0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

8 Ansichten11 Seiteniaetsd jaras

Oct 31, 2017

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

iaetsd jaras

© All Rights Reserved

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

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

8 Ansichten11 Seiteniaetsd jaras

© All Rights Reserved

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

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

COLUMNS TO MINIMIZE THE TORSION IN ASYMMETRIC

BUILDING

1

(Department of Civil Engineering, ACE Engineering College/ JNTUH, India)

2

(Department of Civil Engineering, Muffakham Jah College of Engineering/ OU, India)

ABSTRACT :

In the present study asymmetric buildings with four and ten stories are taken for the analysis. These building models are analyzed for

gravity and seismic forces using ETABS[1] software. Three models with different column sizes were considered to show its effect on torsion in

the non linear analysis of the buildings. Strength parameters for non-linear response were also studied to obtain the optimum positions of the

centres. It was found that when the strength re-distribution is performed the centre of mass is in between the centre of strength and centre of

rigidity, thereby with significant reduction in base torsion. When the position of center of mass is at the middle of the center of rigidity and

center of strength, the base torsion was decreased by 3.5% and 10.5% in model 2 and model 3 respectively when compared to the model 1 for a

four storey model similarly for a ten storey model the base torsion was found to be decreased by 9% and 38% in model 2 and model 3 when

compared to the model 1. When the strength re-distribution is performed, as the centre of mass is in between the centre of strength and centre of

rigidity, the base torsion was found to be considerably decreased by 26% and 35% for model four and ten storey respectively. Therefore, the

work shows that the strength eccentricity and position of centre of strength are significant parameters in judging the non-linear response of the

structure with respect to base torsion.

KEYWORDS - Asymmetric building, Strength distribution, Strength and Stiffness eccentricity and Base

torsion.

INTRODUCTION

Observations on damages caused by major earthquakes have shown that structures with lack of symmetry usually performed poorly

and suffered heavier damage due to excessive torsional response. To alleviate this, most seismic design codes incorporate some design

guidelines for strength assignment to the lateral force resisting elements (LFRE), commonly referred to as torsional provisions (IAEE, 2000). An

asymmetric structure vibrates in a coupled translation and rotation manner during earthquakes. In comparison to a symmetric structure that

vibrates in translation modes, for an asymmetric structure the coupled responses will increase the lateral displacements on the flexible side and

may cause a decrease of displacements on the opposite side, called the stiff side. The current design guidelines are based on the assumption

that the stiffness of LFRE is unaffected by the strength assignment. Using elasto-plastic modeling to represent the force-displacement

relationship, two elements of similar size designed to have different strengths would have force displacement. An increase of strength will lead

to an increase of yield displacement, but the stiffness of the element remains unchanged. In other words, the stiffness and strength are

independent. Recently, it has been pointed out that for many reinforced concrete LFRE such as flexural walls (Paulay, 1997; Priestley and

Kowalsky, 1998) and oment resisting frames (Priestley, 1998), the force-displacement relationship of these elements may be considered as

bilinear, and their yield displacements depend only on material properties and the geometry of the elements. For seismic design purpose, the

yield displacement may be considered to be independent of strength. A better representation of the force-displacement relationships for two

elements of similar dimensions but different strength would appear. In such representation, the stiffness and strength are dependent parameters.

An increase of strength will lead to an increase of stiffness. This fundamental change reflecting a more realistic behavior of the reinforced

concrete LFRE is associated with a number of implications in seismic design (Paulay, 2001a). Among the issues faced by designers are: (1)

How effective are the current seismic torsional provisions that are based on the traditional assumption that the strength and stiffness of LFRE are

independent? (2) Current code procedures which require equilibrium analyses, may not be carried out in a straightforward manner because the

stiffness distribution is not known prior to strength assignment.

In this paper, a short review of the current torsional provisions in design codes is presented. Based on an examination of seismic

responses, a desirable strength/stiffness distribution that could lead to minimized torsional response is postulated. Finally, the rotation response

of structures with strength assignment following two of the current torsional provisions and the proposed procedure are compared.

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Traditionally, the degree of asymmetry has been measured in terms of the structural eccentricity. It is a useful parameter to co-relate the

seismic elastic response of asymmetric structures. However, when the structural system is excited into the inelastic range, yielding of the

resisting elements complicates the behavior. Therefore there is a need to study and identify a different parameter that captures the inelastic

response of the structure.

To study the effect of variation in the base torsion with respect to the positions of center of mass, centre of stiffness and centre of strength of the

building.

To study the effectiveness of strength distribution in minimizing torsional response.

