Nonlinear Analysis

Nonlinear analysis is increasingly used in the areas of seismic, progressive collapse,

and blast loads. Many complications including material and geometric nonlinear
behavior, damping, element selection, and damage/acceptance criteria make it difficult
to apply nonlinear analysis effectively. With all of the variables and unknowns it is easy
to get caught up in performing an "ideal" analysis. However, it is important to remember
that analysis is not a goal in and of itself: the purpose of analysis is to improve design.

Seismic

Structures subjected to strong earthquakes generally deform beyond the elastic

range. The additional capacity beyond the first yield of the members is
considered in the standard equivalent static analysis procedure in the building
codes. However, the uncertainties in the structural response that cannot be
considered in a simplified analysis lead to a procedure designed to be rather
conservative. In order to fully account for the nonlinear behavior a more
sophisticated analysis is required. The codes recognize that a nonlinear analysis
can provide greater insight into the behavior of the structure and relax the
performance requirements. Two types of nonlinear analysis can be performed in
accordance with several guidelines.

o Pushover (Static)

Pushover analysis is a static, nonlinear method for estimating the

structural response to seismic loads. A full nonlinear model is constructed
and lateral loads are applied statically to the model with a vertical
distribution defined by the design standard. The lateral loads are
incrementally increased and the resulting force-displacement curve for the
structure is calculated. This curve is assumed to represent the structural
response to all earthquakes. The next step is to determine where along
the curve the response to a particular design basis earthquake will fall.
There are several methods for mapping an earthquake to the response
curve. The two main techniques are the Target Displacement Method
(FEMA-356) and the Capacity Spectrum Method (ATC-24). Other methods
have been proposed but are not currently included in a consensus
standard. Both the Target Displacement and Capacity Spectrum methods
use the frequency content and magnitude of the earthquake and the
structure properties to estimate the maximum expected displacement that
will be experienced by the structure when subjected to the earthquake.
The maximum displacement is then used to determine the expected
damage to the structure and, ultimately, its adequacy.

o Time History (Dynamic)

 Dynamic time history is generally considered the most accurate, but also
most complex, analysis method. A record of base acceleration, in two or
three directions, is applied to the structural model and the response is
determined directly. The assumptions inherent in the pushover methods
are absent here. However, while a single earthquake response spectrum
can capture the desired loading for the static methods, multiple
earthquake records must be used for dynamic analyses in order to ensure
that the range of possible responses is adequately captured. The results
from multiple analyses are either enveloped or averaged depending upon
the number of earthquake records used.

Click here for sample excerpts from a seismic analysis report.

Progressive Collapse

Protecting structures against progressive collapse after extreme loading events is

required for some structures, in particular those government occupied buildings
considered to be at least moderately at risk of terrorist attack. Detailed
instructions for several levels of design and analysis are presented in GSA and
DOD documents. Depending upon the intended use of and perceived threat to
the building the progressive collapse requirements range from checking the
member continuity to performing a full dynamic analysis of the structure when it
is subjected to the sudden removal of structural elements.

Click here for sample excerpts from a progressive collapse analysis.

Blast

Analysis of structures subjected to blast loads differs from seismic analysis in the
magnitude, distribution, and duration of loading. The load magnitudes can be
much greater, but occur for only a short duration. In addition, the distribution is
proportional to the surface area of a component and its distance from the
explosion source. Analysis methods include simple single element models,
frame-type analysis, and full finite element models including computational fluid
dynamics for load determination. In any of the methods a nonlinear dynamic
analysis is required.

SACG can facilitate your nonlinear analysis projects. The assistance we offer ranges
from consultation on the best way to approach the problem through specific advice on
modeling all the way to performing a complete analysis. With extensive experience in
seismic, progressive collapse, and blast modeling, we can help you to tackle your
toughest analysis problems.
Abstract

Due to its simplicity, the structural engineering profession has been using the nonlinear
static procedure (NSP) or pushover analysis. Modeling for such analysis requires the
determination of the nonlinear properties of each component in the structure, quantified by
strength and deformation capacities, which depend on the modeling assumptions. Pushover
analysis is carried out for either user-defined nonlinear hinge properties or default-hinge
properties, available in some programs based on the FEMA-356 and ATC-40 guidelines. While
such documents provide the hinge properties for several ranges of detailing, programs may
implement averaged values. The user needs to be careful; the misuse of default-hinge
properties may lead to unreasonable displacement capacities for existing structures. This
paper studies the possible differences in the results of pushover analysis due to default and
user-defined nonlinear component properties. Four- and seven-story buildings are considered
to represent low- and medium- rise buildings for this study. Plastic hinge length and
transverse reinforcement spacing are assumed to be effective parameters in the user-
defined hinge properties. Observations show that plastic hinge length and transverse
reinforcement spacing have no influence on the base shear capacity, while these
parameters have considerable effects on the displacement capacity of the frames.
Comparisons point out that an increase in the amount of transverse reinforcement improves
the displacement capacity. Although the capacity curve for the default-hinge model is
reasonable for modern code compliant buildings, it may not be suitable for others.
Considering that most existing buildings in Turkey and in some other countries do not
conform to requirements of modern code detailing, the use of default hinges needs special
care. The observations clearly show that the user-defined hinge model is better than the
default-hinge model in reflecting nonlinear behavior compatible with the element properties.
However, if the default-hinge model is preferred due to simplicity, the user should be aware
of what is provided in the program and should avoid the misuse of default-hinge properties.