1 / 8

Insights from the 2010 NEES/PEER Blind Prediction Contest on Concrete Column Modeling

The 2010 NEES/PEER Annual Meeting featured a contest focused on predicting the performance of concrete columns using various modeling approaches. Key techniques included 3D beam-column elements, moment-axial interaction, and lumped plasticity at nodes, adhering to ASCE 41 standards. Performance predictions revealed correlations for displacement, acceleration, and shear force, contrary to axial force and curvature data, especially for certain records. The results highlighted the need for enhanced modeling techniques and a better understanding of local member responses, suggesting that tangent stiffness damping might be more suitable.

kalani
Download Presentation

Insights from the 2010 NEES/PEER Blind Prediction Contest on Concrete Column Modeling

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. Quake Summit 2010, NEES & PEER Annual Meeting, October 8-9 October 9, 2010 PEER/NEES Concrete Column Blind Prediction Contest

  2. MODELING APPROACH • 3D beam-column elements • Moment-axial interaction • Lumped plasticity at nodes • ASCE 41 backbone curve • ANSR-II for non-linear analysis

  3. MODELING APPROACH • Moment-curvature to verify: • Section response • Strain hardening • Failure mechanism • Effective section properties: • SLS: 0.78Ig • ULS: 0.38Ig Per NZS 3101: 2006

  4. MODELING APPROACH Damping: Based on original stiffness SLS: 2.0% ULS: 2.5% Moderate unloading stiffness degradation: a = 0.3

  5. PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS • Parameters that generally correlated well: • Displacement • Acceleration • Base moment • Shear force … with some exceptions! • Displacements for record 5 were significantly different • Accelerations for records 3 & 6 were lower than predicted

  6. PERFORMANCE PREDICTIONS • Parameters that did not correlate well: • Axial force • Curvature • Axial strain • Records 5 & 6 had the largest result scatter

  7. CONCLUSIONS & NEXT STEPS … Design office procedures in conjunction with ASCE 41 are capable of estimating global demand parameters with reasonable accuracy, on average. Macro modeling techniques are not well suited to capturing local member response: Curvature Strain etc. Tangent stiffness damping may be more appropriate for this type of structure With access to shake table test data, further improvement to these macro-modeling techniques can be expected

More Related