Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
An Equivalent Model for Seismic Analysis of Masonry and Reinforced Concrete Buildings

An Equivalent Model for Seismic Analysis of Masonry and Reinforced Concrete Buildings

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Emily Lita Ramirez Palacios on May 12, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
Review
An equivalent frame model for seismic analysis of masonryand reinforced concrete buildings
Y. Belmouden
 *
, P. Lestuzzi
´  cole Polytechnique Fe´ de´ rale de Lausanne, ENAC-IS-IMAC, EPFL, Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland 
Received 13 August 2007; received in revised form 29 October 2007; accepted 29 October 2007Available online 19 December 2007
Abstract
In this paper a novel equivalent planar-frame model with openings is presented. The model deals with seismic analysis using the Push-over method for masonry and reinforced concrete buildings. Each wall with opening can be decomposed into parallel structural wallsmade of an assemblage of piers and a portion of spandrels. As formulated, the structural model undergoes inelastic flexural as wellas inelastic shear deformations. The mathematical model is based on the smeared cracks and distributed plasticity approach. Both zeromoment location shifting in piers and spandrels can be evaluated. The constitutive laws are modeled as bilinear curves in flexure and inshear. A biaxial interaction rule for both axial force–bending moment and axial force–shear force are considered. The model can supportany shape of failure criteria. An event-to-event strategy is used to solve the nonlinear problem. Two applications are used to show theability of the model to study both reinforced concrete and unreinforced masonry structures. Relevant findings are compared to analyticalresults from experimental, simplified models and finite element models such as Drain3DX and ETABS finite element package.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
 Seismic evaluation; Unreinforced masonry; Reinforced concrete; Structural wall; Equivalent frame
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412. A model for structural walls with openings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.1. Description and hypotheses of the structural model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.2. Formulation of a structural wall model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423. A nonlinear analysis of framed structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444. Pushover analysis of a RC building. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444.1. Description of the structural model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444.2. Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455. Pushover analysis of an URM building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495.1. General assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495.2. Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Appendix 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
0950-0618/$ - see front matter
 
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.10.023
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +41 21 693 6382; fax: +41 21 693 47 48.
E-mail addresses:
www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat
 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53
Construction 
and Building 
MATERIALS
 
