Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 49

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS, MODELING, AND DESIGN OF A

REINFORCED CONCRETE AFGHAN SCHOOL UNDER SEVERE


EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS
_______________
A Thesis
Presented to the
Faculty of
San Diego State University
_______________
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Science
in
Civil Engineering
_______________
by
Mohammad Zekria
Fall 2011
iii
Copyright 2011
by
Mohammad Zekria
All Rights Reserved
iv
DEDICATION
First and foremost, I would like to dedicate this thesis to my creator without whom
any achievements in my life would have not been possible. It is also dedicated to my father,
Mir Hashem, and my family who has always been supportive throughout my career.
v
ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS
Structural Analysis, Modeling, and Design of a Reinforced
Concrete Afghan School Under Severe Earthquake Motions
by
Mohammad Zekria
Master of Science in Civil Engineering
San Diego State University, 2011
Research has revealed essential findings related to the seismic response of typical
new school buildings designed and built in Afghanistan. The buildings have a reinforced
concrete (RC) frame and unreinforced brick walls that are not connected to the frame or to
each other. Nonlinear time-history analyses were conducted on a detailed model of a portion
of a prototype building structure. The model allowed for plastic hinging at girder ends and
sliding of the walls relative to the remaining structure. It also recognized that compression
can be transferred from the walls to the frame members, but in tension they move apart and
form a gap. A total of 10 measured earthquake motions were selected and scaled to
maximum credible earthquake (MCE) levels for the highest seismic regions in California. All
of the MCE motions were applied in the longitudinal, transverse and diagonal directions,
resulting in 30 nonlinear time-history analyses of the Afghan building.
In separate analyses the model walls were prevented to slide relative to the frame
members, and this represented the same structure designed to California and US standards. In
addition, time-history analyses were conducted of the RC frame acting alone to better
understand how the building would respond if all the walls and roof have collapsed.
This thesis explores essential information regarding the prototype structure, idealized
structure and earthquake motions. It also gives comparisons between Afghan-designed and
US-designed buildings. The primary finding was that seismic loading of school buildings
designed in Afghanistan, without connections between the walls and frame, and without
reinforcement within the walls, cause walls to separate from the remaining structure and will
likely lead to complete failure and collapse of the walls.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ABSTRACT...............................................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................x
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................1
2 PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE........................................................................................3
2.1 Geometry............................................................................................................3
2.2 Material Properties.............................................................................................3
2.3 Column and Girder Capacities...........................................................................5
2.4 Wall Capacity and Stiffness...............................................................................9
3 IDEALIZED STRUCTURES......................................................................................10
3.1 Geometry..........................................................................................................10
3.2 Pushover Analysis of the Frame ......................................................................11
3.3 Loading Direction ............................................................................................11
3.4 Connection Details...........................................................................................12
4 EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS.......................................................................................17
4.1 Selected Motions..............................................................................................17
4.2 Envelope Scaling Method................................................................................21
4.3 Scaled Motions.................................................................................................21
5 ANALYSIS RESULTS ...............................................................................................26
5.1 Afghan Building Design ..................................................................................26
5.2 US Building Design .........................................................................................36
6 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .....................................................................................37
7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................38
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................39
vii
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
Table 2.1. Moment Curvature Analysis.....................................................................................6
Table 4.1. Measure Earthquake Records used in Nonlinear Time-History Analysis ..............20
Table 4.2. Acceleration and Scale Factors...............................................................................21
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
Figure 1.1. Typical brick wall under construction. ....................................................................2
Figure 2.1. Floor plan and dimensioning of typical school considered. ....................................3
Figure 2.2. Section details of beams. .........................................................................................4
Figure 2.3. Stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel................................................................4
Figure 2.4. Moment-curvature analysis of girder cross-section. ...............................................7
Figure 2.5. Flexure behavior. .....................................................................................................7
Figure 3.1. Floor plan and dimensioning of idealized school..................................................10
Figure 3.2 Frame geometry and dead load for pushover analysis. ..........................................11
Figure 3.3. Frame of idealized structure. .................................................................................13
Figure 3.4. Frame and walls of idealized structure. .................................................................13
Figure 3.5. Idealized structure from below. .............................................................................14
Figure 3.6. Gap elements between walls and frames...............................................................14
Figure 3.7. Nonlinear gap, friction and plastic hinge elements. ..............................................15
Figure 4.1. Earthquake LJT3. ..................................................................................................17
