0 Stimmen dafür0 Stimmen dagegen

91 Aufrufe17 SeitenNov 25, 2009

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

91 Aufrufe

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

- Tall Building Seismic Design and Analysis Issues - ATC-72
- Structural Computations - SHAP (Version 2)
- 38.Dynamic Analysis of Multi-storey RCC Building
- SEISMIC DESIGN OF LIQUID STORAGE TANKS
- 2008 ASSESSEMENT OF STRUCTURAL CAPACITY OF AN OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER UNDER WIND LOADING.pdf
- SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF UNSYMMETRICAL BUILDING WITH DIFFERENT BRACING SYSTEMS.pdf
- Beam Steel Content
- Reinforcement Bars
- Pushover Analysis Of Retrofitted Reinforced Concrete Buildings By Using SAP
- ok
- Seismic Response of Ground Cylindrical and Elevated Conical Reinforced Concrete Tanks (2011) - Thesis (373)
- Chapter02 - Guide to Use the Provisions
- h 011614552
- 9c96051d584ae6213c
- Mathcad - 1000 KL Tank1
- WCEE2012_1232
- Note for Reinforcing Information for Columns
- Pushover CE&CR
- Column Design
- Numerical Investigation of Progressive Collapse Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frames Subject to Column Removals From Different Stories, Advances in Structural Engineering, 2016

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 17

ordinary moment-resisting concrete frame

1 Department of Architectural Engineering; Hanyang University; Seoul 133-791; Korea

2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;

Urbana; IL 61801; U.S.A.

SUMMARY

This study focuses on the seismic performance of Ordinary Moment-Resisting Concrete Frames (OM-

RCF) designed only for gravity loads. For this purpose, a 3-story OMRCF was designed in compliance

with the minimum design requirements in the American Concrete Institute Building Code ACI 318

(1999). This model frame was a regular structure with exure-dominated response. A 1=3-scale 3-story

model was constructed and tested under quasi-static reversed cyclic lateral loading. The overall behavior

of the OMRCF was quite stable without abrupt strength degradation. The measured base shear strength

was larger than the design base shear force for seismic zones 1, 2A and 2B calculated using UBC

1997. Moreover, this study used the capacity spectrum method to evaluate the seismic performance of

the frame. The capacity curve was obtained from the experimental results for the specimen and the

demand curve was established using the earthquake ground motions recorded at various stations with

dierent soil conditions. Evaluation of the test results shows that the 3-story OMRCF can resist design

seismic loads of zones 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 with soil types SA and SB . For soil type SC , the specimen

was satisfactory in seismic zones 1, 2A, 2B and 3. For soil type SD , the OMRCF was only satisfactory

for seismic zones 1 and 2A. Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

KEY WORDS: concrete structures; performance evaluation; base shear; capacity spectrum method

1. INTRODUCTION

During the recent earthquakes, such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake in the U.S.A., the 1995

Kobe earthquake in Japan, and the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, many concrete frame

structures experienced substantial damage. Older low- to mid-rise concrete buildings were

particularly vulnerable to those earthquakes. The seismic performance of concrete buildings

during such earthquakes generally depends on reinforcement details, building shape, applied

design provisions, etc. Insucient details can cause unexpected structural failure during a

large earthquake event.

∗ Correspondenceto: Sang Whan Han, Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul

133791, Korea.

† E-mail:

swhan@hanyang.ac.kr

Received 3 December 2002

Revised 29 July 2003

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 8 October 2003

670 S. W. HAN, O.-S. KWON AND L.-H. LEE

Most low-rise buildings in low-to-moderate seismic zones, and older buildings in high

seismic zones have been designed primarily for gravity loads. Because such buildings have

less stringent details than those required in a high seismic zone (e.g. strong column–weak

beam requirements need not be considered), the buildings may behave in a brittle manner

during a large earthquake event. In these cases story mechanisms can develop.

Current design provisions, such as ACI 318 (2002) [1], dene three types of moment

frames: Ordinary Moment Resisting Concrete Frame (OMRCF), Intermediate Moment Re-

sisting Concrete Frame (IMRCF), and Special Moment Resisting Concrete Frame (SMRCF).

OMRCF is the most popular type of moment frame in low-to-moderate seismic zones. This

study focuses on OMRCF for which the detail and design requirements are less stringent than

IMRCF and SMRCF. The details of OMRCF are dierent from those of IMRCF and SMRCF

as follows:

(1) Strong column–weak beam requirements need not be satised, which may result in

story failure mechanisms during a large earthquake event.

(2) Column splices can be placed just above slabs that are likely plastic hinge locations

during a large earthquake loading.

(3) The spacing limits for column ties and beam stirrups of OMRCF are large.

(4) No transverse shear reinforcement is required at interior beam–column joints, and min-

imal reinforcement is required at exterior joints.

(5) Discontinuous exural reinforcement can be placed in a beam.

This study investigates the seismic behavior of moment frames designed only for gravity

loads (1.4D + 1.7L), and detailed by the requirements for OMRCF in ACI 318 (1999) [1].

For this purpose, a 1=3-scale 3-story OMRCF oce building was constructed and tested.

