09 - Types of Analysis

Types of analysis: Linear static, linear dynamic and non linear static
Paulo B. Loureno
[email protected] www.civil.uminho.pt/masonry
Safety Assessment of Existing Buildings
Paulo B. Loureno
Structural Analysis Methods (Static)

Non-linear static analysis Linear static analysis Simplification
Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering
Paulo B. Loureno
Early Structural Analysis

Ut tensio sic vis or / E = is the elasticity law established by R. Hooke in 1676.The theory is so extensively used that its limitations and deficiencies are often forgotten. This is in opposition with early forms of limit analysis.
B
Cantilever beam according to Galileo (1638) and evolution of the hypothesis for the stress distribution at AB
Retaining wall according to Coulomb (1773)
Paulo B. Loureno
Modern Structural Analysis

As structural collapse does not generally coincide with the appearance of the first crack or localized early crushing, it seems that the elasticity theory is a step back with respect to limit analysis
Full nonlinear analysis (the most advanced form of structural analysis) covers the complete loading process, from the initial stress-free state, through the weakly nonlinear behavior under service loading, up to the strongly nonlinear behavior leading to collapse Interest has been growing since 1970s but it remains a field for selected (few) specialists due to complexity (knowledge) and costs (time) involved
The possibilities are immense and several commercial software packages include some form of nonlinear behavior, but an incorrect use can be very dangerous
Paulo B. Loureno
Modern Structural Analysis

The modern use of nonlinear analysis focuses mostly on these three fields:
Complex / stringent safety requirement structures (e.g. nuclear plants, dams, bridges) Virtual laboratory for parametric studies
Existing structures (evaluation, repair, rehabilitation)
Three types of non-linearities may arise:
Concrete (code model)
Steel (code model)
Material (or physical) nonlinearity
Geometrical nonlinearity
Contact nonlinearity
Paulo B. Loureno
Existing Buildings
Vehicles
Vertical dead + live load
Settlements Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering
Paulo B. Loureno
Modern Earthquake Design

Elastic analysis leads to excessively conservative solutions for unreinforced, confined, and possibly, reinforced masonry
Storey model (Por) Tomazevic
Finite element model (Many authors)
Macro-models (Braga, Liberatore, DAsdia, Magenes, Lagomarsino, etc.)
Paulo B. Loureno
Example of Analysis of an Arch

Robert Hooke (1635-1703)- Principle of the inverted catenary In 1675 Hooke provided the solution for he equilibrium of an arch by means of an anagram included in the book "A description of Helioscopes and some other Instruments", which was only deciphered after his death in 1703.
The solution: Ut pendet continuum flexile, sic stabit contiguum rigidum inversum as hangs the flexible line, so but inverted will stand the rigid arch.
Paulo B. Loureno
| 10
Graphic Statics
The arch is first decomposed in a series of real or fictitious voussoirs separated by a series of planes (the planes do not need to be parallel) The thrust line is defined as the geometrical locus of the points of application of the sectional forces (the resulting forces over each plane between voussoirs) across the arch An arch is stable if it is possible to find a thrust line contained between its boundaries
Paulo B. Loureno
| 11
Kinematic Analysis
Charles-Agustin COULOMB (1736-1806) proposed in 1773 the first general and accurate theory on the stability of masonry arches
The basic assumptions are: (1) Sliding between voussoirs is unlikely due to the existing frictional forces (2) Collapse will be caused by the rotation between parts due to the appearance of a number of hinges. The location of the hinges is a priori unknown but can be determined by the method of maxima and minima
Paulo B. Loureno
| 12
Kinematics of 4-hinge collapse
Paulo B. Loureno
| 13
Correspondence with THRUST LINE theory: a hinge will develop each time the equilibrium line becomes tangent to an alternate boundary. In this condition (failure), the thrust line is determined and unique.
Paulo B. Loureno
| 14
Collapse of an arch brought experimentally to failure
Paulo B. Loureno
| 15
Static Analysis Methods (I)

Linear Elastic Analysis elastic properties + maximum admissible stress
1.25
10 kN
Kinematic Collapse Mechanism Analysis inelastic properties = friction angle + tensile and compressive strengths
3
Static Thrust Line Analysis