Figure 4.2 .Earthquake LPSJ1. ................................................................................................17
Figure 4.3. Earthquake LPSJ3. ................................................................................................18
Figure 4.4. Earthquake NRPK1. ..............................................................................................18
Figure 4.5. Earthquake NRPK3. ..............................................................................................18
Figure 4.6. Earthquake NRSM.................................................................................................19
Figure 4.7. Earthquake NRUC1...............................................................................................19
Figure 4.8. Earthquake NRUC3...............................................................................................19
Figure 4.9. Earthquake LJT3. ..................................................................................................20
Figure 4.10. Earthquake PARK. ..............................................................................................20
Figure 4.11. Target and earthquake spectra after scaling. .......................................................22
Figure 4.12. Earthquake LJT3 scaled. .....................................................................................23
Figure 4.13. Earthquake LPSJ1 scaled. ...................................................................................23
Figure 4.14. Earthquake LPSJ3 scaled. ...................................................................................23
ix
Figure 4.15. Earthquake NRPK1 scaled. .................................................................................24
Figure 4.16. Earthquake NRPK3 scaled. .................................................................................24
Figure 4.17. Earthquake NRSM scaled....................................................................................24
Figure 4.18. Earthquake NRUC1 scaled..................................................................................25
Figure 4.19. Earthquake NRUC3 scaled..................................................................................25
Figure 4.20. Earthquake PARK scaled. ...................................................................................25
Figure 4.21. Earthquake PSD3 scaled......................................................................................25
Figure 5.1. Deformations under diagonal loading. ..................................................................26
Figure 5.2. Deformations under X direction loading. ..............................................................26
Figure 5.3. Deformations under Y direction loading. ..............................................................27
Figure 5.4. Acceleration at top of column in X direction, diagonal loading. ..........................28
Figure 5.5. Acceleration at top of column in Y direction, diagonal loading. ..........................28
Figure 5.6. Relative displacements at top of column in X direction, diagonal loading...........29
Figure 5.7. Relative displacements at top of column in Y direction, diagonal loading...........29
Figure 5.8. Moment at top of column in X direction, diagonal loading. .................................30
Figure 5.9. Moment at top of column in Y direction, diagonal loading. .................................30
Figure 5.10. Friction shear force at top of column in X direction, diagonal loading. .............31
Figure 5.11. Friction shear force at top of column in Y direction, diagonal loading. .............31
Figure 5.12. Acceleration at top of column in X direction, X loading. ...................................32
Figure 5.13. Moment at top of column in X direction, X loading. ..........................................32
Figure 5.14. Friction shear force at top of column in X direction, X loading. ........................33
Figure 5.15. Acceleration at top of column in Y direction, Y loading. ...................................33
Figure 5.16. Relative displacements at top of column in Y direction, Y loading....................34
Figure 5.17. Moment at top of column in Y direction, Y loading. ..........................................34
Figure 5.18. Friction shear force at top of column in Y direction, Y loading. ........................35
x
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Robert K. Dowell, for his continued support and advice
while writing this thesis. In addition, I would like to thank the other members of my thesis
review committee, Dr. Janusz Spernak and Dr. Tom A. Zink, for their insightful and
productive feedback. Furthermore, I would like to thank the faculty and staff in the
department of Civil Construction and Environmental Engineering and my classmates, Justin
Scheidel and Tim Johnson, at San Diego State University. Other faculty members I would
like to thank are Dr. Julio Valdes, my graduate advisor; Dr. Trevor Shanklin at LARC /
SDSU; Dr. Steve Spencer; Dr. Fred McFarlane; and Ms. Fary from Interwork San Diego for
their continual advice and support.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Primary school buildings in Afghanistan are typically designed with one floor due to
the alternating warm and cool climates. They are built with numerous local Afghan
construction firms in order to (1) efficiently utilize, and buildup, the capacity of local
companies that hire all unskilled laborers from the local community, (2) provide construction
training and (3) give livelihood opportunities for families. These buildings are constructed
from reinforced concrete using local construction materials such as aggregate, fine gravel,
kilned bricks and crushed stone with cement mortar as adhesive.
The buildings consist of a reinforced concrete frame of columns and girders and
kilned bricks walls (bearing and partition). The foundations are of crushed stone with plain
concrete (PCC). Bearing walls are built from unreinforced brick masonry with cement
mortar, and both sides are covered by one layer of cement, sand and gypsum-mixed mortar to
protect the wall from environmental effects. Some of these schools are built with stone
foundation and stone walls with cement and aggregate-mixed mortar, as well as precast
concrete I-beams and precast concrete slabs.
The building frame of columns and girders have rigid connectivity to each other; but
the longitudinal and transverse walls are unreinforced with no rigid connectivity to the
frames or to the other walls. However, the walls can resist vertical loads. Under moderate to
severe earthquake motion the walls may partially or completely fall down, with horizontal or
vertical cracks visually apparent between the frame and walls in the connection borders, as
well as diagonal cracks through the wall prior to wall collapse. Engineers need to perform
detailed structural analysis of these buildings to better understand the main failure responses
under earthquake loads.
Structural analysis comprises the mathematics and physics required to study the
structure behavior. This allows the calculation of the forces and deformations of the various
structural components, as well as stresses and strains. Therefore the civil engineer that
designs the structure must account for the structure safety, stability and serviceability
2
according to logical economic considerations. This more detailed analysis can be used for
redesign of the structure for more logical determination of the size and weight of the
members, resulting in safer and more economical structures [1].
