1123 - 04precast Seismic Design of Reinforced

4
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Its what you learn after you know it all that counts. Earl Weaver
Design procedures must introduce many simplifying assumptions into the process. The validity of these simplications must be tested analytically if they are to be used with any degree of condence. This testing is done through the use of elastic and inelastic time history analyses. This chapter endeavors to analyze some of the component and system designs developed in the preceding chapters. A conrmation of any of the design procedures is not the objective. The focus is to demonstrate the application of the procedures that might be used to conrm a design. The designer who wishes to improve his or her design skills will study completed designs to determine how the next design might reasonably be improved. Several issues were raised in Chapter 3 that have a direct bearing on the design process. These issues can be grouped into major categories as follows: Equal displacement. System ductility. Design strength. Modeling considerations.
The time history evaluations undertaken in this chapter are limited to frame and shear wall designs developed in Chapter 3. The focus of each analysis is to probe these identied focal issues. Similar types of analyses performed over the last 35 years have led the author to accept the recommended design approaches developed in Chapter 3. Implicit in the conrmation of a design by time history analysis is the comparability of the design spectrum and the ground motions used to evaluate the design. Two means of developing comparable representations of an earthquake are being used today. One alters the ground motion so as to match the spectrum at every period (matched spectrum) while the other amplies (only) an actual ground motion record to t the design spectrum (scaled ground motion) in a particular period range.
763
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons Retrieved from: www.knovel.com
764
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Both methods are used today but I believe that the latter is more appropriate provided the selected ground motions are appropriate and a sufcient number of earthquake records are used to analyze the building. This is because earthquakes have a dominant frequency content that can be a benet insofar as mitigating the impact of the earthquake on the response of ductile structures, and this will be an observed characteristic. The design spectra and those that were produced from the scaled ground motion used to perform the analyses of this chapter are described in Figure 4.1.1. A set of matched spectra are shown in Figure 4.1.2 to describe the inherent difference in the two approaches. The selected ground motions are identied in Table 4.1.1. An attempt has been made in the scaling process to match the ground motion spectrum to the design spectrum in the response range of the studied structures. For example, Earthquakes 1 and 5 match the design spectrum in the period range of the shear wall structure (T 0.95 second) while Earthquakes 2 and 3 match the design spectrum in the = period range of the frame braced structure. Earthquake 4 was included as a curiosity because it contained a large single pulse (Figure 4.1.3a); it had no effect on any of the studied structures. The scaled ground motion for Earthquake 1 is shown in Figure 4.1.3b. Compare this to the scaled and altered ground motion of this event used to develop the matched spectrum of Figure 4.1.2b, which is shown in Figure 4.1.3c. Observe that the accelerations used to develop the matched spectrum (Figure 4.1.3c) are signicantly increased in the post 10-second range and that the peak acceleration for the matched ground motion exceeds that of the scaled ground motion. This in spite of the fact that the spectral velocity dened by the matched spectrum is only 42 in./sec, as opposed to the 51 in./sec dened by the scaled spectrum. Comment: One caveat should be reafrmed as it relates to the use of time history analyses. Building designs are not in themselves academic efforts. Designs are performed and buildings produced to satisfy a perceived societal need in a manner consistent with the extant standard of care. The designer who performs a time history analysis of a proposed design does so only to answer one questionIs the produced design likely to meet the design objective? Academic interests may be explored in the process but this is only to improve future designs; not to perfect a produced design. Introducing design changes at this stage in the design process will create chaos, and this usually results in a less effective design. Design changes should be resisted unless the need is unquestionable.
4.1 RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION The objective of this section is to review and analyze inelastic time history analyses of the shear wall braced buildings designed in Section 3.1. The equal displacement hypothesis and the impact of system strength on response and behavior are the focal issues.
RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION
765
Figure 4.1.1 Design response spectrum and response spectra developed from scaled ground motions.
Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons
Retrieved from: www.knovel.com
766
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Figure 4.1.2 Matched spectra (Sv = 42 in./sec).
TABLE 4.1.1
Earthquake Ground Motions Earthquake Information Scaling to Site Spectra File Name Case Scale Factor
Earthquake Number
Earthquake Record Imperial Valley EarthquakeEl Centro May 18, 1940, 20:37 PST Corrected Accelerogram, 270, Caltech IIA001 ISEE, UC Berkeley, California Imperial Valley EarthquakeEl Centro May 19, 1940, 20:37 PST Corrected Accelerogram, 180 Caltech IIA001 ISEE, UC Berkeley, California Northridge EarthquakeSylmar County Hospital January 17, 1994, 04:31 PST Corrected Accelerogram, Channel (90) CDMG QN94A514 ISEE, UC Berkeley, California
IMPVAL1.ACC
ELC270
1.70
IMPVAL1.ACC
ELC180
2.00
NRIDGE1.ACC
NR1
0.85
(Continued)
767
TABLE 4.1.1
Earthquake Ground Motions (Continued) Earthquake Information Scaling to Site Spectra File Name Case Scale Factor
Earthquake Number
Earthquake Record Northridge EarthquakeSanta Monica City Hall Grounds January 17, 1994, 04:31 PST Corrected Accelerogram, Channel 1, 90 CDMG QN94A538 ISEE, UC Berkeley, California Northridge EarthquakeArleta and Nordhoff Fire Station January 17, 1994, 04:31 PST Corrected Accelerogram, Channel 1, 90 CDMG QN94A087 ISEE, UC Berkeley, California
NRIDGE2.ACC
NR2
0.55
NRIDGE3.ACC
NR3
1.45
Figure 4.1.3 Selected scaled ground motions used in the various time history analyses.
768
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
4.1.1
Testing the Equal Displacement Hypothesis
A 26-ft long shear wall was designed using several methodologies in Section 2.4.1.4 and Section 3.1.1.1. The wall system and its reinforcing are described in Figures 2.4.9 and 2.4.10. This shear wall braced system was subjected to the ground motions used to develop the response spectra of Figure 4.1.1. Roof displacement history for Earthquake 1 is shown in Figure 4.1.4. The magnitude of the response of the wall was essentially the same for Earthquakes 3 and 5, and this is to be expected, for each of the scaled spectra closely match the design spectrum (Figures 4.1.1a, c, e) in the period range of the system (T 0.95 second). = The response spectral projection of building drift should match the elastic time history analysis. The analysis that follows is repeated here for the readers convenience. The design spectral velocity in the 1-second period range is Sv = = TSa 2 1.0(0.83)(386.4) 6.28 (4.1.1) (see Figure 4.1.1)
= 51 in./sec The spectral displacement, based on a spectral velocity of 51 in./sec, would be Sd = = TSv 2 0.95(51) 6.28 (T 0.95 second) = (4.1.2)
= 7.71 in.
Figure 4.1.4 Response of 26-ft shear wall to Earthquake 1, Table 4.1.1 (building described in Figures 2.4.9 and 2.4.10).
769
and the displacement at the roof (

