BAM Report

ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE EPFL
INFORMATIQUE ET MECANIQUE APPLIQUEES A LA CONSTRUCTION IMAC
A THREE DIMENSIONAL SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF A MODULAR BUBBLE SYSTEM FOR HOUSING IN BAM CITY IN IRAN
Authors: * Dr. Belmouden Y., * Dr. Lestuzzi P., ** Dr. Sellami S. youssef.belmouden@epfl.ch , pierino.lestuzzi@epfl.ch *Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL) ENAC-IS-IMAC, EPFL, CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland souad@cluemail.com ** Zurich, Switzerland
Date: 31/03/2005
Contents
1. Introduction.2 2. Description of the Bubble system ..2 2.1. Geometrical characteristics of the Bubble system2 2.2. Reinforced concrete shell structures .6 2.2.1. Design of reinforced concrete shells structures..6 2.2.2. Non linear method of RC shell structures reinforcements design..6 3. Finite element model....7 4. Strong motion values resulting from earthquake activity at the site of bam..8 5. Response spectrum analysis with ANSYS of the BUBBLE system..9 5.1. Modal analysis of the tubular unit.9 5.2. Modal analysis of the cupola unit....10 5.3. Modal spectrum analysis of the tubular unit..11 5.4. Modal spectrum analysis of the cupola unit...12 6. Modal spectrum results combination....12 7. Results..13 8. Conclusion...16 Appendix 1 SHELL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL Appendix 2 ESTIMATION OF STRONG MOTION VALUES IN BAM (IRAN) Appendix 3 RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF THE BUBBLE SYSTEM WITH ANSYS Appendix 4 TUBULAR AND DOME RESULTS
A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing
1. Introduction
A powerful earthquake has occurred in the southeastern region of Iran on the 26th December 2003. The magnitude of this event was reported to be 6.6 by USGS. In Bam Township, more than 40,000 was killed and more than 25,000 was injured. The buildings in these regions are highly vulnerable even to moderate earthquakes and most of them completely collapse when subjected to this earthquake. The population of Bam was estimated to be 100,000 at time of the earthquake in 2003. So a project of a new concept of construction is developed and proposed for this area. In this study, a seismic analysis of a modular bubble system of housing is presented. This type structure is designed by the architect Mr. Justus Dahinden. It consists of a medium tubular main unit as cylindrical structure, and number of cupola units or monolithic domes that are connected to the cylindrical main unit. This system is based on the shell concept. This concept is known as differentiated shell construction. It is well known that Shells structures gain their strength by virtue of the three dimensional development of their surfaces, with a resulting ability to carry external loads primarily through in-plane stresses rather bending. The internal force and stress distribution in shell structures, and especially for domes, is in general, spatial. Then a careful study must be preformed to catch the real behavior of such structures under lateral forces when bending will be a non-negligible effect. In general, relatively simple and idealized cases could readily be solved analytically. However, for more complex structures under combined loading paths, these are relegated to the domain of numerical analysis. The main difficulty in designing structures that are subjected to seismic action is to calculate the forces generated by this phenomenon. Some codes do not contain specifications for uncommon structures, such as domes. So, a three dimensional finite element model for seismic analysis is then required. A modal spectral analysis is performed on the basis of the SIA Swiss codes using ANSYS finite element package commercial software. Regarding seismic actions in Bam region, a specific seismological investigation was performed in order to update the seismic hazard according to the new data gained by the Bam earthquake.
2. Description of the Bubble system 2.1. Geometrical characteristics of the Bubble system
The concept is a one story concrete tubular and concrete cupolas modular system for housing. The cupola units are jointed according to need around the tubular main unit. The connecting links between the tubular and cupola forms act as flexible joints. Then, the both tubular and domes units are studied separately.
The cupola structure is pierced by a skylight with two large openings at the lateral sides. One of these openings is used to have an access to the tubular unit. The tubular unit has also two large openings for domes connection. Both, tubular and domes units have no bearing walls. This allows the subdivision of the units into a number of partitions. The structures are assumed to be rigidly connected to the floor foundation. Then, dome and tubular units are considered to have continuous support. However, the structural behavior of domes is represented by the so-called arch action mechanism of the shell along the meridional direction. The tubular and cupola unit dimensions for structural modeling are given in the following figures.
Fig. 1 Different views of the Bubble system for hosing
3 . 35 m
0 . 20 m
0 . 20 m
3 . 20 m
10 . 5 m
Fig. 2 View of the tubular plan
2.30m
3.206m 2.30m
X
0.906m
2.114m
Fig. 3 Layout and transverse dimensions of the tubular unit
0.20m
1.60m
= 27.075
3.50m
3.10m
0.45m
3.90m
Fig. 4 View of the dome plan
Y
0.45m
3.20m
3.60m
3.50m
3.10m
Fig. 5 Layout and transverse dimensions of the dome unit
Fig. 6 Tubular unit meshing views
Fig. 7 Dome unit meshing views
2.2. Reinforced concrete shell structures

2.2.1. Design of reinforced concrete shells structures In concrete shell structures, reinforcement is required to resist tensile stresses, as well as to control shrinkage and thermal cracking. In shell structures, the reinforcement bars which resist the in-plane stress resultants should be placed in two or more directions and should ideally be oriented in the general directions of the principal tensile stresses, especially in regions of high tension. Reinforcement to resist stress couples should be placed near both faces even though moment reversal is not anticipated, since the bending may vary rapidly along the surface. Under seismic loading, the two layers are also include the membrane reinforcement. The provision of adequate clearance and cover may necessitate increasing the shell thickness. In the current structure, the thickness of the bubble system was taken to be equal to 20 cm. A special attention is required for edges members and opening frames that must be proportioned to resist the forces imparted by the shell. In practice, we can consider two regions in shell structures where the stresses are primarily inplane or membrane and regions where there is significant bending action. In the first case, direct tensile stresses should be resisted entirely by reinforcing steel in concrete shells. Regions with direct compressive stresses are generally controlled by stability requirements. In the second case, the moments or stress couples may resist by considering a concrete section with reinforcement near the surfaces to act as a wide flexural member. So, a suitable depth is required for facilitate the provision of ample reinforcing steel. 2.2.2. Non linear method of RC shell structures reinforcements design The values of internal stress resultants and distribution are necessary to perform the design of reinforcement. Under lateral seismic loading with gravity loads, reinforcement design in RC shell is more complex that the case with gravity loads only. For most of the proposed methods, the shell resultants are computed from elastic analysis of the structure, while the design of the bending and membrane reinforcing takes into account the inelastic behavior of steel and concrete. Stephan J. Medwadowski and al. [Design of reinforcement in concrete shells: a unified approach, Jour. of the International Association for Shell and Spatial Structures, IASS, pp. 41-50, Vol. 45 (2004) April n. 144] have proposed a unified approach for design of reinforcement in concrete shells. This method is applicable to shells subjected to both bending and membrane effects. Chang-shik Min has developed an iterative numerical computational algorithm to design shell element subjected to membrane and flexural forces is used ([Design and ultimate behavior of RC plates and shells, Nuclear Eng. and Design 228, pp. 207-223, 2004]). This algorithm is based on equilibrium considerations for the limited state of the reinforcement and cracked concrete. In this method, the
reinforcement design is based on combined membrane forces and bending moments obtained from a finite element analysis. For these methods, the main ingredient to reinforcement designing are the principal in-plane stresses, in-plane forces or membrane stress resultants per unit length, bending stress resultants or normal shear forces per unit length and bending couples or moments per unit length. The direction of the principal in-plane stresses (angle between the principal direction and the local element axis) is of interest to determine the crack directions in the concrete. The reinforcement consists of two orthogonal layers placed at the top surface and the bottom surface, with appropriate covers. The capacity of the reinforcements will be designed according to the internal forces and principal stresses. The reinforcements are calculated per unit width of the shell.
3. Finite element model

A three dimensional shell finite element with shear deformations was used to model the bubble system. The analysis of the bubble system material is based on the assumption that the shell material is linearly elastic, isotropic and homogeneous material (See Appendix 1). According to SIA262, the Young modulus of the concrete (concrete C30/37 type) is given by the following relation:
E x = E y = E z = Ecm = k E 3 f cm 27000.0MPa (art. 3.1.2.3.3 SIA262)

k E = 8000 is a factor for concrete Young modulus determination
f cm = 38MPa , mean concrete compression strength (art. 3.1.2.3.5 SIA262) f ctm = 2,9MPa , mean concrete tension strength (art. 3.1.2.3.5 SIA262)
The shear modulus is: Gxy = G yz = Gxz = G =
Ecm = 0.4348 Ecm = 11740MPa 2(1 + )
The material Poissons ratio is: = xy = yz = xz =0,15
cd = 1,1MPa , concrete shear strength (art. 3.1.2.3.5 SIA262)

