## Jelajahi eBook

## Kategori

## Jelajahi Buku audio

## Kategori

## Jelajahi Majalah

## Kategori

## Jelajahi Dokumen

## Kategori

0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)

129 tayangan13 halamanAshraf Habibullah, G. Robert Morris - Makalah HAKI 2009

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

Ashraf Habibullah, G. Robert Morris - Makalah HAKI 2009

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)

129 tayangan13 halamanAshraf Habibullah, G. Robert Morris - Makalah HAKI 2009

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Anda di halaman 1dari 13

ABSTRACT Todays modern structures have created new demands for structural analysis and design. Larger structures with more exotic shapes are challenging traditional approaches and design codes. Greater performance expectations have become more commonplace, including for the response to wind, vibration, earthquake, and blast hazard. Continued economic pressure requires more efficient use of labor and materials, and compressed timetables with rapid design-build projects. This paper discusses the new capacities for analysis and design that are becoming available to meet these demands. Improved nonlinear analysis techniques provide the designer with more information on the behavior of the structure. Performance-based design procedures provide a more nuanced approach for designing structures for capacity against failure. Integrated modeling/analysis/design software provides the framework needed to manage the information needed for sophisticated design. All of these require significant computer power, which fortunately continues to grow. Engineers must learn how to harness this power to produce practical design information without being overwhelmed by numerical detail. ABSTRAK Struktur-struktur modern saat ini telah menyebabkan timbulnya kebutuhan baru dalam analisa dan desain struktur. Struktur-struktur berskala besar dengan ragam bentuk yang lebih tidak lazim menantang pendekatan tradisionil dan peraturan-peraturan desain. Performance lebih besar yang diharapkan telah menjadi sesuatu yang biasa, termasuk respons terhadap angin, getaran, gempa bumi dan ledakan. Tekanan ekonomi yang berkelanjutan mengharuskan penggunaan tenaga kerja dan bahan-bahan yang lebih efisien, dan mempersingkat waktu pengerjaan dengan proyekproyek design-build yang cepat. Paper ini membahas kemampuan baru untuk analisa dan desain yang tersedia untuk memenuhi kebutuhan-kebutuhan tersebut. Peningkatan teknik-teknik analisa nonlinear memberikan konstruktor lebih banyak informasi tentang prilaku struktur. Prosedur performance-based design memberikan suatu pendekatan yang lebih untuk mendesain struktur dengan kapasitas mendekati runtuh. Software modeling/analisis/desain yang terintegrasi menyediakan kerangka kerja yang dibutuhkan untuk mengelola informasi yang dibutuhkan untuk desain yang rumit. Semua ini membutuhkan kemampuan komputer yang besar, suatu hal yang menguntungkan kemampuan komputer memang terus berkembang. Engineers harus belajar bagaimana memanfaatkan kemampuan tersebut untuk menghasilkan informasi desain praktis tanpa terkecoh oleh detail numerik.

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

Ashraf Habibullah & G. Robert Morris

1. INTRODUCTION

Todays modern structures have created new demands for structural analysis and design. Larger structures with more exotic shapes are challenging traditional approaches and design codes. Greater performance expectations have become more commonplace, including for the response to wind, vibration, earthquake, and blast hazard. Continued economic pressure requires more efficient use of labor and materials, and compressed timetables with rapid design-build projects. Fortunately, new capacities for analysis and design are becoming available to meet these demands. Improved nonlinear analysis techniques provide the designer with more information on the behavior of the structure. Performance-based design procedures provide a more nuanced approach for designing structures for capacity against failure. Integrated modeling/analysis/design software provides the framework needed to manage the information needed for sophisticated design, particularly for rapidly changing design. All of these require significant computer power, which fortunately continues to grow.

