Nonlinear response- history analysis in design practice RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE November 2007 Joe Maffei.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, August 2004

Advertisements

Design of Steel and Composite-Structures for Seismic Loading – Safety Requirements, Concepts and Methods – Prof. Dr.-Ing. Ekkehard Fehling, University.

Design of Seismic-Resistant Steel Building Structures

CALCULATED vs MEASURED ENERGY DISSIPATION.

Finite element seismic analysis of a guyed mast

1 LESSLOSS Sub Project 7 Techniques and Methods for Vulnerability Reduction Barcelona 18 th May 07 – Lisbon 24 th May 07 LESSLOSS Dissemination Meeting.

Seismic Performance Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Bridges

1 Dynamic/Seismic analysis of RC Element including shear effect.

Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings SPEAR International Workshop Joint Research Centre, Ispra, 4 th -5 th April 2005.

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Energy Efficient Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Using Hybrid Simulation and Cyclic Testing SELIM GÜNAY, POSTDOCTORAL.

Mechanics Based Modeling of the Dynamic Response of Wood Frame Building By Ricardo Foschi, Frank Lam,Helmut Prion, Carlos Ventura Henry He and Felix Yao.

Performance-based Evaluation of the Seismic Response of Bridges with Foundations Designed to Uplift Marios Panagiotou Assistant Professor, University of.

UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED HYBRID COUPLED WALLS Yahya C. KURAMA University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana Qiang SHEN, Michael MAY (graduate students) Cooperative.

Yahya C. Kurama University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, Indiana, U.S.A

사장교의 지진 응답 제어를 위한 납고무 받침의 설계 기준 제안

Konstantinos Agrafiotis

UNBONDED POST-TENSIONED HYBRID COUPLED WALLS

July 21-23, 2006 NEES Annual Meeting 1 NEESR-SG Seismic Performance Assessment and Retrofit of Non-Ductile RC Frames with Infill Walls P. Benson Shing,

Seismic design for the wind turbine tower (WP1.5 background document presentation) Institute of Steel Structures Aristotle Univ. of Thessaloniki.

Performance-based guidelines and regulations

Nirmal Jayaram Nilesh Shome Helmut Krawinkler 2010 SCEC Annual Meeting A statistical analysis of the responses of tall buildings to recorded and simulated.

Utilizing Steel Plate Shear Walls for Seismic Hazard Mitigation

PEER 2002 PEER Annual Meeting PEER 2002 Annual Meeting uPractical Application of the PEER Limit State Checking Methodolgy uAllin Cornell uwith F. Jalayer,

Strong-column/weak-beam

Experimental & Analytical Studies of Drilled Shaft Bridge Columns Sandrine P. Lermitte, PhD Student Jonathan P. Stewart, Assistant Professor John W. Wallace,

Seismic Performance of Dissipative Devices Martin Williams University of Oxford Japan-Europe Workshop on Seismic Risk Bristol, July 2004.

Shake Table Testing of a Large Scale Two Span R-C Bridge Univ. of Washington *PI: Marc Eberhard Co-PI: Pedro Arduino Co-PI: Steven Kramer RA: Tyler Ranf.

Lecture 2 January 19, 2006.

Instrumented Moment Frame Steel Buildings Models Erol Kalkan, PhD California Geological Survey PEER-GMSM First Work Shop, Berkeley Oct

Level (m-1 ) Level m h (1-c)h ch Rigid Beam x1x1 x k1k1 k2k2 knkn kHkH RC AND SRC SHEAR WALL MACRO-MODELING l Multiple Vertical Line.

1 Workshop on GMSM for Nonlinear Analysis, Berkeley CA, October 26, 2006 ATC-63 Selection and Scaling Method Charles Kircher Curt B. Haselton Gregory G.

Ground Motion Intensity Measures for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering Hemangi Pandit Joel Conte Jon Stewart John Wallace.

Code Minimum Base Shear Requirements February 2007 Joe Maffei RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE.

SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF A CONCRETE BUILDING California State University at Los Angeles Belen Valencia Art Chianello Marlon Calderon Faculty Advisor: Rupa Purasinghe.

Partially Post-Tensioned Precast Concrete Walls

Section 2.1 Overview Types of NL Models Inelastic Model Attributes

Assessing Effectiveness of Building Code Provisions Greg Deierlein & Abbie Liel Stanford University Curt Haselton Chico State University … other contributors.

Colorado State University

Mechanics of Materials(ME-294)

COLUMNS. COLUMNS Introduction According to ACI Code 2.1, a structural element with a ratio of height-to least lateral dimension exceeding three used.

Preliminary Investigations on Post-earthquake Assessment of Damaged RC Structures Based on Residual Drift Jianze Wang Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Kaoshan.

GW Rodgers, C Denmead, N Leach, JG Chase & John B Mander

Seismic Performance of Outriggered Tall Buildings

University of Palestine

CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SEISMIC ANALYSIS USING ARTIFICIAL ACCELEROGRAMS

PEER EARTHQUAKE SCIENCE-ENGINEERING INTERFACE: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH PERSPECTIVE Allin Cornell Stanford University SCEC WORKSHOP Oakland, CA.

NEESR: Near-Collapse Performance of Existing Reinforced Concrete Structures Presented by Justin Murray Graduate Student Department of Civil and Environmental.

Static Pushover Analysis

IMPLEMENTATION OF SCEC RESEARCH IN EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING ONGOING PROJECTS SCEC PROPOSAL TO NSF SCEC 2004 RFP.

The 5th Tongji-UBC Symposium on Earthquake Engineering

Module on the Assessment of the Structural Condition Bucharest October 5-7, st MEMSCON Event 07/10/10, BucharestDBA.

