2017 05 31 SEAONC Spring Seminar V4

ATC 114 – Nonlinear Analysis Guidelines May 31, 2017
Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural

Analysis and Design of Buildings
Curt Haselton, PhD, PE

Greg Deierlein, PhD, PE
and the ATC 114 Team
SEAONC Spring Seminar

San Francisco, May 31, 2017
Presentation Outline
• Scope and background
• Organization of the Guidelines
• Part I: General Modeling Requirements

(including approach to modeling cyclic damage)
• Part IIa: Steel Frame Building Modeling
• Part IIb: RC Frame Building Modeling
• Illustrative Example
SEAONC Spring Seminar 1

Scope/Focus for Modeling Guidelines

• Support primarily nonlinear dynamic analyses
(monotonic backbone curve and then cyclic
deterioration).
• Modeling vs. acceptance criteria:

• ATC-114 focuses on modeling guidelines.
• Rely on parent document (e.g., ASCE 7 Chp. 16) for the needed
acceptance criteria checks and associated hazard levels.
• Adopt a reliability framework. Write the approach around

the ASCE 7-16 draft Chapter 16, provide guidance on
variability numbers.
• Audience: Practicing engineers with ~Master’s education
ATC-114 Project Team

• Project Technical Committee – Steel: • Applied Technology Council
Greg Deierlein (Project Director) Jon A. Heintz (Program Manager)
Stephen Bono Ayse Hortacsu (Associate
James Malley Program Manager)
Silvia Mazzoni Veronica Cedillos (Associate
Chia-Ming Uang Project Manager)
plus Dimitrios Lignos & Amit Kanvinde
• National Institute of Standards
and Technology (NIST)
• Project Technical Committee – RC: Project Funding & Review
Curt Haselton (Project Director) Steven McCabe
Wassim Ghannoum Jay Harris
Mahmoud Hachem Siamak Sattar
John Hooper Matthew Speicher
Santiago Pujol Kevin Wong
Plus - project review panel and other contributors listed in reports

5
Reference Documents
NIST Seismic Design Tech Brief 4: Nonlinear
Structural Analysis for Seismic Design
• General guidance on using nonlinear analysis for
design
• Focus on high-level goals and objectives
• Overview of key concepts and assumptions
• Summary of modeling capabilities and resources
• Guidance on NL static & dynamic analysis
PEER/ATC 72-1: Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for

Seismic Design and Analysis (2010)
• General Nonlinear Modeling
• Steel and RC Moment Frame Components
• Shear Walls and Slab-Column Frames
• Podium Diaphragms and Collectors
6
Reference Documents
PEER Tall Building Initiative:
• 2010 (2017) guidelines
• Supporting documents - http://peer.berkeley.edu/tbi/
LA Tall Buildings Structural Design Council:

• 2011 guidelines
• Annual conference
• Special provisions for RC structures
Guideline Documents
• Performance Objectives
• Design Process and Documentation
• Seismic Input and Modeling Criteria
• Service Level Evaluation
• MCE Level Evaluation
• Documentation and Peer Review

7
Reference Documents
ASCE 7-16 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings
• Chapter 16 – Seismic Response History Procedures
• Emphasis on nonlinear dynamic analysis
• Analyses and checks for MCE levels
• Selection and scaling ground motions (UHS or CMS)
• Risk/probabilistic basis for demand and acceptance criteria:
- Deformation-controlled components
- Force-controlled components
ASCE 41-13 (17) Seismic Evaluation & Retrofit of Existing Buildings

• General performance assessment framework (IO, LS, CP)
• Requirements for assessing properties of existing buildings
• Structural component modeling parameters and acceptance
criteria
• Nonlinear static (pushover) analysis procedure
ATC 114: How it is Expected to be Used
ATC-114 provides guidelines for nonlinear modeling

to support design in accordance with other standards

ATC 114: Organization of Guidelines
Part I: General Guidelines
Part IIa: Part IIb: Part IIc: Part IId:

Guidelines Guidelines Guidelines Guidelines
Specific to
Steel
Specific to
RC
Specific to Specific to
Steel Braced
…
RC
Moment Moment Shear Walls Frames
Frames Frames
10

Part I: General Part II: System Specific
1. Introduction and Scope 1. Introduction and Scope
2. Overview of NL Modeling and 2. Structural Behavior and
Analysis Procedure Failure Modes
3. General Modeling 3. NL Modeling of Frames &
Requirements Components
4. Nonlinear Static (Pushover) 4. Concentrated Hinge Models
5. Nonlinear Response-History 5. Fiber-Type Beam-Column
6. Performance Assessment and Models
Acceptance Criteria 6. Continuum FE Component
Appendices Models
A: Overview of Methods for RHA Appendices
B: Consideration of Uncertainties A: Non-ductile frames
C: Calibration of Nonlinear B: Illustrative Examples

Component Models

11
Types of Nonlinear Analysis Models
12
Types of Nonlinear Analysis Models
Concentrated Hinge
Fiber-Type Elements

13
Basic Requirements
• Expected Properties
• materials
• model parameters
• mass
• gravity loads (1.0D + 0.5L)
• Geometric Nonlinear (P-D) Effects
• Structural Behavior and Failure Modes

• “simulated” vs “non-simulated” effects
• influence of non-structural components
14
Modeling Approach for Cyclic Loading
𝑄
Typical Approach: ASCE 41
type curve that implicitly
incorporates cyclic deterioration
D or Q

15
Continue the same cyclic pattern
15
(see Table 2) until lateral
resistance of the specimen
degrades to 20% or less of the
10 peak resistance exhibited during
the test in both directions
Drift Ratio *102

5 1/3 of 0.2% = 0.067%
0
Cycles
0 10
-5
-10
-15
Pause for telepresence digital still images
Additional images upon large drifts

(see Table 2) until complete the
4.375% and subsequent 1.458%
Collapse-Level Protocol
drift ratios then start monotonic
loading in both directions. 9
1/3 of 0.2% = 0.067%
8
7 Start monotonic loading in both
6
directions.
Column Drift Ratio (%)

(see Table 2) until complete the
2.75% and subsequent 0.917% 5
drift ratios then start monotonic
loading in both directions. 4

1/3 of 0.2% = 0.067%
3

2
1 Starting from this point on taking
0 pictures every one inch.
-1
Pause for telepresence digital still images -2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Nojavan et al., 2014
16

17
18

19
150
100
50
Force (kN)
-50
-100 Monotonic
Cyclic Loading
Cyclic Envelope
-150
-100 0 100 200
Displacement (mm)
Ingham et al., 2001
20
Suzuki and Lignos, 2015

21
Suzuki and Lignos, 2015
22
6000 Monotonic
Curve
Beam End Moment [kips-in]
4000
First-Cycle
Envelope
2000
Extrapolation
0
Extrapolation
-2000
-4000
-6000
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
Chord Rotation θ [rad]
(Tremblay et al. 1997, ATC-72-1)

23
𝑄 Δ#%
Δ#
Δ∗# Δ∗#%
𝑄&
𝑄&∗
𝑄*
response is
typically monotonic
between and envelope
depends on
𝐾( ASCE 41 loading-history
𝑄)∗
first-cycle
envelope
D or Q
24
300
Experimental Results cyclic (between cycles)
Model Prediction
200
Shear Force (kN)
100
in-cycle
0
Test 170 (kN, mm, rad):

-100 θy = 0.0131
θstf 40 = 0.0012
My = 3.462725e+005 kN-mm
Mc /My = 1.21
-200 θcap,pl = 0.060 (LB = 0)
θpc = 0.225
λ = 81, c = 1.00
isPDeltaRemoved = 1
-300
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
Column Drift (displacement/height)
!

25
26
Type A – DIRECT SIMULATION :

Cyclic and in-cycle degradation explicitly modeled
during analysis; backbone curve hardens/softens as a
function of damage (e.g., Ibarra-Krawinkler)
Type B – DEGRADED BACKBONE:

Post-peak capping and cyclic degradation modeled with
fixed backbone curve that remains fixed during analysis;
backbone curve is defined based on measured (data) or
assumed cyclic softening (e.g., ASCE 41)
Type C – ELASTIC-PLASTIC:
Model captures cyclic degradation, but post-peak
softening is not modeled; an ultimate limit state is
imposed to avoid unconservative analyses in post-peak
realm.

27

Part I: General
1. Introduction and Scope
2. Overview of NL Modeling and
Analysis Procedure
3. General Modeling
Requirements
4. Nonlinear Static (Pushover)
5. Nonlinear Response-History
6. Performance Assessment and
Acceptance Criteria
Appendices
A: Overview of Methods for RHA
B: Consideration of Uncertainties
C: Calibration of Nonlinear
Component Models
28

Part I: General - Chapter 3
1. General Guidelines
2. Seismic Mass
3. Gravity Loads
4. Geometric Nonlinearities
5. Material Properties
6. Floor Diaphragms and Collectors
7. Equivalent Viscous Damping
8. Torsion
9. Foundation Modeling
10. Soil-Structure Interaction
11. Gravity Framing Systems
12. Non-Modeled Building Stiffness
13. Residual Drifts

29
Diaphragms, Collectors & Distributors
Discontinuous Shear
Wall (Lateral System)
30
Energy Dissipation and Damping
Is energy dissipation explicitly modeled or approximated by
equivalent viscous damping?

31
32
PEER TBI v.2: 2.5% for MCE
Ref: Cruz & Miranda, 2016; Bernal et al., 2015

33

Part I: General
2. Overview of NL Modeling and
Analysis Procedure
3. General Modeling
Requirements
4. Nonlinear Static (Pushover)
5. Nonlinear Response-History
6. Performance Assessment and
Acceptance Criteria
Appendices
A: Overview of Methods for RHA
B: Consideration of Uncertainties
C: Calibration of Nonlinear
Component Models
34
Part I: Acceptance Criteria
§ So far, we have talked about doing a lot of detailed
nonlinear modeling.
§ Structural responses do not tell us about performance
until to compare with the acceptance criteria.
§ The acceptance criteria will depend on what document
is being used to govern the design.

35
Will give examples

from ASCE7-16
here.
36
§ Big Focus of ASCE 7-16 Chapter 16 Revision:

Develop acceptance criteria more clearly tied to the
ASCE7 safety goals.
§ Explicit Goal: Acceptable collapse probability.

§ Implicit Verification Approach: Use average structural
responses (with 11 motions) to show compliance.

37
38
ASCE 7-16: Uncertainties considered in specified acceptance

criteria, including demand & capacity factors

39
§ Force-controlled (brittle) components:
2.0 𝐼( 𝐹& ≤ 𝐹( for “critical” (comparable to PEER-TBI-v1)

1.5 𝐼( 𝐹& ≤ 𝐹( for “ordinary” Contrast: Much more
1.0 𝐼( 𝐹& ≤ 𝐹( for “non-critical” (judgment) that the average-
stringent
based approach that could be
F = mean demand (from 11 motions) used in ASCE 41.
u
Fe = expected strength
Critical = failure causes immediate global collapse
Ordinary = failure causes local collapse (one bay)
Non-critical = failure does not cause collapse
40
§ Deformation-controlled (ductile) components:

1) Limits applied to mean demands:
ü ASCE 41 Limit: CP / Ie
ü Loss in Vertical Load Carrying Capacity:
fs DLVCC where fs is equal to
0.3 / Ie critical
0.5 / Ie ordinary
2) Limits of analysis model for peak demands
from individual ground motions

41
§ Drift limits:
• Mean drift ≤ 2.0*(normal limit)
• The factor of two comes from:
ü 1.5 = MCE / DBE
ü 1.25 = Approx. ratio of R / Cd
ü 1.1 = A little extra because we trust NL RHA
more
42
§ Treatment of “collapses” and “unacceptable responses”:
• Past Treatment in ASCE7-10: Nothing but silence….
• ASCE7-16 Criteria:
ü Basic Case: Allow up to 1/11 “collapses” but not 2/11.
ü With Spectral Matching: Require 0/11 collapses.
ü For Risk Categories III-IV: Require 0/11 collapses.
§ “Collapses” are more generally called “unacceptable
responses” and include:
• True dynamic instability,
• Analytical solution fails to converge,
• Deformation-controlled demands exceed valid modeling range,
• Critical/ordinary force-controlled demands exceed capacity,
• Predicted deformation demands on elements not modeled
exceed the deformations at gravity load failure.

43

44
Part IIa – Steel SMF

2. Structural Behavior and
Failure Modes
3. NL Modeling of Frames &
Components
4. Concentrated Hinge Models
5. Fiber-Type Beam-Column
Models
6. Continuum FE Component
Models
Appendices
A: Pre-Northridge Steel SMF
B: Illustrative Example
Photo: D. Lignos

45
Part IIa: Steel
Expected Behavior:
• Deterioration modes
• Likelihood of occurence
46
Part IIa: Steel
Concentrated Hinge
Continuum FEM Fiber-Type Elements

47
Connection Panel Zone
Panel Zone Shear Demand
48

ANSI/AISC 360 Section J10.6
Initial Yield Strength
Panel Zone Shear Response

49
Panel Zone – NL Models
< Vy
Vy =
Panel Zone – Elastic Models
50
Beam Hinge Model
Type A – Direct Simulation
Idealized Envelope Curve Parameters

Monotonic vs. Cyclic Backbone
Type B – Degraded Backbone

51
Deteriorating Beam Hinge Model

Qcap
200
Experimental Results
Model Prediction
K-
150
100
50
Shear Force (kN)

0
-50 Test 19 (kN, mm, rad):
K = 3.1779e+007
e
K = 7.4024e+007
init
-100 as = 0.02
ac = -0.04 (ND = 1)
qy = 0.0091
qcap,pl = 0.069 (LB = 1)
q = 0.116 (LB = 1)
-150 u,mono,pl
l = 85, c = 1.20
isPDeltaRemoved = 1
-200
-100 -50 0 50 100 150
Column Top Horizontal Deflection (mm)
Semi-Empirical -- calibrated from Empirical - calibrated from tests:

tests, fiber analyses, and
mechanics: • Capping (peak) point
• Secant Stiffness (EIeff) • Post-peak unloading (strain

softening) stiffness
• Yield Strength (My)
• Hysteretic stiffness/strength
• Hardening Stiffness degradation
52
Monotonic Backbone
• measured from monotonic tests
• inferred from cyclic data
(e.g., calibration with Ibarra-
Krawinkler model in OpenSees)
4
x10
2
MMax
Beam End Moment, M [kip-in]
90%MMax
1.5 80%MMax
1 First-Cycle Envelope
0.5
Δ ‘’cap,pl Δ ‘’pc
• measured from symmetric cyclic
0
Data
tests
-0.5
-1
First-Cycle Envelope
M
• tri-linear envelope parameters
Max
-1.5
90%M
Max based on Mmax
80%M
Max
-2
-0.05 0 0.05 0.1
Chord Rotation, θ [rad]

53

Strength Parameters Mu
M*y
M y* = 1.1⋅ Ry ⋅ Z RBS ⋅ Fy,n Cyclic skeleton
(RBS Connection)
u COVs = 0.1
Ke
Mr
Deformation Parameters
θu
θcap,pl’ θpc'
COV = 0.4
COV = 0.3
COV = 0.3 (Suzuki and Lignos 2015)
54

qp
monotonic
Pre-Peak Plastic Rotation, qp

cyclic
skeleton
Statistically fit to ~ 50 tests

55
W30x108 W27x147 (stocky)
Illustrative Examples of New Model Calibrations
(Suzuki and Lignos 2015)
56
Composite Beam Effects

57
Composite Beam Effects
Bare Steel Beam
Composite Beam Action

• detailing considerations (studs, bearing
strength, slab reinforcement)
• increased strength
• reduced deterioration Composite Beam
58
Steel Columns: Test Data
Elkady and Lignos, 2015

Ozkula and Uang, 2015

59
Columns: Effects of Loading Protocol

600
Monotonic
Column End Moment [kN-m]

400 Curve
200
First-Cycle
0
Envelope
-200
-400
-600
-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2
Chord Rotation θ [rad]
(Suzuki and Lignos 2015)
60
Steel Columns: FEM Analyses

S. Mises
S4R Shell Element [ksi]
bf /150
thickness
Local d /150
0.15Fy
15’ sesiM .S
0.3F
]isk[ ASTM (2003)
y
0.073Fy bf
bf /150
1”x1” Global
H /1000
Measured d d /150
AISC 360-10
Meshing Residual Stresses Imperfections
Source: Elkady and Lignos (2015)

61
Steel Columns: FEM Analyses

0
2000
Axial Displacement [mm]

1000 -50
M x [kN.m]
0 -100
-1000
Expr. Data -150
-2000 FEA
Expr. Data
FEA
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 -200
True Rotation 3 x [rad] -0.05 0 0.05
True Rotation, 3 [rad]
x
Source: Elkady and Lignos (2015)
62
Columns:
SYM-20
Hinge Model Calibration
3.5%
Plastic Rotation θp [rad]
3.0%
2.5%
2.0%
7.0%
1.5% 6.0%
1.0%
5.0%
0.5%
0.0% 4.0%
0 20 40 60 80
3.0%
Web Local Slenderness, h/tw
SYM-20 2.0%
3.5%
1.0%
3.0%
2.5% 0.0%
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60
2.0%
1.5% Compressive Axial Load Ratio, P/Py
1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Flange Local Slenderness, bf/2tf
Elkady and Lignos (2015)
Ozkula and Uang (2015)

63
Columns: Hinge Model Calibration

Mu*
M*y
Ke
M*r
Θu*
Θp* Θpc*
Elkady and Lignos (2015); calibrated to 50 tests & 400 FE analyses
64
Gravity Beam (Shear Tab) Connections
Based on Liu and Astaneh-Asl (2004)

65
Gravity Beam (Shear Tab) Connections
Based on Liu and Astaneh-Asl (2004)
66
Steel: Appendix on PN Connections

Fracture Mechanics Based Stress Limits for Fiber Cross Section Model
(bottom)
(top)

67
Steel: Appendix on PN Connections

Strain limit for fracture critical (pre-Northridge) connections that
pass the stress check:
= 1 (bottom flange); 2 (top flange)
= beam depth
Plastic Rotation (rad)
Calibration of fiber hinge

model to test data
Beam depth (inch)
Data from Ramirez, Lignos, Miranda, Kolios 2012
68


69
Part IIb: Concrete
Concentrated Hinge
Fiber-Type Elements
70
RC Beam-Column Hinge Models

71
Key Response Parameters:

• strength
• initial stiffness
• post-yield stiffness
• plastic rotation (capping) capacity
• post-capping slope
• cyclic deterioration rate
Calibration Process:
• 250+ columns (PEER database)
• flexure & flexure-shear dominant
• calibrated to expected values
72

120
Kstf Ky
100
Fy
80
Force (kN)
60
40
0.4Fy
20
θstf_40 θy
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
Chord Rotation (rad)

73
Qcap
Key Design/Detailing Variables:

rsh – amount of steel stirrups
n – axial load ratio (P/Ag f’c)
sn – tie spacing
asl – joint bond slip
ATC-114: Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural

Dispersion:
74
q pc = (0.76)(0.031)v (0.02 + 40rsh )1.02 £ 0.10
Haselton, et al. (2008)

75
ATC-114
Comparison of qp,cyclic and ”a”
ASCE 41 (2008, 2013)
76
ATC-114
Comparison of (qp+ qpc)cyclic and ”b”
ASCE 41 (2008, 2013)

77
RC Fiber Models
78
RC Fiber Models

79
RC Fiber Models
80
RC Fiber Models
Adapted from Ghannoum

and Moehle, 2012

81

82
Illustrative Example - Steel SMF
5-Story Steel Frame Building

• SMF with RBS connections
• Seismic Design Category D
SM1 = 1g; T1 = 1.1s (1.6s)
R=8; Cs = 0.07
MRSA design (ASCE 7-10)
SDRmax = 1.6%
• Irregularity
setback at 4-th floor
vertical irregularity in mass,
stiffness & strength
1-bay offset of SMF
1 discontinuous column
• NLRHA with PERFORM 3D

83
Flowchart of
Analysis Approach
84
PERFORM 3D Model
Gravity Framing
SMF Framing Lines
5% is used where V exceeds 0.5Vn

Diaphragm Model

85
Illustrative Example - Steel SMF
Input Ground Motions

• ASCE 7-16
• MCEr (UHS) Target
• 11 pairs of GM, representing
characteristic earthquakes
(causal features)
• Period Range 0.2T1 to 2T1
(T1 = 1.6s)
86
Acceptance Criteria – Deformation Controlled

87
Acceptance Criteria – Force Controlled
88
Story Drifts - MCEr

89
Story Drifts – Influence of Gravity Framing
+0.2 (+6%)
-0.2 (-13%)
PR Gravity Connections Pin-Connected Connections
90
Hinge Rotations - MCEr
Beam Hinge, q Column Base Hinge, q

91
PZ Rotations - MCEr
Fifth Floor GL 3A PZ
Panel Zones
0.022
• Design intentionally violated AISC
341 PZ strength requirements
• 10% of non-conforming PZ
exceeded the fracture control limit
gPZ, limit & gPZ, Alt
gCP ASCE/SEI 41-17 Mean

of gp,z < 0.015 rad
Elevation (ft)
TH11
Floor
TH10 52
5
TH9
TH8 • Conforming PZ all had minimal
deformations
TH7
TH6
TH5
TH4
TH3
TH2
TH1
0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0%

PZ Shear Strain (radians)
PZ at Critical Location, g
kink
92
Frame Overstrength
North South Story Shear North South Overturning Moment
896 65 11,638
65
5 5
52 52
947 21,339
4
4 1.7x larger than W/R 2.2x larger than W/R
39 39
1,180 71,538
Elevation (ft)
Mean
Elevation (ft)
TH11
(R=8, W=3)
Story
Story
(R=8)
DBE
TH10 3
DBE
3
TH9
TH8
TH7
26 26
1,293 TH6
83,352
TH5
(R=8)
DBE
2
TH4
2
TH3
TH2
TH1
13 13
1,690 97,687
(R=8, W=3)
DBE
1 1
0 0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 0 25000 50000 75000 100000 125000 150000
Story Shear (kips) Story Moment (k-ft)
Shear in Frames Overturning Moment in Frames

93
Influence of Diaphragm Stiffness
Frame Layout Shear in Frames
• Diaphragm at floor 4 considered critical, so force demand is

multiplied by 2. Load factor of 1.5 used at other floors.
• Transfer level: Vu = 7.4 and 7.6 klf (for 5% and 30% stiffness)
• Other levels Vu = 7.5 klf to 2.6 klf
• Even rigid diaphragm did not make much difference in this case.
94
Illustrative Example - Summary