The stiffness distribution-based approach assumes that the stiffness along each column line can be estimated based on material

properties and geometry and will not be affected by the strength of the LFRE. The asymmetry of the structure is characterized by stiffness

eccentricity eR, the distance between the center of stiffness CR and the center of mass CM.

The assignment of strength to an element is based on the force induced in that element by the more severe of the two loading cases.

The end result following such provisions is that one needs to assign more strength to elements on the flexible side of the structure. Depending

on the specific code, one may permit a decrease of element strength on the stiff side. The efficiency of the torsional provisions has been

studied by Force Displacement. many researchers (Chopra and Goel, 1991; Chandler and Duan, 1997; Rutenberg, 2002), among others. One

general consensus of the studies is that incorporating torsional provisions will result in a reduction of ductility demands on elements located at

the flexible edge of the structure.

The ductility demands on elements on the stiff edge may or may be not being reduced, depending on a number of factors. One

primary factor is the allowance of strength reduction for the stiff edge element. Codes that allow no reduction, such as the Uniform Building

Code (UBC, 1997), usually lead to ductility demands that are similar to or less than those of a symmetric structure of comparable construction.

For codes that have no restriction on the reduction of strength, such as the Eurocode (Eurocode 8, 2002), the ductility demands of the stiff side

elements may increase significantly. It should be noted that all the studies are based on the assumption that the stiffness and strength of the

LFRE are independent. To examine the efficiency of the current torsional provisions in reducing the rotational response of structures with

strength/stiffness dependent LFRE, strength assignment will be carried out using both the UBC and the EC8 for a single story structural model.

A strength assignment procedure has been presented such that balanced CV-CR location strength/stiffness distributions will be reached. The

proposed procedure is yield displacement distribution-based. It suggests that the strength distribution should have a shape similar to the yield

displacement distribution, modified by a design parameter to be chosen by the designer. A design based on =0 would lead to a strength

distribution having eV=0. A =1 design would result in a stiffness distribution such that eR =0. By choosing between zero and unity, the

structure will satisfy the balanced CV-CR location criterion and have a low torsional response.

This criterion was first proposed by the authors (Myslimaj and Tso, 2002) and was based on the study of a single story structural model having

two LFRE. It states that a desirable strength/stiffness distribution to minimize torsional response is the one that results in the location of the

center of strength CV and the center of rigidity CR on opposite sides of CM. An extension of the study to include multiple LFRE systems

showed that the asymmetry of the system can be characterized by the location of the center of yield displacement CD in relation to CM, or

equivalently the yield displacement eccentricity eD. For a given yield displacement distribution, the distance D between CV and CR is

insensitive to strength assignment to the elements and can be considered constant (Tso and Myslimaj, 2003).

Traditionally, the seismic torsional provisions advocate a structural design with small value of eR. This is a valid criterion if all LFRE remain in

the elastic state. During a major earthquake, it is likely that some or all LFRE will be excited into the inelastic state. Recently, another design

criterion calling for small or zero eV has been advocated (Paulay, 2001b). It is shown here that for structures with strength-stiffness dependent

LFRE both these criteria do not lead to minimized torsional response.

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

The layout of plan is asymmetric in both x & y directions having equal bay length 5 m in both the

directions. The building considered are reinforced concrete ordinary moment resisting frame of four ten stories with different column sizes,

modified column sizes using strength assignments. All these buildings have been analyzed by non- linear static analysis [pushover analysis]. The

typical storey height is 3m for all models.

The plan configurations consists of

Models for four and ten storied building

Model 1 - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, all column sizes are 375x375mm.

Model 2 - Building is asymmetric both X & Y directions, all column sizes are 400x400mm.

Model 3 - Building is asymmetric both X & Y directions, all column sizes are 450x450mm.

Modified columns using strength assignments

Strength assignments for four storey models

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Model A - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 375 mm and varying depths [i.e. 450,475,500].

Model B - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 400 mm and varying depths [i.e. 425,450,475].

Model C - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 450 mm and varying depths [i.e. 400,425,450].

Model 1 - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 375 mm and varying depths [i.e. 1100,1150,1175,1200,1250].

Model 2 - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 400 mm and varying depths [i.e.1075,1100,1150,1175,1200].

Model 3 - Building is asymmetric in both X & Y directions, with column width 450 mm and varying depths [i.e. 1000,1050,1075,1100,1150].

