Nonlinear dynamic analysis is becoming increasingly important to understand the hierarchy of failures, the quantification of energy absorption, and the seismic behavior of structures. While nonlinear structural responses are very sensitive to the selected input ground motions (GMs), there is no consensus among the engineering community on how to select and scale GMs. Indeed, the engineers are mostly left to make their own judgments on this critical decision. The main goal of the thesis is to quantify the effects of different input GMs on the nonlinear structural response. In order to formulate a strategy for selecting input GMs for structural demand analysis, the link between seismology and structural engineering needs to be established. Introduction Strategy for Selecting Input Ground Motions for Structural Demand Analysis Levent ISBILIROGLU Supervisors: Maria LANCIERI, IRSN/PRP-DGE/SCAN/BERSSIN Philippe GUEGUEN, Université de Grenoble/CNRS/IFSTTAR Levent ISBILIROGLU PhD Researcher IRSN PRP-DGE/SCAN/BERSSIN https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisbiliroglu/en E-mail: [email protected] Contact 1. Baize, S., E. M. Cushing, F. Lemeille, and H. Jomard.2013. Updated seismotectonic zoning scheme of Metropolitan France, with reference to geologic and seismotectonic data, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, Vol. 184, No. 3, pp. 225–259. 2. Marin, S., J. P. Avouac, M. Nicolas, and A. Schlupp.2004.A Probabilistic Approach to Seismic Hazard in Metropolitan France., Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 94, No. 6, pp. 2137– 2163. 3. Baker, J.W. 2013. An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). White Paper, Version 2.0, 79 pp. 4. Iervolino, I., F. De Luca, and E. Cosenza E. 2010. Spectral shape-based assessment of SDOF nonlinear response to real, adjusted and artificial accelerograms. Engineering Structures 32, pp. 2776-2792. 5. NIST. 2011. Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses, NIST GCR 11-917-15 6. Causse, M., E. Chaljub, F. Cotton, C. Cornou, and P. Y. Bard. 2009. New approach for coupling k −2 and empirical Green's functions: application to the blind prediction of broad‐band ground motion in the Grenoble basin. Geophysical Journal International 179, pp. 1627-1644 7. Chopra, A. K. (2011). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 8. Causse, M., A. Laurendeau, M. Perrault, J. Douglas, L. F. Bonilla, and P. Guéguen.2013. Eurocode 8-compatible synthetic time-series as input to dynamic analysis, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 12, 2 755-768 9. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). (2009). Evaluation of Ground Motion Selection and Modification Methods: Predicting Median Interstory Drift Response of Buildings. UC, Berkeley. References 1st Year: Tools Development and Scenario Criteria • Consolidation of spectral matched, real, and synthetic data sets • Definition of the structural model 2nd Year: Tools Application and Refinement • Definition of the demand parameters as a function of structural response • Demand analysis with the different data sets • Investigation of intensity measures • Statistical analysis 3rd Year: Analysis Refinement • Validating analysis with more refined structural models • Publishing manuscript and scientific papers Plan of Study After producing the compatible families of waveforms, both elastic and inelastic nuclear structures will be modeled and then be analyzed for nonlinear behavior. In order to reduce the computational time and the cost, trade-off between complex and simplified structural models will be made. Also, the question of whether input GMs introduce biased nonlinear structural response will be investigated. This part is one of the primary interests for an structural engineer. k 1 ,c 1 k 2 ,c 2 k 3 ,c 3 m 1 m 2 m 3 Story drifts for different ductility ratios (Chopra, 2011) Figure 8. Complex vs. simplified structural model (on the left). Response of elastoplastic system under El Centro ground motion (on the right) ((a) is the deformation curve, (b) is the resisting force and acceleration, (c) is time interval of yielding and (d) is the force deformation relation.) [7] (3) Structural Response (4) Quantification of GMs The structural responses will be collected for further statistical analyses. Median response, the assessment of vulnerability curve, and the evaluation