n
n)
would be (4.1.3) ( = 1.45)
= Sd = 1.45(7.71) = 11.2 in.
This is quite comparable to the peak value predicted by the elastic time history analysis ( n,max = 10.66 in. in Figure 4.1.4a). An inelastic model of the building was also subjected to the ground motions described in Table 4.1.1. The peak displacement was slightly less than 8 in. and this warrants some study. The elastic and inelastic responses of the wall system to Earthquake 1 are described in greater detail in Figure 4.1.5. Observe how the periodicity of the inelastic response is lengthening. The behavior pattern follows the characteristic yielding response described in Section 1.1.1. The structure yields 2+ seconds into the earthquake ( y = 3.2 in. in Figure 3.1.6b) and continues to displace to a drift of 5 in. in the elastic model and slightly more in the inelastic model. This corresponds to a displacement ductility demand of about 1.56. The associated period shift is 1.25 ( 1.56) times. The period of the yielding structure should be 1.2 seconds (1.25 (0.95)), and this is what is predicted by the time history analysis (Figure 4.1.5b). Observe that the response of the inelastic model after 3 seconds (Figure 4.1.5a) never exceeds 6 in. (t = 6 seconds) and thereafter is limited to 4 in.essentially elastic. Understanding this behavior requires a review of the characteristics of the driving earthquake. Observe (Figure 4.1.1a) that the response drops signicantly in the now period of interest (T = 1.25 seconds) range. The spectral acceleration response in the 1.3- to 1.5-second period range is only onethird of that in the 1-second range. In essence we have a new or different structure (T = 1.2 seconds) responding to a different earthquake ground motion (Sv 30 = in./sec). Spectral projections based on the new structure and the response spectrum
Figure 4.1.5 Enlarged time history responses of the 26-ft shear wall to Earthquake 1.
770
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
for Earthquake 1 ( u 8.6 in.) are not likely to conrm the time history projections = ( max = 7.6 in.) because a portion of the strong ground motions (t = 2 seconds) have passed (Figure 4.1.3b)and it was these larger ground motions (0.75g) that drove the initial structure (T = 0.95 second). The drift experienced in the next cycle (t = 3.5 seconds) is 9.5 in. for the elastic model but only 7.6 in. for the inelastic model. Now the ductility demand is on the order of 2.4 (7.6/3.2) and another period shift might reasonably be anticipated. The period shift should amount to s , or 1.55 times the elastic period. This magnitude of period shift is not conrmed in the response because the subsequent ground motions appear to excite higher modes in the structure. Figure 4.1.6 describes behavior in the plastic hinge region in the pre 8-second range (Figure 4.1.6a) and in the 12- to 14-second response range (Figure 4.1.6b). Observe how the stiffness in the 12- to 14-second range is consistent with the observed period change. k12 = 1.3 k8 T12 = 1.3T8 T12 1.3(0.95) = 1.2 seconds = Comment: The response of this system to ground motion identies an important attribute of a ductile structure. Specically, the inherent shift in system period makes (see Figure 4.1.6)
Figure 4.1.6 Hysteretic response in the plastic hinge region of the 26-ft shear wall (inelastic time history of Figure 4.1.3a).
771
it virtually impossible for the inelastic system to resonate with the ground motion. This will logically make it unlikely that the inelastic system will ever reach the response projections of the elastic system, which are, in their peak ranges (T = 1 second for Earthquake 1), largely attributable to resonant effects. Observe that in Earthquakes 1, 3, and 5 (Figure 4.1.1) a signicant reduction of response is apparent in the period range of 1.2 to 1.5 seconds. Obviously care must be taken to select earthquakes that reasonably describe potential ground motion characteristics. This argues for the adoption of an articial ground motion similar to the ones described in Figure 4.1.2. The matched design spectra described in Figure 4.1.2 are of a lesser intensity than the design spectrum described in Figure 4.1.1. The spectral velocity in the 1-second range is Sv = = TSa 2 (1.0)(0.68)(386.4) 6.28 (Eq. 4.1.1)
= 42 in./sec The ultimate displacement ( second) would be

u)
of the 26-ft shear wall braced system (T = 0.95 TSv 2 0.95(42) 6.28
Sd = =
(Eq. 4.1.2)
= 6.35 in.
u
= Sd = 1.45(6.35) = 9.2 in.
(Eq. 4.1.3)
The elastic time history analyses, using the ground motions that produced the spectra of Figure 4.1.2, were consistent in their prediction of a peak displacement response of slightly more than 8 in. Of particular interest is the response of the system to the altered El Centro 90 ground motion described in Figure 4.1.3c. The elastic response is slightly less than the spectral prediction of 9.2 in., and the early peaks (t = 5 seconds) developed for the scaled El Centro 90 ground motion (Figure 4.1.4a) have been suppressed. The displacement peaks now occur at t = 12 seconds (Figure 4.1.7a). The inelastic response (Figure 4.1.7b) describes a similar shift in the peak response (to t = 12 seconds), but in this case the displacement response of the inelastic response is essentially the same as the elastic response. This tends to conrm
772
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Figure 4.1.7 Response of the 26-ft shear wall to the (matched) ground motion described in Figure 4.1.3c.
the fact that the large reductions observed in the response to the scaled ground motion (Figure 4.1.4) are entirely attributable to the characteristics of the ground motion. Clearly, this analysis supports the equal displacement proposition. Comment: Clearly, the selection of ground motions used in the analysis of this system raises several issues. Is an articial earthquake that creates a constant spectral intensity reasonably assumed? If not, the designer must study the proposed ground motions prior to performing a time history analysis to insure that anomalies do not exist in the period range of interest. This latter approach seems more reasonable. In either case the structural engineer and the geotechnical consultant must work together to insure that the proposed system is reasonably tested. The elastic and inelastic response of this structure (Figure 2.4.9) to the ground motion of Earthquake 2 (Figure 4.1.1b) is interesting. The elastic response (Figure 4.1.8a)
Figure 4.1.8 Roof displacement response of the 26-ft shear wall to Earthquake 2, Table 4.1.1.
773
suggests two ground pulses, one in the 3- to 7-second range and another in the 12second range. Figure 4.1.8b shows the inelastic response and identies a period shift quite similar to that caused by Earthquake 1 (see Figure 4.1.5b). Observe that the maximum inelastic and elastic displacement responses are the same. The behavior patterns, however, are quite different. The rst inelastic excursion in the positive sense provokes a slightly larger inelastic response, while the negative sense inelastic response is signicantly greater (50%) than the elastic response and the periodicity of the response has increased. The response spectra for Earthquake 2 (in Figure 4.1.1b) is quite different from the spectra produced by ground motions 1, 3, and 5. Instead of suggesting a reduction in response, the response actually increases. When the second pulse arrives (t = 12 seconds), the spectral acceleration imposed on the inelastic structure (T = 1.2 seconds) is about 0.67g, while that imposed on the elastic model (T = 0.93 second) is on the order of 0.6g. The displacement response for these models suggested by a spectral analysis is developed as follows. First combine Eq. 4.1.1, 4.1.2, and 4.1.3 to create
n
= Sd = = T 2 Sa 4 2 1.45T 2 (386.4)Sag 39.4
(Eq. 4.1.3) (4.1.4a)
which for
= 1.45 becomes
n
= 14.2T 2 Sag
(4.1.4b)
where Sag is the spectral acceleration express in terms of g. For the elastic structure the predicted displacement at the roof is
n
= 14.2(0.93)2 (0.6) = 7.4 in.
(see Eq. 4.1.4b)
and, given the steepness of the response spectrum in this period range, this conrms the elastic time history prediction of 8 in. The response of the inelastic structure, using the same procedures, should be
n
= 14.2T 2 Sag = 14.2(1.2)2 (0.67) = 13.7 in.
(Eq. 4.1.4b)
and this is signicantly greater than the 8 in. predicted by the inelastic time history analysis (Figure 4.1.8b).
774
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
The reduced displacement suggests that energy dissipation may indeed have reduced the response. Consider the curvature ductility suggested by Figure 4.1.6a, which reects plastic hinge behavior at inelastic displacements in the 8-in. range. = 0.000035 0.00001
= 3.5 The structural component of system damping is 1 eq = 3.5 1 (100) = 3.5 = 15 eq = + eq = 20 3.38 0.67 R= ln eq 2.3 = 0.6
n,eq
(Eq. 1.1.9d)
(Eq. 1.1.9a)
(Eq. 3.1.45)
nR
= 13.8(0.6) = 8.3 in. and this is quite consistent with the reported peak inelastic displacement of slightly less than 8 in. It seems that structural damping is impacting the inelastic system response, at least for this single-degree-of-freedom system whose system ductility and dissipated energy are reasonably quantied (Figure 4.1.6a). The curvature response described in Figure 4.1.6a is acceptable from the standpoint of suggested strain states. The maximum curvature is slightly less than 0.00004 rad/in. and Table 2.4.3 suggests that induced material strains will be c = 0.0016 in./in. s = 0.01094 in./in. From a design acceptance perspective, this meets our objectives. From a design procedures perspective, it merits some analysis. Computer programs adopt one of two possible element models. One models the end of an element as a rotational spring; the other creates a ber model. The spring
775
model is consistent with the model used in the design; specically one that assumes a constant curvature in the prescribed plastic hinge region. The ber model creates a linearly changing curvature from the face of the support to the inception of elastic behavior, provided this point coincides with a node. In other words, it develops the hinge length for the user. The distinction is important because our design basis was developed from testing. Test results were reduced to strain states using the plastic hinge model (Figure 2.1.8). A plastic hinge length of 13 ft (0.5 w ) was used in the analysis of the example 26-ft long wall. The time history analysis was performed on a ber model. Nodes were established at each oor level (Figure 2.4.9), and the computer adopted a plastic hinge length of 10.5 ft or one oor. The conclusions reported in Figure 4.1.4 are for an average curvature in the plastic hinge region and, as a consequence, are consistent with the curvature model described in Figure 2.1.10. The curvatures developed in the design process follow the curvature model described in Figure 2.1.11. The two are easily compared.
u y p
= 7.6 in. = 3.2 in. = 4.4 in.