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

For defining the POA case we start with the assignment of the hinges to the members of the structure. The Etabs package gives the

choice to the user for selecting or defining the type of hinges required for analysis. Default hinge definitions according to the FEMA-356

guidelines have been provided at the ends, where the formation of the potential plastic hinges is more probable for beams and columns with

degree of freedom as M3 and the shear value for the hinge is taken from the Dead load case. The hinges are set so that they ddrop the load after

reaching the performance level.After assignment of the hinges, the pushover cases are defined under the conjugate monitored displacement

d the

structure is then designed according to IS-456:

456: 2000 and then pushover cases are run on the designed structure,

structure, for the analysis results

linear hinge assignment of columns and beams

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

The yield displacement distribution is represented by L and R.

L = (n1/B) (/ n1)

R = (nn/B) (/ n1)

The value of is determined by equating the total yield displacements of the laminae to the sum of the yield displacements of the discrete

LFRE, leading to

= (n1)/( n2)[2 n/( n1)*]AV

Where = 0.5 n(1 + n)/ i i= 1,2,.,n

and AV = i / B*

i = s (xi) i= 1,2,.,n

s = B/(n-1) and

B* = nB/(n-1)

The strength of each lamina is given by f(x)dx, where f(x) is the strength distribution of the laminae. It is proposed that f(x) should have a

similar shape as the yield displacement distribution (x), and it can be expressed as:

f(x) = { F[1+2(1-fL)X/B*],

F[1+2(1-fR)X/B*] }

where F is a scaling factor to relate the strength of the laminae to the design base shear V, and FfL and FfR are the magnitudes of strength of the

laminae at the left and right edge, respectively. The shape of the strength distribution is defined by the non-dimensional parameters fL and fR in

relation to unity.

The parameter F is determined by requiring the total strength of the laminae to be equal to the design base shear V, namely

F = 4V/ B*(fL +fR +2)

Parameters fL and fR can be explicitly expressed in terms of L, R and as follows

fL = 0.5[( L + R) + ( L R)]

fR = 0.5[( L + R) ( L R)]

Once the value of is chosen, the strength distribution for the continuum model is completely defined. Then, the strength of each discrete LFRE

of the system can be obtained as the summation of all the strength of the laminae within its tributary area. The strength of the discrete elements

located at xi can be written as

f i = s f(xi) i= 1,2,.,n

The following are the results obtained by carrying out the non linear static analysis for different buildings. Subsequent discussions are

made about the results obtained by non linear analysis based on torsion with respect to stiffness and strength eccentricity. And also the position

of centre of mass, centre of stiffness and centre of strength of different models with different column sizes were also discussed.

Torsional variation

The following table contains the results of the modal analysis carried out for the structure as discussed earlier. The values tabulated are of the

critical models of the structure, which have been considered in the analysis. Torsional variation for non linear static analysis (Pushover) of a four

storey building

Table 5.1 Base torsion for non-linear static analysis of a four storey building

Model1(375x375mm) 2787.47

Model2(400x400mm) 2690.82

Model3(450x450mm) 2491.4

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

2900

2787.47

2800

2690.82

2700

Base torsion 2600

(kNm) 2491.4 push

2500

2400

2300

model 1 model 2 model 3

Fig 5.1 illustrates the variation of base torsion for non-linear static analysis of a four storey building

It is observed that the variation of base torsion for a non-linear static analysis of a four storey building is decreased by 3.5% and 10.5% in model

2 and model 3 respectively when compared to the model 1.

Position of centre of mass, stiffness and strength

XCM = -0.6913 YCM = -0.9674 Model 1 XCM = -0.694 YCM = -0.971

XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652

XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652 Model 2 XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652

XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58

XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58 Model 3 XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58

The following table contains the results of the modal analysis carried out for the structure as discussed earlier. The values tabulated are of the

critical models of the structure, which have been considered in the analysis. Torsional variation for non linear static analysis (Pushover) of a ten

storey building

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

0Table 5.2 Base torsion for non-linear static analysis of a ten storey building

Model1(375x375mm) 1855.96

Model2(400x400mm) 1688.5

Model3(450x450mm) 1146.90

2000 1855.96

1688.5

1500

1146.9

Base torsion 1000

(kN-m) PUSH

500

0

model 1 model 2 model 3

Fig 5.3 illustrates the variation of base torsion for non-linear static analysis of a ten storey building

It is observed that the variation of base torsion for a non-linear static analysis of a ten storey building is decreased by 9% and 38% in model 2

and model 3 when compared to the model 1.

