Sunteți pe pagina 1din 9

Seminar dan Pameran HASTAG Hotel Grand Elite, Medan April, 25-27, 2013

EVALUATION OF SEISMIC PERFORMANCE ON DUCTILE MRF SYSTEM SUBJECTED TO STRONG EARTHQUAKE USING DAMAGE INDEX AS PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
Daniel R.Teruna* *Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Sumatera Utara Medan, Indonesia Abstract: Drift or inter-story drift have been widely used as criteria for evaluation of a structure performance under seismic excitation. However, several researchers believed that cumulative cyclic plastic deformation more stronger influenced than drift in order to asses of structure damage level. In this paper, a measurement of the structural seismic performance based on energy concepts and damage indexes are presented. Zahrah and Hall damage index are employed to quantify the structural seismic performance. The proposed analysis method is demonstrated for a seven storey, three bays moment resisting frame steel building. Nonlinier dynamic time history analysis are performed under a set of selected ground motion records, which are matched to the response spectrum design of the National Indonesian Standard of seismic hazard map 2010. It was noted that, damage indexes are influenced the amount of input energy induced by earthquake imparted to the structure and the amount of energy dissipated by inelastic deformation. Finally, the seismic performance of the building in term of damage index and drift are discussed and presented. Keywords: seismic performance, inelastic deformation, energy dissipation, earthquake, damage index INTRODUCTION In the conventional seismic design concept, the design seismic forces is determined through the reduction factor, which is adopted depending on the anticipated deformation capacity of the structure. In the forced based design concept, the structure designed can withstand the earthquake ground motion without a local or total collapse. In order to achieve this goal, the capacity of structure at least equal to demand, and all critical joint should be designed and detail well. The deficiency of this concept is that the force-based design cannot provides an adequate insight into the damage level of the structure. Currently, the maximum inter-story drift and ductility demands are targeted as response parameters to achieve adequate structural performance of earthquake-resistant structures. Nevertheless, the use of these parameters is not completely justified for buildings subjected to long duration earthquake. During severe seismic event, input energy induced by earthquake will be dissipated by inelastic deformation of the structural members, which may give rise to structural or non-structural damage, even lead to building collapse either partial or totally. In addition, The number of deaths and the economic losses due to earthquakes suggest that the acceptable level of damage also needs to be revised. It is therefore expected that damage assessment will become a important issue in the future. Several researchers reconized that the cumulative plastic deformation occurring in structural member is directly related to energy dissipated by hysteretic damping (Abbas 2011, Park et al. 1985, 1987, Bojorquez et al. 2008, Teran and Gilmore 2007, Fajfar 1992, Manfredi 2001, Riddel and Garcia 2001, and Zahrah and Hall 2000. ). As a result, damage in structural members is inevitable. In addition, The nonlinear behaviour of the structure during real
1

Seminar dan Pameran HASTAG Hotel Grand Elite, Medan April, 25-27, 2013

earthquakes can also be investigated through energy balance (Uang and Bertero, 1990). To date, the majority of research has been directed toward correlating the input energy to the severity of the earthquake ground motion and development energy based damage indexes, in part, in term of hysteretic energy demand (Elwood and Hiit 2004). one of measurement of strength ground motion are accepted in engineering practice is Arias intensity which defined as the time interval across which a specified amount of energy is dissipated. In this context, energy is represented by the integral of the square of the ground acceleration. Another measurement is known as effective duration te which defined as the difference between the time by which 75 percent and 5 percent energy absorbed in a structure is dissipated. It is denoted as te0.75 and te0.05 respectively (Zahrah and Hall 2000). The aim of this paper is to evaluate of seismic performance of ductile moment resisting frame subjected to different ground motions. For this porposes, one seven story of steel frame, three bays are investigated under 7 (seven) selected earthquake acceleration using nonlinier time history analysis. These accelerations record were matched to Banda Aceh design spectrum in accordance with Indonesian standard of seismic hazard map, 2010. In oder to quantify the seismic performance of these steel frame, a damage index based on energy damage model approach which is proposed by Fajfar (1992) were employed as performance criteria. Furthermore, the use of damage index provides a measure on the structural damage level, and making a decision on repairing systems with respect to the cost and functional interruption. ACCELEROGRAM AND DESIGN RESPONSE SPECTRUM Difference earthquake produce ground motion with different characteristics have been recognized for a long time. These ground motion contain also different intensity, duration and predominant frequency. In order to performed the time history analysis of the building being considered, seven different accelerogram were selected from PEER data base 2011. These accelerogram were constructed matching a given design acceleration response spectrum of Banda Aceh with site class D. The scale factor are used for matching all accelerogram records to spectrum target using seismomatch software up to fundamental period (T1). These ground motion details are given in Table 1 and their matching response spectrums are depicted in Figure 1. Table 1. Ground Motion Details Earthquake Magnitude Station name Number Loma Prieta 6.93 Capitola Managua 6.24 Managua, esso Tabas 7.35 Tabas Parkfield 6.19 Cholame Northridge 6.69 Bevery Hills Victoria 6.33 Cerro Prieta Kobe 6.90 Takatori

No. Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1989 1972 1978 1966 1994 1980 1995

PGA Scale (g) Factor 0.53 1.1 0.34 4.0 0.85 0.65 0.06 7.5 0.44 0.85 0.59 0.72 0.61 1.2

ENERGY EQUATION CONCEPT

Seminar dan Pameran HASTAG Hotel Grand Elite, Medan April, 25-27, 2013

The energy balance equation of a SDOF system subjected to ground motion can be expressed as (Uang and Bartero 1990):
t t t t

&&(t )du + cu & (t )du + f s u (t )du = mu &&g (t )du mu


0 0 0

(1)

where m is mass of the structure, c is the damping coefficient, fs is restoring force, u is & and u && denote as first derivative and displacement of the mass with respect to ground, u second derivative of displacement with respect to time respectively, g is ground acceleration, and t is time. In order to simplify the integration, the equation (1) can be &dt rewritten with respect to time by using the relationship du = u , yield to
t t t t

&&(t )u &dt + cu & (t )u &dt + f s u (t )u &dt = mu &&g (t )u &dt mu


0 0 0

(2)

Equation (2) present energy balance equation in the simple form as:

EK + ED + E A = EI

(3)

where EK = kinetic energy, ED = absorbed energy by equivalent viscous damping, EA = representative of absorbed energy, which consists of the recoverable elastic strain energy ES, and the irrecoverable inelastic strain (hysteretic) energy EH. The right hand side of Eq.(2) and (3) represents the input energy EI, which is equal to the work done by base shear through the base (foundation) displacement. The hysteretic energy EH then are used to estimate damage index of the structures. Therefore, the energy dissipated by the inelastic displacements could be determined by the following equation.
E H = E I ( E K + ES + ED )
(4)

1.4 1.2

BSE-2 DESIGN SPECTRUM


1 Sa(T1) 0.8 Loma Prieta Managua Northridge Parkfield Tabas 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Kobe Victoria Target

Sa(g)
0.6

T(sec) Figure 1. Response spectra of scale ground motion

Seminar dan Pameran HASTAG Hotel Grand Elite, Medan April, 25-27, 2013

ENERGY BASED DAMAGE INDEX Seismic resistant building design force based concept unable to predict damage on structure under seismic excitation, because this concept are commonly use drift as performance criteria. Damage induced by earthquake seems to be seriously attention of the engineers of many countries, because of design building code may not adopted completely the seismic design philosophy. In addition, damage of structure beyond repairable are undesirable due to economic reason. Over the last 20 years, energy based approach are often used in earthquake resistant structures design ( Choi and Kim 2006, Mukai et al. 2004, Kim and Choi 2004, Riddle and Garcia 2001, and Uang and Bartero 1990.). In order to quantify performance of a structures during earthquake, damage index model based on cumulative plastic deformation and maximum hysteretic energy demand has been developed by several researcher, such as (Park and Ang 1985, Park et al. 1987, , Bojorquez et al. 2008, 2010, Cosenza et al. (1993), Fajfar (1992), Mehanny and deierlein, and Zahrah and Hall 1984). In this paper, damage index model are proposed by Cosenza et al. are employed to investigate the damage level of a steel frame, given as:

DI =

EH V y u y ( 1)

(5)

where EH = hysteretic energy demand, = displacement ductility, Vy and uy are strength and yield displacement of the structure respectively under monotonic loading. Here, DI is used as indicator of damage state of structures. When, DI 1.0 is assumed as condition of failure, and when DI = 0 indicate no structural damage (elastis). The value of DI in the range of between 0 < DI < 1.0, shows some measure of the degree of damage. Park and Ang defined the relation between degree of damage and damage index as listed in table 2.
Table 2. Interpretation of damage index