In this study, we are interested to the following results: 1- displacements of the structures in Cartesian system of coordinate (nodal displacements): lateral displacements U X , U Z , vertical displacement U Y 2- internal forces per unit length (element resultants): Bending moments M x , M y and twisting moment M xy , Shear out-of-plane forces N x , N y and shear inplane force Txy , Membrane in-plane forces Tx , Ty
3- principal stresses (nodal stresses): 1 , 2 and 3 4- reaction forces at the structures base (nodal forces): FX , FY , FZ , M X , M Y , M Z
4. Strong motion values resulting from earthquake activity at the site of bam
According to the conclusions and recommendations of the seismological investigation, on the basis of the new data of the Bam earthquake, in this study we have considered a peak ground acceleration equal to 0,45g with amplification 3 to 4 for the type of soil (See Appendix 2). This amplification gives a range of 1,2g to 1,8g for the maximal acceleration (PGA). The local soil corresponds to the class IIa at the best (Table 1).
Iranian soils classification Class N Soil description Predominant Frequency (Hz) Thick soft clay or silty I Soft soil <2.5 <350 sandy clay mostly alluvial plain Interbeded of fine and IIa Moderately soft soil 2.5-5.0 350550 coarse material, alluvium terraces with weak cementation Thick old alluvium IIb Stiff soil 5.0-7.5 550750 terraces or colluviums soils with medium to good cementation Well cemented and III Hard soil weak rock >7.5 >750 compacted soil, old quaternary outcrop
Table 1 Equivalence between Iranian and SIA class of soils
Swiss soils classification Geological Condition Class SIA Vs (m/s) S
Vs (m/s)
TB
(sec)
TC
(sec)
TD
(sec)
150-300
1.35
0.20
0.8
2.0
300-500
1.15
0.20
0.6
2.0
400-800
1.20
0.15
0.5
2.0
>800
1.0
0.15
0.4
2.0
It can be observed that the peak value of the elastic spectrum estimates the maximum amplifications of Bam spectra with a suitable accuracy. The SIA261 elastic spectrum S e for soil type class D is chosen:
(2,5 1)T S e (T ) = a gd S 1 + , 0 T TB TB
S e (T ) = 2,5a gd S , TB T TC
S e (T ) = 2,5a gd S
TC , TC T TD T TCTD , TD T T2
S e (T ) = 2,5a gd S
2,5S is the amplification factor, TB and TC are the transition periods, a gd the peak ground acceleration
(PGA) for the horizontal seismic component. The fraction of critical damping is equal to 5%, such that:
1 0.55 0.5 + 10
Where is a correction factor taking into account for the fraction of critical damping value . The vertical acceleration is taken to be equal 0.7 times of the horizontal acceleration a gd according to the SIA261 considerations.
5. Response spectrum analysis with ANSYS of the BUBBLE system

In the following, an elastic modal spectral analysis is performed with an elastic spectrum. In the elastic range, the behavior factor is the equal to unit (See Appendix 3). The stiffness reduction due to initial cracks was not considered in this study.
5.1. Modal analysis of the tubular unit

The total mass of the tubular unit is equal to 43.93 tones. In the X-X direction, the most significant mode is mode 1. The corresponding effective mass is equal to 34.47 tones. This represents 78.46% of the total tubular unit mass. In the Y-Y direction, the most significant mode is mode 3. The corresponding effective mass is equal to 12.2 tones. This represents 27.77% of the total tubular unit mass. In the Z-Z direction, the most significant mode is mode 8. The corresponding effective mass is equal to 16.35 tones. This represents 37.21% of the total tubular unit mass (See Appendix 3).
Fig. 8 Mode shape for mode 1 (Front view, Oblique view)

Modes
32
4 3
Soil Class A classe de solA Soil Class B classe de solB Soil Class C classe de solC Soil Class D classe de solD Soil Class E classe de solE
S e / a gd
2 1 0 0.01 0.1
Priode T Period (s) [s]
10
Fig. 9 Elastic design spectrum and tubular unit periods corresponding to the soil class D
5.2. Modal analysis of the cupola unit

The total mass of the tubular unit is equal to 43.26 tones. In the X-X direction, the most significant mode is mode 4. The corresponding effective mass is equal to 21.1 tones. This represents 48.77% of the total dome unit mass. In the Y-Y direction, the most significant mode is mode 2. The corresponding effective mass is equal to 18 tones. This represents 41.6% of the total dome unit mass. In the Z-Z direction, the most significant mode is mode 1. The corresponding effective mass is equal to 34.21 tones. This represents 79% of the total dome unit mass (See Appendix 3).
10
Fig. 10 Mode shape for mode 1 (Isometric view, Left side view)
Modes
432
4 3
Soil de sol A classeClass A Soil de sol B classeClass B Soil de sol C classeClass C Soil de sol D classeClass D Soil de sol E classeClass E
S e / a gd
2 1 0 0.01 0.1
Priode T Period (s) [s]
10
Fig. 11 Elastic design spectrum and dome unit periods corresponding to the soil class D
5.3. Modal spectrum analysis of the tubular unit

The modal spectral accelerations for the first modes among the most significant modes in the three principal directions are given in the following (See Appendix 3): a/ The most significant mode in the X-X direction is the mode 1 having a spectral acceleration equal to 9.2606 m/s2. b/ The most significant mode in the Y-Y direction is the mode 2 having a spectral acceleration equal to 5.3295 m/s2. c/ The most significant mode in the Z-Z direction is the mode 2 having a spectral acceleration equal to 7.6135 m/s2.
11
5.4. Modal spectrum analysis of the cupola unit

The modal spectral accelerations for the first modes among the most significant modes in the three principal directions are given in the following (See Appendix 3): a/ The most significant mode in the X-X direction is the mode 3 having a spectral acceleration equal to 7.1886 m/s2. b/ The most significant mode in the Y-Y direction is the mode 2 having a spectral acceleration equal to 5.0424 m/s2. c/ The most significant mode in the Z-Z direction is the mode 1 having a spectral acceleration equal to 7.4385 m/s2.
6. Modal spectrum results combination

A well-designed structure should be capable of equally resisting earthquake motions from all possible directions. For non-rectangular three dimensional structures, a simplification in the current code is lack of definition of the principal horizontal directions which produces the maximum stresses. In practice, we are allowed to select an arbitrary reference system. If a major principal direction for the structure was chosen, the minor principal direction will be, by definition, ninety degrees from the major axis (Fig. 12). So that, both tubular and dome unit are modeled such that x and z axes are the principal directions.
Z or 90
SZ
90
S2
S1
SX SY
X or 0
Fig. 12 Major and minor principal directions
In general, a structure must resist an earthquake motion of magnitude S1 for all possible directions with angle of , and at the same point in time, resist earthquake motions of magnitude S2 at the orthogonal direction to the angle (Fig. 12). Three consecutive modal spectrum analyses were performed in the three principal directions x, y and z. In the both horizontal directions, we have used the same spectrum excitation defined in the paragraph (same PGA). However, in the vertical direction, a reduction of 70% in the PGA value is adopted according to the SIA seismic code. Finally, a static analysis under self
12
weight load due to gravity load by a applying a linear vertical acceleration equal to g=10 m/s2 was performed. The spectrum combination was performed trough 63 possible load cases. The load cases are defined to represent the response produced by 100% of the lateral input spectrum in one direction and respectively 30%, 70% and 100% in the other directions with negative and positive signs. The maximum positives and negatives values, respectively, are obtained for the following load cases: Case A: SW+Sy+Sx+Sz Case B: SW-Sy-Sx-Sz This result confirms the previous choice of the major and minor principal directions. But these load cases correspond to a conservative hypothesis. Moreover, for complex three dimensional structures the use of the 100/30, 100/40 or 100/70 percentage combination rules will produce member designs which are not equally resistant to earthquake motions from all possible directions and can also underestimate the design forces in certain regions which are relatively weak in a certain direction.
Note: SW represents the self weight response; Sx, Sy and Sz are respectively modal responses in the three principal directions.
7. Results
The most significant results are given in the Appendix 4. The maximum absolute values are: For tubular unit:
Maximum absolute displacements Horizontal displacement in the X-direction : Ux Vertical displacement in the Y-direction : Uy Horizontal displacement in the Z-direction : Uz
Table 2
U 1.40E-3 (m) 0.657E-3 (m) 0.0687E-3 (m)
The X-direction is more flexible than Z-direction.