p
Figure 4.1.5a(t = 3 seconds) (Figure 3.1.6b)
p = =
hw 4.4 1182
p /2
(see Figure 2.1.11)
= 0.0037 radian p = = p
p
(Eq. 2.1.9)
0.0037 156
= 0.000024 rad/in. y = 0.0033

w
(Eq. 2.4.27)
= 0.00001 rad/in. u = y + p = 0.00001 + 0.000024 = 0.000034 rad/in. The reported curvature is clearly consistent with that developed for conceptual design purposes. The computer model adopted a plastic hinge length of 126 in. This is more
776
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
conservative than the hinge length adopted in the conceptual design. The impact on the comparative analysis would not change our conrmation of the behavior predicted by the computer analysis for p = 4.4 1197 0.00367 126
= 0.00367 radian p =
= 0.000029 rad/in. u = y + p = 0.000039 rad/in. and this is consistent with the curvatures reported in Figure 4.1.6a. A ber model will be used to analyze the 16-ft shear walls in the next section. The computer analysis will adopt the same plastic hinge length (hx = 126 in.), while the design opted for a plastic hinge length of 96 in. (0.5 w ). The conceptual design prediction of curvature, in this case, will be greater than that developed from the computer analysis. From a design perspective, it is probably more rational to select a plastic hinge length that coincides with a story height as opposed to one that is a function of the length of the wall, but the impact should not alter conclusions drawn from the analysis. Several conclusions may be drawn: Time history based conclusions must be developed with care and rationally explained. Ground motions used to describe inelastic behavior should be compatible with anticipated levels of spectral intensity in the pre- and postyield behavior ranges. The equal displacement hypothesis is reasonably used to design structures of this type. It seems unlikely that the ultimate displacement of this system will exceed 11 in. (0.9%). Given this and the strains predicted by the pushover analysis (Figure 3.1.6b), there seems no reason to believe that performance objectives will not be met. 4.1.2 Impact of Design Strength on Response
The selection of a 16-ft long wall was based on the attainment of displacement objectives and the balancing of dynamic response and strength, given the presumed system displacement ductility ( ) of 4. The selected reinforcing program proposed a exural reinforcement ratio of 0.25% (six #6 bars). The elastic period of this wall is slightly less than 2 seconds. Predicted drifts were
777
= 7.5 in. = 22.86 in.
11 y h2 w 40 (Response spectra) (Objective) (Attained)
=4 =3
The issue now addressed is the advantage that might result from an increase in exural strength. Accordingly, the response of the proposed design, six #6 bars (s = 0.25%), is compared with an otherwise identical wall reinforced with six #9 bars (s = 0.57%). These walls were subjected to the ground motion of Earthquake 3 (Table 4.1.1) whose response spectrum is described in Figure 4.1.1c. Observe that the ground motion based spectrum is less than the design spectrum at the probable elastic building period of 1.92 seconds, but exceeds the design spectrum in the 2.1- to 2.7-second period range. Accordingly, any period shift is likely to produce an increase in displacement. The results of the time history analyses are presented in Figure 4.1.9. The peak elastic displacement occurs at 9 seconds and corresponds to almost 18 in. This is consistent with the response predicted using the design spectrum (22.86 in.). The peak inelastic displacement is 15 in. (Figure 4.1.9b) for the proposed design (six #6 bars) but almost 18 in. (Figure 4.1.9d) for the stronger wall (six #9 bars). This is explained following the concepts discussed in Section 1.1.1. Observe that the stronger wall (six #9 bars) did not yield at the 6-second excursion while the design wall (six #6 bars) did. This resulted in a reduced displacement demand on the design wall in subsequent cycles (Figure 4.1.9b) while the stronger wall had a deferred rst plastic excursion that coincided with a larger pulse. Accordingly, there may often be an advantage associated with early yielding. This is not a conclusion that can be applied to the design of a wall, but it is not an uncommon occurrence. Several observations are made: The proposed 16-ft wall design ( = 0.25%) meets our performance objectives. The experienced deection should be in the 15-in. range (1.2%), and this is twice that expected of the 26-ft wall. Concrete strain states will also be higher in the 16-ft long wall (c = 0.0023 in./in. see Figure 3.1.7c) than those in the 26-ft long wall (c = 0.0016 in./in. see Figure 3.1.7a). The deection predicted for the stronger wall was 18 in. This suggests a concrete strain of 0.0028 in./in. (Figure 3.1.7c). Structural damage should not be expected in either case. Several generalizations are drawn from these observations: A stronger wall does not necessarily reduce the displacement demand. The inelastic displacement demand may reasonably be predicted using elastic response spectral techniques.
778
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Figure 4.1.9 Response of various strength shear wall braced structures to Earthquake 3.
Concrete strain states are not directly related to wall strength (Figure 3.1.7c) but rather to displacement demand and, as a consequence, in shear wall braced buildings performance will not be improved by increasing strength. In near fault locations wall designs should be studied by subjecting them to pulse type excitations. Design procedures developed in Chapters 2 and 3 reasonably predict behavior and seem to produce systems that will survive the criterion earthquake. The predicted level of spectral acceleration at the roof will increase signicantly as the building is stiffened and strengthened. Sa = Sd 4 2 T 2 (see Eq. 4.1.1 and 4.1.2) (4.1.5)
779
The proposed designs are: (A) 26-ft shear wall; u = 11.2 in., T 1 second. = (B) 16-ft shear wall, six #9; u = 18 in., T 2 seconds. = (C) 16-ft shear wall, six #6; u = 15 in., T 2 seconds. = The anticipated acceleration at the uppermost levels is Wall A = =
u y
11.2 3.2
= 3.5 Wall B = 18 7.5
= 2.4 Wall C = 15 7.5
= 2.0 The acceleration at the roof or nth level (An ) would be An = Wall A An = 11.2(4)(3.14)2 (1)2 (3.5) (0.33g)
u 4 T 2 2
(see Eq. 4.1.5)
(4.1.6)
= 126 in./sec 2 Wall B An = 18(4) 2 (2)2 (2.4)
= 74 in./sec 2
(0.19g)
780
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Wall C An = 15(4) 2 (2)2 (2.0) (0.19g)
= 74 in./sec 2
Conclusion: There appears to be little reason to select Walls A or B in spite of the fact that they are stiffer (A) or stronger (B).
4.2
FRAME BRACED BUILDINGS
The objective of this section is to study the behavior of the frames designed in Section 3.2. Analytical models start with the simplest form. Models are then modied so as to describe the peculiarities associated with precast systems. The impact model changes could have on predicted response is then discussed. 4.2.1 Impact of Design Strength on Performance
Strength has traditionally been viewed as having a signicant impact on building performance. This proposition can only be supported when the increase in strength results in a lesser building drift and/or lower strain states in ductile components. Absent a fundamental change in the bracing program, this did not turn out to be the case
Photo 4.1 Precast clad concrete frame, Mariners Island, San Mateo, CA. (Courtesy of Englekirk Partners, Inc.)
781
in the shear wall examples reviewed. A similar conclusion is reached for frame braced structures. The intuitive argument suggests that an increase in strength will cause a more violent response, leading to larger displacements and induced levels of strain. The frames designed in Section 3.2 were subjected to inelastic time history analyses. Component behavior was modeled using a bilinear elastic perfectly plastic representation of behavioralternative behavior models will be considered in Section 4.2.2. Two frame types, each with three different levels of strength, are considered: the three-bay frame of Figure 3.2.2a and the four-bay alternative. Frame characteristics are summarized in Table 4.2.1 and identied as to number of bays and level of strength (for example, 3-1 refers to three baysstrength level 1). Earthquakes 2 and 3 were selected because their spectral response was essentially the same as that of the design spectrum in the 2- to 3-second period range (see Figures 4.1.1b and 4.1.1c). The responses of the various models to the selected ground motions are presented in Table 4.2.2. It seems clear that a generalization of behavior is not possible; however, intuitive logic tends to be supported by the responses described. Consider the following propositions: An increase in the strength of the frame will not guarantee a reduction in the level of experienced drift. Response is a function of the characteristics of the ground motion. The impact of ductility on response was discussed in Section 1.1.1, and it should be obvious that the nature of the earthquake can affect the peak displacement more than the strength of the system. The response spectrum for Earthquakes 2 and 3 identify essentially identical spectral velocities in the period range of interest, yet the range of predicted peak displacement response is signicantly higher on average for Earthquake 2 than for Earthquake 3. Figures 4.2.1a, through 4.2.1c describe the responses of the various three-bay frames to the ground motion of Earthquake 2. For Frame 3-1 the rst inelastic excursion is the largest drift and the impact of a ground displacement pulse at t 4 seconds =
TABLE 4.2.1
Frame Descriptions (See Figure 3.2.2) Beam Overstrength, Levels 15 (o Mn , ft-kips) 650 1000 2000 650 1300 2600 Mechanism Base Shear (kips) 535 750 1420 700 1300 2500
Designation Bay-Strength Category 3-1 3-2 3-3 4-1 4-2 4-3
VM /W 0.044 0.062 0.117 0.058 0.107 0.206
782
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
TABLE 4.2.2 Displacement Response ComparisonsElastic/Perfectly Plastic Model (All Displacements Are in Inches) Designation BayStrength Category 3-1 3-2 3-3 4-1 4-2 4-3 Earthquake 2 VM /W 0.044 0.062 0.117 0.058 0.107 0.206 Predicted Drift 30 30 30 27 27 27 Max. Drift 22.5 28.5 31.1 24.5 29.6 23.1 () (4.1) (3.7) (1.7) (4.9) (3) (1.3) Residual Drift 11.5 22.0 16.5 17 15.5 4.5 Max. Drift 15.5 17.5 19.5 13.5 13.3 24.7 Earthquake 3 () (2.8) (2.2) (1.1) (2.7) (1.3) (1.2) Residual Drift 7 6 5.5 6 1.8 6.3
5.5 7.8 18 5 10 20
is signicantly reduced. Compare this with the response of Frame 3-3, where the rst positive pulse produces a response in the elastic range. Now the pulse at t 4 seconds = produces the rst inelastic excursion, the consequences of which are a series of elastic excursions about a new baseline created by a permanent or residual drift of 16.5 in. These anomalies aside, it seems reasonable to imagine that peak displacements of a ductile frame would become larger as the strength of the frame is increased. In Section
Figure 4.2.1 Response of the various three-bay frames to the ground motion of Earthquake 2.
783
