09 - Types of Analysis PDF

Types of analysis:
Linear static, linear

dynamic and non
linear static
Paulo B. Loureno
pbl@civil.uminho.pt
www.civil.uminho.pt/masonry
Safety
Assessment of
Existing Buildings
Types of analysis: Linear static, linear dynamic and non linear static
Paulo B. Loureno
Non-linear static analysis

Linear static analysis
Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering
Simplification
Structural Analysis Methods (Static)
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
Kinematics of 4-hinge collapse
Paulo B. Loureno
| 12
Paulo B. Loureno
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.
| 13
Paulo B. Loureno
Collapse of an arch brought experimentally to failure
| 14
Paulo B. Loureno
| 15
Static Analysis Methods (I)

Linear Elastic Analysis
elastic properties + maximum admissible
stress
1.25
10 kN
2.5
Kinematic Collapse Mechanism Analysis

inelastic properties = friction angle +
tensile and compressive strengths
Static Thrust Line Analysis

5
Non-linear
Analysis
(Physical
and
Combined)
FULL inelastic properties (ft = 0 and ft
0) + elastic properties
Static Analysis Methods (II)
Paulo B. Loureno
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
| 16
Paulo B. Loureno
Static Analysis Methods (III)

3.0
Load factor
2.5
2.0
1.5
Limit analysis
ft = 0, Physically non-linear
1.0
ft = 0, Physically / Geometrically non-linear

ft = 0.2 N/mm2, Physically non-linear
0.5
ft = 0.2 N/mm2, Physically / Geometrically non-linear
0.0
0
10
Vertical displacement at quarter span (mm)

15
| 17
Paulo B. Loureno
| 18
Static Analysis Methods (III)

Approach/Analysis type
Semi-circular arch
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
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
Structural Analysis Methods: Dynamic
Non-linear static analysis
Linear elastic time history analysis

Modal superposition
Linear static analysis
Simplification
Non-linear time history analysis
| 20
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
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
Push-Over Analysis (III)
Curvature (1/m)
Percentage of reinforcement = 1%
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!!
| 23
Paulo B. Loureno
| 24
Push-Over Analysis (IV)

`
F
HA
HB
Hc
HC
HA
C
HB
Force Based Design
Displacement Based Design
Stiffness:
proportional to 1/H3
proportional to 1/H
Shear:
proportional to 1/H
Moment:
equal
Reinforcement:
equal
Ductility:
equal (!)
Masonry
Structures With
Box Behavior
Paulo B. Loureno
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
| 26
Paulo B. Loureno
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
| 27
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
Paulo B. Loureno
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
Dimensionless normal stress (/fm)
1
0.75
Combined
flexural
0.5
Diagonal shear
0.25
Sliding
0
0
0.5
1.5
Slenderness (H/L)
Comb. flexural
Diagonal shear
Sliding shear
| 29
Mixed
2.5
Paulo B. Loureno
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.)
| 30
Paulo B. Loureno
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.)
| 31
Validation Example
Paulo B. Loureno
| 32
Or even use SAP 2000

One-dimensional macro-element
Bi-dimensional macro-element
Paulo B. Loureno
| 33
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
Commercial Software (II)

Efficient and high level modeling
Paulo B. Loureno
| 35
Paulo B. Loureno
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
Non-linear
analysis
A Displacement
capacity
Seismic
parameters
B Displacement
demand
Base shear (kN)
400
300
200
100
Final analysis
0
0
10
20
30
40
Displacement (mm)
| 36
Paulo B. Loureno
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
| 37
Energy Dissipation Capacity (II)
Paulo B. Loureno
| 38
Paulo B. Loureno
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
| 39
Application
Paulo B. Loureno
| 41
PARAMETRIC STUDY on the NR. of STOREYS (I)

Specific weight ,
17.0 kN/m3
Compressive characteristic strength , fk
2.56 MPa
Sliding pure shear characteristic strength, fvk0
0.15 MPa
Normal elasticity module, E
2560 MPa
Tangential elasticity module, G
1024 MPa
1.00
Dl = 6.0 kN/m2; Ll = 1.0 kN/m2
Dead load = 6.0 kN/m2

Live load = 1.0 kN/m2
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.50
2.00
1.00
1.50
6.50
1.50
1.50
1.00
1.50
1.00
1.50
0.30
0.30
0.30
1.00
6.50
6.50
6.50
1.00
1.00
1.00
9.00
Dl = 7.0 kN/m2; Dl = 2.0 kN/m2
Dl = 7.0 kN/m2; Ll = 2.0 kN/m2
2.00
2.00
3.00
6.00
Dead load = 6.0 kN/m2

Live load = 1.5 kN/m2
1.50
Dl = 7.0 kN/m2; Ll = 2.0 kN/m2
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
S
1.00
1.20
1.00
1.20
agR
Zone Soil (m/s2)
A
B
A
B
1.50 1.00
1.20
1.00 1.00
1.30
2.3
A
B
0.50 1.00
1.30
2.5
2.4
1.70 1.00
B
A
B
A
B
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
Unsafe
Fy
Fel
q 0 OSR
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
Qutb Minar
| 45
28.96
71.48
15.39
12.42
7.73
6.98
3.13
Location: New Delhi (India)

Material: Masonry
Total Height: 72.5 m
Crosss section: shell (3 leaves) + core (2 leaves)
14.07
Paulo B. Loureno
| 46
Numerical Modeling
7.0
FEM
UPadova
FEM
CBRI
Beam
Rigid
Blocks
Experimental Frequencies [Hz]
6.0
FEM
UMinho
Axial
Experimental
FEM - UMinho
FEM - UPadova
FEM - CBRI
BEAM
REM
5.0
Bending
Torsion
4.0
Bending
3.0
2.0
Bending
1.0
Bending
0.0
0
Calibration
Calculated Frequencies [Hz]
Paulo B. Loureno
| 47
Push-Over Analysis
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.25
Beam model
Rigid model
Solid model
0.05
Mass Proportional
Fac. $scala: 5.00000 Paso 1810
0.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Load factor [base shear / self-weight]
Load Factor
D$formada Dinamica minar$t$accct$
Linear Proportional
0.20
1 Mode proportional
Rigid - Plot V3.2.1
1.2
Top Displacement [m]
Uniform Mass Distribution

Collapse at the base
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Lateral displacement [m]
Other Mass Distributions
0.8
Paulo B. Loureno
Time History Analysis

0.6
1.5
Seismic coefficient Ah
Acceleration [m/s 2]
2.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
10th mode
0.16
0.5
First mode 1.26
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
10
15
Time [s]
20
0.5
1.5
Period [s]
Five articificial accelerograms
0.4
70
0.3
Collapse: 4th
balcony
0.2
Deslocamento horizontal [m]
DBE
Record 1
Record 2
Record 3
Record 4
Record 5
Srie7
Srie8
Srie9
Second mode 0.50
0.1
60
50
0
H [m]
-0.1
-0.2
Record 1
Record 2
Record 3
Record 4
Record 5
Srie6
Srie7
40
30
-0.3
20
-0.4
5 balco
4 balco
3 balco
2 balco
1 balco
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
10
0
0
-0.8
0
10
15
20
25
Tempo [s]
FEM Collapse for 0.20g

50
100
150
200
250
Maximum excentricity
(Bending Moment / Axial Load )
300
REM
| 48
Paulo B. Loureno
Gaioleiro Building
Location: Lisboa
Material: Masonry walls and
timber pavements
No. of storeys: 4 to 6
Numerical model
| 49
Gaioleiro Building
Paulo B. Loureno
| 50
Paulo B. Loureno
| 51
Pushover Analysis
Transversal Direction
Longitudinal Direction
0.3
[ h]
Seismic
de carga []
Factorcoefficient
0.25
[ h]
de carga ()
Seismic
Factorcoefficient
Pushover_1st Mode
Pushover_Mass
Dynamic
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Pushover_1st Mode
Pushover_Mass
Dynamic
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
Deslocamento
Displacement [m]
0
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
Displacement
Deslocamento
[m]
[m]
0.02
Time History Analysis

Numerical model
1 [m/m]
Principal strains
(external surface)
Paulo B. Loureno
Experimental model
| 52
Paulo B. Loureno
Design and Assessment = Macro-block analysis?

Limit equilibrium analysis using the principle of virtual work is currently
understood as the best analysis technique
Overturning
| 53
Conclusions
Paulo B. Loureno
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
| 55
Types of analysis:
Linear static, linear
dynamic and non
linear static
Paulo B. Loureno
pbl@civil.uminho.pt
www.civil.uminho.pt/masonry

09 - Types of Analysis PDF

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 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Types of analysis:

Linear static, linear

Non-linear static analysis

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Structural Analysis Methods (Static)

Early Structural Analysis

Cantilever beam according to Galileo (1638) and evolution

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Retaining wall according

Modern Structural Analysis

The possibilities are immense and several commercial software

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Modern Structural Analysis

Existing structures (evaluation, repair, rehabilitation)

Three types of non-linearities may arise:

Material (or physical) nonlinearity

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Vertical dead + live load

Modern Earthquake Design

Storey model (Por)

Finite element model

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

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Example of Analysis of an Arch

The solution: Ut pendet continuum flexile, sic

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

The basic assumptions are:

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Kinematics of 4-hinge collapse

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Correspondence with THRUST LINE theory: a hinge will develop each

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)

Kinematic Collapse Mechanism Analysis

Static Thrust Line Analysis

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Static Analysis Methods (II)

Max. 0.64 N/mm2

Kin. load factor : 1.8

Min. -1.0 N/mm2

Geo. load factor : 1.2

Min. -5.4 N/mm2

Min. -5.4 N/mm2

Static Analysis Methods (III)

ft = 0, Physically / Geometrically non-linear

ft = 0.2 N/mm2, Physically / Geometrically non-linear

Vertical displacement at quarter span (mm)

Static Analysis Methods (III)

Allowable stresses (fta=0.2 N/mm2)

ft = 0.2 N/mm2, Physically non-linear

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

Non-linear static analysis

Linear elastic time history analysis

Institute for Sustainability and Innovation in Structural Engineering

Non-linear time history analysis

Push-Over Analysis (I)