Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 26

Natural Hazards and Risks in Structural Engineering

Lecture: Earthquake Engineering

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Capacity Design
Analysis of frame structures considering the interaction with

infill walls

Dr. J. Schwarz and Lars Abrahamczyk


Bauhaus-Universitt Weimar, Earthquake Damage Analysis Center

Table of contents
1.

Introduction
Motivation
Strategies

2.

Strategies
overview
Details to walls as masses
Details to walls as diagonal braces

3.

Simple diagonal braces

4.

Example of calculation

5.

Damage pictures

6.

Conclusions

7.

References

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Introduction

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Motivation:
Killari 1993

El Asnam 1980

Introduction
Strategies:
as masses

- no stiffness effect
- for damaged and weak infill walls
as diagonal braces
- consideration of stiffness
- possibility to define hinges and damage grades
as slabs
- exact characterization of the behavior
- use of exact material laws
- assignment of damage grades difficult

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

As masses

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Example building SEM:

fundamental

NS

EW

2,50 Hz

2,97 Hz
SLang
ETABS

calculated

NS

EW

2,46 Hz

3,10 Hz

2,27 Hz

2,63 Hz

Created by GermanTaskForce 2002

60% Youngs modulus

Diagonal braces

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

overview
simple brace model
consideration of stiffness for elastic and plastic behaviour
failure modes:
corner crushing (compression)
diagonal compression mode
diagonal cracking mode and/or bed joint sliding

simple brace model with orthogonal bending stiffness


additional failure mode: out of plane behaviour

multi brace model


consideration of effects from the infill to the frame elements
possibility to describe failure modes on the frame elements

Diagonal braces acc. to FEMA 306 [1]

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

a) stiffness

a 0,175 (1 hcol ) 0, 4 rinf


hinf

Eme tinf sin 2


1

4 E fe col hinf

1
4

Linf

hcol
a
rinf
Lcol

tinf

thickness of infill panel and equivalent strut

Eme

expected modulus of elasticity of infill material


(2,10e+6)

Efe

expected modulus of elasticity of frame material

Icol

moment of inertial of column

tan-1(hinf / Linf), radians

material properties for the brace:

masonry

Diagonal braces acc. to FEMA 306 [1]

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

b) strength
I

sliding-shear failure
i
Vslide
Linf tinf Eme 2

hinf

Based on the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria


Linf

= tan f f angle of sliding friction


inter-story drift angle

hcol

a
rinf
Lcol

II

compression failure

shear force horizontal component of the diagonal strut capacity

Vc a tinf f me' 90 cos


fme90 expected strength of masonry in the horizontal direction
(~50% fme)

Modified version of the method suggested by Stafford-Smith and Carter


(1969)

Diagonal braces acc. to FEMA 306 [1]

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

b) strength
III

diagonal tension failure of panel

Vcr

hinf

Linf

hcol

Lcol

cr 20 f me'

Using the recommendation of Saneinejad and Hoobs (1995)

a
rinf

2 2 tinf cr
Linf hinf

h
L
inf
inf

IV

general shear failure of panel

Vmi Linf tinf 2 f me'

Vmf 0,3 Vmi

Based on the recommendation of FEMA 273 and [2]


Vmi initial shear capacity (during the first half-cyclic loading)
Vmf final shear capacity (as result of cyclic loading effects)

Diagonal braces acc. to FEMA 306 [1]

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

c) deformation
- no clear experimental results for the behavior modes (b)
- experimental evidence supports the following inter-story drift limit states for
different masonry infill panels:
- brick masonry

1,5 %

- grouted concrete block masonry

2,0%

- un-grouted concrete block masonry

2,5 %

Diagonal braces acc. to [2]

T. Paulay, M.J.N. Priestley

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

w = 0,25 dm

hm
w - depends on the relative stiffness of frame and panel, stressstrain curves of the materials and the load level

Lm

Failure modes (compression force):