1 NEESR Project Meeting 22/02/2008 Modeling of Bridge Piers with Shear-Flexural Interaction and Bridge System Response Prof. Jian Zhang Shi-Yu Xu Prof.

Building Fun You will have 30 minutes to build the strongest structures you can with only the materials you are provided with. Explain to the class the.

Tall Building Initiative Response Evaluation Helmut Krawinkler Professor Emeritus Stanford University On behalf of the Guidelines writers: Y. Bozorgnia,

Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames Charles Roeder (PI) Dawn Lehman, Jeffery Berman (co-PI) Stephen Mahin (co-PI Po-Chien Hsiao.

Presented by: Sasithorn THAMMARAK (st109957)

Nonlinear Performance and Potential Damage of Degraded Structures Under Different Earthquakes The 5 th Tongji-UBC Symposium on Earthquake Engineering “Facing.

GROUND MOTION VARIABILITY: COMPARISON OF SURFACE AND DOWNHOLE GROUND MOTIONS Adrian Rodriguez-Marek, Washington State University, USA Fabrice Cotton, LGIT,

Adaptive Nonlinear Analysis as Applied to Performance based Earthquake Engineering Dr. Erol Kalkan, P.E. United States Geological Survey TUFTS, 2008.

LATHE VIBRATIONS ANALYSIS ON SURFACE ROUHHNESS OF MACHINED DETAILS LATHE VIBRATIONS ANALYSIS ON SURFACE ROUHHNESS OF MACHINED DETAILS * Gennady Aryassov,

CABER Project Update February 22, 2008

SCHEDULE 8:30 AM 10:30 AM Session I 11:00 AM Break 12:15 PM Session II 1:30 PM Lunch 2:45 PM Session III 3:15 PM 4:30 PM Session IV.

NGA Project Review and Status Norm Abrahamson NGA Workshop #5 March, 2004.

UNIT 5 BRICK MASONRY.

INTRODUCTION Due to Industrial revolution metro cities are getting very thickly populated and availability of land goes on decreasing. Due to which multistory.

QUAKE SUMMIT 2012, Boston, July 12, 2012

CONDOMINIUM TOWER & PARKING

NUMERICAL SEISMIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF RC BRIDGES WITH HOLLOW PIERS

فصل اول 1- پیشگفتار 2- کلیات خوشا پیشگفتار: از دستاورد های امروزه مهندسی زلزله و سازه ، می توان طراحی سازه ها بر مبنای عملکرد را بر شمرد که اولا.

California Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (CSMIP)

Presentation transcript:

Nonlinear response- history analysis in design practice RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE November 2007 Joe Maffei

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

Why do NLRH? The code makes us. (Base isolation or supplemental damping) Substantiation of non-prescriptive (“alternative”) designs. We want to know what happens. What is the value of NLRH?

Outline Example projects Unique value of NLRH Findings from NLRH of tall buildings Dispersion of NLRH results Ground motion input Conclusions [Modeling uncertainty]

Example projects that used NLRH

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

Education Tower

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

Buildings with supplemental damping RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

Waterfront pier structures

RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE Exploratorium – Piers 15 and 17

Non-prescriptive seismic design

BASE 13th ROOF

What is the unique value of NLRH? …

To determine what happens, not how much. Desired mechanism RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE Undesirable mechanism

Findings from NLRH analyses of high-rise buildings

Runs scaled from 0.1x MCE to 4x MCE

Core wall moment versus shear amplification

Moment to shear ratio 110’ at 0.6x MCE 90’ at MCE 57’ at 2x MCE 230’ 175’

Use NLRH to determine what happens, more than how much. RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

Coupled wall Plastic hinge locations RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

Dispersion of results among 7 or 14 ground motion records

14 NLRH RUNS BASE 13th ROOF Roof Displ. Ft. Wall Shear at Base Kips Wall Moment at 13 th 1000xK- ft. Min Max Mean m+  c.o.v. 2.1’ 6.7’ 4.2’ 5.4’ Pushover

Coupling beam rotation

Considering dispersion “Demands for ductile actions shall be taken not less than the mean value obtained from the NLRH. Demands for low-ductility actions (e.g., axial and shear response of columns and shear response of walls) shall consider the dispersion of the values obtained from the NLRH.”

NLRH ground motion input

NLRH INPUT 7 horizontal ground motion pairs 14 response-history runs GRN 270 GRN 180 GRN 270 GRN 180 RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

NLRH analysis at MCE “When the ground motion components [statistically] represent site-specific fault-normal ground motions and fault-parallel ground motions, the components shall be applied to the three-dimensional mathematical analysis model according to the orientation of the fault with respect to the building. When the ground motion components represent random orientations, the components shall be applied to the model at orientation angles that are selected randomly; individual ground motion pairs need not be applied in multiple orientations..”

NLRH analysis at MCE “Where applicable, an appropriate number of the ground motion time series shall include near fault and directivity effects such as velocity pulses producing relatively large spectral ordinates at relatively long periods.”

Conclusions

The most important value of NLRH is that it tells you what the nonlinear mechanism is, and what the overstrength forces are on elements that you want to remain elastic. RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

Modeling uncertainty

Olivian

Comparison of SAP model by KPFF vs Perform model by R&C

EQ4: Test EQ4 PGA = 0.93g

EQ4:

Experimental results EQ4: Non-linear EQ3: Essentially linear

Measured

111 Almaden Ave San Jose

Beam connection behavior

Beam fiber model

Analysis model versus test results

Test Specimen RAM Perform finite element model RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE

Cyclic pushover results RUTHERFORD & CHEKENE