Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Non Linear Analysis of Structure Atc-402

    Transféré par

    Anonymous pqzrPMJJFT
    10 vues334 pages
    ACT-42 for push-over analysis

    Titre original

    Non linear analysis of structure atc-402

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    ACT-42 for push-over analysis

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    10 vues334 pages

    Non Linear Analysis of Structure Atc-402

    Transféré par

    Anonymous pqzrPMJJFT
    ACT-42 for push-over analysis

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 334
    ATC Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings Volume 1 OTC Applied Technology Council CALIFORNIA SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program Report SSC 96-01 Applied Technology Council ‘The Applied Technology Council (ATC) is a non: profit, vax-exempt corporation established in 1971 throogh the efforts of the Structural Engineers Asso- ciation of California, ATC i guided by a Board of Directors consisting of representatives appointed by the American Society of Civil Engineers. the Strue- tural Engineers Association of California, the Western States Council of Structural Engineers Assceiations, And four at-large representatives concerned with the practice of siriciural engineering. Fach director serves a three-year term. ‘The purpose of ATC is to assist the design practitio. ner in structural engineering (and related design spe- cialty fields such a5 seils, wind, and carthquake) in the task of keeping abreast of and effectively using technological developments. ATC also identifies 22d encourages needed research and develops consenstis pinions on structural engineering isqucs in a nenpro- prictery format, ATC thereby fulfills a unique role in funded information transfer Project management and administration are carried ‘out by a full-time Executive Director and support staf. Project work is conducted by 2 wide range of Inighly qualified consuhing professionals, thus incor- ‘porating the experience of many individuals from ‘academia, research, and professional practice who ‘would not be available from any single organization. Funding for ATC projects is obtained from govern ‘meat agencies and fram the private sector im the forrn of tax-deductible contributions. 1996-1997 Board of Directors John ©, Theiss, President ©. Mark Saunders, Vice Presiden [Bijan Moh Sectetary/Treasurer Edwin 7. Horton. Past Presicent Amthor NL. Chit don M. Coil Edwin T, Dean Robert G, Dean Douglas A. Foutch James R. Libby Kenneth A. Luraell Andrew T. Merovich Sea A. Stedman Jonathan. Shipp ‘Charles Thornton California Seismic Safety Commission ‘The California Seismic Safeiy Commission consists of fifteen members appointed by the Governor sn ‘(wo members representing the State Senate and Sue Assembly. Disesplines represented on the Commis sion include seismology. engineering, geology. fire protecnon, emergency services, public utilities, insur. ance, social services, ocal government, building code enforcement, planning and archivecture As @ nonpartisan, single-purpose body. the mission of the Commission i to improve the well being of the people of Califoria through costeffective measures that lower earthquake risks 19 life and property. It sponsors legislation and advocates building code changes to improve buildings and other facilities, provides « foram for representatives ofall public and private interests and academic disciplines related to ‘earthquakes, and publishes reports, poliey recommen dations, and guides to improve public safety in earth- guakes. |i. works toward Jong-term improvements inal arcas affecting seismic safety by: encouraging and assisting local governments, state agencies, and businesses 10 implement mitigation measures 10 make sure that they will be able to operate after earthquakes: establishing priorities for action 1o reduce earthquake risks; identi- Tying needs for eanhquake education, research. and legislation: and reviewing emergency response, re covery, and reconstruction efferts after damaging ccarthquakes s0 that lessons learned can be applied 10 future earthquakes. Current (1996) Commission Members Lloyd 8. Clu. Chairman James E Slosson, View Chairman “Alfed E. Alquist State Senator Dominic L, Corese, State Assemblyman Hal Bernson erry © Chang, oben