- sliding shear failure of the masonry

0,03 f m'
RS
dm t
h
1 0,3
l

h
w
dm
l

- compression failure of diagonal struts

2
RC z t f m' sec
3

4 Ec I g hm


2 Em t sin 2

Diagonal braces behaviour

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Hysteresis envelope of the brace elements: [5]


Assumptions:
CF

CE = 0;

OZ = 0; CR = 0,5;

3 cantilever action of filler-wall


12 filler-wall constrained at both ends

K i ,h

1
3
hinf
1,2 hinf

CF Eme I me Gme Linf tinf

Ime

moment of inertia of horizontal cross sectional area

Gme

shear modulus of infill material

ftp

between 4 and 8% of fc (masonry)

Fy ,h

Linf tinf f tp
2
0,5
1 CI 1

CI 1,1

CI 2 1,1

Linf
hinf

Diagonal braces behaviour

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Definition of nonlinear hinges in brace elements

Fy

Fy ,h
cos d

d y 1,1

Fu Fy 1 1

F
Fd u
2

Fy

Ki

Ki

cos 2

du d y

d d du

Fu

Ku

Ku

F
Fe u
4

K i ,h

Fu

de dd K

4
2

0,1 K i ,h
cos 2

Diagonal braces behaviour

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Comparison of failure strength:

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0.0E+00

1.0E-03

2.0E-03

Zarnic 1
Compression

3.0E-03
Zarnic 2
Initial shear capacity

4.0E-03

5.0E-03

Sliding-shear
Final shear capacity

6.0E-03

Diagonal braces procedure

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Modeling
- calculation of the diagonal brace dimensions and the failure relationship

- modeling of the brace elements


- without masses
- pinned on the frame structure
- allocation of the infill masses on the frame structure (loads)
- definition of hinges (axial failure)

Analysis
- run push-over analysis
- start iteration to determine the different limit states
- slight damage
- moderate damage
- extensive damage
- apply the capacity spectrum method

Diagonal braces capacity curve

Base
Shear
Base Shear

Determination of the capacity curve

Roof Displacement
Displacement

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Diagonal braces example [3]


Example building DUZ-1

Created by GermanTaskForce 2002

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Diagonal braces example [3]

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Calculated damage progression (ETABS)

North facade

at slight damage state (HAZUS 99)

North facade

at extensive damage state (HAZUS 99)

Diagonal braces example [3]

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

First mode shape - transverse direction (DUZ-1).

at slight damage grade (HAZUS 99)

at extensive damage grade (HAZUS 99)

Diagonal braces example [3]

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Capacity curves of DUZ-1 (ETABS)

in transverse direction

in longitudinal direction

Damage pictures

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

GermanTaskForce 2003

Compression failure of diagonal strut

Damage pictures

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

GermanTaskForce 2003

Damage pictures

GermanTaskForce 2003

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Damage pictures

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

Short column effect

GermanTaskForce 2003

GermanTaskForce 2003

Conclusions

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

- existence of different possibilities in order to model infill walls


- as masses
- as braces
- as slabs
- tools to model infills
- stiffness acc. to FEMA 306

- strength and failure mode acc. to presented equations


- up to now, models of masonry infill walls based on a variety of assumptions
- a large field for researchers

References
[1]

Bauhaus-Universitt
Weimar

FEMA 306
Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings, basic
procedures manual, Washington D.C., USA, 1998.

[2]

T. Paulay and M.J.N. Priestley


Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings, New York : Wiley, 1992.

[3]

Abrahamczyk L., Schott C., Schwarz J., Swain T.M.


Vulnerability of RC frame structures in Turkish earthquake regions (Part 2): modeling
and analysis Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering
2004, Vancouver, Canada; Paper no. 220.

[4]

Fajfar P., Dolek M., arni R., Gosti S.


Development of numerical methodologies for infilled frames, Towards European
integration in seimic design and upgrading of building structures, Euroquake-project,
Final report, February 2001.