inelastic dynamic analysis and non-linear static analysis ... · requirements were considered for...
TRANSCRIPT
Inelastic dynamic analysis and non-linear static analysis of 6- and 17-story RC buildings of ductile frames designed in Mexico City
J. A. Avila1,2 1Institute of Engineering, National University of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico 2Faculty of Engineering, National University of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico
Abstract
A non-linear static analysis with monotonically increasing lateral loads was performed for two RC buildings with 6 and 17 stories, respectively, in order to compare their response against the results obtained from inelastic seismic analyses for the SCT-EW-85 record. The buildings are located in compressible seismic zone IIIb, and are designed according to Appendix A of the Mexico City Building Code (RDF-04), for a soil dominant period of Ts=2 seconds, satisfying the maximum service and collapse limit states for story distortion. Resistances were designed taking into account a three-dimensional structural performance in addition to the vertical load effects and second order effects. Due to the use of seismic performance factors (Q=4 for the 6-story building and Q=3 for the 17-story building), and according to the Concrete Construction Standard, special requirements were considered for the ductile frame. Nominal resistance and over-resistance effects were considered for the non-linear responses. Different inputs of lateral load patterns for the non-linear static analysis were taken into account. The comparisons were performed for base shear force–roof lateral displacement relations, global distribution of plastic hinges, failure mechanics tendency, local and global ductility demands, etc. Keywords: spectral modal dynamic analysis, non-linear static analysis, inelastic seismic analysis.
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX 97
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
doi:10.2495/ERES130081
1 Introduction
This work determines and compares both, the non-linear seismic behavior (Push-Over) and the dynamic inelastic step by step behavior, of a 6- and a 17-story office building with reinforced concrete (RC) frames, located in the compressible zone of Mexico City. The design was made according to the service and failure limit states of the Mexico City Building Code (RDF-04, 2004), established in its corresponding Seismic and Concrete Complementary Technical Standards (NTC-Seismic, NTC-Concrete) [1]. The structures were designed as follows: A) with the design spectrum of the Main Text of the NTC-Seismic (seismic zone IIIb); and B) with the design spectrum according to the soil dominant period, defined in the Appendix A of the NTC-Seismic (Ts= 2 seconds). The time-history inelastic seismic responses were analyzed with representative records of maximum compressible soil damage in Mexico City obtained from the earthquake of September, 1985. For the Push-Over analyses, the responses under different lateral load distributions were obtained as well as the collapse mechanisms, the base shear force-roof lateral displacement curves and the maximum demands of local and global ductility. The influence of the possible over-resistance sources was included. From the results of this work it is to be noticed that there are no important variations between Main Text and Appendix A cases. Appendix A criterion allows to determine the displacement of the service and collapse conditions to which the structure may be subjected to.
2 Elastic response calculation
2.1 Description of the structures and design procedure
The studied structures correspond to office buildings of 6 and 17 stories of reinforced concrete, symmetric and regular in plan and elevation. They have a foundation rigid box. The 17-story building has point piles. The concrete is class 1 with f´c= 250 kg/cm2 and elastic modulus Ec= 14,000 times square root of f´c, and the longitudinal and transverse steel with fy= 4,200 kg/cm2. The structural system is composed of reinforced concrete frames with girders and columns rigidly connected by a solid slab of 10 cm thick. Fig. 1 shows the main details in plan and elevation of the studied buildings. The column and girder resistances were designed for the last mechanic elements of the spectral modal dynamic analysis, considering the three-dimensional structural performance plus the vertical load effects (dead loads and live loads) and second order effects. For the ductile frame special requirements were considered as it is established in the Concrete Standards, due to the use of seismic performance factors Q= 4 for the 6-story building, and Q= 3 for the 17-story building.
2.2 Vibration periods
Table 1 compares the three periods of vibration modes (X, Y and θ directions) of the 6- and 17-story buildings, respectively. There are no differences between
98 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
Column
Girder
Slab
Secondary beam
Meters
N1
N2
N3
N4
NCIM
NSOT
NPB
C19C15 C17 C21
31 2 4
N5
N7
N6
N9
N8
N11
N10
N13
N12
N15
N14
N17
N16
3
3,75
4.45
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
3,5
BASEME. GROUND L.
FOUND.
LEVEL
Figure 1: Structural plant-type (dimensions in meters) and transversal cuts of 6-story and 17-story buildings.