Downer Frederick M. Herman Jeffrey Fohoson Corie Lee Gary L. MeGavin ame! Shapire Lowell E, Shields Pawicis Snyder Keitter M, Wheeler H.Roben Wise Disclamer While the information presented in this report is betieved to be correc. the Applied Technology Council and the California Seismic Safery Commission assume no responsibil for its accuracy or for the opinions expressed herein, The material presented in this publication should noi be used or relied upon for any specific application without competent examination and verification ofits accu racy. suitability. and applicability by qualified professionals, Users of information fom this publi cation assume all Hability arising from such use. Cover Mutation: Sta OMe Bldg, 12nd N Ss, Sacramenc. CA. provided by Chas Amp ATc-40 Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings Volume 1 by APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite $50 Redwood City, California 94065 SEISMIC SAFETY COMMISSION State of California Products 1.2 and 1.3 of the Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Craig D. Comartin CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR PROJECT DIRECTOR Richard W. Niewiarowski SENIOR ADVISOR Christopher Rojaha Report No, SSC 96-01 ‘November 1996 Preface Proposition 122 passed by Califomnia’s voters in 1990, created the Earthquake Safety and Public Buildings Rehabilitation Fund of 1990, sup- ported by a $300 million general obligation bond program for the seismic retrofit of state and local government buildings. As a part of the program, Proposition 122 authorizes the California Seismic Safety Commission (CSSC) {tO use up to 1% of the proceeds of the bonds, Or approximately $3 million, to carry out range of activities that will capitalize on the seismic retrofit experience in the private sector to im- prove seismic retrofit practices for goverment buildings. The purpose of California's Proposi- tion 122 research and development programm is to develop state-of-the-practice recommenda- tions to address current needs for seismic retro- {it provisions and seismic risk decision tools. It is focused specifically on vulnerable concrete structures consistent with the types of concrete buildings that make up a significant portion of California’s state and local government invento- ries in 1994, as part of the Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program, the ‘Commission awarded the Applied Technology Council (ATC) a contract to develop a recom- ‘mended methodology and commentary for the seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing con- crete buildings (Product 1.2). In 1995 the ‘Commission awarded a second, related contract to ATC to expand the Product i 2 effort to in- clude effects of foundations on the seismic per- formance of existing concrete buildings (Product 1.3). The results of the two projects hhave been combined and are presented in this, ATC-40 Report (also known as SSC-96-01).. Two other repos recently published bythe Califomia Seismic Safety Commission, the Provisional Commentary for Seismic Rerrofit (1994) and the Review of Seismic Research Re- sults on Existing Buildings (1994), are Products 1.1 and 3.1 of the Proposition [22 Program, re- spectively. These two previous reports provide ihe primaty basis for tre developinent of the recommended methodology and commentary contained in this document, This document is organized into two volumes. Volume One contains the main body of the evaluation and retrofit methodology, presented in 13 chapters, with a glossary and a list of ref- erences. This volume contains al of the parts of the document required for the evaluation and retrofit of buildings. Volume Two consists of Appendices containing supporting materials re- lated to the methodology: four example building, case study reports, a cost effectiveness study related to the four building studies, and a review of research on the effects of foundation condi- tions on the seismic performance of concrete buildings. This report was prepared under the direction of ATC Seniot Consultant Craig Comartin, who served as Principal Investigator, and Richard W. Niewiarowski, who served as Co-Principal In- vestigator and Project Director. Fred Turner served as CSSC Project Manager. Overview and guidance were provided by the Proposition, 122 Oversight Panel consisting