Degree of damage Minor Moderate Severe collapse

Damage index 0.0-0.2 0.2-0.5 0.5-1.0 >1.0

State of structure Serviceable Reparable Irreparable Loss of building

DESCRIPTION OF ANALYZED BUILDING Building Description For the purpose of investigated, a seven story of steel frame, three bays is selected as shown in figure 2. The dimension of columns and beams are given in table 3. The uniform gravity load (dead load+live load) imposed to each floor assumed equal with magnitude of 28kN/m. Structural Analysis and Modeling The computer program ABAQUS was used to perform finite element analysis of the frame under seven scaled up of acceleration records in accordance with target spectrum reponse evaluated at fundamental period of T1. All beams and column were modeled as one dimensional element of the B21 beam element. For design purposes, connection between column and foundation were modeled as fixed support at ground level, where as beam column connection were assumed to be rigid. Steel material was assumed to have an elastic modulus of 200 Gpa, an yield stress of 250 Mpa. Engineering stress and stress was entered
4

Seminar dan Pameran HASTAG Hotel Grand Elite, Medan April, 25-27, 2013

and isotropic hardening model were specified in order to take into account inelastic behavior of the element. Non-linier geometry option was also turn on for account second order effect which relate to P-delta and buckling. In the dynamic analysis, Rayleigh damping was constructed through the first and the third mode of vibration were specified 5% of critical damping. Direct integration method using Newmark-Beta was applied to solve differential equation of motion.

4m 8m 6m

6x3.5 = 21m

8m

Figure 2. Seven story moment frame Table 2. Sizes of columns and beams

Story 1 Story 2 Story 3 Story 4 Story 5 Story 6 Story 7

Columns dimension Interior Exterior W460x286 W460x260 W460x260 W460x213 W460x235 W460x177 W460x193 W460x144 W460x158 W460x128 W460x128 W460x113 W460x113 W460x113

Beams dimension Interior Exterior W410x46 W410x67 W410x53 W410x75 W410x53 W410x75 W410x53 W410x75 W410x46 W410x67 W410x46 W410x67 W410x46 W410x67

ANALYSIS RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Analysis Results The important story drift have been widely regonized as indicator of seismic performance of building. Figure 3 and figure 4 showed floor drift and story drift respectively. Input energy and hysteretic energy demand are plotted in figure 5 and 6 for seven earthquake, while the capacity curve which showed base shear as function of roof displacement were displayed in figure 7. Initial yielding of building occurred first when roof displacement reach 18 cm at the base shear 5.8x105 N. In addition, it can be seen the roof displacement of 140 cm are realistic to define as maximum displacement. Thus, displacement ductility of building around 7.8 seems reasonable for ductile moment resisting frame. Finally, global damage index of building due to seven earthquakes were determined using equation 5 and results were listed in table 3.
5

Seminar dan Pameran HASTAG Hotel Grand Elite, Medan April, 25-27, 2013

7 6 5 Storey Level 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 2 Displacement (%) 3


TABAS LOMAPRIETA KOBE MANAGUA NORTHRIDGE PARKFIELD VICTORIA

Figure 3. Time history of Floor drift ratio

7 6 5 Storey Level 4 3 2 1 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Displacement (%) 2.5 3

LOMAPRIETA KOBE MANAGUA NORTHRIDGE PARKFIELD TABAS VICTORIA

Figure 4. Time history of Inter-story drift ratio

Seminar dan Pameran HASTAG Hotel Grand Elite, Medan April, 25-27, 2013

14 Energy (Nm)x105 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 10 20 30 Time (sec) 40


LOMAPRIETA KOBE MANAGUA NORTHRIDGE PARKFIELD TABAS VICTORI

Figure 5. Time history of Input Energy 8 7 Energy (Nm)x105 6


LOMAPRIETA

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 10 20 30 Time (sec) 40 50

KOBE MANAGUA NORTHRIDGE PARKFIELD TABAS VICTORI

Figure 6. Time history of Hysteretic Energy


12

Base Shear (N) x105

10 8 6 4 2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

uy =18cm Vy = 5.8x105 N

umax =140 cm

Displacement (m) Figure 7. The Capacity Curve


7

Seminar dan Pameran HASTAG Hotel Grand Elite, Medan April, 25-27, 2013

Table 3. Damage Index


Earthquake Loma Prieta Kobe Managua Northridge Parkfield Tabas Victoria Hysteretic Energy (Nm) 768583 267536 232767 153454 250808 189012 159724 Input Energy (Nm) 1365320 907822 708304 445051 931421 746619 449125 Damage Index >1.0 0.38 0.33 0.22 0.35 0.27 0.22 State of Structure