Main Text and Appendix A cases, as expected. For the 17-story building, due to symmetry in the structure, the periods in the X and Y directions are the same. Figs 2 and 3 show the design spectra of the RDF-04 of the Main Text (seismic zone IIIb) and the Appendix A (Ts= 2 seconds), the elastic and inelastic response spectra of the record SCT-EW-85 (critical viscous damping of 5%) as well as the location of the fundamental periods of vibration of the 6-story (T1x= 0.832 seconds) and 17-story buildings (T1x= 1.752 seconds) in the X direction.
17 Levels 6 Levels
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX 99
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
Table 1: Vibration periods of 6-story and 17-story buildings.
Vibration periods, Ti (seconds)
Direction 6-story 17-story T1 T2 T3 T1 T2 T3
X 0.832 0.279 0.138 1.752 0.643 0.374
Y 0.837 0.278 0.138 1.752 0.643 0.374
θ (torsion) 0.676 0.228 0.114 1.346 0.518 0.306
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
g
Period, T (s) Elastic SCT EW - 85 Ductility = 2 (SCT EW - 85) Ductility = 4 (SCT EW - 85) RDF - 04 (Q = 1) RDF - 04 (Q = 2) RDF - 04 (Q = 4) Case B2 - Line 2 Case B2 - Line A Case D2 - Line 2 Case D2 - Line A
Sa/g
Figure 2: Location of fundamental period of vibration of 6-story structure, regarding the design spectra (Q= 1 and 4) and the response spectra (µ= 1 and 4) of SCT-EW-85 record.
2.3 Maximum story drifts
The 6-story building under earthquake in both directions, accomplishes with the permissible limit of 0.006 specified in the main text, and with the permissible limit of 0.002 for Appendix A. The collapse limit of 0.03 was not a governing condition for the performance of the design. The 17-story building accomplishes with both permissible limits, being slightly above the service condition of Appendix A.
3 Calculation of the inelastic dynamic response
Inelastic dynamic responses step-by-step are determined by using the E-W SCT accelerogram, registered on September 19th of 1985. The responses were
100 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
1.10
1.20
1.30
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00
S a/g
Period, Ti (seconds)
SCT-EW Elastic ( =1) SCT-EW Inelastic ( =3) Appendix A. Elastic (Q=1)Appendix A. Inelastic (Q=3) Main Body. Elastic (Q=1) Main Body. Inelastic (Q=3)T (17 levels)
µµ
1
Figure 3: Location of fundamental period of vibration of the 17-story structure, regarding the design spectra (Q= 1 and 3) and the response spectra (µ= 1 and 3) of SCT-EW-85 record.
calculated for the axes 2 (X direction) and A (Y direction) of the 6-story building, and axes C and B for the 17-story building (see fig. 1), respectively. The corresponding frames were “calibrated” to ensure static and dynamic behavior similar to the three-dimensional model.
3.1 Global ductility maximum demands, μG
All buildings, with nominal resistances, experimented inelastic performance; generally, with over-resistance effects, having lower global ductility demands. In no case μG was over the values of 4 or 3, which are equal to the values of the seismic performance factor (Q) for which the elastic design spectra were reduced (see table 2).
3.2 Curves of base shear force-roof lateral displacement
When inelastic behavior is present, it is observed that, as the structure dissipates more amount of seismic energy, the responses have more hysteretic area, and there are further reductions in the base shear force and the roof horizontal displacement. Figs. 4 and 5 compare the curves of base shear force-roof lateral displacement of the 6- and 17-story buildings under elastic and inelastic step-by-step seismic analysis with nominal and over-resistances. The hysteretic curve of the 6-story model with nominal resistances is slightly wider, which means a lightly larger incursion in the nonlinear range and higher energy dissipation. The
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX 101
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
Table 2: Calculated global ductility maximum demands of 6- and 17-story buildings under inelastic step-by-step seismic analysis with nominal and over-resistances.
Nominal resistance Over-resistance
Levels ∆Y (cm)
∆max
inelastic (cm)
µG ∆Y (cm)
∆max
inelastic (cm)
µG
6 (Q= 4) 5.23 18.44 3.53 5.16 5.91 1.15
17 (Q= 3) 19.24 42.85 2.23 29.01 47.01 1.62 µG = ∆max inelastic / ∆Y ; ∆Y = roof lateral displacement for the first yield. ∆max inelastic = roof maximum lateral displacement for the inelastic performance.
