EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS with SAP2000

Similar documents
999 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD ORANGE, CALIFORNIA TITLE PUSHOVER ANALYSIS EXAMPLE BY R. MATTHEWS DATE 5/21/01

Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis will be performed on a railroad bridge bent using wframe to determine its ultimate lateral deflection capability.

Finite Element Modelling with Plastic Hinges

Software Verification

Multi Linear Elastic and Plastic Link in SAP2000

Software Verification

midas Civil Advanced Tutorial Nonlinear time history analysis of a bridge with seismic isolators

Nonlinear static analysis PUSHOVER

2D Liquefaction Analysis for Bridge Abutment

Seismic Pushover Analysis Using AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design

Lecture-09 Introduction to Earthquake Resistant Analysis & Design of RC Structures (Part I)

Lecture-08 Gravity Load Analysis of RC Structures

DETERMINATION OF PERFORMANCE POINT IN CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD

Comparison of Structural Models for Seismic Analysis of Multi-Storey Frame Buildings

Verification of a Micropile Foundation

This Technical Note describes how the program checks column capacity or designs reinforced concrete columns when the ACI code is selected.

INELASTIC SEISMIC DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE PREDICTION OF MDOF SYSTEMS BY EQUIVALENT LINEARIZATION

General Comparison between AISC LRFD and ASD

midas Civil Dynamic Analysis

Prof. A. Meher Prasad. Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Technology Madras

ENERGY DIAGRAM w/ HYSTERETIC

EUROCODE EN SEISMIC DESIGN OF BRIDGES

OpenSees Navigator. OpenSees Navigator

The Pennsylvania State University. The Graduate School. College of Engineering EVALUATION OF LIMIT DESIGN FOR EARTHQUAKE-RESISTANT MASONRY WALLS

Influence of Modelling Issues on Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis of a Regular 3D Steel Structure. A. Belejo; R. Bento - Maio de

Pushover Seismic Analysis of Bridge Structures

Seismic Assessment of a RC Building according to FEMA 356 and Eurocode 8

Chapter 7: Solving Structural Dynamic Problems Using DCALC By Karl Hanson, S.E., P.E.* September 2008

Leaf Spring (Material, Contact, geometric nonlinearity)

Spread footing settlement and rotation analysis

4.3 Moment Magnification

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 2 PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC ISOLATION OF BRIDGES 3

PEER/SSC Tall Building Design. Case study #2

World Shelters. U-Dome 200. Dome Shelter. Engineering Report: Dome Structure ER October South G St., Suite 3 Arcata, CA USA

Software Verification

Seismic design of bridges

Software Verification

To initiate a dynamic analysis in FormWorks, the Analysis Mode in the JOB CONTROL tab of DEFINE JOB window has to be set to one of the two Dynamic

Force Based Design Fundamentals. Ian Buckle Director Center for Civil Engineering Earthquake Research University of Nevada, Reno

Design of a Balanced-Cantilever Bridge

Lab 1 Uniform Motion - Graphing and Analyzing Motion

COLUMN INTERACTION EFFECT ON PUSH OVER 3D ANALYSIS OF IRREGULAR STRUCTURES

Workshop 8. Lateral Buckling

CAPACITY DESIGN FOR TALL BUILDINGS WITH MIXED SYSTEM

Analysis of the horizontal bearing capacity of a single pile

Chapter 7 INTERNAL FORCES

INELASTIC RESPONSES OF LONG BRIDGES TO ASYNCHRONOUS SEISMIC INPUTS

Seismic performance evaluation of existing RC buildings designed as per past codes of practice

A METHOD OF LOAD INCREMENTS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF SECOND-ORDER LIMIT LOAD AND COLLAPSE SAFETY OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMED STRUCTURES

Chapter 6 Seismic Design of Bridges. Kazuhiko Kawashima Tokyo Institute of Technology

Software Verification

A. Belejo, R. Bento & C. Bhatt Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal 1.INTRODUCTION

PUNCHING SHEAR CALCULATIONS 1 ACI 318; ADAPT-PT

Railroad Concrete Tie Failure Analysis

Seismic Response Analysis of Structure Supported by Piles Subjected to Very Large Earthquake Based on 3D-FEM

OTIC ,,RE UG-O0 18. Version 1.0 AD-A S6801 USER'SGUIDE. * STATIC ANALYSIS OF PLANE.. FRAME AND TRUSS STRUCTURESby. structures library * SELECTE

Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam for Shear

Where and are the factored end moments of the column and >.