1) Prescriptive SMF Design (R=8) evaluated by NLRHA
2) Story Drift: mean 3.3%<4%; peak 6.2% okay
3) Deformation Limits
• RBS hinge okay
• PZ – exceed limits, but would be okay for AISC conforming
design
4) Other Limit States
• Gravity Connection Rotations (0.037 < 0.10 to 0.09)
• Force checks not presented, but should be confirmed,
especially given the high overstrength
5) ASCE 7-16 deformation limits (with f-factors) are more
conservative of ASCE 41 CP limits
6) Results are not overly sensitive to diaphragm stiffness,
gravity framing, composite beam action

95
Concluding Remarks
1) Nonlinear response history analysis is an effective tool to
inform design, but it should not replace good design
• reliable load paths and details
• capacity design
• well-behaved response
2) Develop clear objectives for the analysis (basis of design)
• acceptance criteria
• demand parameters
3) Quality assurance
• utilization of elastic and nonlinear static analyses
• selective plots of response quantities
• sensitivity analyses
• selected validation with test data
4) Effective presentation of results
96
More to come …
Part I: General Guidelines
Part IIa: Part IIb: Part IIc: Part IId:

Guidelines Guidelines Guidelines Guidelines
Specific to
Steel
Specific to
RC
Specific to Specific to
Steel Braced
…
RC
Moment Moment Shear Walls Frames
Frames Frames
ATC-114: Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural


2017 05 31 SEAONC Spring Seminar V4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2017 05 31 SEAONC Spring Seminar V4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2017 05 31 SEAONC Spring Seminar V4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATC 114 – Nonlinear Analysis Guidelines May 31, 2017

Guidelines for Nonlinear Structural

Curt Haselton, PhD, PE

SEAONC Spring Seminar

• Organization of the Guidelines

• Part I: General Modeling Requirements

• Part IIa: Steel Frame Building Modeling

• Part IIb: RC Frame Building Modeling

SEAONC Spring Seminar 1

Scope/Focus for Modeling Guidelines

• Modeling vs. acceptance criteria:

• Adopt a reliability framework. Write the approach around

• Audience: Practicing engineers with ~Master’s education

ATC-114 Project Team

Plus - project review panel and other contributors listed in reports

SEAONC Spring Seminar 2

PEER/ATC 72-1: Modeling and Acceptance Criteria for

LA Tall Buildings Structural Design Council:

SEAONC Spring Seminar 3

ASCE 41-13 (17) Seismic Evaluation & Retrofit of Existing Buildings

ATC 114: How it is Expected to be Used

ATC-114 provides guidelines for nonlinear modeling

SEAONC Spring Seminar 4

ATC 114: Organization of Guidelines

Part I: General Guidelines

Part IIa: Part IIb: Part IIc: Part IId:

ATC 114: Organization of Guidelines

A: Overview of Methods for RHA Appendices

B: Consideration of Uncertainties A: Non-ductile frames

C: Calibration of Nonlinear B: Illustrative Examples

SEAONC Spring Seminar 5

SEAONC Spring Seminar 6

• Geometric Nonlinear (P-D) Effects

• Structural Behavior and Failure Modes

SEAONC Spring Seminar 7

Drift Ratio *102

Pause for telepresence digital still images

Additional images upon large drifts

Continue the same cyclic pattern

Column Drift Ratio (%)

Pause for telepresence digital still images

Additional images upon large drifts

Pause for telepresence digital still images

Nojavan et al., 2014

Nojavan et al., 2014

SEAONC Spring Seminar 8

Nojavan et al., 2014

Nojavan et al., 2014

SEAONC Spring Seminar 9

Ingham et al., 2001

Suzuki and Lignos, 2015

SEAONC Spring Seminar 10

Suzuki and Lignos, 2015

(Tremblay et al. 1997, ATC-72-1)

SEAONC Spring Seminar 11

Test 170 (kN, mm, rad):

SEAONC Spring Seminar 12

Type A – DIRECT SIMULATION :