In this study, the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) was used to evaluate the seismic

performance of the OMRCF. This method requires both the capacity and demand curves to

nd a performance point. This point is treated as the seismic demand of a structure (ATC-40,

1996) [2]. In this study, the capacity curve was determined from the experimental result of the

OMRCF structure. The demand spectrum was determined from the ground motion acceleration

of 30 earthquakes, recorded at the SB , SC and SD soil sites. The accelerations were scaled

to conform to the design spectrum in seismic zones 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4, as classied in the

UBC [3].

EXPERIMENTAL PLAN

Design of OMRCF

In this study a 3-story oce building was considered. The building was assumed to have

3 bays in the E–W direction and 4 bays in the N–S direction. The story height was 3:5 m

and the width of each bay was 5:5 m. The total building height was 10:5 m. Figure 1 shows

the dimensions of the building. Table I shows the design loads used in the building design.

The specied compressive strength of concrete (fc ) and yield strength of reinforcement (fy )

are assumed to be 23:5 MPa (240 kgf =cm2 ) and 392 MPa (4000 kgf =cm2 ), respectively. Struc-

tural analysis for member design was carried out using the commercial software SAP2000

[4]. Only gravity loads were considered for the design in this study. As this study is aimed at

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

THREE-STORY ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAME 671

550cm

550cm

Test Specimen

183cm 183cm

550cm

All Beams All Columns

25cm x 50cm 33cm x 33cm

550cm

(a) 550cm 550cm 550cm

350cm

Column (33cm x 33cm)

350cm

350cm

Figure 1. Plan and elevation of prototype structure: (a) plan; and (b) elevation.

Ceiling 441

Interior partition 981

Electric and water 245

Total slab dead load 5200

Live load 1st, 2nd, and roof 2450

1:4D + 1:7L 11400

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

672 S. W. HAN, O.-S. KWON AND L.-H. LEE

517cm

210cm 54cm 254cm

CL

A B C C

2 -D19 3 -D19

2 -D19

A B C C

35cm 15cm

2-D19 3-D19

50cm

D10 D10

2-D19 2-D19 2-D19

25cm

Figure 2. Rebar layout for beams of prototype structure.

existing structures that were built based on the previous code, ACI 318 (1999) [1], the load

combination of 1.4D + 1.7L was used to design the frame.

The slab was designed using the direct design method according to Section 13.6 of ACI

318 (1999) [1]. Cross-sections of the columns and beams were assumed to be 33 × 33 (cm2 )

and 25 × 50 (cm2 ), respectively. Beam and column details followed the design procedure for

the ordinary moment frame in ACI 318 (1999) [1]. The design result of the beams in the

prototype 3-story frame is given in Figure 2. Columns of the prototype structure are shown

in Figure 3.

The prototype frame was reduced to a 1=3-scale model due to experimental space constraints.

The test specimen represented an inner column strip along the E–W direction of the prototype

structure (see Figure 1(a)). The material size used in the 1=3-scale model specimen, such as

maximum size of aggregates and reinforcement, were also reduced. This study attempted to

make the material properties of the reduced-scale model identical to those of the prototype

model. As materials used in a 1=3-scale model specimen are almost similar in strengths and

modulus of elasticity as those of the prototype building, the similitude law of true replica was

applied to reduce the prototype model.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

THREE-STORY ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAME 673

300cm

3-D10 @150mm 50cm 3-D10 @150mm

300cm

3-D10 @150mm 50cm 3-D10 @150mm

Y Y Y Y

9-D10 @300mm 9-D10 @300mm

300cm

4-D19

D10

33cm

33cm

Material properties

For concrete, based on trial mixes from various recipes, a design mix was established for a

28-day target strength of 24 MPa, with a slump of 18 cm, and maximum aggregate size

of 13 mm. Cylinder specimens with a diameter of 10 cm and a height of 20 cm were

cured near the model specimen in the laboratory. The measured strength was 29 MPa at

28 days.

The reinforcing bars used in the prototype building were D10 (10 mm diameter) and D19

(19 mm diameter), with yield strengths (fy ) of 294 MPa and 392 MPa and cross-sectional

rebar areas (Ab ) of 0:713 cm2 and 2:87 cm2 , respectively.

In order to satisfy the similitude law for both yield and ultimate strength of rebar, D19,

which was used for longitudinal reinforcement in the prototype building, was replaced by D6

with a cross-sectional area of 0:316 cm2 and a diameter of 6:35 mm in the 1=3-scale model

specimen. A H3:3 mm wire with a cross-sectional area of 0:086 cm2 and a yield strength of

345 MPa was used in the model specimen for replacing D10 bars for lateral reinforcement in

the prototype frame. Reinforcement for slabs in the model specimen was a 5 cm square wire

mesh composed of H3:2 mm wire with yield strength of 461 MPa.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

674 S. W. HAN, O.-S. KWON AND L.-H. LEE

Mass similitude

For proper modeling of gravity loads, mass similitude must be satised. Given the scale factor

for geometric length as , the scaling factor for material volume becomes 3 . Required and

provided masses of the model are:

1

m = mp ·

mreq

2

1

m = mp ·

mprov

3

where

mreq

m = required mass of the test model

mprov

m = provided mass of the test model

= scale factor = 3

The provided mass is less than required. To correct this dierence, an additional mass is

required as much as m shown below:

1 1 2

m = mp · − = mp = 2mprovm

2 3 27

Therefore, the additional required mass is twice the mass of the model. To compensate for the

dierence in required and provided gravity loads additional weight was placed on the model

using concrete blocks. These blocks were mounted at the one-sixth point of the span length

of the beam to simulate the shear forces and moments at ends of the beam induced by gravity

loads. Figure 4 shows the test specimen with concrete block arrangements on slabs.

