fractile of all the OS-RMS values
obtained for a set of load as written in the preceding paragraph.
1.4.3.2 Floor classes
Depending of OS-RMS90 a class for a floor can be selected. Specific studies have
identified which class is compatible with determinate human activities. For example the
following table, from European Guidelines [3] give class division of floor response and
recommendation for the application of classes. Limits on vibration are also given in
International standard ISO 10137[4] which is referred in the Eurocodes. These limits are
reproduced here with the equivalent OS-RMS90 limit.
Table 1. 2 Classification of floor class and recommendation for the application of classes
18
Table 1. 3 Vibration limits specified by ISO 10137 for continuous vibration
It is considered that ISO limits are unnecessarily harsh, and testing on a number of
subjects found the limits of Guidelines to be more appropriate.
1.4.4 Hand calculation method -Design procedure

The first step in the hand calculation method procedure is to determine the basic floor
characteristic or parameters.
1.4.4.1 Determination of eigenfrequency and modal mass
In practice, the determination of floor characteristic can be performed by simple
calculation methods (analytical formulas) or by Finite Element Analysis (FEA).
In the determination of the dynamic floor characteristics also a realistic fraction of
imposed load should be considered in the mass of the floor to keep in count the serviceability
condition of the floor analyzed. The European guidelines [3] advices that experienced values
for residential and office are 10% to 20% of the imposed load.
Analytical calculation dont require more explanations because of wide literature on the
subject. For the FEA analysis is necessary to give some advice. Indeed, if FEA is applied for
the design of a floor with respect to the vibration behavior, it should be considered that the
FEA-model for this purpose may differ significantly to that used for ultimate limit state (ULS)
design as only small deflections are expected due to vibration. A typical example is the
selection of boundary conditions in vibration analysis compared to ULS design. A connection
which is assumed to be a hinged connection in ULS may be assumed to provide full moment
connection in a vibration analysis. Another one example is the modulus of elasticity of
concrete: fort his analysis it should be considered higher ( almost 10%) than the static tangent
modulus DE .
1.4.4.2 Determination of damping
Damping has a great influence on the vibration behavior of a floor. Independently of the
way of determining natural frequency and modal mass, damping values for vibrating systems
can be determined using tabular methods, founded upon scientific studies. The reference
19
Chapter 1
document [3] for example gives for different structural materials, furniture and finishing the
relative damping. The total damping, system damping, is obtained by summing up the
appropriate values for the different damping source.
Table 1. 4 Determination of damping
1.4.4.3 Determination of the floor class

When the modal mass and frequency are determined, the OS-RMS90 value as well as the
assignment of the floor classes can be obtained with the diagrams given by guidelines and
here partially reported. The relevant diagram needs to be selected according to the damping
characteristic of the floor in the condition of use (considering finishing and furniture).
The diagram is applied by entering the x-axis with the modal mass and the y-axis eth the
corresponding frequency. The OS-RMS90 value and the acceptance class can be read-off at
the intersection of the lines extending from both entry points.
20
21
Chapter 1
Figure 1. 8 The OS-RMS90 graph with acceptance classes for various damping values
1.4.4.4 System with more than one eigenfrequency

In some case, the floor response may be characterized by more than one natural
frequency. In these cases, as already mentioned, the SRSS rule can be used to obtain the OSRMS90 value of system. However, the acceptance class must be read from the table.
22
<2>
Nonlinear Structural Analysis for
Seismic Design
PREVIEW
The analysis of damage level shown by structure after large earthquakes in the past,
makes clear that the seismic response of building cannot be found in elastic behavior range.
The phenomena of earthquake response of the structure can be easily understood by energetic
considerations. Indeed, the earthquake gives a certain quantity of energy to the structure that
must be absorbed and dissipated by the structural elements.
It is surely very hard that just the elastic deformations and the structural damping can be
able to confront the energetic input given by design earthquake as for the new buildings,
because of it needs excessive sections, as well for the existing buildings, which, although
usually designed using elastic analysis, most will experience significant inelastic deformation
under large earthquakes.
It is important to note that out of elastic range does not mean failure of the structure; the
failure conditions, showed in the chapter 1, are related to the ULS achievement. Thus, modern
performance-based design methods require ways to determine the realistic behavior of
structures under such conditions.
Non linear analysis method are treated in this chapter.
2.2 The role and the use of nonlinear analysis in seismic design
Nonlinear analyses involve significantly more effort to perform and should be
approchead with specific objectives in mind. Typical instances where non linear analysis is
applied in structural earthquake engineering practice are to:
1. Assess and design seismic retrofit solutions for existing buildings;
2. Design new buildings that employ structural materials, system, or other features that
do not conform to current building code requirements;
3. Assess the performance of buildings for specific owner/stakeholder requirements
Chapter 2
2.3 Stiffness, resistance and ductility: key points of structural

analysis
Stiffness, resistance and ductility are the parameters that govern the structural response.
They can be defined for the material (stress strain curve), as well for the whole structure. (e.g.
base shear- displacement on top curve).
Figure 2. 1 Stiffness, resistance and ductility on force-displacement diagram
In reference to the Figure 2.1 a conceptual definition of these can be given:
The stiffness is the quantity which linked external applied loads with displacement
while they are still in the elastic range.
The resistance is the maximum load that the element can be carry and in elasticperfectly plastic diagram is the same value which cause the yelding;
The ductility is the ability of an element, or of the whole structure, to show more
displacements ( or deformations) after the elastic range, without an important lost of
resistance ; numerically it is quantified by the fraction between the displacement value
on the failure with the displacement value on the yielding.
Stiffness and resistance are the main elements while a one studies linear system.
Ductility represent the structure resource after yielding to show more displacement before to
achieve the failure.
2.4 Equation of motion of an elastic-plastic system

A SDOF elastic-plastic system the relation between force and displacement is not a
straight line, as in elastic SDOF system, but a double straight line: one for elastic behavior to
the small displacement and the other starting to the yield point, horizontal in the perfectplasticity hypothesis, for the plastic range.
24
Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design
According to the DAlembert principle, the dynamic equilibrium gives the formula
below:
() +
() + ((),
()) = ()
[2.1]
Figure 2. 2 Forces acting on a Sdof system
It is formally analogue to the equation for the elastic SDOF but it is substantially
different because of the resistance forces that are function of the instantaneous value of
displacement u(t) and its time history. In this case, the solution can be carried out only by
numerical procedures as described later in this chapter.
2.5 Linear elastic equivalent analysis: Behavior factor q

Response evaluation of elastic-plastic SDOF system is made easier by tree principles
due to Newmark, during 60s:
-
ED: Equal displacement principle which affirms the equality between maximum
displacement shown by an elastic SDOF and an elastic-plastic SDOF, with the same
initial stiffness, subjected to the same earthquake. This is true for a relatively
deformable structure, i.e. for relatively high natural period;
EE: Equal energy which affirms that the energy stored in an elastic-plastic system
under an earthquake is the same than an elastic system, with the same stiffness of the
initial of the first one, was stored. This is valid for relatively rigid structure, i.e. for
small natural period;
EA: Equal acceleration which affirms that, for very rigid structure 0, the
maximum acceleration on the SDOF is the ground acceleration.
Consequently, the designer who would like use elastic-plastic design must:
25
Chapter 2
For high natural period: design the structure to be able to achieve the elastic
displacement with plastic behavior;
For small period: design the structure to be able to achieve a displacement
opportunely bigger than the elastic;
For very small period: design the structure to resist to the maximum ground
acceleration. In this case the structure is so rigid than the small displacement cannot
premise the activation of plastic behavior.
The strategy design discussed above, for the first two principles, shows that the design
force can be reduced if the designer gives to the structure the possibility to have the
displacement required, or rather the required ductility.
Figure 2. 3 Comparison between elastic and elastic-plastic SDOF diagram
These two principles clarify how the ductility reduces the actions with respect to the
elastic values in the seismic evaluation on building. Referring to the Figure 2.3(a), the
maximum force on the SDOF is:

,
,
=
= ,
=
,
,

Where =
,!"

#
[2.2]
is the ductility of the SDOF system. For lower periods the EE
principle, by the equality between A and B area in Figure 2.3(b), the reduction is:

'
%, & = %, &
2
[2.3]
simplifying and dividing both members for

'
,
,
1* = 2 (
(
*

in the elastic rang it is possible to obtain that

26
[2.4]
, ,
=

[2.6]
substituting [2.5] in [2.4] and with simple steps, it is

=
,
+2 1
[2.7]
It is now clear that the ductility makes the design forces smaller. The quantity on the
denominator, in the both equations, is the as-called behavior factor, usually indicated by the
letter q .
The behavior factor is the essence of the linear equivalent elastic analysis. This method
consists in the reduction of linear elastic response spectra by q factor to keep in count the
inelastic resources of the structure.
Figure 2. 4 Behavior factor Vs ductility available
2.5.1 MDOF analysis

For MDOF structures this method is applied in the same way, scaling the response
spectra by q factor to have the design spectra. Although the method is conceptually simple, its
application and the quality of its results are very related to the q factor selected.
27
Chapter 2
The definition of q factor is an essential point for the seismic structural design. Its
definition is done for structural typology as interpretation of numerical analysis.
The behavior factor is conditioned by:
-
Structural typology
Material
Ductility global level of the structure
Hyperstaticity of the structure
Plan regularity
Elevation regularity
Every standard structure has its behavior factor. Special structure, for geometry or
material, needs to be studied to understand which is its natural behavior factor. The
Eurocode 8, the Eurocode on earthquake design, gives, for rc structure, a 1.5 as a minimum
value for behavior factor independent of the structural typology.
2.6 Non linear static analysis: Pushover

Pushover analysis is a method which tries to be simple to do and to understand the
results as a linear elastic analysis but at the same time to consider the inelastic behavior.
The aim is to keep in count the structural behavior during the earthquake.
In the nonlinear static procedure, the structural model is subjected to an incremental
lateral load, a forces vector or displacements, whose distribution represents the effects on the
structure expected during ground shaking. The lateral load is applied until the imposed
displacements reach the so-called target displacement, which represents the displacement
demand that the earthquake ground motions would impose on the structure. Once loaded to
the target displacement, the demand parameters for the structural components are compared
with the respective acceptance criteria for the desired performance state. System level demand
parameters, such a story drifts and base shear, may also be checked. The non linear static
procedure is applicable to low-rise regular buildings, where the response is dominated by the
fundamental sway mode of vibration. It is less suitable for taller, slender, or irregular
buildings, where multiple vibration modes affect the behavior.
2.6.1 Non linear static analysis for a SDOF system

Considering the SDOF in Figure 2.5 is conceptually simple explain the basis and how to
do a pushover analysis. Just one degree of freedom, the transversal displacement , , is
enough to describe the state of this system. In this case the PO analysis consists in the
application to the system of one force or one displacement , increasing its intensity until
the system fails.
28
Figure 2. 5 SDOF system and the main values for PO analysis
2.6.1.1 Step 1: Load increasing

The initial value of the force, or displacement, has the only requirement to dont be so
big to overcome the yield limit. The equations are:
, (.) = . , /0, (1) = 1
[2.8]
Where , and are the initial values of the forcings and . and 1 the amplification
coefficients. The forcings are increasing until the system collapses which can be defined when
it is impossible to find equilibrium with external load or when the structure arrives to a
predetermined value.
2.6.1.2 Step 2: Linearization of capacity curve
The capacity curve is a diagram which has in the x-axes the displacement and in the yaxes the shear. Three kinds of curve are possible:
-
With hardening
Perfect
Whit softening
As shown in Figure 2.6.
29
Chapter 2
Figure 2. 6 Differents kind of PO curve.
Once had the curve the next step is its linearization, i.e. to fit with straight line the
curve. The interpolated traits can be bi-linear or tri-linear and the chose is not unique.
2.6.1.3 Step 3: Performance Point Evaluation

The curve obtained, the as-called Capacity Spectrum, is possible to understand what is
the PP, or better the displacement required for the structure under design earthquake. There
are two methods :
-the N2 method proposed by P.Fajfar;
-the CSM method proposed by Freeman
The first one use the Newmarks principles, above mentioned, the second one is a
method which insert a fictitious damping in the structure to keep in count the contribution of
the structural damage to dissipate energy.
2.6.2 Pushover analysis for MDOF systems

Extension of PO analysis to a MDOF isnt immediately because of there are a lot of
problems to solve:
-
Chose of the representative parameters;
30
Chose of forcing type, displacement or load, and their application on the structure
elevation;
Conversion in a SDOF system to do an interpretation of the results.
More detail has shown in Chopra .
2.6.2.1 Analysis Methods, Modeling and Outcome

The nonlinear stiffness and strength of the components are modeled based on a cyclic
envelope curve, which implicitly accounts for degradation due to cyclic loading that is
expected under earthquakes. Loads are applied at nodes where dynamic inertia forces would
develop, and they are monotonically increased without load reversals. A control point is
defined for the target displacement, usually at the top (roof level) of the structure. The plot of
the resulting base shear force as a function of the control point (roof) displacement is often
recognized as the pushover curve of the structure. The pushover curve can be further
simplified by idealizing sloping branches of elastic, post yield hardening and softening
(degrading) behavior, as shown in the Figure 2.7, and used to examine overall building
performance.
Figure 2. 7 Idealized static pushover backbone curve
2.7 Non linear dynamic analysis

Dynamic non linear analysis is, today, the most sophisticated way to predict the
structural response under an earthquake. This method consist in the direct integration of
31
Chapter 2
equation of motion in non linear field. In literature there are many methods, a commonly
denominator is to transform a system of differential equations in a system of algebraic
equations by some hypothesis on the ground acceleration.
For an inelastic SDOF system the equation of motion is:
() +
() + ((),
()) = ()
[2.9]
Under initial condition 2 = (0) e

2 =
(0). The equation above assumes a linear
damping but this is not necessary for what is below written in this paragraph. Seismic input is
described by a record of value 3 = (). The time step is usually assumed to be constant.
= 567 5
[2.10]
and, inside of this time step, the system response is explicitly found. Exactly, with
displacement, velocity and acceleration knew at step i, according with [2.9]
5 +
5 + 8 5 =
[2.11]
The response at the step i+1 will be found

567 +
567 + 8 567 =
567
[2.12]
Usually, the response inside the time step t cannot be exact because of the implicitly
difficulties in the punctual definition of the forcing () and the resistance forces
((),
()) due an inelastic behavior. To solve the problem, a numerical procedures were
created. A numerical procedure must satisfy three important aspect:
Convergency property for which if the time step is decreased the approximate
solution will fit better the exact solution.
Accuracy property related to the capacity of the algorithm to give solution near
of the exact for every chose of time step.
Robustness property related to the stability of the algorithm respect with the roundoff errors; to specifically little input variations must product little variations of the
output data.
The last parameter is linked to the stability and it is a very important parameter during
the analysis debug. Integration methods are divided, indeed, in conditionally stable and
unconditionally stable; the algorithm stability is related to the selected time step.
One of the most used method for the direct integration is the Newmarks method. In the
next chapters this method is explained with particular attention to the stability condition.
32
2.7.1 Newmarks method for a SDOF system

In 1959, N.M Newmark developed a integration methods founded on the two equation
below:

567 =
5 + 9(1 :) < 5 + (: ) 567
[2.13]
567 = 5 + ()
5 + 9(0.5 1)()< 5 + 91()' < 567
[2.14]
The parameter 1 and : define the acceleration variation inside of an integration step and they
7
determine the accuracy and the stability of this method. Typical selection are : = and
7
?
'
1 . These two parameters give the acceleration interpolation law of the acceleration,
A
it can easily show that : = and 1 = is the selection for an average acceleration value into
'
A
7
the step and : = ' and 1 = A is the selection for a linear law of interpolation. Details are
shown in the Figure 2.8 .
Figure 2. 8 Interpolaction function for the typical selection of parameters
With equations [2.13] and [2.14] the response can be find. More details can be found in
the literature. Here the robustness property of the algorithm are discussed.
33
Chapter 2
2.7.1.1 Newmarks method : stability

The algorithm is stable if the time step is selected according to

1
1

B2 +: 21
[2.15]
Where is the natural period of the SDOF. It follows that the average acceleration method
7
D: = ; 1 = F is unconditionally stable, in fact:

'

H

[2.16]
That is whatever selection of integration time step does not affect the algorithm stability.
7
7
Linear acceleration method D: = ' ; 1 = ? F, instead, it is stable if

0.551

[2.17]
However, although the limitation is a finite number, it is not so little to be a limit for the
ordinary system analysis, which already requires a little time step for its accuracy.
2.7.2 Direct time history integration for a MDOF system

Equations of motion for a MDOF consist in a linear system of coupled differential
equations. Using algebraic notation, they can be written in a way similar to the equation of
motion for a SDOF system:
J K () + L K
() + M8 (K, K
) = J N ()
[2.18]
Like the SDOF systems the action () is described by a vector of values each spaced
by a regular time step . The problem is to determine KO6P , K
567 , K 567 according to:
J K 567 + L K
567 + M8 (K, K
)567 = J N 3QR .
[2.19]
When the same quantities are known at the time step i. The methods for a SDOF system
can be used to solve MDOF system using classical algebraic methods.
Usually in linear system analysis the equations of motion [2.18] can be decoupled by
modal analysis because of the resistance force are linear function of displacement. When the
system is nonlinear, the decoupling is impossible thus the equation must be solved together.
However, the expansion in modal coordinates helps to understand the most important
problems related to the direct integration. It is important and reasonable setting all parameters
starting by the elastic behavior.
34
Using eigenvectors the displacement vector is written as

V
K() = S T U ().
W7
[2.20]
Substituting the [2.20] in [2.18] the problem is now described by eigenvectors. In

structure which shows a linear behavior just j values of N are important in the definition of
response. One method might be to select in the elastic behavior the j important eigenvectors
and substituting in [2.18] the [2.20] written just for the j eigenvectors considered.
Unfortunately, this method does not give, in general, good results so the system [2.18] must
be solved for all N eigenvectors. However, just j is enough to predict accurately the response.
Is very important to understand what is the smallest period of the j values because of it will be
utilized to select the correct parameters to have convergence, accuracy and stability.
Convergence is guaranteed by the algorithm selected.
X
With j known the time integration step can be selected as a smaller value then = 72Y is
required to give accuracy to the algorithm.

