Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
44Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Over Strength and Force Reduction Factors of Multi Storey Reinforced-concrete Buildings

Over Strength and Force Reduction Factors of Multi Storey Reinforced-concrete Buildings

Ratings:

5.0

(4)
|Views: 4,453|Likes:
Published by lbychd
A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY
A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY

More info:

Categories:Types, School Work
Published by: lbychd on Mar 18, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

01/30/2013

pdf

text

original

 
OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS OFMULTISTOREY REINFORCED-CONCRETE BUILDINGS
A. S. ELNASHAI
1
* AND A. M. MWAFY
2
1
 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA
2
Civil Engineering Department, University of Zagazig, Egypt 
SUMMARYThis paper addresses the issue of horizontal overstrength in modern code-designed reinforced-concrete (RC)buildings. The relationship between the lateral capacity, the design force reduction factor, the ductility level andthe overstrength factor are investigated. The lateral capacity and the overstrength factor are estimated by means of inelastic static pushover as well as time-history collapse analysis for 12 buildings of various characteristicsrepresenting a wide range of contemporary RC buildings. The importance of employing the elongated periods of structures to obtain the design forces is emphasized. Predicting this period from free vibration analysis byemploying ‘effective’ flexural stiffnesses is investigated. A direct relationship between the force reduction factorused in design and the lateral capacity of structures is confirmed in this study. Moreover, conservativeoverstrength of medium and low period RC buildings designed according to Eurocode 8 is proposed. Finally, theimplication of the force reduction factor on the commonly utilized overstrength definition is highlighted.Advantages of using an additional measure of response alongside the overstrength factor are emphasized. This isthe ratio between the overstrength factor and the force reduction factor and is termed the inherent overstrength(
i
). The suggested measure provides more meaningful results of reserve strength and structural response thanoverstrength and force reduction factors. Copyright
2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
1. INTRODUCTIONNotwithstanding the recent development of deformation-based design methods, conventional seismicdesign procedures in all modern seismic codes still adopt force-based design criteria. The basicconcept of the former is to design the structure for a target displacement rather than a strength level.Hence, the deformation, which is the major cause of damage and collapse of structures subjected toearthquakes, can be controlled during the design. Nevertheless, the traditional concept of reducing theanticipated seismic forces using a single reduction factor, to arrive at the design force level, is stillwidely utilized. This is because of the satisfactory performance of buildings designed to modern codesin full-scale tests and during recent earthquakes especially with regard to life safety. Seismic codesrely on reserve strength and ductility, which improves the capability of the structure to absorb anddissipate energy, to justify this reduction. Hence, the role of the force reduction factor and theparameters influencing its evaluation and control are essential elements of seismic design according tocodes.The values assigned to the response modification factor (
 R
) of the US codes (FEMA, 1997; UBC,1997) are intended to account for both reserve strength and ductility (ATC, 1995). The same allowance
THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL BUILDINGS
Struct. Design Tall Build.
11
, 329–351 (2002)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI:10.1002/tal.204
Copyright
2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received October 2000 Accepted March 2001
* Correspondence to: A. S. Elnashai, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA. E-mail: aelnash@uiuc.edu
 