1. Introduction
Earthquakes are considered to be the major cause of structural failure of buildings in Europe. Despite their rar-ity and moderate intensity, earthquakes in the interior of northwest and central Europe have the potential to causeextensive damage and associated financial losses, due tothe vulnerability of the local building stock. The mitigationof earthquake hazard involves the collaboration of manyspecialists with different tasks. One of these topics is struc-tural engineering providing and advancing the knowledgefor earthquake resistant construction. However, a problemarises for existing buildings analysis. In this context, in thefew last decades, technical advances have been made inseismic engineering and particularly in the seismic vulnera-bility assessment of existing buildings. The vulnerabilityassessment focuses on the study of the extent of damagefor different earthquake scenarios.In almost all countries, the majority of the buildingstock is classified as existing buildings. This is why exten-sive assessment of such structures is motivated since theyhave been generally designed to resist gravity loads. Never-theless, the seismic vulnerability of existing buildingsdesigned against wind loads, is found to be very low.This paper makes a contribution to the seismic vulnera-bility assessment of existing buildings through the develop-ment of a simplified analytical model. The need for suchmodels is always motivated by first, the large amount of structures that should be analyzed in a very short timeand second, the search for optimal solutions for structuralretrofitting.For vulnerability assessment purposes, the analysis of alarge number of existing buildings requires relatively simpleapproaches that are capable of representing their essentialcharacteristics. The models should be able to evaluate theultimate strength, maximum displacements and the failuremodes. Different models are developed based on analyticaland finite element approaches [1]. The analytical modelsare found to be very simple to use and require lesseramount of data. However they are very limited, particu-larly for large building analysis in terms of structuralbehavior (coupling effect, distribution of the nonlinearity,modes of failures prediction). The performed analysis showthat they are conservative and are not able to represent allfeatures of such buildings [2]. On the other side, finite ele-ment approach is a powerful tool for seismic analysis but itis time consuming and requires a large amount of data.Moreover, refined models based on either discrete or con-tinuum approaches suffer from the strong mesh-depen-dency and require numerous parameters that may not bedirectly extractable from structural analysis. Hence, thesemodels are very sensitive to the parameter calibration thataffects closely the reliability of the results and the analysisstability (lack of convergence, flip-flop occurrence, suddenload falling, and so on). With such methods it is not possi-ble to treat a stock of buildings. Thus, these methods arecumbersome due to the high analytical skills required fortheir numerical implementation and they are restricted onlyto practitioners with a high level of knowledge.A widely used model for structural analysis is the linear(beam-column element) finite element or the equivalentframe models. Despite of some limitations in the equivalentframe model, it is very attractive in comparison to complexfinite element models [1,3–5]. Moreover, they have shownsatisfactory results particularly for RC structures. In thiscontext, the proposed model is based on beam-column ele-ment and distributed of nonlinearity approaches. It isadapted to analytical methods without use of finite elementmethod.In this paper, the developed model deals with the seismicvulnerability assessment of existing multistoried buildings.
2. A model for structural walls with openings
 2.1. Description and hypotheses of the structural model 
The mathematical model can represent solid walls,frame structural elements (made in beams and columns),coupled walls and perforated walls (or framed walls) [6].The model can represent different openings. However, thevertical axis should lie through all vertical piers elementsas well as for the horizontal axes that should lies throughall spandrels.The structural model consists of an assemblage of verti-cal plane walls with openings that form a single perforatedwall. Each structural wall is made of pier elements with orwithout rigid offsets and a portion of spandrels such thatthere are two kinds of individual walls: exterior walls andinterior walls (Fig. 1). The length of these parts of span-drels is equal to the zero moment length, and can beupdated at each step depending on the bending momentsat the spandrel ends.In the equivalent frame models that are based on finiteelement method, nonlinear flexural springs (lumped plastic-ity) are inserted into the model at the ends of the piers and/or spandrel elements. These elements are defined in terms
Intermediate wall
RigidzoneDeformablepartOpening
i
h
i
 L
sp
l
 p
h
Edge wallEdge wall
Fig. 1. A schematic representation of equivalent frame model for planarwalls with openings.
Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53
 41
 
