1 / 22

Seismic Performance of Dissipative Devices Martin Williams University of Oxford

Seismic Performance of Dissipative Devices Martin Williams University of Oxford. Japan-Europe Workshop on Seismic Risk Bristol, July 2004. Outline. Introduction to knee bracing Optimisation of the knee element design: Full-scale experiments on knee elements Finite element modelling

bwhipple
Download Presentation

Seismic Performance of Dissipative Devices Martin Williams University of Oxford

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Seismic Performance ofDissipative DevicesMartin WilliamsUniversity of Oxford Japan-Europe Workshop on Seismic Risk Bristol, July 2004

  2. Outline • Introduction to knee bracing • Optimisation of the knee element design: • Full-scale experiments on knee elements • Finite element modelling • Seismic design and analysis of knee braced frames • Conclusions and future work Acknowledgements: Tony Blakeborough, Denis Clément, Neil Woodward

  3. Introduction to knee braced frames Seismic energy dissipated through yielding/hysteresis of knee elements

  4. Knee bracing Knee element requirements: • Early yield • Large energy dissipation – shear vs flexure • Stable under large non-linear excursions – web buckling • Easily replaceable – no damage to ends • Pursued via testing and FE analysis • Focus on standard section types Flexural hinge: Shear yield in web:

  5. Knee element designs • Column sections provide high lateral stability • Different stiffener patterns explored to prevent plastic web buckling • Perforation of webs explored as a way of giving a designer greater flexibility over choice of shear yield load

  6. Test set-up

  7. Loading regimes Slow cyclic: Real-time loading:

  8. Under-stiffened element Failure mode Hysteresis:

  9. Well-stiffened section Hysteresis Failure mode:

  10. Perforated web Failure mode: Hysteresis:

  11. Thermal monitoring system Typical images: Plastic strain distributions during tests could be deduced from measurements of the knee element temperature Thermal imaging system:

  12. Thermal analysis results Amplitude = 20 mm 30 mm Energy: Plastic strain: Von Mises stress:

  13. Summary of experimental findings • Full scale cyclic loading gives responses representative of a real earthquake • Yielding in shear is optimal • UC sections are are less prone to lateral instabilities • To prevent buckling, web stiffeners are required at a spacing approximately equal to the section depth • At a realistic design deflection the load on a knee element is approximately 1.7 times the yield load • Perforating the web was unsuccessful • Thermal imaging is an effective method for identifying the energy dissipation areas and tracking the spread of yielding

  14. FE analysis of knee elements using ABAQUS Cyclic + thermal analysis – comparison of temperature rise in one half-cycle with test: Cyclic analysis with three different hardening laws:

  15. Buckling analysis • Over-predicted buckling load of unstiffened web by 20% • Unable to model buckling of stiffened web

  16. Summary of FE results • An accurate hardening law is essential for realistic cyclic analysis • Thermal analysis showed reasonable agreement with thermal imaging results • It was not possible to build a model that agreed with all aspects of behaviour - shear forces, axial forces, moments and thermal dissipations • Buckling analysis overestimated the critical load by 20% for an unstiffened knee element and was unable to predict the failure mode for knee elements with stiffeners

  17. Design of a knee braced frame 5-storey building designed to EC8, for earthquake with peak ground acceleration 0.35g

  18. Design using pushover analysis • Designed using EC8 pushover approach • Also FEMA 356 approach, ATC 40 capacity spectrum method • Key difference is idealisation of pushover curve:

  19. Comparison with time-history analysis

  20. Summary of results • Pushover analysis shows that frames possess high ductility and post-yield stiffness • Knee elements begin to yield at just 0.08g but remain stable up to 0.56g • EC8 approach appears highly conservative for this type of structure, ATC40 approach unsafe

  21. Conclusions • Stable dissipative behaviour can be achieved using standard sections, appropriately reinforced • Large increases in knee element load occur after initial yield • Yielding and energy dissipation in experiments can be tracked using thermal imaging • Accurate FE modelling of all aspects of knee element behaviour did not prove possible – web buckling was particularly problematic • Design methods based on pushover analysis may be suitable for frames incorporating dissipative elements, but some further development of these approaches is desirable

  22. Current/future work • Testing of other dissipators, e.g. Jarret, Hyde devices • Real-time substructure testing • Further design and analysis studies using ten-storey frames, different dissipators

More Related