However, solving without decoupling involves that all modes, also the modes from j+1
to N, will be affect by the numerical calculations. This is a problem for the stability because of
the stability condition must be satisfied for all modes. Thus a very little time step might be
required using algorithm with stability condition like [2.20]. Fort these raisons for a MDOF is
very important to use unconditionally stable algorithm like the average acceleration method.
A unconditionally stable method alone, however, does not give the condition to have
accuracy because including from j+1 to N modes can affect the accuracy response. It would
be desirable to filter the response of the j modes. This can be possible by two way:
-
Defining a correct damping matrix which makes less important the modes from j+1 to
N.
Using a numerical method with numerical damping which can reduced the response
only for certain modes characterized by its period. An example is the Wilsons
method.
To understand better the numerical damping the figure below shows the solution of
equation of motion for a SDOF undamped system in free vibration obtained by four different
methods, where one of these is the exact solution.
35
Chapter 2
Figure 2. 9
Analyzing the figure it is clear how solution by Wilsons method shows a damped
response where the system is undamped. This characteristic can be governed because of the
time integration step is the parameter that discriminates if the numerical damping affects or
not the solution. The properties of Wilsons method, synthetically showed in the Figure 2.30,
suggest a method to keep in count only the j important modes in a numerical solution.
Figure 2. 10 Damping and Amplitude decay versus dimensionless time integration step
Wilsons method gives damping only starting from determinate values of time
integration step so, as the period increase with the modes, the time step can be selected in
relation with the period of j+1 mode. In this way, modes from j+1 to N will be numerically
damped while the modes from 1 to j will be keep in count with only their damping value.
36
2.8 Incremental dynamic analysis

Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is a parametric analysis that has recently emerged
in several different forms to estimate more thoroughly structural performance under seismic
loads. It involves subjecting a structural model to one, or more, ground motion records, each
scaled to multiple levels of intensity, thus producing one, or more curves of response
parameterized versus intensity level. This method was developed by D.Vamvatsikos and C.A.
Cornell [cit.], in 2001. While this method is founded on a simple concept, performing an IDA
requires several important steps.
1. Create the model for the structure under investigation

The model is very important to have a good analysis. It must be able to keep in count
nonlinear behavior of the structure. This step is common with the other analysis methods
mentioned before and it will be better treated in the next chapter.
2. Selection a suite of ground motion records

Studies, e.g. Shome and Cornell [cit.], have shown that for mid-rise buildings, ten to
twenty records are usually enough to provide a sufficient accuracy in the estimation of
seismic demand.
3. Selection of the study parameters
Select a ground motion intensity measure IM (e.g. the 5%-damped first-mode spectral
acceleration, the peak ground acceleration) and a damage measure DM (e.g. the maximum
top displacement, the maximum over all stories peak interstory drift ratio).
4. Run the analysis

For each record, incrementally scale it to multiple levels by the scale factor SF, related
to IM factor, and run a nonlinear dynamic analysis each time. Stop incrementing when
numerical non-convergence is first encountered.
5. Postprocessing
Interpolate the resulting IM,DM points to generate IDA curve for each individual
record;
- Define limit-states and estimate the corresponding capacities on each IDA curve;
- Summarize the IDA curves and limit-state capacities across all records into 16%, 50%
and 84% fractiles;
-
6. Interpretation of the results

Use IDA data to better understand the behavior of the structure.
37
Chapter 2
2.9 Nonlinear Static versus Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

Non linear dynamic analysis method generally provide more realistic models of
structural response to strong ground shaking and, thereby, provide more reliable assessment
of earthquake performance the nonlinear static analysis. Nonlinear static analysis is limited in
its ability to capture transient dynamic behavior with cyclic loading and degradation.
Nevertheless, the nonlinear static procedure provides a convenient and fairly reliable method
for structures whose dynamic response is governed by first-mode sway motions. One way, to
check this, is by comparing the deformed geometry from a pushover analysis to the elastic
first-mode vibration shape, advice already contents in the codes where PO is applicable. In
general, the non linear static procedure works well for low-rise building (less than about five
stories) with symmetrical regular configurations. For the last sentence, the codes give rules to
check the status of regular or irregular. Briefly, one building is regular when it has a compact
e regular shape in plan and it keeps these properties in the elevation without appreciable
variation of mass or rigidity between the floors.
Hovewer, even when the nonlinear static procedure is not appropriate for a complete
performance evaluation, nonlinear static analysis can be an effective design tool to investigate
aspects of the analysis model and the nonlinear response that are difficult to do by nonlinear
dynamic analysis. For example, nonlinear static analysis can be useful to
a. Check and debug the nonlinear analysis model;
b. Augment understanding of the yielding mechanisms and deformation demands;
c. Investigate alternative design parameters and how variations in the component
properties may affect response
SPO and IDA have a common incremental nature that suggests a connection between
their results. Indeed, for the buildings where PO is applicable, IDA curve fits well the
PO curve. This characteristic suggests one way to process IDA data, that is using the
same method used in PO analysis.
2.10 Quality Assurance of Building Analysis

Nonlinear analysis software is highly sophisticated, requiring training and experience to
obtain reliable results. While the analysis program technical users manual is usually the best
resource on the features and use of any software, it may not provide a complete description of
the outcome of various combinations of choices of input parameters, or the theoretical and
practical limitations of different features. Therefore, analysts should build up experience of
the software capabilities by performing analysis studies on problems of increasing scope and
complexity, beginning with element tests of simple cantilever models and building up to
models that encompass features relevant to the types of structures being analyzed. Basic
checks should be made to confirm that the strength and stiffness of the model is correct under
38
lateral load. Further validations using published experimental tests can help build
understanding and confidence in the nonlinear analysis software and alternative modeling
decisions (e.g., effects of element mesh refinement and section discretization).
Beyond having confidence in the software capabilities and the appropriate modeling
techniques, it is essential to check the accuracy of models developed for a specific project.
Checks begin with basic items necessary for any analysis. However, for nonlinear analyses
additional checks are necessary to help ensure that the calculated responses are realistic.
Beyond familiarizing oneself with the capabilities of a specific software

package, the following are suggested checks to help ensure the accuracy of
nonlinear analysis models for calculating earthquake demand parameters:
Check the elastic modes of model. Ensure that the first mode periods for the
translational axes and for rotation are consistent with expectation (e.g., hand
calculation, preliminary structural models) and that the sequence of modes is
logical. Check for spurious local modes that may be due to incorrect element
properties, inadequate restraints, or incorrect mass definitions.
Check the total mass of the model and that the effective masses of the first few
modes in each direction are realistic and account for most of the total mass.
Generate the elastic (displacement) response spectra of the input ground motion
records. Check that they are consistent and note the variability between records.
Determine the median spectrum of the records and the variability about the
median.
Perform elastic response spectrum (using the median spectrum of the record set)
and dynamic response history analyses of the model, and calculate the
displacements at key positions and the elastic base shear and overturning
moment. Compare the response spectrum results to the median of the dynamic
analysis results.
Perform nonlinear static analyses to the target displacements for the median
spectrum of the ground motion record set. Calculate the displacements at key
positions and the base shear and overturning moment and compare to the elastic
analysis results. Vary selected input or control parameters (e.g., with and
without P-D, different loading patterns, variations in component strengths or
deformation capacities) and confirm observed trends in the response.
Perform nonlinear dynamic analyses and calculate the median values of
displacements, base shear, and overturning moment and compare to the results
of elastic and nonlinear static analyses. Vary selected input or control parameters
(similar to the variations applied in the static nonlinear analyses) and compare to
each other and to the static pushover and elastic analyses. Plot hysteresis
responses of selected components to confirm that they look realistic, and look
39
Chapter 2
for patterns in the demand parameters, including the distribution of deformations

and spot checks of equilibrium.
40
<3>
Modeling of structure for non linear
analysis
PREVIEW
Structural modeling is the ensemble of operations that allows to translate the physical
problem in a mathematical problem, whose solution gives informations on the real behavior
of the structure. The result of the modeling is the definition of the structural scheme that is
associated to the real structure. The definition of an appropriate scheme, as simple, to be quite
simply calculable, as complex, to keep in count the most important variables, it is the
principle problem in structural analysis, because of from this definition depends, more than
the numerical analysis accuracy, the reliability of results.
By the FEM method, the 3D structural models can be created without any difficulties.
Respect to the past, where the buildings were modeled, usually, as a series of 2D frames, this
represents a bigger reliability to obtainment of the response because, by them, a global
structural behavior can be studied and understood. Nevertheless, by the inherent difficulty of
the studied phenomenon, many difficulties remain which requiring that the structural engineer
must work at different levels of difficulties. In fact, while very simple schemes neglect a lot of
variables and they are, at lest in the theory, less correct, they allow for a direct interpretation
of structural behavior and a possibility of results control which isnt property of the more
Chapter 3
complex schemes. Furthermore, for the simple schemes, many methods are available while,
for complex schemes, there is only one method, i.e. the FEM. The role and the use of
nonlinear analysis in seismic design
3.1 Models to describe the structural behavior

In the technical literature there are many models to describe non linear behavior of r.c.
frames. A classification can be did respect to the discretization of the problem. They are
divided in:
Global model: the structure is represented as the union of macro-elements thus,

the number of degrees of freedom is really low;
Member by member models: the models is obtained by the union of a simple

elements which keep in count the nonlinearity. This model are created in two
ways: distributed plasticity model, in which every point of the frame can show
nonlinearity, lumped plasticity model, in which just preselected points have
nonlinear behavior.
Point by point models: Elements and nodes are represented by an intensive

mesh of bi-dimensional or three-dimensional elements.
Although using point by point models appears the best way to understanding the
structural behavior there are a lots factors which make difficult their practical utilization, even
only for their computational requests associated to a very intensive mesh. The correct
selection of the calculation model is strictly related to the analyzed structure and to the aims
the analyses.
By global models, the response is calculated in an approximate way but, at the same
time, in a very simple way so, they are very useful as in concept design phase as in the
verification of calculation.
A simplified model which, although with important simplifications, makes
understandable the essence of the structural behavior is always necessary to have successful
analysis. In fact, through it, setting the more complex model is possible by selection of the
principal variables and the details to keep in count; furthermore it is the key to understand and
to validate the analysis results.
42
Modeling of structure for non linear analysis
The next paragraphs speak about the principal problems which occur when a structural
model is created.
3.2 Non linear behavior of r.c. structures

The main structural theories are founded on the small displacements hypothesis and the
small deformations. These hypotheses, reasonable for serviceable conditions, allow to write
the equilibrium equations in the initial, undeformed, configuration and to consider linear
elastic behavior for the material. However, in extreme load conditions, for example under
design earthquake load, these hypotheses lose their physical meaning. This feature is evident
analyzing the damages on structures subjected to strong earthquakes in the past, of which an
example is shown in the figures 3.1 and 3.2.
Figure 3. 1 Effects of large displacements
43
Chapter 3
Figure 3. 2 Effects of large deformations
3.2.1 Geometric non linearity

For better understand the influence of the geometric non linearity on the structural
behavior a simple structural system, shown in the Figure 3.3, is considered. It is composed by
only one rigid beam restrained by a non zero compliance.
Figure 3. 3 Rigid beam restrained by a non zero compliance
The rotational equilibrium equation, written on the deformed configuration, is:

= cos + sin
[3.1]
which indicates that the relation between forces and displacements is non linear. By the
hypothesis of small displacement, but not so small to be infinitesimal, the relation [3.1] can be
lynearized, id est:
= +
44
[3.2]
Which shows that, also in small displacement, writing equilibrium equation cannot be lawful.
The correctness or otherwise is directly related to the acting axial force, as it shown by the
equation [3.2]. Furthermore by the increasing of the axial force the solution can lose the
uniqueness. If a distributed elasticity element is considered, indeed of a lumped element,
using a local reference system is necessary to evaluate equilibrium section by section. The
Figure 3.4 shows the behavior of a linear elastic beam under large displacements and the
Figure 3.5 shows the numerical comparison between the expected solution in small
displacement and in quite large displacements.
Figure 3. 4 Large displacements behavior of a cantilever
Figure 3. 5 Comparison between linear and non linear response of a cantilever
Looking to figure 3.5 indicates how the flexional behavior and axial behavior are not
decoupled. Figure 3.6 makes clear how, also in distributed elasticity, axial force is responsible
of the characteristic of the stress.
The possibility to neglect or otherwise the effects due to the geometrical non linearity
depends, essentially, to two factors. The first one is how much large the displacements are,
because also little displacements makes important the effects due to the nonlinearity: the
second order effects. The second one is the entity of the axial force.
45
Chapter 3
It is clear that a model for a new building, which is designed for lateral load and to
respect displacement limit imposed by the codes, cannot keep in count these effects.
When these effects are important, two different ways are usually used:
Geometrical stiffness
A stiffness matrix related to the axial force, , is added to the stiffness matrix in
small displacement, :
= +
[3.3]
P- effects
An iterative procedure where each step is loaded adding the forces developed
writing the equilibrium equations on the deformed configuration of the previous
step.
3.2.2 Mechanical non linearity

The non linearity can be within the materials stress-strains relation. Indeed, when loaded
by relatively high values of deformation, the materials, of which the section is composed by,
stop the response in their elastic range. Consequently, the global element behavior is modified
so the structural component must be adequately modeled.
Inelastic structural component models can be differentiated by the way that plasticity is
distributed through the member cross sections and along its length. For example, shown in
Figure 3.6 is a comparison of five idealized model types for simulating the inelastic response
of beam-columns. Several types of structural members (e.g., beams, columns, braces, and
some flexural walls) can be modeled using the concepts illustrated in Figure 3-6:
46
Figure 3. 6 Idealized models of beam-column elements
The simplest models concentrate the inelastic deformations at the end of the
element, such as through a rigid-plastic hinge (Figure 3-6a) or an inelastic spring
with hysteretic properties (Figure 3-6b). By concentrating the plasticity in zerolength hinges with moment-rotation model parameters, these elements have
relatively condensed numerically efficient formulations.
The finite length hinge model (Figure 3-6c) is an efficient distributed plasticity
formulation with designated hinge zones at the member ends. Cross sections in the
inelastic hinge zones are characterized through either nonlinear moment-curvature
relationships or explicit fiber-section integrations that enforce the assumption that
plane sections remain plane. The inelastic hinge length may be fixed or variable, as
determined from the moment-curvature characteristics of the section together with
the concurrent moment gradient and axial force. Integration of deformations along
the hinge length captures the spread of yielding more realistically than the
concentrated hinges, while the finite hinge length facilitates calculation of hinge
rotations.
The fiber formulation (Figure 3-6d) models distribute plasticity by numerical

integrations through the member cross sections and along the member length.
Uniaxial material models are defined to capture the nonlinear hysteretic axial stressstrain characteristics in the cross sections. The plane-sections-remain-plane
assumption is enforced, where uniaxial material fibers are numerically integrated
47
Chapter 3
over the cross section to obtain stress resultants (axial force and moments) and
incremental moment-curvature and axial force-strain relations. The cross section
parameters are then integrated numerically at discrete sections along the member
length, using displacement or force interpolation functions (Kunnath, Spacone ).
Distributed fiber formulations do not generally report plastic hinge rotations, but
instead report strains in the steel and concrete cross section fibers. The calculated
strain demands can be quite sensitive to the moment gradient, element length,
integration method, and strain hardening parameters on the calculated strain
demands. Therefore, the strain demands and acceptance criteria should be
benchmarked against concentrated hinge models, for which rotation acceptance
criteria are more widely reported.
The most complex models (Figure 3-6e) discretize the continuum along the member
length and through the cross sections into small (micro) finite elements with
nonlinear hysteretic constitutive properties that have numerous input parameters.
This fundamental level of modeling offers the most versatility, but it also presents
the most challenge in terms of model parameter calibration and computational
resources. As with the fiber formulation, the strains calculated from the finite
elements can be difficult to interpret relative to acceptance criteria that are typically
reported in terms of hinge rotations and deformations.
3.2.2.1 Distributed versus concentrated Plasticity elements