The experimental set-up of the test specimen is shown in Figure 4. A guide frame was placed

on each side of the test specimen to prevent out-of-plane movement and instability of the

specimen. The specimen was subjected to a quasi-static reversed cyclic loading controlled by

drift given in Figure 5. In this gure, the roof drift ratio, Dr , denotes the ratio of the roof

displacement (D3 ) to the height of a structure (H ). Drift loads were applied at the roof by a

hydraulic actuator xed on the reaction wall, and the force induced by this drift at the roof

(F3 ) was measured. Forces F1 and F2 to be applied at the 1st and 2nd oors, respectively,

were calculated from F3 , the measured force, as 1=3 and 2=3 of F3 . The ratios for F1 =F3 and

F2 =F3 were kept constant, (i.e. 1=3 and 2=3, respectively) throughout the test.

Horizontal displacements of the specimen were measured with linear potentiometers placed

at each level. In addition, 12 pairs of potentiometers were installed to measure the average

curvatures at beam and column sections. Potentiometers were located at 1=2 of the beam depth

from the face of the column, and instrumented column sections were located at 1=2 of the

column depth from the face of a beam.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

THREE-STORY ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAME 675

6%

4%

Roof Drift, Dr

2%

0%

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-2%

-4%

-6%

Number of Cycles

The test specimen was observed after each cycle to assess safety concerns. During the obser-

vation after the rst cycle with roof drift ratio of 0.5%, the rst crack was found. Cracks were

found at both ends of all columns and beams in the rst and second story. In the third story,

cracks were observed at the lower ends of all columns and interior beam ends. At a roof drift

ratio of 2.5%, shear cracks were observed at the exterior joint of the rst oor, where the

transverse beam meets the longitudinal beam. At a roof drift ratio of 3.0%, the crack widths

at the upper ends of the rst-story columns became wider, while slight concrete crushing was

observed at the lower ends of the columns in the same story. The test was terminated at a

roof drift ratio of 5.5% where lateral strength deteriorated to 67% of the maximum strength.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

676 S. W. HAN, O.-S. KWON AND L.-H. LEE

0.20

Hu =0.157

0.15

0. 8 Hu

0. 75 Hu

Base shear coefficient (V/W)

0.10

0.05

0.00

∆ max

6

-0.05

∆ y ∆ u =0.015

-0.10

-0.15

-0.20

-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06

Roof drift ratio(∆/H)

After testing, the columns in the rst and second story were damaged. Cover concrete was

lost and reinforcements were exposed at the column ends in the rst-story (see Figure 6).

Hysteretic performance

The hysteretic loops (measured base shear force coecient (V=W ) versus roof drift ratio

(=H )) are shown in Figure 7. The hysteresis loops shown in the gure were quite stable.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

THREE-STORY ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAME 677

+ -

Loading Direction

0.2 0.2

0.0002 0.0002

0.2 0.2 0.2

2nd story 2nd story

-0.2 Col. Bot. -0 .2 Col. Bot.

0.2 -0. 0002 0.0002 -0 .0002 0.0002 0.2 -0. 0002 0.0002

lef t- end -0. 2 right - end -0. 2 0.0002 left-end -0. 2

-0. 0002 0.0002 -0.0002

1st story 1st story

Col. Top -0.2 Col. Top -0.2

0.2 0.2

-0. 0002

0.0002 -0 .0002 0.0002

1st story 1st story

-0.2 Col. Bot. -0.2 Col. Bot.

Note that the abscissa is curvature of members (rad/mm) and the ordinate is base shear coefficient.

The model behaved almost elastically until ±0:5% roof drift level. As the drift level increased,

the stiness degradation in the loading curves became larger. At the 2nd cycle of a large drift

amplitude (¿1:8%), signicant stiness degradation was observed while strength degradation

was relatively small. Even though the structural damage was severe at the roof-drift ratio

of 5.5%, hysteretic loops were still stable without abrupt degradation of strength or energy-

dissipation capacity.

Figure 8 shows the hysteretic curves (base shear vs curvature) of the beams and columns

at the exterior and interior joints at the 1st oor. In Figure 8, the axis scales are set equal to

facilitate comparisons.

In the exterior joints, damage was distributed to the exterior beam and column. Exterior

columns did not experience as severe inelastic excursion as interior columns, whereas the

exterior beam experienced large inelastic excursion. Considerable cracks were found at the

exterior beam, while the exural cracks at the exterior columns were minor compared with

the interior columns.

