Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Nonlinear static and dynamic analyses of reinforced concrete buildings - comparison of different modelling approaches

  • Carvalho, Goncalo (Department of Civil Engineering, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Technical University of Lisbon) ;
  • Bento, Rita (Department of Civil Engineering, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Technical University of Lisbon) ;
  • Bhatt, Carlos (Department of Civil Engineering, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Technical University of Lisbon)
  • Received : 2012.06.08
  • Accepted : 2012.10.29
  • Published : 2013.05.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

It generally accepted that most building structures shall exhibit a nonlinear response when subjected to medium-high intensity earthquakes. It is currently known, however, that this phenomenon is not properly modelled in the majority of cases, especially at the design stage, where only simple linear methods have effectively been used. Recently, as a result of the exponential progress of computational tools, nonlinear modelling and analysis have gradually been brought to a more promising level. A wide range of modelling alternatives developed over the years is hence at the designer's disposal for the seismic design and assessment of engineering structures. The objective of the study presented herein is to test some of these models in an existing structure, and observe their performance in nonlinear static and dynamic analyses. This evaluation is done by the use of two of a known range of advanced computer programs: SAP2000 and SeismoStruct. The different models will focus on the element flexural mechanism with both lumped and distributed plasticity element models. In order to appraise the reliability and feasibility of each alternative, the programs capabilities and the amount of labour and time required for modelling and performing the analyses are also discussed. The results obtained show the difficulties that may be met, not only in performing nonlinear analyses, but also on their dependency on both the chosen nonlinear structural models and the adopted computer programs. It is then suggested that these procedures should only be used by experienced designers, provided that they are aware of these difficulties and with a critical stance towards the result of the analyses.

Keywords

References

  1. Bal, I., Crowley, H., Pinho, R. and Gulay, G. (2008), "Detailed assessment of structural characteristics of Turkish RC building stock for loss assessment models", Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng., 28(10-11), 914-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2007.10.005
  2. Bento, R., Bhatt, C. and Pinho, R. (2010), "Using nonlinear static procedures for seismic assessment of the 3D irregular SPEAR building", Earthq. Struct., 1(2), 177-195. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2010.1.2.177
  3. Bhatt, C. and Bento, R. (2011a), "Assessing the seismic response of existing RC buildings using the extended N2 method", B. Earthq. Eng., 9(4), 1183-1201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9252-8
  4. Bhatt, C. and Bento, R. (2011b), "Extension of the CSM-FEMA440 to plan-asymmetric real building structures", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 40(11), 1263-1282. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1087
  5. Calabrese, A., Almeida, J.P. and Pinho, R. (2010), "Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity modeling of RC frame elements for seismic analysis", J. Struct. Eng., 14(S1), 38-68.
  6. Carvalho, G. (2011), Analise Sismica de Edificios de Betao Armado - Estudo de Alternativas de Modelacao e Analise Nao-Linear, Master'sthesis, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Universidade Tecnica de Lisboa, Portugal.
  7. CEN (2010), Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, Brussels, Belgium.
  8. Clough, R., Benuska, K. and Wilson, E. (1965), "Inelastic earthquake response of tall buildings", Proceeding of Third World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand 11.
  9. Fajfar, P. (2000), "A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design", Earthq. Spectra, 16(3), 573-592. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128
  10. Fajfar, P., Marusic, D. and Perus, I. (2005), "The extension of the N2 method to asymmetric buildings", Proc. of the 4th European Workshop on the Seismic Behaviour of Irregular and Complex Structures, Thessaloniki, Greece.
  11. Filippou, F.C., Popov, E.P. and Bertero, V.V. (1983), "Modelling of r/c joints under cyclic excitations", ASCE J. Struct. Eng., 109(11), 2666-2684. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1983)109:11(2666)
  12. Giberson, M. (1967), The response of nonlinear multi-story structures subjected to earthquake excitation, Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of Technology.
  13. Hancock, J., Watson-Lamprey, J., Abrahamson, N.A., Bommer, J.J., Markatis, A., McCoy, E. and Mendis, R. (2006), "An improved method of matching response spectra of recorded earthquake ground motion using wavelets", J. Earthq. Eng., 10(1), 67-89.
  14. Hellesland, J. and Scordelis, A. (1981), Analysis of RC bridge columns under imposed deformations, IABSE Colloquium, Delft, Netherlands.
  15. Kent, D.C. and Park, R. (1973), "Cyclic load behaviour of reinforcing steel", Strain J. British Soc. Strain Meas., 9(3), 98-103.
  16. Mander, J., Priestley, M. and Park, R. (1988), "Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete", J. Struct. Eng., 114(8), 1804-1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
  17. Martinez-Rueda, J. and Elnashai, A. (1997), "Confined concrete model under cyclic load", Mater. Struct., 30(3), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02486385
  18. Menegotto, M. and Pinto, P. (1973), "Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC 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.
  19. Neuenhofer, A. and Filippou, F.C. (1997), "Evaluation of nonlinear frame finite element models", J. Struct. Eng., 123(7), 958-966. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:7(958)
  20. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center) (2010), Strong ground motion database, http://peer.berkeley.edu.
  21. Petrangeli, M., Pinto, P.E. and Ciampi, V. (1999), "Fiber element for cyclic bending and shear of RC structures", J. Eng. Mech.-ASCE, 125(9), 994-1009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1999)125:9(994)
  22. Priestley, M.J.N. (2003), Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering (Revisited), Pavia : IUSS Press.
  23. Ramberg, W. and Osgood, W.R. (1943), Description of stress-strain curves by three parameters, Technical Note 902.
  24. SAP2000 (1995), Analysis reference manual, For SAP2000 R, ETABS R and SAFETM.CSI.
  25. SAP2000 (2008), v12.0.0 Advanced, Computers and Structures, Inc.
  26. Scott, B., Park, R. and Priestley, M. (1982), "Stress-strain behaviour of concrete confined by overlapping hoops at low and high stain rates", J. Am. Concrete Inst.
  27. Scott, M.H. and Fenves, G.L. (2006), "Plastic hinge integration methods for force-based beam-column elements", J. Struct. Eng.-ASCE, 132(2), 244-252. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2006)132:2(244)
  28. SeismoStruct (2010), v5.0.5. A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures, SeismoSoft, Ltd. Available from: www.seismosoft.com.
  29. Sezen, H. and Chowdhury, T. (2009), Hysteretic model for reinforced concrete columns including the effect of shear and axial load failure, J. Struct. Eng.-ASCE, 135(2), 139-146. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2009)135:2(139)
  30. Stojadinovic, B. and Thewalt, C.R. (1996), "Energy balanced hysteresis models", Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research at Berkeley, College of Engineering, University of California at Berkeley.
  31. Takayanagi, T. and Schnobrich, W. (1979), "Nonlinear analysis of coupled wall systems", Earthq. Eng. Struct. D., 7(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290070102
  32. Taucer, F.F., Spacone, E. and Filippou, F.C. (1991), "A fiber beam-column element for seismic response analysis of reinforced concrete structures", Earthquake Engineering Research Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley.
  33. Thompson, K.J. and Park, R. (1980), "Moment-curvature behaviour of cyclically loaded structural concrete members", ICE Proceedings.
  34. Vuran, E. (2007), Comparison of nonlinear static and dynamic analysis results for 3D dual structures, Master's thesis, UniversitadegliStudi di Pavia.

