Session 3 Worked Example

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE
ENGINEERING
Worked Example
Pre-1976 3-storey reinforced
concrete building
Presented by: Weng Yuen Kam
Team: Phil Clayton, Hartej Ichhpuni and David Tisdall
NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Outline of Presentation
Outline of Worked Example document
Description of Case Study Building
Geotechnical Considerations
SLaMA
Load Path assessment
Members capacities assessment
Global capacity curve
Displacement-based assessment
Force-based assessment
Diaphragm assessment
Geotechnical Scenario

Outline of Worked Example TOC
Introduction
Description of Case Study
Numerical Parameters
Simple Lateral Mechanism Analysis
Displacement-based Assessment
Alternative Force-based Assessment
Description of Results and Behaviour
Alternate Geotechnical Conditions
Reporting Example (next session)
Summary

2.1
Case study building 2.3

2.1
Case Study Building 2.3
3-storey commercial building in Whakatane

RC frames longitudinally and RC walls
transversely
1970s design
IEP ~ 25%NBS short column and plan
irregularity
Ground conditions

2.1

2.1
2.3
Case study building

2.3

2.3
Figure 8 -
Typical Roof
Frame

2.1
2.3

2.1
2.3

SLaMA Step 1 Assess Load Path 4.1
and Identify SW/SSW

Key members and SW / SSW 4.1.2
Longitudinal RC frames - a strong-beam and

weak-column. Key members : columns, beams
and joints of the longitudinal frames
The diaphragm in the transverse direction,
specifically the connection to the Eastern end
wall. Key members: the diaphragm near the
eastern stairs opening under transverse loading.
Flexural or shear, or foundation mechanism of
transverse walls.
Non-ductile columns at ground floor
The cantilevered columns and roof structure
2.4
Geotechnical Inputs
Desktop review
Geohazards
Site observation
Key geotechnical
considerations
Structural Dominated
Outputs for DSA
Geotechnical Assessment
Probable capacities

Key Geotechnical Considerations 2.4.3
Potential for liquefaction within the loose to medium dense sands

between 5 and 12m BGL.
Liquefaction - very unlikely under SLS shaking, may trigger in ULS
shaking (1 in 500 yrs).
Crust of significant thickness (5m)
Differential settlement
A low lateral spread risk
Free field settlement / differential settlement (expected to be
<100mm)
Consequence of Liquefaction not material

Probable Material Properties 3.1
Concrete compressive strength -

fc = 17.2MPa (Section C5 - Table C5.3)
fc,prob = 25MPa 1.5x factor C5.4.2.2
Steel yield strength -

Fy =275MPa
fy,prob =297MPa 1.08x (Section C5 - Table C5.4)
fo =321MPa 8% for strain hardening C5.5.1.1

Members to be assessed 4.2.1
Longitudinal sub-system members:

Beam A&B: Each Spandrel sizes.
Column 1-3: External columns.
Pier 1-3: The end wall returns
Ground floor interior columns displacement
capacities only
Transverse sub-system:
End walls shear and flexural
Shallow foundation of end walls
Diaphragm

4.2.2
RC member capacities and
4.2.3
Phi =1.0
Bi-linear material
Other mechanism: Lap splice, bar buckling
Flexural or Shear Critical or others?
Moment-Curvature
150.0
Longitudinal Strain
top
120.0
-4.00 21.31
Moment (kNm)
90.0
bot
60.0
Ultimate Concrete Strain

30.0 Figure 21: Section of Column Type (mm/m) for Unconfined
1 Concrete=4.00 mm/m
0.0
0.0 30.0 60.0 90.0 120.0 150.0
Curvature (rad/km)
Transverse RC walls 4.2.4
=1
= 1 + 2 +
=3

Transverse RC walls 4.2.4
Flexural or Shear Critical or others

Detailing - Lap splice, Minimum steel reinforcing
Bar buckling
Other mechanisms:
Sliding shear
Out of plane stability
Foundation

D1 SLaMA (Step 3) 4.3
Probable Inelastic Behaviour
bl +br
Sway Index i = =
ca +cb

D1 SLaMA (Step 2) 4.2.2
and
Deformation Capacities 4.2.3
Fprob
Fy
F1st,y
=prob/y
(a) (b)
Idealisation of: (a) curvature distribution in a cantilever scheme and (b)

derivation of force-displacement curve
D1 SLaMA (Step 2) 4.2.2
and
Probable Mechanism 4.2.3
Shear
mechanism
Fprob
prob
Example of the combined flexural-shear mechanisms within a force-

displacement capacity curve for a column (Stirrat et al.,2014)
Longitudinal Direction Response 4.4
1600
Columns Yield Piers Reach

1400 Probable Capacity
Base Shear Capacity (kN)
1200 Piers Yield

1000
800
Columns Reach
Probable Capacity
600
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 54 60 70 80
Top displacments (mm)

Total Capacty Curve Column Capacity Pier Capacity

Transverse Direction Response 4.4
1200
1000
800
2.5% Drift Limits
Soil Bearing Rocking
600 Capacity Exceeded Displacement
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Top displacments (mm) 240
Total Capacty Curve Single Wall Capacity

Inelastic Torsion Analysis Method B 4.4.2

Inelastic Torsion Analysis Method B 4.4.2

Method C- Absence of Strength 4.4.2
Eccentricity

Transverse Pushover Mechanism
Longitudinal Direction Response
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
54
Pushover Capacity Torsional Pushover Capacity
Transverse Pushover Mechanism
Transverse Direction Response
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 50 100 150 54 200 250

Total Capacty Curve Torsional Pushover Capacity

Question?

