Lecture 4 Dynamic Analysis of Buildings

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Lecture 4 Dynamic Analysis of Buildings"

Gwendolyn Flowers
5 years ago
Views:

1 Lecture 4 Dynamic Analysis of Buildings Course Instructor: Dr. Carlos E. Ventura, P.Eng. Department of Civil Engineering The University of British Columbia ventura@civil.ubc.

1 1 Lecture 4 Dynamic Analysis of Buildings Course Instructor: Dr. Carlos E. Ventura, P.Eng. Department of Civil Engineering The University of British Columbia ventura@civil.ubc.ca Short Course for CSCE Calgary 26 Annual Conference NBCC 25 Objective of NBCC: Building structures should be able to resist major earthquakes without collapse. Must design and detail structure to control the location and extent of damage. Damage limits effective force acting on structure. But damage increases displacements! No. 2

2 2 NBCC 25 Requirements: Methods of Analysis 1) Analysis for design earthquake actions shall be carried out in accordance with the Dynamic Analysis Procedure as per Article (see Appendix A), except that the Equivalent Static Force Procedure as per Article may be used for structures that meet any of the following criteria: a) for cases where I E F a S a (.2) is less than.35, b) regular structures that are less than 6 m in height and have a fundamental lateral period, T a, less than 2 seconds in each of two orthogonal directions as defined in Article , or c) structures with structural irregularity, Types 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 or 8 as defined in Table that are less than 2 m in height and have a fundamental lateral period, T a, less than.5 seconds in each of two orthogonal directions as defined in Article No Dynamic Analysis Procedures 1) The Dynamic Analysis Procedure shall be in accordance with one of the following methods: a) Linear Dynamic Analysis by either the Modal Response Spectrum Method or the Numerical Integration Linear Time History Method using a structural model that complies with the requirements of Sentence (8) (see Appendix A); or b) Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis Method, in which case a special study shall be performed (see Appendix A). 2) The spectral acceleration values used in the Modal Response Spectrum Method shall be the design spectral acceleration values S(T) defined in Sentence (6) 3) The ground motion histories used in the Numerical Integration Linear Time History Method shall be compatible with a response spectrum constructed from the design spectral acceleration values S(T) defined in Sentence (6) (see Appendix A). 4) The effects of accidental torsional moments acting concurrently with and due to the lateral earthquake forces shall be accounted for by the following methods : a) the static effects of torsional moments due to at each level x, where F x is determined from Sentence (6) or from the dynamic analysis, shall be combined with the effects determined by dynamic analysis (see Appendix A), or b) if B as defined in Sentence (9) is less than 1.7, it is permitted to use a 3- dimensional dynamic analysis with the centres of mass shifted by a distance -.5 and +.5. No. 4

3 3 V d V e Dynamic Analysis Procedures (continued) 5) The elastic base shear, V e obtained from a Linear Dynamic Analysis shall be multiplied by the Importance factor I E as defined in Article and shall be divided by R d R o as defined in Article to obtain the design base shear V d. 6) Except as required in Sentence (7), if the base shear V d obtained in Sentence (5) is less than 8% of the lateral earthquake design force, V, of Article , V d shall be taken as.8v. 7) For irregular structures requiring dynamic analysis in accordance with Article , V d shall be taken as the larger of the V d determined in Sentence (5) and 1% of V. 8) Except as required in Sentence (9), the values of elastic storey shears, storey forces, member forces, and deflections obtained from the Linear Dynamic Analysis shall be multiplied by V d /V e to determine their design values, where V d is the base shear. 9) For the purpose of calculating deflections it is permitted to use V determined from T a defined in Clause (3)(e) to obtain V d in Sentences (6) and (7). No Methods of Analysis Equivalent Static Force Procedure used areas of low seismicity, or regular, H<6m and T<2s not torsionally irregular, H<2m,T<.5s Dynamic Analysis default method base shear tied back to statically determined No. 6