for overstrength is quite obvious in the force reduction factor definition of the Canadian (CCBFC,1995), the New Zealand (SNZ, 1992) and the Japanese (IAEE, 1992) codes. For instance, a calibrationfactor (
), which accounts for an overstrength of 1
Á
67, has been already introduced in Canada.Eurocode 8 (EC8; see CEN, 1994) definition of the force reduction factor (behaviour factor q) does notexplicitly account for reserve strength. This is also clear from the lower factors of of EC8 comparedwith the US codes. However, structural systems with lower levels of redundancy are assigned lowerforce reduction factors in EC8, hence it implicitly takes into consideration that some factors contributeto overstrength. It is worthy to note that redundancy is considered here as a parameter contributing tooverstrength, contrary to the proposal of ATC-19 (ATC, 1995), splitting
R
into three factors: strength,ductility and redundancy. If the force reduction factors of EC8 are dependent on overstrength, then thelatter should be estimated when evaluating the former. If not, then the force reduction factors proposedby EC8 should be regarded as equivalent global ductility factors (
 R
) and overstrength should beaccounted for additionally (Fischinger and Fajfar, 1990).It is therefore accepted to include the effect of reserve strength in calibrating the force reductionfactor. However, a generally applicable and precise estimation of overstrength is difficult to determinesince many factors contributing to it involve uncertainties. The actual strength of materials,confinement effects, the contribution of nonstructural elements and the actual participation of somestructural elements such as reinforced-concrete slabs are factors leading to high uncertainties (Humarand Ragozar, 1996). However, not all factors contributing to overstrength are favourable. Flexuraloverstrength in the beams of moment-resisting frames may cause storey collapse mechanisms or brittleshear failure in beams. Nonstructural elements also may cause shear failure in columns or soft storeyfailure (Park, 1996). Moreover, the overstrength factor varies widely according to the period of thestructure, the design intensity level, the structural system and the ductility level assumed in the design.This compounds the difficulties associated with evaluating this factor accurately.Given that the reduction in seismic forces via the
R
factor is justified by the ductile response and theunquantified overstrength of structures, the accurate evaluation and investigation of interrelationshipsbetween these quantities, which are still based on engineering judgement, is an essential and pressingobjective. The aim of the current study is to evaluate and clarify the above, using a set of 12 RCbuildings varying in characteristics. The buildings are designed according to EC8, representingmodern seismic codes. The degree of variation between these buildings is considered to be sufficient tocover a reasonable range of conventional medium-rise buildings. The work is part of an extensivestudy to calibrate the force reduction factors of conventional RC buildings. For the sake of brevity,only the results of the strength-dependent component of the force reduction factor are presented in thispaper. Comprehensive results of this study are given elsewhere (Mwafy, 2000).2. DESCRIPTION AND MODELLING OF THE BUILDINGS
2.1. Structural Systems
Twelve structures are assessed in this study. The buildings are designed and detailed in accordancewith EC8 (CEN, 1994) as a typical modern seismic design code applicable to more than one countrywith various levels of seismicity, soil conditions and types of construction. All buildings are assumedto be found on competent soil type B (medium dense sand or stiff clays). The buildings can becategorized into the three basic structural configurations illustrated in Figure 1. The structuralcharacteristics of the assessment sample are varied to represent the most common types of RCbuildings. Different building heights (24–36 m), structural systems (moment-resisting frames andframe-wall systems) and degree of elevation irregularity are taken into consideration. For each of thethree basic configurations, four buildings are produced from combinations of two design ground330
A. S. ELNASHAI AND A. M. MWAFY
Copyright
2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Struct. Design Tall Build 
.
11
, 329–351 (2002)
 
accelerations (0
Á
15 g and 0
Á
30 g) with three design ductility levels (high, medium and low), as shownin Table 1. The selected combinations enable examining the response of buildings designed to thesame ground acceleration but for different ductility levels, and vice versa. The level of ductility variesfrom high, dictating rigorous standards on member detailing, to low, requiring no special detailing orcapacity design requirements. Generally, lower design forces are adopted as a result of increasing theability of the structure to exhibit more ductile behaviour and therefore dissipate more energy. Theforce reduction factors used in the design as well as the observed elastic fundamental periods,
elastic
,obtained from elastic free vibration analyses are also shown in Table 1.The same overall plan dimensions of 15 m
Â
20 m are utilized for the 12 buildings. The total heightsfor the three groups are 25
Á
5 m, 36 m and 24 m, respectively. The bottom storey of the first group of buildings has a height of 4
Á
5 m. All other storeys for this group and for groups 2 and 3 have equalheights of 3 m. Further vertical irregularity is introduced in the first group by the cut-off at the groundstorey of four perimeter columns. These columns are supported by long span beams, as shown inFigure 1(a). The lateral force resisting system for groups 1 and 2 is moment resisting frames, whereasgroup 3 is provided with a central core and perimeter moment-resisting frames. The core consists of two channel shear walls coupled in the
direction at each storey level by a pair of beams. The floor
Figure 1. Plane and sectional elevation of the buildings: (a) group 1, 8-storey irregular frame (IF) buildings; (b)group 2, 12-storey regular frame (RF) buildings; (c) group 3, 8-storey regular frame-wall (FW) buildings; for moredetails, see Table 1
OVERSTRENGTH AND FORCE REDUCTION FACTORS
331
Copyright
2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Struct. Design Tall Build.
11
, 329–351 (2002)

Activity (44)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
sandeepuae liked this
chairatpk liked this
magdyamdb liked this
Mohammed Zakaria liked this
AtiyaLuv You liked this
iashas24 liked this
iashas24 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->