XCM = -0.694 YCM = -0.970 Model 1 XCM = -0.694 YCM = -0.971 XCM = -0.694 YCM = -0.9713

XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652 XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652 XCR = -0.652 YCR = 0.652

XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58 XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58 Model 2 XCS = -2.89 YCS = -1.58

Model 3

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Comparison of torsion

The following table contains the results of the modal analysis carried out for the structure as discussed earlier. The values tabulated are of the

critical models of the structure, which have been considered in the analysis. Torsional variation of model 1 and model A.

torsion (kNm) torsion (kNm)

Model(4 storey) Model (4 storey) 2787.47 2042.85

(375 x 375 mm) (375 x 450,475,500 mm)

(375 x 375 mm) (375x100,1150,1175,1200,1250 mm)

3000 2787.47

2500

2042.85

2000

Base torsion 1500

model 1

(kNm)

1000 model A

500

0

model 4 storey

Fig 5.5 Comparison of Base for model 1 and model A for four storey

Based on the results of non-linear static analysis it is observed that the variation of base torsion for the model 1 and model A of a four storey

building is decreased by 26%.

2000 1855.96

1800

1600

1400

1195.85

1200

Base torsion 1000

model 1

(kNm)

800 model A

600

400

200

0

model 10 storey

Fig 5.6 Comparison of Base torsion for model 1 and model A for ten storey

IAETSD JOURNAL FOR ADVANCED RESEARCH IN APPLIED SCIENCES ISSN (ONLINE): 2394-8442

Based on the results of non-linear static analysis it is observed that the variation of base torsion for the model 1 and model A of a ten storey

building is decreased by 35%.

Discussions of results

When the position of center of mass is at the middle of the center of rigidity and center of strength, the base torsion was very high

2787.47, 2690.82 and 2491.4 kNm for model 1,2 and 3 respectively for a four storey model as shown in fig 5.1 similarly for a ten storey model

the base torsion was found to be 1855.96,1688.5,1146.90 kNm for models 1,2 and 3 respectively as shown in fig 5.3.

When the strength re-distribution is performed, as the centre of mass is in between the centre of strength and centre of rigidity, the base torsion

was found to be considerably decreased to 2042.85 and 1195.85 kNm for model four and ten storey respectively as shown in fig 5.5. Thereby a

maximum decrease in base torsion is by 26% and 35% for model four and ten storey respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The following are the conclusions drawn from the present work:

1. The base torsion for the non-linear static analysis of the four storey building has decreased by 3.5% and 10.5% when the column sizes were

changed in model 2( column size 400x400 mm) and model 3(column size 450x450 mm) respectively when compared to the model 1(column

size 375x375 mm).

2. The base torsion for the non-linear static analysis of the ten storey building has decreased by 9% and 38% when the column sizes were changed

in model 2 and model 3 respectively when compared to the model 1.

3. The base torsion value decreased significantly by 26% for 4 storey model and 35% for 10 storey model when the strength re-distribution is

performed, as the centre of mass is in between the centre of strength and centre of rigidity.

4. The assignment of strength to LFRE will affect both the strength and stiffness distributions, we advocate a strength assignment that satisfies the

balanced CV-CR and CM location criterion. This criterion requires that CV and CR be located on opposite sides of CM.

5. It is found that the strength eccentricity and position of centre of strength are significant parameters in judging the non-linear response of the

structure with respect to base torsion.

REFERENCES

1. International Association for Earthquake Engineering. Regulations for Seismic DesignA World List. IAEE: Tokyo, 2000.

2. Myslimaj, B. and Tso, W.K. 2003. A yield displacement distribution-based approach for strength assignment to lateral force-resisting

elements having strength dependent stiffness International Journal of Earthquake Engineering and structural Dynamics, 32, 2319-2351

.

3. Clough RW, Johnston SB. Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements. Proceedings of the Japan Earthquake

Engineering Symposium, Tokyo, Japan, 1966, pp. 227232.

4. Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings. Wiley: New York, 1992.

5. Tso, W. K., and Meng, V. (1982). "Torsional provisions in building codes." Tso, W. K, and Meng, V. (1982). "Torsional provisions in

building codes." Can. Can. 9(1), 38-46.J. J. Civ. Civ. Engrg., Engrg., 9(1), 38-46.

6. IS 875(1987), Indian Standard Code of practice for Design loads for buildings and structures, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

7. Aschheim M. Seismic design based on the yield displacement. Earthquake Spectra 2002; 18:581600.

8. Murthy C.V.R, Learning earthquake design.

9. Agarwal Shrikhande Mansih, earth quake resistant design of structures.

10. Paul, D.K. Simplified seismic analysis of framed buildings on hill slopes, Bulletin of Indian Society of earthquake technology, Vol

30, No4, paper 335,Dec 1993,pp113124.

## Viel mehr als nur Dokumente.

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

Jederzeit kündbar.