1.1.1 it was pointed out that it was the strength of the spring that connects the mass to the ground that drives the mass and, as a consequence, a weakening of the spring tends to reduce the displacement response on all but the rst inelastic excursion. This is the essence of base isolation so it is reasonable to assume that the displacement response would increase as the linkage between the ground and the mass is increased. The addition of one bay does not seem to materially impact the level of experienced roof drift. Figure 4.2.2 describes the response of the four-bay frame (4-2) to Earthquake 2 and, as can be seen, it is quite similar in character to the response of Frames 3-2 and 3-3, which bracket it in terms of strength. The encouraging aspect from a design perspective is that peak drifts seem to be consistent with spectral projections. Residual drifts should logically be reduced by an increase in frame strength, but this is not a reliable consequence. Observe (Table 4.2.2) that the residual drift of the various three-bay frames to Earthquake 3 and the various four-bay frames to Earthquake 2 exhibited the logical reduction in residual drift, while the other residual drift patterns were very irregular. Design objectives were discussed in Chapter 3 regarding residual displacements, but it seems clear that an increase in strength will not guarantee reduced residual drifts. From a performance perspective, damage and failure potential can only be related to induced concrete strains. If it is assumed that the drift of Frames 3-2 and 3-3 will be essentially the same, then Frame 3-3 will experience much more damage than Frame 3-2 because, absent a change in member size, an increase in strength will reduce the available ductility in its components. Table 4.2.3 describes critical strain states
Figure 4.2.2 Time history response of Frame 4-2 to Earthquake 2.
784
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
TABLE 4.2.3
Strength versus Performance Maximum Induced Concrete Strains (in./in.) Predicted Drift (in.) 30 30 27 Compression Side Column 0.0135 0.024 0.014 Beam 0.0046 0.008 0.007
Frame Identication Designation 3-2 3-3 4-2 Strength (VM /W ) 0.062 0.117 0.107
in several frames. There seems to be no advantage from a performance perspective associated with adopting mechanism strength levels on the order of 0.11W . Several conclusions can be drawn from this summary: The equal displacement hypothesis is reasonably supported. System drifts can be predicted by response spectral procedures. System strength has a direct tie to displacement. As strength is increased it appears as though displacements will increase until they reach the elastic displacement response, which appears to be the upperbound. A quantiable tie between frame strength and residual drift does not seem to exist; however, it is clear and logical that as frame strength is increased residual drift will asymptotically be reduced to zero (elastic behavior). Strength will have a direct bearing on strains imposed on components. The strength limit state of a frame should be based on component strain limit states. 4.2.2 Impact of Modeling Assumptions
The behavior idealization of the beams in the analyzed frames whose behavior is described in Figures 4.2.1 and 4.2.2 was elastic/perfectly plastic. This is the simplest and most commonly used element model. Member behavior in the plastic hinge region is described by a series of parallelograms whose stiffness is constant. The area within the parallelogram quanties the energy dissipated during the particular cycle (see Figure 1.1.6). This elastic/perfectly plastic behavior model is described in Figure 4.2.3a. In addition to energy dissipation, component stiffness will degrade with each cycle (see Figure 2.1.2), and energy dissipated will be less than that proposed by the elastic/perfectly plastic behavior model, especially if pinching becomes a signicant factor. Further, P effects cause the system to strength degrade. The impact of these considerations on behavior is discussed in this section. Consider the three-bay alternatives reviewed in Section 4.2.1. The design ductilities, based on a predicted building drift of 30 in., were 5.5, 3.8, and 1.7 (see Table 4.2.2). The associated period shifts would be 2.3, 1.95, and 1.3 ( Figure 3.1.2). Period shifts do not materialize in the time history analyses described in Figures 4.2.1
785
Figure 4.2.3 Behavior control models.
and 4.2.2 because the stiffness of the member is presumed to be constant (Figure 4.2.3a). Stiffness degradation should generally serve to reduce the displacement response of a structure. In order to appreciate this fact, consider the response spectrum for Earthquake 3 (Figure 4.1.1c). A structure whose fundamental period is in the 0.5- to 1-second range will be tuned to this earthquake, and resonance would be a logical concern. When, however, the structure is forced into the inelastic range, the periodicity of the response will also change and the consequences of resonance will be avoided. Logically, this suggests that a reasonable level of ductility should be included in the
786
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
design of any structure. The exception to this behavior enhancement characteristic might be experienced by a structure responding to Earthquake 2, for a period shift from 1.8 seconds to 2 seconds would increase the displacement response as was observed in Section 4.1. Fortunately, these resonant peaks tend to be transient in terms of their impact, for the structure will continue to soften and the displacement response to change. So long as the design spectrum reasonably captures spectral peaks, the drift of the structure should be predictable. A stiffness degrading model was used to predict the behavior of structure types 3-2, 3-3, and 4-2 (Table 4.2.1). The response predicted for each system was less in all cases when the ground motion for Earthquake 2 was used. This pattern was reversed when Earthquake 3 was used, but this is probably a consequence of the low ductility demands and the characteristics of the ground motion. Observe, however, that the time history prediction of maximum displacement is in all cases less than the spectral projection. These results are summarized in Table 4.2.4. P effects were discussed in Chapter 1 where it was hypothesized that P effects would tend to reduce the displacement response of a system. The three frame types (3-2, 3-3, and 4-2) were subjected to an inelastic time history analysis. A stiffness degrading component model was used and P effects included as described in Figure 3.2.5. Peak displacement responses were typically reduced (see Table 4.2.4). The results obtained from the frame analyses used as examples are reasonably representative of similar comparative analyses and have caused most analysts to revert to the simpler bilinear component model, which includes some strength hardening. Comparative time history analyses that consider variations in the hysteretic behavior of components are time consuming and require a signicant amount of monitoring to insure that the behavior of the model is in fact consistent with the proposed objectives. A three-level, two-bay frame was adopted as a model to compare the response of a cast-in-place frame to a hybrid frame. Beam and column sizes were those used for the frames of Table 4.2.1 and the basic overstrength (o Mn ) of the frame beams was 1000 ft-kips (Frame 3-2). An elevation of the frame is described in Figure 4.2.4. IDARC 4.0 software was used to perform the comparative analysis. Stiffness degradation and slip characteristics were used to develop the component models. Stiffness degradation and slip control parameters are described in Figures 4.2.3b and c. The two systems were modeled using the following parameters: cast-in-place Stiffness degradation (HC) Slip control (HS) 1.0 1.0 hybrid 0.5 0.2
Before proceeding with the time history analyses, both the cast-in-place and hybrid building models were subjected to a static displacement controlled response and member behavior was checked to insure that plastic hinge behavior objectives had been attained. Building displacement responses are shown in Figure 4.2.5. Observe that building responses reect the characteristics of the components. Component behaviors are described in Figure 4.2.6. Compare the experimental response described in Figure 2.1.2 for the cast-in-place beam with the analytical model described in
TABLE 4.2.4
Summary of Time History Analysis (All Displacements in Inches) Modeling Considerations Earthquake 2 Stiffness Degradation No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Residual Drift 22 7 2.5 16.5 11.0 8.5 15.5 10.0 8.0 Inelastic Period (seconds) 4.2 4.2 3.18 3.14 3.1 3.05 Earthquake 3 Residual Drift 6 8 8.5 5.5 4 2 1.8 0.3 1.5 Inelastic Period (seconds) 2.63 3.57 2.76 2.75 2.79 2.71
Frame Type 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-3 4-2 4-2 4-2
Elastic Period (seconds) 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.63 2.27 2.27 2.27
Spectral Drift 30 30 30 30 30 30 27 27 27
P + 3% Strength Hardening No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes
max
max
28.5 22.2 18.0 31.1 29.5 29.0 29.6 22.5 21.5
17.5 20.2 19 19.5 20.5 19.0 13.3 16.5 16.7
787
788
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Figure 4.2.4 Frame elevationexample analysisSection 4.2.2.
Figure 4.2.6a. Figures 4.2.6b and c describe how several experimental cycles compare with analytical cycles. Similarly, compare the experimentally determined hysteretic behavior of the hybrid system (Figures 2.1.47a and 2.1.47b) with the developed analytical model (Figure 4.2.6d). Observe that the slip feature is reasonably captured. The hybrid beam dissipates about 60% of the energy dissipated by the cast-in-place beam. Both models were analyzed using the ground motion for Earthquake 3 (Figure 4.1.1c), which predicts a fairly constant response in the period range of interest (0.55 second). Building responses are shown in Figure 4.2.7. The response of the hybrid system (Figure 4.2.7b) is greater than that predicted for the cast-in-place system (Figure 4.2.7a), as might be expected. It is interesting to note that the magnitude of the increase in response is consistent with that predicted by Eq. 3.1.45. Consider the following: Cast-in-Place System = =
max y
7.0 1.5
(see Figure 4.2.7a)
eq
= 4.7 1 = = 0.17
(Eq. 1.1.9d)
eq = 17 + 5 = 22 R= 3.38 0.67 ln eq 2.3
(Eq. 1.1.9a)
(Eq. 3.1.45)
= 0.57
789
Figure 4.2.5 Static displacement responseframe of Figure 4.2.4.
790
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Figure 4.2.6 Beam behavior models static displacement controlled behavior.
791
Figure 4.2.6 (Continued) Beam behavior models static displacement controlled behavior.
792
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Figure 4.2.7 Response of structure described in Figure 4.2.4 to Earthquake 3.
Hybrid System = =
max y
8.2 1.5
(see Figure 4.2.7b)
eq
= 5.5 1 = = 0.18
(Eq. 1.1.9d)
Now, adjust the equivalent damping to account for the reduction in energy absorbed (Figure 1.1.8). Presuming that the hybrid system is 60% effective, eq = 0.6eq = 0.11 eq = 11 + 5 = 16 R= 3.38 0.67 ln eq 2.3 (Eq. 3.1.45) (Eq. 1.1.9a)
= 0.66 The resultant increase in displacement should be on the order of Rhybrid Rcast-in-place = 0.66 0.57
= 1.16
793
The experienced increase in drift was

