This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Struct. Design Tall Build. 9, 343–363 (2000)

**MODELING OF TWO-CELL CORES FOR THREE-DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF MULTI-STORY BUILDINGS
**

HARITON XENIDIS, KOSTAS MORFIDIS AND IOANNIS E. AVRAMIDIS*

Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54006 Thessaloniki, Greece

SUMMARY The reliability of simpliﬁed models for single-cell cores, and particularly for open and semi-open U-cross-section cores, has been the subject of many research papers in the recent past. In contrast, on an international level, only little mention has been made of the efﬁciency of such models for multi-cell cores of multi-story R/C buildings. This paper evaluates and comments on the reliability of several simpliﬁed models for open two-cell cores that are often used in practice. The models examined are: (a) models composed of equivalent columns in alternative conﬁgurations; (b) models composed of panel elements; and (c) ﬁnite shell element models with one element for each ﬂange in each story. These models are compared with one another and with the solution considered accurate, which is the one obtained by using a ﬁnite element method consisting of an adequately dense mesh of ﬁnite shell elements. The conclusions obtained refer to both the simpliﬁed modal response analysis and the multi-modal response spectrum analysis, while the speciﬁc assumptions for the numerical investigations are compatible with the provisions of modern seismic design codes. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

1. 1.1. Modeling ordinary R/C buildings

INTRODUCTION

The penetration of the ﬁnite element method into almost all ﬁelds of structural computation has not yet been able completely to replace the use of simpliﬁed modeling and analysis methods. Although these methods are less accurate, they generally satisfy the reliability requirements for conventional R/C buildings. Widely accepted models for the analysis of multi-story buildings with planar shear walls and cores are: equivalent frame models, also referred to as wide column analogy, and panel element models. Also—in some cases—core models consisting of a sparse mesh of ﬁnite elements are used. Mainly the use of the equivalent frame model has been a major success. This model was devised for the analysis of planar shear walls approximately four decades ago (Beck, 1962; MacLeod, 1967; Schwaighofer 1969). It provides a simple line-member model that represents well the behavior of single or coupled planar shear walls and makes analysis by means of conventional frame programs possible (Schwaighofer and Microys, 1969). The simplicity and effectiveness of this model has almost self-evidently led to the extension of its application to composite shear walls (cores) in threedimensional analysis of multi-story buildings (Heidebrecht and Swift, 1971; MacLeod, 1973; MacLeod and Green, 1973; MacLeod, 1976; MacLeod and Hosny, 1977; MacLeod, 1977; StaffordSmith and Abate, 1981; Lew and Narov, 1983; Stafford-Smith and Girgis, 1984). However, soon, serious deﬁciencies in the performance of this model were detected. Several investigations on this matter have shown that application of this model to open, semi-open and closed building cores

* Correspondence to: Prof. I. E. Avramidis, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, 54006 Greece.

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received February 1999 Accepted March 2000

344

H. XENIDIS ET AL.

subjected to strong torsion leads to inaccurate or even unacceptable results (Girgis and Stafford-Smith, 1979; Stafford-Smith and Girgis, 1986; Avramidis, 1991; Avramidis and Xenidis, 1991; Xenidis et al., 1992; Xenidis and Avramidis, 1992; Xenidis et al., 1993). Also, signiﬁcant deviations from the correct solution are observed for planar shear walls with varying width along their height or with irregularly distributed openings (Xenidis et al., 1994). Furthermore, it should be noted that the equivalent frame model for a given core is not unique. Quite the contrary, it depends on certain necessary assumptions that can lead to different spatial frame models (Avramidis, 1991). The differences between the possible models concern: (a) the number of equivalent columns; (b) their location in the core crosssection; and (c) the cross sectional properties of equivalent columns and interconnecting auxiliary beams (links) used at the story levels. The reliability and efﬁciency of a series of various equivalent frame models for open, mainly U-shaped cores have been investigated in depth in the recent past (Avramidis and Xenidis, 1991; Xenidis et al., 1992; Xenidis and Avramidis, 1992; Xenidis et al., 1993; Avramidis, et al., 1997; Xenidis, et al., 1998; Xenidis and Avramidis, 1999). On the contrary, the reliability of equivalent frame models for multi-cell cores, and especially for open two-cell cores is very poor, although such cores are very often encountered in practice. 1.2. Scope of the paper

When dealing with double- or multi-cell cores, the problem of choosing between the various alternatives in order to establish a satisfactory equivalent frame model becomes even more difﬁcult and complicated than in case the of non-regular yet planar shear walls. In contrast to the simple, onecell U-section core, for which web and ﬂanges are clearly identiﬁed, in multiple-cell cores this distinction is in general vague, if possible at all. This fact leads to many, rationally possible locations of the equivalent columns in plan-view (Avramidis, 1991), and, consequently, to a large number of possible spatial frame models, the reliability of which is a priori unknown. In addition, there is a high risk of inefﬁcient choice of the geometric and elastic characteristics of the equivalent columns’ and auxiliary beams’ cross sections, which can lead to completely false representation of the actual behavior of the core in space. The scope of this paper is to present a systematic examination of the reliability and efﬁciency of simpliﬁed models for the two-cell core with open cross-section, which is often used in practice for housing elevators or service ducts. Examined are: (a) models consisting of alternative conﬁgurations of equivalent columns; (b) models using panel elements; and (c) models composed of a sparse mesh of ﬁnite shell elements (one element per ﬂange and story). These models are compared with one another and with the solution considered accurate. Here, the ‘accurate’ solution is assumed to be that obtained by modeling the core by an adequately dense mesh of ﬁnite shell elements. The conclusions drawn refer to both simpliﬁed modal response analysis (also referred to as equivalent static analysis) and multi-modal response spectrum analysis (brieﬂy: response spectrum analysis), while all speciﬁc assumptions made comply with the provisions of modern seismic design codes. It should be emphasized here that previous evaluations of the efﬁciency of equivalent frame core models were mostly based on comparisons of calculated stresses for each individual ﬂange of the core separately. This common method for assessing the reliability of models was dictated by the fact that the dimensioning (i.e. the calculation of the amount of reinforcement and various checks at crosssection level) which followed the analysis were performed using programs designed for rectangular R/ C cross sections. Today, many programs are available that allow for dimensioning of arbitrarily shaped R/C sections as a unit. Therefore, it is no longer necessary to compare response stresses separately for each ﬂange of the core section. The efﬁciency of the modeling variants can be checked by comparison of the resultant cross-sectional forces in the core as a whole. By shifting the comparison from individual ﬂanges to the composite cross-section, the observed deviations of the simpliﬁed models

Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Struct. Design Tall Build. 9, 343–363 (2000)

The investigated 10-story building (Figure 2) does not have the complexity of real buildings. 2. The seismic excitation was considered to act along the x-direction. foundation coefﬁcient = 1. 1936.. a core is generally embedded in the frame skeleton of the building and connected to it through beams and slabs. 343–363 (2000) . while the core mass m = 100 kN s2 mÀ1 is considered to be concentrated at the level of each story and placed at a distance of 5 m from its mass center in the positive y-direction. 1998)—and the frame models become more acceptable in engineering practice. the deviations of the ﬁnal results become smaller. The deliberate choice of an eccentric location for the core’s mass is aiming to produce a realistically high torsional deformation in order to reveal the deﬁciencies in performance of the simpliﬁed models under consideration. deﬁciencies increase with increasing torsion. damping coefﬁcient = 5% and seismic load reduction factor q = 3. Struct. however.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 345 Figure 1. As a consequence. 1994) is used with the following data: soil A. Design Tall Build. This connection generally reduces the resulting torsional deformations of the core. The investigated isolated core (Figure 1) is 10-story high. at the two opposite edges of the core’s top. Because. In practice. it does have the basic characteristics of typical multi-story R/C buildings. Plane view of the investigated two-cell core measured up to the exact solution become smaller—as has been already pointed out (Xenidis et al. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS AND MODELS Basic modeling assumptions It should be noted that the largest deviations of the various simpliﬁed core models are observed when investigating isolated cores. which might have complicated the derivation of clear and unambiguous conclusions. 9. all analyses are carried out using the two-cell open core shown in Figure 1 and the 10story building shown in Figure 2. the design spectrum of the Greek seismic design code (Manos. results are presented that concern both: isolated cores and cores integrated into the building’s load bearing system. and absolutely ﬁxed at its base. 2. Avramidis. In order to evaluate the differences in the ﬁnal effectiveness of simpliﬁed models.1. the loading consists of two equal horizontal forces of 300 kN each along the positive and negative ydirection. while the height of each of the other stories is 3Á0 m. 1991). as the study of U-shaped cores has shown (Stafford-Smith and Girgis. which are the main source of inaccuracies in the models’ responses to external loading. For the response spectrum analysis. respectively. The 1st story has a height of 5Á0 m. seismic zone II (A = 0Á16g). importance factor = 1. In the present paper. Ltd. The eccentric location of the open twoCopyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. For static analysis. However.

As already proven in previous papers (Avramidis. and (e) the seismic loads are considered to act on the mass centers ignoring openings in the core area or other eccentricies. Ltd.346 H. accidental or not. 1991. the following simpliﬁcations are made: (a) the ﬂoor slabs are assumed to act as absolutely rigid diaphragms (no in-plane deformations). these equivalent static loads are not exactly the same for all models. deviations become larger if the cores are subjected to intense torsion due to the asymmetric plan-view conﬁguration of the building. 1992b). They are slightly different because of slight differences in the fundamental periods of the various models. XENIDIS ET AL. 1992a) and ETABS (Wilson and Habibullah. 1994) by using the uncoupled fundamental period of the building. Avramidis and Xenidis. it serves the purpose of identifying the highest possible deviations of non-isolated core models. The magnitudes and the vertical distribution of the horizontal seismic loads for the equivalent static analysis of the building are determined according to the design spectrum of the Greek seismic design code (Manos. As can be seen in Table I. 1991). Figure 2. (d) small eccentricities in the connections of beams and columns are neglected. 9. Here. shear and torsional deformations in line-elements have been taken into account. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. (c) ﬂexural as well as axial. Design Tall Build. 343–363 (2000) . Struct. 10-story building cell core at the upper left corner of the plan view should. All calculations are performed using the linear static and dynamic analysis programs SAP90 (Wilson and Habibullah. In modeling the building. be avoided in real constructions. (b) the contribution of the slabs to the ﬂexural stiffness of the beams has been taken into account assuming co-operating widths of 1Á25 m for the interior beams and 0Á75 m for the beams on the perimeter. of course.