Collapse Reparable Reparable Reparable Reparable Reparable Reparable

Discussion From figure 4 and figure 5 showed the comparison floor drift and story drift of building corresponding to seven earthquakes . It should be noted that the drift vary with time as different modes dominate the responses, in spite of all gound acceleration have been matched to target spectrum. For the four largest story drift, Loma prieta showed the largest and follow by Tabas, Parkfield and Managua. In contrast, at the sixth and seventh floor, Tabas earthquake showed story drift which larger than Loma Prieta. The maximum floor drift and inter-story drift are 2.1% and 2.4% respectively which resulted by Loma Prieta. Based on story drift consideration, the investigated building showed seismic performance between damage control to collapse preThevention The input energy and hysteretic energy induced by earthquake as shown in figure 6 and figure 7. It can be seen that input energy and hysteretic energy do not showed correlation directly to story drift.It was noted that story drift under Tabas earthquake larger than Parkfield and Kobe earthquakes. These results contrary to input and hysteretic energy in which input energy and hysteretic energy due to Tabas earthquake smaller than Parkfield and Kobe earthquakes. However, Loma Prieta showed correlation between story drift and input energy or hysteretic energy in which Loma Prieta resulted the input energy, hysteretic energy and story drift higher compared to others earthquakes. Furthermore, damage index can be determined using equation 5 and the result were listed in table 3. It was found that the loss of story or building occurred during Loma Prieta earthquake, while the remain earthquakes caused the building in reparable state. It was also confirmed that story drift can not be used as good indicator of building seismic performance under severe earthquake. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The evaluation of building seismic performance under selected ground motion have been presented. Some conclusion can be drawn 1. Ground motion which matched to the spectrum response design do not always produce the similar response parameters of the building under consideration. Because of response of this building are not only influenced by building dynamic properties but also depend on ground motion characteristic, such as duration of motion, Frequency content and intensity of motion.

Seminar dan Pameran HASTAG Hotel Grand Elite, Medan April, 25-27, 2013

2. Input energy induced by earthquake generally are not always similar to the hysteretic energy. It was noted that input energy imparted to the building are not directly proportional to the energy absorbed by structural members through inelastic deformation of its material 3. Inter-story drift have been widely used as indicator of building performance are not accurately to predict the performance of building under seismic excitation, because of story drift itself are not directly correlated to damage measurement. 4. Hysteretic energy which correlated to seismic damage are useful parameter to predict damage index of building. However, in order to avoid time consuming during time history analysis, the simple procedures need to developed to estimate this energy accurately REFERENCES

1. Akbas, B.,2011, Damage-Based Design Earthquake Loads forSingle-Degree-OfFreedom Inelastic Structures, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 137(7), 456-467 2. Bojrquez, E., S. E. Ruiz and A. Tern-Gilmore, 2008. Reliability-based evaluation of steel structures using energy concepts, Engineering Structures 30 (6), 1745-1759. 3. Fajfar, P. (1992), Equivalent ductility factors taking into account low-cycle fatigue, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 21(10), 837-848. 4. Park, Y.J. and Ang, A.H. (1985), Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete, J. Struct. Eng. ASCE, 111(4), 740-757. 5. Park, Y. J., Ang, A. H.-S., and Wen, Y. K. (1987). Damage-limiting aseismic design of buildings. Earthquake Spectra, 3(1), 126. 6. Choi, H., and J. Kim, 2006. Energy-based seismic design of buckling-restrained braced frames using hysteretic energy spectrum, Engineering Structures 28, 304-311 7. Uang, C. M. and V. V. Bertero, 1990. Evaluation of seismic energy in structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 19, 77-90. 8. Kim J, Choi H., Behavior and design of structures with buckling-restrained braces,. Eng Struct 2004;26(6):93-706 9. Zahrah, T. F. and Hall, W. J. [1984] Earthquake energy absorption in SDOF structures, ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering 110(8), 17571772. 10. Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G. and Ramasco, R. [1993] The use of damage functionals in earthquake engineering: a comparison between different methods, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 22, 855868. 11. Manfredi, G. [2001] Evaluation of seismic energy demand, Earthquake Engineering andStructural Dynamics 30(4), 485499. 12. Tern-Gilmore, A. and Jirsa, J.O. (2007), Energy demands for seismic design against low-cycle fatigue,Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 36(3), 383-404.

S-ar putea să vă placă și