2. MODERN STRUCTURES

Buildings continue to get taller and more slender. The structural systems also are evolving, with shear wall becoming more common since the attacks of 9/11. This makes the consideration of construction sequencing, including age effects (strength, creep, and shrinkage), more important than ever. The seismic performance of such structures is not fully covered by current codes. Comfort and safety also demand the use of special damping or active control systems for wind loading. The desire for signature structures also is leading to more exotic shapes, including the use of curves, asymmetry, and cantilevered construction. Multiple towers on a common base, sometimes connected by bridges at higher levels, are another example of nontraditional structures. The structural behavior of such systems often requires special considerations that are not well covered by current codes. Construction sequencing, with age effects, can be quite important for determining stress distribution as well as the deflected shape, which may be significantly unsymmetrical. Similar considerations affect modern bridges, with increased use of curved girders, prestressing, and segmental construction. Construction sequencing is almost always important for composite superstructure design. Increased use of cable-stayed bridges requires techniques for determining and controlling cable tension, and controlling vibration due to wind and vehicle loading. Determination of camber is affected by construction sequence, age effects, and cable tensioning, depending upon the type of bridge construction.

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

There are many different types of nonlinearity that may be important in modern structures. These may typically include: Material stress-strain, such as yielding, cracking, strength loss, and stiffening; Geometric nonlinearity, such as P-delta effects and large deflections and deformations; Cables and fabrics; Contact and friction; Special devices, such as isolators, nonlinear dampers, and buckling restrained braces (BRB); and Nonlinear soil and foundation behavior. Staged construction also can be considered a type of nonlinearity, whether or not the behavior is linear within a given stage, since the overall stiffness of the structure is changing. Changes include the addition and removal of members, modification of supports and connections, and changing material behavior due to curing, creep, and shrinkage. Only some of these types of nonlinear behavior will be present in any given structure. In addition, different types of nonlinearity may be important for different aspects of the analysis and design of a given structure. It is important to have a clear sense of when to consider nonlinear behavior and to have analysis and design tools that can accommodate these different behaviors, even for different analyses of the same structure. We will now examine nonlinear behavior in more detail.

4. STAGED CONSTRUCTION

The sequence of construction can have a significant effect on the final shape of the structure, and more importantly, the distribution of stresses, particularly for redundant systems. This is especially true for concrete structures, which can exhibit creep and shrinkage, as well as increasing stiffness due to continued curing during construction. Consideration of creep and shrinkage is common for segmentally constructed bridges, where it is necessary to determine the deformed geometry in order that the cantilevered segments from two piers meet correctly at mid-span. However, it has become increasingly important to consider these effects for modern buildings, where shear walls and columns may deflect differentially. Curved, unsymmetrical, and other exotically shaped buildings also may experience significant lateral and torsional deflection under gravity load, which can be exacerbated by creep and shrinkage. Staged-construction analysis, properly utilized, allows the accurate determination of the deformed shape and stress distribution at any time during the construction process and for years thereafter. Operations that could have a significant effect on the behavior and should be modeled include: Addition of structural members, with proper account of their ages; Addition and removal of temporary support structures; Changing of support conditions and member fixity; Jacking, fitting, and tensioning operations that may induce significant stresses. When considering time-dependent effects, the results can be very sensitive to the assumed age of young concrete. Most creep models will give excessive deflections if stresses are applied to concrete unrealistically early [CEB]. Load should not be supported by the concrete until the age at which the formwork is removed. For statically determinate structures, the amount of creep can be computed easily at any time from the

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

creep model. For indeterminate structures, creep causes stress redistribution, which in turn modifies the creep behavior. Proper time-integration schemes must be used in this case to achieve accurate results [Cook et al], [Zienkiewicz & Taylor]. Traditional creep models consider the history of every stress increment applied to the material. This can lead to growth in the storage and calculation time required for each time step, especially with stress redistribution. The use of Dirichlet series to represent creep behavior can control this data growth and also prevent excessive deflections for young concrete [Ketchum].