5
Non-linear Analysis (Physical and Combined) FULL inelastic properties (ft = 0 and ft 0) + elastic properties
2.5
Paulo B. Loureno
| 16
Static Analysis Methods (II)
Max. 0.64 N/mm2 Linear Elastic
Kin. load factor : 1.8 Failure Mechanism
Min. -1.0 N/mm2 Linear Elastic
Geo. load factor : 1.2 Thrust Line
Min. -5.4 N/mm2 Phys. Non-Linear

Min. -5.4 N/mm2 Comb. Non-Linear
Paulo B. Loureno
| 17
Static Analysis Methods (III)

3.0 2.5
Load factor
2.0
1.5 1.0 0.5

0.0 0
Limit analysis
ft = 0, Physically non-linear
ft = 0, Physically / Geometrically non-linear

ft = 0.2 N/mm2, Physically non-linear ft = 0.2 N/mm2, Physically / Geometrically non-linear
10
15
Vertical displacement at quarter span (mm)

Paulo B. Loureno
| 18
Static Analysis Methods (III)

Approach/Analysis type
Allowable stresses (fta=0.2 N/mm2) Kinematic limit analysis Geometric safety factor ft = 0, Physically non-linear ft = 0, Physically and geometrically non-linear Semi-circular arch 0.31 1.8 1.2 1.8 1.7
ft = 0.2 N/mm2, Physically non-linear ft = 0.2 N/mm2, Phys. and geom. non-linear
2.5 2.5
The safety factors of a linear elastic analysis and a static limit analysis cannot be compared with the remaining safety factors. Physically non-linear analysis and kinematic limit analysis yield the same failure mechanisms and safety factors? The consideration of a non-zero, yet low and degrading, tensile strength increased the safety factors considerably. The post-peak is a key issue. Different methods of analysis lead to different safety factors and different completeness of results.
Paulo B. Loureno
| 19
More on Static Analysis Methods

Safety factor: 124%
Paulo B. Loureno
| 20
Structural Analysis Methods: Dynamic

Non-linear time history analysis Non-linear static analysis Simplification
Linear elastic time history analysis Modal superposition Linear static analysis
Paulo B. Loureno
| 21
Push-Over Analysis (I)

In the recent years new methods of seismic assessment and design have been developed, particularly with respect to push-over analysis
Two methods of analysis can be distinguished:

- Traditional force method, combined with control of performance requirements based on deformation - Displacement based method, in which the analysis starts by defining a target displacement (measuring the structural response).
Paulo B. Loureno
| 22
Push-Over Analysis (II)

Traditional Force Method
The dimensions of the structural members are considered

The stiffness of the members is also considered (the codes might consider elastic stiffness or 30 to 50% of the elastic stiffness)
Periods are based on stiffness (Note: The design forces can be reduced about 30 to 50% if the stiffness is reduced to the half)
Forces are distributed in the elements according to the stiffness
Paulo B. Loureno
| 23
Push-Over Analysis (III)
Moment (kNm)
Curvature (1/m) Percentage of reinforcement = 1%
Moment (kNm)
Curvature (1/m) Percentage of reinforcement = 3%
Moment-curvature curves for circular columns (D=2 m, fc=35 MPa, fy=450 MPa) Stiffness and strength are correlated!!
Paulo B. Loureno
| 24
Push-Over Analysis (IV)

` F Hc HA
HA
HB C
HC
HB
A B
Force Based Design

Stiffness: proportional to 1/H3
Displacement Based Design

proportional to 1/H
Shear:
Moment: Reinforcement: Ductility:
proportional to 1/H3
proportional to 1/H2 proportional to 1/H2 equal (!)
proportional to 1/H
equal equal proportional to 1/H2
Masonry Structures With Box Behavior
Paulo B. Loureno
| 26
Recent test results: Rigid diaphragm

Worst case scenario: Embedded ring beam + Unfilled vertical joints Moderate damage up to 100% of the design earthquake in Lisbon Ductile failure for 250% of the design earthquake in Lisbon
Paulo B. Loureno
| 27
Experimental results show that URM possesses considerable capacity for inelastic deformations, and then the application of nonlinear analysis is obvious Seismic pushover analysis simulates the evolution of the condition of structures during earthquakes, through application of incremental horizontal forces until collapse
Assumptions of box behaviour and in-plane response are considered
Paulo B. Loureno
| 28
POR Storey Mechanism