Owing to the slab eect, the hysteretic curves at the exterior joints were not symmetric

(see Figure 8). In the negative loading the reinforcement in the slab acted as tensile rein-

forcement, so that the beam moment capacity became larger. The slab contribution to the

beam moment capacity, however, was minor in the positive loading direction. For the pos-

itive loading direction the damage is therefore concentrated in the beams, whereas exterior

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

678 S. W. HAN, O.-S. KWON AND L.-H. LEE

columns behaved almost in the elastic range. In the negative loading direction the damage

was distributed among the beams and columns. For the interior joint, the hysteretic curves

of the beams and columns were symmetric. Columns behaved in the inelastic range whereas

beams almost remained in the elastic range.

This phenomenon can be explained by calculating the strength (moment capacity) ratio

between the beams and columns at a joint. At the interior joint, the summation of nominal

moment capacities of the columns was 2 × 2:4 kN · m = 4:8 kN · m, while the summation of

those of the beams was 2 × 3:4 kN · m = 6:8 kN · m, where the slab is disregarded and the

positive moment capacity is used in the calculation for brief explanation. The ratio of the

moment capacities of beams to columns is 1.44, which means the columns are weaker than

the beams (strong beam–weak column). Therefore, when a large earthquake occurs, columns

are more vulnerable than beams at interior joints. At the exterior joint, however, the ratio is

0.72 (3:41=4:73), which is treated as strong column–weak beam.

The maximum base shear force from the quasi-static test was 0:16W , where W was the total

weight of the model. This shear force was attained at a roof drift ratio (u ) of 0.015 (see

Figure 7). The design base shear for a similar structural layout in seismic zone 2A can be

calculated as the following according to the UBC [3].

Cv I (0:15) · (1:0)

V= W= = 0:10W

RT (3:5) · (0:43)

where Cv is the seismic coecient. For soil type SB and seismic zone 2A, Cv is 0.15. I is

the seismic importance factor; for a standard occupancy structure I is 1.0. R is the response

modication factor; for an OMRCF building R is 3.5. T is the natural period of the building;

for the prototype building T was 0:43 sec based on the UBC [3].

Using the above equation the design base shears for other seismic zones (1, 2B, 3 and 4)

was determined to be 0:05W , 0:13W , 0:20W and 0:27W , respectively. The 3-story OMRCF

designed only for gravity load, therefore, had a base shear strength larger than the design base

shear required for seismic zones 1, 2A and 2B. The prototype structure was designed using

the ACI 318 (1999) code [1] in which the load combination for gravity force is 1.4D + 1.7L.

In the recent revision of ACI 318 (2002) [1], the load combination has changed to 1.2D +

1.6L which results in smaller section dimensions than those of a structure designed with the

previous code. Thus the lateral resistant capacity of those structures could be smaller than

the structures designed with the previous code. As some other provisions, such as maximum

and minimum reinforcement ratio, have also changed in ACI 318 (2002), it requires more

thorough study to conclude the eect of code change on the lateral resistance capacity of

OMRCF.

Yield drift was obtained from a bilinear representation of base shear coecient vs roof drift

ratio curve (Figure 7), where the secant line is drawn from origin to the 0:75Hu point in the

gure. From Figure 7, a yield drift ratio of 0.005 was determined. The maximum drift ratio

(max ) was approximated as the drift ratio corresponding to the strength deteriorated by 20%

of the maximum strength (0:8Hu ). From Figure 7, the maximum drift ratio was determined

to be 0.04.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

THREE-STORY ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAME 679

100

6%

3rd story

Dissipated energy (%) 80 2nd story

40%

1st story

60

40

54%

20

0

1 6 11 16 21

Number of cycles

The energy dissipation is known to be the most eective index for indicating the seismic

energy absorption capacity of a structure. Figure 9 shows the cumulated dissipated energy that

is calculated based on the applied external forces and story displacements. From Figure 9 it is

shown that 54% of the total energy was dissipated at the rst story and 40% was dissipated

at the second story. According to Figure 9 most of the inelastic deformations occurred at the

rst and second stories, while the third story behaved mainly in the elastic range.

In this study, the capacity spectrum method (CSM) was used to evaluate the seismic perfor-

mance of the 3-story OMRCF. The capacity spectrum method is a non-linear static procedure

that provides a graphical representation of the global force–displacement capacity curve of

the structure (i.e. pushover) and compares it to the response representations of the earthquake

demands. It is a useful tool in the evaluation and retrot design of existing concrete buildings.

The capacity spectrum method uses the intersection of the capacity (pushover) curve and

a reduced response spectrum to estimate the maximum displacement. Thus, the method needs

to determine the capacity of the structure and the seismic demands. The performance of the

structure is evaluated in view of global response and component response. The response limit

for the given performance goal is specied in ATC-40(1996) [2] and FEMA 273(1997) [5].

The capacity of a structure can be determined from either non-linear analysis or experiment.