Maximum absolute forces Membrane force in the x-direction Tx Membrane force in the y-direction Ty In-plane shear force N/T/M 106.61 (kN/m) 1047.5 (kN/m) 243.38 (kN/m) 64.997 (kN/m) 53.212 (kN/m) 10.618 (kNm/m) 25.568 (kNm/m)
Txy
Out-of-plane shear force N x Out-of-plane shear force N y Bending moment M x Bending moment M y
13
Twisting moment M xy
Table 3
5.4443 (kNm/m)
The out-of-plane shear forces are negligible in the comparison with membrane forces; the bending and twisting moment are very low. However, in-plane shear force can not be negligible. This confirms the membrane resisting mechanism in shell structures. The figures from 1 to 48 (Appendix 4) shows that the highly stressed zones are always confined at the opening frames.
Maximum absolute reaction nodal forces Horizontal reaction nodal force in the X-direction FX Vertical reaction nodal force in the Y-direction FY Horizontal reaction nodal force in the Z-direction FZ Horizontal reaction nodal bending moment MX Vertical reaction nodal bending moment MY Horizontal reaction nodal bending moment MZ
Table 4
F/M 31.4 (kN) 166.0 (kN) 22.3 (kN) 0.68 (kNm) 0.725 (kNm) 13.03 (kNm)
The higher value of the nodal reaction force FY is due to the fact that the tubular unit behaves as under gravity loading. The MZ value confirms the fact that X-X is the weakest direction. According to the plasticity condition for reinforced concrete members, the tensile stresses must be taken over by the reinforcement, while the compression ones by concrete. For concrete, we must check up if the tension and compression strength condition are satisfied (table 5).
Maximum absolute principal stresses
7323 (kN/m2) > 2900 (kN/m2) 1550 (kN/m2) << 38000 (kN/m2)
1 3
(tension)
(compressive)
Table 5
These tensile stresses represent a good parameter to draw the most probable cracking pattern in the units. In our case, reinforcements are in necessary, however, as expected, the shell structure exhibits a very good behavior under compression. For dome unit:
Maximum absolute displacements Horizontal displacement in cupola region in the X-direction Ux Horizontal displacement in opening frame region in the X-direction Ux Vertical displacement in cupola region in the Y-direction Uy Vertical displacement in opening frame region in the Y-direction Uy Horizontal displacement in cupola region in the Z-direction Uz Horizontal displacement in opening frame region in the Z-direction Uz
Table 6
U 0.097E-3 (m) 0.097E-3 (m) 0.279E-3 (m) 0.33E-3 (m) 0.1965E-3 (m) 0.1819E-3 (m)
14
The dome unit is more deformable horizontally in Z-direction that represents the weakest one, while the X-direction is the stronger. Both tubular and dome unit does not exhibit the same weakest direction with the respect to the location of the openings.
Maximum absolute forces Membrane force in the x-direction Tx Membrane force in the y-direction Ty In-plane shear force N/T/M 185.87 (kN/m) 220.72 (kN/m) 96.316 (kN/m) 44.713 (kN/m) 69.924 (kN/m) 6.7816 (kNm/m) 10.98 (kNm/m) 3.5661 (kNm/m)
Txy
Out-of-plane shear force N x Out-of-plane shear force N y Bending moment M x Bending moment M y Twisting moment
M xy
Table 7
We can extract the same conclusions as tubular unit concerning the in-plane shear force, the outof-plane shear forces, the membrane forces, the bending and twisting moment. The figures from 49 to 64 (Appendix 4) show that the highly stressed zones are exclusively confined inside and near the opening frames. The dome unit exhibits a much better behavior in comparison with tubular unit. The dome unit presents a uniform distribution of stresses in the cupola region.
Maximum absolute reaction nodal forces Horizontal reaction nodal force in the X-direction FX cupola region opening frame region Vertical reaction nodal force in the Y-direction FY cupola region: opening frame region Horizontal reaction nodal force in the Z-direction FZ cupola region opening frame region Horizontal reaction nodal bending moment MX cupola region opening frame region 3.79 (kNm) 2.034 (kNm) 23.40 (kN) 12.22 (kN) 28.11 (kN) 36.20 (kN) 23.30 (kN) 7.33 (kN) F/M
15
Vertical reaction nodal bending moment MY cupola region opening frame region Horizontal reaction nodal bending moment MZ cupola region opening frame region
Table 8
0.114 (kNm) 0.1337 (kNm) 1.79 (kNm) 0.549E-4 (kNm)
The higher value of the nodal reaction force FY is due to the fact that the dome unit behaves as under gravity loading. The MZ value confirms the fact that X-X is the weakest direction (table 8). The principal stresses developed in the dome unit are:
Maximum absolute principal stresses Maximum absolute principal stress cupola region opening frame region
1584 (kN/m2) < 2900 (kN/m2) 1969 (kN/m2) < 2900 (kN/m2)
Maximum absolute principal stress cupola region opening frame region Maximum absolute principal stress cupola region opening frame region
Table 9
2
604 (kNm2) 682.6 (kN/m2)
699.4 (kN/m2) << 38000 (kN/m2) 684.2 (kN/m2) << 38000 (kN/m2)
Both these tensile and compressive stresses are very low. As expected, Dome system can resist seismic actions without reinforcement. However, steel reinforcements are necessary to resist other effects as shrinkage and thermal cracking. The maximum drift in the tubular-dome connection is governed by the tubular deformation in the X-X direction and is equal to 1.497 mm. The dome is more rigid than tubular unit in the X-X direction.
8. Conclusion
A new system of housing based on shell concept is presented. The system is developed for high seismic risk areas. A three dimensional finite element analysis was performed to assess the seismic performance of the concept subjected to earthquake actions. Both of the tubular and dome unit exhibit a very low period of vibration. Then, the type of soil has a less effect on the amplification of the seismic actions in the structures. Also, we can conclude after an examination of the modal spectrum response that:
16
1/ For the tubular unit, it exhibits a relatively uniform stresses distribution, however, a special attention is required for opening frame region. In these regions, highly membrane stresses are confined essentially in small zones. 2/ For Dome unit, it exhibits a uniform stresses distribution. Stress concentrations are observed exclusively in the opening frames. However, the dome unit exhibits a very good behavior with compression resisting mechanism. The tension stresses are found very low. In general, we have observed that the bubble system can carry the external seismic actions exclusively by membrane mechanism. Globally, both tubular and unit can be considered as free of bending actions. Membrane reinforcement is still sufficient. However, the bending and shear field were developed in some regions to satisfy the global equilibrium (monolithic behavior) and deformation requirements. The bending and shear field tend to be localized and confined is some regions to the vicinity of loading and geometrical discontinuities and deformation incompatibilities as opening connections, units base regions. However, the calculated internal forces are found to be not higher. Finally, a very satisfactory behavior under seismic actions is observed for the BUBBLE system of housing. We can conclude that the proposed system for housing can be recommended as a housing system for regions with a high seismicity. This is due to the most profound and efficient structural performance of shell concept.
17
APPENDIX 1 SHELL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

A shell element is defined as a three dimensional solid element in the form of a surface with a thickness small compared to its other dimensions. In general, in a shell structure subjected to applied external loads, internal stresses and forces may develop. A three dimensional shell element with shear deformations is shown in the following figure.
Nx Mx
Tx
M xy
r n
y,top
y,bot
k Ny
My M xy Txy Ty Txy j
Middle-surface
Txy
i
x,top
x,bot
Txy
Top surface Bottom surface
x
Fig. 1 Shell finite element showing the components of internal force resultants and stress field (quadrilateral element - four nodes ijkl)
For conveniency, we are working under Cartesian system. The so-called Mindlin finite element is used for the structural analysis. It is well known that shells structures carry the applied loads mostly-called membrane forces and shear mechanisms by comparison with so-called framed structures. In the shell structures under lateral actions, the bending field and shear field are crucial in the design of the reinforcements. The internal membrane (in-plane) forces consists of two membrane normal resultant forces Tx , Ty and a membrane in-plane shear force Txy per unit length such that:
t/2
Tx =
t / 2
t/2 x
dz , Ty =
t / 2
t/2 y
dz , Txy =
t / 2
xy
dz
where : t is the shell thickness at midpoint of element, computed normal to center plane) These forces are the resultant internal forces which lie inside the middle-surface of the shell. The membrane forces cause the stretching of the shell without producing any bending and / or local curvature changes. These forces are associated to the membrane and shear stresses which are assumed to be uniformly distributed through the thickness of the shell. The bending and membrane mechanism are decoupled. The internal bending and transverse shear forces are expressed as follows:
t/2
Mx =
t / 2
z x dz , M y =
t/2
t / 2
z y dz , M xy =
t/2
t / 2
z xy dz , N x =
t/2
t / 2
xy dz , N y =
t/2
t / 2
yz
dz
Where: x , y and z are direct stresses, xy , yz et xz are shear stresses. The thru-thickness stress ( z ) is set equal to the negative of the applied pressure at the surfaces of the shell elements, and linearly interpolated in between. The bending forces field consists of two bending moments M x , M y per unit length, a twisting moment M xy of the shell cross-sections per unit length, and two transverse shear forces N x , N y per unit length. The symbols on the left hand sides of the previous defined equations can be used to represent the stress resultants at the point in study obtained from elastic analysis of the shell elements. For linear elastic shells, the internal forces can be calculated by the following equations without integration procedure:
Tx =
t ( x ,top + 4 x ,mid + x ,bot ) 6

Txy =
, Ty =
t ( y ,top + 4 y ,mid + y ,bot ) 6
t ( xy ,top + 4 xy ,mid + xy ,bot ) 6
Mx =
t 2 ( x ,top x ,bot ) 12
,My =
t 2 ( y ,top y ,bot ) 12 , Ny =
, M xy =
t 2 ( xy ,top xy ,bot ) 12 6
Nx =
t ( xz ,top + 4 xz ,mid + xz ,bot ) 6
t ( yz ,top + 4 yz ,mid + yz ,bot )
The component of stress normal to the shell surface (out-of-plane stress), z , is neglected in the classical shell finite element formulation. It is well-known for RC structures, that the reinforcing bars will be placed along the general directions of principal tensile stresses. In ANSYS, the principal stresses are calculated from the resolving of a cubic equation such that:
x 0 xy xz xy y 0 yz = 0 xz yz z 0
The three principal stresses are called 1 , 2 and 3 . It is important to know that, in ANSYS, 1 is the most positive stress (tensile), 3 the most negative (compressive).
However, the element resultants do not represent the maximum values of stresses developed into the shell elements. Thus, in some cases, the design of shell elements will be done using principal moments and membrane forces such that:
M 1,3 =
Mx + My 2
M +My 2 + M xy for moments x 2