Dynamics Manual. Version 7

Probabilistic damage control seismic design of bridges using structural reliability concept

Load Capacity Evaluation of Pennsylvania s Single Span T-Beam Bridges

A STUDY ON IMPROVEMENT OF PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

NOVEL FLOWCHART TO COMPUTE MOMENT MAGNIFICATION FOR LONG R/C COLUMNS

Seismic Performance of RC Building Using Spectrum Response and Pushover Analyses

JointsForTekla Ver January

Generation of Biaxial Interaction Surfaces

USER S MANUAL 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis Example University of California: San Diego August 30, 2017

Soil-Structure Interaction in Nonlinear Pushover Analysis of Frame RC Structures: Nonhomogeneous Soil Condition

18. FAST NONLINEAR ANALYSIS. The Dynamic Analysis of a Structure with a Small Number of Nonlinear Elements is Almost as Fast as a Linear Analysis

ε t increases from the compressioncontrolled Figure 9.15: Adjusted interaction diagram

CSiBridge. Bridge Rating

Structural System, Machines and Load Cases

Codal Provisions IS 1893 (Part 1) 2002

Design of Reinforced Concrete Beam for Shear

Hyperbolic Soil Bearing Capacity

SeismoBuild Verification Report (KANEPE) For version 2018

Non-Linear Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures for Seismic Applications

ABSTRACT. SUAREZ, VINICIO. Implementation of Direct Displacement Based Design for Pile and

USER S MANUAL. 1D Seismic Site Response Analysis Example. University of California: San Diego.

Tutorial 12 Excess Pore Pressure (B-bar method) Undrained loading (B-bar method) Initial pore pressure Excess pore pressure

PStress R Pulley Stress Analysis Software Users Manual*

Software Verification

Seismic Fragility Analysis of Highway Bridges. Sponsored by Mid-America Earthquake Center Technical Report MAEC RR-4 Project

Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures (II)

Concrete Module. Concrete Module 1

Roark s Formulas for Excel Superposition Wizard

STEEL BUILDINGS IN EUROPE. Multi-Storey Steel Buildings Part 8: Description of member resistance calculator

INFLUENCE OF PIER NONLINEARITY, IMPACT ANGLE, AND COLUMN SHAPE ON PIER RESPONSE TO BARGE IMPACT LOADING

2004 OpenSees User Workshop. OpenSees. Geotechnical Capabilities and Applications. (U.C. San Diego) Roadmap

Appendix G Analytical Studies of Columns

Module 10: Free Vibration of an Undampened 1D Cantilever Beam

Finite Element and Modal Analysis of 3D Jointless Skewed RC Box Girder Bridge

Effect of eccentric moments on seismic ratcheting of single-degree-of-freedom structures

Caltrans Guidelines on Foundation Loading Due to Liquefaction Induced Lateral Spreading

Quick Start Guide New Mountain Visit our Website to Register Your Copy (weatherview32.com)

Force-based Element vs. Displacement-based Element

Observations in Shear Wall Strength in Tall Buildings. Presented by StructurePoint at ACI Spring 2012 Convention in Dallas, Texas

STATIC NONLINEAR ANALYSIS. Advanced Earthquake Engineering CIVIL-706. Instructor: Lorenzo DIANA, PhD

EVALUATION OF THERMAL SRESSES IN CONTINOUOS CONCRETE BRIDGES

Assignment 1 - actions

Transcription:

EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS with SAP2000 Prepared by Bob Matthews 2004 Robert Matthews Page 1

EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS EXAMPLE The earthquake analysis capabilities of SAP2000 are demonstrated using a railroad bridge bent designed in accordance with the AREMA Manual for Railway Engineering. 2004 Robert Matthews Page 2

Prepare finite element model Column properties: 5 diameter Assume I e = 0.35 I g Use I e = 10 I g for stiffness in joint areas Bent cap properties: 6.5 wide x 6 deep Assume I e = 0.75 I g Use I e = 10 I g for stiffness in joint areas Dead loads: Superstructure load = 2418 kips/61.2 ft = 39.5 kips/ft 2004 Robert Matthews Page 3

Response spectrum analysis Response spectrum analysis is performed to verify that the column design is adequate. Period (sec) Response (G's) 0.001 0.700 0.030 0.700 0.087 0.700 0.100 0.700 0.200 0.700 0.300 0.700 0.400 0.700 0.500 0.640 0.600 0.567 0.700 0.511 0.800 0.468 0.900 0.433 1.000 0.403 1.200 0.357 1.400 0.322 1.600 0.295 1.800 0.272 2.000 0.254 2.200 0.238 2.400 0.225 2.600 0.213 2.800 0.203 3.000 0.194 Response (G's) AREMA Response Spectra 0.800 0.700 0.600 0.500 0.400 0.300 0.200 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 Period (seconds) 2004 Robert Matthews Page 4