Displacement-based Assessment 5.2
Procedure
i i i
eff,long = = 5.4m
i i
( i i )2
eff,long = = 541994
i i 2
D3 Equivalent viscous damping, sys 5.2
0.5
7
sys = 0 + + d =
2+sys

Step D4&5 ADRS Plot and ULS Demand
Longitudinal Direction Pushover Curve and ADRS Plot
0.4
Lim = 2
0.35
Due to Column
Sway Mechanism
0.3
Spectral Acceleration (g)
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125
Spectral Displacement (mm)
34m 42m
67%ULS 15%Damping 100%ULS 15%Damping 100%ULS 5% Damping Longitudinal Pushover Curve. L1
= 42, = 34 therefore 34/42=81%NBS

Step D4&5 ADRS Plot and ULS Demand
Transverse Direction Pushover Curve and ADRS Plot
0.6
0.5
0.4
Spectral Acceleration (g)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220
152mm 183mm
Spectral Displacement (mm)
Transverse Pushover Curve, T1 100%ULS 5% Damping 67% ULS 5% Damping
= 183, = 152 therefore 152/183 = 83%NBS

5.6.1
Diaphragm Assessment

Force Based Assessment 6.0
(Alternative)

Comparison of Displacement Based 7.2
and Force Based Approaches
Displacement-based Procedure using SLaMA
Element Direction Seismic Performance in Notes
%NBS
Reinforced Governed by the foundation soil bearing capacity. Likely to

Concrete Wall
Transverse ~80%NBS remain elastic during a design level earthquake.
Reinforced Typically governed by the ductility limited to 2 for the column

Concrete Frames
Longitudinal ~80%NBS sway mechanism.
Elastic Force-Based Assessment using SLaMA

Element Direction Seismic Performance in Notes
%NBS
Reinforced Governed by the ground bearing capacity under the end walls
Concrete Wall
Transverse ~60%NBS foundations
Reinforced Governed by flexural hinging of the lower level columns and pier
Concrete Frames
Longitudinal ~65%NBS with an assumed ductility of 2.
8.0
Geotechnical Assessments
Geotechnical Dominated
Interactive

Geotechnical Dominated 8.1
Uncontrolled instability of slope

Geotechnical Dominated 8.2
Analysis Case Factor of Safety (FOS) against slope movement Yield Estimated
acceleration displacement
Static (non Seismic Seismic Seismic
seismic) 100% ULS 75% ULS 50% ULS
Analysis based on 1.20 0.7 0.9 1.1 0.24g Approx. 0.1m
peak parameters
(= 28and c=
10kPa) ULS shaking
Analysis based on 0.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A Potential for

large strain soil uncontrolled
properties ( = 28 Instability
and c = 3kPa)
%NBS is calculated as follows:

Capacity of the slope at the Step Change response = 70% of ULS shaking
70% x 0.40g = 0.28g
As uncontrolled slope instability leading to the complete loss of building
platform is a Severe Structural Weakness (SSW) a penalty of 0.5x Capacity
(Or can be considered as 2x ULS demand) is applied
Demand = 2x ULS PGA = 2x0.4g = 0.8g
%NBS = Ultimate Capacity / Demand 0.28g / 0.8g = 35%NBS
8.3
Interactive

Interactive: Soil Foundation 8.3
Structure Interaction Effects

FAQs
Plastic Hinge Length
SSWs- The appendix C2G.1 explanation for a non ductile
columns calculated probable displacement capacity is
halved.
Strength reduction factor for shear is incorporated into
equations
Limiting ductility to 2 for column sway mechanism - suggestion
Calculation of Heff based of estimations of post elastic
deformation profiles

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE
ENGINEERING
Worked Example
Pre-1976 3-storey reinforced
concrete building
Presented by: Weng Yuen Kam


Session 3 Worked Example

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Session 3 Worked Example

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR EARTHQUAKE

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

3-storey commercial building in Whakatane

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Longitudinal RC frames - a strong-beam and

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Potential for liquefaction within the loose to medium dense sands

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Concrete compressive strength -

fc,prob = 25MPa 1.5x factor C5.4.2.2

Steel yield strength -

fo =321MPa 8% for strain hardening C5.5.1.1

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Longitudinal sub-system members:

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Ultimate Concrete Strain

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Flexural or Shear Critical or others

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Idealisation of: (a) curvature distribution in a cantilever scheme and (b)

Example of the combined flexural-shear mechanisms within a force-

Columns Yield Piers Reach

1200 Piers Yield

Top displacments (mm)

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Top displacments (mm) 240

Total Capacty Curve Single Wall Capacity

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Top displacments (mm)

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

= 42, = 34 therefore 34/42=81%NBS

Transverse Pushover Curve, T1 100%ULS 5% Damping 67% ULS 5% Damping

= 183, = 152 therefore 152/183 = 83%NBS

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Reinforced Governed by the foundation soil bearing capacity. Likely to

Reinforced Typically governed by the ductility limited to 2 for the column

Elastic Force-Based Assessment using SLaMA

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Analysis based on 0.8 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 N/A Potential for

%NBS is calculated as follows:

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

NEW ZEALAND SOCIETY FOR

Вам также может понравиться