2
T1,3 =
Tx + Ty 2
T + Ty 2 x 2 + Txy for membrane forces
M 1 , T1 , M 3 , T3 are the largest values of the moments and membrane forces in the two principal direction.
These values correspond to an isotropic homogeneous material. The bending moments assume maximum values in shell element sections where twisting moment is equal to zero. The angle defining the principal directions are:
xy 1(M ) = arctg M M 2 y x
2M
( 2M ) = 1(M ) + 900
The membrane (axial) forces assume maximum values in shell element sections where shear forces are zero. The angle defining the principal directions are:
xy 1(T ) = arctg T T 2 x y
2T
( 2T ) = 1(T ) + 900
1 1
Txy
Ty
Txy
Tx T3 ( 3 )
T1 ( 1 )
y
3 1
Diagonal crack
Fig. 2 Principal stresses and concrete crack in a planar shell element
Estimation of strong motion values in Bam (IRAN)
Report: Estimation of Strong Motion Values Resulting from Earthquake Activity at the Site of Bam (Iran)
Dr. Souad Sellami Seismologist (Zurich) I. Introduction The aim of this report is to give an estimate of the expected strong motion in the city of Bam, to be taken into account for the reconstruction of houses destroyed during the earthquake of December 26, 2003. This earthquake allowed new information to be developed. We will first present a summary of the earthquake characteristics done by an Iranian team for preliminary report after the earthquake. In the second part, we will give our estimation of the strong motion values with justifications. II. Earthquake of the 26.12.2003 in Bam (Iran) (extract from[1]) The Bam earthquake occurred on 26th of December 2003, at 07:56:56 GMT (05:26:26 local time) near the city of Bam, which is located in the southeast of Iran (Eshghi and Zare, 2003). The coordinates of the epicentre of this earthquake have been determined by IIEES (IIEES, 2003) at 29.01N and 58.26E in 10km SW of the town of Bam , which is close to the coordinates reported by USGS (28.99N, 58.29 E (USGS, 2003)), but based on the surface evidences reported by Zare (Eshghi and Zare, 2003), the epicentre is located under the city of Bam. The Moment Magnitude of 6.5 for this earthquake (Mw) have been measured based on the preliminary evaluations and the focal depth is estimated to be 8km based on S-P evaluation on the records obtained from the main shock (Eshghi and Zare, 2003). The macro-seismic intensity of the earthquake is estimated to be I0=IX according to the EMS98 scale. The attenuation of the strong motion seems to be considerable as the surface evidences and damages decrease sharply at the direction perpendicular to the Bam fault (Figure 1). Although the focal mechanism of Bam earthquake was reported to be strike slip having a small vertical component (USGS, 2003), the strong motions recorded at the Bam station show a considerable vertical component. The maximum PGA for the horizontal components are 0.7 and 0.8g, and 1.01g for the vertical component (Corrected values; BHRC, 2003). The Bam earthquake has been accompanied by some geotechnical phenomena such as landslides, liquefaction and land subsidence. III. Estimation of strong motion values in Bam
Hazard values The official hazard map of Iran elaborated by the BRHC (figure 1) considers Bam in the region with high hazard with a value of 0.3g. The highest value shown is 0.35g. The hazard map of Iran presented in the GSHAP study (figure2) shows a maximum acceleration (PGA) of the order 0.3g for a return S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com 1 05.04.2004
Estimation of strong motion values in Bam (IRAN) period of 500 years. In regard to the last event of December 2003 we could extend the nearby zone with higher hazard and take for Bam a value of 0.45g. The hazard level depicted on the map, 500years return period (exactly 475 years) corresponds to a hazard value, which has 90% probability of non exceedance during 50 years. This is the standard level chosen for ordinary constructions (private houses). This hazard value is computed for hard rock. To evaluate the hazard at a site we have to take into account the amplification due to the local geology, the site effect. Soil characteristics (amplification) The soils at Bam area are unconsolidated. From the satellite picture (figure3) and sites pictures (figure 4) shown on the report of the Bam earthquake (geology and geotectonics). A soil study has been done in the region north of Bam (table 1). The local soil corresponds to the class IIa at the best. An amplification of 3 to 4 times is possible. Figure 5 shows peaks of acceleration in the low frequencies 2-6 Hz and at 10 Hz. Response spectrum of the Bam earthquake From the December 26th earthquake, some information has been gathered. This earthquake, or the damages have a very strong directivity in the north-south direction for example as shown on the isoseismal map (figure 6). The Iranian strong motion network is well developed and many instruments are in the vicinity of Bam (table 2). One station was located in the Governors building in Bam [8.4]. This house has been damaged but the data were safe. The data showed a strong PGA of 1.02 vertical, 0.7 and 0,8g respectively in the directions NS and EO (figures 7 and 8). The Fourier spectrum and response spectrum for this earthquake are also available (figures 9, 10, 11 and12) Discussion If we consider the hazard value up to 0.45g and the amplification (3 to 4) for the type of soil, it gives a range of 1.2 to 1.8g for the maximal acceleration (PGA). We can compare this estimation to the last earthquake. This earthquake was strong with 6.5 Moment magnitude and rather shallow at 8km, which explains the high acceleration values. The accelerations recorded in Bam, 0.7 to 1.01g, are close to the accelerations expected during a longer period or a stronger earthquake 7 (figure 13). The directivity is typical of the type of faulting (strike slip) and the vicinity of the fault. The acceleration values at the epicentre are higher than the model for a magnitude of 6.5 (figure 13). We also note the large vertical movement respectively to the horizontal values at the epicentre, which is not the case anymore further away.
S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com
05.04.2004
Estimation of strong motion values in Bam (IRAN) IV. References
[1] BamEReport1.pdf The Very urgent Preliminary report on Bam earthquake of Dec. 26-2003. Ministry of Housing and Urban Development Building and Housing Research Center Iran Strong Motion Network (ISMN) [2] Seismic macrozonation hazard map of Iran. Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of building. (Standard 2800) [3] Seismic hazard assessment of Iran, B. Tavakoli & M. Ghafory- Ashtiany. Giardini et al. Ed. GSHAP Summary Volume Annali di Geofisica, 1999 [4] Engineering Geology and Geotechnical Aspects of Bam Earthquake (Preliminary Report) Kambod Amini Hosseini, Mohammad Reza Mahdavifar, Mohammad Keshavarz Bakhshayesh, Masomeh Rakhshandeh, 10/01/2004. International Institute of Earthquake Engineering and Seismology [5] Geological Survey of Iran (GSI), Geological quadrangles of Bam, Sabzevaran, allah Abad, Jahan Abad , Scale:1:250000 [6] Site Effect Classification in East-Central of Iran A. Komak Panah1, N. Hafezi Moghaddas2, M.R. Ghayamghamian3, M. Motosaka4, M.K. Jafari5, and A. Uromieh6. JSEE: Spring 2002, Vol. 4, No. 1 [7] Characterization of Site Response: General Site Categories. Adrin RodrguezMarek. Jonathan D. Bray, and Norman Abrahamson.. PEER Report 1999/03. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. College of Engineering. University of California, Berkeley. February 1, 1999. [8] Building and Housing Research Center (BHRC). 2003. Website on: Bam earthquake, December,26,2003. [8.1] http://www.bhrc.gov.ir/bhrc/reports/bam/bam_pdf.pdf ; [8.2] http://www.bhrc.gov.ir/Bhrc/d-stgrmo/shabakeh/earthquake/bam/bam.htm [8.3] http://www.bhrc.gov.ir/Bhrc/d-stgrmo/shabakeh/earthquake/bam/graph.pdf [8.4]http://www.bhrc.gov.ir/Bhrc/dstgrmo/SHABAKEH/earthquake/bam/Bam%20Ac celerograph%20Station%20History.pdf [9] Bam (SE Iran) earthquake of 26 December 2003, Mw6.5: A Preliminary Reconnaissance Report, Eshghi, S. and Zare, M. (2003), Website: http://www.iiees.ac.ir/English/Bam_report_english.html V. Tables and figures
Figure 1. Seismic macrozonation of Iran to be use for hazard code zonation (BHRC 1989).[2] Figure 2. Seismic hazard map of Iran with a 475 return period (GSHAP 2001). [3] S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com 3 05.04.2004
Estimation of strong motion values in Bam (IRAN) Figure 3. Tectonic faults and strong earthquakes (bigger than M=4) in the Bam area. [91] Figure 4. Macroseismic Intensity map of the Bam earthquake 26.12.2003 showing the strong directivity and an epicentral intensity of IX to X. [4] Table 1. Site classification and description of Iranian soils in the central eastern part.[6] Figure 5. Right: Comparison of average transfer functions for the different classes of table 1. Link: The relation between dominant frequencies estimated by 2 different methods with respect to Vs. [6] Figure 6. Satellite view of the city of Bam and area. [1] Figure 7. Picture showing an example of soil in the Bam area.[4] Table 2. Strong motion data from the Bam earthquake.[1] Figure 8. Acceleration of the main shock recorded in Bam 26.12. 2004.[1] Figure 9. Acceleration data sheet (station specification and values recorded) for the station Bam and earthquake of Bam. .[8.3] Figure 10. Acceleration a) uncorrected b) corrected, c)Velocity and d) Displacement of the Bam Earthquake recorded at the station Bam. .[8.3] Figure 11. Response spectrum (with different damping values) of the acceleration, velocity and displacement for the Bam earthquake registered at the station Bam. .[8.3] Figure 12. Fourier amplitude of the acceleration for the three components depicted with two different scales.[8.3] Figure 13. Attenuation model of the peak acceleration for the eastern part of Iran fitted to the Bam earthquake data.[1]
05.04.2004
Figure 1. Seismic macrozonation of Iran to be use for hazard code zonation (BHRC 1989).
Figure 2. Seismic hazard map of Iran with a 475 return period (GSHAP 2001).
05.04.2004
Figure 3. Tectonic faults and strong earthquakes (bigger than M=4) in the Bam area
05.04.2004
Estimation of strong motion values in Bam (IRAN) Figure 4. Macroseismic Intensity map of the Bam earthquake 26.12.2003 showing the strong directivity and an epicentral intensity of IX to X.
Table 1. Site classification and description of Iranian soils in the central eastern part.
Figure 5. Right: Comparison of average transfer functions for the different classes of table 1. Link: The relation between dominant frequencies estimated by 2 different methods with respect to Vs.
05.04.2004
Figure 6. Satellite view of the city of Bam and area
Figure 7. Picture showing an example of soil in the Bam area. S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com 8 05.04.2004
Table 2. Strong motion data from the Bam earthquake.
05.04.2004
Figure 8. Acceleration of the main shock recorded in Bam 26.12. 2004.
10
05.04.2004
Figure 9. Acceleration data sheet (station specification and values recorded) for the station Bam and earthquake of Bam.
11
05.04.2004
a)
b)
c)
d)
Figure 10. Acceleration a) uncorrected b) corrected, c)Velocity and d) Displacement of the Bam Earthquake recorded at the station Bam. S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com 12 05.04.2004
Figure 11. Response spectrum (with different damping values) of the acceleration, velocity and displacement for the Bam earthquake registered at the station Bam. S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com 13 05.04.2004
Figure 12. Fourier amplitude of the acceleration for the three components depicted with two different scales. S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com 14 05.04.2004
Figure 13. Attenuation model of the peak acceleration for the eastern part of Iran fitted to the Bam earthquake data.
15
05.04.2004
APPENDIX 3 RESPONSE SPECTRUM ANALYSIS OF THE BUBBLE SYSTEM WITH ANSYS