Input steps 1. Define mass a. Select menu item: Define > Mass Source b. Select mass definition option: From Loads c. Add load case: Dead (with multiplier of 1) Note: The dead load is automatically divided by gravity. 2. Define Response Spectrum Function a. Select menu item: Define > Functions > Response Spectrum b. Choose function type: Spectrum from File c. Click: Add New Function d. Type function name: AREMA e. Select option: Period vs. value f. Browse to and select spectra.txt file g. Click: Display graph 2004 Robert Matthews Page 5

3. Define Modal Analysis Case a. Select menu item: Define > Analysis Cases b. Select case: MODAL c. Click: Modify/Show Case d. Enter maximum number of modes = 2 4. Define Response Spectra Analysis Case a. Select menu item: Define > Analysis Cases b. Click: Add New Case c. Type case name = AREMA d. Select analysis case type: Response Spectrum e. Select loads applied from AREMA function f. Enter Scale Factor = 32.2 (response values in G s) g. Click: Add 2004 Robert Matthews Page 6

5. Define Load Combination a. Select menu item: Define > Combinations b. Click: Add New Combo c. Select DEAD and AREMA cases d. Click: Add Note: Response spectrum will automatically give +/- values 6. Perform Response Spectrum Analysis a. Select menu item: Analyze > Run Analysis b. Click: Run Now 2004 Robert Matthews Page 7

Verify results 1. Display results graphically a. Select menu item: Display > Deformed Shape 2004 Robert Matthews Page 8

b. Select menu item: Display > Show Forces/Stresses 2004 Robert Matthews Page 9

2. Display results in tabular form a. Select menu item: Display > Show Tables b. Select output to verify c. Select analysis cases to verify 2004 Robert Matthews Page 10

3. Verification computations a. Verify: dead load reaction = total weight ( 5) 2 π Weight = 0.15 14.7 4 6.5 6 64 + 2418 2965.6 kips 4 + = Dead load reaction = 834.1+ 684.5 + 705.1+ 741.2 = 2964.9 kips b. Verify: total mass = total dead load / gravity Mass = 92.1 (Export joint masses to Excel and sum) Weight / Gravity = 2964.9 / 32.2 = 92.1 c. Verify: modal participating mass ratio > 90% Ratio = 97% for mode 1 2004 Robert Matthews Page 11

d. Verify: response spectra base shear = response x weight Base shear = 481 + 532 + 532 + 481 = 2026 kips Response for period = 0.247 sec = 0.7 G 0.7 x (2965 173 / 2) = 2015 kips (within 1%) e. Verify: structure period T = 2π K = 40 kips / 0.0006 ft = 66667 k/ft (from unit load case) T = 2 x 3.1416 x [2965 / (32.2 x 66667)] 1/2 = 0.23 sec (within 6% of SAP2000 analysis) W gk 2004 Robert Matthews Page 12

Check column design 1. Verify that column reinforcement is defined a. Select menu item: Define > Frame Sections b. Select property: COL c. Click: Modify/Show Property d. Click: Concrete Reinforcement 2. Analyze column a. Select menu item: Options > Preferences > Concrete Frame Design b. Select design code: AASHTO c. Select menu item: Design > Concrete Frame Design > Select Design Combos d. Remove all generated combos and add COMB1 e. Select column members to design 2004 Robert Matthews Page 13

f. Select menu item: Design > Concrete Frame Design > Start Design/Check of Structure g. Select menu item: Design > Concrete Frame Design > Display Design Info h. Select: Column P-M-M Interaction Ratio i. Right click on member with max ratio j. Click: Details 2004 Robert Matthews Page 14

EARTHQUAKE ANALYSIS EXAMPLE - PART 2 Nonlinear static analysis Nonlinear static analysis is performed to verify that the bent cap and footing design is adequate. Develop plastic hinge properties 1. The plastic hinge properties are based on 1.3 times the nominal moments from an axial-moment interaction diagram (Refer to AREMA Chapter 9 section 1.4.7.3.1 Weak Column Provisions). Similar requirements are contained in AASHTO 16th edition, Division IA Section 7.2.2 Forces Resulting From Plastic Hinging In The Columns, Piers, Or Bents. 2. Define a 3D P-M-M interaction surface with at least 3 curves (0, 45, 90 ) using available software. Hint: For a circular member, the 45 degree curve can be obtained by dividing the 0 degree moment values by the square root of 2. 2004 Robert Matthews Page 1