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20
Corta
nte b
asal
(t)
Desplazamiento lateral en azotea (cm)
Roof lateral displacement (cm)
Elastic
Base
shea
r for
ce (t
)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20
Corta
nte b
asal
(t)
Desplazamiento lateral en azotea (cm)
Roof lateral displacement (cm)
Inelastic (Nominal resistance)
Base
shea
r for
ce (t
)
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
-20 -16 -12 -8 -4 0 4 8 12 16 20
Cor
tant
e ba
sal (
t)
Desplazamiento lateral en azotea (cm)
Roof lateral displacement (cm)
Inelastic (Over-resistance)
Base
shea
r fo
rce
(t)
Figure 4: Curves of base shear force–roof lateral displacement, elastic and inelastic step-by-step seismic analysis (nominal and over-resistances), 6-story structure.
102 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Base
she
ar fo
rce
(t)
Roof lateral displacement (cm )ELASTIC AA-INE-N
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80
Base
she
ar fo
rce
(t)
Roof lateral displacement (cm )ELASTIC AA-INE-OR
Figure 5: Curves of base shear force–roof lateral displacement, elastic and inelastic step-by-step seismic analysis (nominal and over-resistances), 17-story structure.
17-story models tend to have a larger hysteretic area, and over-resistance cases show a slight inelastic behavior, although on a less important way than the condition of nominal resistance.
3.3 Global distribution of plastic hinge and demands of local ductility
The overall distribution of plastic hinges for all the structures had a general tendency to the failure mechanism known as the “beam” type; this means that the plastic hinges are present in most of the beams, and only in some columns, which is consistent with the design philosophy of “strong column-weak beam” of the RDF-04 code. Fig. 6 has global distributions of plastic hinges on the 17-story building without and with over-resistances. Colors described different times in which each plastic hinge was introduced from blue color in the beginning until the end of the most intensive phase of the record SCT-EW-85. Fig. 7 shows the maximum local ductility demands developed in beams, for Main Text and Appendix A conditions of the studied 17-story building; columns behave almost in the elastic range, with maximum demands less than 1.5. The maximum demands for the nominal cases present values between 4 and 6 in beams, whereas in columns, the values are less than 2; with the over-resistance effects, such that the maximum demands in beams are from 2 to 3 and columns behave elastically, for practical purposes. The maximum value in beams in the 17-story building varies between 3 and 7 with nominal resistance and between 1.5 and 3 when over-resistance effects are considered.
AA-Nominal
AA-Over resistance
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX 103
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
2
100 112 109 113
888
11 93 73 82 74 49
59
51
2241
19
3247
55
40
30 31
3824 17
9
7
337
3520
21
23
39 26
13 4
18
1
362553
562
85 34 60
54
79 89 86
929687103
97
72
52
58
114
122
98
91
77
61
50
33
15
12
10
2
6
14
16
95
90
83
84 63
76 45
70 29
67 43
4265
68 48
71 28
75 44
78 27
4680118
69 815766
94
101
99
111
108
126
123
107
117
124 121
120 116
115
102104
127 125
110
56 64119
106
105
1 31 62 93 127
88 104 106 121
9220
24 86 77 66 84 26
28
21
956
38
5730
27
19
12 44
5310 4
2
3
151
486
7
11
22 59
40 5
18
13
536732
6376
94 70 99
81
116 114109
72
65
68
97
75
54
35
29
16
14
15
8
17
23
25
112
95
83
82 71
64 60
46 42
41 47
4535
39 50
43 37
52 49
61 34
5862105
68 657873
79
89
85
99
98
93
110
113
107
74 80
100 101
91
103102
31 7990
115
111
87
120
108
117
118
119
122
Figure 6: Apparition sequence and global distribution of plastic hinges, 17-story structure, with nominal resistances (NR) and over-resistances (OR) effects.
NR
OR
104 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
0123456789
1011121314151617
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Level
Local ductility maximum demands developed in beamsAA-INE-N AA-INE-OR MB-INE-N MB-INE-OR
Figure 7: Local ductility maximum demands developed in beams, inelastic step by step analysis with nominal resistances (N) and over-resistances (OR), 17-story building, Main Text and Appendix A designs.