of Frederick M Herman (Chair), Richard Conrad, Ross Cran- mer, Wilfred Iwan, Roy Johnston, Frank McClure, Gary McGavin, Joel McRonald, Jo- seph P. Nicoleni, Stanley Scott, and Lowell Shields. The Product 1.2 methodology and commentary were prepared by Sigmund A. Freeman, Ronald O. Hamburger, William T. Holmes, Charles Kircher, Jack P. Mochle, ‘Thomas A. Sabol, and Nabih Youssef (Product, 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel). The Product 1.3 Geotechnical/Structural Working Group con- sisted of Sunil Gupta, Geoffrey Marin, Mar- shall Lew, aad Lelio Mejia. William T. Ho} mes, Yoshi Moriwaki, Maurice Power and Nabih Youssef served on the Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel.. Gregory P. Luth and Tom H. Hale, respectively, served as the Quality Assur- ance ‘Consultant and the Cost Effectiveness Study Consultant. Wendy Rule served as Tech- nical Editor, ane Gail Hynes Shea served as Publications Consultant Richard McCarthy CSSC Executive Director Christopher Rojahn ATC Executive Director & ATC-40 Senior Advisor Oversight Panel for Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Improvement Program Frederick M. Herman, Chair Richard Conrad Ross Cranmer Seismic Safesy Comission Builing Standards Comnis- Building Official Local Governmens/Building sion Structural Engineer Official Roy Johnston Frank McClure Dr. Wilfred twan Suructural Brgineer Structural Engineer Mechenical Engineer Joel McRonald Joseph P. Nicoletti Gary MeGavin Division of the State Architect Structural Engineer Seisraic Safesy: Commission Architect Lowell E, Shields Selsmic Safety Commission Stanley Scout Mechanical Engineer Research Political Scientist Seismic Safety Commission Staff Richard McCarthy Fred Turner Execuive Director Project Manager Karen Cogan Chris Lindstrom Deborah Penny Ed Hensley Carmen Marquez Teri DeVriend Kathy Goodelt Product 1.2 Senior Advisory Panel Sigmund A. Freeman Wiss, Jamey, Elstner & Asso- lates: Ronald O, Hamburger EQE huternationat William T. Holmes Rusherford & Chekene Jack Moehle ‘Thomas A. Sabol Charles Kircher Earthquake Engineering Re- Engethirk & Sabol Charles Kircher & Associates search Center Nabil. Youssef Nabil Youssef & Associates Product 1.3 Senior Advisory Panel William 7. Holmes Rutherford & Chekene Yoshii Moriwaki Woodward-Clyde Consular Maurice Power Geomatris Consutamns, Ine. Nabih F, Yousser Nabih Youssef & Associates Product 1.3 Geotechnical/Structural Working Group Sunil Gupta EQ Tech Consuttants Marshall Lew Law/Crandall, tne, ‘Quality Assurance consuttant Gregory P. Luth Gregory P. Lut & Associates Cost effectiveness Study Consultant Tom H. Hale Tiny R. Yew Consulting Engineers Geoffrey R. Martin University of Soubern California Lelio Mejia Woodward-Clyde Consuitanrs Technical Editor Wendy Rule Richmond, CA Publications consultant Gail Hynes Shea Albany, CA Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings Products 1.2 and 1.2 of the Proposition 122 Seismic Retrofit Practices Imorovement Program Table of Contents volume 1 Preface... Glossary Executive Summary . Chapter | Chapier 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter § ‘Table of contents Introdvetion oo. LL Purpose. 12 Sc0pe -oseessevee 7 1.3 Organization and Contents. Overview 2.1 Ingoduetion 2.2 Changes in Perspective... 23 2.5 Evaluation and Retrofit Concept 2.6 Final Design and Consiruction .. Performance Objectives... - 3.L Imoduk 3.2. Performance Levels 3.3. Barthquake Ground Motion 3.4 Performance Objectives... 3.5 Assignment of Performance Objectives. Seismic Hazard. Aa Scope 412. Eanhquake Ground Shaking Hazard Levels. 4.3. Ground Failure... 4.4 Primary Ground Shaking Coteria £5 Specification of Supplementary Crsria Determination of Deficiencies — 5.1 Introduction SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS 5.2 Description: Typical Layouts and Devails 5.3. Seismic Performance 3.4 Data Collection 5.5 Review of Seismic Hazara 5.6 Identification of Potentia! Deficiencies 5.7 Preliminary Evalustion of Anteipated Seismic Performance 5.8 Preliminary Evaluation Conclusions and Reeonimendations Chapter 6 Retrofit Strategies . 6.1 Introduction. 6.2 Altermuive Retrofit Swategies.. 6.3 Design Constraints and Considerations 64 Strawegy Selection 6.3 Preliminary Design Chapter? — Quality Assurance Procedures . 3.1 General 7.2 Peer Review... 