Interaction Diagram 4000 2000 0 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000-2000 Axial load (kips) -4000-6000 -8000-10000 -12000-14000 Moment (k-ft) 2004 Robert Matthews Page 2

Interaction Values Curve 1 0. deg Curve 2 45. deg Curve 3 90. deg P M3 M2 P M3 M2 P M3 M2-12501 0 0-12501 0 0-12501 0 0-10689 2110 0-10662 1536 1536-10689 0 2110-9175 3872 0-9148 2770 2770-9175 0 3872-7818 5452 0-7791 3876 3876-7818 0 5452-6240 6610 0-6236 4683 4683-6240 0 6610-4461 7272 0-4480 5151 5151-4461 0 7272-2943 7010 0-2975 4978 4978-2943 0 7010-1508 5967 0-1551 4258 4258-1508 0 5967-129 4258 0-198 3092 3092-129 0 4258 1225 1915 0 1165 1442 1442 1225 0 1915 2134 0 0 2134 0 0 2134 0 0 Notes: 1. P values are modified to remove kink in interaction curve at maximum allowed compression per AREMA code. 2. Compression is negative for SAP2000. 2004 Robert Matthews Page 3

Input steps 1. Define hinge properties a. Select menu item: Define > Hinge Properties b. Select defined hinge properties: Default-PMM c. Click: Define New Property d. Type property name: colhng e. Uncheck default f. Click: Modify/Show for PMM g. Select scale factor for rotation: User SF (leave value = 1) h. Click: Modify/Show Moment Rotation Curve Data 2004 Robert Matthews Page 4

i. Enter values shown below and click OK Point M/My Rot/SF A 0 0 B 1 0 C 1 0.02 D 0.2 0.02 E 0.2 0.06 Note: Ultimate rotation from moment-curvature program is not critical for this example, except must be high enough to allow all hinges to form prior to failure. j. Click: Modify/Show PMM Interaction Surface Data k. Click: Define/Show User Interaction Surface l. Change number of curves to 3 m. Enter scale factors = 1.3 for M2 and M3 n. Enter first and last P points for all curves o. Type or copy and paste remaining undefined values and click OK 2004 Robert Matthews Page 5

2. Assign hinges to members a. Select all members at column bottom b. Select menu item: Assign > Frame/Cable/Tendon > Hinges c. Add colhng with relative distance = 0 d. Select all members at column top e. Select menu item: Assign > Frame/Cable/Tendon > Hinges f. Add colhng with relative distance = 1 3. Define unit load case for nonlinear static analysis a. Select menu item: Define > Load Cases b. Type in FX, select OTHER and click Add New Load c. Select nodes at top of columns d. Select menu item: Assign > Joint Loads > Forces e. Select FX and type in unit load of 10 kips in global X dir 2004 Robert Matthews Page 6

4. Define analysis cases a. Select menu item: Define > Analysis Cases b. Select DEAD and Click Modify/Show Case c. Change analysis type to nonlinear and click OK d. Click: Add New Case e. Type case name: PUSH f. Change analysis type to nonlinear g. Select initial condition: Continue from State at end of Nonlinear Case (DEAD) h. Add FX for loads applied i. Click Modify/Show load application j. Select: Displacement Control k. Enter displacement magnitude = 0.4 l. Click Modify/Show results saved m. Select: multiple states 2004 Robert Matthews Page 7

5. Perform nonlinear static analysis a. Select menu item: Analyze > Run Analysis b. Click: Run Now Verify results 1. Display results a. Select menu item: Display > Show Static Pushover Curve 2004 Robert Matthews Page 8

b. Select menu item: Display > Deformed Shape 2004 Robert Matthews Page 9

c. Select menu item: File > Print Tables Table: Element Forces - Frames Frame Station OutputCase StepNum P V2 M3 Text ft Text Unitless Kip Kip Kip-ft 102 0.0000 PUSH 6.000000-58.028 737.795 5493.2704 202 0.0000 PUSH 6.000000-802.655 919.764 6825.4076 302 0.0000 PUSH 6.000000-323.195 853.890 6328.7005 402 0.0000 PUSH 6.000000-1781.067 1093.187 8028.0166 2. Verification computations a. Verify: P-M3 values match 1.3 x interation diagram values P 1.3 x M M3 Difference -2943 9114-1781 8277 8028 3% -1508 7758-803 6890 6825 1% -323 6034 6329 5% -129 5535-58 5513 5493 0% 1225 2489 Check bent cap and footing design (not shown) 2004 Robert Matthews Page 10