max-hybrid max-cast-in-place
8.2 7.0
= 1.17 The recorded moment curvatures for the cast-in-place beam and the hybrid beam are presented in Figure 4.2.8. Observe that the curvature demand imposed on the hybrid beam is almost 40% greater than that imposed on the cast-in-place beam. Conclusions Stiffness degradation should typically be benecial, and it will usually result in lower displacement demands.
Figure 4.2.8 Recorded hysteretic behavior of frame beam (see Figure 4.2.7).
794
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
The inclusion of P effects will tend to reduce system displacement. Systems that exhibit signicant pinching or slip in their behavior will probably displace more than those systems that do not exhibit this characteristic. 4.2.3 Distribution of Postyield Deformations
Our interest in this section is to review and analyze how postyield behavior propagates throughout a frame so that we may be in a better position to determine how to establish a link between component and system ductility. Figure 4.2.9 provides a picture of the postyield rotation demand experienced in the frame beams of frame 3-2 (Table 4.2.1) when responding to Earthquake 2 (see Figure 4.2.1b). This postyield portrayal is taken from the rst postyield excursion at
Photo 4.2 Precast concrete clad poured-in-place concrete ductile frame braced condominium, The Remington, Los Angeles, CA, 2002. (Courtesy of Magee Architects, Inc.)
795
Figure 4.2.9 Plastic hinge distribution in Frame 3-2, 4.2.1b).
= 17 in., t = 2.5 seconds (see Figure
t = 2.5 seconds. As a consequence, Figure 4.2.9 describes how a response in the rst mode excursion might distribute inelastic actions. First, note that the rotational ductility demand is concentrated in the lowermost part of the frame, about six to seven oors extending over a height that corresponds to the depth of the frame. Accordingly, these lower oors might be viewed as an effective plastic hinge region for the frame. The contrast is even more pronounced when described in terms of the postyield rotation demand. The postyield rotation demand, p , in the lower oors (2 and 3) is 6.5 times that imposed on level 11. The real concern is with the probable level of strain induced in the concrete. This can be estimated fairly easily. The range of postyield rotation (p ) is between 0.014 radian ( = 17 in.) and 0.031 radian at a building drift of 30 in. This corresponds to a range of postyield curvature demands of between 0.00078 and 0.0017 rad/in. One can either resort to computer developments similar to those whose conclusions are presented in Table 2.2.1 or use shorthand methodologies to identify the range of strain states. o Mn = 1000 ft-kips h = 36 in.
796
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
a = 30 in. 2 o Mn d a/2 1000 2.5
Cc = =
= 400 kips a= = Cc 0.85fc b 400 0.85(5)(20)
= 4.7 in. a c= 1 = 4.7 0.8
= 5.9 in. This would be a conservative estimate because it does not account for the compression steel. The depth to the neutral axis would be reasonably assumed to be on the order of 5 in. The induced level of postyield concrete strains would be estimated as follows: y = = o Mn EIe
(Computer model)
1000(12) 4000(27,200)
= 0.00011 rad/in. y = = y 6
c
(Conjugate beam)
0.00011(276) 6
= 0.005 radian p + 1 = 4.4 y (see Figure 4.2.9)
797
p = 3.4y = 3.4(0.005) = 0.017 radian p = = p

