Upload
silas-watts
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EngineeringResearchCenter
Development of a Precast Floor Diaphragm Seismic Design
Methodology (DSDM)Robert Fleischman, UA
Clay Naito and Richard Sause, LU
Jose Restrepo and Andre Filiatrault, UCSD
S.K. Ghosh, S.K. Ghosh Associates, Inc.
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
DSDM Consortium
P ro d uce r M em b e rs
U n ive rs ity o f C a lifo rn iaS a n D ie go
Jo se R e stre po , P IA n d re F ilia tra u lt, C o -P I
P ro d uce r M em b e rs
L e h igh U n ive rs ityC la y N a ito , P I
R ich ard S au se , C o -P I
In d u s try A d viso ry P a n e l
In d u stry L ia isonS . K . G h osh , C o -P I
U n ive rs ity o f A rizo naR o b e rt F le isch m anC o n so rtium L ea d er
DSDM Task Group
PCI, IAP
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Status• PCI R&D providing $200,000 in funds for
project research activities.
• Proposal submitted to NSF GOALI Program February 7, 2003.
• Awaiting outcome of the review process (NSF Panel met August 4 2003).
• Project Original Start Date August 2003
• Initial DSDM Research Meeting.
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
PTLo a d C e ll
Lo a d C e ll
7 .3 9 0 m
2 .0 2 5 m
Sha keTa b le
Pin , typ .
Stro n g Wa ll
Te st C o lum n,typ .
Te st Be a m ,typ .
C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4
PTLo a d C e ll
Lo a d C e ll
7 .3 9 0 m
2 .0 2 5 m
Sha keTa b le
Pin , typ .
Stro n g Wa ll
Te st C o lum n,typ .
Te st Be a m ,typ .
C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4
PTLo a d C e ll
Lo a d C e ll
7 .3 9 0 m
2 .0 2 5 m
Sha keTa b le
Pin , typ .
Stro n g Wa ll
Te st C o lum n,typ .
Te st Be a m ,typ .
C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4
PTLo a d C e ll
Lo a d C e ll
7 .3 9 0 m
2 .0 2 5 m
Sha keTa b le
Pin , typ .
Stro n g Wa ll
Te st C o lum n,typ .
Te st Be a m ,typ .
C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4
PTLo a d C e ll
Lo a d C e ll
7 .3 9 0 m
2 .0 2 5 m
Sha keTa b le
Pin , typ .
Stro n g Wa ll
Te st C o lum n,typ .
Te st Be a m ,typ .
C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4
PTLo a d C e ll
Lo a d C e ll
7 .3 9 0 m
2 .0 2 5 m
Sha keTa b le
Pin , typ .
Stro n g Wa ll
Te st C o lum n ,typ .
Te st Be a m ,typ .
C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4
PTLo a d C e ll
Lo a d C e ll
7 .3 9 0 m
2 .0 2 5 m
Sha keTa b le
Pin , typ .
Stro n g Wa ll
Te st C o lum n ,typ .
Te st Be a m ,typ .
C 1 C 2 C 3 C 4
Side Walls
Load Cell
Floor Diaphragms
Shake Table
ReactionWall
Steel Base withCantilever Outriggers
6 ft – 6 in
Proposed Research Approach:Integrated Analysis and Experimentation
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Integration and Flow of Research Activities
1
2
3
2a
3a
4
Diaphragm Characteristic
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting Objectives
1. Establish consensus on a design philosophy to guide research
DSDM Research #1
2. Establish guidelines for the physical scope of the research
3. Review and comment on plans for Lehigh Phase I test program
Fleischman/Restrepo
Sause
Naito
NOTE: Design approach will impact project direction; physical scope will define project outcome
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting Objectives 1. Establish consensus on a design
philosophy to guide research
DSDM Research #1
• Applicability of Design/Analysis Methods: Beam Analogy, Strut & Tie; Stringer and Panel (Restrepo)
• Hollow Core details, emerging techniques and emphasis (Restrepo)• Discuss importance of lateral system layout (Restrepo)
• Role of Elastic Diaphragm Design and Need for Detailing for Ductility in High, Moderate, Low Seismic Zones (Fleischman)
• Role of Web Reinforcement: compliance vs. ductility (Fleischman)• Applicability of construction methods: composite, non-composite,
pretopped (Fleischman)
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
1. Role of Elastic Diaphragm Design and Need for Detailing for Ductility in High, Moderate, Low Seismic Zones
DSDM Research Meeting #1
Researcher Nakaki Rodriguez/ Restrepo
Farrow/Fleischman/Sauce
NEHRP Appdx.
Design Force Approach
Design to LFRS Ultimate
Use R Factor on 1st mode only
is function of diaphragm flexibility
Higher factor for untopped
Design Force = 2.8 i = ~2 = 1.0-3.0
Nakaki: Structure overstrength factor to bring diaphragm design to the ultimate state (Squat walls use R=1).
Rod/Rest: Floor magnification factor based on vertical location of the floor and influence of higher modes.
Far/Flei/Sause: Overstrength factor based on diaphragm flexibility (Alternative for elastic design)
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting1. Role of Elastic Diaphragm Design and Need for Detailing
for Ductility in High, Moderate, Low Seismic Zones
DSDM Research #1
Nakaki: Identifies important inconsistencies including designing diaphragm ultimate state to lateral system “first yield”. However, other factors exist in diaphragm overload (See Rodriguez et al; Fleischman et al).