of failure probability will be determined in order to compare the characteristics of different families of GMs. However, structural response of interest (like drift ratio, max element forces, peak floor accelerations, etc…) needs to be decided carefully since each response can produce a different conclusion. Figure 10. Comparison of different GM selection methods based on median drift ratios for medium rise residential buildings [9] Figure 9. Comparison of the drifts of SDOF systems for the seven sets of accelerograms [8] Figure 11. Average of ductility demands for the SDOF with a softening backbone behavior computed as the mean of 28 records [4] (2) Input Ground Motions The output of a seismic hazard assessment cannot be used as an input for the nonlinear structural analysis, and the accelerograms are needed for this purpose. The challenge is to select accelerograms coherently with D/PSHA and to make them suitable for engineering purposes. Real, spectral matched, and synthetic waveforms are the focus of this study and require the collaboration of structural engineers and seismologists. Figure 7. Representation of the rupture process modelled as a slip pulse and split into its low (on the left) and high (in the middle) components. The example of resulting slip velocity functions (on the right) (synthetic waveforms) [6] Figure 5. Characterization of a recorded waveform (real accelerogram) (a) (b) (c) Figure 6. Examples of selections based on spectral properties: (a) phase matching, (b) average compatibility [4] , and (c) conditional mean spectrum [5] (1) Seismic Hazard Scenario The seismic hazard assessment is the estimation of the expected ground motion level at a given site of interest. It can be performed with the use of deterministic or probabilistic approaches (D/PSHA). This work is mainly performed by seismologists. (1) DSHA: Response spectrum for a single (Magnitude, Distance) scenario (2) PSHA: Uniform Hazard Spectrum (UHS) for multiple scenarios Input: Seismic Zones, Catalogues and GMPEs Figure 3. Response spectra based on max considered eq for the two faults [3] Figure 4. Uniform hazard spectrum and PSH deaggreagation [3] Figure 1. Seismotectonic zonation of France with the historical (empty circles) and instrumental (filled circles) seismicity [1] 0 100 200 50 Km Catalogue 463-2009 Ms ≥1.5 ≥2 ≥3 ≥4 ≥5 ≥6 " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / " / Penly Cruas Chooz Bugey Paluel Nogent Civaux Chinon Golfech Cattenom Tricastin Dampierre Le Blayais Gravelines Fessenheim Belleville Saint Alban Flamanville Saint Laurent 2004 2005 2003 1001 1005 3011 3001 1004 2002 3006 3008 4006 1007 4011 2006 4012 1003 1002 1006 4007 3012 3009 3005 3002 4008 4004 4005 3007 4013 3010 3004 4009 4010 4002 3003 4001 4003 Source: US National Park Service Figure 2. Comparison of the Marin et al. (2004) preliminary attenuation law for France and the recent data from the French accelerometric network (RAP) [2] MARCH 2015 This research is funded by SINAPS@ Project.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Poster Print Size: This poster template is set up for A0 international paper size of 1189 mm x 841 mm (46.8” high by 33.1” wide). It can be printed at 70.6% for an A1 poster of 841 mm x 594 mm.
Placeholders: The various elements included in this poster are ones we often see in medical, research, and scientific posters. Feel free to edit, move, add, and delete items, or change the layout to suit your needs. Always check with your conference organizer for specific requirements.
Image Quality: You can place digital photos or logo art in your poster file by selecting the Insert, Picture command, or by using standard copy & paste. For best results, all graphic elements should be at least 150-200 pixels per inch in their final printed size. For instance, a 1600 x 1200 pixel photo will usually look fine up to 8“-10” wide on your printed poster.
To preview the print quality of images, select a magnification of 100% when previewing your poster. This will give you a good idea of what it will look like in print. If you are laying out a large poster and using half-scale dimensions, be sure to preview your graphics at 200% to see them at their final printed size.
Please note that graphics from websites (such as the logo on your hospital's or university's home page) will only be 72dpi and not suitable for printing.
[This sidebar area does not print.]
Change Color Theme: This template is designed to use the built-in color themes in the newer versions of PowerPoint.
To change the color theme, select the Design tab, then select the Colors drop-down list.
The default color theme for this template is “Office”, so you can always return to that after trying some of the alternatives.
Printing Your Poster: Once your poster file is ready, visit www.genigraphics.com to order a high-quality, affordable poster print. Every order receives a free design review and we can delivery as fast as next business day within the US and Canada.
Genigraphics® has been producing output from PowerPoint® longer than anyone in the industry; dating back to when we helped Microsoft® design the PowerPoint software.
US and Canada: 1-800-790-4001 International: +(1) 913-441-1410
Email: [email protected]
[This sidebar area does not print.]
Nonlinear dynamic analysis is becoming increasingly important to understand the hierarchy of failures, the quantification of energy absorption, and the seismic behavior of structures. While nonlinear structural responses are very sensitive to the selected input ground motions (GMs), there is no consensus among the engineering community on how to select and scale GMs. Indeed, the engineers are mostly left to make their own judgments on this critical decision. The main goal of the thesis is to quantify the effects of different input GMs on the nonlinear structural response. In order to formulate a strategy for selecting input GMs for structural demand analysis, the link between seismology and structural engineering needs to be established.
Introduction
Strategy for Selecting Input Ground Motions for Structural Demand Analysis
Levent ISBILIROGLU Supervisors: Maria LANCIERI, IRSN/PRP-DGE/SCAN/BERSSIN Philippe GUEGUEN, Université de Grenoble/CNRS/IFSTTAR
Levent ISBILIROGLU PhD Researcher IRSN PRP-DGE/SCAN/BERSSIN https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisbiliroglu/en E-mail: [email protected]
Contact 1. Baize, S., E. M. Cushing, F. Lemeille, and H. Jomard.2013. Updated seismotectonic zoning scheme of Metropolitan France, with reference to geologic and seismotectonic data, Bulletin de la Société
Géologique de France, Vol. 184, No. 3, pp. 225–259. 2. Marin, S., J. P. Avouac, M. Nicolas, and A. Schlupp.2004.A Probabilistic Approach to Seismic Hazard in Metropolitan France., Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 94, No. 6, pp. 2137–
2163. 3. Baker, J.W. 2013. An Introduction to Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA). White Paper, Version 2.0, 79 pp. 4. Iervolino, I., F. De Luca, and E. Cosenza E. 2010. Spectral shape-based assessment of SDOF nonlinear response to real, adjusted and artificial accelerograms. Engineering Structures 32, pp. 2776-2792. 5. NIST. 2011. Selecting and Scaling Earthquake Ground Motions for Performing Response-History Analyses, NIST GCR 11-917-15 6. Causse, M., E. Chaljub, F. Cotton, C. Cornou, and P. Y. Bard. 2009. New approach for coupling k−2 and empirical Green's functions: application to the blind prediction of broad‐band ground motion in the
Grenoble basin. Geophysical Journal International 179, pp. 1627-1644 7. Chopra, A. K. (2011). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 8. Causse, M., A. Laurendeau, M. Perrault, J. Douglas, L. F. Bonilla, and P. Guéguen.2013. Eurocode 8-compatible synthetic time-series as input to dynamic analysis, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 12, 2
755-768
9. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center (PEER). (2009). Evaluation of Ground Motion Selection and Modification Methods: Predicting Median Interstory Drift Response of Buildings. UC, Berkeley.
References
1st Year: Tools Development and Scenario Criteria • Consolidation of spectral matched, real, and synthetic data sets • Definition of the structural model 2nd Year: Tools Application and Refinement • Definition of the demand parameters as a function of structural response • Demand analysis with the different data sets • Investigation of intensity measures • Statistical analysis 3rd Year: Analysis Refinement • Validating analysis with more refined structural models • Publishing manuscript and scientific papers
Plan of Study
After producing the compatible families of waveforms, both elastic and inelastic nuclear structures will be modeled and then be analyzed for nonlinear behavior. In order to reduce the computational time and the cost, trade-off between complex and simplified structural models will be made. Also, the question of whether input GMs introduce biased nonlinear structural response will be investigated. This part is one of the primary interests for an structural engineer.
k1,c1
k2,c2
k3,c3
m1
m2
m3
Story drifts for different ductility ratios (Chopra, 2011)
Figure 8. Complex vs. simplified structural model (on the left). Response of elastoplastic system under El Centro ground motion (on the right) ((a) is the deformation curve, (b) is the resisting force and acceleration, (c) is time interval of yielding and (d) is the force deformation relation.)[7]
(3) Structural Response
(4) Quantification of GMs The structural responses will be collected for further statistical analyses. Median response, the assessment of vulnerability curve, and the evaluation of failure probability will be determined in order to compare the characteristics of different families of GMs. However, structural response of interest (like drift ratio, max element forces, peak floor accelerations, etc…) needs to be decided carefully since each response can produce a different conclusion.
Figure 10. Comparison of different GM selection methods based on median drift ratios for medium rise residential buildings [9]
Figure 9. Comparison of the drifts of SDOF systems for the seven sets of accelerograms [8]
Figure 11. Average of ductility demands for the SDOF with a softening backbone behavior computed as the mean of 28 records[4]
(2) Input Ground Motions The output of a seismic hazard assessment cannot be used as an input for the nonlinear
structural analysis, and the accelerograms are needed for this purpose. The challenge is to
select accelerograms coherently with D/PSHA and to make them suitable for engineering
purposes. Real, spectral matched, and synthetic waveforms are the focus of this study and
require the collaboration of structural engineers and seismologists.
Figure 7. Representation of the rupture process modelled as a slip pulse and split into its low (on the left) and high (in the middle) components. The example of resulting slip velocity functions (on the right) (synthetic waveforms)[6]
Figure 5. Characterization of a recorded waveform (real accelerogram)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6. Examples of selections based on spectral properties: (a) phase matching, (b) average compatibility[4], and (c) conditional mean spectrum [5]
(1) Seismic Hazard Scenario The seismic hazard assessment is the estimation of the expected ground motion level at a given site of interest. It can be performed with the use of deterministic or probabilistic approaches (D/PSHA). This work is mainly performed by seismologists.
(1) DSHA: Response spectrum for a single
(Magnitude, Distance) scenario
(2) PSHA: Uniform Hazard Spectrum
(UHS) for multiple scenarios
Input: Seismic Zones, Catalogues and GMPEs
Figure 3. Response spectra based on max considered eq for the two faults[3]
Figure 4. Uniform hazard spectrum and PSH deaggreagation[3]
Figure 1. Seismotectonic zonation of France with the historical (empty circles) and instrumental (filled circles) seismicity [1]
0 100 20050 Km
Catalogue 463-2009
Ms
≥1.5
≥2
≥3
≥4
≥5
≥6
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/
"/"/
"/
"/
"/
Penly
Cruas
Chooz
Bugey
Paluel
Nogent
Civaux
Chinon
Golfech
Cattenom
Tricastin
Dampierre
Le Blayais
Gravelines
Fessenheim
Belleville
Saint Alban
Flamanville
Saint Laurent
2001
2004
2005
2003
1001
1005
3011
3001
1004
2002
3006
3008
4006
1007
4011
2006
4012
1003
1002
1006
4007
30123009
3005
3002
4008
4004
4005
3007
40133010
3004
4009
4010
4002
3003
4001
4003
Source: US National Park Service
Figure 2. Comparison of the Marin et al. (2004) preliminary attenuation law for France and the recent data from the French accelerometric network (RAP)[2]
MA
RC
H 2
01
5
This research is funded by SINAPS@ Project.
Related Documents