Figure 1. Examples of Segmental Construction of Bridges In addition to being able to change support and fixity conditions, jacking, fitting, and tensioning operations may need to be modeled. Elements that support strain or deformation loading can be used to jack to a specified displacement, or to pull parts together. Jacking or tensioning to a specified force requires an iterative procedure that determines the amount of strain/deformation load required to achieve that force. This can be highly dependent on the flexibility of the surrounding parts of the structure, and in some cases, may not be achievable if equilibrium would be violated. For structures undergoing significant elastic and/or time-dependent displacement, it is often desirable to specify the desired final geometry and calculate the initial geometry using analysis. This provides the size and shape (camber) of the member needed, as well as where it will be located when added to the structure. Two approaches are commonly used. In the first case, we start with the entire final structure, then load and deconstruct it in reverse. The geometry just before the element is removed shows the initial shape and location of the member when it is added. The second approach is iterative, building and loading in normal order, then modifying the initial geometry based on the final deflected shape and re-analyzing. This requires more computational effort, but is required for proper consideration of time-dependent effects and nonlinearity. Builtin tools for using this method simplify the process for the engineer [CSI 2009]. Nonlinear behavior may be important in staged-construction analysis, such as: Gap opening and closing, especially the contact with temporary support structures; Tensiononly members; Cable behavior; Concrete cracking; and P-delta effects. Largedeflection analysis is not usually required, even when there are significant creep and shrinkage deflections, since the rotations involved are not usually large enough to change the equilibrium equations. However, curved girders in bridge structures may require consideration of large deflections, as well as cases where the structure is assembled by rotating members into place when they are already partially attached.

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

To be truly useful, the analysis program should be able to consider linear analyses at any stage in the construction, such as calculating vibration modes or buckling modes, as well as design load combinations. This can be important to assure the stability and safety of the structure throughout its construction. The flexibility to consider multiple construction scenarios, either from the start or branching at intermediate stages, can be very powerful [CSI 2009].

For most practical structures, the P-delta effect is more significant than the consideration of large deflections. The exception to this is cables, which should always consider equilibrium in their deflected shape as part of the analysis. However, cables can be treated specially without considering large deflections for the rest of the structure. The P-delta effect considers the softening and destabilizing effect of compressive forces and stresses. For most structures, P-delta effects should be taken into consideration, even if only for the initial determination of the stiffness of the structure for an otherwise linear analysis and design. Taking this a step further, the Direct Analysis Method that is now part of the AISC 360-05/IBC2006 steel design code [AISC] can directly use the Pdelta effects within members, as calculated by analysis, to perform a more accurate design than is often achieved using K-factors, which may result in savings of material cost [Deierlein et al]. This requires a program that can consider internal (so-called small) P-delta effects. Stability analysis can be performed by calculating linear buckling modes or by performing full geometrically nonlinear analysis. It is important to know when each is useful and how they may be used together.

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

Linear buckling analysis determines the safety factor for a given loading before the Pdelta effect would destabilize the structure and cause buckling failure. This is a linearized estimate that assumes that the distribution of direct stresses and the deflected geometry does not change significantly due to the P-delta effect. In the absence of significant material nonlinearity (including gaps, cables, and so on), this assumption is usually reasonable for traditional straight buildings when considering buckling due to gravity loads. In the presence of significant asymmetry, where gravity loading may cause lateral deflections, the P-delta effect may increase the lateral deflection due to gravity, causing redistribution of axial loads. In such a case, a linearized buckling analysis from zero, and one performed after a nonlinear P-delta gravity analysis, may produce two different estimates of the buckling factor of safety. The estimate calculated near the design load of the building would be the most accurate. An alternative to linear buckling analysis is to perform a nonlinear P-delta analysis for the same loading. This will not automatically produce a factor of safety. However, applying a small simultaneous lateral load will enable the engineer to determine when the lateral deflections begin to grow rapidly, signaling instability. As the buckling load is approached, the P-delta analysis loses its validity, since the rotations begin to become significant. Large deflection analysis is mostly concerned with the effect of rotation, which changes the direction of axial force and shear, and hence affects the equilibrium equations. In the occasional situation where post-buckling behavior is of importance, the nonlinear analysis must consider large deflections rather than just P-delta effects. Nonlinear material behavior also may be critical. Such analyses usually are restricted to special structures or subsystems of larger structures, rather than entire buildings or bridges [Cook et al]. In the analysis of post-buckling behavior, special algorithms usually are required to control the application of the load, which is discussed in text that follows.