p
(Eq. 2.1.9)
0.017 18
= 0.00096 rad/in. cp = p c = 0.00096(5) = 0.0048 in./in. cu = cp + cy = 0.0048 + 0.003 = 0.0078 in./in. Based on this, one might conclude that spalling was not likely to occur in the lower level frame beams. In summary, it seems reasonable to conclude that System ductility is not equivalent to component ductility. The region of postyield behavior in a frame will extend over a height equal to the depth of the frame. The height of the building and the depth of the frame must be considered when one assesses the relationship between member (b ) and system () ductility. The ratio (/b ) will be signicantly different in taller buildings, where the height to depth ratio is typically larger than midrise buildings similar to the example building (H /D 2see Figure 2.2.10). = 4.2.4 Design/Behavior Reconciliation
In Section 3.2.3 a displacement-based design procedure was used to develop Frame 3-2 (Table 4.2.1). A key element in the design process was the selection of a system ductility/overstrength factor of 8. The development of the system ductility component () has intentionally been delayed so as to allow a reconciliation with the inelastic time history analysis. The time history analysis demonstrated that inelastic behavior would be concentrated over the lower levels (Figure 4.2.9). In Section 3.2.3.1 (Step 8) yield building
798
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
drifts of 3.75 to 4.04 in. were predicted for Frame 3-2. The predicted yield base shear was 435 kips. In Section 3.2.6 a sequential yield analysis was performed on Frame 3-2 (Figure 3.2.8a). Postyield behavior did not start until the building drift reached almost 7 in., (DR = 0.39%) and the base shear associated with rst yield (o Mn = 1000 ft-kips) was over 600 kips. This apparent contradiction is a direct consequence of modeling assumptions used to describe the behavior of the beam (see Figure 2.1.3). The analysis process used to generate Figure 3.2.8a adopted a frame behavior model that is quite different from that used to predict postyield beam strain states in Section 3.2.3.1. The difculty encountered using the sequential yield model (Figure 3.2.8a) lies in the fact that concrete strain states are hard to predict, for behavior at idealized yield has been in the postyield domain for some time (see Section 2.1.1). This difculty is overcome when we adopt steel rst yield (s = y ) as a point of departure. The following yield baseline was developed in Section 3.2.3.1. y = = sy 0.67d 0.002 0.67(33) (Eq. 2.1.7a)
= 0.00009 rad/in. y = = y 6
c
(Conjugate beam)
0.00009(276) 6
= 0.00414 radian
y
4 in. =
(Section 3.2.3.1, Step 8)
Our performance-based objective is to identify the system ductility factor associated with a concrete strain state of 0.01 in./in.incipient spalling of the shell. The assumption is that postyield behavior will be uniformly distributed over eight oors (80 ft 78 ft, which is the depth of the frame). = Each oor will slidedeform in shearuntil the concrete strain in the frame beam reaches 0.01 in./in. The rotation experienced in the plastic hinge region will be modeled after Figure 2.1.11 wherein y is associated with a steel strain of y and a concrete strain of 0.001 in./in. (cy ). p = cp c (see Section 4.2.3) 0.01 0.001 5
c 5 in. = p =
= 0.0018 rad/in.
799
pb = p
= 0.0018(18) = 0.0324 radian The rotation at the center of the column (story drift) is j = pb
c
= 0.0324
21.5 26
= 0.027 radian The postyield story drift experienced in a story is p = j hx = 0.027(120) = 3.24 in. For the eight stories of assumed postyield response, this corresponds to a postyield component of building drift of
p
= 8(3.24) = 26 in. = +
= 4 + 26 = 30 in. = =
u y
30 4
= 7.5 Observe that this is reasonably consistent with the strain states conclusions developed from the time history analysis (Section 4.2.3), given the fact that no postyield rotation was presumed above level 8. Conclusion: We should be convinced that the selected system will meet our performance objectives. Further, that the use of a system ductility/overstrength factor of 8 was appropriate.
800
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
4.2.5
Postyield Beam Rotations
Postyield beam rotations peaked at about 0.02 radian regardless of the frame type and strength. For example, the beams in Frame 3-2 (s 0.8%) experienced a = postyield rotation of 1.7%, while those in Frame 3-3 (s 1.6%) experienced a = postyield rotation of 2%, undoubtedly caused by the larger drift experienced by this frame coupled with a more concentrated zone of postyield plasticationsix oors. The reported postyield rotation of the beams in Frame 4-2 (s 1.0%) was also = 1.7%. Accordingly, there seems to be little incentive from a beam ductility demand perspective to adopt either the stronger three-bay frame (3-3), which will obviously be much more likely to experience damage than Frame 3-2 (see Section 4.2.3), or the stiffer and stronger four-bay frame (4-2). The design conrmation phase is the only point in the design process where beam ductility demands can be realistically evaluated. This is because inelastic behavior and, in particular, component ductility demands are sensitive to strength distribution and the characteristics of an earthquake. The designer should be concerned with identifying large inelastic rotation demands and any accumulation of such demands as, for example, might tend to create a soft story or soft region in the building. Clearly, if a region is likely to reach displacements that suggest strength degradation, the situation should be mitigated and where this is not possible, the design approach should be changed. Conclusions Inelastic time history analyses are most effectively used to conrm the existence of a well-distributed hinging pattern, one that avoids soft regions and strength degradation. The temptation to ne-tune beam strengths at this point in the design process should be resisted unless the need is clearly identied. 4.2.6 Evaluating Column Behavior
In all concrete members subjected to exural load, the most critical element is the compression ange or face which, in the case of a frame, is the compression side column. The maximum axial load and shear imposed on this member are well identied in the sequential yield analysis, and the column size and axial capacity should have been adjusted in the conceptual design phase so as to assure a signicant amount of ductility (Section 2.2). That having been the case, there should be no surprises in the design conrmation phase, though clearly the behavior of the compression side column is a, if not the, major concern. A review of the strain states predicted by the inelastic time history analysis suggests how sensitive the frame design is to mechanism shear or provided strength. Four frames will be reviewed (see Table 4.2.2). Frame 3-1 fc = 5 ksi
801
P = 1820 kips M = 2097 ft-kips p = 0.01 radian c = 0.007 in./in. P = 0.28 Ag fc Frame 3-2 fc = 5 ksi P = 2141 kips M = 2025 ft-kips p = 0.0135 radian c = 0.0135 in./in. P = 0.33 Ag fc Frame 3-3 fc = 5 ksi P = 3100 kips M = 2330 ft-kips p = 0.02 radian c = 0.024 in./in. P = 0.48 Ag fc Frame 4-1 fc = 5 ksi P = 1820 kips M = 1903 ft-kips p = 0.012 radian c = 0.0095 in./in. P = 0.28 Ag fc
802
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Frame 4-2 fc = 5 ksi P = 2430 kips M = 2300 ft-kips p = 0.0165 radian c = 0.0155 in./in. P = 0.375 Ag fc Clearly, the concrete strengths used in Frames 3-2, 3-3, and 4-2 need to be increased so as to reduce the level of concrete strain and improve the level of available ductility, but this should have been discovered much earlier in the design process. Conclusion: Frame strength must not exceed the reasonable postyield deformation capability of the compression side column. 4.2.7 Response of Irregular Frame
The irregular frame (3-2), whose design was developed in Section 3.2.5, was reinforced so as to produce a beam strength identical to Frame 3-2. The response of this frame to Earthquake 2 is shown on Figure 4.2.10a. Observe that the behavior is essentially the same as that of regular Frame 3-2 (see Figure 4.2.1b). The response of the irregular frame to Earthquake 3 was somewhat less, at 14.3 in., than the response of Frame 3-2 (17.5 in.). Plastic hinge propagation for the irregular frame whose design was developed in Section 3.2.5 is described in Figure 4.2.10b. Inelastic behavior is concentrated in the lower six oors, as is expected. The rotation ductility imbalance between interior and exterior bays is as to be expected from the postyield deformation of the subassembly suggested by the sequential yield analysis described in Figure 3.2.10b. Rotation ductility demand does not describe performance in this case. Postyield rotations will be essentially the same, as is clearly described in Figure 4.2.11. Rotation ductility is based on y , and y is a function of length and strength of the beam. The development of the displacement ductility factor follows: y = y = My EIe My EIe 6 (Reasonably elastic behavior)
For My , E, and Ie constant, this becomes y = C1