While distributed plasticity formulations model variations of the stress and strain
through the section and along the member in more detail, important local behaviors, such as
strength degradation due to local buckling of steel reinforcing bars or flanges, or the nonlinear
interaction of flexural and shear, are difficult to capture without sophisticated and numerically
intensive models. On the other hand, phenomenological concentrated hinge/spring models,
may be better suited to capturing the nonlinear degrading response of members through
calibration using member test data on phenomenological moment-rotations and hysteresis
curves. Thus, when selecting analysis model types, it is important to understand
1.
the expected behavior;
2.
the assumptions;
48
3.
the approximations inherent to the proposed model type.
While more sophisticated formulations may seem to offer better capabilities for
modeling certain aspects of behavior, simplified models may capture more effectively
the relevant feature with the same or lower approximation. It is best to gain knowledge
and confidence in specific models and software implementations by analyzing small test
examples, where one can interrogate specific behavioral effects.
3.2.3 Stress-Strain relation for non linear analysis

In modeling the hysteretic properties of actual elements for analysis, the initial stiffness,
strength, and post-yield force-displacement response of cross sections should be determined
based on principles of mechanics and/or experimental data, considering influences of cyclic
loading and interaction of axial, shear, and flexural effects. Under large inelastic cyclic
deformations, component strengths often deteriorate due to fracture, crushing, local buckling,
bond slip, or other phenomena. If such degradations are included through appropriate
modifiers to the stiffness and internal forces, the model can simulate most regular materials
and devices experiencing hysteretic behavior (Ibarra et al., FEMA 2009)
3.2.3.1 Stress-strain relation for r.c. section
In subdividing section by fiber different stress strain relation can be used for the
different parts of the section. One r.c. section is formed by three different regions
-
Steel rebar
Unconfined concrete
Confined concrete
49
Chapter 3
Figure 3. 7 fiber division of section
3.2.3.1.1 Kent and Park Model

The Kent and Park model , modified by Scott et al., is a model that consider confining
effects of the stirrups on the concrete. The backbone curve, or rather the envelope curve of the
hysteretic cycles, is shown in the next figure.
50
Figure 3. 8 Kent and Park model
The curve are defined by the below parameters

&
(
Cylindrical stress failure of concrete

Factor for resistance increasing for stirrups confinment

=1+

stirrup percentage (stirrups volume fract concrete nucleum volume)
yielding stress of rebar
Failure deformation. It can be defined by the Scott et al. equation

= 0.004 + 0.9 #
%
300
Deformation with maximum stress
& = 0.002
slope of the softening curve
0.5
(=

3 + 0.29
+ 0.75 , 0.002
/
145 1000
wide of concrete nucleum
/ stirrup step
51
Chapter 3
The exhaust path is on a straight line from the point (1 , 1 ), on the skeleton curve, to
the point (3 , 0) and after go again to the origin axes on the abscissa, because of this model
neglects the contribution to traction of the concrete.
3
1 6
1
= 0.145 4 5 + 0.13 4 5
&
&
&
3
1
= 0.707 4
25 + 0.834
&
&
[3.4]
[3.5]
per 78 9 < < 2

:;
per 78 9 < 2
:;
The reload path is, when 3 is reached again, on the same straight line of the discharge.
Figure 3. 9 Load and upload cycle of Kent and Park Model
3.2.3.1.2 Menegotto and Pinto Model

To describe the nonlinear behavior for steel rebars Menegotto e Pinto model, modified
by Filippou et al. , can be used. This model includes isotropic deformations for hardening.
52
Figure 3. 10 Menegotto and Pinto model
The relation is expressed by the below relation:

@ = B +
where
(1 B)
D F/D
[3.6]
C1 + E
@ @1
@H @1
1
=
H 1
@ =
I = IH JF
K
J6 + K
[3.7]
[3.8]
[3.9]
Wich
@

(1 , @1 )
(H , @H )
B
IH , JF , J6
Normal stress
Axial deformation
Unload point wich is (0,0) in the elastic range
Intersection of the two asymptotes
Stiffness decrease factor
constants that are respectively 20.0 , 18.5 , 0.15
53
Chapter 3
K
54
and H
Difference between maximum value of deformation in the load direction

slope of the softening curve
<4>
The new redevelopment of areas
adjacent to the gallery Ferrari
PREVIEW
Maranello is a one of the most attractive place of Emilia-Romagna (Italy). Almost
200.000 tourists, from all parts of the world, come there to visit the Galleria Ferrari so it is the
most known regional museum. This capacity to attract tourists is due to the fame of the Ferrari
able to bypass different languages and national boundaries. Since the 90s of the last century,
and in the more recent years, have grown, very fastly, the tourists number and the tourist
accommodation, to such an extent that today the tourism represents a very important
economic sector. To increase this sector the
administration of Maranello has done a
requalification project to valorize the aspects linked to identity and tourist attraction. Inside of
this projet
4.1 The redevelopment of areas adjacent to the gallery Ferrari

Maranello is a one of the most attractive place of Emilia-Romagna (Italy). Almost
200.000 tourists, from all parts of the world, come there to visit the Galleria Ferrari so it is the
most known regional museum. This capacity to attract tourists is due to the fame of the Ferrari
Chapter 4
able to bypass different languages and national boundaries. Since the 90s of the last century,
and in the more recent years, have grown, very fastly, the number of tourists and the tourist
accommodations, to such an extent that today the tourism represents a very important
economic sector. To increase this sector the administration of Maranello has done a
requalification project to valorize the aspects linked to identity and tourist attraction. Inside of
this project, the redevelopment of the Area in front of the Galleria Ferrari, actually used as
parking and green area, has a very large relative importance. The qualification of this area
aims to offer urban functional services of the museum.
Figure 4. 1 Dino Ferrari Street where there is Galleria Ferrari
4.1.1 The design competition: Plaza and Tower Galleria

Ferrari
For the redevelopment of area the Maranello administration did a design competition for
the upgrade as square of the area in front of the Galleria Ferrari, for a new panoramic tower
30 m tall, for a new tourist accommodation and qualification of the museum access paths.
The area in front of the Galleria Ferrari will be upgraded as a pedestrian space e public
square for events and manifestations. In the new square there will be a structure used for
56
The new redevelopment of areas adjacent to the gallery Ferrari
tourist information office and tourist acceptance. The new space will be a public square for
the access in Galleria Ferrari.
Figure 4. 2 The red line indicates the boundaries of the design competition area
Currently, the office for the tourists is inside of the museum and it does not have more
area inside to increase its services. The choice to place it outside of the museum building,
must be done in a way to ensure the recognition of the place and, at the same time, the
autonomy of that structure respect to the Galleria Ferrari.
The structure is a panoramic tower, 30 m tall from the square ground and it will placed
in a way to not have interferences with the public underground parking, which will build
under of the square. The tower will become a privileged point to observe (the center, the
mountains around of Maranello, the Fiorano trak where the Ferrari cars are often tuned) and,
at the same time, it will become a vertical element of identification of the Museum structure.
57
Chapter 4
4.1.2 The winning project

The winning project was the so-called Per uno spazio urbano di qualit (For a quality
urban place) designed by Piero Lissoni (www.lissoniassociati.com) and structural designed by
Francesco Iorio (www.studioiorio.net) .
Figure 4. 3 View of the whole place as designed in the winning project
The aim of the project is to do an architectonic building with a clear and well defined
geometry, which is characterized by the selection of modern materials without any decorative
additions, in a way to dont compete with the architecture of the Galleria Ferrari but to define
together a quality urban space.
Figure 4. 4 View of the new panoramic tower
58
Figure 4. 5 View of the new panoramic tower on an other viewed point
The structure for the tourist reception and the observation point were grouped in only
one symbol building, which is 30 m tall from the ground of the square. The using of
innovative material like a polycarbonate makes clearer the communicative function of the
building: shell of various measures compose the translucent skin, which is interrupted only by
the windows opened on the landscape, while a special retro illumination transforms the
building in a luminescent body which illuminates the square. The retro illumination suggests a
symbolic use, for example it can be red when a special event related to the Ferrari world
occurs.
59
Chapter 4
Figure 4. 6 Night view of the tower whit its retro illumination
The ground level of the tower includes the tourist reception point which is linked on the
square, with the access paths to the Galleria Ferrari and underground parking.
The tower is a vertical element with square plan, where there are the lift systems and the
stairs, while the covered terrace is an horizontal cantilevered element. The terrace would be
like a new access path to the Galleria and it is placed in a way to offer to the visitors, by its
overtures, a suggestive panorama. It is possible to see the core production of Ferrari, the
Fiorano track, the historical center of Maranello and the hills around of the city.
60
Figure 4. 7 Planimetry with the tower position marked
The redevelopment of the parking in front of the Galleria Ferrari is done by the creation
of two green ramp which realigns the irregular perimeter of the place and they define a
internal rectangular square. The true square, where quotidian activities and temporary events
will be done, is characterized by a concrete pavement which is signed by the same regular
mesh of the cladding of the panoramic tower. A kind of bar code printed in large scale where
the onlyy exceptions are the suspended benches, made by the concrete, and the green area
which,, in a random way, are inserted in the footprint of the incision.
61
Chapter 4
Figure 4. 8 Some views of the square
62
<5>
The structural design of the new tower
in Maranello
PREVIEW
The structural design of the new Maranello tower as been done in this chapter. The
tower has been designed to satisfy the requirements of the Italian National Code.
The approach is to follow the integrally structural design path from the architectonic
design.
Structural FEM Analysis is run by:
-
MIDAS/GEN2012 v.2. (http://www.MidasUser.com), licensed in Academic version

from CSPFea (http://www.cspfea.net/midas_gen.php)
5.1 Reference documents

5.1.1 National Codes
-
L. 5.11.1971, n 1086 Norme per la disciplina delle opere in conglomerato

cementizio armato, normale e precompresso ed a struttura metallica.
D.M. LL. PP. 11.3.1988 Norme tecniche riguardanti le indagini sui terreni e sulle
rocce, la stabilit dei pendii naturali e delle scarpate, i criteri generali e le
prescrizioni per la progettazione, lesecuzione il collaudo delle opere di sostegno
delle terre e delle opere di fondazione.
Circ. Min. LL. PP. 24.9.88 Istruzioni riguardanti le indagini sui terreni e sulle
rocce, la stabilit dei pendii naturali e delle scarpate, i criteri generali e le
Chapter 5
prescrizioni per la progettazione, lesecuzione e il collaudo delle opere di sostegno

delle terre e delle opere di fondazione.
-
Ord. P.C.M. n 3274 20.03.2003 Primi elementi in materia di criteri generali per
la classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le
costruzioni in zona sismica.
Ord. P.C.M. n 3316 02.10.2003 Modifiche ed integrazioni allordinanza del

Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n.3274 del 20 marzo 2003.
Ord. P.C.M. n3431 03.05.2005 Ulteriori modifiche ed integrazioni allordinanza

del Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri n. 3274 del 20 marzo 2003, recante Primi
elementi in materia di criteri generali per la classificazione sismica del territorio
nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona sismica.
D.M. 16.02.07 Classificazione e resistenza al fuoco di prodotti ed elementi

costruttivi di opere da costruzione.
D.M. 14.1.2008 Norme tecniche per le costruzioni.
Circolare 2 febbraio 2009, n. 617 del Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti
approvata dal Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici - "Istruzioni per
l'applicazione delle Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni di cui al decreto
ministeriale 14 gennaio 2008.
Allegato al voto n.36 del 27.07.2007 Pericolosit sismica e criteri generali per la
classificazione sismica del territorio nazionale.
5.1.2 UNI EN documents

-
UNI EN 206-1/2006 Calcestruzzo: specificazione, prestazione, produzione e

conformit.
UNI EN 11104/2004 Calcestruzzo: specificazione, prestazione, produzione

e conformit Istruzioni complementari per lapplicazione della EN 206-1.
UNI 9502/2001 Procedimento analitico per valutare la resistenza al fuoco degli

elementi costruttivi di conglomerato cementizio armato, normale, e precompresso.
UNI 9503/2007 Procedimento analitico per valutare la resistenza al fuoco degli

elementi costruttivi dacciaio.
64
Structural Design of new Tower in Maranello
5.1.3 European codes

-
EN 1990: Basis of structural design
EN 1991: (Eurocode 1) Actions on structures
EN 1992: (Eurocode 2) Design of concrete structures
EN 1993: (Eurocode 3) Design of steel structures
EN 1994: (Eurocode 4) Design of composite steel and concrete structures
EN 1997: (Eurocode 7) Geotechnical design
EN 1998: (Eurocode 8) Design of structures for earthquake resistance
EN 1999: (Eurocode 9) Design of aluminium structures
5.1.4 Other documents

-
Heinemeyer Ch., Feldmann M., Caetano E., Cunha A., Galanti F.,Goldack A.,
Hechler O., Hicks S., Keil A., Lukic M., Obiala R.,Schlaich M., Smith A.,
Waarts P., 2007, RFCS-Project: Human induced Vibration of Steel Structures
HIVOSS: Design Guideline and Background Report.
5.2 Building description

The structure is formed by a r.c. core that is 30.45 m high from the ground level. Inside
of this core, there are the lifts and the stairs to arrive up to the last covered panoramic terrace
level. The core section is square, 5.40 m x 5.40 m, and with 0.25 m of thickness.
Each level is 2.72 m high, except for the ground level (3.05 m), the 9th level (2.21 m)
and the 10th level, i.e. terrace panoramic level, (3.40 m)
The structure has been made seismically independent of the horizontal structure on the
ground level through a gap between the two structures.
The panoramic terrace plan, made by steel, is cantilevered by rc tower core for 12.05 m
and it has irregular overtures on the both side.
The structure system is on piles.
The figures below show the details of the structure.
65
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 1 Global view of the tower and of the adjacent structures
66
Figure 5. 2 Underground Level -1
67
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 3 Level 0
68
Figure 5. 4 10th level. The panoramic terrace
69
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 5 Coverage floor
70
Figure 5. 6 Section A-A
71
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 7 Section B-B
72
Figure 5. 8 Section C-C
73
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 9 Section D-D
74
5.3 Concept design

This paragraph provides informations about the preliminary design phases to establish
the main parameters, which have not been yet defined by the architectonic design, that define
the size of the structural elements.
The first step is the selection of a structural scheme that fits with the architectonic
scheme. The dimensions of the core of the tower are already known by the architectonic
design (external shape and minimum internal dimensions due to the stairs and the lifts).
However, some considerations must be done. The core thickness, in the designed
configuration, offer a good resistance to fire and thicknesses less large than 25 cm are difficult
to realize for geometric limits related to insertion of rebars and casting concrete.
Thus, the core needs only of the definition of the rebar. The panoramic terrace,
cantilevered from rc core, must be totally designed, because only its volume is known.
The first step is the selection of a structural scheme that fits with the architectonic
scheme. The core of the tower is already known by the architectonic design and it needs only
the definition of the reinforcement. The cantilever, of the panoramic terrace, instead must be
totally designed, because of only its volume is known.
5.3.1 Preliminary design of the panoramic terrace