4 Structural Modelling Structural modelling shall be representative of the magnitude and spatial distribution of the mass of the building and stiffness of all elements of the SFRS, which includes stiff elements that are not separated in accordance with Sentence (6), and shall account for: a) the effect of the finite size of members and joints. b) sway effects arising from the interaction of gravity loads with the displaced configuration of the structure, and c) the effect of cracked sections in reinforced concrete and reinforced masonry elements. d) other effects which influence the buildings lateral stiffness. No. 7 Linear Response of Structures Single-degree-of-freedom oscillators W K T Vibration Period T = 2π W g K time, sec No. 8

5 5 No. 9 Structural Analysis Procedures for Earthquake Resistant Design No. 1

6 6 Dynamic Equilibrium Equations discrete systems a = Node accelerations v = Node velocities u = Node displacements M = Mass matrix C = Damping matrix K = Stiffness matrix F(t) = Time-dependent forces No. 11 Problem to be solved For 3D Earthquake Loading: No. 12

7 7 Purpose of Analysis Predict, for a design earthquake, the force and deformation demands on the various components that compose the structure Permit evaluation of the acceptability of structural behavior (performance) through a Demand series of checks Capacity No. 13 Multi-Story Structures Multi-story buildings can be idealized and analyzed as multidegree-of-freedom systems. Linear response can be viewed in terms of individual modal responses. Actual Building Idealized Model First- Mode Shape Second- Mode Shape Third- Mode Shape No. 14

15 Structural Details Central reinforced concrete core Walls are up to 9 mm thick Outrigger beams

8 8 Example of a Building Model 48 stories (137 m) 6 underground parking levels Oval shaped floor plan (48.8m by 23.4m) Typical floor height of m 7:1 height-to-width ratio One Wall Centre No. 15 Structural Details Central reinforced concrete core Walls are up to 9 mm thick Outrigger beams Level 5: 6.4 m deep Level 21 & 31: 2.1 m deep Tuned liquid column dampers Two water tanks (183 m 3 each) No. 16

17 Calibrated FEM with Ambient Vibration Tests Mode No.

9 9 FEM of the Building 616 3D beam-column elements 2,916 4-node plate elements 66 3-node plate elements 2,862 nodes 4 material properties 17,172 DOFs No. 17 Calibrated FEM with Ambient Vibration Tests Mode No. Test Period (s) Period (s) Analytical MAC (%) No. 18

10 1 1st mode 2 nd mode No rd mode 4 th mode 5 th mode No. 2

11 6 th mode 7 th mode 5 th mode 8 th mode 9 th mode No.

separately. Total response is a combination of individual modes.

dominates displacement response. Total Roof Displ. Resp. Reference: A.

11 11 6 th mode 7 th mode 5 th mode 8 th mode 9 th mode No. 21 Multi-Story Structures Individual modal responses can be analyzed separately. Total response is a combination of individual modes. For typical low-rise and moderate-rise construction, firstmode dominates displacement response. Total Roof Displ. Resp. Reference: A. K. Chopra, Dynamics of Structures: A Primer, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute No. 22

12 12 What is the Response Spectrum Method, RSM? The Response Spectrum is an estimation of maximum responses (acceleration, velocity and displacement) of a family of SDOF systems subjected to a prescribed ground motion. The RSM utilizes the response spectra to give the structural designer a set of possible forces and deformations a real structure would experience under earthquake loads. -For SDF systems, RSM gives quick and accurate peak response without the need for a time-history analysis. -For MDF systems, a true structural system, RSM gives a reasonably accurate peak response, again without the need for a full time-history analysis. No. 23 RSM a sample calculations of a 5-storey structure. Solution steps: - Determine mass matrix, m - Determine stiffness matrix, k - Find the natural frequencies ω n (or periods, T n =2π/ω n ) and mode shapes φ n of the system - Compute peak response for the n th mode, and repeat for all modes. - Combine individual modal responses for quantities of interest (displacements, shears, moments, stresses, etc). No. 24