which are automatically calculated by SAP90. for example. 6 and corresponding seismic loadings for the equivalent static analysis of the building in the x-direction (a) and y-direction (b) No. 1991). 343–363 (2000) . Ltd. 2 0Á7244 2192Á22 430Á35 383Á81 335Á05 284Á68 235Á48 186Á73 140Á25 99Á54 63Á16 33Á17 No. Fundamental uncoupled natural periods for Models No.3. while these properties in the vertical x–z and y–z planes were set to zero. 1) As already mentioned. 1977 and Avramidis.. auxiliary axially rigid beams were used with practically ‘inﬁnite’ ﬂexural and shear stiffnesses in the horizontal x–y plane. Struct. shear forces Q. 1 Tx Vo 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0Á7076 2226Á85 445Á07 395Á20 343Á37 290Á23 238Á55 187Á63 139Á34 97Á26 60Á03 30Á19 No. Based on preliminary solutions. Figure 3 Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. 5 0Á7061 2229Á87 446Á98 396Á66 344Á37 291Á08 238Á91 187Á72 139Á25 96Á70 59Á20 28Á98 No. 3 and No. the basis for comparison and reference solution are served by a core model consisting of an adequately dense mesh of ﬁnite shell elements (Model No.2. 9. statically equivalent nodal forces of the shell elements are used. 4 0Á7087 2224Á39 446Á30 395Á78 343Á58 290Á25 238Á18 187Á08 138Á74 96Á29 58Á99 29Á19 No. 1 Ty Vo 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0Á8400 1986Á15 368Á48 336Á31 300Á33 260Á44 219Á12 176Á26 134Á32 96Á91 62Á06 31Á87 No. The resultants of the balanced equivalent nodal forces can than be compared with stress resultants from frame models (bending moments M. Core modeling with equivalent frames (Models No. and axial forces N). 6 0Á7056 2231Á07 447Á05 396Á82 344Á62 291Á11 239Á11 187Á86 139Á21 96Á80 59Á26 29Á21 No. Core modeling with ﬁnite shell elements (Model No. No. 1997. 4 0Á8394 1987Á15 367Á39 335Á79 300Á25 260Á69 219Á49 176Á75 135Á04 97Á46 62Á40 31Á90 No. instead of the element stresses themselves. 4) The basic rules for the creation of models using equivalent frames for shear walls and cores are described in detail in the literature (see. In addition. 6 0Á8285 2004Á52 375Á40 342Á30 305Á30 264Á40 221Á60 177Á50 134Á50 95Á70 59Á60 28Á30 S t o r i e s S t o r i e s 2. 1–No.. 2. 5 0Á8300 2002Á07 374Á87 341Á84 304Á91 264Á07 221Á38 177Á28 134Á37 95Á59 59Á53 28Á24 No. 3 0Á7092 2223Á46 446Á10 395Á60 343Á40 290Á10 238Á10 187Á00 138Á70 96Á20 59Á00 29Á20 (a) No. 3 0Á6846 2276Á43 442Á20 396Á70 348Á60 298Á20 247Á50 196Á60 147Á50 103Á50 64Á00 31Á60 (b) No. in order to enforce the rigid diaphragm behavior at the story levels. 2. in order to be able to compare results.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 347 Table I. 1998). Xenidis et al. the balanced. 2 0Á8522 1967Á17 357Á31 327Á78 294Á09 256Á22 217Á01 176Á03 135Á84 100Á02 66Á24 36Á62 No. a mesh with elements of 1Á0 m Â 1Á0 m for the web and the ﬂanges of the core was considered adequate (Avramidis et al. Design Tall Build. It should be noted that. 1). MacLeod.

At this point the reader should be reminded of the important role played by the absolutely stiff beams (rigid offsets. 2. Bending moments. (1998) and Wilson and Habibullah (1992). Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. whose performance is investigated in the present paper. Ltd. 2. For reasons already explained in Section 1. 3 and No. 9. The three investigated equivalent frame models (Models No. Figure 3. rigid links interconnecting the equivalent columns at the story levels) in correctly rendering the torsional behavior of the core: these beams must not hinder the warping of the core’s cross-section. 2 and No. 1991). while in models using only one equivalent column (No. 4) warping of the cross-section cannot be simulated at all (Stafford-Smith and Girgis. Model No. 5) A detailed description of the panel elements used here is given in Xenidis et al. No. Core modeling with panel elements (Model No. attention is drawn to the necessity of correctly modeling the torsional stiffness of the core. and. Avramidis. This can be achieved by using additional auxiliary columns at the edges of the core model.2. the evaluation of their reliability is of major importance for the design engineer in everyday practice. can be characterized as the ‘classical model’. XENIDIS ET AL. 2. 3 and No. N is performed using their resultant values for the composite cross-section. 1986. 343–363 (2000) . the comparison of stresses M. for that reason. 2. The other two models are picked out because of the fact that they are integrated in many professional structural analysis programs. 3 are transferred to the mass center of the core’s cross-section according to the well-known rules for resolution. 2–No. shear and axial forces in the equivalent columns of models No. Here. No. which is the ﬁrst frame model used for cores. Struct. while all other sectional stiffnesses must be set equal to zero. addition and transmissibility of forces.4. This can be achieved only in the case of classical model No. 4. Design Tall Build. These ﬁctitious columns should have torsional stiffnesses of appropriate magnitude. 4) represents a plan-view of the three equivalent frames models. Q.348 H.