The type of the analysis performed is the response spectrum analysis. This method is used for the prediction of displacements and element forces in structures. The method involves the calculation of only the maximum values of the displacements and members in each mode using smooth design spectra. The analysis consists of a three dimensional mode shapes and natural frequencies of vibration calculation. These are the undamped free vibration response of the structure. The structure has constant stiffness and mass effects. The mass is taken distributed along the structures by a density. Then, the structure is excited by a spectrum of known directions and frequency components. A single-point response spectrum method based on an acceleration spectrum introduced as a known function is used and implemented on ANSYS as a MACRO SCRIPT function. The selected modal analysis method is FULL SUBSPACE. This method did not require a set of master degrees of freedom, and it gives more accurate answers with the comparison with reduced method for eigenvalues calculation. But, it takes somewhat longer to solve. In this method a number of modes is considered for the structural response calculation. For each principal direction, the square-root-of-sum-ofthe-squares (SRSS) modes combination method is used for the purpose of structural design. This approach assumes that all the maximum modal values are statistically independent. The significant modes are determined, in ANSYS, such that mode coefficients (MCOEF) for all modes are compared with the most significant mode having the maximum mode coefficient (MCOEFmax). So that, a significant factor for combining modes (SIGNIF) is defined and taken equal to 0,5% in this study. For a given mode i, having a mode coefficient MCOEFi, if
SIGNIF>MCOEFi/MCOEFmax, then the current mode will be not considered as significant, and will be ignored in the global structural response (in the SRSS Mode Combination). The significant modes for both structures are given in tables and. Another parameter is the modal participation factor, PFACT that is used for the modal coefficient determination. This parameter is calculated by: PFACT = With: aij is the N2 mode shape matrix, mi the mass matrix. So, the modal coefficient, MCOEF, is calculated by: MCOEF = PFACT x Se(T) / (2f )
2
m a
i
i ij
f is the natural frequency, T the corresponding period and Se(T) the spectral displacement value at the
current mode
250 Dome Tubular 200
Frequency (Hz)
150
100
50
0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Modes
Fig. 1 Variation of dome and tubular frequencies by means of modes

8.00E-02 7.00E-02 6.00E-02 5.00E-02 Period (s) 4.00E-02 3.00E-02 2.00E-02 1.00E-02 0.00E+00 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Modes Dome Tubular
Fig. 2 Variation of dome and tubular periods with regards to modes
1. Modal analysis of the tubular unit

In the X-X direction:
MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PARTICIPATION EFFECTIVE FACTOR MASS FREQUENCY PERIOD RATIO (Hz) (s) (tones) 14.3267 6.98E-02 5.8711 1 34.4702 32.3132 3.09E-02 -3.13E-06 0.000001 9.80E-12 33.2473 3.01E-02 -7.86E-06 0.000001 6.18E-11 38.2482 2.61E-02 -2.31E-02 0.003937 5.34E-04 59.2625 1.69E-02 -1.2267 0.208939 1.50481 63.6301 1.57E-02 6.99E-05 0.000012 4.88E-09 64.9751 1.54E-02 -1.4037 0.239084 1.97035 67.1482 1.49E-02 3.79E-05 0.000006 1.44E-09 69.6891 1.43E-02 -5.26E-02 0.008964 2.77E-03 70.8775 1.41E-02 -3.04E-05 0.000005 9.23E-10 SUM OF EFFECTIVE MASSES= 38.9864 tones Table 1 Modal results for tubular unit in X-X direction CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 0.884158 0.884158 0.884158 0.884172 0.922771 0.922771 0.97331 0.97331 0.973381 0.973381
In the Y-Y direction:

MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FREQUENCY (Hz) 14.3267 32.3132 33.2473 38.2482 59.2625 63.6301 64.9751 67.1482 69.6891 70.8775 PARTICIPATION EFFECTIVE FACTOR MASS PERIOD RATIO (s) (tones) 6.98E-02 2.52E-05 0.000007 6.35E-10 3.09E-02 0.36125 0.103397 0.130499 3.01E-02 3.4938 1 12.2066 2.61E-02 1.64E-06 0 2.69E-12 1.69E-02 -1.08E-05 0.000003 1.16E-10 1.57E-02 0.35873 0.102676 0.128688 1.54E-02 -4.60E-05 0.000013 2.12E-09 1.49E-02 -0.73366 0.209989 0.538256 1.43E-02 -3.87E-05 0.000011 1.50E-09 1.41E-02 2.3722 0.678987 5.62755 SUM OF EFFECTIVE MASSES= 29.4835 tones Table 2 Modal results for tubular unit in Y-Y direction CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 2.15E-11 4.43E-03 0.418442 0.418442 0.418442 0.422806 0.422806 0.441063 0.441063 0.631933
In the Z-Z direction:

MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FREQUENCY (Hz) 14.3267 32.3132 33.2473 38.2482 59.2625 63.6301 64.9751 67.1482 69.6891 70.8775 PARTICIPATION EFFECTIVE FACTOR MASS PERIOD RATIO (s) (tones) 6.98E-02 -1.26E-06 0 1.58E-12 3.09E-02 -1.9946 0.493187 3.97847 3.01E-02 0.21082 0.052128 4.44E-02 2.61E-02 1.23E-05 0.000003 1.51E-10 1.69E-02 4.27E-06 0.000001 1.83E-11 1.57E-02 -2.094 0.517761 4.38481 1.54E-02 -2.06E-04 0.000051 4.25E-08 1.49E-02 -4.0443 1 16.3566 1.43E-02 7.47E-05 0.000018 5.57E-09 1.41E-02 -1.0233 0.253014 1.04708 SUM OF EFFECTIVE MASSES= 36.3128 tones Table 3 Modal results for tubular unit in Z-Z direction CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 4.34E-14 0.109561 0.110785 0.110785 0.110785 0.231536 0.231536 0.681972 0.681972 0.710807
2. Modal analysis of the cupola unit

In the X-X direction:
MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FREQUENCY (Hz) 41.8199 59.698 61.0767 85.3363 97.333 101.045 101.748 115.84 121.604 125.799 PARTICIPATION EFFECTIVE FACTOR MASS PERIOD RATIO (s) (tones) 2.39E-02 2.55E-08 0 6.50E-16 1.68E-02 -3.01E-06 0.000001 9.04E-12 1.64E-02 3.4453 0.75 11.8702 1.17E-02 -4.5938 1 21.1026 1.03E-02 -2.18E-06 0 4.76E-12 9.90E-03 -2.58E-05 0.000006 6.65E-10 9.83E-03 3.65E-05 0.000008 1.33E-09 8.63E-03 0.26397 0.057463 6.97E-02 8.22E-03 7.90E-07 0 6.24E-13 7.95E-03 -1.53E-05 0.000003 2.34E-10 SUM OF EFFECTIVE MASSES= 33.7233 tones Table 4 Modal results for dome unit in X-X direction CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 1.93E-17 2.68E-13 0.351988 0.977744 0.977744 0.977744 0.977744 0.97981 0.97981 0.97981
In the Y-Y direction:

EFFECTIVE PERIOD RATIO MASS (s) (tones) 2.39E-02 -2.22E-07 0 4.91E-14 1.68E-02 4.2412 1 17.9881 1.64E-02 8.15E-06 0.000002 6.64E-11 1.17E-02 -4.29E-06 0.000001 1.84E-11 1.03E-02 -8.63E-05 0.00002 7.44E-09 9.90E-03 -1.2904 0.30425 1.66512 9.83E-03 1.04E-04 0.000024 1.07E-08 8.63E-03 -1.51E-06 0 2.29E-12 8.22E-03 1.1099 0.261687 1.23182 7.95E-03 -3.74E-05 0.000009 1.40E-09 SUM OF EFFECTIVE MASSES=30.3252 tones Table 5 Modal results for dome unit in Y-Y direction PARTICIPATI ON FACTOR CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 1.62E-15 0.593172 0.593172 0.593172 0.593172 0.648081 0.648081 0.648081 0.688701 0.688701
MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
FREQUENCY (Hz) 41.8199 59.698 61.0767 85.3363 97.333 101.045 101.748 115.84 121.604 125.799
In the Z-Z direction:

MODE 1 2 3 FREQUENCY (Hz) 41.8199 59.698 61.0767 PERIOD (s) 2.39E-02 1.68E-02 1.64E-02 PARTICIPATION FACTOR 5.8488 -6.93E-07 -2.75E-06 RATIO 1 0 0 EFFECTIVE MASS (tones) 34.208 4.80E-13 7.58E-12 CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 0.942552 0.942552 0.942552
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
85.3363 97.333 101.045 101.748 115.84 121.604 125.799
1.17E-02 -3.36E-06 0.000001 1.13E-11 1.03E-02 4.28E-06 0.000001 1.83E-11 9.90E-03 -1.65E-05 0.000003 2.73E-10 9.83E-03 -0.50533 0.086399 0.255355 8.63E-03 1.89E-07 0 3.56E-14 8.22E-03 5.55E-06 0.000001 3.08E-11 7.95E-03 -5.48E-07 0 3.00E-13 SUM OF EFFECTIVE MASSES= 36.2930 tones Table 6 Modal results for dome unit in Z-Z direction
0.942552 0.942552 0.942552 0.949588 0.949588 0.949588 0.949588
5.3. Modal spectrum analysis of the tubular unit