13 13 RSM a sample calculations of a 5-storey shear-beam type building. 1 1 m = 1 1 X 1 kips/g Typical storey height is h=12 ft. k = X 31.54kip/in. No. 25 Natural vibration modes of a 5-storey shear building. Mode shapes φ n of the system: T 1 = 2.1s T 2 =.68s T 3 =.42s T 4 =.34s T 5 =.29s Assume a damping ratio of 5% for all modes No. 26

14 14 Effective modal masses and modal heights Modal mass Modal height We use this information to compute modal base shears and modal base overturning moments No. 27 Effective modal masses and modal heights Modal mass Modal height We use this information to compute modal base shears and modal base overturning moments No. 28

15 15... Solution steps (cont d) a. Corresponding to each natural period T n and damping ratio ζ n, read SD n and SA n from design spectrum or response spectrum b. Compute floor displacements and storey drifts by u jn = Γ n φ n D n where Γ n = φ nt m/(φ nt mφ n ) is the modal participation factor c. Compute the equivalent static force by f jn = Γ n m j φ jn SA n No solution steps (cont d.) d. Compute the story forces shears and overturning moment and element forces by static analysis of the structure subjected to lateral forces f n - Determine the peak value r of any response quantity by combining the peak modal values r n according to the SRSS or CQC modal combination rule. No. 3

16 16 Obtain values from Response Spectrum: T 1 = 2.1s T 2 =.68s T 3 =.42s T 4 =.34s T 5 =.29s No Results: No. 32

17 Comparison with time-history analysis results: No. 33... mathematically speaking. Maximum modal displacement X n.max := L n S M d T n, ξ n n ( ) φ n Modal forces Modal base shears L n F i.n.max := S M a T n, ξ n 2 n L n V b.

17 17 Comparison with time-history analysis results: No mathematically speaking. Maximum modal displacement X n.max := L n S M d T n, ξ n n ( ) φ n Modal forces Modal base shears L n F i.n.max := S M a T n, ξ n 2 n L n V b.n.max := S M a ( T n, ξ n ) φ n n ( ) φ n L n, M n, and φ n are system parameters determined from the Modal Analysis Method. T T L n := φ n m 1 M n := φ n m φ n S a ( T n, ξ n ) System response from spectrum graph. A number of methods to estimate of the total system response from these idealized SDF systems can summarized as follow; No. 34

18 18 Modal Responses of a ten-storey frame building SA (g) 1 2 Period 3rd Mode T =.34 s V =.5 Sa 2nd Mode T =.65 s V =.13 Sa 1st Mode T = 1.7 s V =.75 Sa No. 35 Modal contributions to shear forces in a building No. 36

19 19 Modal contributions to overturning moments in a building No. 37 Modal Combinations Modal maxima do not occur at the same time, in general. Any combination of modal maxima may lead to results that may be either conservative or unconservative. Accuracy of results depends on what modal combination technique is being used and on the dynamic properties of the system being analysed. Three of the most commonly used modal combination methods are: No. 38

20 2 Modal Combinations. a) Sum of the absolute values: leads to very conservative results assumes that maximum modal values occur at the same time response of any given degree of freedom of the system is estimated as No. 39 Modal Combinations.. b) Square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS or RMS): Assumes that the individual modal maxima are statistically independent. SRSS method generally leads to values that are closer to the exact ones than those obtained using the sum of the absolute values. Results can be conservative or unconservative. Results from an SRSS analysis can be significantly unconservative if modal periods are closely spaced. The response is estimated as: No. 4

21 21 Modal Combinations. c) Complete quadratic combination (CQC): The method is based on random vibration theory It has been incorporated in several commercial analysis programs A double summation is used to estimate maximum responses, In which, ρ is a cross-modal coefficient (always positive), which for constant damping is evaluated by where r = ρ n / ρ m and must be equal to or less than 1.. Similar equations can be applied for the computation of member forces, interstorey deformations, base shears and overturning moments. No. 41 Modal combination methods, strength and shortfalls ABSSUM: Summation of absolute values of individual modal responses V b Σ V bn = kips grossly over-estimated SRSS: Square root of sum of squares V b = (Σ V bn2 ) 1/2 = 66.7 kips good estimate if frequencies are spread out CQC: V b = (ΣΣV bi ρ in V bn ) 1/2 = kips good estimate if frequencies are closely spaced Correct base shear is kips (from time-history analysis) No. 42