Developed in former Yugoslavia and Italy as a reaction of the Skopje earthquake in 1963, and implemented in the region Friuli-Venezia Giulia after the Friuli earthquake in 1976 (DT2, 1977) The following hypothesis are considered:
Thickness of the wall is constant in each level
Slabs are rigid in-plane diaphragms Ends of the piers do not rotate, but only suffer translation Behavior of the piers is elastic-perfectly plastic, with a predefined ductility Elastic stiffness of each panel remains constant Panels collapse by diagonal shear according the Turnsek-Cacovic expression
Tomaevi, Braga & Dolce
Dimensionless normal stress (/fm)
Paulo B. Loureno
1
| 29
Additional Macro-Mechanisms
Since the 1980s, observation of damage in masonry buildings subjected to significant vertical load due to use of slabs, and constituted by slender piers, introduces a new trend of research on the combined flexural mechanism
0.75
Combined flexural
0.5 Diagonal shear 0.25 Sliding 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 Slenderness (H/L)
Comb. flexural
Diagonal shear
Sliding shear
Mixed
Paulo B. Loureno
| 30
Early Improvements in Italy

Initially these methods only had an impact in the scientific community and the POR persisted as the method most used by Italian designers
RAN (Raithel & Augenti)
PEFV (DAsdia & Viskovic)
MAS3D (Braga et al.)
Paulo B. Loureno
| 31
A Generation of Design Methods in Italy

As a consequence of the 2002 Molise Earthquake the new Italian code OPCM 3274/2003(3431/2005) was introduced, and macro-elements methods emerge as modern and practical tools
Spandrel
Pier
Joint
SAM (Magenes et al.)
3Muri (Lagomarsino et al.)
3DMacro (Cali et al.)
Paulo B. Loureno
| 32
Validation Example
Paulo B. Loureno
| 33
Or even use SAP 2000

One-dimensional macro-element
Bi-dimensional macro-element
Paulo B. Loureno
| 34
Commercial Software (I)

There is commercial software available for structural UR masonry, particularly in Italy. Benchmarking was made in two publications: Azores 1998, Eds. C. Sousa Oliveira et al., (2008) and Marques, R., Loureno, P.B., Possibilities and comparison of structural component models for the seismic assessment of masonry buildings, Computers and Structures, 89 (21-22), p. 2079-2091 (2011)
Program AEDES CMT+L FEDRA WIN-Statik MurDim+ Por 2000 TQS CAD/Alvest Tricalc.13 Tricalc.17 WinMason 3DMacro 3Muri ANDILWall MURATS Sismur TRAVILOG Tecnobit CDMaWin Country Italy Spain Norway Sweden Italy Brazil Spain Spain USA Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Italy Code Italian Eurocode Eurocode ? Italian Brazilian Eurocode Spanish USA Italian Italian Italian Italian Italian Italian Italian Italian Approach Web adress FEM and SCM www.aedes.it FEM www.arktec.com/cmtl.htm FEM www.runet-software.com/FEDRA.htm ? www.strusoft.com SCM www.newsoft-eng.it/Por2000.htm ? www.tqs.com.br/v13/alvest.htm FEM www.arktec.com/new_t13.htm FEM www.arktec.com/new_t17.htm Storey Mech. www.archonengineering.com/winmason.html SCM http://www.3dmacro.it/ SCM www.stadata.com SCM www.crsoft.it/andilwall Storey Mech. www.softwareparadiso.it/murats.htm Storey Mech. www.franiac.it/sismur.html Storey Mech. www.logical.it/software_travilog.aspx Storey Mech. www.tecnobit.info/products/murature.php FEM and SCM www.stsweb.net/STSWeb/ITA/homepage.htm
Paulo B. Loureno
| 35
Commercial Software (II)

Efficient and high level modeling
Paulo B. Loureno
| 36
Displacement Based Design

Recent methods implement capacity/displacement-based seismic design, by evaluating the evolution of damage and displacement If the damage evolution can be used as a measure of seismic performance, the confrontation between displacement capacity and displacement demand is the rule for safety verification
500
DXF/DWG
Geometric definition
Structural objects
Structural characteristics
Automatic mesh definition
Equivalent mesh/frame definition
400
Base shear (kN)
Non-linear analysis
300
A Displacement capacity B Displacement demand
200
Seismic parameters
100
Final analysis
0 0 10 20 30 40
Displacement (mm)
Paulo B. Loureno
| 37
Energy Dissipation Capacity (I)