they provide a more efﬁcient simulation of ﬂexural as well as of torsional deformations at element level.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 349 2. The comparison and evaluation of models are based on the results from the static analysis of the isolated core (Figure 1) under strong torsional strain and also on the results from the equivalent static analysis of the 10-story building (Figure 2) for seismic loading along the x. The inability of Models No. they conﬁrm similar conclusions worked out in the past concerning particular core models (Avramidis. the basis for all comparisons is served by the results obtained from the analysis of the investigated structural systems using a highly accurate ﬁnite shell element model (model No. Although in the present paper only results concerning the 10-story building of Figure 2 are presented. 3 and No. Apparently. and (b) for simultaneously imposed seismic excitations along the x. 2 (with one equivalent column at the mass center of each ﬂange of the core) displays a quite acceptable performance.1. Equivalent static analysis Displacements and natural periods of the isolated core. 3. they are based on a large number of investigations of various building structures as well. Xenidis et al. Design Tall Build. These analyses were performed: (a) for an eccentric seismic excitation of the isolated core along the x-axis.2.1. 1–No. the comparisons include two line-elements of the building’s structural system: (a) column Æ11 on the perimeter. which is diametrically opposed to the core and is expected to perform large displacements. 1. Core modeling with one shell element per ﬂange and story (Model No.2. 5 (panel elements) and No. 1998). As mentioned before. Displacement of the stories’ mass centers (Figure 4). Warping of the core’s cross-section (Figure 5). Taylor and Simo (1985) and Wilson and Habibullah (1992a). show very large deviations (see Figure 4). Thus. 6). In addition. Xenidis et al. 1). Model No. respectively.2. in order to check the reliability of the various models in the case of dynamic loading. 1991. can be obtained by replacing each panel element by a ﬁnite shell element of the type described in Batoz and Tahar (1982). The results include static displacements and stresses. which is coupled with the core and is expected to develop relatively large stresses.. 4 to simulate the warping at the top of the composite cross-section of the core is due to the fact that the Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. Subsequently. and because.1. and (b) beam D1. The results for Models No. Models No. auxiliary beams along the ﬂanges at all story levels are used. the results from a series of response spectrum analyses are used.2. the conclusions drawn can be considered to be of wider validity because. 6 (one shell element per ﬂange and story) are practically identical with the corresponding values of Model No. 1991. and also natural vibration periods for all models presented above (No. 3 and No. These shell elements combine membrane and bending behavior and incorporate all three rotational degrees of freedom at their nodes.1. 3. In order to account for the rigid diaphragm behavior of the slabs. 1. 9. 343–363 (2000) . 6) An alternative modeling. these are due to the inherent inability of these models to correctly account for the warping resistance (Vlasov warping) of the composite crosssection of the core (Avramidis.2. Ltd.. the sectional properties of which are the same as described for Model No. on the other hand. 3.and y-directions. 3. 4 with one equivalent column at the shear center and at the center of mass.5. 3. similar to that with panel elements.1. 1993). MODEL COMPARISON AND SELECTIVE PRESENTATION OF RESULTS Introduction The results obtained from the analysis of the isolated core (Figure 1) and of the building structure (Figure 2) are selectively presented below. on the one hand. 3. Struct.and y-axes of the building. to a large extend.

1—Equivalent static analysis model consists of a single equivalent column. 2 produces values with signiﬁcant deviations from the reference solution. while Models No.350 H.3. XENIDIS ET AL. because of the availability of Figure 5. 3. 6 with reference to Model No. No. Warping at the open core’s top for Models No.2.2. 3 and No. 5 and No. 6 display acceptable responses. 2. Ltd. 5 and No. 6 perform very well. 343–363 (2000) . the assessment of the modeling effectiveness was based in earlier investigations on results for the individual ﬂanges of the core.2. 1. Natural vibration periods (Table II). 5 and No. 2–No.2. From the results shown in Figure 5. Stresses of the isolated core (Figures 6 and 7). Models No.1. 9. Design Tall Build. Thus. while Model No. No. As mentioned in Section 1. The above mentioned remarks concerning the models’ performance are further consolidated by results obtained for natural vibration periods. 6—equivalent static analysis (the vertical displacements are given in meters) Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. Struct. Models No. all far end nodes of the rigid links connected to the equivalent column at each story level perform dependent vertical displacements in such a way that the rigid links remain always in the same plane. 3. Figure 4. This is not necessary any more. Percentage divergences of displacements and rotations at the stories’ mass centers of Models No. No. 2. 4 exhibit large positive deviations for the ﬁrst (fundamental) vibration period.

N-diagrams for the left ﬂange of the open core for Models No. 1 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 3Á823 2Á042 0Á925 0Á525 0Á379 0Á340 0Á205 0Á144 0Á124 0Á102 No. for example. Models No. 6 to the ‘accurate’ reference solution leads to the conclusion that frame Model No. 1–No.and N-diagrams for Models No. the following comparisons refer to the stresses in the left ﬂange and in the web of the isolated core (Figures 6 and 7). Struct. in the case of an isolated core. 5 and No. the deviations of the overall response of the composite cross-section are deﬁnitely smaller than the deviations of the individual responses of the core’s ﬂanges. which probably arises from their oversimpliﬁed geometry. Design Tall Build. 5 and No. 2..values at the higher stories of the left ﬂange and along the full height of the core’s web). Q-. 1.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 351 Table II. No. 6 No. No. here. Ltd. 9. no such differences occur. Q-. Q. 5 3Á652 1Á956 0Á868 0Á498 0Á347 0Á313 0Á185 0Á117 0Á113 0Á094 No. which can be regarded as a statically determinate cantilever. 6 3Á646 1Á953 0Á866 0Á499 0Á348 0Á313 0Á188 0Á121 0Á114 0Á095 professional programs allowing for dimensioning (designing and verifying) an arbitrarily shaped R/ C cross-section as a whole. Therefore. 1998). the M-. comparison of stresses for individual ﬂanges is legitimate. However. 2 displays signiﬁcant deviations (compare. 343–363 (2000) . Figure 6. 4 6Á433 2Á147 1Á979 1Á291 0Á934 0Á742 0Á626 0Á552 0Á504 0Á473 No. 4 proved to be of very poor effectiveness. M-. 2. 6— equivalent static analysis Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. Therefore. 3 and No. As already reported (Xenidis et al. In particular. Careful comparison of the shape and ordinates of M-. 2 3Á315 1Á986 0Á864 0Á513 0Á379 0Á332 0Á218 0Á147 0Á127 0Á110 No. Natural periods of vibration of isolated cores for Models No. N. No. 3 5Á534 1Á847 1Á111 0Á932 0Á803 0Á638 0Á538 0Á506 0Á474 0Á433 No. these two models are not further investigated.