The idea is to link the 10th level with the level above to have a big truss as high as the
last floor, 3.40 m. However, the overtures required on both side do not allow to use a common
truss model because diagonals, struts and ties cannot be inserted freely along the sides of the
volume. Where it is possible, studs are inserted whit fixed joints so they are capable of
transferring and resisting bending moments as a quadrangular element in a Vierendeel Truss.
In this way, inferior beams, on the 10th level, and superior beams, on the 11th level, are
coupled by quadrangular elements which give resistance to global deflection of the cantilever
by their bending work.
75
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 10 Panoramic terrace plan
5.3.1.1 Gravity load analysis

The considered gravity loads acting on the cantilevered part have been reported in the
tables below.
Table 5. 1 Gravity loads on the 11th level
Gravity loads on the 11th level
Structural dead load G1k
2.25
0.79
3.04
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
G1k=
2.00
0.50
1.00
3.50
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
Q1k=
4.00
4.00
kN/m2
kN/m2
Steel sheets + slab

Secondary beams (IPE 240 @2m)
G1k=
Non structural dead load G2k
Slab cover
Equipments
Claddings
Live load Q1k
Category NTC08 C2
Table 5. 2 Gravity load on the coverture

Gravity loads on the coverture
0.79
G1k= 0.79
Sandwich panels
0.20
Equipments
0.50
Claddings
0.50
G1k= 3.00
Live load Q1k
Category NTC08 H
0.50
Q1k= 0.50
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
In addiction there is the weight of the lateral claddings equal to 0.50 kN/m2.
76
To design the size of the structural element, a simple analysis has been carried out: the latest
two levels have been considered as only one cantilevered beam with a cross section defined
by the structural elements of the transversal section of each floor. The surface loads have been
converted in line loads by multiplying for the transversal dimension (6.00 m) of the
cantilever. By this way, a preliminary design, looking to the main problems of a cantilever,
i.e. deflections and vibrations control for human comfort, can be done..
5.3.1.2 Design against deflection control
According to 4.2.4.2.1 NTC08 maximum deflection must be limited at 1/125 of the
cantilever span when it is loaded in serviceable limit states by the as-called Combinazione
frequente (Frequently combination) used for reversible limit state.
+ + +

[5.1]
Where 1 ,
and 2 are already defined, is the action dues to prestress, 1 is 0.7 for
the 11th level and nil for the coverture. Applying [5.1] for the loads acting on the conventional
cantilever (with other 6 kN/m to keep in count the weight of the primary beams that will be
calculated), the simple study model of volume cantilevered from the core of tower is ready
and it is shown in the Figure 5.7.
77
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 11 The simple model used to understand the cantilever behavior
The maximum deflection is
Whit the gave limit

calculation:
then:

=
[5.2]
= the bending stiffness is obtained by simple algebraic

8

8
[5.3]
1
1
125 $
=
=> =
= 2.3115 '((
8 125
8
[5.4]
5.3.1.3 Design against vibration control
The panoramic space can be classified as a meeting area to read the classes related to
the OS-RMS90 values in the table in the European guidelines .
78
Table 5. 3 Allowed OS-RMS90 related of function of the floor
For cantilever dynamic parameters are directly obtainable by analytical calculation and they
are given in the Figure below.
Figure 5. 12 Dynamic parameters for beam variously restrained and with distributed mass
79
Chapter 5
The total damping is calculated as sum of more than one value as shown in the following
Figure which shows that the total damping is 2%.
Figure 5. 13 Calculation of total damping
With damping value known the correct ) + can be selected and it is shown in the Figure
5.10.
By manipulating the selected equations in the Figure 5.8, it is possible to have a direct
relation between frequency and modal mass. This equation is:
)=
1
3
.
2 - 0.24 + 2 $
0.64
[5.5]
This equation can be plotted on the graph in the Figure 5.10 for different values of bending
stiffness EI. For a selected beam, with defined mass for unit length, from the 2nd equation
selected in Figure 5.8 the modal mass is known and it is the same for every eigenfrequency.
Plotting also this equation in the same graph, it is possible to select a correct stiffness to
achieve the desired class because the intersection, between the constant mass curve and the
curves from [5.5], gives the modal mass and the frequency for gave EI.
80
Figure 5. 14 The graph for 2% damping
For the examination case, using again the frequently combination, the total mass for unit
length of the cantilever is 1910 kg/m. Looking the Figure 5.11, considering table 5.3, bending
stiffness design can be selected. From this, using the value obtained in 5.3.1.2 as design
value seems reasonable.
81
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 15 The f-M* point for different EI value
5.3.1.4 Structural size of elements

In the two last paragraphs the value of bending stiffness has been defined. Now, let us to
obtain this value trough the design of the elements. The dimension of the I section on each
82
corner of the section obtained by coupling 11th with the 12th will be defined in this paragraph
using a simplified reasoning.
Figure 5. 16
Usually, respect to a simple steel section, making a composite section the inertia modulus can
be tripled. By this consideration the Inertia modulus required is:
345 =
67345

8944: 3
[5.6]
However, the means used to obtain the request in [5.6] neglect the shear deformations which
are important because of the intrinsic deformability of the coupling system. From this
observation the requirement in [5.6] is, in lump sum, multiplied by 1.5.
The inertia modulus of the section in figure 5.12, without slab contribution, is:

;<; = 4 => + ? @ B C
2
[5.7]
Considering only the transport:

;<; = 4 ? @ B = ?
2
[5.8]
83
Chapter 5
Using [5.8] and [5.6] multiplied by 2 the minimum area for the corner element has been
carried out.
?=
345
[5.9]
By this process an HEB500 has been selected.
5.3.2 Preliminary composite floor design

The cantilever part is a complex system where more than one mechanism is acting.
Once the principal mechanism of cantilever is opportune designed, the definition of the
composite floor of the terrace against deflection and vibration must be done.
Similarly to what has just done in the last paragraph, the design is done against
deflection and vertical vibration control. The design is done in this way:
Figure 5. 17 The selected SRC floor
84
The transverse section of the composite SRC floor is known and it is given in
Figure 5.17.
The maximum distance between support elements, according to vibration

control, is selected;
The deflection of the composite floor is checked thanks to the technical data
sheets of the composite floor.
5.3.2.1 Design against vibration control

The composite floor has been modeled as beam element with 5.15 m width. For the
design the composite floor have been considered hinged on both side.
Considering the simplified scheme in figure 5.12 the design can be done.
The mass for unit length of SRC floor is known by the load analysis in 5.3.1.1combined
with the transversal dimension of the floor and it is 4280 kg/m. Only the span must be
defined.
Assigning different value of the span l, the selection of the best length span to accomplish
vibration control can be done in the plan ) + .
85
Chapter 5
The next table shown the value for the different span plotted in the figure 5.13.
Figure 5. 19 The OS-RMS90 for different span
86
Table 5. 4 f-M* value for different span
Inertia
moment
Span
L
4
[m ]
4.939E-05
4.939E-05
4.939E-05
4.939E-05
4.939E-05
4.939E-05
4.939E-05
4.939E-05
[m]
1.50
1.75
2.00
2.25
2.50
2.75
3.00
3.50
Young
Mass for
Massa
modulus unit length Modale
M*
[kg/m]
[kg]
[Hz]
4987
4987
4987
4987
4987
4987
4987
4987
3740
4364
4987
5610
6234
6857
7481
8727
12.07
8.87
6.79
6.40
6.07
5.79
5.54
5.13
E
2
[N/m ]
3E+10
3E+10
3E+10
3E+10
3E+10
3E+10
3E+10
3E+10
Frequency
The span has been designed 2 meters length.
5.3.2.2 Deflection check

Helped by technical data sheets the check of the deflection condition can be easily done.
D
The load is 3.04 E + 0.6 4.00 E = 5.44 '/(
Figure 5. 20 Maximum length for given load
The maximum length is 2.84 m that is major than the designed length for vibration control.
The check is satisfied.
87
Chapter 5
5.3.3 Preliminary design of subbeam

The beams which support the SRC floor has been designed. The scheme is with hinge
on both side while the mass is given by the 5.3.1.1, in frequently combination, multiplied for
the span (2 meters).
For the subbeam the dynamic parameters are directly obtainable by analytical calculation and
they are given in the Figure below.
The total damping is always 2%.

As it has already done, it is possible to have a direct relation between frequency and
modal mass. In this case the equation is:
)=
1
3
.
2 - 0.49 + 2 $
0.50
[5.10]
This equation can be plotted on the graph in the Figure 5.22 for different values of the inertia.
The modal mass is known and it is the same for every eigenfrequency. Plotting also this
equation in the same graph, it is possible to select a correct stiffness to achieve the desired
class because the intersection, between the constant mass curve and the curves from [5.5],
gives the modal mass and the frequency for given I.
88
Figure 5. 22 The f-M* point for different I value
A IPE200 has been selected looking also at the space geometrically available.
89
Chapter 5
5.3.4 Preliminary design of post tensioning force

For this nature the cantilevered part tends to rotate around the point called A in the
figure below. This implies that in serviceability condition, the core part below of the point B
is subjected to traction. As the concrete has a very little resistance against the tensile stress,
applying a prestress force is a good way to avoid problems like cracking also in serviceability
condition.
An other important problem related to important dimension of the cantilever is the
eccentricity of the normal load respect to the base section gravity center. The prestress
solution can be limited also this eccentricity, bringing the normal resultant of all tower near of
the centroide of the base section.
The design iter is to estimate the tensile force given by the cantilever and after choosing
the prestress force.
To achieve the solution for both problems, a prestress force to be applied at the point B
must be chosen in such a way as to center the vertical load since the tip of the core until the
base section.
Figure 5. 23
The post-tensioning solution is a good solution for at least two raisons:

-
It is very simple to implement;
It does not influence the behavior in the base critical section;
5.3.4.1 Estimate of post-tensioning force
In order to estimate the value of the post tensioning force the simply model in Figure
5.14 can be used.
90
Figure 5. 24 Cantilever equilibrium without prestress
It is simple to understand that the value of the post tension, which centers the vertical
load respect to the centroide of the core, is defined by the sum of absolute value of H and HI .
In formulas:
HI =
J K9:4L43
2 894
H = @1 +
So post tensioning force is:

= @1 +
J K9:4L43
B
2 894
J K9:4L43
B
894
[5.11]
[5.12]
[5.13]
Substituting the current values in serviceability condition (See Figure 5.7) the post
tensioning value is carried out:
= @1 +
= 84.78
J K9:4L43
B
894
'
12.04 (
612.04 + 0.257( @1 +
B = 3478 '
(
5.40( 0.25 (
[5.14]
[5.15]
91
Chapter 5
Once that the structural FEM model is created this value can be opportunely refined in
relation with the numerical result which can be a little bit different because of the intrinsic
simplifications present in simple model used, not last the correct position of the center of
gravity.
5.4 Materials
The materials are selected to have characteristic compatible with NTC08 11
5.4.1 Concrete 28/35

Concrete C28/35
Cubic characteristic stress
Cylindrical characteristic stress
Cylindrical characteristic stress
Average
Characteristic tensile stress

Characteristic tensile stress percentile
5%
Characteristic tensile stress percentile
95%
Average value tensile stress for
bending
Instantaneous Youngs modulus
Rck=
35.00 N/mm2
fck=
28.00 N/mm2
fcm=fck+8=
33.00 N/mm2
fctm=0.3(fck)2/3=
2.77 N/mm2
0.7 fctm=
1.94 N/mm2
1.3 fctm=
3.60N/mm2
fcfm=1.2 fctm=
Ecm=22000 (fcm/10)0.3 =
3.08 N/mm2
31475 N/mm2
Poissons coefficient
< 0.2
coefficient of thermal expansion
=10E-5 C-1
The partial safety factor is NO = 1.5.
5.4.2 Rebar B450C

B 450 C
Characteristic yield stress
fyk=
450 N/mm2
Characteristic failure stress
ftk=
540 N/mm2
Youngs modulus
E=
210000 N/mm2
The partial safety factor is NO = 1.15
5.4.3 Structural steel S355

S355
92
Characteristic yield stress
fyk=
355 N/mm2
Characteristic failure stress
ftk=
490 N/mm2
Youngs modulus
E=
210000 N/mm2
The partial safety factor, for buckling and resistance, is 1.05.
5.5 Load analysis

Once the elements sizes are defined for all parts of the tower, it is possible to correctly
estimate the magnitude of all kind of loads that will act on the structure during its expected
life.
5.5.1 Vertical loads

According with NTC08 the vertical loads are divided in three different categories:
-
Structural dead load ;
Superimposed dead load

Live load

the self weight load of the structural element is not write in the table because it is
automatically keep in count by the software.
5.5.1.1 All levels under the 10th
Table 5. 5
Deck
4.00
G1k= 4.00
Slab cover
2.00
Equipments
0.50
Claddings
1.50
G2k= 4.00
Live load Q1k
Category NTC08 C2
4.00
Q1k= 4.00
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
5.5.1.2 11th level

Table 5. 6
Steel sheets + slab
G1k=
Slab cover
Equipments
Claddings
G2k=
2.25
0.79
3.04
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
2.00
0.50
1.00
3.50
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
93
Chapter 5
Live load Q1k

Category NTC08 C2
Q1k=
4.00
4.00
kN/m2
kN/m2
0.79
0.79
kN/m2
kN/m2
0.20
0.50
0.50
1.20
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
kN/m2
0.50
0.50
kN/m2
kN/m2
5.5.1.3 Coverture
Table 5. 7
G1k=
Sandwich panels
Equipments
Claddings
G2k=
Live load Q1k
Category NTC08 H
Q1k=
5.5.2 Snow load

The snow load, according to NTC08 3.4, is calculated by the following equation
8 = P 8 QR Q9
[5.16]
Where:
8
Snow load
8
Characteristic value of the snow load [kN/m2] with the annual probability of
P
Roof shape coefficients
exceedence set to 0,02

QR
Q9
94
Exposure coefficients
Thermal coefficients
Referring to Figure 5.15, the characteristic snow load is 1.50 kN/m2 for an altitude
minor than 200 m.
Figure 5. 25
The exposure coefficient for a normal topographic class is 1 and also the thermal
coefficient.
As shown in figure 5.16, from NTC08, the roof shape coefficient for a single coverture,
with slope minor than 30, is 0.8.
95
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 26
The snow load can be calculated and it is:

8 = 1.2 '/(
[5.17]
5.5.3 Wind load

Wind load acting on the structure is calculated as NTC08 3.3.
5.5.3.1 Basic Value
The basic value of wind action with the annual probability of exceedence set to 0,02, i.e.
reference period 50 years, is carried out by the NTC08 tables.
Figure 5. 27
96
5.5.3.2 Basic velocity pressure

The basic velocity pressure is calculated from the Basic Value of wind speed as follow:
1
I = S
2

3 TI
= 391 '/(
[5.18]
5.5.3.3 Exposure coefficient

The exposure coefficient formula is:
V
V
U4 6V7 = W3 U9 ln @ B [7 + U9 ln @ B] ^_` V VK
VZ
V\
U4 6V7 = U4 6VK 7
[5.19]
The parameters depend of the terrain category, which is calculated by roughness class of
terrain as shown in the following tables.
97
Chapter 5
5.5.3.4 Wind Pressure

The wind pressure acting on the structure must be calculated with the following
equation:
^ = I U4 Ub Uc
[5.20]
Where the dynamic coefficient is assumed equal to one, and the shape pressure
coefficient Ub is selected according with the next table.
Figure 5. 28
The wind pressure profile is Shown in Figure 5.19 for Ub = 1.
98
Figure 5. 29
5.5.4 Seismic load

The
seismic
load
is
calculated
helped
by
the
file
SPETTRINTC.xls
(http://www.cslp.it/cslp/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=3280&&Ite
mid=165 ) released by the Consiglio Superiore dei Lavori Pubblici which uses the NTC08
seismic data of the whole Italian territory.
5.5.4.1 Geoseismic analysis

The geotechnical characterization of the ground for seismic analysis requires, as
indispensable element, that the profile of the shear waves speed in the subground is known at
least for the first one 30 meters. To measure the shear waves speed, MASW (Multichannel
Analysis of Surface Waves) analysis have been performed and the result is shown in the
following Figure.
99
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 30 The Vs,30 profile
The mean velocity d8$\ in the first 30 meters of profundity using NTC08 formula is 339
m/s which is related a terrain category C.