In a force based method, the non-linear reserve capacity must be considered
For unreinforced masonry buildings with 2 or more storeys:
EC8: q = 1.5-2.5 (recommended 1.5)
OPCM 3431:
u /1 (OSR) = 1.8
q = q0 x OSR = 3.6
Paulo B. Loureno
| 38
Energy Dissipation Capacity (II)
Paulo B. Loureno
| 39
Energy Dissipation Capacity (III)

necessrio ter em conta a reserva de capacidade no linear das estruturas em ductilidade
Para edifcios em alvenaria simples com 2 ou mais pisos:
EC8: q(0) = 2.0
OPCM 3431:
u /1 (OSR) = 1.8
q = q0 x OSR = 3.6
Application
Paulo B. Loureno
| 41
PARAMETRIC STUDY on the NR. of STOREYS (I)

Specific weight , Compressive characteristic strength , fk 17.0 kN/m3 2.56 MPa
Sliding pure shear characteristic strength, fvk0

Normal elasticity module, E Tangential elasticity module, G Dl = 6.0 kN/m2; Ll = 1.0 kN/m2
0.15 MPa
2560 MPa 1024 MPa
Dead load = 6.0 kN/m2 Live load = 1.0 kN/m2
Dl = 7.0 kN/m2; Ll = 2.0 kN/m2
1.00
9.00
Dead load = 6.0 kN/m2 Live load = 1.5 kN/m2

6.00
Dl = 7.0 kN/m2; Ll = 2.0 kN/m2
Dl = 7.0 kN/m2; Dl = 2.0 kN/m2
3.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.50
2.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
6.50
6.50
6.50
0.30
0.30
0.30
6.50
6.50
6.50
Undamaged
Plastic by shear
Failure by shear
Plastic by flexural
Failure by flexural
Paulo B. Loureno
| 42
PARAMETRIC STUDY on the NR. of STOREYS (II)

Pushover Analysis
agR Zone Soil (m/s2) 1.1 A 2.50 B 1.2 A 2.00 B 1.3 1.4 1.5 A B A B A B
S 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.20
agR Zone Soil (m/s2) 2.3 2.4 2.5 A B A B A B
1.50 1.00 1.20 1.00 1.00 1.30 0.50 1.00 1.30
1.70 1.00 1.35 1.10 1.00 1.33 0.80 1.00 1.35
Elastic Analysis ac. PT NA to EC8 (q=1.5) Elastic Analysis ac. IT OPCM 3431
q q0
Fy Fel
q 0 OSR
Unsafe
Safe in soil type A
Safe in soil types A and B
Masonry Structures Without Box Behavior
Paulo B. Loureno
| 44
Recent Tests: Flexible Diaphragm

Gaioleiro-type structure (late 19th century / early 20th century) Moderate damage for 100% of the design earthquake in Lisbon Light strengthening and collapse for 150% of the design earthquake in Lisbon
Paulo B. Loureno
| 45
Qutb Minar
3.13
71.48
Location: New Delhi (India) Material: Masonry Total Height: 72.5 m Crosss section: shell (3 leaves) + core (2 leaves)
14.07
28.96
15.39
12.42
7.73
6.98
Paulo B. Loureno
| 46
Numerical Modeling
7.0 6.0
FEM UMinho
FEM UPadova
FEM CBRI
Beam
Rigid Blocks
Experimental Frequencies [Hz]
5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 0
Experimental FEM - UMinho FEM - UPadova FEM - CBRI BEAM REM Bending
Axial
Bending
Torsion
Bending
Bending
Calibration
Calculated Frequencies [Hz]
Paulo B. Loureno
| 47
Push-Over Analysis
0.25
0.20
D$formada Dinamica minar$t$accct$
Load Factor
0.15 0.10
0.05 0.00
Beam model Rigid model Solid model
0.25 Mass Proportional
Load factor [base shear / self-weight]
Linear Proportional 0.20 1 Mode proportional
Fac. $scala: 5.00000 Paso 1810
Rigid - Plot V3.2.1
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0.15
Top Displacement [m]
Uniform Mass Distribution

Collapse at the base
0.10
0.05
0.00 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Lateral displacement [m]
Other Mass Distributions
Paulo B. Loureno
| 48
Time History Analysis

2.0
Acceleration [m/s 2]
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0
1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 0 5 10 15 20