The primary thrust of this thesis is the detailed nonlinear time-history seismic analysis
of a typical school building in Afghanistan that is designed to current Afghan building
practices. Nonlinear analyses are required to model the opening and closing that develops
between the interconnected frame and walls that are free to separate from the remainder of
the structure. If this heavy walls collapse they can cause serious injury and many fatalities,
especially considering that many students can be in these buildings at the same time. The
response of the same building designed to current California standards in the United States of
America is compared to the Afghan-designed school. The primary difference between
buildings is that in the US the walls are reinforced and are connected to the frame while in
Afghanistan the walls can move as independent units from the remainder of the structure and
they are not reinforced (See Figure 1.1).
Figure 1.1. Typical brick wall under construction.
3
CHAPTER 2
PROTOTYPE STRUCTURE
2.1 GEOMETRY
Figure 2.1 shows the typical school in plain view that will be used to develop the
idealized structure for analysis in future chapters. The school building components are
reinforced concrete (RC) foundation, beams, columns and slabs; walls are unreinforced and
made by bricks with no rigid connection to the RC frames. These walls mainly resist vertical
loads and are constructed from bricks with cement mortar as adhesive. Column cross-
sections are 12x12 and girder cross-sections are shown in Figure 2.2. The walls are 10 ft
tall and 1 ft thick.
Figure 2.1. Floor plan and dimensioning of typical school considered.
2.2 MATERIALPROPERTIES
Steel reinforcement is Grade 60 with modulus of elasticity of 29,000 ksi. The stress-
strain behavior of the rebar to ultimate stress is given in Figure 2.3. This was developed from
yield and ultimate stresses and strains of 66 ksi and 100 ksi, and 0.0023 and 0.15,
respectively. It was assumed that strain hardening occurs at a strain of 0.02. Concrete has an
unconfined compressive strength of 4 ksi and the stress-strain behavior is modified by lateral
confinement that increases its strength and, more importantly, strain capacities. The Mander
4
Figure 2.2. Section details of beams.
Figure 2.3. Stress-strain diagram of reinforcing steel.
5
model is used to determine the shape of the stress-strain curve in compression as well as the
confined strength and compressive strain capacity, which is often several fold above the
unconfined strain capacity. It is this added strain capacity that gives confined concrete such
ductility, allowing large plastic deformations of RC members and structures [2].
The Mander model is based on energy principles where the strain energy capacity of
the transverse rebar to tension failure is equated to the work done to compress the concrete to
high strain. When the compressive strain of the concrete exceeds this value the transverse
reinforcement fails, causing sudden loss of concrete confinement. At this point the concrete
has changed from a confined section to an unconfined concrete and often fails dramatically,
without the capacity to even carry the dead load on the member for a column. This represents
the failure of a plastic hinge in bending. While in bending only a portion of the cross-section
is in compression, the Mander approach still works reasonably well to give maximum
compressive strain capacity at the edge of the section. For modeling purposes the brick
properties are taken as the same as unconfined concrete in compression.
2.3 COLUMNAND GIRDER CAPACITIES
Moment-curvature analysis (Table 2.1) was performed at the critical beam section as
shown in Figure 2.4. The strain profile and cross-section are given in Figure 2.5. Ultimate
curvature occurs when either the tension rebar reaches its strain capacity of 0.15 or the
concrete reaches its compressive strain capacity. Analysis showed that the tensile strain
capacity of the rebar was reached before the compressive strain capacity of the concrete was
exceeded, with ultimate curvature and moment of 0.015/in. and 855 kip-in. Yield curvature
and moment are 0.0004/in. and 600 kip-in.
The plastic hinge rotation capacity is the plastic curvature capacity multiplied by an
equivalent plastic hinge length L
p
. This length is often taken as.
L
p
= 0.08L + 0.15 f
y
d
b
0.3f
y
d
b
(2.1)
Where L is the distance from the critical section at maximum moment, where the
plastic hinge will form, to the location of zero moment. For a cantilever, this length L is the
full height of the member. If the member is in double bending, with maximum moment at
both ends, then the length L in the above expression is one-half of the member length.