5.5.4.2 Phase 1
Figure 5. 31 Phase 1:selction of the coordinates
100
5.5.4.3 Phase 2
The use category class is III so the coefficient Ue = 1.5. the figure below shows the
input data and also, for each limit state, the reference period for seismic action.
Figure 5. 32 Phase 2: selectionof the main parameter of the building
101
Chapter 5
5.5.4.4 Phase 3.2 SLE spectra
Figure 5. 33 SLO spectrum
Figure 5. 34 SLD spectrum
102
5.5.4.5 Phase 3.3 SLV and SLC spectra

To obtain the inelastic SLV spectrum, a value for behavior factor must be previously
selected. However, among the various structural model considered by NTC08 there is not one
that fits with the structure of Maranello tower. In fact the structure can be seen as a coupled
wall system and as well a inverted pendulum because the energy can be dissipated only by the
plasticization of the sections near of the base. This double interpretation, translated in term of
the behavior factor q, means a variability from 1.5 value up to 3-4. In addiction, the overtures
present on the base limit the extension of the hinge plastic zone,
In this case, a possible solution is the solution proposed by Eurocode 8, which considers
1.5 as the minimum possible value for behavior factor in a rc structure.
Using q=1, in fact, is very harsh and not physically based because. The behavior factor
is a number that, synthetically, inglobes the capacity of the structure to dissipate energy when
it is subject to seismic load. Thinking that a rc structure remains in its elastic range is not
realistic; to understand that, it is enough thinking to the section cracking which accompanies
the deformations.
The Figure 5.24 shows the response spectra in SLV (Reference period 712 years) for
vertical and horizontal component scaled by q=1.5.
The base ground acceleration is 0.266
. In addition, the base ground acceleration for
475 years was calculated to select the seismic zone category according to Allegato al voto
n.36 del 27.07.2007 and it is 0.237
whereby the site is classified as Zona 2.
103
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 35 SLV spectrum
Figure 5. 36 SLC Spectrum
104
5.6 Structural Fem model

The model for finite element analysis has been created by the software Midas Gen 2012
v.2.1. Tower rc core has been modeled by a mesh of triangular and rectangular elements with
dimension, approximately 0.5 x 0.5 m.
The overtures on the base section have been explicitly modeled in a way to keep in
count the behavior variation between symmetrical and asymmetrical section.
Terrace part has been modeled by beam elements and the terrace floor slab is inserted in
the model with its stiffness and flexibility.
Figure 5. 37 Two sides of the Structural fem model with Global coordinate system
The slab for each floor has been inserted in the model as rigid floor diaphragm in a way
to simulate the stiffness for shear deflection that they give to the global cantilever as can be
thought the tower. A fixed joint at the base has been considered.
105
Chapter 5
5.7 Modal Analysis for seismic performance

The modal analysis has been run using mass associated to seismic combination:
h = + + +

[5.21]
Whit the following values for the coefficients 2

-
Category H - coverture
Category C All level down the coverture
The results of modal analysis as shown in the figure.
Figure 5. 38 First vibration Mode
106
= 0.0
= 0.6
Figure 5. 39 Second vibration mode
Figure 5. 40 Third vibration mode
107
Chapter 5
The next tables show the result for the first 30 eigenvectors to select the main
eigenvectors to have a good analysis.
Figure 5. 41 Eigenvalue analysis result - Frequency
108
Figure 5. 42 Eigenvalue analysis result Modal participation mass [%]
Figure 5. 43 Eigenvalue analysis result Modal participation mass [ton]
109
Chapter 5
5.8 Model check

Before to start the post-processing is important checking the FEM model. The first
control is visual: looking at the form of the natural vibration mode is possible to understand if
the model has some problems in the mesh or in the boundary condition. The regularity of the
mode shape do not give any alarm.
5.8.1 Self weight check

Firstly is important checking if the total vertical load is the same by handing calculation
and by software calculation. The figure below shows the base resultant of vertical load due to
seismic weight while the table shows the result of handing calculation.
Figure 5. 44 Vertical reaction at the base
110
Table 5. 8 Calculation of the total weigth
G1
G2
2
All levels below the coverture

Panoramic terrace floor
Terrace Claddings
rc stem Selfweight
Cantilever beam Selfweight
[kN/m ]
4.00
3.04
1.00
128.75
1.87
21 Q1
2
[kN/m ]
4.00
3.5
[kN/m ]
2.40
2.4
L1
L2
[m]
5.15
5.15
22.60
30.00
30.00
[m]
5.15
12.3
1.00
n
10
1
1
1
1
TOT
W
[kN]
2758.34
566.30
22.60
3862.50
56.10
7265.84
The two results are substantially in accord and this is indicative of a good model.
5.8.2 Pre stress force check

The correct value of post tensioning force now can be estimate.
Figure 5. 45 Reaction, forces and moments, acting at the base in the for the seismic weight
A local model of the terrace is used to estimate the post tensioning force according to
5.3.3.1. The value is = 61106.0 + 444.37 2 = 3100.6 '.
111
Chapter 5
Figure 5. 46 Local model of the panoramic terrace
The figure below shows the axial force, with the new value of prestress applied, along
the height of the rc core. It is possible to see that the section of the rc core is subjected to a
centered axial force in all parts except to the base where, in any case, all sides are compressed
as it is understandable looking at the legend in the Figure 5.47.
Figure 5. 47 Plate axial force along the core
112
5.8.3 Fundamental period check

The fundamental period of structure can be checked by using a simple model: a
distributed mass cantilever with fixed joint at the base. With this test, as a well as a lateral
displacement control, we can verify if the stiffness of the model has been well modeled. The
main difference respect to the tower of this simplified model is that the tower has on top a
lumped mass which represents the cantilevered panoramic terrace. As mass for unit length is
used an average value obtained spreading the total mass along the length of the core.
P=
7239 '
1
jkl
i
= 24.26
= 24260
i
30.42 (
(
(
[5.22]
The formula for the fundamental period is reported in the figure below:
Figure 5. 48 Modal parameters for a cantilever with distributed mass and elasticity
The inertia value of the core is:
65.40 4.90 7
m=
( = 22.81 (
12
[5.23]
Substituting in the simplified equations gives:

) = 3.14 nV
[5.24]
This value can be compared with the first one cantilever translational mode, i.e. the
second mode in y, which has 2.70 Hz frequency and 62.46% of participation masses. These
values show a good correspondence between simplified model and FEM model and this
means the goodness of the model.
113
Chapter 5
5.8.4 Lateral wind load check

The resultant on the base dues to wind load is checked. The software output has been
presented on the figure below.
Figure 5. 49 Resultant at the base due to wind action
The next table shows the calculation by hand which shows a substantial accord with the
fem model value. The goodness of the model is again confirmed.
114
Table 5. 9 Calculation of the bass shear deu to the wind action

z
ce
[m]
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
30.4
[-]
0.447052
0.447052
0.650928
0.806129
0.932542
1.03974
1.133118
1.216038
1.290744
1.358815
1.421404
1.479383
1.533426
1.584066
1.631733
1.676779
1.719494
1.760123
1.798872
1.83592
1.871418
1.905499
1.938279
1.969859
2.00033
2.029772
2.058256
2.085846
2.112601
2.138573
2.148753
[N/m2]
[m]
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
[m]
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.4
174.7972
174.7972
254.5127
315.1963
364.6239
406.5382
443.049
475.4707
504.6809
531.2967
555.7691
578.4389
599.5696
619.3698
638.0076
655.6204
672.322
688.2079
703.3591
717.8448
731.7245
745.0502
757.867
770.2148
782.129
793.6407
804.778
815.5659
826.0271
836.182
840.1624
cpwindward
cpleeward
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
[kN]
2160.5
1080.2
1572.9
1947.9
2253.4
2512.4
2738.0
2938.4
3118.9
3283.4
3434.7
3574.8
3705.3
3827.7
3942.9
4051.7
4154.9
4253.1
4346.8
4436.3
4522.1
4604.4
4683.6
4759.9
4833.6
4904.7
4973.5
5040.2
5104.8
2067.0
TOT.
108.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
5.9 SLS check

Firstly, let us check the serviceability condition. Two limits states are checked the limit
state for deflection control (horizontal and vertical) and the limit state for human vibration
control.
5.9.1 Limit state for deflection control

Displacements have to be content in a specifically range in order to do not make
damages to the claddings or to the non-structural elements which can make temporary
unusable the structure.
5.9.1.1 Load combination
To check the SLS the following combinations have been used.
-
Seismic action SLO o<
p! o< 6Hq7 !stu 6q7v "+" @x o< 6Hq7 xstu 6q7B "+" y o< 6Hq7
115
Chapter 5
Where RS is response spectrum and ES the eccentricity. The simble + means

combined with the SRSS rule
1)Seismic combination
+ + +
o<
[5.25]

-
2) Frequently combination
= 0.0
= 0.6
+ + +
+

[5.25]
z

-
= 0.0
= 0.7
5.9.1.2 Horizontal displacement check

The structure under seismic load have to show little lateral displacements. Specifically,
for building in Ue , lateral displacements under SLO earthquake have to be smaller than
the below given limits.
a)
For claddings rigidly linked to the structure which interfere with the
deformability of the building.
2
{3 < 0.005
3
116
[5.26]
The following tables show the story drift for all 8 SLO combinations with relative
verify. The story drift is calculated by the difference between the displacements of two
consecutive floor.
5.9.1.2.1 Check in x direction
117
Chapter 5
118
119
Chapter 5
The maximum story drift is 0.0015 where the maximum story drift 0.0033, so the verify is
satisfied with maximum ratio 0.45.
5.9.1.2.2 Check in y direction
120
121
Chapter 5
122
The maximum story drift is 0.0024 where the maximum story drift 0.0033, so the verify is
satisfied with maximum ratio 0.73.
5.9.1.3 Vertical displacement check
For cantilever the maximum relative vertical deflection have to be minor than 1/125 of
its length when subjected to all loads in frequently combinations and the contribution of only
live loads must be minor than 1/150.
Because of the shear deformation of the cantilever the check has been done also on the
partial distance between two shear reinforcement.
5.9.1.3.1 Cantilever subjected to all loads in frequently combination
Figure 5. 50 Deflection of the cantilever under frequently combination loads
SLE_frequently comb
0.00
-5.00 0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
-10.00
-15.00
-20.00
SLE_frequently comb
-25.00
-30.00
-35.00
-40.00
-45.00
Figure 5. 51 Graph of deflections for the cantilever
123
Chapter 5
Table 5. 10 Deflection check
Node
290
291
292
293
Load
SLE_frequently comb
SLE_frequently comb
SLE_frequently comb
SLE_frequently comb
X
(mm)
0
5550
7950
12300
X
(mm)
0
5550
2400
4350
DZ
(mm)
-0.32
-23.47
-28.15
-40.84
DZ
(mm)
-23.14
-4.68
-12.70
DZ/X
DZ/L
(DZ/L)max
CHECK
0.0042
0.0019
0.0029
0.0033
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
0.0080
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
The maximum ratio is 0.0042 equal to 1/250 which is minor than the 1/125 so the verify
is satisfied with ratio 0.53.
5.9.1.3.1 Cantilever subjected only to live loads in frequently combination
The NTC08 code requires also that when the cantilever is subjected only to the live
loads in frequently combinations the maximum vertical displacement have to be minor than
1/150 L.
Figure 5. 52 Deflection of the cantilever under only live load in frequently combination
124
Figure 5. 53 Graph of deflections for the cantilever
Table 5. 11 Deflection check
The maximum ratio is 0.0008 equal to 1/2500 which is very minor than the 1/150 so the
verify is amply satisfied.
5.9.2 Serviceability limit state of vibration control

The vibration control check for the floor of the cantilevered part has been done by the
european guidelines. The first step is the determination of all natural modes and the relative
participant masses that are involved in the cantilever vibration. In order to select also the
relevant modes for the cantilever among the results of the global eigenvalue analysis, the next
reasoning has been followed. The stiffness in z direction of the cantilevered part is very less
than the stiffness for vertical displacement of the rc core; this means that the lower modes
have more energy in the cantilever degrees of freedom so thinking that participant masses in
the first modes is only due by the dofs of the cantilever is reasonable. Using figure 5.36 the
cantilever mass can be estimated as the total weight of 11F and Roof floor compared with the
length of the cantilevered part. In formula:
125
Chapter 5
(J
K9:4L43
h} + h3ZZ~ 2J K9:4L43
= 93.473 i
i
2}
[5.23]
A number of eigenvalues as involving the 85% of total cantilever mass has been
considered. The next table show the eigenvalue results, for the modes in z direction, of the
table in Figure 5.33 with the ratio between participant mass and total cantilever mass. To
excite all cantilever mass, 18 modes are necessary. Among these, according with NTC08,
only a number of modes to have at least the 85% of participant mass and all modes with
participant mass major than 5% are considered. Selected mode are signed by a red rectangle
in Figure 5.40.
Mode
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
MODAL PARTICIPATION MASSES PRINTOUT

Frequency
Period
TRAN-Z
TRAN-Z
(rad/sec)
(cycle/sec)
(sec)
MASS (kN/g) SUM (kN/g) MASS (%) SUM (%)
15.7665
2.5093
0.3985
40.6553
40.6553
43.50%
43.50%
16.9599
2.6992
0.3705
0.026
40.6813
0.03%
43.53%
20.6048
3.2793
0.3049
31.0925
71.7738
33.27%
76.79%
35.9939
5.7286
0.1746
0.0303
71.8041
0.03%
76.82%
37.3497
5.9444
0.1682
0.0452
71.8494
0.05%
76.87%
50.1749
7.9856
0.1252
11.0445
82.8938
11.82%
88.69%
64.6774
10.2937
0.0971
0.0001
82.8939
0.00%
88.69%
72.3473
11.5144
0.0868
5.3292
88.2231
5.70%
94.39%
78.3982
12.4775
0.0801
0.881
89.1041
0.94%
95.33%
84.8433
13.5032
0.0741
0.4405
89.5445
0.47%
95.80%
88.8423
14.1397
0.0707
1.1878
90.7323
1.27%
97.08%
89.9589
14.3174
0.0698
0.3872
91.1195
0.41%
97.49%
93.0866
14.8152
0.0675
0.2761
91.3956
0.30%
97.78%
94.7976
15.0875
0.0663
0.9394
92.335
1.01%
98.79%
103.0505
16.401
0.061
0.2971
92.6321
0.32%
99.11%
109.4934
17.4264
0.0574
0.2028
92.8349
0.22%
99.32%
110.35
17.5627
0.0569
0.2148
93.0497
0.23%
99.55%
117.8451
18.7556
0.0533
0.252
93.3017
0.27%
99.82%
Figure 5. 54 Translational z mass. Note that the ratio has been calculated using only the mass of the cantilever
The next table shows the mode shape for each selected modes. It can be see they
involve all elementary contribution to the cantilever vertical vibration.
126
Table 5. 12 The selected modes for the vibration assessment

Mode Number 1
Mode Number 3
Mode Number 6
Global deflection
Global deflection
Cantilever deflection
Mode number 8
Cantilever composite
floor deflection
As done before, the graph with 2% of damping must be selected. On this graph, the
participant mass and the frequency of the above modes is plotted to read the OS-RMS90,i
value for each mode. Finally by the SRSS rule the OS-RMS90 is obtained.
Figure 5. 55 All relevant modes plotted together
127
Chapter 5
Table 5. 13 The points in the f-M* graph for the vibration assessment
Contribution Mode number Participation mass Frequency

(kg)
(f)
f-M* -- 1
1
40655
2.5093
f-M* -- 2
3
31093
3.2793
f-M* -- 3
6
11045
7.9856
f-M* -- 4
8
5329
11.514
f-M* -- 5
SRSS value
OS-Rms
(-)
1.6
0.6
0.7
1.0
2.1
With the Os-Rms90 value is possible to read the class in the table.
Figure 5. 56 Check of the vibration class
The floor class obtained is recommended by the European guidelines so the verify is satisfied
with ratio 0.66.
128
5.10 Ultimate limit states: reinforcement design and check

The structure can achieve the ULS for the earthquake load and also for loads like live
loads, snow loads and wind loads. The load combinations reflect this aspect by the division in
ULS for seismic load and for non seismic load.
5.10.1 Load combination

There are two family of combination, for seismic load and for non seismic load.
In this section only the combinations for seismic load have been reported while all
combinations load are reported in the appendix A of this chapter.
To check the SLV the following combinations have been used.
-
Seismic action SLV o
p! o 6Hq7 !st 6q7v "+" @x o 6Hq7 xst 6q7B "+" y o 6Hq7
Where RS is response spectrum and ES the eccentricity. The simble + means
combined with the SRSS rule
5.10.1.1 Seismic combination

+ + +
o<
[5.24]

-
= 0.0
= 0.6
129
Chapter 5
5.10.1.2 Comparatition between wind load and seismic load

The Earthquake load and wind load have in common to be a lateral load, so it is
important, when the reinforcements are being calculated, understand which is the major
between them. In order to compare the two loads the base shear is calculated for both.
The seismic base shear is 1986 kN while the wind base shear is 115 kN. The seismic
action is the highest and that sizing.
5.10.2 Reinforcement design

The ductility class selected is B. The reinforcement design involves a preliminary
definition of the critical zone because the last one is the region, near of the base, where the
energy can be dissipated by inelastic behavior of the section. According to all given limits in
the NTC08, the critical zone has been selected as the maximum transversal dimension of the
base section. So it is:
2J3 = 5400 ((
Figure 5. 57 The geometry of the transversal section at the base
The next table reports the value at the base for the SLV load combinations.
130
[5.25]
Table 5. 14 Base reaction in SLV combination
Base reaction
Load
sisma_SLV1
sisma_SLV2
sisma_SLV3
sisma_SLV4
sisma_SLV5
sisma_SLV6
sisma_SLV7
sisma_SLV8
FY
(kN)
1545.02
1545.02
1545.02
1545.02
-1545.02
-1545.02
-1545.02
-1545.02
FZ
(kN)
1986.66
1986.66
1986.66
1986.66
-1986.66
-1986.66
-1986.66
-1986.66
FX
(kN)
10977.04
10977.04
10977.04
10977.04
9756.32
9756.32
9756.32
9756.32
MY
(kN*m)
48439.12
48439.12
48439.12
48439.12
-39732.23
-39732.23
-39732.23
-39732.23
MZ
(kN*m)
33383.29
33383.29
33383.29
33383.29
-32855.76
-32855.76
-32855.76
-32855.76
MX
(kN*m)
4742.86
7048.24
4901.12
7155.69
-4742.86
-7048.24
-4901.12
-7155.69
The first check is relative to the value of normalized axial force at the base because it has to
be minor than 0.65. It is:
=
109773 '
= 0.154
'
16.46
4323291 ((

((
[5.24]
The verify is satisfied with ratio 0.24.