COMMENTS:
CONCLUSIONS:
• Calibrate through research.
• Tradeoff between and ductility demand (and drift demands) .
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting1. Role of Elastic Diaphragm Design and Need for Detailing
for Ductility in High, Moderate, Low Seismic Zones
DSDM Research #1
ISSUES: • Is the desired approach?
– Design for a specified force level and accept ductility demands, or– Design for a specified ductility demand (including elastic) and accept force level
• The proper approach likely depends on:– Diaphragm span– Lateral system– Seismic Zone
• What is acceptable damage?
• What is the target seismic level?
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
MeetingOne Possible Approach: Different Force levels depending
on zone, span and details:
DSDM Research #1
Diaphragm Classification (DC)
Designation Seismic Zones
Ordinary OD A,B,C
Intermediate ID B,C,D,E
Special SD D,E,F
Classify Precast Diaphragms in terms of detailing requirements.
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
MeetingDifferent Force level depending on zone, span & details:
DSDM Research #1
Seismic Design Category
Diaphragm Span
A B C D E F
Lcl<LfdDC OD OD OD ID ID SD ID SD SD
px * * e * e
Lcl>LfdDC OD ID OD ID ID SD SD
px e * e * e
Define applicability of diaphragms for different zones, forces and spans.
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
MeetingDifferent Force level depending on zone, span & details:
DSDM Research #1
Classification OD ID SD
Reinforcement detailing detailing detailing
Collector 0.75 0.75 regular 0.6 special
Chord 0.9 0.9 regular 0.9 special
Web Shear 0.75 0.75 0.6
Tension Type A Type B Type C
Specify strength reduction and detailing requirements for each classification
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting Objectives
2. Role of Web Reinforcement: compliance vs. ductility
DSDM Research #1
Researcher Nakaki Farrow/ Fleischman
Diaphragm Web Reinforcement Approach
The diaphragm is designed against My where
yield can occur in the chord or at the extreme web reinforcement. Two detailing approaches are proposed: tension resistant connector details and tension compliant web details
Capacity design for web reinforcement based on comparing dynamic demands with pushover results
ReinforcementCalculation
Strength Criterion:Based on strain compatibility formulation in which curvature, and hence moment, is controlled by the limiting elastic deflection of the most extreme web connection or the chord steelStiffness Criterion:Uses an effective stiffness factor based on flexure and applies it equally to the shear resistance (basis of the NEHRP force amplification factor bd [1+0.4(Leff/bd)
2]/12hs)
v= 0.6
b= 0.9
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting2. Role of Web Reinforcement: compliance vs. ductility
DSDM Research #1
Nakaki: Method shows efficacy of tension compliance; may be overly conservative for tension resistant due to assumed debonded length
COMMENTS:
ISSUES: • Should floors be designed as deep sections (to over 50’) with flexural strength and stiffness
ONLY provided by boundary elements?
• Can a viable shear connection be created instead that is both tension strong/stiff and tension ductile? (distinguish between 3 types)
Fleischman: Capacity design (in shear) does not directly address tension demand.
• What are the serviceability issues involved?
• Do altogether different solutions exist?
• How severe is the loss of a portion of the web reinforcement?
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting
2. Role of Web Reinforcement: compliance vs. ductility
DSDM Research #1
CONCLUSION:
• This is a key issue, maybe hold off discussion until after second part of presentation.
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting Objectives
3. Applicability of construction methods
DSDM Research #1
QUESTION: What are the industry’s desires in terms of:
• Extent of applicability of untopped diaphragms
• Interest in topped noncomposite• Geographic Focus: emphasis on high seismic?
• Solutions for Hollow Core vs. Double Tees
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting Objectives DSDM Research #1
• Structural System– Type– Layout
2. Establish guidelines for the physical scope of the research
• Diaphragm – Construction– Plan
• Details
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
MeetingDSDM Research #1
A. Structural System• Lateral System
– Wall systems– Frame systems– Dual systems
• Profiles– Low rise– Mid Rise– High rise
• Layout– Perimeter– Interior– Mixed
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
MeetingDSDM Research #1
B. Diaphragm• Construction
– Topped Noncomposite– Topped Composite– Untopped
• Precast Floor System– Double Tee– Hollow Core
• Construction Practice– Internal Walls– Spandrel Details– Tee Beam Details, etc.
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
MeetingDSDM Research #1
B. Diaphragm (Layout)• Interior Beams
• Interior Cavity
• Irregular Floor Plans
• Continuous Spans
• Long vs. Squat
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
MeetingDSDM Research #1
C. Diaphragm Details• Typical Construction
• Proprietary Details
• Emerging Details
EngineeringResearchCenter
DSDM Research Meeting #1August 7, 2003
Meeting Objectives DSDM Research #1
Resources• Existing Example Structures
– Nakaki EERI: 10 story frame; 3 story wall– Englekirk/Nakaki: Typical Northridge Parking Garage– Cleland – Design Examples from Seismic Committee– PCI Handbook?
ISSUE: University Researchers can follow the code in creating design but will have difficulty in producing designs that possess the typical “state-of-practice” of construction in various regions of the country
SOLUTION: DSDM produce a set of prototype structures to guide the research
NOTE: Certain studies (effect of # of stories) can be performed using approximate designs.