As there exist many uncertainties and assumptions in modeling concrete structures for analyt-

ical study, the analysis result could result in signicant error. In this study, the capacity of the

structure was determined from the experimental result of the 3-story OMRCF structure. The

demand spectrum was determined from the ground motion accelerations of 30 earthquakes in

Table II, recorded at the SB , SC and SD soil sites. Ground accelerations having a response

spectrum similar to the design response spectrum were selected. The accelerations were scaled

to conform to the design response spectrum in each seismic zone (1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4) as

classied in the UBC [3].

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

680 S. W. HAN, O.-S. KWON AND L.-H. LEE

No. Event name Station name Date Comp PGA

1 Michoacan Calete De Campo 21=08=85 N90W 0.083

2 Helena Federal Bldg, Helena 31=10=35 EW 0.145

3 Kern County Taft 21=07=52 N21E 0.156

4 Mammoth Lakes Long Valley Dam, Bed Rock 25=05=80 90 0.137

5 Borrego Min SCE Power Plant, San Onofre 08=04=68 N33E 0.041

6 Mammoth Lakes Long Valley Dam 25=05=80 90 0.474

7 San Fernando Cal. Tech. Seism. Lab. 09=02=71 EW 0.192

8 Imperial Valley El Centro 18=05=40 NS 0.318

9 San Fernando Santa Felicia Dam(Outlet) 09=02=71 S08E 0.217

10 Whittier Pacoima-Kagel Canyon 01=10=87 90 0.158

1 Whittier Narrows Mt. Gleason Ave. 01=10=87 S90W 0.098

2 Whittier Narrows Kagel Canyon Ave. 01=10=87 N45E 0.12

3 Landers N. Figueroa St. 28=06=92 N58E 0.028

4 Landers Mel Canyon Rd 28=06=92 N90E 0.030

5 Landers Willoughby Ave. 28=01=92 S00E 0.024

6 San Fernando Water and Power Building 09=02=71 S40W 0.172

7 San Fernando South Olive Ave. 09=02=71 S37W 0.196

8 Northridge Mel Canyon Rd 17=01=94 S00E 0.026

9 Northridge S. Alta Dr. 17=01=94 N00E 0.074

10 Northridge N. Figueroa St. 17=01=94 N32W 0.158

1 Landers Colima Rd 01=10=87 S90W 0.046

2 Landers Palma Ave. 01=10=87 N40W 0.045

3 Landers Del Amo Blvd 28=06=92 N58E 0.054

4 Northridge Manhattan Beach Blvd 28=06=92 N90E 0.158

5 Northridge Willoughby Ave. 28=01=92 N90W 0.250

6 Northridge S. Orange Ave. 09=02=71 S40W 0.065

7 Whittier Water St. 09=02=71 N38E 0.111

8 Whittier Colima Rd 17=01=94 S00E 0.197

9 Whittier Sunset Blvd 17=01=94 N00E 0.036

10 San Fernando Via Tejon 17=01=94 N32W 0.025

Capacity spectrum

As the experiment was conducted using a 1=3-scale model, the roof drift–base shear relation-

ship of a full-scale structure should be scaled from the test results shown in Figure 7. FEMA

273 [5] recommends that a smooth ‘backbone’ curve can be drawn through the intersection of

the rst cycle curve for the i-th deformation step with the second cycle curve of the (i − 1)-th

deformation step, for all i steps. In this study, however, note that the capacity curve from the

scaled load–deformation relationship was taken by connecting the plateaus of each cycle, as

shown in Figure 7.

The measured capacity curve needed to be converted into a spectral displacement and

spectral acceleration. This conversion required the dynamic properties of the structure. To

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

THREE-STORY ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAME 681

Table III. Modal participation factor and modal mass factor of prototype structure.

2nd Story 60.1 0.747 44.9 33.6

1st Story 60.1 0.335 20.1 6.8

178.5 – 123.3 98.7

PFRF 1.25

am 0.86

Where W=g = mass of structure, 1 = 1st mode shape, PFRF = modal participation factor at

roof, and am = eective mass coecient

identify the dynamic properties of the structure, modal analysis was conducted using the

commercial software SAP2000 [4]. Because micro-cracking is present in reinforced concrete

members, the stiness of the members was reduced as specied in the ATC-40 document.

For columns and beams, reduction factors of 0.7 and 0.5 were used, respectively. Also, the

natural period of the specimen was measured using a snap-back test. The 1st modal natural

period of the specimen (1=3-scale model) was measured as 0:32 sec. Since the scale of the

structure is 1=3, the stiness reduces to 1=3. Also, as additional mass was placed√to adjust

the mass to be 1=9 of the original structure, the structural period was reduced to 1= 3 of the

original structure. To convert the period√of the test specimen to that of the prototype model,

the measured period was multiplied by 3, resulting in 0:55 sec, which is 4.3% less than the

period from eigenvalue analysis using SAP2000 [4]. Thus, it was assumed that the analytical

model represented the dynamic property of the test specimen. The modal analysis results, the

corresponding modal participation factors, and the modal mass factors are given in Table III.

The capacity curve was converted using modal analysis and is shown in Figure 10.