35 30 Effective masse (tones) 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Modes Meff X-X Meff Y-Y Meff Z-Z
Fig. 9 Effective masses with the respect of number of modes for the tubular unit
0.008 0.007 0.006 Mode Coefficient 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 -0.001 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Modes MCOEF X-X MCOEF Y-Y MCOEF Z-Z
Fig. 10 Mode coefficients with the respect of number of modes for the tubular unit
8 Pfact X-X 6 Pfact Y-Y Pfact Z-Z Participation Factor 4
-2
-4
-6 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Modes
Fig. 11 Participation factors with the respect of number of modes for the tubular unit
The modal spectral accelerations for the three most significant modes in the three principal directions are given in the following tables. In the X-X direction:
MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PARTICIPATION MODE EFFECTIVE Se T FREQUENCY FACTOR COEFFICIENT MASS (m/s2) (PFACT) (MCOEF) (tones) (Hz) 14.33 9.2606 5.871 6.71E-03 34.4702 32.31 7.6135 -3.13E-06 -5.78E-10 9.80E-12 33.25 7.594 -7.86E-06 -1.37E-09 6.18E-11 38.25 7.4986 -2.31E-02 -3.00E-06 5.34E-04 59.26 7.2082 -1.227 -6.38E-05 1.50481 63.63 7.1621 6.99E-05 3.13E-09 4.88E-09 64.98 7.1486 -1.404 -6.02E-05 1.97035 67.15 7.1275 3.79E-05 1.52E-09 1.44E-09 69.69 7.1036 -5.26E-02 -1.95E-06 2.77E-03 70.88 7.0928 -3.04E-05 -1.09E-09 9.23E-10 Table 7 Modal spectrum results for tubular unit in X-X direction
( )
CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 0.884158 0.884158 0.884158 0.884172 0.922771 0.922771 0.97331 0.97331 0.973381 0.973381
The significant modes, in the X-X direction, are modes 1, 5 and 7 such that:
For mode 1: MCOEF = PFACT x Se(T) / (2f ) =5.871x9.2606/(2 x14.33)2=6.71E-3

2
For mode 5: MCOEF = PFACT x Se(T) / (2f ) =-1.227x7.2082/(2 x59.26)2=-6.386E-5

2

2
For the Y-Y direction:

MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FREQUENCY (Hz) 14.33 32.31 33.25 38.25 59.26 63.63 64.98 67.15 69.69 70.88
S e (T )
(m/s2) 6.4824 5.3295 5.3158 5.249 5.0458 5.0135 5.004 4.9892 4.9725 4.965
PARTICIPATION FACTOR (PFACT) 2.52E-05 0.3612 3.494 1.64E-06 -1.08E-05 0.3587 -4.60E-05 -0.7337 -3.87E-05 2.372
MODE COEFFICIENT (MCOEF) 2.02E-08 4.67E-05 4.26E-04 1.49E-10 -3.91E-10 1.13E-05 -1.38E-09 -2.06E-05 -1.01E-09 5.94E-05
EFFECTIVE MASS (tones) 6.35E-10 0.130499 12.2066 2.69E-12 1.16E-10 0.128688 2.12E-09 0.538256 1.50E-09 5.62755
CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 2.15E-11 4.43E-03 0.418442 0.418442 0.418442 0.422806 0.422806 0.441063 0.441063 0.631933
Table 8 Modal spectrum results for tubular unit in Y-Y direction
There are 11 significant modes in the Y-Y direction (2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 21, 24, 27 and 33). Among the ten first given modes are: For mode 2: MCOEF = PFACT x Se(T) / (2f ) =0.33612x5.3295/(2 x32.31)2=4.675E-5
2

2

2

2

2
For the Z-Z direction:

MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 FREQUENCY (Hz) 14.33 32.31 33.25 38.25 59.26 63.63 64.98
S e (T )
(m/s2) 9.2606 7.6135 7.594 7.4986 7.2082 7.1621 7.1486
PARTICIPATION FACTOR (PFACT) -1.26E-06 -1.995 0.2108 1.23E-05 4.28E-06 -2.094 -2.06E-04
MODE COEFFICIENT (MCOEF) -1.44E-09 -3.68E-04 3.67E-05 1.60E-09 2.22E-10 -9.38E-05 -8.84E-09
EFFECTIVE MASS (tones) 1.58E-12 3.97847 4.44E-02 1.51E-10 1.83E-11 4.38481 4.25E-08
CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 4.34E-14 0.109561 0.110785 0.110785 0.110785 0.231536 0.231536
8 9 10
67.15 69.69 70.88
7.1275 7.1036 7.0928
-4.044 7.47E-05 -1.023
-1.62E-04 2.77E-09 -3.66E-05
16.3566 5.57E-09 1.04708
0.681972 0.681972 0.710807
Table 9 Modal spectrum results for tubular unit in Z-Z direction
There are 13 significant modes in the Y-Y direction (2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24 and 36). Among the ten first given modes are: For mode 2: MCOEF = PFACT x Se(T) / (2f ) =-1.995x7.6135/(2 x32.31)2=-3.685E-4
2

2

2

2

2
5.4. Modal spectrum analysis of the cupola unit

40 Meff X-X 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Modes Meff Y-Y Meff Z-Z Effective m asse (tones)
Fig. 12 Effective masses with regard to the number of modes for the dome unit
7.00E-04 6.00E-04 5.00E-04 4.00E-04 3.00E-04 2.00E-04 1.00E-04 0.00E+00 -1.00E-04 -2.00E-04
MCOEF X-X MCOEF Y-Y MCOEF Z-Z
Mode Coefficient
11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Modes
Fig. 13 Mode coefficients with the respect of number of modes for the dome unit
8
Pfact X-X
6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 Modes 27 29 31
Pfact Y-Y Pfact Z-Z
Participation factor
33 35 37 39
Fig. 14 Participation factors with the respect of number of modes for the dome unit
For the X-X direction:

MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FREQUENCY (Hz) 41.82 59.7 61.08 85.34 97.33 101 101.7 115.8 121.6 125.8
S e (T )
(m/s2) 7.4385 7.2035 7.1886 6.975 6.8927 6.8695 6.8652 6.7854 6.7557 6.7351
PARTICIPATION FACTOR (PFACT) 2.55E-08 -3.01E-06 3.445 -4.594 -2.18E-06 -2.58E-05 3.65E-05 0.264 7.90E-07 -1.53E-05
MODE COEFFICIENT (MCOEF) 2.75E-12 -1.54E-10 1.68E-04 -1.12E-04 -4.02E-11 -4.39E-10 6.12E-10 3.38E-06 9.14E-12 -1.65E-10
EFFECTIVE MASS (tones) 6.50E-16 9.04E-12 11.8702 21.1026 4.76E-12 6.65E-10 1.33E-09 6.97E-02 6.24E-13 2.34E-10
CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 1.93E-17 2.68E-13 0.351988 0.977744 0.977744 0.977744 0.977744 0.97981 0.97981 0.97981
Table 10 Modal spectrum results for dome unit in X-X direction
There are 7 significant modes in the Y-Y direction (3, 4, 6, 16, 24, 29 and 39). Among the ten first given modes are: For mode 3: MCOEF = PFACT x Se(T) / (2f ) =3.445x7.1886/(2 x61.08)2=1.683E-4
2

2

2
For the Y-Y direction:

MODE 1 2 3 FREQUENCY (Hz) 41.82 59.7 61.08
S e (T )
(m/s2) 5.2069 5.0424 5.032
PARTICIPATION FACTOR (PFACT) -2.22E-07 4.241 8.15E-06
MODE COEFFICIENT (MCOEF) -1.67E-11 1.52E-04 2.79E-10
EFFECTIVE MASS (tones) 4.91E-14 17.9881 6.64E-11
CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 1.62E-15 0.593172 0.593172
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
85.34 97.33 101 101.7 115.8 121.6 125.8
4.8825 4.8249 4.8087 4.8057 4.7498 4.729 4.7146
-4.29E-06 -8.63E-05 -1.29 1.04E-04 -1.51E-06 1.11 -3.74E-05
-7.28E-11 -1.11E-09 -1.54E-05 1.22E-09 -1.36E-11 8.99E-06 -2.82E-10
1.84E-11 7.44E-09 1.66512 1.07E-08 2.29E-12 1.23182 1.40E-09
0.593172 0.593172 0.648081 0.648081 0.648081 0.688701 0.688701
Table 11 Modal spectrum results for dome unit in Y-Y direction
There are 11 significant modes in the Y-Y direction (2, 6, 9, 11, 17, 19, 21, 23, 27, 35 and 38). Among the ten first given modes are: For mode 2: MCOEF = PFACT x Se(T) / (2f ) =4.241x5.0424/(2 x59.7)2=1.521E-4
2
For mode 6: MCOEF = PFACT x Se(T) / (2f ) =-1.29x4.8087/(2 x101)2=-1.541E-5

2

2
For the Z-Z direction:

MODE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 FREQUENCY (Hz) 41.82 59.7 61.08 85.34 97.33 101 101.7 115.8 121.6 125.8
S e (T )
(m/s2) 7.4385 7.2035 7.1886 6.975 6.8927 6.8695 6.8652 6.7854 6.7557 6.7351
PARTICIPATION FACTOR (PFACT) 5.849 -6.93E-07 -2.75E-06 -3.36E-06 4.28E-06 -1.65E-05 -0.5053 1.89E-07 5.55E-06 -5.48E-07
MODE COEFFICIENT (MCOEF) 6.30E-04 -3.55E-11 -1.34E-10 -8.16E-11 7.88E-11 -2.82E-10 -8.49E-06 2.42E-12 6.42E-11 -5.91E-12
EFFECTIVE MASS (tones) 34.208 4.80E-13 7.58E-12 1.13E-11 1.83E-11 2.73E-10 0.255355 3.56E-14 3.08E-11 3.00E-13
CUMULATIVE MASS FRACTION 0.942552 0.942552 0.942552 0.942552 0.942552 0.942552 0.949588 0.949588 0.949588 0.949588
Table 12 Modal spectrum results for dome unit in Z-Z direction
There are 4 significant modes in the Y-Y direction (1, 7, 12, and 15). Among the ten first given modes are: For mode 1: MCOEF = PFACT x Se(T) / (2f ) =5.849x7.4385/(2 x41.82)2=6.307E-4
2