22 Example: (See notes from Garcia and Sozen for details of the building presented here) We want to study the response of the building to the N-S component of the recorded accelerations at El Centro,

4 m and depth h =.5 m. All columns have square section with a cross section dimension h =.5 m. The material of the structure has a modulus of elasticity E = 25 GPa.

22 22 Example: (See notes from Garcia and Sozen for details of the building presented here) We want to study the response of the building to the N-S component of the recorded accelerations at El Centro, California, in May 18 of 194. We are interested in the response in the direction shown in the figure. Damping for the system is assumed to be ξ = 5% All girders of the structure have width b =.4 m and depth h =.5 m. All columns have square section with a cross section dimension h =.5 m. The material of the structure has a modulus of elasticity E = 25 GPa. The self weight of structure plus additional dead load is 78 kg/m2 and the industrial machinery, which is firmly connected to the building slabs, increases the mass per unit area by 1 kg/m2, for a total mass per unit area of 178 kg/m2. No. 43 Example Modal Properties of building No. 44

23 23 Comparison of Results for given example No. 45 Design Example CONCRETE EXAMPLE: HIGH RISE CONCRETE TOWER The following example was kindly provided by Mr. Jim Mutrie. P.Eng., a partner of Jones-Kwong-Kishi in Vancouver, BC No. 46

24 24 DESIGN PROBLEM ASSUMED TOWER 25 Floors Floor Area 65 m 2 Ceiling Height 26 mm FTFH 278 mm Door 218 mm Header Depths 6 mm Vancouver Site Class C COUPLED SHEAR WALL CORE MODEL

25 25 CLADDING CONCRETE N The building envelope failures experienced in the West Coast have encouraged the use of additional concrete elements on buildings as part of the envelope system that are not part of either the gravity or the seismic force resisting systems. These elements have the potential to compromise the gravity and/or the seismic force resisting systems when the building is deformed to the design displacement. This clause provides steps that need to be taken so a solution to one problem does not jeopardize the buildings seismic safety. CLADDING CONCRETE Elements not required to resist either gravity or lateral loading shall be considered non-structural elements. These elements need not be detailed to the requirements of this clause provided: a) the effects of their stiffness and strength on forces and deformations in all structural elements at the Design Displacement are calculated, and b) the factored capacity of all structural elements includes for these forces and deformations, and c) the non-structural elements are anchored to the building in accordance with section of the National Building Code of Canada.

26 26 1. DYNAMIC PROPERTIES NBCC 25 Empirical Periods T =.5 T =.5 T T V max max min 3 4 ( hn ) ( 69.5 ) Clause )c ) = 1.2 sec. = 2. T Clause )d )ii = = 2.41 sec Clause uses S( 2. ) 2. NBCC 25 ANALYSIS METHOD NBCC a) I E F a S a (.2) <.35 I E = 1., assumed, F a = 1. from Table B and S a (.2) =.94 from Appendix C for Vancouver. I E F a S a (.2) =.94 >.35 b) Regular building, height < 6m and period < 2. sec. c) Irregular building, height < 2m and period <.5 sec. This building does not comply with any of the cases that allow Equivalent Static Procedures.