Primary rebar diameter is given as d
b
and the yield stress of the steel reinforcement is f
y
. The
6
Table 2.1. Moment Curvature Analysis
Curvature

Strain In
the
Rebar(
s
)
Stress in
the Rebar
(Ksi)
Total
Concrete
force (Kips)
Total
Rebars
force(Kips)
Total force
(Kips)
Moment
(Kips-in)
X 11.53in 11.53in
0 -0.00002995 -0.86855 -20.53195954 -1.528648 -22.06 1.77636E-15
0.0001 0.000763069 22.12900054 -37.26448095 15.26448095 -22.00 255.1672281
0.0002 0.001625048 47.12637975 -57.57730836 35.57730836 -22.00 439.1375113
0.0003 0.002514394 66 -73.1996597 51.1996597 -22.00 582.102106
0.0004 0.003498753 66 -74.63794039 52.63794039 -22.00 596.3567706
0.0005 0.00451667 66 -76.93261107 54.93261107 -22.00 603.2817045
0.0015 0.014262374 66 -88.81737438 66.81737438 -22.00 621.7977621
0.0025 0.023886416 67.77037822 -99.15521612 77.15526155 -22.00 639.9396221
0.0035 0.033484872 71.94366275 -110.9547092 88.95476799 -22.00 673.9066533
0.0045 0.043086335 75.83468617 -122.5825113 100.5825812 -22.00 706.01478
0.0055 0.052409726 79.34161001 -126.776 104.7760182 -22.00 730.553054
0.0105 0.09834851 92.71608077 -126.776 104.7753296 -22.00 812.9422039
0.0155 0.144510532 99.61568497 -126.776 104.7737921 -22.00 855.4491471
0.0205 0.190899079 99.94510184 -126.776 104.771393 -22.00 857.486752
0.022 0.204860317 98.74820001 -126.776 104.7705033 -22.01 850.1169506
first term in the plastic hinge length expression recognizes the spread of plasticity along the
member from the maximum moment location. The second term includes strain penetration
into connecting members, such as a footing.
At the critical section the moments and curvatures are at a maximum and
corresponding strains are also the largest at this section. The strains and stresses cannot
reduce to zero as the rebar passes from the column to the footing, resulting in strains that
reach a given distance into the connecting member, be it a footing or beam. Integration of
these strains over the penetration distance results in rebar displacement out of the footing,
and a definite gap that can be seen with the eyes, resulting in a rigid-body rotation of the
column. This is why this term is lumped in to the plastic hinge length expression. The plastic
hinge length based on these two terms is [3].
L
p
= 0.08 (144) + 0.15 (66) (0.75) = 18.9 in. (2.2)
The term on the right side of the plastic hinge length expression recognizes that strain
penetration can occur in both directions from the location of maximum moment and
7
Figure 2.4. Moment-curvature analysis of girder cross-section.
Figure 2.5. Flexure behavior.
8
curvature, and if this is larger than the first two terms then this is the plastic hinge length. The
double strain penetration value is
0.3f
y
d
b
= 0.3(66)(0.75) = 14.9 in. (2.3)
This is smaller than the prior value calculated. Thus the plastic hinge length over
which the maximum curvature at the critical section is assumed constant is 18.9 in.
Plastic rotation is given as the plastic curvature multiplied by the plastic hinge length
as determined above. And plastic curvature is the difference in ultimate and yield curvatures.
Thus
( )
p y u p
L | | u =
(2.4)
Resulting in
( ) rad
p
276 . 0 9 . 18 0004 . 0 015 . 0 = = u
(2.5)
Curvature ductility is defined as the ratio of ultimate to yield curvatures.
5 . 37
0004 . 0
015 . 0
= |
.
|

\
|
= =
y
u
|
|

|
(2.6)
The ultimate displacement capacity is given as elastic and plastic components as
p y u
A + A = A
(2.7)
Plastic displacement is the plastic rotation multiplied by the member length
( ) . 1 . 33 120 276 . 0 in L
p p
= = = A u
(2.8)
And the elastic displacement for a cantilever is found from the yield curvature as
( )
. 92 . 1
3
120 0004 . 0
3
2
2
in
L
y
y
= = = A
|
(2.9)
Therefore the ultimate displacement capacity is 35.0 in. This analysis is of the RC
frame by itself. As discussed below, the RC frame has unreinforced brick walls that
significantly stiffen the building system, change its response under earthquake loading and
results in reduced displacements. The failure concern is not from plastic hinge rupture of the
frame components, but of collapse of the unreinforced walls that are not connected to the RC
frame.
9
2.4 WALLCAPACITYAND STIFFNESS
The building walls are unreinforced brick that are not directly connected or tied-into
the beams and columns, or to each other. There is some friction between adjacent
components, but the walls can move independently of the RC frame and the other walls,
causing potential failure of the wall system. Prior to wall separation and failure the stiffness
of the frame and wall system is dominated by the walls and not the more flexible RC frame.
Earthquake loading in one direction will be resisted by the walls in shear that are
aligned in the same loading direction. If the earthquake comes in the orthogonal direction
then the walls positioned in that direction will resist the earthquake in shear. The frame is
also resisting the earthquake loads but until the walls collapse the relative frame
displacements (difference in top and bottom column displacements) are very small,
indicating that the frame is very lightly loaded.
10
CHAPTER 3
IDEALIZED STRUCTURES
3.1 GEOMETRY
For analysis purposes the prototype building structure was idealized as shown in
Figure 3.1. This included a center wall and two side walls in the transverse direction, as well
as wall lengths of 24.83 ft on both sides of the center wall from the prototype building given
in Figure 2.1. Reinforced concrete columns and girders are used as the frame of the structure.