Seismic coefficient Ah
10th mode 0.16
First mode 1.26 Second mode 0.50
DBE Record 1 Record 2 Record 3 Record 4 Record 5 Srie7 Srie8 Srie9
0.5
1.5
Period [s]
Time [s]
0.4 0.3 0.2
Five articificial accelerograms

70
Deslocamento horizontal [m]
0.1 0
Collapse: 4th balcony

H [m]
60
50
-0.1 -0.2 -0.3 -0.4 -0.5 -0.6 -0.7 -0.8 0 5 10 15 20 25
40
30
Record 1 Record 2 Record 3 Record 4 Record 5 Srie6 Srie7
20
5 balco 4 balco 3 balco 2 balco 1 balco
10
0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Maximum excentricity (Bending Moment / Axial Load )
REM
Tempo [s]
FEM Collapse for 0.20g

Paulo B. Loureno
| 49
Gaioleiro Building
Location: Lisboa Material: Masonry walls and timber pavements No. of storeys: 4 to 6
Numerical model
Paulo B. Loureno
| 50
Gaioleiro Building
Paulo B. Loureno
| 51
Pushover Analysis
Transversal Direction
0.3 0.25
Longitudinal Direction
1
[ h] coefficient de carga () Seismic Factor
Pushover_1st Mode Pushover_Mass Dynamic
[ h] coefficient Seismic de carga [] Factor
0.8
Pushover_1st Mode Pushover_Mass Dynamic
0.2
0.6
0.15
0.1
0.4
0.05
0.2
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Deslocamento Displacement [m]
Displacement Deslocamento [m] [m]
Paulo B. Loureno
| 52
Time History Analysis

Numerical model
Experimental model
1 [m/m]
Principal strains (external surface)
Paulo B. Loureno
| 53
Design and Assessment = Macro-block analysis?

Limit equilibrium analysis using the principle of virtual work is currently understood as the best analysis technique
Overturning
Conclusions
Paulo B. Loureno
| 55
Conclusions
Design and assessment methods based on non-linear analysis should be used for masonry structures. Linear elastic analysis methods (application of equivalent static forces and modal superposition) are questionable
Adequate models and commercial software, based on pushover analysis, are available for masonry with box behavior It was shown that pushover analyses do not simulate correctly the failure mode of masonry structures without box behavior, meaning that higher vibration modes have a significant contribution Pushover analysis proportional to the mass are probably the best solution is global structural analysis models are used For design purposes, particularly for strengthening design, macro-block limit analysis is probably the best analysis tool for practitioners More research needs to be done in the field of masonry structures without box behavior and earthquakes
Paulo B. Loureno
[email protected] www.civil.uminho.pt/masonry

09 - Types of Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

09 - Types of Analysis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

09 - Types of Analysis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Types of analysis: Linear static, linear dynamic and non linear static

Safety Assessment of Existing Buildings

Structural Analysis Methods (Static)

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Early Structural Analysis

Retaining wall according to Coulomb (1773)

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Modern Structural Analysis

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Modern Structural Analysis

Existing structures (evaluation, repair, rehabilitation)

Three types of non-linearities may arise:

Concrete (code model)

Steel (code model)

Material (or physical) nonlinearity

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Vertical dead + live load

Settlements Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Modern Earthquake Design

Storey model (Por) Tomazevic

Finite element model (Many authors)

Macro-models (Braga, Liberatore, DAsdia, Magenes, Lagomarsino, etc.)

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Example of Analysis of an Arch

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Kinematics of 4-hinge collapse

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Collapse of an arch brought experimentally to failure

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Static Analysis Methods (I)

Static Thrust Line Analysis

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Static Analysis Methods (II)

Max. 0.64 N/mm2 Linear Elastic

Kin. load factor : 1.8 Failure Mechanism

Min. -1.0 N/mm2 Linear Elastic

Geo. load factor : 1.2 Thrust Line

Min. -5.4 N/mm2 Phys. Non-Linear

Min. -5.4 N/mm2 Comb. Non-Linear

Static Analysis Methods (III)

1.5 1.0 0.5

ft = 0, Physically / Geometrically non-linear

Vertical displacement at quarter span (mm)

Static Analysis Methods (III)

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

More on Static Analysis Methods

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Structural Analysis Methods: Dynamic

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Push-Over Analysis (I)

Two methods of analysis can be distinguished:

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Push-Over Analysis (II)

The dimensions of the structural members are considered

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering