2 NAEIM 2009 Nonlinear Response

1
Farzad Naeim Structural Dynamics for Practicing Engineers 1of 71

(Last RevisionDate: 5-18-2009)
Part II:
Analysis of Nonlinear
Structural Response
Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., S.E., Esq. Farzad Naeim, Ph.D., S.E., Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel Vice President and General Counsel
J ohn A. Martin & Associates, Inc. J ohn A. Martin & Associates, Inc.
Single-degree-of-freedom system
subjected to time-dependent force.
Static Equilibrium:
Dynamic Equilibrium:
Three Simplifying Assumptions
for SDOF:
1. Mass concentrated at the roof
2. Roof is Rigid
3. Axial Deformation of Columns
Neglected
kv p=
( ) ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( t v t k t v c t v m t p + + =
STATIC AND DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM
2
Single-degree-of-freedom system
subjected to base motion.
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ) (t g m t v t k t v t c t v m = + +
) (t g m
Response of a SDOF
system to earthquake
ground motion:
STATIC AND DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM
In reality, if parts of the
structure collapses, or
there is pounding with
another structure, even
mass could be a
function of time.
TWO TYPES OF NONLINEARITY
Material Material
Geometric Geometric
(caused by large deformations) (caused by large deformations)
3
ANALYSIS OF MULTI-DEGREE-OF-FREEDOM SYSTEMS (MDOF)
Analogous to the case of SDOF systems:
| |{ } ) ( } ]{ [ } ]{ [ } ]{ [ t g M v K v C v M I = + +
Influence vector
In general case:
=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

n
n
nn
n n n n
n n
n n
n
n
nn
n n n n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
v
v
v
v
K
K K
K K K
K K K K
v
v
v
v
C
C C
C C C
C C C C
v
v
v
v
M
M
M
M
1
2
1
1 1 1
2 1 2 22
1 1 1 12 11
1
2
1
1 1 1
2 1 2 22
1 1 1 12 11
1
2
1
1
2
1
.
.
. . .
. . . .
. .
. .
.
.
. . .
. . . .
. .
. .
.
.
0
. . .
. . . .
0 0 . .
0 0 . . 0

( ) t g
M
M
M
M
n
n
n
n

I
I
I
I
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
1
2
1
1
2
1
.
.
0
. . .
. . . .
0 0 . .
0 0 . . 0
S
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
S
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
S
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
S
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
Actually, in general 3-D analysis, each element of the above matrices could be a
6x6 matrix.
MDOF SYSTEMS:
ORTHOGONALITY OF MODES
Bettisreciprocal work theorem can be used to develop two orthogonality
properties of vibration mode shapes
and
It is further assumed for convenience that
) ( } 0 { } ]{ [ } { n m M
m
T
n
= = | |
) ( } 0 { } ]{ [ } { n m K
m
T
n
= = | |
) ( } 0 { } ]{ [ } { n m C
m
T
n
= = | |
4
As we will see, orthogonalityreduces:
=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

n
n
nn
n n n n
n n
n n
n
n
nn
n n n n
n n
n n
n
n
n
n
v
v
v
v
K
K K
K K K
K K K K
v
v
v
v
C
C C
C C C
C C C C
v
v
v
v
M
M
M
M
1
2
1
1 1 1
2 1 2 22
1 1 1 12 11
1
2
1
1 1 1
2 1 2 22
1 1 1 12 11
1
2
1
1
2
1
.
.
. . .
. . . .
. .
. .
.
.
. . .
. . . .
. .
. .
.
.
0
. . .
. . . .
0 0 . .
0 0 . . 0

( ) t g
M
M
M
M
n
n
n
n

I
I
I
I
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
1
2
1
1
2
1
.
.
0
. . .
. . . .
0 0 . .
0 0 . . 0
S
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
S
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
S
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
S
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
MDOF SYSTEMS:
ORTHOGONALITY OF MODES
to:
=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
v
v
v
v
K
K
K
K
v
v
v
v
C
C
C C
C
v
v
v
v
M
M
M
M
*
*
.
.
*
*
0 . . 0 0
0 . . 0 0
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
0 0 . .
0 0 . . 0
*
*
.
.
*
*
0 . . 0 0
0 . . 0 0
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
0 . . 0
0 0 . . 0
*
*
.
.
*
*
0 . . 0 0
0 . . 0 0
. . . . . .
. . . . .
0 0 . . 0
0 0 . . 0
1
2
1
*
*
1
*
2
*
1
1
2
1
*
*
1
0
*
1
*
1
1
2
1
*
*
1
*
2
*
1

( ) t g
n
n

L
L
L
L
1
2
1
.
.
or nset of independent equations.
This is a monumental achievement which drastically reduces the necessary
computational efforts.
DAMPING IN NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
For linear systems we used mode
superposition method.
In mode superposition method the
damping ratio was defined for each
mode of vibration.
This is not possible for a nonlinear
system because it has no true
vibration modes.
A useful way to define the damping
matrix for a nonlinear system is to
assume that it can be represented as
a linear combination of the mass and
stiffness matrices of the initial
elastic system.
This is called the Rayleigh
damping.
] [ ] [ ] [ K M C | + o =
An Example of Rayleigh Damping Functions
5
DAMPING IN NONLINEAR ANALYSIS
o and | are scalar multipliers which
may be selected so as to provide a
given percentage of critical
damping at any two periods of
vibrations.
If damping at the two selected
periods are
1
and
2
, then:
] [ ] [ ] [ K M C | + o =
An Example of Rayleigh Damping Functions
)
`
(
(

=
)
`
2
1
2
1
2
2
2 1
1 2
1 2
1 1
2
e e
e e
e e
e e
|
o
Basic Idealizations of
Nonlinear Behavior
6
BASIC IDEALIZATIONS OF NONLINEAR BEHAVIOR
Source: FEMA 440: Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic AnalysisProcedures, Feb., 2005.
TWO TYPES OF STRENGTH DEGRADATION
Strength and stiffness degrading model
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300 400
Displa cement
F
o
r
c
e
7
MEASURED VERSUS CALCULATED RESPONSE
Comparison with of calculated versus experimental results
(a) a moment-critical column (b) a shear-critical column
Source: Kaul R., andDeierlein, G.G. (2004), Object orienteddevelopment of strengthand stiffnessdegradingmodelsfor reinforcedconcretestructures,
Brute Force
Calculation of
Nonlinear Response
8
RESPONSE OF NONLINEAR SDOF SYSTEMS
) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( t t p t t f t t f t t f
s d i
A + = A + + A + + A +
=
=
A =
A + = A
A + = A =
A + =
A + =
1
1
1
) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) (
) ( ) ( ) ( ) (
) (
) (
n
i
i i t
n
i
t i i s
d
i
t v t k r
t v t t v t v
t v t k r t v t k f
t t v c f
t t v m f

) ( ) ( ) ( t t g m t t p t t p
e
A + = A + = A +
For response to ground motions:
For response to ground motions:
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
/ b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r
a
t y
ie
ld
) ( ) ( ) ( t t g m v k t t v c t t v m
i i
A + = A + A + + A +

and
Hysteretic Loops
NUMERICAL INTEGRATION
Various methods exist for integration of Various methods exist for integration of
equation of motion, including: equation of motion, including:
The Central Difference Method The Central Difference Method
The The Houbolt Houbolt Method Method
The The Newmark Newmark- -| | Methods Methods
The Wilson The Wilson- -u u Method Method
In each case the time In each case the time- -step chosen ( step chosen (A At) must be t) must be
small enough to capture the variation and small enough to capture the variation and
details in input ground motions and hysteretic details in input ground motions and hysteretic
models. models.
See Bathe, See Bathe, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis, Finite Element Procedures in Engineering Analysis,
Prentice Hall, 1982, for more details. Prentice Hall, 1982, for more details.
9
THE CENTRAL DIFFERENCE METHOD
=
+
t
v v
v
i i
i
2
1 1
| |
1 1 2
1 1 2
1
2
1
2
1 1
+
+
+
+
A
=
)
`
A
=
A
=
i i i
i i i i
i i
i
v v v
t t
v v
t
v v
t t
v v
v

assuming
1 i
v
v
t
i
v
1 + i
v
t
A t
A
t
v v
z
i i
i
A
=
+ 1 1
and using the equation of motion
)
`

A
+
(
+
A
=

+
2 2
1
1
c
t
m
z f p
c
t
m
z
i s i i
or:
( )
1 1 + +
A + =
i i i
z t v v
To start, given the initial conditions, Taylor series is used:
( )
0 0 0 1
2
v
t
v t v v
A
+ A + =
For numerical stability:
T t
|
.
|
\
|
s A
10
1
5
1
Much smaller values are used for dynamic response to
earthquake ground motions (i.e., 0.005 to 0.02 sec.)
THE NEWMARK-| METHODS
1 i
v
v
t
i
v
1 + i
v
t
A t
A
( ) ( ) ( )
1
2 2
1
1 1
1 1 1 1
2
1
2 2
+ +
+ +
+ + + +
A + A |
.
|
\
|
+ A + =
A
+
A
+ =
= + +
i i i i i
i i i i
i i i i
v t v t v t v v
v
t
v
t
v v
p kv v c v m

| |
(1)
(2)
(3)
Knowing the three unknowns:
are found by solving the above three simultaneous
equations.
i i i
v v v , , 1 1 1
, ,
+ + + i i i
v v v
4
1
0 |
) 2 . 0 for stable ly (numerical Method Newmark Explicit 0
) 3 . 0 for stable ly (numerical Method Goodman & Fox
12
1
) 4 . 0 for stable ly (numerical name no but Used,
8
1
) 5 . 0 for stable ly (numerical Method on Accelerati Linear
6
1
stable) y numericall (always Method on Accelerati Constant
4
1
T t
T t
T t
T t
s A =
s A =
s A =
s A =
=
|
|
|
|
|
Much smaller values
are used for dynamic
response to
earthquake ground
motions (i.e., 0.005
to 0.02 sec.)
10
NUMERICAL INTEGRATION EXAMPLE
-1
0
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Ti me (sec.)
G
r
o
u
n
d

A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
/
s
/
s
)
K=1000 kN/m
m=100 kN.s
2
/m
-0.05, -50
1, 50
1.1, 20
0, 0
0.05, 50
-1.1, -20
-1, -50
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
-2 -1 0 1 2
Di spl acement (m)
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Example 1:
The SDOF structure shown is excited by horizontal
ground acceleration as shown below. Assume 0%
damping. Find the maximum force and displacement
experienced by the structure if:
1. The structure is elastic and has an infinite amount of
strength.
2. The structure has an elastic-plastic force-
displacement property as shown below and begins to
collapse when displacement exceeds 1.0 m.
Source: ModifiedfromArmouti, N. S., EarthquakeEngineering, TheoryandImplementation, PrintedinJ ordan, 2004, Pages113-116.
NUMERICAL INTEGRATION EXAMPLE (CONTINUED)
Use the Central Difference Method to obtain:
50.0 0.046 17.8 0.018 3.80 19
50.0 -0.064 16.5 0.017 3.60 18
50.0 -0.177 24.6 0.025 3.40 17
50.0 -0.287 46.9 0.047 3.20 16
50.0 -0.385 82.4 0.082 3.00 15
24.0 -0.462 124.9 0.125 2.80 14
-31.3 -0.518 149.5 0.150 2.60 13
-50.0 -0.536 138.3 0.138 2.40 12
-50.0 -0.519 87.7 0.088 2.20 11
-50.0 -0.474 10.1 0.010 2.00 10
-50.0 -0.408 -71.6 -0.072 1.80 9
-50.0 -0.331 -132.6 -0.133 1.60 8
-50.0 -0.250 -156.6 -0.157 1.40 7
-50.0 -0.173 -142.0 -0.142 1.20 6
-50.0 -0.107 -102.5 -0.103 1.00 5
-50.0 -0.062 -62.1 -0.062 0.80 4
-28.8 -0.029 -28.8 -0.029 0.60 3
-8.0 -0.008 -8.0 -0.008 0.40 2
0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.20 1
0.0 0.000 0.0 0.000 0.00 0
Force (kN) Inelastic Disp. (m) Force (kN) Elastic Disp. (m) Time (sec.) Step No
Inelastic Response Elastic Response
11
-22.8 0.260 11.8 0.012 6.20 31
-45.5 0.238 19.3 0.019 6.00 30
-50.0 0.233 19.0 0.019 5.80 29
-35.3 0.249 11.2 0.011 5.60 28
-5.7 0.278 -1.1 -0.001 5.40 27
26.2 0.310 -13.0 -0.013 5.20 26
47.7 0.332 -19.7 -0.020 5.00 25
50.0 0.334 -18.5 -0.018 4.80 24
50.0 0.316 -9.9 -0.010 4.60 23
50.0 0.279 2.7 0.003 4.40 22
50.0 0.221 14.1 0.014 4.20 21
50.0 0.144 20.0 0.020 4.00 20
Force (kN) Inelastic Disp. (m) Force (kN) Elastic Disp. (m) Time (sec.) Step No
Inelastic Response Elastic Response
-200
-100
0
100
200
-1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Di spl acement (m)
R
e
s
t
o
r
i
n
g

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Elastic Force (kN)
Inelastic Force (kN)
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
Time (sec.)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Inelastic Disp. (m)
Elastic Disp. (m)
S
d
12
The Concepts of
Nonlinear Response
and Design Spectra
Elastoplastic Force-Deformation Relation
y y
u
u
f
f
R
0 0
= =
Source: Chopra, A., EarthquakeDynamicsof Structures A Primer, 2ndEdition, EERI, 2005.
13
14
15
16
17
INELASTIC DESIGN SPECTRA
Have you ever seen or used a Have you ever seen or used a
nonlinear or inelastic response nonlinear or inelastic response
spectrum before? spectrum before?
N
L

S
P
E
C
T
R
U
M
YES, YOU HAVE. YES, YOU HAVE.
18
The Concept of
Equivalent
Linearization
19
THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENT LINEARIZATION
Consider Free Vibration of a Linear System:
k
1
v
f
s
+ f
d
A
-A
( ) ( ) ( )
( ) ( ) ( )
0 . 1
sin 1 cos cos
sin sin sin
2 2
2
2
2
= |
.
|
\
|
+ |
.
|
\
|
= = = =
|
.
|
\
|
= = = =
A
v
A c
f
t A c t A c v c f t A v
A
v
t t kA kv f t A v
d
d
s
e
e e e e e e
e e e

v
f
d
A
-A
+
k
1
v
f
s
A
-A
THE CONCEPT OF EQUIVALENT LINEARIZATION
( )

nt Displaceme Elastic Maximum
Force Elastic Maximum
max ,
2 A f Area DE
s
= = t
( )( ) e t e t c A A c A Area
2
= =
Now Consider Free Vibration of a Simple
Nonlinear System:
k
eq
1
v
F
A
-A
k
0
Actual
Equivalent
Area of the ellipse ~ Energy Dissipated in one Cycle
km c
m
k
m
c
e
e
2 ;
2
= = =
MAX MAX
E E
eq
F
ED
A
=
t
2
1
20
BASIC LINEARIZATION EXAMPLE
K
m=1000 kN.s
2
/m
Example 2:
The SDOF structure shown below is subjected to horizontal
ground excitation represented by the pseudo-velocity response
spectrumshown. Stiffness and strength properties of the system
are shown on the hysteresis loop below. Assume zero system
viscous damping and calculate the following.
1. The elastic strength demand and the corresponding
displacement.
2. The maximuminelastic displacement demand using basic
equivalent linearization technique.
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Period (sec.)
S
V

(
m
/
s
e
c
.
)
"0% Damping"
"25% Damping"
"50% Damping"
F
O
R
C
E
DISP.
F
y
= 1600 kN.
A
y
= +20 mm
EXAMPLE 2 (CONTINUED)
rad/s 8.94
1000
000 , 80
0
= = =
m
k
e
m/s 56 . 0 0 ; sec. 7 . 0
2
= = = =
v
S T
e
t
ELASTIC RESPONSE
kN/m 000 , 80
02 . 0
1600
0
= =
A
=
y
y
F
k
kN 006 , 5 006 . 5 000 , 1
m 062 . 0
m/s 006 . 5 56 . 0 94 . 8 S
m 062 . 0
94 . 8
56 . 0
2
a
= = =
= = A
= = =
= = =
a E
d E
v
v
d
mS F
S
S
S
S
e
e
21
m 062 . 0 : Assume
max
= A = A
E
( ) | |
( ) | |
% 43
062 . 0 1600
02 . 0 2 062 . 0 2 1600 2
2
1
2 2 2
2
1
2
1
sec. 24 . 1
2
rad/s 08 . 5
000 , 1
806 , 25
kN/m 806 , 25
062 . 0
1600
max
max
=

=
A
A A
=
A
=
= =
= = =
= =
A
=
t t t
e
t
e
MAX MAX MAX MAX
E E
y y
E E
eq
eq
eq
eq
eq
y
eq
F
F
F
ED
T
m
K
F
K
INELASTIC RESPONSE
ITERATION 1:
m/s 45 . 0 % 43 ; sec. 24 . 1 = = =
v
S T
needed iteration Another m 062 . 0 m 089 . 0
08 . 5
45 . 0
= = = =
e
v
d
S
S
( ) m/s 6 . 1 4 . 0 4
2
= =
a
S
y a
d
F mS F
S
= = = =
= = A
kN 600 , 1 6 . 1 000 , 1
m 1 . 0
max
max
m 10 . 0 : Assume
max
= A = A
E
( ) | |
( ) | |
% 51
1 . 0 1600
02 . 0 2 1 . 0 2 1600 2
2
1
2 2 2
2
1
2
1
sec. 57 . 1
2
rad/s 4
000 , 1
000 , 16
kN/m 000 , 16
10 . 0
1600
max
max
=

=
A
A A
=
A
=
= =
= = =
= =
A
=
t t t
e
t
e
MAX MAX MAX MAX
E E
y y
E E
eq
eq
eq
eq
eq
y
eq
F
F
F
ED
T
m
K
F
K
INELASTIC RESPONSE
ITERATION 2:
m/s 4 . 0 % 51 ; sec. 57 . 1 = = =
v
S T
acheived. e Convergenc m 1 . 0 m 1 . 0
4
4 . 0
= = = =
e
v
d
S
S
22
The Concept of
Nonlinear Static or
Push-Over Analysis
DESIGN SPECTRA REPRESENTATIONS
Ordinary Design Ordinary Design
Period
V
/
W

(
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
DESIGN SPECTRUM
Spectral or Roof-top Displacement
V
/
W

(
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t

P
e
r
i
o
d

L
i
n
e
s
ELASTIC DEMAND SPECTRUM
Push Push- -Over Analysis Over Analysis
Composite or ADRS Composite or ADRS
Plot Plot
23
PUSH-OVER CURVE OR CAPACITY SPECTRUM
Using simple modal analysis
equations, spectral
displacement and roof-top
displacement may be converted
to each other.
Roof-top Displacement
V
/
W

(
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
Low-Strength; Low-Stiffness; Brittle
Moderate Strength and Stiffness; Ductile
High-Strength; High-Stiffness; Brittle
ATC-40 CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD
24
ASCE-41 COEFFICIENTS METHOD
NSP OR PUSH-OVER ANALYSIS
V
/
W

(
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
5% damped elastic spectrum
This is an iterative procedure invol ving several This is an iterative procedure invol ving several
anal yses. anal yses.
o
e
For each anal ysis an effecti ve period for an For each anal ysis an effecti ve period for an
equi valent elastic system and a equi valent elastic system and a
corresponding elastic displacement are corresponding elastic displacement are
calculated. calculated.
This displacement is then di vided by a damping This displacement is then di vided by a damping
factor to obtain an estimate of real displacement factor to obtain an estimate of real displacement
at that step of anal ysis. at that step of anal ysis.
T
e
f
f
T
0
A
e
/B
ATC ATC- -40 40
25
V
/
W

(
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
5% damped elastic spectrum
capacity spectrum
o
e
Here an estimate of elastic displacement Here an estimate of elastic displacement
is obtained first. is obtained first.
This displacement is then multiplied by a This displacement is then multiplied by a
set of modification factors to arrive at an set of modification factors to arrive at an
estimate of the target inelastic estimate of the target inelastic
displacement. displacement.
ASCE 41 ASCE 41
ATC-40 CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD
This is inherently an iterative procedure.
( )( )
( )
( )
( )
65 . 1
100 ln 41 . 0 31 . 2
12 . 2
100 ln 68 . 0 21 . 3
1
1 1 2
05 . 0
1
0
eff
V
eff
A
eff eq
eq
SR
SR
T T
|
|
o o
o
t
k | |
o o
=
+