2
10
APPENDIX 4 TUBULAR AND DOME RESULTS 1. Tubular unit

1.1. Nodal displacements
Parameter Maximum values Ux (m) Uy (m) Uz (m) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) SW .125E-3 -.125E-3 0.0 .204E-3 .950E-5 -.989E-5 Sx .125E-2 0.0 .340E-3 0.0 .156E-4 0.0 Sy .107E-3 0.0 .169E-3 0.0 .119E-4 0.0 Load cases Sz .103E-3 0.0 .163E-3 0.0 .474E-4 0.0 Case A .140E-2 0.0 .376E-3 -.148E-4 .637E-4 0.0 Case B 0.0 -.140E-2 0.0 -.657E-3 0.0 -.687E-4
Table 1 Nodal displacements envelop values for the tubular unit in global coordinate
1.2. Elements solicitations

Parameter Maximum values SW 26.759 -20.490 36.923 -181.41 47.464 -24.805 2.0265 -2.0264 4.5693 -2.9084 .068910 -.68908 7.4902 -7.2112 12.736 Sx 64.252 .2838E-1 696.29 .11884 151.27 .33428 5.8507 .1996E-1 15.276 .2438E-1 3.3092 .1862E-1 38.797 .1028E-1 34.548 Sy 16.415 .13210 112.76 1.3387 32.848 .21591 1.9365 .1013E-1 3.1945 .9017E-1 1.0310 .297E-1 12.134 .4425E-1 10.217 Load cases Sz 30.082 .17642 61.893 1.6330 16.107 .30434 .80991 .21438E-1 3.2650 .75594E-1 .67311 .79694E-1 7.0247 .565E-1 15.191 Case A 69.241 -.32474 684.7 -8.9274 243.38 1.1810 10.618 .17371E-1 25.568 .32065 5.4443 .12438 64.996 0.18087 53.212 Case B -.79399 -106.61 -7.1685 -1047.5 -1.1815 -150.45 -.1740E-1 -10.618 -.32075 -18.018 -.12433 -5.4443 -.14317 -64.997 1.0597
Tx
(kN/m)
(+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-) (+)
Ty
(kN/m)
Txy
(kN/m)
Mx
(kNm/m)
My
(kNm/m)
M xy
(kNm/m)
Nx
(kN/m)
Ny
(-)
-12.735
.57202
.36621
.38628
-1.0586
-53.212
Table 2 Element resultant forces envelope values for tubular unit
Load Case A:
Fig. 1 Membrane normal resultant force in x-element direction Tx per unit length (Isometric view)
Fig. 2 Normal force Tx per unit length (Top view)
Fig. 3 Normal force per unit length
Tx (Left view)
Fig. 4 Membrane normal resultant force in y-element direction
Ty
per unit length (Isometric view)
Fig. 5 Normal force
Ty
per unit length (Top view)
Fig. 6 Normal force
Ty
per unit length (Left view)
Fig. 7 Membrane in-plane shear force
Txy
Fig. 8 shear force
Txy
Fig. 9 shear force
Txy
Fig. 10 bending moment around y-element axis M x per unit length (Isometric view)
Fig. 11 Bending moment
Mx
Mx
Fig. 13 bending moment around x-element axis
My
Fig. 14 bending moment M y per unit length (Top view)
Fig. 15 bending moment
My
Fig. 16 Twisting moment
M xy
M xy
per unit length (Top view) Fig. 18 Twisting moment
M xy
Fig. 19 Transverse shear N x per unit length (Isometric view)
Fig. 20 Transverse shear
Nx
Nx
Ny
Ny
Ny
Load Case B:
Fig. 25 Membrane normal resultant force in x-element direction Tx per unit length (Isometric view)
Fig. 26 Normal force Tx per unit length (Top view)
Fig. 27 Normal force per unit length
Tx (Left view)
Ty
Fig. 29 Normal force
Ty
Fig. 30 Normal force
Ty
Txy
Fig. 32 shear force
Txy
Fig. 33 shear force
Txy
Fig. 34 bending moment around y-element axis M x per unit length (Isometric view)
Mx
Mx
My
Fig. 38 bending moment M y per unit length (Top view)
Fig. 39 bending moment
My
Fig. 40 twisting moment
M xy
M xy
per unit length (Top view) Fig. 42 Twisting moment
M xy
Fig. 43 Transverse shear N x per unit length (Isometric view)
Nx
Nx
10
Ny
Ny
Ny
1.3. Base shear and nodal reaction forces (Edge effects)

Parameter Maximum values FX (kN) (+) (-) Cumul FY (kN) (+) (-) Cumul FZ (+) SW .630E+01 -.63E+1 0.0 .297E+2 -.102E+2 .439E+3 .2436E+1 Sx .1926E+2 0.0 .320E+3 .109E+3 0.0 .1326E+4 .138E+2 Sy .385E+1 0.0 .878E+2 .187E+2 0.0 .252E+3 .271E+1 Load cases Sz .218E+1 0.0 .620E+2 .964E+1 0.0 .236E+3 .419E+1 Case A .314E+2 0.0 .166E+3 0.0 .223E+2 Case B 0.0 -.314E+2 .2748E+1 -.1067E+3 0.0
11
(kN)
(-) Cumul
-.2257E+1 0.0 .123E+0 -.1163E+0 .262E-1 .1758E+0 -.1758E+0 0.0 .270E+1 -.270E+1 -.259E-3
0.0 .1538E+3 .301E+0 0.0 .3845E+1 .393E+0 0.0 .689E+1 .7138E+1 0.0 .219E+3
0.0 .678E+2 .989E-1 0.0 .1172E+1 .972E-1 0.0 .176E+1 .163E+1 0.0 .505E+2
0.0 .138E+3 .156E+0 0.0 .200E+1 .692E-1 0.0 .266E+1 .181E+1 0.0 .402E+2
0.0 .6806E+0 0.0 .725E+0 0.0 .1303E+2 0.0 -
-.203E+2 0.0 -.603E+0 0.0 -.725E+0 0.0 -.1303E+2 -
MX (kNm)
(+) (-) Cumul
MY (kNm)
(+) (-) Cumul
MZ (kNm)
(+) (-) Cumul
Table 3 Nodal reactions forces envelop values for tubular unit
1.4. Principal stresses

Parameter Maximum values SW .5951E+3 -.5417E+2 .1238E+3 -.2693E+3 .39168E+2 -.1498E+4 Sx .5893E+4 0.0 .47585E+3 -.4377E+1 .15831E+3 -.6804E+3 Load cases Sy .9707E+3 0.0 .1712E+3 -.186E+1 .1215E+3 -.118E+3 Sz .5003E+3 0.0 .141E+3 -.171E+1 .6311E+2 -.677E+2 Case A .7323E+4 0.0 .7937E+3 -.585E+2 .1101E+3 -.155E+4 Case B 0.0 -.7315E+4 .59068E+1 -.8410E+3 .58144E+3 -.1491E+4
1
(kN/m2)
(+) (-) (+) (-) (+) (-)
2
(kN/m2)
3
(kN/m2)
Table 4 Principal stress envelop values in the tubular unit
2. Dome unit 2.1. Nodal displacements

Parameter Maximum values SW Sx Sy Cupola region (+) Ux (m) (+) (-) .289E-4 -.289E-4 (-) .288E-4 -.288E-4 .356E-4 0.0 .303E-4 0.0 Openings frame region 0.355E-4 0.0 .304E-4 0.0 Cupola region .261E-4 0.0 .9691E-4 0.0 0.0 -.970E-4 .248E-4 0.0 .9697E-4 0.0 0.0 -0.970E-4 Load cases Sz Case A Case B
12
(+) Uy (m) (+) (-) (-)
.711E-6 -.113E-3
.726E-4 0.0
.924E-4 0.0
.356E-4 0.0
.601E-4 -.197E-4
0.0 -.279E-3
Openings frame region .137E-6 -.126E-3 .945E-4 0.0 .101E-3 0.0 Cupola region (+) .392E-4 -.392E-4 .2048E-4 0.0 .297E-4 0.0 Openings frame region (+) (-) .329E-4 -.329E-4 .1779E-4 0.0 .259E-4 0.0 .130E-3 0.0 .184E-3 0.0 0.0 -.1819E-3 .137E-3 0.0 .196E-3 0.0 0.0 -.1965E-3 .293E-4 0.0 0.821E-4 0.0 0.0 -.330E-3
Uz (m)
(-)
Table 5 Nodal displacements envelop values for the dome unit in global coordinate
2.2. Elements solicitations

