Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
9 Evaluation of the seismic performance of a 3story ordinary moment resisting concrete frame

9 Evaluation of the seismic performance of a 3story ordinary moment resisting concrete frame

Ratings: (0)|Views: 81 |Likes:
Published by api-3869476

More info:

Published by: api-3869476 on Nov 25, 2009
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





Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.2004;33:669\u2013685 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.367)
Evaluation of the seismic performance of a three-story
ordinary moment-resisting concrete frame
Sang Whan Han1;\u2217;\u2020, Oh-Sung Kwon2 and Li-Hyung Lee1
1Department of Architectural Engineering; Hanyang University; Seoul 133-791; Korea
2Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;
Urbana; IL 61801; U.S.A.

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 \ue000exure-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 di\ue001erent 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 SAand 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

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. Insu\ue002cient details can cause unexpected structural failure during a large earthquake event.

\u2217Correspondence to: Sang Whan Han, Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul
133791, Korea.
\u2020E-mail: swhan@hanyang.ac.kr
Received 3 December 2002
Revised 29 July 2003
Copyright?2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Accepted 8 October 2003

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\u2013weak 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], de\u00ffne 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 di\ue001erent from those of IMRCF and SMRCF as follows:

(1) Strong column\u2013weak beam requirements need not be satis\u00ffed, 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\u2013column joints, and min-
imal reinforcement is required at exterior joints.
(5) Discontinuous \ue000exural 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 o\ue002ce 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 \u00ffnd 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, SCand SDsoil sites. The accelerations were scaled to conform to the design spectrum in seismic zones 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4, as classi\u00ffed in the UBC [3].

Design of OMRCF

In this study a 3-story o\ue002ce building was considered. The building was assumed to have 3 bays in the E\u2013W direction and 4 bays in the N\u2013S 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 speci\u00ffed compressive strength of concrete (f\ue000

c) 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\u2013685
All Columns
33cm x 33cm
All Beams
25cm x 50cm
Test Specimen
Beam (25cm x 50cm)
Figure 1. Plan and elevation of prototype structure: (a) plan; and (b) elevation.
Table I. Design loads.
Value (N=m2)
Dead load
Slab and roof
Interior partition
Electric and water
Total slab dead load
Live load
1st, 2nd, and roof
1:4D + 1:7L
Copyright? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn.2004;33:669\u2013685

Activity (10)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
jodi_firmansjah liked this
Pond_43 liked this
lepot1 liked this
Al Ba liked this
Choten Duba liked this
tony_pimentel liked this
Julia liked this
vernezio liked this

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)//-->