This value has been checked also for each side of the base section thought as a singular wall.
In this case, the limits for ductility class B is 0.4.
Table 5. 15 Check of dimensionless axial force for wall on each side of the base section
Name
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 4
Parete 4
Parete 4
Parete 4
Pareti 1
Pareti 1
Pareti 1
Pareti 1
Pareti 2
Pareti 2
Pareti 2
Pareti 2
Load
sisma_SLV1
sisma_SLV2
sisma_SLV3
sisma_SLV4
sisma_SLV1
sisma_SLV2
sisma_SLV3
sisma_SLV4
sisma_SLV1
sisma_SLV2
sisma_SLV3
sisma_SLV4
sisma_SLV1
sisma_SLV2
sisma_SLV3
sisma_SLV4
Length
(m)
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
Fx
(kN)
3172.48
3167.29
3172.04
3166.85
1848.72
1839.33
1816.35
1806.88
4316.59
4332.89
4316.94
4333.23
2410.23
2430.13
2437.33
2457.13
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.11
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
CHECK
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
OK!
131
Chapter 5
5.10.2.1 Longitudinal rebar

The longitudinal rebars have been inserted, as shown in Figure 5.58, in order to have a
concentration of rebar in the regions near of the corners in order to respect the indication for
walls given by NTC08.
Two diameters have been used: 20@15cm (S = 1.67%7 for the confined zone near of the
corner and 12@30 cm (S = 0.30%7 for the other regions. The global rebar ratio is almost the
1%.
The next figures show the resistant domains and the check, with its ratio, for all seismic
combination
Figure 5. 58 Transversal section at the base with rebars
132
Figure 5. 59 SLV biaxial bending check
All details for confined zone as NTC08 has been used.
5.10.2.1 Stirrups
In order to design the stirrups in the section the shear along each side of the section is carried
out. This shear cannot be the design value because the capacity design must be apply. The
design value have to carried out from equilibrium consideration when in the base section the
bending +3c is acting. The value of the shear design has been obtained by multiplying the
analysis shear as follow:
d4c = d
N3c +3c
+8c
[5.27]
Where
-
N`{ over-strength factor equal to 1.1;

133
Chapter 5
+`{
+{
can be the inverse value of the minimum ratio in the last verify, so 1.36
In the next table, there are the shear value for each side of the section. The design values
have been obtained by multiplying to
= 1.1 1.4 = 1.49.
Figure 5. 60 Reference system for the wall
134
Table 5. 16 The Design value of Shear
Name
Parete 1
Parete 1
Parete 1
Parete 1
Parete 1
Parete 1
Parete 1
Parete 1
Parete 2
Parete 2
Parete 2
Parete 2
Parete 2
Parete 2
Parete 2
Parete 2
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 3
Parete 4
Parete 4
Parete 4
Parete 4
Parete 4
Parete 4
Parete 4
Parete 4
Load
sisma_SLV1
sisma_SLV2
sisma_SLV3
sisma_SLV4
sisma_SLV5
sisma_SLV6
sisma_SLV7
sisma_SLV8
sisma_SLV1
sisma_SLV2
sisma_SLV3
sisma_SLV4
sisma_SLV5
sisma_SLV6
sisma_SLV7
sisma_SLV8
sisma_SLV1
sisma_SLV2
sisma_SLV3
sisma_SLV4
sisma_SLV5
sisma_SLV6
sisma_SLV7
sisma_SLV8
sisma_SLV1
sisma_SLV2
sisma_SLV3
sisma_SLV4
sisma_SLV5
sisma_SLV6
sisma_SLV7
sisma_SLV8
Length
(m)
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
5.15
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.08
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
Shear
(kN)
1140.33
1055.22
1071.44
980.3
-1117.21
-1032.1
-1048.32
-957.18
1692.28
1456.97
1679.2
1441.76
-1691.57
-1456.26
-1678.49
-1441.05
842.18
704.21
791.78
642.77
-805.25
-667.28
-754.85
-605.84
594.16
404.71
554.98
345.77
-634.57
-445.12
-595.39
-386.18
Shear Ved
(kN)
1756.11
1625.04
1650.02
1509.66
-1720.50
-1589.43
-1614.41
-1474.06
2606.11
2243.73
2585.97
2220.31
-2605.02
-2242.64
-2584.87
-2219.22
1296.96
1084.48
1219.34
989.87
-1240.09
-1027.61
-1162.47
-932.99
915.01
623.25
854.67
532.49
-977.24
-685.48
-916.90
-594.72
Shear
Ved/Length
(kN/m)
340.99
315.54
320.39
293.14
-334.08
-308.63
-313.48
-286.22
506.04
435.68
502.13
431.13
-505.83
-435.46
-501.92
-430.92
421.09
352.11
395.89
321.39
-402.63
-333.64
-377.43
-302.92
244.00
166.20
227.91
142.00
-260.60
-182.80
-244.51
-158.59
The maximum value on the 5.15 sides is 2606.11 kN, 1295 kN for the sides of 3.08 m and
913.99 kN for the sides of 3.75 m. By the ratio with design shear and side length is possible to
select the critical side on which design the stirrups.
A 8 stirrups with two arrangement and spaced 8 cm have been utilized
135
Chapter 5
MATERIALI
CALCESTRUZZO
Rck
35
N/mm2
1.5
fck
29.1
N/mm2
fcd
16.5
N/mm2
Rd
0.55
0.33
N/mm2
ACCIAIO
fyk
450
N/mm2
1.15
fsd
391.3
N/mm2
GEOMETRIA
TRAVE
bw
25
cm
540
cm
cm
534
cm
480.6
cm
mm
bracci
larghezza d'anima
altezza trave
copriferro lordo (asse barre inf.)
altezza utile trave
braccio di leva
STAFFE
s
w
8
0.50%
wmin
0.15%
21.54%
cm
VERIFICATO
rapporto meccanico d'armatura
min
1.909
1.00
inclinazione bielle
VERIFICATO
max
2.50
VERIFICATO
calcolo
1.909
inclinazione bielle di calcolo
VERIFICA DI RESISTENZA A TAGLIO

VSd
VRd3
2606.11
4510.56
kN
kN
Taglio lato acciaio
VRd2
4510.56
kN
Taglio lato calcestruzzo
VRd
4510.56
kN
Taglio resistente
The verify is satisfied with ratio 0.58.
136
EN 1992
5.10.3 Uls check

5.10.3.1 Composite axial force-bending check
The next graph report the verify for all load case. Load case legend is reported in the
appendix A.
Figure 5. 61 The Biaxial bending with axial force check
137
Chapter 5
The maximum ratio is 0.754 and it was shown in seismic combination.
5.10.3.1 Shear check

Not more verify must be did for shear action because the seismic action, for wich the
stirrups were designed is major than the actions due to the non seismic combination.
5.10.3.2 Steel member check

The transversal section of the cantiever is verified against resistance failure. The
maximum design value become from the maximum vertical load on the cantilever.
The verify is satisfied with maximum ratio 0.384.

138
5.11 Resume
The next table resumes all check made with their verify ratio.
Limit state checked
ratio
SLS- vertical deflection control
0.73
SLS- Horizzontal deflection control
0.53
SLS- Vibration control
0.66
ULS- biaxial bending and axial force
0.75
ULS- Shear
0.58
ULS- Cantilver resistance
0.38
139
Chapter 5
5.12 APPENDIX A LOAD CASE RESUME
140
141
Chapter 5
142
143
Chapter 5
144
145
Chapter 5
146
<6>
The new tower in Maranello:
Performance evalutation under seismic
load
PREVIEW
This chapter deals with the verification of the tower under seismic load. Artificial
registrations have been used as input data and an IDA analysis is performed in order to
investigate the behavior in serviceability and ultimate condition when the structure is
subjected to earthquake. In addition, the IDA analysis results have been used to estimate a
behavior the factor q shown by the structure.
Structural FEM Analysis is run by:
-
MIDAS/GEN2012 v.2.1 ( http://www.MidasUser.com ), licensed in Academic

version from CSPFea (http://www.cspfea.net/midas_gen.php)
while the artificial seismic data is obtained by:

- SIMQKE_GR v.2.6 (http://dicata.ing.unibs.it/gelfi/software/simqke/simqke_gr.htm),
6.1 Structural model

The model is created as follow:
-rc stem : beam elements with distributed plasticity using fiber elements.
-panoramic terrace: beam elastic elements for all parts except for the floor of the
cantilever which is modeled by Q4 elements in order to consider the increased of the
stiffness between simple steel section and rc composite steel section.
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 1 The Fem Model for non linear analysis (lines)
Figure 6. 2 the Fem model for non linear analysis
148
The shear effects are not kept in count but, anyway, they are not expected that they will
be very important because the structure has been designed by the capacity design rules so it is
governed by flexural failure and not for shear failure.
6.1.1 Base Structural model check

Firstly, it is necessary to verify if the model used for the non linear analysis agrees the
results shown by the model used for the design analysis when it is in elastic range. In deed,
the base model used for the application of the non linear properties is not the same of the
model used in design phase. The main difference is related to the different approach used to
model the stem: by an extensive Q4 mesh in the first model while the non linear model has
only beams elements.
The comparison has been made between the modal parameters: total mass and modal
shape.
6.1.1.1 Mass comparison
The next table reports a comparison between the masses of the model used for linear
analysis (created with Q4 mesh) and the model used for the non linear analysis
Table 6. 1 Comparison between Model for linear analysis and model for non linear analysis
Level
(m)
Story
Roof
11F
10F
9F
8F
7F
6F
5F
4F
3F
2F
1F
30.42
27.02
24.81
22.09
19.37
16.65
13.93
11.21
8.49
5.77
3.05
0
Total
Translational Mass
Model for linear analysis
Model for nonlinear analysis
(ton)
(ton)
28.58
28.59
120.90
120.90
60.49
60.49
63.84
63.84
63.84
63.84
63.84
63.84
63.84
63.84
63.84
63.84
64.19
63.84
63.12
63.84
65.23
70.02
16.49
11.56
738.21
738.46
0.01%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
-0.54%
1.13%
6.83%
-42.72%
0.03%
The two values are practically the same.
149
Chapter 5
6.1.1.2 Mode shapes and Mode properties comparison

In order to compare the model stiffness a comparison between the mode shapes and
participating masses is done. The results are shown, for the first 4 modes, in the following
table, and only for a relevant partecipat
Table 6. 2 Comparison between eigenvalue analysis
PERIODO
Mode
1
2
3
4
Model for
linear
analysis
0.3985
0.3705
0.3049
0.1746
TRAN-X MASS [%]
TRAN-Y MASS [%]
Model for non

linear analysis
Delta
Model for
linear analysis
Model for non

linear analysis
Delta
0.3859
0.3612
0.2971
0.1728
-3.27%
-2.57%
-2.63%
-1.04%
28.8279
0.063
39.2515
0.0002
29.917
0.0075
38.9974
0.0002
3.64%
-0.65%
-
Model for linear Model for non

analysis
linear analysis
0.1967
62.4646
0.0005
2.0841
0.0053
62.9828
0.0052
8.1824
TRAN-Z MASS [%]

Delta
Model for
linear analysis
Model for non

linear analysis
Delta
0.82%
74.53%
5.5166
0.0035
4.219
0.0041
5.0297
0.0024
3.9895
0.0035
-9.68%
-5.75%
-
Figure 6. 3 The first four modes shapes of the model for non linear analysis
150
Figure 6. 4 The first four modes shapes of the model for non linear analysis
6.1.2 Inelastic material properties

Inside of a section, three different materials are present which involve the utilization of
three different constitutive model:
-confined concrete the core concrete of section confined by the stirrups;
-unconfined concrete: the cover zones
-steel for rebar
6.1.2.1 Constitutive model and parameter confined concrete

Kent and Park model is used. The characteristic of this material is shown in the table
below and in Figure 6.5.
151
Chapter 5
Table 6. 3 Kent and Park parameters for confined concrete
KENT E PARK MODEL

cls conf
Cylindrical tensile failure
Space between two stirrups
Base of section
Thickness
Steel cover
stirrup diameter
tensile failure for stirrups
Thickness of concrete core
Base of concrete core
geometric rebar ratio
Factor for the strength increase
Strain softening slope
Strain at maximum compressive strength
Strain at compressive strength
f'c=
sh =
B=
H=
c=
st=
fyh=
h'=
b'=
s=
K=
Z=
c0=
cu=
Figure 6. 5 Kent and Park skeleton curve
152
30
80
5150
250
55
8
450
200
5040
1.31%
1.1960
30.13
0.0024
0.0289
Mpa
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Mpa
mm
mm
6.1.2.2 Constitutive model and parameter for unconfined concrete

Kent and Park model is used. The characteristic of this material is shown in the table
below and in Figure 6.7
Table 6. 4 Kent and Park parameter for unconfined concrete
KENT E PARK MODEL

cls unconf
Cylindrical tensile failure
Space between two stirrups
Base of section
Thickness
Steel cover
stirrup diameter
tensile failure for stirrups
Thickness of concrete core
Base of concrete core
geometric rebar ratio
Factor for the strength increase
Strain softening slope
Strain at maximum compressive strength
Strain at compressive strength
f'c=
sh =
B=
H=
c=
st=
fyh=
h'=
b'=
s=
K=
Z=
c0=
cu=
30
120
5150
250
55
8
391.3
5040
5040
0.00%
1.0000
335.00
0.0020
0.0044
Mpa
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
Mpa
mm
mm
153
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 6 Kent and Park skeleton curve
6.1.2.3 Constitutive model for rebar

The rebar steel has been modeled by Menegotto e Pinto model using the NTC08
nominal properties for steel. In NTC08 is not explicitly declared the hardening ratio for steel
but it can be obtained from the present indications and it is 0.07.
Table 6. 5
MODELLO DI KENT E PARK

cls conf
Tensile failure
Hardening ratio
154
fyk=
b=
450
0.07
Mpa
Figure 6. 7 Menegotto and Pinto constitutive model
6.1.3 Fiber division of section and inelastic hinge

Indications present in literature indicate that from 200 up to 300 fibers are necessary for
a good prevision of the non linear behavior. The maximum number of fibers that can be
inserted in a section in Midas/Gen is 1000. Almost 600 fibers for each section are inserted and
five Gauss integration points are inserted along each fiber beam element.
In order to minimize the computational effort, distributed hinges are inserted only in the
section near of the base (almost two times the maximum length of the section at the base) in
other hand, the zone where plastic excursion is expected.
Four kind of inelastic hinges have been used as is shown in the next Figure 6.8.
155
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 8 Inelastic hinges name
The next figure, as example, shows a fiber division for one side of the section at the
base.
Figure 6. 9 Fiber division of section at the base
The Figure 6.10 shows the assignment of inelastic hinge along the rc core.
156
Figure 6. 10 Inelastic hinge assignment
6.2 Perform IDA analysis

Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is used to investigate more thoroughly structural
performance under seismic loads. A suite of seven records have been used, each scaled by an
increasing factor. The convention is to run one to several different records, each once and
each scaled to multiple levels of intensity, thus producing one, or more, curve of response
parameterized versus intensity level.
157
Chapter 5
6.2.1 Ground acceleration selection

A suite of seven artificial records is used. Each record has been select, according to
NTC08, in a way to be compatible with the NTC08 SLV elastic spectrum. Only the horizontal
component is considerate.
6.2.1.1 Reference spectra
The next figure shows the reference SLV elastic spectrum for the horizontal component
as NTC08. Inserted in the SIMQKE.
Figure 6. 11 The SLV reference spectrum to obtain compatible record
6.2.1.2 The main parameters selection

The next Figure shows the input parameters in the program.
158
Figure 6. 12 The input data in SIMQKE
The input values are:

-
smallest period of desired response spectra
largest period of desidered response spectra
Start of the stationary part in the accelerogram

Duration of the stationary part

total duration
number of cycle to smoothen the response spectrum

_ the peak ground acceleration
number of artificial earthquakes

arbitrary odd integer
Damping coefficient
159
Chapter 5
6.2.1.3 Records
The following pictures shows the records analysed.
Figure 6. 13 Artificial record (H2)
160
161
Chapter 5
6.2.2 Performing the analysis

Non linear analysis parameters are selected according to the eigenvalue analysis. In this
way the main properties, accuracy, convergence and robustness are satisfied at least in the
starting linear behavior of the structure.
Each input is run each time multiplied for the scale factor, in this way, called
The figure below show the selected parameter for the analysis.
162

Figure 6. 20
6.2.2.1 Looking at accuracy

In order to have a good accuracy of the response the integration step is selected in a way
to be minor than 1/10 of the major relevant linear mode which must be kept in count. A value
of 0.10 s is selected.
A Rayleigh damping has been utilized in order to decrease the importance of the mode
higher than the fourth. The first one and the fourth mode period have been used to setting the
Rayleigh damping.
163
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 21 The Rayleghs damping
6.2.2.2 Looking at convergency

The maximum number of iteration in a single step is selected as 10 and the convergence
control is done on the norm of displacement which must be minor than 10E-4. When not
convergence appears the analysis fails.
6.2.2.3 Looking at robustness
It has been already written, in the precedent chapters, how the results can be altered by
the selection of a numerical algorithm or another.
The Newmarks method in the form of the average acceleration is used because this
method is unconditionally stable.
6.2.3 The limits state check

The limit states have been checked looking at the maximum value of the chord rotation
admissible according to NTC.
The limit value calculated on the base section are reported on the figure below.
164
C8A.6.1 - Calcolo della rotazione ultima in travi o pareti

Tipo di elemento
Funzione strutturale dell'elemento
Rispetto minimi di armatura per la zona sismica
Efficienza staffatura
=
Sforzo normale medio agente
N=
Luce di taglio
Lv=
DATI MATERIALI
Resistenza media a compressione cls
Resistenza media a trazione barre long
Resistenza media a trazione barre trasv
Deformazione a snervamento acciaio
DATI SEZIONE
Area
altezza della sezione
DATI ARMATURE
Armature longitudinali in trazione
Armature longitudinali in compressione
Armature trasversali
Passo delle armature trasversali
CALCOLO ROTAZIONE ALLO SNERVAMENTO
Curvatura elastica
Rotazione ultima
SLD C8A.6.1
CALCOLO ROTAZIONE ULTIMA
Sforzo assiale normalizzato di compressione
Percentuale meccanica di armatura in trazione
Percentuale meccanica di armatura in compressione
Percentuale di armatura trasversale
Coefficiente riduttivo totale
Rotazione ultima
SLV C8A.6.1
Rotazione ultima
SLC C8A.6.1
trave
primaria
si
0.9
1.00E+07 N
27020 mm
fc=
fy=
fyw=
y=
37.64 Mpa
450 Mpa
450 Mpa
0.0021
Ac=
H=
5.15E+06 mm
5.15E+03 mm
As=
A's=
Asx=
sh=
29250
9750
100
80
mm^2
mm^2
mm^2
mm
nota: 0 se non presente apposita chiusura
nota:nelle pareti tutta l'armatura longitudinale d'anima da includere nella percentuale in trazione
y= 0.000000436
y=
0.0069510
=
5.16E-02
=
6.79E-02
'=
2.26E-02
sx=
2.43E-07
r=
1
sD= 0.023726908 rad
u= 0.031635877 rad
Figure 6. 22 Maximum chord rotation for the various limit states
6.2.4 The response under design earthquake

Firstly, the behavior of structure under an accelerogram with the SLV intensity has been
carried out in order to investigate the principal mechanism.
The figures below show the displacement on top of the core and the shear base and
overtuning moment.
Figure 6. 23 Time history data
165
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 24 Displacement time history on top of the core in x direction (27 m)
Figure 6. 25 Displacement time history on top of the core in y direction (27 m)
The maximum displacement 27.01 mm. In order to compare this value the displacement
on top in a linear elastic with q factor analysis has been here reported.
166
Figure 6. 26 Maximum displacement on top of the core in a linear elastic with q behavior factor analysis
In order to obtain the SLV displacement, the value of a linear elastic analysis, for structure
with period minor than TC as the analyzed tower, must be multiplied for:
"# = max ()1 + ,- 1/
0
2 , 5- 46 = 1.61
1
[6.1]
so the predicted value from the linear elastic analysis is 23.66 mm which is similar to what
has been obtained.
The rotation chord is 0.001 rad minor than the ultimate rotation.
167
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 27 Time history base shear in x direction
Figure 6. 28 Time history base shear in y direction
The maximum value of the base shear is 2030 kN in x direction and 1798 kN in y direction.
168
Figure 6. 29 The base reaction in the linear elastic analysis
169
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 30 The overtuning moment in x direction
Figure 6. 31 The overtuning moment in y direction
Figure 6. 32 The shear force profile
170
The next figures show the cycle on the base section for the various element.
Figure 6. 33 Reference system for the wall
Figure 6. 34 Side 1
171
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 35 Side 1 fiber state
Figure 6. 36 Side 2
172
173
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 38 Side 3
174
Figure 6. 40 Side 4
Figure 6. 41 side 4 fiber state
175
Chapter 5
6.2.4.1 Consideration
The structure under the design earthquake has shown a behavior almost elastic. This
characteristic is due to the overstrength given in the design phase (ratio 0.75 in SLV) and the
absence of the partial safety factors in the material used in time history analisys.
6.2.5 IDA curve

Plotting an IDA curve requires a prior and deliberate choose of the measure parameters.
As intensity measure the value of ag/g has been selected while for damage measure the top
displacement and the base shear.
6.2.5.1 IDA curve H(2)
ag/g - d_top_x
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.00
176
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
ag/g - d_top_y
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - V_bx
2000.00
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
177
Chapter 5
ag/g - V_by
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
Figure 6. 42 IDA curves for earthquake H(2)
178
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - d_top_x
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - d_top_y
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
179
Chapter 5
ag/g - V_bx
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
ag/g - d_top_x
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - V_by
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
180
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - d_top_x
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
ag/g - d_top_x
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
ag/g - d_top_y
35.00
30.00
25.00
20.00
Serie1
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
181
Chapter 5
ag/g - V_bx
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
Serie1
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - V_by
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
Serie1
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
182
0.300
0.350
6.2.5.4 IDA curve H6
ag/g - d_top_x
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
ag/g - d_top_x
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
ag/g - d_top_y
45.00
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00
Serie1
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
183
Chapter 5
ag/g - V_bx
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
Serie1
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
ag/g - V_by
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
Serie1
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.400
184
0.450
0.500
6.2.5.5 Ida curve H(7)
ag/g - d_top_x
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
ag/g - d_top_x
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
ag/g - d_top_y
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
Serie1
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
185
Chapter 5
ag/g - V_bx
2500.00
2000.00
1500.00
Serie1
1000.00
500.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - V_by
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
Serie1
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
186
0.300
0.350
ag/g - d_top_x
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - d_top_y
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
187
Chapter 5
ag/g - V_bx
2000.00
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - V_by
2000.00
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
188
ag/g - d_top_x
0.350
0.300
0.250
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - d_top_y
30.00
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
189
Chapter 5
ag/g - V_bx
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.300
0.350
0.250
0.300
0.350
ag/g - V_by
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
0.00
0.000
0.050
0.100
0.150
0.200
6.2.6 Summarization of IDA curve and limit states check

According to NTC08, because seven analyses have been performed the mean value of
each parameter has been used in order to check the limit states.
190
Figure 6. 49 Summarization of IDA curve and SLs check X direction
Figure 6. 50 Figure 6. 51 Summarization of IDA curve and SLs check Y direction
191
Chapter 5
6.3 Base shear versus top displacement