Cited by

  1. The soil effect on the seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete buildings vol.8, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.1.133
  2. A new lateral load pattern for pushover analysis in structures vol.6, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.6.4.437
  3. An evaluation of the seismic response of symmetric steel space buildings vol.20, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/scs.2016.20.2.399
  4. Effects of confinement reinforcement and concrete strength on nonlinear behaviour of RC buildings vol.14, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2014.14.3.279
  5. Effective stiffness in regular R/C frames subjected to seismic loads vol.9, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.3.481
  6. Sensitivity study on the discretionary numerical model assumptions in the seismic assessment of existing buildings vol.98, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.04.001
  7. Investigation of nonlinear behaviour of reinforced concrete frames having different stiffening members vol.13, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2014.13.5.679
  8. Seismic vulnerability assessment of a mixed masonry–RC building aggregate by linear and nonlinear analyses vol.14, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9900-0
  9. Unified equivalent frame method for flat plate slab structures under combined gravity and lateral loads - Part 2: verification vol.7, pp.5, 2014, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.5.735
  10. Case study on seismic behavior of aseismically designed reinforced concrete frame structures 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-017-0300-x
  11. Seismic evaluation of RC stepped building frames using improved pushover analysis vol.10, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2016.10.4.913
  12. Seismic performance of RC school buildings after 2011 Van earthquakes vol.14, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9857-4
  13. Performance Assessment of Two Aseismically Designed RC School Buildings after the October 23, 2011, Van, Turkey Earthquake vol.31, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000938
  14. Nonlinear dynamic response of a tall building to near-fault pulse-like ground motions pp.1573-1456, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00570-y
  15. Response spectrum analysis of frame structures: reliability-based comparison between complete quadratic combination and damping-adjusted combination pp.1573-1456, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-019-00559-7
  16. Assessment of nonlinear static and incremental dynamic analyses for RC structures vol.18, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/cac.2016.18.6.1195
  17. Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete frame under lateral load vol.6, pp.4, 2017, https://doi.org/10.12989/csm.2017.6.4.523
  18. Proposal of a Incremental Modal Pushover Analysis (IMPA) vol.13, pp.6, 2013, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.6.539
  19. An energy-based pushover-analysis with torque-effects in assessment of the structures with asymmetric plan vol.108, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.02.005
  20. Torsional irregularity indices for the seismic demand assessment of RC moment resisting frame buildings vol.26, pp.None, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.05.018
  21. Compliance-based estimation of seismic collapse risk of an existing reinforced concrete frame building vol.19, pp.14, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-021-01215-9
  22. Seismic capacity and vulnerability assessment considering ageing effects: case study-three local Portuguese RC buildings vol.19, pp.15, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00955-4