Almost all interesting structures require some kind of nonlinear static analysis, even if it is simply to compute the P-delta effect to be included for subsequent linear analyses. Other basic types of nonlinearity that are commonly considered include: Cables; Tension-only bracing; Support gaps and foundation uplift; and Cracked concrete slabs. Such analyses can be carried out for the entire structure at once, or using staged construction when required. The question that must be asked is if after applying dead load, prestressing, and other fixed loading, the structure can be considered essentially linear for all subsequent design loads, such as live load, wind load, and thermal load. If so, the stiffness at the end of nonlinear analysis can be solved once, and any number of load cases can be applied and superposed to create design load combinations. The initial nonlinear static case usually can be solved with little more effort than a linear analysis for well behaved structures, so that the overall analysis is quiet efficient. When nonlinearities affect all applied loading, superposition no longer applies, and every load combination must be separately analyzed using nonlinear analysis. An example of this is for lateral loads with tension-only bracing, where the members that participate differ for loading in the positive and negative directions. When using the Direct Analysis

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

Method, nonlinear load combinations also are required to correctly determine the internal (small) P-delta effect in each member; linear superposition is not adequate [Deierlein et al]. For many structures, a hybrid approach is possible. A primary nonlinear static analysis followed by linear load combinations would cover most of the design needs, but additional nonlinear static or dynamic analyses would be used for performance-based design or other special cases. Having the ability to flexibly consider these multiple analysis and design scenarios using the same mo del is essential for todays modern structures.

7. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS

Pushover analysis is a specialized type of nonlinear static analysis that can be used in performance-based seismic design. Critical components of the structure are modeled with nonlinear material behavior, and one or more deformation levels identified for each component corresponding to various performance levels. Examples of performance levels include immediate occupancy, life safety, and collapse prevention, although any number can be considered [ACSE], [AASHTO]. Lateral loading that is distributed similar to inertial forces is applied with incrementally increasing magnitude, and each component is monitored for its performance level. For a given level of loading, corresponding to a particular performance level earthquake, components not having adequate capacity can be identified, and the structural design appropriately modified. Pushover analysis may need to be conducted for a variety of load patterns corresponding to different directions of earthquake in an attempt to find all the weaknesses of the design.

Figure 3. Pushover Analysis Showing Demands on Individual Members More than most other types of nonlinear analysis, pushover analysis is strictly a design tool and not intended to represent realistic behavior. It combines linear demands with nonlinear capacities, and represents dynamic behavior with static analysis. Because of the assumed load patterns, its usefulness is limited to structures where higher mode effects are not significant, generally structures of less than about ten stories. For taller

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

structures, full dynamic analysis may be needed for performance-based design. When properly used, pushover analysis can be a powerful design tool, providing great insight into structural behavior.

8. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

For traditional structures, design for wind and seismic lateral loads using static load cases or response-spectrum analysis may be adequate. For larger or more unusual structures, the traditional assumptions no longer apply, and full time-history analysis must be considered. Two distinct types of time-history analysis are available modal superposition and direct integration. Modal superposition is the more efficient of the two, but it is not able to consider the full range of nonlinear behavior as can direct integration. However, the unique Fast Nonlinear Analysis (FNA) method of modal superposition can consider localized nonlinearity and coupled damping behavior accurately and efficiently, making it an ideal choice for analysis of isolation and energy dissipation systems for seismic, wind, and vibration control [Wilson]. This method makes use of Ritz-type modes that can be computed using the stiffness at the end of any nonlinear analysis, thus including stagedconstruction, cable effects, P-delta, and other built-in nonlinear effects [Wilson et al]. For performance-based design of structures for which pushover analysis is not sufficient, direct integration can be used to perform complete nonlinear analysis of the structure subjected to a suite of representative seismic motions. Unlike pushover analysis, higher mode effects are automatically included, which can identify capacity limitations in regions that may not be predicted from assumed first-mode loading [ASCE], [CSI 2006]. Directintegration analysis also can be used for stability and other types of nonlinear analysis for which static nonlinear analysis is not adequate. This type of analysis is computationally intensive, but modern computational methods and machines, including parallel processing, have made it a practical possibility. When needed, both modal superposition and direct integration can be used for the same structure, each for the appropriate aspect of design. Using a well structured analysis tool, all of the necessary analysis and design can be performed using the same model.

9. COLLAPSE PREVENTION

A practical way to design for collapse prevention is to analyze the structure for a multitude of scenarios with critical members and components removed [US DOD], [US GSA]. Staged construction can be used for this purpose, removing the members statically or dynamically from the loaded state. Careful attention must be paid to consider the type of nonlinear behavior that needs to be considered in the vicinity of the removed members. This may include material nonlinearity and P-delta effects, but in some cases large deflections may be warranted if catenary action from beams and slabs is expected to prevent collapse. While it is sometimes tempting to want to consider the full progressive collapse scenario from the failure of one component, this is extremely difficult and time consuming, and cannot consider all the possible paths of collapse. It is more practical to determine the demands from the removal of one or more critical components and design accordingly.