There are ring beams at the top and bottom of the columns. While the columns and girders
are connected properly with reinforcement crossing between members, the brick walls have
no rebar and are not directly connected to the girders or columns. The walls sit on compacted
soil and decomposed granite (DG), and fill all the spaces in the frame structure between
columns and girders. The roof weight is taken through the bearing walls to the ground, as the
girders sit directly on the tops of the walls.
Figure 3.1. Floor plan and dimensioning of idealized school.
11
3.2 PUSHOVERANALYSIS OF THE FRAME
Pushover analysis was performed using results from the moment-curvature analysis
discussed in previous sections. The procedure is an incremental nonlinear analysis, loading
the structure monotonically with an increasing lateral load until plastic hinges form at all
girder ends within the frame (see Figure 3.2 for typical frame). Once the first plastic hinge
develops the stiffness of the system is adjusted by providing a pin at the first plastic hinge
location and a second push is conducted. Then a second plastic hinge is formed, with the
addition of another pin, followed by another push. For a portal frame, once four plastic
hinges have developed there is no additional stiffness and no more lateral force capacity.
However, there may be more displacement capacity. A last push is typically conducted by
hand that moves the frame the additional displacement required to force one of the plastic
hinges through its plastic rotation capacity. This is the displacement capacity of the frame
and can be compared to maximum displacement demands from seismic loading and
nonlinear time-history analyses as discussed later [4].
Figure 3.2 Frame geometry and dead load for pushover analysis.
3.3 LOADINGDIRECTION
For the earthquake time-history analyses it was decided that three different loading
directions were required to properly capture the behavior of the structure. This consists of
longitudinal loading, transverse loading and diagonal loading. Thus all 10 earthquake
motions that are used in these analyses are run in each direction, resulting in 30 time-history
12
analyses for the one building model. There were a total of three different models that were
used to understand the response of the typical one-story school building in Afghanistan,
including (1) the Afghan-designed structure with RC frame and walls included, (2)
California-designed structure with RC frame and walls included and (3) RC frame by itself,
assuming all walls have collapsed. Therefore a total of 90 nonlinear time-history analyses
were used to better understand the behavior of typical school buildings in Afghanistan under
severe seismic loading. Results presented in this thesis focus primarily on the Afghan
building design. However, where appropriate, results from the other two models are
discussed and compared.
3.4 CONNECTION DETAILS
The frame is modeled with rigid connections between all columns and girders (Figure
3.3), which is consistent with the reinforcement detailing at these locations. Bearing walls are
positioned between all of the columns and girders shown in Figure 3.3, completing the rooms
as shown in Figure 3.4. Because there is no rebar in the brick walls and no positive
connection details between walls, or between walls and girders or columns, this detail was of
primary importance in modeling the behavior of the structure (Figure 3.5). Linear-elastic
analysis could not be used to model the structure as the complicated behavior of the wall-
and-frame system needed to be properly included [5].
To capture the connection details between walls and frame, gap elements were
required at all nodes between them (see Figure 3.6) transferring compression forces but free
to open under tension. In compression a very high stiffness was provided to mimic the type
of behavior of concrete-to-concrete in compression. In the tension direction there is no
stiffness or force capacity. One-inch-long link elements were used in SAP2000 to model this
compression-only type of behavior with gaps. This required the walls to be offset by one inch
in all directions from the beams and columns. In addition to gap elements which transfer
compressive axial forces, some level of lateral forces must be given to represent friction
between the walls and the members of the frame. Plasticity link elements were used to model
friction and slip at all nodes.
13
Figure 3.3. Frame of idealized structure.
Figure 3.4. Frame and walls of idealized structure.
14
Figure 3.5. Idealized structure from below.
Figure 3.6. Gap elements between walls and frames.
The plasticity element is used to model friction by giving a very large initial stiffness
and a yield force that is defined as the force level that slip is expected to occur based on the
normal force and coefficient of friction. The high initial stiffness is used because no slip is
expected until the slip force is reached, and then a very small stiffness is provided, allowing
movement while holding approximately the same force. When loading changes direction, no
slip occurs until the yield force is exceeded in the opposite direction. This allows sliding back
and forth as earthquake loading continues.
15
In addition to the gap and plasticity elements to model compresion-only and friction
behaviors, link elements were used to model plastic hinging of all girder ends. Depending on
loading direction the plastic hinge can develop about one axis or the perpendicular axis.
Under diagonal earthquake loading it is possible for plastic hinging to occur about both axes
at the same time. Plastic hinges were modeled at the girder ends and not at the ends of the
columns. This is because the moment capacity of the columns is greater than the girders and
so, based on capacity design principles, the plastic hinge will form in the girder section and
the moment required to force plastic hinging into the column will never be reached. Details
of all the nonlinear elements are given in Figure 3.7. At each node between frame and wall
elements the nonlinear friction element allows sliding in both mutually perpendicular
directions. Walls are modeled with shell elements and the frame is modeled with beam
elements.
Figure 3.7. Nonlinear gap, friction and plastic hinge elements.
