Application of Pushover Analysis to the Design of Structures Containing Dissipative Elements

Martin S. Williams1 and Denis E. Clment2

1 University

of Oxford, UK 2 Thomas Jundt Civil Engineers, Geneva, Switzerland

13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver, August 2004

Outline

Introduction to knee braced frames Modelling using Drain-2DX Five and ten-storey frame designs

Pushover and time-history analyses

Results Conclusions and future work

Introduction to knee braced frames (KBFs)

Seismic energy dissipated through hysteresis of short, replaceable knee elements:

Cross brace

Knee element

Knee elements can be designed to: Yield early, maximizing protection to main frame Yield in web shear rather than flexure Remain stable under large non-linear excursions

Modelling a knee element using Drain-2DX

An assemblage of standard truss and beam elements was used to represent observed shear, flexural and axial behaviour:

Brace Brace

Short cantilever shear stiffness

Connecting bracket

Knee element

Connection stiffness

Truss element axial stiffness Beam element flexural stiffness

Rigid offset

Hysteresis response of model

Element properties chosen semi-empirically Comparison with full-scale cyclic test data:
600

300

Force (kN)

-300 Physical test Drain-2DX -600 -20 -10 0 Deflection (mm) 10 20

Frame designs
Designed to EC8, PGA = 0.35g Five-storey frame designed as KBF:
PLAN:
Knee braced bay

Ten-storey frame designed as ductile MRF, then retrofitted:

PLAN:
6m

ELEVATION:
4m 4m 4m 4m 4m 4m

5.2m

6m

5.2m

5.2m

5.2m

5.2m

6m

ELEVATION:
3m 3m 3m 3m 3m

6m

6m

6m

4m

4m

4m

4m

Pushover analysis
F

EC 8:
modal and uniform load patterns simplify pushover curve to elastic-perfectly plastic

FEMA 356:
other load patterns (e.g. adaptive) permitted, but not used here simplify to bi-linear with post-yield stiffness equal to initial stiffness

ATC 40: capacity spectrum method Modal pushover (Chopra and Goel, 2002):
combine results of pushovers using first few modal load patterns

Time history analyses

30 time-histories generated using SIMQKE Compatible with EC8 Type 1 spectrum, soil type C Analysed using DRAIN-2DX (Newmark implicit integration scheme)

Typical EC8 spectrum-compatible time history

1

Comparison with EC8 spectrum, TH1-5

Accn (g)

0.5 0 -0.5 -1 0 5 10 15 20

EC8 TH1 TH2

Acceleration (g)

TH3 TH4 TH5

Time (s)
0 0 1 Period (s) 2 3

Pushover curves

Results shown for 5-storey frame Post-yield stiffness ~16% of elastic stiffness As a result, EC8 under-estimates initial stiffness

1500

Modal load pattern

1500

Uniform load pattern

Force [kN]

1000

Force [kN]

1000

500

Pushover EC8 FEMA356

500

Pushover EC8 FEMA356

0 0 50 100 Displacement [mm] 150

0 0 50 100 Displacement [mm] 150

Estimated roof displacements

10-storey KBF

EC8 Modal EC8 Uniform FEMA Modal

10-storey MRF

FEMA Uniform ATC Modal ATC Uniform Multi-modal

5-storey KBF

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

Roof disp from pushover Mean roof disp from TH analyses

Element yielding
In 5-storey frame, all knee elements yielded and all main elements remained elastic under design earthquake In 10-storey retrofitted frame, limited plasticity occurred in main frame under design earthquake e.g. 5-storey frame - EC8 pushover analysis under modal loading:
0.15g 0.35g 0.5g

Yielded knee element

Plastic hinge

Element yielding
5-storey frame EC8 pushover analysis under uniform loading:
0.15g 0.35g 0.5g

Yielded knee element

Plastic hinge

Time history analyses:

first knee element yield at around 0.08g no hinges in main frame elements below 0.56g

Inter-storey drifts under design earthquake

5-storey KBF
EC 8
5 5

FEMA 356
5

ATC 40

Storey

Storey

Storey
0 0.5 1

0 0 0.5 1

0 0 0.5 1

Storey drift (%)

Storey drift (%)

Storey drift (%)

Time history analysis: Pushover analysis:

Mean Uniform

Mean +/- st. dev. Modal

Inter-storey drifts under design earthquake

10-storey MRF (i.e. before retrofit):

EC8
10 9 8 7 6 10 9 8 7 6

FEMA 356
10 9 8 7 6

ATC 40
10 9 8 7 6

Modal Pushover

Storey

Storey

Storey

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 Drift (%) 2

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 Drift (%) 2

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 Drift (%) 2

Storey

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 Drift (%) 2

Time history analysis: Pushover analysis:

Mean Uniform

Mean +/- st. dev. Modal

Inter-storey drifts under design earthquake

10-storey KBF (i.e. after retrofit with knee elements):

EC8
10 9 8 7 6 10 9 8 7 6

FEMA 356
10 9 8 7 6

ATC 40
10 9 8 7 6

Modal Pushover

Storey

Storey

Storey

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 Drift (%) 2

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 Drift (%) 2

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 Drift (%) 2

Storey

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 1 Drift (%) 2

Time history analysis: Pushover analysis:

Mean Uniform

Mean +/- st. dev. Modal

Conclusions

A Drain-2DX knee element model capable of representing shear, flexural and axial behaviour has been developed and validated. Pushover analyses of 5 and10-storey knee braced frames showed that they possess high ductility (~6) and post-yield stiffness (~16%). In time-history analyses, knee elements began to yield at just 0.08g but remained stable up to 0.56g. Use of pushover analysis does not necessarily lead to optimal design. Multi-modal pushover offers some advantages in this respect. In comparison with time-history analyses, FEMA 356 pushover approach gave most consistent results, EC8 approach appears highly conservative for this type of structure.