7.3 Plan Check 7.4 Construction Quality Assurance Chapter § Nonlinear Static Analysis Procedures aes 8.1 Introduction 8.2 Methods to Petform Simplified Nonlinear Arnal ysis 8.3 Mlustrative Exarmple 8.4 Other Analysis Methods 85 Basis of Sita Dynamics Chapter 9 Modeling Rules : 9.1 Genera. 9.2 Leads . 9.3 Global Building Considerations... 9.4 Element Models 9.5 Component Models .... 8.6 Notations... Chapter 10° Foundation Effects, 10.1 Genera nce 10.2 Foundation Systers and 10.3. Foundation Elements 10.4 Properties of Geotechnical Components 10.5 Characterization of Site Soils. 30.6 Response Limis and Acceptability Criteria, 10.7 Modifications to Foundation Systems... ‘Chapter 11 Response Limi - 1A General. . — 11.2 Deseriptive Limits of Expected Performance 11.3 Global Building Acceptability Limits 114 lem and Component Acegailiy Limits. Chapter 12 Nonstructural Components... . vii ‘Table of contents, SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS I21 Introduction ..ss.cssscssesenssstessestnntssticenessetense 12.2 Acceptability Criteria. Chapter 13 Conclusions and Future Directions, 13.1) Insroduetion 13.2. Additional Data... 13.3 Potential Benefits. 13.4 Major Challenges. 13.5 Recommended Action Plan. References acer - - Volume 2—Appendices Appendix A Escondido Village Midrise, Stanford, California Appendix B_ Barrington Medical Center, Los Angeles, Califomia Appendix © Aaminincaton Bing, Calfomia Sie Universi at «Nong, Northridge, California Appendix D Holiday Inn, Van Nuys, Califor Appendix E Cost Effectiveness Study. Appendix F Supplemental Information on ‘Appendix G Applied Technology Council Projects and Report information. ‘Table of contents SEISMIC EVALUATION AND RETROFIT OF CONCRETE BUILDINGS Glossary Acceptability (response) limits: Refers to specific limiting values for the deformations and loadings. for deformation-controlled and foree- controlled components respectively, which ‘consticue criteria for acceptable seismic performance, Brittle: see nonduccile. Capacity: The expected ultimate strength (ia flexure, shear, or axial loading) of a structural component excluding the reduction (@) factors commonly used in design of concrete members. The capacity ‘usually refers to the strength at the yield point of tie element or structure's capacity ‘curve. For deformation-controlled ‘components, capacity beyond the elasti> limit generally includes the effects of strain hardening, Capacity curve: The plot of the total Lateral foree, V, ona structure, against the lateral defection, 4, of the roof of the structure. ‘This is often referred to as whe “pushover curve Capacity spectrum: ‘The capacity curve transformed from shear farce vs. roof Aisplacement (¥ vs. coordinates into spectral acceleration vs. spectral displacement (S. vs. 5} coordinates Capacity spectrum method: A nonlinear static analysis provedure that provides a graphical representation of the expected seismic perfornance of the existing or retrofitted structure by the intersection of tbe siructure’s capacity spectrum with a Clossary response spectrum (demand spectrum) representation of the earthquake’s displacement demand on the structure. The interseetion is the performance point, and the displacement coordinate, a, of the performance point is uve estimated displacement demand on the structure for the specified level of seismic hazard, Components: The local concrete members that comprise the major structural elements of the building such as columns, beams, slabs. wall panels, boundary members. joints, ete Concrete frame building: A building with a ‘monolithically east concrete structural framing system composed of horizomal and vertical elements which support all vertical gravity loads and also provide resistance 10 al} lateral loads through bending of the framing elements. Concrete frame-wall building: A building with a ‘suuctural system composed of an ‘essentially complete conerete frame system to support al) gravity loads ané conerete walls to provide resistance to lateral loads, primarily in shear. Deformation-controlled: Refers to components, eletnents, actions, oF systems which can, and ate permitted 10, exceed ther elastic limi in a ductile manner. Force or stess levels for these components are of lesser importance than the amount or extent of

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi