Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2
Transcript of Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2
![Page 1: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Analysis of Confined Masonry Buildings: Part 2
Juan José Pérez-Gavilán EApplied Mechanics
Institute of Engineering, UNAM
Short Course on Seismic Design of Reinforced and Confined Masonry Buildings
February 17-21, 2014, IIT Gandhinagar, India
![Page 2: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Wide columnEffective width
|
![Page 3: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Modelling parapets
hinge
![Page 4: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Modelling in 3D
![Page 5: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Modelling example
![Page 6: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Axis 1
![Page 7: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Axis 2
![Page 8: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Axis A
![Page 10: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Axis B
![Page 11: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Axis C
![Page 12: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Sections
![Page 13: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Final model
![Page 14: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Finite elements
![Page 15: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
FE- Axis 1
![Page 16: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
FE – Axis 2
![Page 17: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
FE- Axis 3
![Page 18: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
FE – Axes A and C
![Page 19: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
FE – Axes B
![Page 20: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Floor
Diaphragm can be modelled as rigid in its plane Using SAP2000, select all the nodes at the level
floor, then use “Constraint, Diaphragm” option. Reduces all degrees of freedom in the plane of
the floor to just 3: two displacements in the plane of the floor and a rotation about an axis that is perpendicular to the plane.
Out of plane degrees of freedom are preserved in each node.
![Page 21: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Numerical experiments
![Page 22: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Control sections
![Page 23: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Reference model
![Page 24: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
M1-FR1 M1-FR2
M1-FR3 M1-FR4
For the completeset of numericalexperiments seeTaveras 2008
Rigid elementsshown with thickerlines
![Page 25: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Shear force
Control section
![Page 26: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Shear
Large error show up using model FR-3 Model M1-FR1 seems to be more consistent. All models give good results for total shear in
sections S1 and S2 (M1-FR4 the worst) For the wall segments around the windows
larger errors were found. Left segments underestimated the shear force
and the right segments overestimate it
![Page 27: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Moment
Control section
![Page 28: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Moment
Large errors were found using model FR-3. This result is attributed to the fact that the model does not take into account the first parapet connected to the foundation (as is currently in the NTCM)
Model M-FR4 seems to be the more consistent, followed by M-FR1
All models give good results for complete sections S1 and S2, however, for the control sections in the wall segments to the side of the windows considerable errors were found
![Page 29: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Axial force
Control section
![Page 30: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
New recommendation
The recommendation takes into account numerical experiments for coupling wallsnot shown in the preceding slides
![Page 31: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Sections
![Page 32: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Wall division for modelling
G=0.4 E G=0.2 EFixed 1.632 1.155cantilever 1.915 1.354
Dividing is ok if L/H > 1.4
H/L having and error equal to 20%
𝛽=1 𝛽=0
![Page 33: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
Finiteelements
M1-EF1 M1-EF2
M1-EF3 M1-EF4
Tie-columns are included as frame elements
The frame elements should follow the discretization of the grid
Same effective with as in wide columns models should be used
![Page 34: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
Shear force
More consistent than FR models
Control section
![Page 35: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Shear
Errors were up to 12%, smaller than with FR models
Model M1-EF2 seems to be more consistent Finite element models appear more robust as
they can recover the shear forces in the wall segments at both sides of the windows.
![Page 36: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Moment
Control section
![Page 37: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Moment
Errors less than 35% were obtained with all models In all control sections the model that produced the
best results is the one with coarsest gird (M1-EF1) It seems that because the frame and finite
elements are not compatible, regarding the rotational degrees of freedom, an error is always included, that may grow as the grid is subdivided
When continually subdividing the mesh eventually there is convergence on displacements, but to a wrong value
![Page 38: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Axial force
Control section
![Page 39: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Axial force
Axial force appears to be very difficult to recover accurately, specially in the wall segments at each side of the windows
In all control sections the model that produced the best results is the one with coarsest gird (M1-EF1)
![Page 40: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Displacements
Displacements (cm)
Hei
ght (
m)
FR3, which do not consider the parapet of first floor overestimates the displacements Considerably. FR4 are quite good, and with FE models are, in general, larger than expected
![Page 41: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Summary/comments Wide column models (FR) cannot deal with complex force transmission
they do well for uniform frames and walls with no windows Not shown above, however by enforcing the flat section in walls in 3D
sometimes gives unexpected effects, for example when modelling “T” shaped walls, the effect of the flange is exaggerated when considering analysis in the direction of the web. An effective flange width should be considered but FR models cant. FE models in the other hand are much more flexible and do not impose artificial hypothesis
Tie-columns should be modelled. In case tie-columns are not included in the model, one may expect a
similar distributions of forces in the walls, however, the displacements are much larger and the period is increased, consequently the design will be conservative, as larger period usually means larger shear forces, for masonry structures.
Parapets play an important role on the behaviour of a frame with windows, they should be modelled, specially the one of the first floor.
![Page 42: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
FE vs FR
Finite element models– Are more robust– The model preparation is time consuming and error
prone.– It take much time to recover the element forces for the
design Wide column models– Give good results for shear and are less accurate for
moment and axial forces, specially around windows– Models are relatively simple to prepare– Recovering of the element forces is immediate
![Page 43: Analysis of Confined Masonry part 2](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062312/555b1922d8b42aa67a8b4963/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Questions?