The force capacity of friction elements between the base of the structure and the
bottom of the walls was determined in a logical manner, as the total idealized structure
weight multiplied by the coefficient of friction and divided by the total number of nodes at
this bottom interface. It was not so clear what friction force capacity should be given to the
elements at the ends of walls and at the tops of the walls. When there is no dead load (or
normal load at the interface) the friction force to resist sliding is theoretically zero. However,
16
when this is put into a computer model of the structure and forces are applied to specific
locations, some part of the structure shows no movement at all, with walls standing free as
the remainder of the structure moves. Clearly, under earthquake loading these walls will not
just stand there and will not move independently of the other parts of the structure. Therefore
it was decided to include 1/10 of the friction force that develops at the base of the walls for
locations where there is no normal force. In this way, the walls move with the frame at small
seismic motions, but can separate if the accelerations are large enough [6].
While these lower friction values are somewhat arbitrary for interfaces with no
normal force, they were included to represent a more realistic behavior of the building.
Displacement amplitudes may not be realistic due to this required assumption, but overall
lessons can be learned in terms of structural response for these types of buildings that have
poor connection detailing. The recent earthquake in Haiti killed approximately 250,000
people in the capital of Port-au-Prince due to poor building design with bad connections. The
same type of problems and loss of life could occur in Afhganistan due to significant
earthquake shaking, as it is also a high seismic region.
17
CHAPTER 4
EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS
4.1 SELECTED MOTIONS
A total of 10 earthquake motions were chosen to model the buildings in this research
(see Figures 4.1 through 4.10 for the measured acceleration and displacement time-history
motions). Details of each of these records are given in Tables 4.1 and 4.2, including the
earthquake magnitude, distance from epicenter, location of recording station, peak ground
acceleration (PGA), scale factor, and PGA of scaled earthquake records. The 10 measured
motions were scaled to target the maximum credible earthquake for large seismic regions in
California so that the motions would have a statistically signifiant meaning. Thus, rather than
10 arbitrary motions, they are of similar probability of occuring. The number of motions was
large enough so that large response is expected regardless of the period of the structure, as it
softens and the period lengthens.
Figure 4.1. Earthquake LJT3.
Figure 4.2 .Earthquake LPSJ1.
18
Figure 4.3. Earthquake LPSJ3.
Figure 4.4. Earthquake NRPK1.
Figure 4.5. Earthquake NRPK3.
19
Figure 4.6. Earthquake NRSM.
Figure 4.7. Earthquake NRUC1.
Figure 4.8. Earthquake NRUC3.
20
Figure 4.9. Earthquake LJT3.
Figure 4.10. Earthquake PARK.
Table 4.1. Measure Earthquake Records used in Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
No. Abbreviation
Record Name (Earthquake location, Station location,
Horizontal)
Magnitude
Epicenter
Distance
(KM)
1 LJT3 Landers, Joshua Tree Fire Sta., Ch. 3, (LJ3) 7.3 14.0
2 LPSJ1 Loma Prieta , San Jose-Santa Teresa, Ch.1, (LPSJT-1) 7.0 21.0
3 LPSJ3 Loma Prieta , San Jose-Santa Teresa, Ch.3, (LPSJT-3) 7.0 21.0
4 NRPK1 Northridge, Pacoima -Kagel Fire Sta, Ch.1, (NPAC-1) 6.4 18.0
5 NRPK3 Northridge, Pacoima -Kagel Fire Sta, Ch.3, (NPAC-3) 6.4 18.0
6 NRSM Northridge, Santa Monica City Hall, Ch.3, (NSM-3) 6.4 23.0
7 NRUC1 Northridge, UCLA, Ch. 1, (NUCLA-1) 6.4 18.0
8 NRUC3 Northridge, UCLA, Ch. 3, (NUCLA-3) 6.4 18.0
9 PARK Park field , fault Zone 1, Ch. 1, ( PFZ1-1) 6.0 8.8
10 PSD3
Palm Springs, desert Hot Springs Fire Sta.,Ch.3, (PS-
DHS-3)
6.1 17.0
21
Table 4.2. Acceleration and Scale Factors
No Abbreviation PGA (g)
Envelope
Scale
Scaled
PGA (g)
1 LJT3 0.274 1.54 0.422
2 LPSJ1 0.274 1.95 0.534
3 LPSJ3 0.228 2.52 0.575
4 NRPK1 0.301 1.59 0.479
5 NRPK3 0.432 1.41 0.609
6 NRSM 0.370 1.69 0.625
7 NRUC1 0.278 2.32 0.645
8 NRUC3 0.474 1.19 0.564
9 PARK 0.592 1.04 0.616
10 PSD3 0.300 1.49 0.447
4.2 ENVELOPE SCALINGMETHOD
The envelope scaling method is a ground motion scaling procedure that targets a
given spectrum, allowing larger earthquake shaking to be developed from realistic
earthquake motions that are physically possible. Motions are scaled in magnitude but the
time values are not modified. In this case the maximum credible earthquake spectrum in
California was targeted, with a 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years. Spectra from each
earthquake record are magnitude-scaled until one point just touches the target spectrum
(Figure 4.11b). Thus the maximum spectral value of each record just touches the target value
at only one period. By taking an envelope over the scaled spectra of the 10 earthquakes it is
clear that the overall response is similar to the target spectrum (Figure 4.11a), with 10 scaled
earthquake motions. Gaps seen in Figure 4.11a can be filled in by adding more scaled
earthquake motions [6].
4.3 SCALED MOTIONS
Using the envelope scaling procedure described in Section 4.2, measured motions
were scaled by the scale factors given in Table 4.2. Figures 4.12 through 4.21 give the scaled
acceleration and displacement time-history motions used for all analyses in this thesis.
22
(a) Envelope of 10 scaled earthquake spectra compared to target spectrum
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
g
)
T (s)
target
envelope
(b) Spectra of 10 scaled earthquake records with target spectrum
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 2 4 6
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
g
)
T(s)
target
envelope
pffz1-1
n-ucla-3
n-ucla-1
n-sm-3
n-pac-1
n-pac-3
ps-dhs-3
lp-sjt-1
lp-sjt-3
lj-3
Figure 4.11. Target and earthquake spectra after scaling.
23
Figure 4.12. Earthquake LJT3 scaled.
Figure 4.13. Earthquake LPSJ1 scaled.
Figure 4.14. Earthquake LPSJ3 scaled.
24
Figure 4.15. Earthquake NRPK1 scaled.
Figure 4.16. Earthquake NRPK3 scaled.
Figure 4.17. Earthquake NRSM scaled.
25
Figure 4.18. Earthquake NRUC1 scaled.
Figure 4.19. Earthquake NRUC3 scaled.
Figure 4.20. Earthquake PARK scaled.
Figure 4.21. Earthquake PSD3 scaled.
26
CHAPTER 5
ANALYSIS RESULTS
5.1 AFGHAN BUILDINGDESIGN
In this section buildings designed and built to current standards of Afghanistan are
analyzed and results are shown. Figures 5.1 through 5.3 show the deformed shape of the
building with loading in the diagonal, X and Y directions, respectively.
Figure 5.1. Deformations under diagonal loading.
Figure 5.2. Deformations under X direction loading.
27
Figure 5.3. Deformations under Y direction loading.
Nonlinear time-history results from SAP2000 are provided for motions that caused
maximum response in Figures 5.4 through 5.18. While results from only critical motions are
given, there were actually 10 motions run through the structure. The first few figures provide
results from the diagonal loading case (Figures 5.4 through 5.11), with absolute accelerations
in the X and Y directions at the top of the structure (Figures 5.4 and 5.5) and relative
displacements in the X and Y directions between top and bottom of the structure (Figures 5.6
and 5.7). Frame moments at the top of column are given in X and Y directions in Figures 5.8
and 5.9. Shear friction time-history results are given in X and Y directions in Figures 5.10
and 5.11. Results for X direction loading are given in Figures 5.12 through 5.14, providing
acceleration, frame moment and friction shear force time-history results in the X direction,
respectively. For the Y direction of loading, time-history results are given in Figures 5.15
through 5.18, with acceleration, relative displacement, frame moment and friction shear force
behaviors given in the Y direction at the top of column.
The maximum structure accelerations occur when the motion is in the Y direction,
with the very large value of over 0.65g maximum acceleration (Figure 5.15). As expected,
relative displacements (deformations over the height of the building) are small due to the
large stiffness provided by the shear walls in both loading directions. Hand calculations
confirmed the maximum deformation values to within about 20% of the results from the
figures below. Consistent with the walls taking most of the lateral loads, the frame moments
remain very small as the earthquake motion occurs (Figures 5.8, 5.9, 5.13 and 5.17). Of
28
Figure 5.4. Acceleration at top of column in X direction, diagonal loading.
Figure 5.5. Acceleration at top of column in Y direction, diagonal loading.
29
Figure 5.6. Relative displacements at top of column in X direction, diagonal loading.
Figure 5.7. Relative displacements at top of column in Y direction, diagonal loading.
30
Figure 5.8. Moment at top of column in X direction, diagonal loading.
Figure 5.9. Moment at top of column in Y direction, diagonal loading.
31
Figure 5.10. Friction shear force at top of column in X direction, diagonal loading.
Figure 5.11. Friction shear force at top of column in Y direction, diagonal loading.
32
Figure 5.12. Acceleration at top of column in X direction, X loading.
Figure 5.13. Moment at top of column in X direction, X loading.
33
Figure 5.14. Friction shear force at top of column in X direction, X loading.
Figure 5.15. Acceleration at top of column in Y direction, Y loading.
34
Figure 5.16. Relative displacements at top of column in Y direction, Y loading.
Figure 5.17. Moment at top of column in Y direction, Y loading.
35
Figure 5.18. Friction shear force at top of column in Y direction, Y loading.
particular interest to this research project is the sliding of the walls relative to the RC frame.