Model No. M-. giving a near zero deviation for the ﬁrst (fundamental) natural period. No. No. although both models are torsionally stiffer compared with the reference model. Among them.. e. 3 produces unacceptably large deviations. Model No. Warping of the core’s cross-section (Figure 9). T1) show noticeable deviations. 1. No.3. 3 (compare. 5 and No. 4. 6.3.1. Stresses of the 10-story building.4. For the reasons mentioned in Sections 1. 2. Displacements of the stories’ mass centers (Figure 8). 3. 3 (one equivalent column at the shear center) is more ﬂexible and Model No. Models No. while it is maintained for displacements orthogonal to the earthquake. . 6—equivalent static analysis 3. N are Struct. 1. Natural vibration periods (Table III). respectively) also exhibit a quite acceptable behavior. 4 (one equivalent column at the mass center) is less ﬂexible than the reference Model No. 3. It is also maintained for rotation about the vertical axis. 1. 5 and No. 3. 3.3. turns out. e. Models No. The panel element model and the model with one shell element per ﬂange and story (No.2. 3 and No. Displacements and natural periods of the 10-story building.2. in general. In contrast. Q-.g.4.2 and 2. very good results. The classical Model No. the stresses M.2. 2 simulates the cross-section warping quantitatively better than Model No.2. 6 yield.. For seismic excitation along the y-direction (see Figure 8b) this situation is inverted for displacements in the excitation’s direction. 2. Design Tall Build.3.2. 6 produce acceptable results of similar reliability. to be more accurate than Models No. N-diagrams for the web of the open core for Models No.352 H.1. Ltd.2. 2 yields the best results. The results for the (coupled) natural vibration periods of the building also conﬁrm the previous observations about the models’ behavior: Models No. 343–363 (2000) Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. when the seismic load acts along the x-direction (Figure 8a). like model No.g. 2. 5 and No. Q. XENIDIS ET AL. 4 (compare. The preliminary remarks and conclusions concerning the reliability of the different models as resulting from the data presented so far is further consolidated by results referring to the core’s cross-section warping: Model No. General remarks. although appearing a bit stiffer in both seismic directions. 9.3.3. Model No. 3. T2) and No. 2. 4. Figure 7. 5 and No. with displacement values that are practically identical with the corresponding values of the reference Model No.2.

343–363 (2000) . 4 and No. the former method must be preferred. N to the mass center of the composite cross-section is performed according to the well-known rules of force resolution. N are calculated directly by the analysis programs used here. 1. Qy. Percentage divergences of displacements and rotations at the stories’ mass centers of Models No. In contrast. 4. 5 and No. while for the other models the transfer of the M. Design Tall Build. Q.2.. moments and shear stresses at the column’s base). addition and transmissibility (Xenidis et al. Struct. 1. 2–No. 1998). 3.2. Q. As the latter method cannot properly account for the contribution of the co-operating widths of the actually transverse ﬂanges. No. N in column Æ11 (Figure 10). It is worth mentioning that calculation of reinforcements considering composite cross-section as a unit and based on the resultant cross sectional forces is much more effective than calculations of reinforcement based on sectional forces determined for each individual ﬂange separately and carried out for its rectangular cross-section. 6 show deviations on the unsafe side (compare. 6 with reference to Model No. 6 with reference to Model No. while Model No. 5 the resultant values M.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 353 Figure 8a. Diagrams of sectional forces M. Model No. which is the structural subsystem causing most of the modeling problems.. 2–No. 2 (‘classical’) produces the most satisfactory results. Seismic loading in the x-direction—equivalent static analysis Figure 8b. although displaying large ﬂuctuations in results. Figure 10 presents stresses My. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. Q. For Models No.4. Ltd. Percentage divergences of displacements and rotations at the stories’ mass centers of Models No. 3.g. e. N in column Æ11 for seismic excitation in the x-direction. 9. generally behaves more conservatively. Models No. Seismic loading in the y-direction—equivalent static analysis given as overall (resultant) values at the mass center of the composite cross-section of the core.

6. 1–No. 4 1Á0001 0Á7668 0Á5115 0Á3641 0Á2391 0Á2072 0Á1395 0Á1288 0Á1172 0Á1073 No. Seismic loading in the x-direction (a) and in the ydirection (b)—equivalent static analysis (the vertical displacements are given in meters) Table III. Ltd. 6 0Á9741 0Á7706 0Á4658 0Á3515 0Á2391 0Á1996 0Á1327 0Á1211 0Á1158 0Á1013 Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. 3 0Á9752 0Á6898 0Á4438 0Á3579 0Á2056 0Á1865 0Á1392 0Á1093 0Á1065 0Á0861 No. XENIDIS ET AL. 1–No. 9. 6 No.354 H. Struct. 2 0Á9850 0Á7893 0Á4810 0Á3560 0Á2523 0Á2014 0Á1334 0Á1279 0Á1261 0Á1015 No. Figure 9. Warping at the core’s top for Models No. 1 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 0Á9812 0Á7797 0Á4708 0Á3548 0Á2449 0Á2015 0Á1344 0Á1235 0Á1207 0Á1033 No. Natural periods of vibration Ti (i = 1–10) for Models No. 5 0Á9758 0Á7715 0Á4663 0Á3518 0Á2392 0Á1989 0Á1310 0Á1169 0Á1145 0Á0986 No. Design Tall Build. 343–363 (2000) .