In order to understand the behavior shown by the structure the Base shear versus top
displacement has been plotted. This graph has been obtained for only one direction, x , and for
value up to 6 times the ag/g SLV value using the record H(3).
V_bx - d_top_x
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
Figure 6. 52 Base shear versus top displacement
The next figure shows the fiber status after the 6 times ag/g earthquake. It can seen that
some fiber has crashed.
192
Figure 6. 53 Fiber status after 6 ag/g in SLV earthquake.
The graphs above show why the structure has shown little plastic behavior. Looking at
the curve 6.52 the point related to the limit states can de found and they are plotted in the next
figure.
193
Chapter 5
Figure 6. 54 Region where the structure is solicited by the limit states actions
A zoom of that zone shows better that the structure responses by the stiffnes of the
cracked section and it is the only way that the structure has to dissipated energy.
Figure 6. 55 A zoom of the region where the structure works under design seismic actions
194
<7>
Conclusions
PREVIEW
In this thesis the structural earthquake and comfort design of a the new tower for the
Galleria Ferrari in Maranello has been done.
The structural design has involved more than one problem in order to fit the structural
design with the actual national Italian code. In fact the tower because of the overtures on the
base, which compromise the dissipation of the energy in the critical zones, is not simply
classificable as a structural tipology presents in the code. The direct consequence of that is
that the behavior factor cannot be known by the NTC08.
The problem is that the structure can be seen as a inverted pendulum, with only one
dissipative mechanism at the base or as a composite wall system.
In the design phase using a value of 1.5, the minimum value suggested by the Eurocode
for the rc structure, seemed reasonable.
By time history analysis the behavior of structure has been deeply understood and the
analysis has shown that the structure is characterized by an elastic (phase II) behavior. The
reasons of this features can be found in the following observations:
- The time history analyses have been performed using a unitary partial safety factor.
For this reason an overstrength value can be expected;
- The maximum ratio for axial and biaxial bending was 0.75, so the structure has
intrinsically an over resistance equal to 1/0.75.
This two considerations suggest that the structure can be resist by the offering of their
non linear resources for earthquake larger than the design earthquake as the curve Base sheartop displacement has shown.
Chapter 7
The problem was against human vibration control because the important dimension of
the cantilevered panoramic terrace. In this case the NTC08 and the Eurocode does not give a
standard method to assess the vibration on the floor.
Guidelines have been used and a numerical procedure to design has been made.
196
<REFERENCES>
References
ARTICLES
- Feldmann, M., Heinemeyer, Ch., Vlling, B., Design guide for floor vibrations, ArcelorMittal,
Commercial Sections, http://www.arcelormittal.com/sections/, 2007
- European Commission, Generalisation of criteria for floor vibrations for industrial,
office,residential and public building and gymnastic halls - Vibration of floor (VoF), ECSC
7210CR-04040, Report EUR 21972 EN, ISBN 92 76 01705 05, 2006
European Commission, Human induced vibration of steel structures (HiVoSS), RFS2-CT2007-00033, to be published 2009
- Bachmann, H., Ammann W.. Vibration of structures induced by Man and Machines,
IABSEAIPC- IVBH, Zrich. ISBN 3-85748-052-X, 1987
- ISO 10137:2007-11, Bases for design of structures - Serviceability of buildings and walkways
against vibrations
- A. Rutenberg, "Simplified P-Delta Analysis for Asymmetric Structures," ASCE Journal of the
Structural Division, Vol. 108, No. 9, Sept. 1982.
- Bracci, J. M., Kunnath, S. K., and Reinhorn, A. M., 1997. Seismic performance and retrofit
evaluation for reinforced concrete structures, ASCE, J. Struct. Eng. 123 (1), 310.
- Bosco M., Ghersi A., Marino E.M. (2007): Una pi semplice procedura per la valutazione
della risposta sismica delle strutture attraverso analisi statica non-lineare. Materiali ed
Approcci Innovativi per il Progetto in Zona Sismica e la Mitigazione della Vulnerabilit delle
Strutture, Consorzio ReLUIS, 12-13 Febbraio 2007
- Calabrese A., Almeida J.P., Pinho R. (2010) "Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity
modelling of RC frame elements for seismic analysis," Journal of Earthquake Engineering,
(Vol. 14, Special Issue1).
- Castellani A., Boffi G., Valente M., 2008: Progetto antisismico degli edifici in c.a.
Biblioteca Tecnica Hoepli
- Chopra, A.K., and Goel, R.K. (2002). A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating
seismic demands for buildings. Earthquake Engng. Struct. Dyn., 31:56182.
- Chopra A.K., Goel R.K., 2004: A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic
demands for unsymmetric-plan buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics,
33, pp. 903-927.
- Coleman, J, and Spacone, E. (2001) "Localization Issues in Nonlinear Force-Based Frame
Elements." ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Volume 127(11), pp. 1257-1265.
- Cornell C.A., 1968: Engineering seismic risk analysis, Bulletin of Seismological Society of
America, Vol. 58, N5, pp. 1583-1606.
- Cosenza E., Manfredi G., Verderame G.M., 2001: Un modello a fibre per lanalisi non
lineare di telai in cemento armato , X Congresso Nazionale ANIDIS LIngegneria Sismica
in Italia.
- Cosenza E., Mariniello C., Verderame G.M., Zambrano A., 2007: il ruolo della scala nella
capacit sismica degli edifici esistenti in c.a. Convegno Anidis Pisa, 2007.
- Elnashai, A.S. (2001): Advanced inelastic static (pushover) analysis for earthquake
applications,Structural Engineering and mechanics, vol. 12(1), pp. 51-69
- E. L. Wilson and A. Habibullah, "Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Story Buildings
Including P-Delta Effects," Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Vol. 3, No.3, May 1987.
- E. L. Wilson and A. Habibullah, "Static and Dynamic Analysis of Multi-Story Buildings
Including P-Delta Effects," Earthquake Spectra, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute,
Vol. 3, No.3, May 1987.
- Eucentre, 2009: Corso Analisi non lineare C.A. 23-29 Ottobre 2009- Slide del corso.
- Eurocode 8, 2003 : Design for structures for earthquakes resistance Part 1-General Rules,
seismeic actions and rules for buildings, Final draft prEN1998-1
- Fajfar, P. 1999. Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 28, pp. 979-993: John Wiley & Son, Ltd.
198
Fajfar, P., and Gaperic, P. (1996). The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of RC
buildings. EarthquakeEngrg. and Struct. Dyn., 25(12), 31-46.
Fajfar P., Marusic D., Perus I. (1996): The N2 method for seismic damage analysis of RC
buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 25(1), pp. 31-46
Fardis M.N., Panagiotakos T.B., 1997: Seismic design and response of bare and mansoryinfilled reinforced concrete buildings. Part II: infilled structures. Journal of Structural
Engineering, vol.1 n 3, pp. 475-503.
Filippou F.C., Popov E.P., Bertero V.V. (1983). "Modelling of R/C joints under cyclic
excitations." ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering (Vol. 109, No. 11, 2666-2684).
Freeman, S. A. (1978). Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake
motion. Douglas McHenry International Symposium on Concrete and Concrete Structures,
ACI SP-55, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 589-605.
Fujiji K., Nakano Y., Sanada Y., 2004: Simplified nonlinear analysis procedure for
asymmetric buildings, World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 13th, Vancouver, paper
149.
Ghersi A., Lenza P.: Progetto antisismico degli edifici in cement armato, Dario Flaccovio
Editore 2009.
Gupta, A., Krawinkler, H. (1999). Seismic demands for performance evaluation of steel
moment resisting frame structures (SAC Task
5.4.3). Report No. 132, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Stanford University,
CA.
Gupta, A., and Krawinkler, H. (2000). Estimation of seismic drift demands for frame
structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 29:12871305.
Gupta, B., and Kunnath, S. K., 2000. Adaptive spectra-based pushover procedure for seismic
evaluation of structures, Earthquake Spectra, 16 (2), 367391.
Iervolino I., Cornell C.A., 2004: Sulla selezione degli Accelerogrammi nella Analisi Non
Lineare delle Strutture, atti XI Convegno nazionale Lingegneria Sismica in Italia,
Genova.
Iervolino L., Maddaloni G., Cosenza E. (2007): Accelerogrammi naturali compatibili con le
specifiche OPCM 3431 per lanalisi sismica delle strutture, atti XII Convegno Nazionale
Lingegneria sismica in Italia, Pisa
Iervolino I., Cornell C.A., 2005: Record selection for nonlinear seismic analysis of
structure, Earthquake Spectra, Vol.21, N3, pp.685-713.
Iervolino I., Cosenza E., Galasso C., 2009. Spettri, accelerogrammi e le nuove norme
tecniche per le costruzioni. Rivista "Progettazione Sismica num.1" edizioni IUSS Press pp
33-50
Iervolino I., Manfredi G., 2008 : A review of ground motion record selection strategies for
dynamic structural analysis, in New Approaches to Analysis and Testing of Mechanical and
Structural System, Springer.
Iervolino I., Galasso C., Cosenza E., 2010: REXEL: computer aided record selection for
code-based seismic structural analysis. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 8:339-362
Kent D.C., Park R. ,1971: Flexural members with confined concrete. Journal of the
StructuralDivision, ASCE, Vol. 97, ST7.
Kilar V., Fajfar P., 1996: Simplified push-over analysis of building structures, in
Proceedings, World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 11th, Acapulco, paper 1001.
Kilar V., Fajfar P., 2002: Simplified nonlinear seismic analysis of Asymmetric multi-story
buildings, in Proceedings, European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 12th, London,
paper 033.
Krawinkler, H., and Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. (1998). Pros and cons of a pushover analysis for
seismic performance evaluation. Engrg. Struct., 20, 452-464.
199
References
200
Kunnath, S. K., and Gupta, B., 2000. Validity of deformation demand estimates using
nonlinear static procedures, Proceedings, U.S. Japan Workshop on Performance-Based
Engineering for Reinforced Concrete Building
Lawson RS, Vance V, Krawinkler H. (1994). Nonlinear static pushover analysiswhy, when
and how? Proceedings of the 5th U.S. Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 1:283292.
Mainstone R.J., 1974: Supplementary note on the stiffness and strength of infilled frames.
Current Paper CP13/74, Build. Res. Establishment, London, England.
Matsumori, T., Otani, S., Shiohara, H., and Kabeyasawa, T., 1999. Earthquake member
deformation demands in reinforced concrete frame structures, Proceedings, U.S.-Japan
Workshop on Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, Maui, Hawaii, pp. 7994.
Menegotto M., Pinto P.E. (1973). "Method of analysis for cyclically loaded R.C. plane frames
including changes in geometry and non-elastic behaviour of elements under combined normal
force and bending." Symposium on the Resistance and Ultimate Deformability of Structures
Acted on by Well Defined Repeated Loads, International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering, Zurich, Switzerland, (15-22).
Miranda E. (1991). Seismic evaluation and upgrading of existing buildings. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Moghadam A.S., Tso W.K., 2000 : Pushover analysis for asymmetric and setback multistory
buildings, In Proceedings, World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 12th, Upper Hutt,
paper 1093.
Montaldo V., Meletti C., 2007. Valutazione del valore della ordinata spettrale a 1sec e ad
altri periodi di interesse ingegneristico. Progetto DPC-INGV S1, Deliverable D3,
http://esse1.mi.ingv.it/d3.html
Monti, G., Spacone, E., and Filippou, F.C. (1993). "Model for Anchored Bars under Seismic
Excitations." UCB/EERC 93/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley.
Monti, G., and Spacone, E. (2000). "Reinforced Concrete Fiber Beam Element with BondSlip." ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 126, No. 6, pp. 654-661.
Newmark (1960) oscillatori elastoplastici
Penelis G.G., Kappos A.J., 2002: 3D Pushover analysis: The issue of torsion, in
Proceedings, European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, 12th, London, paper 015.
Petrini L., Pinho R., Calvi G.M. (2004) Criteri di Progettazione Antisismica, IUSS Press,
Pavia, Italy.
Pinho R., Antoniou S. (2004). Advantages and limitations of adaptive and non adaptive
force-based pushover procedures. Journal of Eartquake Engineering, Vol.8 No. 4(2004),
Imperial College Press, 497-522
Pinho R., Antoniou S. (2004). Development and verification of a displacement-based
adaptive pushover procedure Journal of Eartquake Engineering, Vol.8 No. 4(2004), Imperial
College Press, 643-661
R. D. Cook., D. S. Malkus and M. E. Plesha, Concepts and Applications of Finite Element
Analysis, Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, ISBN 0-471-84788-7, 1989.
Sasaki, K. K., Freeman, S. A., and Paret, T. F., 1998. Multimode pushover procedure
(MMP)A method to identify the effects of higher modes in a pushover analysis,
Proceedings, 6th U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Seattle, Washington.
Scott B.D., Park R., Priestley M.J.N. [1982]. Stress-strain behavior of concrete confined by
overlapping hoops at low and high strain rates. ACI Journal, Jan.-Feb. 1982.
Saiidi, M., and Sozen, M. A. (1981). Simple nonlinear seismic analysis of R/C structures. J.
Struct. Div., ASCE,107, 937-952.
Spacone E., Ciampi V. and Filippou F.C. (1992) "A Beam Element for Seismic Damage
Analysis." UCB/EERC 92/07, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley.
Spacone, E., Ciampi, V. and Filippou, F.C. (1996) "Mixed Formulation of Nonlinear Beam
Finite Element." Computer and Structures, Vol, 58, No. 1, pp. 71-83.
Spacone, E., Filippou, F.C., and Taucer, F.F. (1996) "Fiber Beam-Column Model for
Nonlinear Analysis of R/C Frames. I: Formulation." Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 25, N. 7., pp. 711-725.
Spacone, E., Filippou, F.C., and Taucer, F.F. (1996) "Fiber Beam-Column Model for
Nonlinear Analysis of R/C Frames. II: Applications." Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 25, N. 7., pp. 727-742.
Spallarossa D., Barani S., 2007. Disaggregazione della pericolosit sismica in termini di MR-. Progetto DPC-INGV S1, Deliverable D14, http://esse1.mi.ingv.it/d14.html
Stafford Smith B., 1963: Lateral stiffnes of infilled frames subject to racking with design
recommendations. The Structural Engineer. Vol.55, n6, pp. 263-268
Structures, Sapporo, Hokkaido, Japan.
Valles, R., Reinhorn, A., Kunnath, S., Li, C. and Madan, A. (1996). IDARC2D version 4.0: a
computer program for the inelastic analysis of buildings. Tech. Rep. No. NCEER-96-0010,
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at
Buffalo, NY.
Yu Q., Pugliesi R., Allen M., Bischoff C., 2004: Assessment of modal pushover analysis
procedure and its application to seismic evaluation of editing building, World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 13th, Vancouver, paper 1004.
Zarate G., Ayala A. G., 2004: Validation of single storey models for the evaluation of the
seismic performance of multi-storey asymmetric buildings, World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, 13th, Vancouver, paper 2213.
CODES
- Allegato al voto n. 36 del 27.07.2007: Pericolosita sismica e criteri generali per la
classificazionesismica del territorio nazionale
- Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1996. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete
Buildings, Report No. SSC 96-01 ATC-40, Redwood City, CA.
- Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1997a. NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings, prepared for the Building Seismic Safety Council, published by
the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA-273, Washington, D.C.
- Applied Technology Council (ATC), 1997b. Commentary on the Guidelines for the Seismic
- Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
- Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2005. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
- ATC-40, "Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings.", Applied technology
council (Redwood City, California 94065).
- Circolare n617 Circolare esplicativa n617 C.S.LL.PP. 02-02-2009
- EN 1998-3:2005. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance Part 3:
Assesment and retrofitting of buildings,CEN (European Committee for Standardization),
Management Centre, Brussels, (2005).
- NTC08,2008 Norme tecniche per le costruzioni 2008 DM infrastrutture 14-01-2008
201
References
Books
-
Castellani A., Boffi G., Valente M., Progetto antisismico degli edifici in c.a. con
lEurocodice UNI-EN 1998-1-5 e le Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Biblioteca Tecnica
Hoepli.
Clementi F., Lenci S., 2009 I compositi nellIngegneria Strutturale- ladeguamento statico e
sismico di strutture in c.a. e muratura secondo il CNR-DT 200/2004, la NTC e le relative
circolari applicative. Esculapio.
Cosenza E., Manfredi G., Pecce M., 2009. Strutture in cemento armato: basi della
progettazione. Biblioteca Tecnica Hoepli.
Corradi dellAcqua L.,, 1992. Meccanica delle strutture vv.1-2-3. Mc.Graw-Hill.
Chopra A.K., 2007: Dynamics of Structures- Theory and Application to Earthquake
Engineering Third edition, Prentice Hall.
Cosenza E., Manfredi G., Monti G., 2008. Valutazione e riduzione della vulnerabilit
sismica di edifici esistenti in cemento armato. Atti del convegno "Valutazione e riduzione
della vulnerabilit sismica di edifici esistenti in cemento armato", svoltosi a Roma nei giorni
29 e 30 maggio 2008 sotto l'egida del ReLUIS (Rete dei Laboratori Universitari di Ingegneria
Sismica) e della Protezione Civile. Polimetrica.
Ghersi A., Lenza P. , 2009, Edifici antisismici in cemento armato progettati secondo le
indicazioni delle nuove normative. Dario Flaccovio.
Lanzi G., Silvestri F., 1999. Risposta sismica locale: Teoria ed Esperienze, Hevelius.
Manfredi G., Masi A., Pinho R., Verderame G., Vona M., 2007) Valutazione di Edifici
Esistenti in Cemento Armato, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.
Park R., Paulay T. [1975]. Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York.
Paulay T., Priestley M.J.N. [1992]. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Buildings. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2000, Finite Element Method -The Basis- Fifth edition, McGrawHill
Zienkiewicz and Taylor, 2000, Finite Element Method - Solid Mechanics- Fifth edition,
McGraw-Hill
TESI DI LAUREA E DI DOTTORATO

- Bruciafreddo D., Valutazione della vulnerabilit sismica di edific esistenti mediante analisi
dinamica non lineare,Tesi di Laurea. Relatore: Prof. Ing. Adolfo Santini, Universit degli
Studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria A.A. 2009-2010
- Iaccino R. Modellazione e analisi non lineare di pareti strutturali in calcestruzzo armato,
Tesi di Dottorato XIX Ciclo Dottorato di Ricerca in Meccanica Computazionale
Universit della Calabria.
- Magliulo G., Comportamento sismico degli edifici in c.a. con irregolarit in pianta, Tesi di
dottorato XIII ciclo- Dottorato di ricerca in Ingegneria delle Strutture- Universit degli Studi
di Napoli Federico II.
- Mariniello C., Una procedura meccanica nella valutazione della vulnerabilit sismica di
edifici in c.a.. Tesi di Dottorato XX Ciclo Dottorato di Ricerca in Ingegneria dei Materiali
e della Produzione. Universit degli Studi di Napoli Federico II.
202
II.
REPORT
- Taucer F.F., Spacone E. and Filippou F.C. (1991) "A Fiber Beam-Column Element for Seismic
Response Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures." UCB/EERC 91/17, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley Report to the National
Science Foundation and the California Department of Transportation.
MANUALI
- Midas/GEN - Analysis Reference Manual
- Midas/GEN . Online Manual
- SIMQE_GR tutorial
SLIDE E DISPENSE
- Corso Analisi non lineare C.A. Eucentre 23-24 Ottobre 2009 Slide del corso.
- Appunti del corso di Dinamica delle Strutture tenuto dal Prof. A. Santini presso la Facolt
degli Studi Mediterranea di Reggio Calabria A.A. 2007/2008.
- Albanesi T., Nuti C. ,2007. Dispense sullanalisi statica non lineare per lUniversit degli
Studi Roma Tre.
- Biasoli F., 2007. Edifici in c.a. e le forze orizzontali.
SITI WEB
- http://www.esse1.mi.ingv.it/
- http://www.pricos-spacone.it
- http://www.csp-academy.net/
- http://www.cspfea.net/
- http://www.reluis.it/
-
http://www.cslp.it
http://dicata.ing.unibs.it/gelfi/
203

Lingua

Benvenuto in Scribd!

D.BRUCIAFREDDO -Torre Galleria Ferrari - Valutazione Del Comfort Per Azioni Antropiche

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione:

Data di caricamento

Copyright

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Descrizione:

Copyright:

D.BRUCIAFREDDO -Torre Galleria Ferrari - Valutazione Del Comfort Per Azioni Antropiche

Caricato da

Descrizione:

Copyright:

Titoli correlati

www.diegobruciafreddo.

Any question don't hesitate to contact me! Enjoy reading!

Scuola Master F.lli Pesenti

The new observation tower for the Galleria Ferrari

Tipo di attivit o settore

Nome e indirizzo del datore di lavoro

Febbraio 2011 Maggio 2012

Titolo della tesi e argomenti

Nome e tipo d'organizzazione

Nome e tipo d'organizzazione

Politecnico di Milano Scuola Master F.lli Pesenti

Per maggiori informazioni su Europass: http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu

Livello europeo (*)

(*) Quadro comune europeo di riferimento per le lingue

Altre capacit e competenze

Gestione di progetti e gruppi di lavoro

Ingegnere strutturista con capacit progettazione di strutture non tradizionali e complesse.

Ulteriori informazioni Referenze e Curriculum Vitae dettagliato su richiesta

Pagina 3/3 - Curriculum vitae di

Per maggiori informazioni su Europass: http://europass.cedefop.europa.eu

Partial Safety Factor for load ..................................................................................................... 7

The performance requirements of structures :the limit states ............................................. 7

1.4 THE ISSUE OF VIBRATION CONTROL OF FLOOR ......................................................................................... 11

Classification of vibrations .................................................................................................. 17

Hand calculation method -Design procedure...................................................................... 19

<2>Non linear structural analysis for seismic design ..................................................... 23

Step 1: Load increasing .................................................................................................................. 29

Pushover analysis for MDOF systems ................................................................................. 30

2.7 NON LINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................... 31

Newmarks method : stability ........................................................................................................ 34

Direct time history integration for a MDOF system ............................................................ 34

<3>Model of structure for non linear analysis ............................................................... 41

Distributed versus concentrated Plasticity elements .................................................................... 48

Stress-Strain relation for non linear analysis ...................................................................... 49

Stress-strain relation for r.c. section .............................................................................................. 49

3.2.3.1.1Kent and Park Model ........................................................................ 50

<4>The new redevelopment of areas adjacent to the Galleria Ferrari .......................... 55

The structural design of the new area in Maranello 63

5.1 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS .................................................................................................................... 63

Gravity load analysis ...................................................................................................................... 76

Preliminary composite floor design .................................................................................... 84

Preliminary design of subbeam........................................................................................... 88

5.4 MATERIALS ..................................................................................................................................... 92

All levels under the 10 ................................................................................................................. 93

Basic Value ..................................................................................................................................... 96

Seismic load ........................................................................................................................ 99

Geoseismic analysis ....................................................................................................................... 99

5.6 STRUCTURAL FEM MODEL ................................................................................................................ 105

Load combination ........................................................................................................................ 115

5.9.1.2.1Check in x direction ........................................................................ 117

Vertical displacement check ........................................................................................................ 123

5.9.1.3.1Cantilever subjected to all loads in frequently combination ......... 123

Reinforcement design ....................................................................................................... 130

Longitudinal rebar...................................................................................................................... 132

Uls check ........................................................................................................................... 137

Seismic combination .................................................................................................................. 129

Composite axial force-bending check ........................................................................................ 137

RESUME ................................................................................................................................... 139

Mass comparison ......................................................................................................................... 149

Inelastic material properties ............................................................................................. 151

1.3.2.2 Partial Safety Factor for Material Strengths

simplifying and dividing both members for