Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Seismic Design of RC Buildings With the Aid of Advanced Analytical Techniques

Seismic Design of RC Buildings With the Aid of Advanced Analytical Techniques

|Views: 39|Likes:
Published by thanzawtun1981

More info:

Published by: thanzawtun1981 on Jun 22, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


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





Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 319–332www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Seismic design of R/C buildings with the aid of advancedanalytical techniques
Andreas J. Kappos
, Alireza Manafpour
 Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece
 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College, London SW7 2BU, UK 
Received 24 January 2000; received in revised form 5 May 2000; accepted 8 May 2000
A seismic design procedure considering performance criteria for two distinct limit states is presented, involving analysis of afeasible partial inelastic model of the structure using currently available powerful tools. The procedure is developed in a formatappropriate for incorporation into modern design codes, such as the Eurocode 8, and two alternatives are explored, one involvingtime–history analysis for appropriately scaled input motions, and a simpler one involving inelastic static (pushover) analysis. Theproposed method is found to lead to better seismic performance than the standard code procedure, at least in the case of regularmultistorey reinforced concrete frame structures studied herein, and in addition leads to a more economic design of transversereinforcement in the members that develop very little inelastic behaviour even for very strong earthquakes.
2000 Elsevier ScienceLtd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Since inelastic behaviour is typically permitted underthe design earthquake, and dynamic characteristics andconsequently earthquake-induced actions change withtime, use of analytical procedures accounting for thesetwo key features in the design process appears to be areasonable choice. However, despite the fact that theadvantages of using inelastic time–history analysis fordesign purposes have been recognised since the earlyseventies [1], code drafting committees have been reluc-tant to adopt this type of analysis, even as an alternativeto the standard (static or dynamic) elastic analysis pro-cedure.Along with several other seismic codes currently inforce, the American UBC [2] was based until 1994 onelastic analysis for equivalent static forces or a designspectrum. The 1997 edition of this code introduced forthe first time some detailed provisions for the applicationof both elastic and inelastic time–history analysis,mainly with regard to the selection and scaling of ground
* Corresponding author. Tel.:
30 31 995 743; Fax:
30 31 995 614.
 E-mail address:
ajkap@civil.auth.gr (A.J. Kappos).
Formerly, Reader at the Department of Civil and EnvironmentalEngineering, Imperial College, London, UK.
0141-0296/01/$ - see front matter
2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0141-0296(00)00052-3
motions. A similar development took place in the recentNEHRP Provisions [3] but in this case time–historyanalysis is clearly restricted to structures with seismicisolation. The seismic Eurocode, EC8 [4], recognisesthat inelastic time–history analysis might be used in thedesign procedure, but guidance is only given with regardto the selection of input accelerograms and the way theyshould be scaled to match the design spectrum. No clearindication is given in EC8 as to what model(s) shouldbe used, or which response quantities should be sought,if such an analysis is used. On the other hand, the NewZealand Code [5] is clear in specifying that the purposeof using inelastic time–history analysis might be eitherto calculate strength requirements in yielding members,or assess inelastic demands and/or capacity actions.However, guidance on the possible type of modellingthat may be adopted and on the way the results shouldbe interpreted is minimal (even in the otherwise verydetailed Commentary).A significant step forward regarding the use of inelas-tic time–history analysis in a practical context was thepublication of the NEHRP Guidelines for SeismicRehabilitation (i.e. Strengthening) of Buildings [6]; thisdocument not only promotes the use of inelastic (staticas well as dynamic) analysis methods for assessment of existing structures, but, importantly, provides detailed
A.J. Kappos, A. Manafpour / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 319–332
guidance regarding both inelastic modelling and evalu-ation of results in terms of recommended values for localinelastic deformations. These guidelines do not addressthe issue of designing new buildings.The main objective of the present study is to suggesta new procedure that offers some advantages with regardto previous ones. Both the new procedure and that of EC8 are then applied to a multistorey reinforced concrete(R/C) frame, and the designs are evaluated using anassessment procedure including multiple criteria, rep-resenting different limit-states.
2. Evaluation of existing procedures