9. M-. Model No. On the other hand. Xenidis et al..4.2.2. 1999). 1. 1–No. 1–No. as do Models No. although not exhibiting large deviations from the reference Model No. Avramidis et al. 1992. are deﬁnitely less efﬁcient compared to the other models. 4. Avramidis and Xenidis. Xenidis et al. 3. Design Tall Build.. 1998. careful examination of Figure 11. 6. 5 and No.g. Q-diagrams for beam D1 for Models No.3. Struct. In contrast.4. Here too. 6 (compare. Seismic loading in the x-direction—equivalent static analysis Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons.. 1991. 1993. Xenidis et al. e. My-. moments and shear stresses at the 1st story). 1991. As has been shown in previous papers (Avramiridis. results based either on oversimpliﬁed or on overcomplicated models of building cores display large deviations from the solution of the reference model as well as from each other. N-diagrams for column Æ11 for Models No. Moments and shear stresses in beam D1 (Figure 11). the equivalent frame models No. 6 of the 1st story of the building. 1992.. 1997. Qx-.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 355 Figure 10.4. Xenidis and Avramidis. Ltd. 2 performs very well. Stresses in the core (Figure 12). 343–363 (2000) . 3 and No. Seismic loading in the x-direction— equivalent static analysis 3.. Xenidis and Avramidis.

Figure 12a. 343–363 (2000) . Qx-. Design Tall Build. My-. 1–No. 1–No.and N-diagrams (Figures 12 a. 9. XENIDIS ET AL. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd. N-diagrams in core’s section for Models No. Seismic loading in the xdirection—equivalent static analysis Figure 12b. Struct.356 H. N-diagrams in core’s cross-section for Models No.b) of the core investigated in this paper (as well as of a series of other cores and structural systems) leads to the general observation that discrepancies between models reduce signiﬁcantly if the stress resultants of the core section as a whole are compared with each other. Mx-. 6. Qx. 6. Seismic loading in the y-direction— equivalent static analysis shape and ordinates of the My-. Qy-.

where a good approximation of stresses is considered to be of great importance in engineering practice.3. 4 No. 6. 6. 6 (sparse mesh shell element model) provide acceptable results. 1 Qx Qy N Mx My 1Á09% 57Á44% 23Á72% 7Á13% À9Á69% 27Á58% À3Á72% 7Á78% À2Á32% À3Á88% À0Á18% 1Á21% À7Á09% 154Á35% À3Á17% 6Á03% À4Á35% 38Á63% 5Á63% 3Á92% Percentage divergences {(aiÀbi)/ai} Â100 of Models No. 2–No. 1 (a) No. It should also be noted that the average deviations in the case of response spectrum analysis are Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. 2 340Á1 1205Á4 2723Á1 7168Á0 4388Á9 No. 5 360Á4 1438Á6 2821Á5 8180Á10 4768Á5 No. 3 1192Á3 342Á6 971Á1 3281Á2 18253Á4 No. reveals major differences between the models. 2 (‘classical’ equivalent frame). 5 1353Á4 258Á5 1093Á3 1472Á10 19236Á4 No. 4 No. comparisons of displacements and stresses of the 10-story building were based on results obtained for simultaneously imposed seismic excitations along the x. 6 6Á08% À2Á37% À0Á14% 1Á07% 2Á48% À2Á64% À6Á40% 4Á82% 6Á25% À11Á06% 30Á26% 8Á37% À1Á72% À2Á62% À11Á73% À0Á98% À0Á63% À9Á21% 124Á85% À10Á84% 0Á88% À3Á18% À2Á83% 6Á36% 2Á41% Percentage divergences {(aiÀbi)/ai} Â100 in reference to Model No. Struct. Model No. 5 (panel elements) and No.3.and ydirections using the same response spectrum. Design Tall Build. 5 No. 4 1335Á2 285Á0 1089Á5 1301Á2 19978Á5 No. 2 No. Seismic loading in the xdirection (a) and in the y-direction (b)—equivalent static analysis No. Ltd. 343–363 (2000) . 6 360Á2 1439Á7 2834Á2 8215Á7 4719Á7 No. 1 Qx Qy N Mx My 336Á4 1334Á8 2787Á7 7714Á9 4588Á4 No. 3 (one equivalent column at the shear center) is judged to be unreliable.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 357 Table IV. in spite of this general observation. Model No. 6 7Á06% 7Á86% 1Á67% 6Á49% 2Á86% No. 3 529Á6 1702Á9 2679Á6 19623Á0 6360Á7 No. N at the core’s basis (Table IV). 1 Qx Qy N Mx My No. comparing M. with reference to Model (b) However. 4 and. 9. No. 3. More precisely. 5 No. Response spectrum analysis 3. 1 No. 6 1351Á3 256Á8 1098Á7 1474Á9 19249Á8 No. General remarks. Resultant stresses in core’s cross-section at 0Á00 m for Models No. Q. On the contrary. Model No. 1 Qx Qy N Mx My 1273Á8 263Á0 1100Á2 1459Á3 18784Á5 No. On the other hand. 3 No. It should be recalled that comparisons of displacements and stresses in the isolated core were based on results obtained for eccentric seismic excitation along the xdirection. 2 1240Á2 233Á9 1071Á4 1324Á9 18188Á0 No.1. in accordance to modern seismic design codes. to an even larger extend. 3 No. 4 416Á2 1285Á1 2782Á7 7470Á0 4846Á6 No. 1–No. 2 No.