This develops a little bit in the X loading direction (Figure 5.14) and dramatically in the Y
loading direction (Figure 5.18). Slip between walls develops freely once the shear friction
force reaches 0.25 kips. The behavior in the Y direction of loading clearly shows this value
being reached cyclically, again and again, in both loading directions (Figure 5.18), indicating
that the unreinforced walls are moving away from each other and away from the frame.
Due to the required analysis scheme in SAP2000, large deformation theory using
nonlinear geometry could not be used, and thus it was not possible to show the complete
collapse of the walls. Direct integration is required in SAP2000 to utilize nonlinear geometry
where the equations of equilibrium are satisfied at each time increment in the deformed
geometry rather than using the original, and unreformed, geometry of the structure. Because
of the large number of nonlinear elements in the model, direct integration did not work and
nonlinear analysis with modal superposition was required. With this limitation, however, it is
clear from Figure 5.18 that significant movement of the walls is occurring under the
earthquake shaking, and this can be interpreted as wall collapse [3].
36
5.2 US BUILDINGDESIGN
In the prior section, buildings from Afghanistan were investigated. In this section the
behavior of the same school detailed with US standards are compared. It was found that the
primary difference in response between the US-designed and Afghan-designed school
buildings was the expected wall separation and failure for the buildings designed to current
Afghan practice. Such damage and failure is not expected if the buildings are designed to
current California standards in the US because the walls cannot move independentetly from
the rest of the structure.
Additional analyses were conducted through a model with only the RC frame
members included. For this model it was assumed that all the walls and roof had failed and
collapsed, and so only the frame of columns and girders remained. The strucuture was much
more flexible than when shear walls were included and large bending moments developed,
with slight plastic hinging at the girder ends. Earthquake motions did not overload the frame
acting by itself, with displacement capacity that is greater than maximum displacement
demands. Since the walls and roof were not included in the model, their mass was also not
included. This reduced the potential maximum forces in proportion to the reduced mass. It is
possible to have partial wall failures where much of the walls remain but do not contribute to
the seismic resistance. In this case the mass of a portion of the walls should be included while
only the frame members resist the loads. Perhaps, this would put more demand on the
columns and girders of the frame. However, there was no attempt to conduct this type of
analysis since the amount of mass to include is completely arbitrary.
37
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
For the Afghan-designed building, nonlinear time-history analysis results cleary show
that under large earthquake motions the walls slide and move relative to the frame members
and relative to each other. This is very clear from Figure 5.18, where the slip shear force in
friction is set to 0.25 kips. On each vibration the motion causes the wall to slide and move
further from the original geometry of the structure. It can be expected from these results that
the walls will compeletly separate from the remainder of the structure, collapsing on people
and property. In the United States these types of connections and wall details are not allowed
for new construction, resulting in walls that stay connected to the rest of the structure.
Furthermore, in the US the walls are steel reinforced whereas in Afghanistan the walls are
made of unreinforced bricks.
The nonlinear time-history analysis had to be run in the model rather than the direct
integration solution scheme. This is because the direct integration approach within SAP2000
would not converge due to the large number of nonlinear elements included in the model.
However, the direct integration method ran long enough to be used to verify the modal
nonlinear time-history analysis, giving confidence in the results presented in this thesis. One
drawback to the modal approach is that nonlinear geometric effects cannot be included,
whereas this is available in the direction integration scheme. Thus the model did not directly
show the walls falling to the floor, but the results can be used to understsnd weaknesses in
the Afghan design.
While large structure accelerations occurred, the relative displacements remained
small. This is because the shear walls in the loading direction are very stiff, resulting in the
frame resisting very little of the seismic forces. This is clear by the small bending moments
in the girders and columns.
38
CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary conclusion from this research is that the walls of a typical Afghan school
building will collapse in a major earthqauake, causing serious injuries and many fatalities.
These types of details are not allowed in the United States due to concerns that are consistent
with findings from this research.
It is recommended that walls that can move relative to the building frame and with
respect to other walls should be designed with different detailing. Also, steel reinforcement
should be used in all the walls and the rebar should pass from the walls into the connecting
girders and columns that make up the frame of the structure. Rebar should also pass between
walls. Structural testing should be performed on a shaking table of typical wall details to
provide clear evidence of the primary find from this research; the expected separation and
failure of the walls.
39
REFERENCES
[1] Hibbeler, R. C. Structure Analysis. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson
Education, 2009.
[2] Nawy, E. G. Reinforced Concrete: A Fundamental Approach. 6th ed. Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, 2009.
[3] Priestley, M. J. N., and G. M. Calvi. Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
[4] Leet, K. M., C. M. Uang, and A. M. Gilbert. Fundamentals of Structural Analysis.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008.
[5] McCormac, J. C. and R. H. Brown. Design of Reinforced Concrete. 8th ed. Hoboken,
New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
[6] Lindeburge, M. R., and K. M. McMullin. Seismic Design of Building Structures: A
Professionals Introduction to Earthquake Forces and Design Details. 9th ed. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Professional Publications, 2008.