Demand spectrum

In this study, the seismic performance of a given structure was evaluated using the design

level and maximum earthquakes of zones 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4, as dened in the UBC [3]. The

structure is assumed to be located on soil sites SB , SC and SD . The earthquake accelerations

recorded at each soil site were scaled to make their eective peak acceleration (EPA) close to

the design earthquake (DE) and the maximum considered earthquakes (MCE). The selected

ground acceleration data are given in Table II.

This study adopted the procedure developed by Chopra and Goel [6]. The steps for calculating

the performance point in this study are briey summarized below.

(1) Assume that the performance point is on the capacity curve. Then make bilinear rep-

resentation of the capacity curve, which has the same initial stiness and energy dissi-

pation as that of the original capacity curve (Figure 10(a)).

(2) Generate a response spectra for single-degree-of-freedom system using either eective

damping (ATC-40 [2]) or constant ductility (Chopra and Goel [6]). Calculate the me-

dian and standard deviation values of spectral acceleration and spectral displacement for

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

682 S. W. HAN, O.-S. KWON AND L.-H. LEE

0.50

Bilinear representation

0.40 of capacity curve

α =0.0975, µ =3.367

from the experiment

0.20

Equal area Sd = 10 cm

0.00 dpi

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

(a) SD (cm)

0.50

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.40 with α =0.0975, µ =3.367

0.30

Calculated performance point

0.20 Sd=7.538 (Err= 24.6%)

Sd = 10 cm

di dpi

0.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

(b) SD (cm)

0.50

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.40 with α =0.15, µ =3.08

0.30

Calculated performance point

0.20 Sd=8.79 (Err = -3 .38 %)

Sd = 8.5 cm

Bilinear representation α=0.15 ,

0.00

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

(c) SD (cm)

Figure 10. Procedures for nding performance point: (a) bilinear representation of capacity spec-

trum and assumed performance point; (b) demand spectrum and calculated performance point; and

(c) nal performance point after iteration.

each period. Then superimpose the capacity curve and demand curve. The intersection

point of the two curves is the calculated performance point (Figure 10(b)).

(3) The performance point lies between the assumed performance point and the tentative

performance point. Follow steps (1) and (2) again.

(4) Repeat steps (1) and (2) until the error between the assumed performance point (dpi )

and tentative performance point (di ) is less than 5%, as shown in Figure 10(c) (i.e.

0:95dpi 6di 61:05dpi ). For each consecutive iteration, take a new assumed performance

point between the last assumed performance point and the calculated performance point.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

THREE-STORY ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAME 683

Site Seismic zone

Earthquake condition Zone 1 Zone 2A Zone 2B Zone 3 Zone 4

SC 0.50 0.78 1.35 1.76 2.16

SD 0.86 1.56 2.16 3.36 *

SC 0.66 1.35 1.96 3.96 4.16

SD 1.08 3.16 4.56 * *

Note that the shaded area does not meet the performance criteria in ATC-40.

When the iterations for the performance point converge, the maximum structural dis-

placement expected for the demand earthquake ground motion is thus identied.

Performance evaluation

From the structural capacity and seismic demand, roof drift was calculated using CSM. The

displacements of each story at the performance points were found using the experimental

result. The maximum story drift ratios for each performance point are given in Table IV and

Figure 11.

The ATC-40 document [2] species that the structural displacement should satisfy both

the life-safety limit for design earthquakes, and the structural stability limit for maximum

considered earthquakes. The response limits are dened in view of both global responses and

component responses. The component response criteria are not checked in this study, as the

member forces could not be measured from this experiment. In ATC-40, the global response

limit, the inter-story drift is 0.02 for the life-safety level and 0:33V=P for the structural stability

limit, which is approximately 0.04.

Table IV shows that the OMRCF designed only for gravity loads can sustain the seismic

load of every seismic zone with soil condition SB , of zones 1, 2A, 2B and 3 with soil condition

SC , and of zones 1 and 2A with soil condition SD . As the seismic demand of soil condition

SA is smaller than that of soil condition SB , it can be inferred that the OMRCF designed for

gravity loads also sustain the seismic load of every seismic zone with soil condition SA . The

UBC [3] species that only structures in seismic zone 1 can be designed with OMRCF detail.

CONCLUSIONS

This study investigated the seismic performance of the 3-story OMRCF designed only for

gravity loads and specied by the requirements for OMRCF. The test for this study was

conducted using a 1=3-scale model specimen for the quasi-static cyclic loading. This study

adopted the capacity spectrum method to carry out seismic performance evaluation of this

3-story OMRCF. Because the results of this study were obtained for the case of a 3-story

OMRCF structure that had a regular shape with a response dominated by exural behavior,

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

684 S. W. HAN, O.-S. KWON AND L.-H. LEE

Story Drift (DE, Site SB) Story Drift (MCE, Site SB)

3 3

Life safety limit Structural stability limits

2 2

Story

Story

Zone 1 Zone 1

Zone 2A Zone 2A

1 1 Zone 2B

Zone 2B

Zone 3 Zone 3

Zone 4 Zone 4

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(a) Story drift Story drift

Story Drift (DE, Site SD) Story Drift (MCE, Site SC)

3 3

Life safety limit

Structural stability limits

2 2

Story

Story

Zone 1

Zone 1

Zone 2A

1 1 Zone 2A

Zone 2B

Zone 2B

Zone 3

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 4

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(b) Story drift Story drift

Story Drift (DE, Site SC) Story Drift (MCE, Site SD)

3 3

Life safety limits Structural stability limits

2 2

Story

Story

Zone 1

1 1 Zone 1

Zone 2A

Zone 2B Zone 2A

Zone 3 Zone 2B

0 0

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

(c) Story drift Story drift

Figure 11. Global structural responses at performance point against design earthquake (DE)

and maximum credible earthquake (MCE): (a) site condition, SB ; (b) site condition, SC ; and

(c) site condition, SD .

care must be taken when extrapolating the results of this study to other OMRCFs as many

such structures have experienced shear failures during recent earthquakes. The ndings from

this study are as follows.