+ = =
+
=
26
MODIFIED CAPACITY SPECTRUM METHOD PER FEMA-440
This is inherently an iterative procedure.
27
28
COEFFICIENTS METHOD AS MODIFIED PER FEMA-440
MODIFIED C
1
COEFFICIENT:
g
T
S C C C C
e
a t
2
2
3 2 1 0
4t
o =
g
T
S C C C C
e
a t 2
2
3 2 1 0
4t
o =
MODIFIED C
1
COEFFICIENT:
y
a
F
mS
R=
29
g
T
S C C C C
e
a t 2
2
3 2 1 0
4t
o =
C
3
COEFFICIENT ELIMINATED AND REPLACED
WITH A MINIMUM STRENGTH REQUIREMENT:
X
( )
)
`
=
+ =
+ =
+
A
A
= s =
A A
motions ground field - near for 8 . 0

motions ground field - far for 2 . 0
ln 15 . 0 1
4
2
max
o o o o
o
P P e
t
e
y
d
y
a
T t
R
F
mS
R
Push-over analysis is in reality the extension of response
spectrum analysis in order to perform approximate
nonlinear analysis.
30
INCLUSION OF P-DELTA EFFECTS AND GRAVITY FRAMING ARE VITAL!
ROOF DRIFT ANGLE vs. NORMALI ZED BASE SHEAR
Pushover: LA 20-Story, Pre-Northridge, Model M2, o =0%, 3%, 5%, 10%
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10
Roof Drift Angle
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
V
/
W
)
Strain-Hardening =0%
Source: Krawinkler, H. (2005), A few comments on P-Delta, Overstrength, Drift, Deformation Capacity, CollapseCapacity, and other issues,
Presentation at theLATBSDC Invitational Workshop, September 22, Los Angeles.
Typical push-over analysis curves when P-A effects are properly considered
Modeling Nonlinear
Behavior for Dynamic
Analysis
31
BASIC INGREDIENTS
Nonlinear material model for the Nonlinear material model for the
elements and connections must be elements and connections must be
defined defined
Backbone Curves Backbone Curves
Hysteretic Behavior Hysteretic Behavior
This could be done using This could be done using
Results of experimental research Results of experimental research
Publications such as FEMA Publications such as FEMA- -356, ATC 356, ATC- -62 62
Journal papers and proceedings of Journal papers and proceedings of
Technical Seminars Technical Seminars
BACKBONE CURVE EXAMPLE
Source: BritishColumbiaSchoolsRetrofit Project, Draft Guideline, 2006.
Backbone curve for blocked OSB/plywood shear wall system
32
HYSTERETIC PROPERTIES EXAMPLE
Source: Naeim, MehrainandAlimoradi, External Peer Reviewof BritishColumbia SchoolsRetrofit Project, Draft Guideline, 2006.
Theeffect of strength
degradationonthe
responseof thefirst
floor isevident.
BACKBONE CURVE AND HYSTERETIC LOOPS EXAMPLE
Source: BritishColumbiaSchoolsRetrofit Project, Draft Guideline, 2006.
Backbone curve for a tension-only CBF
33
Source: Naeim, MehrainandAlimoradi, External Peer Reviewof BritishColumbia SchoolsRetrofit Project, Draft Guideline, 2006.
Theeffect of strength
degradationonthe
responseof thefirst
floor isevident.
Source: ATC-62Draft, 2006.
Springs 1a & b: Gravity systemin buildings
Figure 1. Backbone and hysteretic behavior of Spring 1a.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Interstory Drift Ratio
F / Fy
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
Figure 2. Backbone and hysteretic behavior of Spring 1b.
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
Interstory Drift Ratio
F / Fy
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
34
Spring 2a & 2b: Non-ductile moment resisting frame
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
InterstoryDriftRatio
F / Fy
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
InterstoryDriftRatio
F / Fy
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
Spring 3a & 3b: Ductile moment resisting frame
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
35
Spring 4a & 4b: Nonductilebrace frames
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
Spring 5a & b : Infill Walls
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
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
ForcevsDisp
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
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
interstorydrift
b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r / b
a
s
e
s
h
e
a
r a
t y
ie
ld
36
Time for a break!
Thank You. Thank You.

2 NAEIM 2009 Nonlinear Response

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2 NAEIM 2009 Nonlinear Response

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

Farzad Naeim Structural Dynamics for Practicing Engineers 1of 71

motions ground field - near for 8 . 0

S-ar putea să vă placă și