Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Procedures in Z_SOIL
Introduction
Modern seismic design codes allow engineers to use either linear or nonlinear
analyses to compute design forces and design displacements. In particular, Eurocode
8 contains four methods of analysis: simplified static analysis, modal analysis,
nonlinear pushover analysis and nonlinear time-history analysis. These methods
refer to the design and analysis of framed structures, mainly buildings and bridges.
The two nonlinear methods require advanced models and advanced nonlinear
procedures in order to be fully applicable by design engineers. This paper gives an
overview of the steps followed to implement state-of-the-art nonlinear models in
Z_Soil and presents a test-bed application to a reinforced concrete building.
141
top displacement (for example center of mass of the top floor). This is the so-called
pushover curve (also shown in Figure 1).
F2i=miΦ1i F1i=mi d2 d1
Vb
1
Base Shear
2 1
Base Shear Vb Top Displacement d
Figure 1 –Load distributions for pushover analysis according to EC8 and pushover
response curves
The pushover curve is then transformed into the response of an equivalent SDOF
system (Figure 2).
d d*
Vb
F* =
Vb Γ F*
d
Vb d* = F*
Γ
Γ=
∑m φ i i
∑m φ i i
2
d*
d
Figure 2 – Transformation of pushover curve into SDOF response
F* F*
m* g
Fy*
d *y d m* d* d *y d m* d*
142
Next, the nonlinear pushover curves are linearized, using and equal energy method.
The linearized curve is then transformed in capacity spectrum normalizing the force
N
with respect to m* g , where m* = ∑ mi Φ i is the mass of the equivalent SDOF. The
i =1
two steps are shown in Figure 3. Finally, the target displacement is determined by
comparing capacity spectrum and design spectrum (or demand spectrum). The
comparison is conveniently carried out on the Acceleration Displacement Response
Spectrum (ADRS), as shown in Figure 4.
T*
TC
TC
T*>TC T*<TC
SA /g
SA /g
T*
T* small
T* medium-long
The comparison between the two spectra is not immediate, because the design
spectrum is linear elastic. EC8 follows a simplified approach in order to compare the
two spectra. For long periods, EC8 assumes equal max displacements for linear and
elastic-perfectly-plastic (EPP) oscillators. For short periods, EC8 assumes equal
energy between the two oscillators. In conclusion, the target displacement d t* of the
equivalent nonlinear SDOF system is:
a) T * < TC (short periods)
d t* = d et*
d* ⎛ TC ⎞ Se ( T * )
d = et ⎜ 1 + ( qu − 1) * ⎟ ≥ d et where qu =
* *
t
qu ⎝ T ⎠ Fy* m*
d t* = d et*
143
The target displacement at the top of the building is obtained by inversing the
transformation in Figure 2, i.e. d t = Γd t* . The above procedure was implemented in
Z_Soil. Given the nonlinear pushover response of the given model, the program
computes the target (design) displacement of the reference point at the top floor.
Application
The nonlinear response of the 3D model of an existing building is presented as a
first application of the new capabilities in Z_Soil. The building is a residential two-
storey reinforced concrete building in Bonefro, Italy. It is representative of typical
residential building construction in Italy in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The building is
shown in Figure 5. The design spectrum for the building was obtained from EC8
using the local soil properties and the peak ground acceleration given by the new
Italian seismic map. The building is regular in height but is irregular in plan because
of the eccentric position of the staircase.
The pushover analysis of the building in the x direction is shown in Figure 6. The
determination of the target displacement is shown in Figure 7 and yields a target
displacement of 0.077 m.
144
X
1.40E+03
1.20E+03
1.00E+03
shear force (KN)
8.00E+02
Z_soil
6.00E+02
4.00E+02
2.00E+02
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 1.00E-01 2.00E-01 3.00E-01 4.00E-01 5.00E-01 6.00E-01
displacement (m)
Figure 6 – Pushover response of 3D model with modal
load distribution in x direction
0.5
0.3
Sa/g
0.2
0.1
Target displacement
0.0 for SDOF
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Sd (m)
4.5
3.5
acceleration (m/s2)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
period (s)
The time history responses in terms of top floor center of mass displacement are
shown in Figure 10, 11 and 12. The three responses show a residual displacement at
the end of the time histories, indicating a nonlinear response in parts of the building.
The residual displacement is larger under ground motion 1. The maximum
displacements due to the three ground motions are 0.0425, 0.0212, 0.0287 meters.
Because only three ground motions are used, the design displacement is 0.0425 m.
146
mean spectrum & spectrum of earthquake1
4.5
3.5
acceleration(m/s2) 3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
period(s)
4.5
3.5
acceleration(m/s2)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
period(s)
4.5
3.5
acceleration(m/s2)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
period(s)
Figure 9 – Verification that generated ground motion spectra are close to mean spectrum
147
Figure 10 – Response of Bonefro building to ground motion 1 applied in the x
direction
149
There are no doubt advantages in using nonlinear analyses vs using linear
methods. Most importantly, nonlinear analyses allow designers to follow more
closely the nonlinear response of buildings and bridges to the design earthquakes
corresponding to the ultimate and collapse limit states. The new version of Z_Soil
will allow designers to perform 3d push-over and time-history analyses using state-
of-the art nonlinear techniques and modelling capabilities.
References
[1] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, European
Committee for Standardization, 2003.
[2] P. Fajfar, “Capacity Spectrum Method Based on Inelastic Demand Spectra.”
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 28. 979-993, 1999.
[3] P. Fajfar, “Structural Analysis in Earthquake Engineering – A Breakthrough
of Simplified Non-Linear Methods.” Proc. 12th European Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Paper 843, 2002.
[4] E. Spacone, F.C. Filippou, F.F. Taucer, "Fiber Beam-Column Model for
Nonlinear Analysis of R/C Frames. I: Formulation, II: Applications."
Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25(7), 711-742, 1996.
[5] Sabetta F., Pugliese A.: Estimation of Response Spectra and Simulation of
Nonstationary Earthquake Ground Motions, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society o America, 86(2) 337-352, 1996
150