803
Figure 4.2.10 (a) Time history response of irregular Frame 3-2I to Earthquake 2. (b) Hinge propagationirregular frame of part a.
Hence the rotation at yield for members of equal strength but unequal spans becomes y1 = y2
1 2
when the dimension of the column is not a factor or is not considered. The postyield rotation of the column (cp ) and beam are equal provided the column dimension is ignored. Hence
804
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
1 = 2 = The ratio of rotation ductilities is
cp by1 cp by2
cp by1 1 = 2 by2 cp =
1 2
which, for the example case with the ratio of rotation ductility factors producing similar behavior (y + p ), is 1.5 (24/16). The recorded values are slightly higher because the depth of the column is considered and the rotation is assumed to take place at the face of the column. Hence 2 = 1 =
c1 c2
21 13
= 1.61 The relationship is further exacerbated when the centroid of beam postyield rotation moves away from the face of the column. 1 = 2 = c2
c1 p p
23 1.5 13 1.5
= 1.87
Figure 4.2.11 Story mechanismirregular frame.
805
An obvious mitigation would be to increase the strength of the interior beam, and this can be done if it does not increase the reinforcement ratio to undesirable levels. Recall that an identical reinforcement program in adjoining beams was viewed as being desirable from a constructibility perspective, so a clear need should be perceived before adopting a dissimilar reinforcing program. Consider the strain states imposed on the plastic hinge region on either side of the interior column if the postyield component of story drift is 1.8%. jp = 0.018 radian b1p = j = 0.018
1 c1
24 21
= 0.021 radian b1p = = pb1

p
0.021 18
= 0.00117 rad/in. cp = pb1 c 0.00117(5) = = 0.0058 in./in. cu = cy + cp = 0.003 + 0.0058 = 0.0088 in./in. Comment: cy is assumed to be 0.003 in./in. so as to be consistent with the computer model of by (o Mn /EIe ). b2p = jp = 0.018
2 c2
16 13
= 0.022 radian b2p = b2p

p
806
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
0.022 18
= 0.0012 rad/in. cp = b2p c = 0.0012(5) = 0.006 in./in. cu = cy + cp = 0.003 + 0.006 = 0.009 in./in. Observe that postyield concrete strain states are essentially the same on both sides of the interior column. Hence, the rotation ductility demands described in Figure 4.2.10b tend to deceive, and an increase in the strength of the interior beam will only tend to promote a more uniform yielding of the system, but not signicantly alter induced postyield strain states. Conclusions The equal displacement hypothesis is supported u = 29 in.and this is consistent with the projected 27.7 in. given that the spectral coordinate exceeds the design spectrum (Figure 4.1.1b) at the building period of 2.25 seconds. The region of signicant postyield demand is conned to a height equal to the depth of the frame. Rotation ductility demands are not a good measure of performance. 4.2.8 Response of Precast Concrete FramesDDC
The basic difference between the behavior of the hybrid and cast-in-place frames centered on the impact that reduced levels of structural damping might have on the response of the system to ground motion. This was explored in Section 4.2.2. The basic difference between the DDC frame and Frame 3-2 was the distribution of the exural strength over the height of the structure. The displacement responses of the cast-in-place and DDC frames to Earthquakes 2 and 3 are shown in Figure 4.2.12. In each case the maximum drift and residual drift of the DDC frame are less than those of the comparable cast-in-place frame (Figure 4.2.1b). This is probably attributable in part to the slightly lesser strength of the DDC frame (91%) and to the fact that the beam strength at the sixth oor did not allow it to yield prematurely. The upper part of the DDC frame remained elastic throughout the response.
BEHAVIOR IMPONDERABLES
807
Figure 4.2.12 Inelastic time history response of DDC frame.
4.3
Stability and torsion are a major concern of the structural engineer. Both topics are reasonably well understood for systems whose behavior is elastic but the extrapolation to the inelastic behavior range is conjectural. A pragmatic overview is the goal of this section. 4.3.1 System Stability Considerations
Stability concerns have been addressed by some but conclusions that might be used in the design process are quite speculative at this point in time and are likely to remain so. The focus of this section is on those issues that should be of concern to the designer and on practical mitigation measures. Instability occurs when the restoring force or mechanism shear, minus P effects (VP ) and other strength degrading characteristics (VD ), reaches zero. See Figure 4.3.1. This denition is probably not satisfactory when the design consideration is earthquake safety. In this case, it seems appropriate to select a minimum resistance or restoring force that is capable of sustaining aftershocks.
808
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Figure 4.3.1 Available restoring force as a function of displacement.
The most rational discussion and development of a stability criterion is contained in Paulay and Priestley. [4.1] They follow the stability index approach, which essentially adds strength to a bracing program to counter the P effect. From a design perspective this is certainly a rational approach, so long as it is accomplished in a considered manner. The frames studied in Section 4.2 all experienced a residual drift, but none of them approached negative levels of restoring force. Hence, the presumption is that they would still be stable were they to have been subjected to the design earthquakes. The establishment of a stability criterion must consider post-earthquake occupancy requirements. To consider a reoccurrence of the design seismic event is not rational. The continued use of the facility must be based on a lesser event and the occupancy time frame. For example, it might take 20 years or more to fund, design, and build a new hospital but signicantly less to replace a police station or school. Consider the story forces described in Figure 4.3.2. This story will, when deformed, have a spring force equal to Mp hx . The P forces will counter this spring force as discussed previously. The P force will be a function of the mass or weight tributary (Ptr ) to the frame above the level under consideration, while the story drift will, of course, depend on the displacement or story displacement at peak building drift. This means that, in the case of the frame oscillating about a new baseline (see Figure 4.2.1b), at least half of the time P effects will be adding resistance or
Figure 4.3.2 Forces acting on a story.
809
restoring force, and this complicates any reduction of the problem to a simple design rule or procedure. The form adopted for the stability index is the ratio of the P shear to the mechanism shear: Q= Ptr V M hx (4.3.1)
where Ptr is the sum of the tributary mass above the level being considered and VM is the mechanism shear which, for our purposes, is VM = o Mn hx (4.3.2)
Through the years the stability index (Q) has been related to the elastic displacement associated with a static lateral load criterion ( y ) and Q to the inelastic displacement u or y . Paulay and Priestley [4.1] adopt the inelastic approach and dene a consideration limit state for Q of 8.5%. Q > 0.085 (4.3.3)
In other words, a design should mitigate P effect when the basic design strength VM (Eq. 4.3.2) is not enough to cause Q to be less that 8.5%. In this case VM should be increased by (1 + Q ). Hence
VM = (1 + Q )VM
(4.3.4)
where VM is the objective design mechanism strength based on the mechanism strength developed absent P considerations. The identied limit state (8.5%) and mediation were developed from analytical work done after the San Fernando Earthquake (1971), which suggested that P effects substantially increased building drifts and residual drifts. This is not consistent with the analytical efforts reported in this chapter or the authors experience. Further, inelastic drifts were, in the stability index approach, typically assumed to be a function of the system ductility factor amplied to account for the distribution of inelastic demand in the lower stories, a subject discussed in Section 4.2. The compensating strength (VM VM ) has typically been based on an energy balancing approach where the actual increase in strength is half of that required to compensate for P effects at the anticipated displacement or ductility demand. In the example building, this would amount to doubling the design ductility factor to account for a concentration of inelastic displacement in the lower part of the structure and then halving it to balance the energy dissipated. Now apply these concepts to the frame designs of Chapter 3. Working loosely so as to identify the potential level of additional or P compensating shear on the three-bay frame (3-2), assume that we have concluded that the following appropriately describes the action anticipated in the lower levels:
810
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
VM = 600 kips
y
(6o Mn / hx )
= 0.35 in. (15/5)
=3
Ptr = 12,150 kips Q = = y Ptr V M hx 3(0.35)(12,150) 600(120) (see Eq. 4.3.1)
= 0.18 According to the criterion discussed, an increase of 18% in the design strength is suggested, and this would apply to the lower levels of the frame. Whereas this increase seems to have a logical basis, it must be considered in the context of the building design. First, strength did not seem to have a major impact on behavior, so a ne-tuning of the strength will probably not necessarily result in a better building. Second, an increase in the strength of the lower part of the building will cause the upper oors to yield rst, and this was observed in the sequential yield analyses (Figure 3.2.8b) given only a 12% reduction in strength between Levels 5 and 6. Clearly, pushing the inelastic behavior region higher into the building will produce generally better behavior, but a prescriptive approach based on the limited data currently available does not seem advisable. Clearly, the P issue is one that could benet from a focused research effort. I have not seen any discussion of dynamic stability even as it relates to the simplest of structures and this, after all, is the primary concern. 4.3.2 Torsion
Few analytical procedures are more futile than an elastic torsional analysis to demonstrate compliance with prescriptive drift objectives. To conrm this consider the discussion regarding the design of unequal shear walls or irregular frames. A time history treatment of torsion must consider inelastic behavior if it is to have meaning, and this is not possible now nor is it likely to be in the near future. The intent of this section is to describe how the impact of torsion in the inelastic range can rationally be mitigated. Paulay [4.2] presented an excellent discussion of inelastic torsion, and the essence of his solution was to provide an orthogonal bracing program that would remain elastic and thereby mitigate the consequence of unbalanced torsion in the postyield behavior range. This is certainly one solution, but it is not usually available to the design team. I see no need to repeat Paulays arguments, and instead approach the problem from a pragmatic position and offer mitigating measures that can be easily developed in the design process. Why does inelastic behavior impact torsion adversely? To understand the concern consider the spring supported beam described in Figure 4.3.3a and the spring
811
Figure 4.3.3 Force acting on a oor diaphragm.
characteristics described in Figure 4.3.3b. Equilibrium requires that the reactions R1 and R2 be identical so long as the forcing function, which in this case is the inertia load, remains uniformly distributed. This means that the strength of R2 will dictate the resisting force provided by the bracing program. Once R2 max is reached, the center of resistance will move to the left hand support (R1 , Figure 4.3.3). Observe that even if both springs have identical stiffnesses but different strengths, the center of rigidity or resistance will move to the stronger support. The existence of an orthogonal bracing system would only impact this behavior if it were to remain in the elastic behavior rangePaulays recommendation. This design objective is not usually possible given that most buildings are rectangular in plan and that the angle of earthquake attack is likely to cause an inelastic response on both axes. The consequences of this action are many and none of them are good. Once the center of rigidity migrates to one end of the building, the displacement on the other end will increase as its strength hardens to o Rn , and this displacement ( 2 ) may be many times the displacement of R1 (see Figure 4.3.3b). This torsional response will further impact the dynamic response of the system and cause an even larger displacement at R2 . Observe that the resistance provided by this bracing program will be signicantly different from the cumulative resistance provided by the unequal wall condition discussed in Section 3.1.2. It goes without saying that the likelihood of spring 2 reaching its displacement limit state is increased and that the performance of the structure will be adversely impacted. Consider the structure whose plan is described in Figure 4.3.4. If bracing element 2 is weaker than 1 (i.e., Figure 4.3.3b), the center of rigidity will move toward wall 1 to the extent allowed by walls 3 and 4. If walls 3 and 4 are very stiff and strong, the center of rigidity will remain at the center of the building and the restoring force provided by walls 1 and 2 would be developed as it was in Section 3.1.2 for walls of varying length. Recall that this is not the conclusion that would be reached by an extension of an elastic analysis. Consider the consequences of an earthquake attack along a 45 angle. Since designs assume that the yield strength of the bracing system will be signicantly exceeded, the orthogonal bracing system (E-W ) will also yield. If the strength imbalance
812
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Figure 4.3.4 Planar arrangement of bracing elements.
between Systems 3 and 4 is signicant, the center of rigidity will move to a corner of the building and the behavior will revert to the planar condition developed for the beam described in Figure 4.3.3a. Eventually someone will develop an inelastic three-dimensional computer program that will consider the dynamic impact of inelastic behavior, but in the mean time and even given a computational assist, a practical design solution is required. My design approach has been to balance the strength of the bracing systems so as to match the inelastic behavior of each system to the extent possible. This is most simply done by providing identical bracing elements. Unfortunately, this is more often than not an unacceptable solution from an aesthetic or functional perspective (see Figure 4.3.5). Given a condition where bracing systems must be different, they must be strength balanced to the extent possible, even if it means that strength or prescriptive mandates be violated. A sequential yield analysis is most effectively used to balance bracing systems. The behavior of two signicantly different wall systems is described in Figure 4.3.3. The strength of shear wall 1 must be signicantly reduced in order to match that of wall 2. The plan aspect ratio (length to width) of the building described in Figure 4.3.4 is nearly 3, and this would make the impact of any orthogonal bracing system on torsional response unlikely. Observe that this balancing of bracing system strengths should minimize torsional response even if the stiffness of the two systems is incorrectly assumed. This is fortunate because, as should be clear from the material
Figure 4.3.5
Irregular oor plan.
813
developed in Chapter 2, stiffness characteristics are more difcult to describe than are strength limit states, especially since stiffnesses continuously change with the imposition of postyield displacement cycles (see Figures 2.1.2, 2.1.6, and 2.3.8). This concept, equal or compatible strength, should be extended to irregular bracing programs as well. Consider the plan described in Figure 4.3.5. The logical design approach is to view the bracing program as though it were a simple beam (Figure 4.3.3a). The strength provided by each reaction should be based on the mass (weight) that is tributary to it. The introduction of intermediate bracing elements complicates the problem but does not alter the objectives. Consider the bracing program described in Figure 4.3.6. The objective should be to minimize induced torsional moments when the system responds in the inelastic displacement range. The development assumes that all bracing components have been pushed into their inelastic range ( u Figure 4.3.6b). The relationship of strengths should strive to balance induced torsional moments such that (R1 R2 ) 2 R3 a 0 =
Figure 4.3.6 Floor plan containing multiple bracing elements.
814
DESIGN CONFIRMATION
Clearly, one cannot expect to entirely eliminate the impact of torsion on the response of a building, but a strength-based approach will produce much better results than any elastic stiffness-based alternative.
SELECTED REFERENCES
[4.1] T. Paulay and M. J. N. Priestley, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1992. [4.2] T. Paulay, Are Existing Seismic Torsion Provisions Achieving the Design Aims? Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 13, No. 2, p. 249.