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

Mathematically unique solutions are guaranteed for linear analysis and are often assured when the stiffness of the structure is positive, even if it is changing due to nonlinear effects. However, this is no longer true when there is a loss of strength, whether due to a softening material, fracture, or buckling. The load carried by the failing member must be redistributed to other members, or the overall load-carrying capacity of the structure may be reduced. There are two significant issues here: How to control the application of the load when it must be reduced, and how to internally redistribute the load. For static analysis, controlling the load by monitoring a monotonically increasing displacement (or multiple displacements) works well for most problems, with arc-length control being useful for certain special cases. Additional monitoring of the yielding materials also can be used to control load reversals, when physically impossible negative plastic work is detected. These methods allow for the capturing of snap-back and snap-through behavior, which occur in large flexible structures when a local region unloads, causing significant elastic unloading elsewhere [CSI 2006], [CSI 2009]. No unique solution exists for load redistribution in a static analysis. Typical approaches include proportionately unloading the entire structure, then reloading; locally unloading the failing element and applying the load to the surrounding elements; and reloading from zero with the failing element having reduced secant stiffness. These and other methods may give different results in many structures. For more difficult problems, dynamic analysis is often the best approach. The load can be applied quasi-statically (very slowly), but load redistribution may happen quickly where local failures occur. The path of load redistribution is uniquely determined by inertia and represents the most natural solution. However, it is unrealistic to expect the true solution in these cases, since in the case of rapid strength loss, high speed wave propagation occurs, which would require detailed modeling not warranted for typical structures [Zienkiewicz & Taylor].

11. LOCALIZATION

Another important issue that must be considered is the tendency of material failure to localize. A common example of this is the necking that appears in a steel specimen in a tensile test. Even though the stress is essentially uniform over the whole central length of the specimen, once stress loss occurs, failure localizes to a shorter length that is on the order of the cross sectional dimensions. The remainder of the specimen unloads elastically. In a similar fashion, moment hinges tend to localize, upon strength loss, to a length related to the length of the member and its cross sectional dimensions. When analyzed using finite elements, numerical localization tends to occur over lengths on the order of the element size, hence the results will continue to change with increased mesh refinement. To get realistic results, the mesh size should be set to the expected localization (or hinge) length, or specialized nonlocal material models should be employed. For practical engineering purposes, including performance-based design, mesh refinement beyond this level may not be useful for nonlinear analysis.

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

In view of the previous discussion of nonlinear analysis and design needs for modern structures, we can describe practical analysis and design software to accomplish these goals. First the program must provide the tools to easily create and manipulate the essential structural model. This includes drafting capability, import from other software, and powerful and flexible methods for managing the large amount of data required.

Figure 5. Integrated Graphics Provide Needed Visualization Secondly, the program must be capable of performing a variety of different types of analysis and design using a single, integrated model. This assures that every member is considered in all analyses and is comprehensively designed. Even more importantly,

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

having a single model means that all changes are made once, minimizing the chance of error that can easily occur when trying to keep several parallel models up to date simultaneously. Flexible load case scheduling is another important requirement for sophisticated nonlinear analysis. This includes the ability to perform complex staged-construction analysis and to be able to sequence nonlinear static and dynamic analysis with each other and with staged construction cases, since path dependence can significantly affect behavior and design. To be truly useful, the program should be able to consider multiple parallel analysis sequences and to be able to branch from one case into many paths. The ability to selectively run some analyses, to add new load cases without losing previous results, and to selectively re-run certain cases are all indispensible. At any step along a given nonlinear analysis sequence, linear analyses may be needed for computing linear design combinations, modal and buckling analyses, influence-line base moving-load analysis, and many other purposes. These linear analyses use the stiffness from the nonlinear state under consideration and represent a linear perturbation from the nonlinear state. Since every nonlinear structure is unique, a toolbox of nonlinear analysis methods is required. These include event-to-event methods, constant-stiffness and Newton Raphson iteration, line-search techniques, and multiple time-history methods, such as modal superposition and implicit/explicit direct-integration. These need to be coupled with efficient algorithms that take full advantage of the available computer technology, including vector and parallel processing. Code-based design checking must be integrated so that it can work directly with the results of any set of linear or nonlinear analysis results. This should not be restricted to a single set of analysis results, but be flexible enough to envelope the design over any set of appropriate load cases and combinations. Powerful data manipulation capabilities also are needed to be able to extract the data needed for external processing in cases where code-based methods are not adequate due to the unique or unusual characteristics of some structures.