The fact that code-drafting committees have long beenreluctant towards adopting inelastic analysis for designpurposes did not discourage the development of variousmethodologies in this direction [7–11].The potential application of a design method based oninelastic time–history analysis, which is the most sophis-ticated analytical tool currently available, depends heav-ily on the computational cost, expressed both in termsof computation time and (even more importantlynowadays) on the time required for data preparation andchecking, as well as for interpreting the results.A key point in assessing the efficiency of a designmethod is whether it is an explicit or an implicit one.By explicit it is understood that the method provides aset of closed-form equations and/or a one-cycle pro-cedure for selecting cross-section dimensions and (inR/C structures) reinforcement of members. It is notedthat, even with currently applicable code procedures, asecond analysis is usually carried out to optimise thedesign in an approximate and practical way, and thisshould not be deemed to imply that the method is notexplicit. A method is implicit if a number of iterationsare required to select member cross-sections and/orreinforcement, starting from an initial design (typicallyof the “code-type”). With one possible exception [9], allthe aforementioned methods are of the implicit type, andobviously they are associated with high computationalcosts; this appears to be one of the main reasons whythese methods have not been adopted by existing codes.Available commercial software packages make itpossible for current seismic design practice to tacklerealistic structures by means of rather sophisticated(typically 3D) analytical models. Therefore, it isbelieved that new and/or improved design methodsshould be built around these sophisticated models, ratherthan rely on the construction of additional models,whether simplified or not. In other words structuraldesign should preferably be carried out using essentiallythe same model for all limit states and types of loading.Under this perspective, earlier methods involving partialmodels consisting of one or more storeys of a frame [7]offer no real advantage.In addition to convenience and practicality consider-ations, the ability of the selected model to adequatelydescribe the dynamic response of the structure to bedesigned should also be addressed. Early methods [1]involved the dynamic analysis of SDOF inelastic sys-tems, and these models form also part of some modernmethodologies, generally falling within the “displace-ment-based design” category [12,13]. While there is nodoubt that SDOF models are well-suited for simplestructures such as isolated bridge piers, it is equally clearthat they are not suited for structures with more thanone significant modes, such as buildings with stiffnessirregularities in plan and/or in elevation. On the basis of the foregoing discussion, it seems appropriate to statethat a practical design method intended for general useshould be able to treat most of the commonly encoun-tered structural configurations, consequently it should bebuilt around models capable of describing the dynamicresponse in the fundamental, as well as in higher modes.Finally, an important consideration in evaluating adesign method should be the way performance criteria,in particular the degree of seismic damage, are checked.There are at least two issues that have to be addressed inthis respect. The first issue is whether damage is checkedexplicitly, using some appropriate damage index baseddirectly on inelastic deformations (and/or hystereticenergy dissipation), as suggested by Hatamoto et al.[10], or, alternatively, performance is checked based onquantities indirectly related to damage, such as globaldisplacements (e.g. interstorey drifts) or even forces (e.g.ratios of elastic force demands to member resistances).A second, related, issue is whether the method permitschecking of performance locally, as well as globally.Whereas macroscopic quantities such as interstoreydrifts are good indicators of both local and global dam-age in regular structures, this is not generally the casein more complex and/or irregular structures. In all casesit is important that the design procedure recognise the“weak links” and the designer be given the opportunityto remedy the situation through appropriate detailing.
3. Suggested procedure
A procedure based on time–history analysis anddeveloped in a format appropriate for incorporation intomodern design codes, was first presented by the firstauthor [14] specifically for the capacity design of col-umns in R/C buildings, and detailed comparisons withseveral existing capacity design procedures were made.This procedure forms a critical part of the methodpresented in the following, which however constitutes acomprehensive proposal for performance-based designof R/C buildings; moreover, a simpler alternative of themethod, based on pushover analysis is also presented,and both methods are evaluated through a case-studyinvolving a multistorey R/C frame.
 A.J. Kappos, A. Manafpour / Engineering Structures 23 (2001) 319–332
Some key features of the proposed method are:
Use of a reduced (or partial) inelastic model, which,although departing from standard approaches (at leastfor fixed base structures), is nevertheless feasible,even in the case of 3D structures, and can be used ina design office environment.
Explicit treatment of two limit states (or performancelevels), with corresponding performance criteria atglobal, as well as local, level.
Depending on the configuration of the structural sys-tem, simple (equivalent static) or more refined (set of input accelerograms) loading patterns can be used.
3.1. Outline of the method 
The various steps in the suggested methodology aresummarised below; it is assumed that the structure hasalready been designed to satisfy code requirements undernormal (gravity, wind, environmental) loading.1. Flexural design of the beams of the structure for theseismic action under which the structure is requiredto remain essentially in the elastic range, combinedwith the appropriate (“quasi-permanent”) gravityloading. For usual buildings this action can be takenas a fraction
(varying from about 2/3 to 3/4) of the“serviceability” earthquake having a 50% probabilityof exceedance in 50 years; lower probabilities areappropriate for critical facilities. The
factor isintended to provide (in combination with the mini-mum reinforcement requirements) a level of strengthto the structure adequate for satisfying the ser-viceability criteria of step 5.Design moments are calculated from an elastic analy-sis based on the fundamental mode or multiple modes,depending on the structural system, and stiffnesses of members are estimated assuming moderate amount of cracking. If required, some moment redistribution iscarried out with a view to optimising beam design.If structural walls are present, their critical regions(typically including the first one or two storeys) arealso designed for flexure, using moments (and axialloads) calculated from the foregoing analysis.2. Detailing of the flexural reinforcement of beams (andwall critical regions), taking into account minimumrequirements and convenience of construction. Thisstep establishes a basic strength level for the structure,as the strength of the remaining members stronglydepends on that of beams (see following steps).3. Selection of an appropriate set of input accelerog-rams, using techniques similar to those described inmodern seismic codes [2,4,6]. Either artificial, spec-trum-compatible, or (preferably) actually recorded,motions, can be used, and a minimum of three recordsis recommended.4. Construction of a model of the structure whereinbeams are modelled as yielding elements, with theirstrength based on the reinforcement actually present(including that in the adjacent slab), and with dueconsideration of factors such as stiffness degradation;for beams designed according to modern seismicdesign practice strength degradation is normally notan issue, at least for the limit states considered herein.In the same model, columns, as well as portions of walls (when present) intended to remain elastic, aremodelled as elastic members. With regard to initialstiffness assumptions, fixed percentages of the grosssection rigidity
for each member type may be usedfor convenience, but somewhat more sophisticationcan be justified in selecting the stiffness of beams,whose reinforcement is already known. In practice,the same model can also be used for the first set of analyses (step 1), with beams assumed to be of “infi-nite” strength (i.e. to respond elastically).5. Time–history analysis of the model described in theprevious step for the selected set of input motionsscaled to the intensity of the “serviceability” or“immediate occupancy” [6] earthquake; this earth-quake is normally associated with a probability of exceedance of 50% in 50 years.Checking of the following performance criteria:—Max drifts do not exceed the limits correspondingto damage requiring repair in the non-structuralelements (specific values for normal buildings arerecommended later in the paper). If the drift criterionis not satisfied at any storey, stiffening of the struc-ture is necessary; this can be done by increasing thecross-section dimensions and/or reinforcement (inthe second case the effective stiffness of the beamsshould be calculated using expressions involving thereinforcement ratio).—Plastic rotations in beam critical regions do notexceed the value corresponding to “non-tolerable”cracking (typically that requiring repair). If thespecified ductility limits are exceeded in some mem-bers, the corresponding reinforcement is increased.It is emphasised that both criteria have to be satis-fied, as their role is complementary, the one mainlyreferring to damage in the “non-structural” elementsand the other to damage in R/C members. It is alsonoted that care is required in defining this ser-viceability limit state which is not the same as thecorresponding one under gravity loading; the latterrefers primarily to durability requirements, whereasthe former involves some visible damage in bothstructural and non-structural elements, but the struc-ture generally does not require structural repair andalso can be occupied immediately after the earth-quake.

You're Reading a Free Preview

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