1123 - 04precast Seismic Design of Reinforced

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1123 - 04precast Seismic Design of Reinforced

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

4

RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Figure 4.1.2 Matched spectra (Sv = 42 in./sec).

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Testing the Equal Displacement Hypothesis

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION

and the displacement at the roof (

would be (4.1.3) ( = 1.45)

= Sd = 1.45(7.71) = 11.2 in.

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION

= 42 in./sec The ultimate displacement ( second) would be

= Sd = 1.45(6.35) = 9.2 in.

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION

= Sd = = T 2 Sa 4 2 1.45T 2 (386.4)Sag 39.4

(Eq. 4.1.3) (4.1.4a)

= 14.2(0.93)2 (0.6) = 7.4 in.

(see Eq. 4.1.4b)

= 14.2T 2 Sag = 14.2(1.2)2 (0.67) = 13.7 in.

RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION

= 7.6 in. = 3.2 in. = 4.4 in.

Figure 4.1.5a(t = 3 seconds) (Figure 3.1.6b)

(see Figure 2.1.11)

= 0.000024 rad/in. y = 0.0033

RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION

= 7.5 in. = 22.86 in.

11 y h2 w 40 (Response spectra) (Objective) (Attained)

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

RESPONSE OF SHEAR WALL BRACED BUILDINGS TO GROUND MOTION

= 3.5 Wall B = 18 7.5

= 2.4 Wall C = 15 7.5

(see Eq. 4.1.5)

= 126 in./sec 2 Wall B An = 18(4) 2 (2)2 (2.4)

Wall C An = 15(4) 2 (2)2 (2.0) (0.19g)

FRAME BRACED BUILDINGS

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

FRAME BRACED BUILDINGS

Designation Bay-Strength Category 3-1 3-2 3-3 4-1 4-2 4-3

VM /W 0.044 0.062 0.117 0.058 0.107 0.206

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

FRAME BRACED BUILDINGS

Figure 4.2.2 Time history response of Frame 4-2 to Earthquake 2.

Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons

Retrieved from: www.knovel.com

FRAME BRACED BUILDINGS