Parameter Envelope values SW 72.074 -19.267 71.585 -83.186 31.755 -19.227 2.3472 -1.6434 3.0471 -3.0611 .78156 -1.3448 18.067 -13.929 16.246 -16.237 Sx 45.399 .5078E-1 65.686 .97533E-2 18.415 .23287E-1 1.3579 .64363E-3 2.2594 .68979E-3 .93745 .15548E-2 11.310 .78075E-2 16.847 .18871E-2 Sy 63.056 .28354E-1 62.552 .18031 19.988 .81375E-1 1.8845 .46502E-2 2.6688 .40862E-1 1.0946 .11416E-2 13.833 .32623E-2 13.220 .11522 Load cases Sz 45.276 .55245E-2 94.052 .93774E-2 51.293 .26868E-1 2.290 .39353E-3 6.3298 .11424E-2 .60465 .85148E-3 12.317 .4277E-2 37.725 .49896E-2 Case A 185.87 -1.0459 184.98 -3.7871 96.304 .38199 6.7816 -.2426E-1 10.398 -.6706E-3 2.3068 -.2495E-1 44.713 -.6741E-1 69.924 -.2886E-2 Case B 2.9269 -76.858 -.43048 -220.72 -.39545 -96.316 .156E-3 -6.282 .2658 -10.98 .2486E-1 -3.5661 .7167E-1 -42.990 3.0978 -69.922
Tx
(kN/m)
Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min
Ty
(kN/m)
Txy
(kN/m)
Mx
(kNm/m)
My
(kNm/m)
M xy
(kNm/m)
Nx
(kN/m)
Ny
(kN/m)
Table 6 Element resultant forces envelop values for dome unit
13
Load Case A:
Fig. 49 Membrane normal resultant force in x-element direction Tx per unit length (isometric view -top left side-, top view -top right side-, left view -bottom left side-, front view -bottom right side-)
14
Ty
(isometric view -top left side-, top view -top right side-, left view -bottom left side-, front view -bottom right side-)
Txy
15
Fig. 52 bending moment around y-element axis M x per unit length (Isometric view) (isometric view -top left side-, top view -top right side-, left view -bottom left side-, front view -bottom right side-)
16
My
M xy
17
Fig. 55 Transverse shear N x per unit length (Isometric view) (isometric view -top left side-, top view -top right side-, left view -bottom left side-, front view -bottom right side-)
18
Fig.56 Transverse shear
Ny
Load Case B:
Fig. 57 Membrane normal resultant force in x-element direction Tx per unit length (Isometric view) (isometric view -top left side-, top view -top right side-, left view -bottom left side-, front view -bottom right side-)
19
Ty
20
Txy
Fig. 60 bending moment around y-element axis M x per unit length (Isometric view) (isometric view -top left side-, top view -top right side-, left view -bottom left side-, front view -bottom right side-)
21
My
22
Fig. 62 twisting moment
M xy
Fig. 63 Transverse shear N x per unit length (Isometric view) (isometric view -top left side-, top view -top right side-, left view -bottom left side-, front view -bottom right side-)
23
Ny
2.3. Base shear and nodal reaction forces (Edge effects)

Parameter Maximum values SW Sx Sy Cupola region (+) (-) Fx (kN) (+) (-) .2345E+1 -.2345E+1 .45E+1 -.45E+1 .484E+1 0.0 .310E+1 0.0 Openings frame region .167E+1 0.0 .131E+1 0.0 Cumul 0.0 .1965E+3 .1158E+3 Cupola region (+) (-) Fy .875E+1 -.394E+1 .2411E+1 0.0 .392E+1 0.0 Openings frame region .156E+2 0.0 .2811E+2 0.0 .240E+1 -.2215E+2 .409E+3 .226E+1 0.0 .7323E+1 0.0 0.0 -.733E+1 .126E+2 0.0 .2337E+2 0.0 0.0 -.233E+2 Load cases Sz Case A Case B
24
(kN)
(+) (-)
.1333E+2 -.307E+1
.1026E+2 0.0
.677E+1 0.0 Cumul
.178E+2 0.0
.362E+2 0.0
0.0 -.284E+2
.432E+3
.190E+3
.239E+3 Cupola region
.7726E+3
(+) (-) Fz (kN) (+) (-)
.395E+1 -.395E+1
.325E+1 0.0
.354E+1 0.0
.127E+2 0.0
.234E+2 0.0
0.0 -.234E+2
Openings frame region .2156E+1 -.2156E+1 .1533E+1 0.0 .186E+1 0.0 Cumul 0.0 .1115E+3 .925E+2 Cupola region (+) (-) .109E+1 -.109E+1 .239E+0 0.0 .4995E+0 0.0 Openings frame region (+) (-) .470E+0 -.4702E+0 .226E+0 0.0 .350E+0 0.0 Cumul -0.621E-3 .115E+2 .2405E+2 Cupola region (+) (-) .367E-1 -.367E-1 .182E-1 0.0 .152E-1 0.0 Openings frame region (+) (-) .3365E-1 -.3667E-1 .1654E-1 0.0 .210E-1 0.0 Cumul .8628E-4 .655E+0 .6155E+0 Cupola region (+) (-) .654E+0 -.6544E+0 .201E+0 0.0 .293E+0 0.0 Openings frame region (+) (-) .170E-4 -.1654E-4 .1238E-4 0.0 .1422E-4 0.0 Cumul .1906E-2 .4964E+1 .8652E+1 .209E+2 .114E-4 0.0 .549E-4 0.0 0.0 -.5371E-4 .778E+0 0.0 .179E+1 0.0 0.0 -.179E+1 .231E+1 .624E-1 0.0 .1336E+0 0.0 0.0 -.1337E+0 .778E-1 0.0 .114E+0 -.632E-2 .6345E-2 -.114E+0 .759E+2 .988E+0 0.0 .2034E+1 0.0 0.0 -.2034E+1 .218E+1 0.0 .379E+1 -.310E-2 .405E-2 -.379E+1 .343E+3 .666E+1 0.0 .1222E+2 0.0 0.0 -.1222E+2
Mx (kNm)
My (kNm)
Mz (kNm)
Table 7 Nodal reaction forces envelop values in dome unit
25
2.4. Principal stresses

Parameter Maximum values SW Sx Sy Cupola region (+) .4426E+3 -.1374E+2 .3015E+3 0.0 0.4006E+3 0.0 Openings frame region (+) (-) .5424E+3 -.9163E+2 .5936E+3 0.0 .6741E+3 0.0 Cupola region (+) .1512E+3 -.1385E+3 .1717E+3 -.2743E+1 .20546E+3 -.9305E+0 .19051E+3 -.4209E+1 .4326E+3 -.4654E+2 .407E+2 -.604E+3 .1073E+4 0.0 .1969E+4 0.0 0.0 -.133E+4 .1209E+4 0.0 .1584E+4 0.0 0.0 -.1573E+4 Load cases Sz Case A Case B
1
(kN/m2)
(-)
2
(kN/m2)
(-)
Openings frame region (+) (-) .2095E+3 -.1993E+3 .1802E+3 -.5180E+1 .1796E+3 -.3548E+1 Cupola region (+) .2506E+1 -.6059E+3 .6301E+2 -.8272E+2 .6403E+2 -.6181E+2 .65308E+2 -.2328E+3 .7668E+2 -.6994E+3 .2205E+3 -.5671E+3 .2256E+3 -.7335E+1 .6826E+3 -.1189E+2 .32795E+2 -.6415E+3
3
(kN/m2)
(-)
Openings frame region (+) (-) .1138E+3 -.683E+3 .8169E+2 -.7228E+2 .1061E+3 -.636E+2 .14758E+3 -.7717E+2 .4086E+3 -.6842E+3 .8943E+2 -.682E+3
Table 8 Principal stresses envelop values in dome unit
26

BAM Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

BAM Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ECOLE POLYTECHNIQUE FEDERALE DE LAUSANNE EPFL

INFORMATIQUE ET MECANIQUE APPLIQUEES A LA CONSTRUCTION IMAC

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

Fig. 1 Different views of the Bubble system for hosing

Fig. 2 View of the tubular plan

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

Fig. 3 Layout and transverse dimensions of the tubular unit

Fig. 5 Layout and transverse dimensions of the dome unit

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

Fig. 6 Tubular unit meshing views

Fig. 7 Dome unit meshing views

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

2.2. Reinforced concrete shell structures

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

3. Finite element model

E x = E y = E z = Ecm = k E 3 f cm 27000.0MPa (art. 3.1.2.3.3 SIA262)

Ecm = 0.4348 Ecm = 11740MPa 2(1 + )

The material Poissons ratio is: = xy = yz = xz =0,15

cd = 1,1MPa , concrete shear strength (art. 3.1.2.3.5 SIA262)

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

Swiss soils classification Geological Condition Class SIA Vs (m/s) S

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

5. Response spectrum analysis with ANSYS of the BUBBLE system

5.1. Modal analysis of the tubular unit

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

Fig. 8 Mode shape for mode 1 (Front view, Oblique view)

Priode T Period (s) [s]

5.2. Modal analysis of the cupola unit

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

Priode T Period (s) [s]

5.3. Modal spectrum analysis of the tubular unit

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

5.4. Modal spectrum analysis of the cupola unit

6. Modal spectrum results combination

Fig. 12 Major and minor principal directions

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

U 1.40E-3 (m) 0.657E-3 (m) 0.0687E-3 (m)

The X-direction is more flexible than Z-direction.

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

0.114 (kNm) 0.1337 (kNm) 1.79 (kNm) 0.549E-4 (kNm)

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

APPENDIX 1 SHELL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

Top surface Bottom surface

t ( x ,top + 4 x ,mid + x ,bot ) 6

t ( y ,top + 4 y ,mid + y ,bot ) 6

t ( xy ,top + 4 xy ,mid + xy ,bot ) 6

t ( xz ,top + 4 xz ,mid + xz ,bot ) 6

t ( yz ,top + 4 yz ,mid + yz ,bot )

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

M +My 2 + M xy for moments x 2

T + Ty 2 x 2 + Txy for membrane forces

Fig. 2 Principal stresses and concrete crack in a planar shell element

A three dimensional seismic analysis of a bubble system of housing

Estimation of strong motion values in Bam (IRAN)

S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com

Estimation of strong motion values in Bam (IRAN) IV. References

S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com

Estimation of strong motion values in Bam (IRAN)

S.Sellami Leinen souad@cluemail.com