Stresses in the isolated core (Figures 14 and 15). they do not occur simultaneously and. as these are spectral. for the 10-story building under consideration. it must be realized that in case of response spectrum analysis it was not possible to compare core stresses directly. the computer programs used (Wilson and Habibullah. From the diagrams of spectral displacements ux. 5. here the panel element Model No. 1. This fact is due to the better accuracy of mass modeling and mass discretization compared to the stiffness modeling and discretization of cores. 9. N in the left ﬂange of the core (Figure 14). 4 exhibit large deviations and must be considered as completely failing.e. comparisons are restricted to Models No.358 H. 5. the resultant cross-sectional forces in the core (or in its individual ﬂanges) must be composed of the ﬁnite element stresses obtained from the reference Model No. and axial forces directly at the mass center of the core’s cross-section. while frame models No. Deviations of up to 30% (compare. 5 and No. 1994): when Ti 1/Ti b 10/(10 x) = 10/(10 5) = 0Á667. Percentage divergences of displacements and rotations at the stories mass center of Models No. For these models. ux and f at the top) are exhibited by the classical equivalent frame model. 3. XENIDIS ET AL.3. i. 2 exhibits large deviations Figure 13. Ltd. 2 –No.2. maximum stresses. Q.3. where x = 5 denotes the damping ratio for R/C) application of the CQC rule is highly recommended in order to properly account for the correlation between vibration modes. Displacements of the isolated core (Figure 13). No. Here. 6 with reference to Model No. 343–363 (2000) . comparison of the response values of the isolated core is possible between Models No. In order to make a comparison.3. cannot be algebraically added to produce the resultant moments and shear and axial sectional forces. shear forces. 2 and No.g. 1—response spectrum analysis Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. 2. Yet. 5 will be considered as the reference solution. the ﬁrst ratio T2/T1 as well as almost all the others are larger than 0Á667 (T3/T2 being an exception). equivalent frame model No. Finally. In comparing the spectral stresses M. b) routinely calculate the resultant spectral values of moments.. 3 and No. the generally good performance of Models No. For the 10-story building. However. generally expected to be lower than deviations in the case of equivalent static analysis. This can be the source of some additional deviations if the SRSS rule is used. therefore. 3. uy and f at the mass center (Figure 13). 1992a. Design Tall Build. e. 6 becomes clear. The importance of the applied modal superposition method (SRSS or CQC rule) for the achieved level of approximation for the various models should also be mentioned. 4 and No. When the ratio Ti 1/Ti of two successive natural periods approaches 1 (according to the Greek seismic design code (Manos. For comparison’s sake. Struct.

g. 4 (with one equivalent column at the mass center) for the reasons mentioned in Section 3. it can be concluded that Model No. Finally. Equally satisfactory are the results achieved using Models No. Both panel model No. frame models No 3 and No.5. 343–363 (2000) . No. N in column Æ11.3. the very good agreement of displacements ux. 3 and No... Struct. 2 behaves very satisfactorily. 2 (‘classical’) with those of the reference Model No.g. 2. Mx at the core’s base and Qx at the top ﬂoor). fall short (compare. therefore. uy and f of the stories’ mass centers of Model No. 2 and No. 5. moments and shear stresses at the top ﬂoor). respectively). 4. giving response values on the safe side compared with Model No. the axial force N at the column’s base for Model No.3. 5 and No 6. e.. 4. e. 4 differ only in certain stress values (e. Qx. although not exhibiting large deviations. 3. while both frame models No. 5 (panel element) and No. displacements uy and top story rotation of Models No. 3 and No. Stresses of the 10-story building. e. fails in comparison to panel element model No. 5—response spectrum analysis close to 50%. 3 and No. Q-. and. 3. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. Ltd. 6 produce responses very close to that of the reference model. N-diagrams for the left ﬂange of the core for Models No.4. the ﬂexural moment My at the column’s base for Model No. 5.g. the comparison is restricted to Models No. Models No.. Design Tall Build.g. 5 and sparse-mesh shell element model No. M-. For the web of the core (Figure 15) the deviations do not exceed 20% (compare. From Figure 17. 4 display inaccuracies (compare.g.3.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 359 Figure 14.. concerning the core’s stresses. No. and No. the ﬂexural moments at the top and at the base). Displacements of the 10-story building. 4).1 (Figure 19). Similar observations can be made when comparing the diagrams for beam D1 (Figure 18). 1. The deviations of the latter model with respect to the former lie between 11 and 22% (compare. On the contrary. 5. showing stresses My. 1. From the diagram in Figure 16 referring to the response spectrum analysis along the x. while frame models No. e. 1 can be seen. 6 produce values on the unsafe side.and y-directions. 9.

Figure 15. 5—response spectrum analysis 4. in the ﬁrst place. the present investigation concerns. Q-. representing the rest of the building structure. the core is usually surrounded by and connected to a frame. Struct. Percentage divergences of displacements and rotations at stories’ mass center of Models No. 2 and No. Ltd. isolated cores and aims at determining the maximum deviations produced by the various simpliﬁed structural models. 9. Therefore.360 H. the deviations of the whole building model tend to be generally smaller than the deviations observed when analysing isolated cores. N-diagrams for the web of the core for Models No. XENIDIS ET AL. 2–No. Design Tall Build. This surrounding frame can be generally modelled with greater accuracy than the core itself. Results and conclusions in this paper refer to open two-cell cores and cannot be extended to cores of different geometry and shape without additional investigations. CONCLUSIONS As mentioned in the Introduction. 1—response spectrum analysis Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. 343–363 (2000) . 6 with reference to Model No. In practice. M-. Summarizing all observations and comparative remarks made above. the following conclusions can Figure 16.

