19th International Conference on

Structural Mechanics
in Reactor Technology
Toronto 12
Toronto, 12-17
17 August 2007

Special session
The IAEA Coordinated
Research Project on
Safety Significance of
Near Field Earthquakes

Results from participants: IDOM - Spain

Francisco Beltrán
IDOM
 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

OUTLINE

z Motivation

z Description of computational model

z Performance of the model

z Conclusions
 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Motivation

z Explore the possibilities of a very simple model

to give acceptable results

z Find the limitations of such a simple

p model

z Consequences for our practice

 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Description of the model (1) lumped

masses
(floor
masses)

level 6

level 5

level 4

shear level 3
flexible
beams
l
level
l2

level 1
A A'

foundation level

shaking table
rigid beams

springs

“Stick” model with 0

0.1
1 m long shear flexible beam elements
(ABAQUS) ground level

Rectangular cross section with 15 integration points

 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Description of the model (2)

Modal and response spectra analyses:

Reinforced concrete:
Young modulus 28 GPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.20
D
Damping
i ratio
ti 5% ( t
(structure)
t )
2% (shaking table)

Time history analyses:

Rayleigh damping 5 % at two first eigenfrequencies

 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Description of the model (3) Compression strength

4.00E+07

Non linear analyses: 3.50E+07

3.00E+07

Segregated 2.50E+07

t t l
concrete-steel 2.00E+07

representation: σ 1.50E+07 Compression

(Pa)
Concrete matrix 1.00E+07

+ 5 00E+06
5.00E+06

Steel bars
0.00E+00
(longitudinal) -1.00E-03 0.00E+00 1.00E-03 2.00E-03 3.00E-03 4.00E-03 5.00E-0

-5.00E+06

Tension
-1.00E+07

ε
Elastic-plastic
model for Concrete constitutive behavior
reinforcing steel

Tension stiffening Tension strength

(the analyst’s nightmare)
 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Pushover analysis
MODEL B. Pushover curve

140
Good for Computed
displacements:
120

< 4 mm
100

> 40 mm
80
F (kN)

Too stiff for: 60

> 4 mm 40 Mean of participants

< 40 mm
20

0
Blame on tension 0 5 10
Top displacement (m)
15 20 25

stiffening!!

Push over force is overestimated around a 30%

 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Modal and spectral analyses (1)

Top displacement (mm)

Frequency
(Hz)
RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4
(Nice
(Ni 0.24
0 24 g)) (SF 0.13
0 13 g)) (SF 1.11
1 11 g)) (Ni 0.41
(Nice 0 41 g))

IDOM 8.24 5.09 1.98 14.17 2.88

Mean 7.62 5.45 1.69 13.15 3.85

Test 7.24 7.01 1.54 13.19 13.43

Results not very different from the mean of participants

(Note that many participants “tuned” the model to match the frequency
obtained during the test)
 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Modal and spectral analyses (2)

Base shear (kN) Base bending moment (kN m)

RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

(Nice (SF (SF (Nice (Nice (SF (SF (Nice
0 24 g))
0.24 0 13 g))
0.13 1.11
1 11 g)) 0 41 g))
0.41 0 24 g))
0.24 0 13 g))
0.13 1.11
1 11 g)) 0 41 g))
0.41

IDOM 128.5 50.3 363.8 76.3 410.0 159.4 1142.3 232.2

Mean 108.5 36.5 287.7 76.5 353.9 119.1 927.7 254.7

Test 65.9 23.5 105.5 86.6 211.1 75.5 279.7 279.3

Section forces are overestimated 20-30% with respect to mean, except for RUN 4
(“Tuned” lower natural frequency means lower spectral ordinate in RUN 1, 2 and 3)
 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Displacement Based Approach (FEMA 356)

Base shear (kN) Base moment (kN m)

DBA 1 DBA 2 DBA 3 DBA 4 DBA 1 DBA 2 DBA 3 DBA 4

IDOM 94.5 38.0 135.6 80.0 314.7 123.1 447.5 264.1

Mean 73.6 36.7 90.4 69.4 244.0 117.1 294.8 225.9

Test 65.9 23.5 105.5 86.6 211.1 75.5 279.7 279.3

Results as good as pushover curve: section forces and moments are

overestimated with respect to the mean of participants
 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Time history analyses (1)

Top displacement (mm)

RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

(Nice 0.24 g) (SF 0.13 g) (SF 1.11 g) (Nice 0.41 g)

IDOM 5.71 2.03 10.77 -

Mean 5.98 1.71 10.59 -

Test 7.01 1.54 13.19 13.43

Results not very different from the mean of participants

 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Time history analyses (2)

Base shear (kN) Base bending moment (kN m)

RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4

(Ni
(Nice (SF (SF (Ni
(Nice (Ni
(Nice (SF (SF (Ni
(Nice
0.24 g) 0.13 g) 1.11 g) 0.41 g) 0.24 g) 0.13 g) 1.11 g) 0.41 g)

IDOM 105 45 130 - 325 135 420 -

Mean 79.1 30.5 112.5 - 245.3 103.4 290.9 -

Test 65.9 23.5 105.5 86.6 211.1 75.5 279.7 279.3

Section forces are overestimated 20-30% with respect to mean

 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Floor spectra computation (1)

Computed

Test

Shift of frequency is not captured: FRS is not acceptable without peak broadening
 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Floor spectra computation (2)

Computed

Test

Shift of frequency is not captured: FRS is not acceptable without peak broadening
 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Conclusions

z Model is appropriate for “traditional” modal and spectral

analyses

z Concrete constitutive model must be refined for pushover

and floor spectra computation

z Model is acceptable for a conservative design: section

forces and moments are overestimated

z Floor spectra are not acceptable without “peak

broadening”
 Results from participants: IDOM-
IDOM-Spain

Comments

Using nonlinear analyses and DBA can reduce conservatism at the price
of admitting some non-
non-recoverable deformation, but:

z They are “assessment” methods, rather than “design” methods

(e g they need a previous definition of reinforcement)
(e.g.

z They need acceptance criteria in terms of deformation limits

(strains, curvatures…), as opposed to maximum section forces and
moments.
moments

z Load combinations are more difficult to implement. Non linear

analyses means that superposition of effects is not valid.