(1) The OMRCF structure showed a stable energy dissipation capacity without abrupt

strength deterioration, even though the structure was designed for gravity loads only

and specied for the requirements of OMRCF.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

THREE-STORY ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAME 685

(2) At the nal loading stage, interior columns in the 1st story were severely damaged,

while beams had not experienced any apparent damage. At the exterior joints of the 1st

story, damage was distributed to exterior columns and beams. This shows that interior

joints have the mechanisms of a weak column–strong beam, whereas exterior joints

have that of a strong column–weak beam in the investigated OMRCF. This could be

referred to as a hybrid failure mechanism.

(3) The maximum lateral strength of the frame was 0:16W , which occurred at a roof drift

ratio of 0.015. The expected base shears of the building designed with the UBC [3]

and ACI 318(1999) [1] for seismic zones 1, 2A and 2B for soil type SB were 0:05W ,

0:10W and 0:13W , respectively. Thus the OMRCF designed only for gravity loads had

a base shear strength larger than the unfactored base shear strength required in seismic

zones 1, 2A and 2B.

(4) The yield roof drift ratio of the test model was 0.005. The maximum roof drift ratio

was 0.04, which was obtained at a strength deteriorated up to 80% of the maximum

lateral strength.

(5) From the results of the capacity spectrum method, it was shown that the OMRCF

designed only for gravity loads could therefore sustain the seismic load of every seismic

zone with soil condition SA and SB , zones 1, 2A, 2B and 3 with soil condition SC ,

and zones 1 and 2A with soil condition SD . Note that the results were obtained using

a 3-story regular OMRCF structure that was governed mainly by exure. Thus, caution

is needed when trying to extrapolate the results to other OMRCF structures.

REFERENCES

1. American Concrete Institute. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318-99,02, Detroit,

Michigan, 1999 and 2002.

2. Applied Technology Council. ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings, vols. 1 and 2,

California Seismic Safety Commission, No. SSC 96-01, Nov. 1996.

3. International Conference on Building Ocials, Uniform Building Code (UBC), Whittier, California, 1997.

4. Computers and Structures Inc., SAP2000, Berkeley, California, 1997.

5. Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA

Publication 273), 1997 Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

6. Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-Demand-Diagram Methods for Estimating Seismic Deformation of Inelastic

Structures: SDF Systems, Report No. PEER-1999=02, Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center,

University of California, Berkeley, 1999.

Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685

- Tall Building Seismic Design and Analysis Issues - ATC-72Hochgeladen vonnikhilarora1988
- Structural Computations - SHAP (Version 2)Hochgeladen vonAllan Soriano
- 38.Dynamic Analysis of Multi-storey RCC BuildingHochgeladen vonSubash Mallampalli
- SEISMIC DESIGN OF LIQUID STORAGE TANKSHochgeladen vonMunna Bhai
- 2008 ASSESSEMENT OF STRUCTURAL CAPACITY OF AN OVERHEAD POWER TRANSMISSION LINE TOWER UNDER WIND LOADING.pdfHochgeladen vonAhmed Taha
- SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF UNSYMMETRICAL BUILDING WITH DIFFERENT BRACING SYSTEMS.pdfHochgeladen vonesatjournals
- Beam Steel ContentHochgeladen vonsongyanxin
- Reinforcement BarsHochgeladen vonjworder
- Pushover Analysis Of Retrofitted Reinforced Concrete Buildings By Using SAPHochgeladen vonAnonymous vQrJlEN
- okHochgeladen vonMijail Jimenez Macias
- Seismic Response of Ground Cylindrical and Elevated Conical Reinforced Concrete Tanks (2011) - Thesis (373)Hochgeladen vonJulio Humberto Díaz Rondán
- Chapter02 - Guide to Use the ProvisionsHochgeladen vonGuzmán Alphonse Unam
- h 011614552Hochgeladen vonjayesh
- 9c96051d584ae6213cHochgeladen vonductility
- Mathcad - 1000 KL Tank1Hochgeladen vonZulfikar N Joel
- WCEE2012_1232Hochgeladen vonAjayvidyanand Sharma
- Note for Reinforcing Information for ColumnsHochgeladen vonaslam
- Pushover CE&CRHochgeladen vonAnonymous nwByj9L
- Column DesignHochgeladen vonKutty Mansoor
- Numerical Investigation of Progressive Collapse Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frames Subject to Column Removals From Different Stories, Advances in Structural Engineering, 2016Hochgeladen vonNasarKhan
- CV15Hochgeladen vonAnonymous ZMLlQvBop
- Bond Development Lengths and HookHochgeladen vonAly Arquillano Jr
- BBR 2Hochgeladen vonAravindan
- Strong Column Weal BeamHochgeladen vonlance lancelotti
- Recommendations for the Seismic Design of High-rise Buildings.pdfHochgeladen vonMahinda
- Design of Oneway SlabsHochgeladen vonOsama Tamari
- Module_6_Slides_Part 1.pdfHochgeladen vonvarniktp
- Damping Ratio in Tall StructuresHochgeladen vonArnel Aguel
- changes in wind SCE7-10 7-16 9002S161-TOC.PDFHochgeladen vonjohnyh katzzz
- rahimian1999(1)Hochgeladen vonjjslf

- Steel Sheet Piling Design ManualHochgeladen vonv
- BEST PRACTICE MANUAL-FLUID PIPINGHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- Matlab ManualHochgeladen vonFinau Fonua
- Lab Manual ENTC376 Fall08Hochgeladen vonAamir Shafique
- Lab 2 HardnessHochgeladen vonMuhammad Zulhilmi
- strength of material manualHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- Design of Pile FoundationsHochgeladen vonroborocks
- Foundation remidial mesuresHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 10.20_KarunarathneHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 8.Effect of masonry infills on seismic performance of a 3-storey rc frame with non-seismic detailingHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 7Shaking table tests of 1-4 reduced-scale models of masonry infilled reinforced concrete frame buildingsHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 6 INELASTIC DYNAMIC RESPONCEHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 5Experimental investigations of 1-3-scale rc frame with infill walls building structuresHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 4Shake table expt on masonry infill wallHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 3infill.1Hochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 1.SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF MASONRY-INFILLED R.C. FRAMES_BENEFITS OF SLIGHT REINFORCEMENTSHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FRAMED BUILDINGS ON GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED SOILHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- ssi on 8 storey buildingHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- SSI EFFECTS ON RC STRUCTURES RESTING ON GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED SOILHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- modelling aspects in ssiHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE OF MULTISTOREYED RC FRAMES WITH SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION EFFECTSHochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- Melissa_Pi_reportHochgeladen vonapi-19591368
- Abaqus Tutorial 01Hochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- Abaqus 6Hochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- Ansys Fluids 1 v8p1Hochgeladen vonapi-3833671
- 14251_ch3Hochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 1370Hochgeladen vonapi-3869476
- 21Hochgeladen vonapi-3869476

- PsychComfort.xlsHochgeladen vonThiện Nguyễn
- Analysis of the Fatigue Performance of Elastic Rail ClipHochgeladen vonsaltbath
- Seminar ReportHochgeladen vonTEMY PETER
- MEFA Beam ClampsHochgeladen vongeorgecis
- Procurement of MaterialHochgeladen vonManish Kapadne
- 07CAENERGYHochgeladen vonCraig J Lopez Aia
- Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer- Textbook - IncroperaHochgeladen vonJyothir Aditya
- MS - Cement Plastering R1Hochgeladen vonDinesh Priyankara
- Atmospheric_Air_Ejectors.pdfHochgeladen vonVirendra Kumar
- DuMilsonHochgeladen vonSabina Cristian
- 325 Main Schematic Design Review Resubmission_01252019Hochgeladen vonronalduck
- Log Construction Logmanlo-1Hochgeladen vonMircea Tomus
- research paper on magnetic refrigeration Sourabh SInghHochgeladen vonersourabh
- FM Global Data Sheet 5-32Hochgeladen vonAllie June
- Welding HandbookHochgeladen vonVijo Jose
- Book2- Design AspectsHochgeladen vonKrishnasamy Sanjeevan
- Open Channel Laboratory ExperimentHochgeladen vonJohn Ceasar Pasco
- TwinFans-AireVolveHochgeladen vonAmal Sa
- ISCO HDPE Product Catalog-HDPE PipeHochgeladen vonJorge Santos Romero
- Nr98 Nc199 PartHochgeladen vonDavidLuckadoo
- MODELING OF TRANSIENT TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN FINNED TUBE HEAT EXCHANGERHochgeladen vonBESTJournals
- 6-Transformation of Stress & Strain [Jan2013]Hochgeladen vonMohammad Hanafi
- Wirand Application Re3 ValuesHochgeladen vonSerbanDragos
- Low Relative Humidity Low Temperature Food DehumidHochgeladen vonSanoria Cakes
- US Slab Drop Panel pHochgeladen vonZoebair
- Pilot Operated Safety Relief ValvesHochgeladen vonfabio
- Material PropertiesHochgeladen vonMohamed Ali
- Geochina Special Publication No-262Hochgeladen vonprabin kumar ashish
- Circuit BreakersHochgeladen vontechnomurali
- Sample Letter to OSHAHochgeladen vonSaqlain Awan

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

Entdecken, was Scribd alles zu bieten hat, inklusive Bücher und Hörbücher von großen Verlagen.

Jederzeit kündbar.