of moment–rotation laws. Translational shear springs areadded at each pier and spandrel at mid-points. Thesesprings are expressed in terms of shear force–displacementlaws. However, the occurrence of yielding is unlikely alongspandrel spans and piers heights. For that reason, nonlin-earity should be distributed along the clear pier heightand clear spandrel length. Thus, the proposed model isbased on the spread nonlinearity approach. Each pierand spandrel can be discretized into a series of slices [7]while cross-sections are considered as homogeneous. Thestructural element behavior is monitored at the center of the slices [7] while bending moments are evaluated at sliceends.The mechanical model undergoes flexural as well asshear deformation. In the current formulation, the modelonly considers a biaxial interaction between axial forces– bending moments (N–M) and axial forces–shear forces(N–V) only. The so-called shifting of the primary curvetechnique is used in a simple manner [8]. The axial forceis evaluated in a simple manner based on initial axial forcesplus vertical shear forces produced in spandrels at joints. Atriaxial interaction rule, (N–M–V), is not currently consid-ered. At present, only interaction curves that representsbending moment or shear force interaction with regardsto a compressive axial force are considered. The major fea-tures of this model are summarized as follows:1. All previous attempts to use simplified models based onstatic equilibrium method, always consider a constantzero moment location [9–14], and others. The wall for-mulation herein permits the capture of the couplingeffect in elevation due to the nonlinearity distributionin both piers and spandrels. Thus, the zero momentlocation in both piers and spandrels can be mitigatedduring the nonlinear analysis.2. In the current development, the variation of the axialvertical loads are considered for piers only and theyare based on an over-simplified approach. The axialloads on piers are updated based on the initial axialforces at each storey plus the shear forces developedon spandrel ends.3. The nonlinearity is treated using a smeared plasticityapproach [7]. Thus, the piers and spandrels are discret-ized into finite homogenized slices [15]. Variable sectionscan be specified over either spandrels or piers. In pierelements the axial forces can increase or decrease. Inthat case, the pier slices can shift either from elastic-to-plastic or from plastic-to-elastic state depending onthe axial force distribution.4. The model can take into account both flexural and shearbehavior in the inelastic range. The interaction effect canbe defined by using experimental and phenomenologicalmodels. These equations are considered as failure crite-ria that can be defined by points and linear segments.The non linear constitutive model for both flexuraland shear behavior is considered as a bilinear envelopcurve with a very small post-yield stiffness to avoidnumerical problems. The flexural behavior is modeledas a moment-curvature law that is based on an equilib-rium statement in a cross-section.5. The present formulation deals with a Pushover analysis.It is based on the well-known event-to-event strategy. Asimplified algorithm for systems with interaction effect ispresented through an equilibrium correction at each stepof calculation. The analysis is performed by a force-con-trolled technique. The change of sign in a structural ele-ment is permitted only in the elastic range. In theinelastic range, this leads to stoppage of the analysis.6. The structural wall is a planar structure (two-dimen-sional). However, the sum of all capacity curves, onthe basis of the equal top displacement assumption, per-mits to analyze an entire building and to develop capac-ity curves.
 2.2. Formulation of a structural wall model 
The structural walls, composed in an assemblage of piersand spandrels, are modeled as an equivalent frame struc-ture. Rigid offsets can be added at the top and/or the bot-tom of the piers, or the left side and/or right side of spandrels. The storey rotations and lateral displacementsare calculated so that flexural and shear deformationscan be considered. It should be noted that only in-planedeformations and rotations of the entire walls are consid-ered. In the following a general method for structural anal-ysis of a multistory building is given. The wall base isconsidered as fixed. The storey moment–lateral force for-mulation of a structural wall element is expressed by:
f
 M 
bs
g ¼ ½
 K 
Frame
f
 P 
g ð
1
Þf
 P 
g ¼ ½
 L
P
 – 
T
½
 L
T
 – 
F
f
 F 
g ð
2
Þ½
 K 
Frame
1
¼
 B
1
 
1
 0 0
 . . .
 0 0 0
 A
2
 B
2
 
2
 0
 . . .
 0 0 00
 A
3
 B
3
 
3
 . . .
 0 0 0
........................
0 0 0 0
 . . .
 A
 N 
1
 B
 N 
1
 
 N 
1
0 0 0 0
 . . .
 0
 A
 N 
 B
 N 
2666666666437777777775
ð
3
Þ
 P 
n
 ¼
 D
n
n
1
 þ
 E 
n
n
 ð
4
Þ
{
bs
} represents the base storey bending moments vector,[
Frame
] is the equivalent frame stiffness matrix, {P} is thereduced shear forces vector, [
L
P–T
] is the reduced storeyshear forces–storey shear force transformation matrix,[
L
T–F
] is the storey shear force–applied lateral force trans-formation matrix in absence of vertical distributed loads,{F} is the lateral load pattern vector. The equivalent framematrix and the reduced shear forces vector are defined bythe expressions
 A
n
,
 B 
n
,
 C 
n
,
 D
n
, and
 E 
n
 (with
 n
 = 1,
 N 
;
 N 
 isthe number of storeys) (Eqs. (3), and (4)) such as
 A
n
 ¼ ð
speq
;
n
1
Þ
1
ð
5
Þ
42
 Y. Belmouden, P. Lestuzzi / Construction and Building Materials 23 (2009) 40–53

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->