27 27 3. BUILDING MASS Floor Slab.18 * 23.5 = 4.23 kn/m 2 Partition Allowance =.6 kn/m 2 Floor Finish =.5 kn/m 2 Columns (.3 *.9 * 12 + π *.3 2 * 4)* 2.6 * 23.5/(25.5 * 25.5) =.41 kn/m 2 Sum 5.74 kn/m 2 Curtain Wall.7 kpa * 2.6 m = 1.82 kn/m Mass = 5.74 * * 4 * 25.5 = = 3918 kn 3. BUILDING MASS MMI = 3732 * / * /3 = 44, ,316 = 444,772 knm 2 Core Area = m2 * 2.6 * 23.5 = 146 kn/floor Headers = ( ) * 2 *.6 *.42 * 23.5 = 25 kn/floor MMI = 21,41 knm 2 (program calculation) Total Mass/Floor = = 4989 kn/floor Total MMI/Floor = 444, ,41 = 466,173 knm 2

28 28 4. STIFFNESS ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROGRAM A Element CPCA Area Inertia Coupling Beam (Diagonally Reinforced).4.45 A g.25 I g Coupling Beam (Conventionally Reinforced).2.15 A g.4 I g Walls.7 α w A g α w I g α Ps =.6 + ' f A 55, = w = c g.693 COUPLING BEAM EFFECTIVE LENGTH

29 29 COUPLED SHEAR WALL CORE MODEL CODE STATIC BASE SHEARS - VANCOUVER NBCC 1995 NBCC 25 V S V V = V e e V = M =.2 25,5 3.5 =.2 23, , 159 = = 4286 kn Uncoupled , 159 = = 35 kn Coupled 25,5 kn Direction 23,335 kn Direction = S( Ta ) M v IEW ( R d R o ) ( T ) = S( 2. ) =.17 ( Minimum V )( S( 2. ) Appendix C ) v a from Table V = V = , 159, 159 ( ) = 4523 kn ( ) = 314 kn Coupled Uncoupled

30 3 NBCC 1995 NBCC 25 V S V V = V e e V = M CODE STATIC BASE SHEARS - VICTORIA =.3 37, =.3 35, , 159 = 37,57 kn = 6,43 kn Uncoupled , 159 = 35,2 kn = 5,25 kn Coupled Direction Direction = S( Ta ) M v IEW ( R d R o ) ( T ) = S( 2. ) =.18 ( Minimum V )( S ( 2. ) Appendix C ) v a from Table V = V = , 159, 159 ( ) = 4,789 kn ( ) = 3,287 kn Coupled Uncoupled COMPARISON OF THE TWO CODES Vancouver Shear Moment Uncoupled 4265/ % 122,417/118, % Coupled 2715/ % 88,748/19,2 81.4% Victoria Shear Moment Uncoupled 5262/ % 137,117/18, % Coupled 3343/ % 98,239/163,714 6.%

31 31 FACTORED NBCC 1995 WIND LOADS vs 25 EQ VANCOUVER Shear Moment EQ Wind EQ Wind Uncoupled 4,265 2, ,417 95,776 Coupled 2,715 2,624 88,748 99,123 Effect of Foundation Flexibility on Earthquake Response - a brief discussion - No. 62

32 32 No. 63 No. 64

33 33 No. 65 No. 66

34 34 No. 67 No. 68

35 35 References & Notes Anil Chopra, Dynamics of Structures, 2 nd Ed. Prentice Hall, 21. L.E. Garcia and M. Sozen, Multiple Degrees of Freedom Structural Dynamics, class notes for CE571-Earthquake Engineering course at Purdue University, Spring 23. Notes: Some of the slides included here were kindly provided by Dr. Mete Zosen and Dr. Luis Garcia of Purdue University and by Dr. Robert Schubak of Hooley & Schubak Ltd. Notice While the instructors have tried to be as accurate as possible, they cannot be held responsible for the designs of others that might be based on the material presented in this course and these notes. The material taught at this course is intended for the use of professional personnel competent to evaluate the significance and limitations of its contents and recommendations, and who will accept the responsibility for its application. The instructors and the sponsoring organizations disclaim any and all responsibility for the applications of the stated principles and for the accuracy of any of the material taught at the course and contained in these notes. No. 69 The end No. 7

Codal Provisions IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002

Abstract Codal Provisions IS 1893 (Part 1) 00 Paresh V. Patel Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Nirma Institute of Technology, Ahmedabad 38481 In this article codal provisions of IS 1893