4 Non-linear static analysis (Push-over)
The non-linear static analysis with four different distributions of lateral load, were made with and without the over-resistance effects, to know: 1) SMD distribution with forces at the floor level (Fi), determined from the story shear forces (Vi) of the spectral modal dynamic analysis, involving all modes of lateral vibration; 2) Elastic step-by-step distribution with forces at floor level (Fi), calculated with the story shear forces (Vi) for a “ti” time from an step-by-step analysis, when the structure is working in the elastic range; 3) Inelastic step-by-step distribution with forces at floor level (Fi), defined with the story shear forces (Vi) for a “ti” time from a step-by-step analysis when the structure the maximum inelastic roof displacement is shown; 4) Linear triangular distribution from Fi forces as a result of the hypothesis of static seismic analysis (linear). Fig. 8 shows the lateral load distributions for the non-linear static analysis (Push-over) of the 17-story building. The results shown are only for the case in which the distributions are obtained from a spectral modal dynamic analysis (SMD), with the participation of all modes of lateral vibration. The Push-over analyses were made to the following conditions: a) maximum demands of the local ductility in beams are equal to 35, b) maximum demands of the local ductility in columns are equal to 20, c) maximum story drift of the collapse condition is 0.03, according to Appendix A of the NTC-Seismic of RDF-04 Code for structures for ductile concrete frames with Q= 3 or 4, d) the mechanism of collapse of the structure is reached.
4.1 Curves of base shear force–roof lateral displacement
Figs. 9 and 10 compare the results of the base shear force-roof lateral displacement relationships of the Push-over analyses against relationship of the corresponding inelastic step-by-step analyses without and with over-resistance
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX 105
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
Figure 8: Lateral loads distributions for the non-linear static analysis (Push-over), 17-story building.
c S = 0.179 c S = 0.165
- 200 - 150
- 100
- 50
0
50 100
150
200
- 60 - 45 - 30 - 15 0 15 30 45 60
Roof lateral displacement (cm) Step-by-step dynamic - nominal
Push - over (spectral modal dynamic - nominal) Push - over (maximum lateral displacement, step-by-step dynamic -nominal)
- = 1.08
Base shear force (t)
Cs(Push-over) / Cs(step-by-step)= 1.08
6-story
c S = 0.252 c S = 0.217
- 200
- 150
- 100
- 50
0
50
100
150
200
- 60 - 45 - 30 - 15 0 15 30 45 60 (
Roof lateral displacement (cm) Step-by-step dynamic over-resistance
Push - over (spectral modal dynamic over - resistances) Push - over (maximum lateral desplacement, step-by-step dynamic over - resistances)
Cs(Push-over) / Cs(step-by-step)= 1.16
Base shear force (t)
6-story
Figure 9: Curves of base shear force–roof lateral displacement comparison, non-linear static analysis (Push-over) and inelastic step-by-step dynamic analysis with nominal resistance and over-resistances effects, 6-story structure.
106 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
-700
-500
-300
-100
100
300
500
700
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Base
she
ar f
orce
(t)
Roof lateral displacement (cm)
17 levelsAA-Nominal
Push-over
Step-by-step
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Base
she
ar f
orce
(t)
Roof lateral displacement (cm)
Push-over
Step-by-step
17 levelsAA-Over resistance
Figure 10: Curves of shear force–roof lateral displacement relationships comparison, non-linear static analysis (Push-over) and inelastic step-by-step dynamic analysis with nominal resistance and over-resistances, 17-story structures.
effects, of the 6- and 17-story models, designed with Appendix A. For 6-story models, the resulting performance from Push-over analysis was governed generally by the condition of permissible drift of collapse of 0.03. For 17-story models, the resulting behavior from Push-over analysis was governed generally by the condition of permissible drift of collapse of 0.03. The influence of over-resistance effects is very important. The results of both types of analysis, confirm the lateral stiffness and lateral resistance of each structure as well as their capacity of energy dissipation facing the typical seismic effects of Mexico City.
5 Conclusions
Buildings designed with the Seismic Technical Standards of the Mexico City Building Code (RDF-04) show satisfactory performance, with sufficient resistance reserve, to avoid brittle failure. Significant variations between the designs of the Main Text and Appendix A conditions are not presented. With the help of the over- resistance effects, the maximum responses tended to be
Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX 107
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press
lower. The tendency of plastic hinges from step-by-step and non-linear static (Push-over) analyses show, in general, a strong column-weak girder performance according to the current design philosophy, which ensures a ductile behavior. The Push-over analysis results show consistency regarding to responses of dynamic analysis in time history.
References
[1] Gaceta Oficial del Gobierno del Distrito Federal (2004), “Reglamento de Construcciones de la ciudad de México y Normas Técnicas Complementarias”
108 Earthquake Resistant Engineering Structures IX
www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509 (on-line) WIT Transactions on The Built Environment, Vol 132, © 2013 WIT Press