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

10

No matter how sophisticated is the engineering software and computer hardware, the most important ingredient for effective nonlinear analysis and design is the experienced structural engineer. Several guidelines are helpful to make effective use of computerized structural analysis and design [CSI 2009]: Remember the goal structural design, not analysis. The purpose is not to predict the realistic behavior of the structure, but to produce a design that controls the behavior. All nonlinear models have a learning curve. Each structure is unique, and the nonlinear behavior may not always be as expected. Time must be allowed to understand the structure. Start as simply as possible, checking the linear behavior under dead load and examining the vibration modes. This is a good way to verify structural properties, connectivity, and support. Add complexity and nonlinearity to the model gradually as your understanding of the behavior improves. Perform many quicker analyses first before running longer analyses. Use realistic properties. Avoid excessively large rigid stiffnesses, and always include realistic inertia. Use appropriate mesh size, no more refined than necessary. This is necessary for efficiency and to avoid unrealistic localization. When detailed stress results are needed, consider limited local meshes. Ignore strength loss whenever possible, or delay its consideration until later in the development of the model after many of the design decisions have been made already. Study the sensitivity of the model to different assumptions, including material properties and the flexibility of the foundation.

Nonlinear analysis is a powerful tool that must be used wisely or the results can be confusing or even misleading.

14. CONCLUSION

Modern structures provide a challenge to traditional methods of design and analysis, particularly given the higher expectations placed on them for appearance, performance, and cost-effectiveness. New methods of nonlinear analysis and performance-based design provide the tools to meet these challenges. No single approach is suitable for the design of all structures, or even for a given structure. Rather, comprehensive and wellintegrated structural engineering software, running on powerful hardware, can provide the experienced engineer with the multiple capabilities needed to produce safe and effective designs.

REFERENCES

AASHTO (2009). AASHTO Guide Specifications for LRFD Seismic Bridge Design , American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. AISC (2005). ANSI/AISC 360-05: An American National Standard Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, American Institute of Steel Construction, Chicago, Illinois.

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

11

ASCE (2006). ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06 Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia. CEB (1993). CEB-FIP Modal Code, Comite Euro-International Du Beton, Thomas Telford, London CSI (2009). CSI Analysis Reference Manua l, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California. CSI (2006). Perform-3D User Guide, V4, Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3D Structures, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California. R. D. Cook, D. S. Malkus, and M. E. Plesha (1989). Concepts and Applications of Finite Element Analysis, 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York. G. G. Deierlein, J. F. Hajjar, J. A. Yura, D. W. White, W. F. and Baker, W.F. (2002), Proposed New Requirements for Frame Stability Using Second-Order Analysis, Proceedings, Annual Technical Session, Structural Stability Research Council , pp. 1-20. M. A. Ketchum (1986), Redistribution of Stresses in Segmentally Erected Prestressed Concrete Bridges, Report No. UCB/SESM-86/07, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California. US DOD (2003). DOD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards for Buildings, Unified Facilities Criteria, UFC 4-010-01, US Department of Defense, Updated 2003. US GSA (2003), Progressive Collapse Analysis and Design Guidelines for New Federal Office Buildings and Major Modernization Projects , US General Services Administration. E. L. Wilson (2004). Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures A Physical Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, California. E. L. Wilson, M. W. Yuan, and J. M. Dickens (1982) Dynamic Analysis by Direct Superposition of Ritz Vectors, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics , Vol. 10, pp. 813823. O. C. Zienkiewicz and R. L. Taylor (1991). The Finite Element Method, 4th Edition, Vol. 2, McGraw-Hill, London.

Seminar dan Pameran HAKI 2009 - Advanced Nonlinear Analysis for Modern Structures

12