effect of modeling parameters on collapse behavior of rc
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC Building
Adolfo B. Matamoros, Anil Suwal, and Andres Lepage
16th U.S.-Japan-New Zealand Workshop on the Improvement of Structural Engineering and ResiliencyNara, Japan, 27-29 June 2016
![Page 2: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Rehabilitation Objective Modeling Parameters
Acceptance Criteria
Maximum ConsideredEarthquake
474 yrs
225 yrs
72 yrs
2475 yrs
ASCE-41Standard
![Page 3: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
FEMA P695 MethodologyEquivalent safety against collapse for buildings with different seismic force resisting systems
Collapse Safety Margin
Global InstabilityLocal Instability
Median Collapse: One-half of the structures have some form of collapse
Collapse Margin Ratio, CMR =SA Median collapse-level ground motions
SA of MCE ground motions
NEHRP: Structure should have a low probability of collapse for MCE (1.5 times the design level earthquake)
Design Criteria for Building Codes (i.e. R, Cd, and Ω0 seismic performance factors)
![Page 4: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
CMR is established through Incremental Dynamic Analysis
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Inte
nsity
Mea
sure
Drift Ratio
1st Story
2nd Story
3rd Story
4th Story
5th Story
6th Story
-200
-100
0
100
200
0 5 10 15 20
![Page 5: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Building Description• Seven-story RC Building in Van Nuys, CA• Designed in 1965 and constructed in 1966• Exterior moment-resisting frames• Interior gravity load flat slab system• Strong motion records from:
– 1971 San Fernando – 1987 Whittier – 1990 Upland– 1992 Sierra Madre– 1994 Northridge
• Light structural damage during the 1971 San Fernando Earthquake, severe column damage during the 1995 Northridge earthquake.
![Page 6: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Building Plan40 x 56 cm spandrel beam around perimeter (40 x75 cm first floor)
35 x 50 cmext. columns
45 cm square int. columns
19.1 m
45.7 m
interior frame
exterior frame
N
S
![Page 7: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Lumped Plasticity Model for Frame Structure
Moment rotation relationship for nonlinear rotational spring of second story column of RC Building
Rotation
Mom
ent
Two Node Joint Elastic ElementJoint Offset
![Page 8: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Evaluation Ground Motion• 1994 Northridge record SE Corner E-W• PGA 0.45 g
IM 1.0
IM 2.72 IM 2.73
![Page 9: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Collapse Simulation Results EW Direction
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1st Story
2nd story
3rd story
4th story
5th story
6th story
7th story
Average
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1st Story
2nd story
3rd story
4th story
5th story
6th story
7th story
Average
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
1st Story
2nd story
3rd story
4th story
5th story
6th story
7th story
Average
Drift Ratio
Inte
nsity
Mea
sure
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Mom
ent (
kip
in.)
Rotation (radians)
ASCE 41-13 column ACI 369 column
0200400600800
1000120014001600
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Mom
ent (
kip
in.)
Rotation (radians)
ASCE 41-13 beam New beam model
![Page 10: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Intensity Measure
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Perc
enta
ge o
f Col
umns
Exc
eedi
ng
Yield
Capping
Post-Capping
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Intensity Measure
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Perc
enta
ge o
f Col
umns
Exc
eedi
ng
Yield
CappingPost-Capping
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Intensity Measure
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Perc
enta
ge o
f Bea
ms
Exce
edin
g
Yield
CappingPost-Capping
Intensity Measure
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Perc
enta
ge o
f Spr
ings
Exc
eedi
ng
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Yield
CappingPost-Capping
Two Node Joint Elastic ElementJoint Offset
Two Node Joint Elastic ElementJoint Offset
0
1000
2000
3000
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
ASCE 41-13columnACI 369 column
ASCE 41-13 ACI 369
![Page 11: Effect of Modeling Parameters on Collapse Behavior of RC](https://reader030.vdocument.in/reader030/viewer/2022012622/61a22945236118422d23dd94/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Conclusions• Changes in modeling parameters for beams and columns affected
the distribution of damage of the case-study building. • The intensity measure corresponding to lateral instability for the
model with ASCE 41-13 modeling parameters was 1.63 (0.77 g), whereas the maximum intensity measure for the model with ACI 369 modeling parameters was 2.71 (1.27 g).
• The effect of beam modeling parameters on the intensity measure corresponding to lateral instability was not significant for the case-study building, although the maximum story drift ratios before lateral instability did increase by approximately 1%.
• While the intensity corresponding to lateral instability increased significantly by adopting modeling parameters representative of the mean response of component tests, the level of damage expected to occur in gravity-load frames increased significantly as well.