The highly simpliﬁed Models No. 1–No. these models are considered to be of very limited reliability. 1. the equivalent static and the response spectrum methods.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 361 Figure 17. Yet. Q-diagrams for beam D1 of the 10th story of the building for Models No. Design Tall Build. Qx-. 2 behaves rather well with acceptable values for deformations and natural vibration periods. Finally. My-. in general. Model No. 2 produces. 343–363 (2000) . Model No. 4 are not capable of simulating the structural behavior of the core. N-diagrams for column Æ11 for Models No. neither in terms of deformations and natural vibration periods nor in terms of stresses. the smallest deviations and proves to be very close to the reference model. when comparing stresses. 3 and No. 10-story building. Model No. M-. On the other hand. 6 do not show serious deviations from the reference solution. Very good (b) Figure 18. 1–No. some signiﬁcant deviations are observed. Because of the major deviations in displacements and natural vibration periods. Models No. 6—response spectrum analysis Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. The classical equivalent frame model. Ltd. 5 and No. Struct. (a) Isolated core. 6—response spectrum analysis be formulated concerning both methods of analysis. 9.

Journal of the Structural Division 97(ST5): 1407. Proceedings of the 10th Greek Concrete Conference. REFERENCES Avramidis IE. Contribution to the analysis of coupled shear walls. 1979. natural vibration periods and resultant stresses in the core’s composite cross-section). Heidebrecht AC. 3 with one equivalent column at the core’s shear center gives very poor results and must not be used in modeling cores. Struct.59(8): 1055–1070. Proceedings V. Mx-. 1962. Vanderbilt University. 5 (panel elements) and No. 4 with one equivalent column at the mass center of the core.8): S. Qx-. Concrete International: Design & Construction 5(10): 25–30. ASCE. Proceedings of the symposium on the Behaviour of Building Systems and Components. 1997. Three dimensional equivalent frame analysis of shear walls. systematic comparison and performance evaluation for static and dynamic loading. 211– 227. 343–363 (2000) . Greece. but nevertheless marginally acceptable. Ltd. 1982. XENIDIS ET AL. 5— response spectrum analysis results are produced by Models No. Swift RD. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. Batoz JL. ACI Journal. Tahar MB. Development. Institute of Applied Statics. 1991. 179–186. Corfu. Narov F. Torsion analysis of building cores partially closed by beams. Triamataki M. Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. 6 (one shell element per ﬂange and story) for all response quantities (displacements.275–285. Avramidis IE. 4 and No. Simpliﬁed models for R/C building cores. Model No. Figure 19. Zur Kritik des a ¨ quivalenten Rahmenmodells fu ¨ r Wandscheiben und Hochhauskerne. Evaluation of a new quadrilateral thin plate bending element. Avramidis IE. Systematic investigation of the deﬁciencies of equivalent frame models for open R/C cores. Analysis of asymmetrical coupled shear walls. is Model No. 1991. N-diagrams at the mass center of the core’s composite section for Models No. Xenidis H. Girgis AM. Xenidis H.362 H. Design Tall Build. 1971. Less effective. Research Report. Nashville. Beck H. Department of Civil Engineering. 9. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 18: 1655–1667. Stafford-Smith B. On the contrary. 1983. Bautechnik 68(H. Lew IP.

Comparative performance of simpliﬁed models for R/C building cores under static and dynamic loading. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons. Simo JC. Athanatopoulou A. Xenidis H. Hong-Kong. Athens: 96–105. 343–363 (2000) . 1977. Comparative performance of code prescribed analysis methods for R/C buildings with shear wall cores. Journal of the Structural Division 110(11): 2655–2666. Pergamon: London: 223–244. 9. 1981. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 55: 593–603. Simple analogous frames for shear wall analysis. MacLeod IA. Deﬁciencies in the wide column analogy for shear wall core analysis. California. ASCE. Xenidis H. 1985. Concrete International: 58–61. Design Tall Build. Equivalent frame modeling of staged R/C shear walls under static and seismic loading. (ed. Proceedings of the 11th Greek Concrete Conference. Journal of the Structural Division 103(ST10): 2037–2047. 1994. 1986. 3. Habibullah A. 1998. ICES ’92. 1977. the three dimensional analysis of building systems. Computers and Structures Inc. Stafford-Smith B..). Athanatopoulou A. Avramidis IE. ASCE. Athanatopoulou A. Proceeding of the NUMETA 1985 Conference Swansea.55(11): 487–495. Paz M. General frame element for shear wall analysis. Analysis of non-planar shear wall assemblies by analogous frame. Microys HF. Avramidis IE. Czech Republic: 869–875. 4th Eurpoean Conference on Structural Dynamics. User Manual. MacLeod IA. Manos G. In International Handbook of Earthquake Engineering. Ein Beitrag zum Windscheiben-Problem. Technical Chronicle No. ACI Journal. Green DR. Schwaighofer J. Taylor RL. 1999. Girgis AM. Abate A. In Tall Buildings. Triamataki M. Athens. The Structural Engineer (London) V. 1976. Documentation of intrinsic deﬁciences of equivalent frame modeling of semiopened and closed R/C cores. Xenidis H. Corfu. Trondheim. Avramidis IE. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 61(Part 2): 785–790. MacLeod IA. SAP90. Equivalent frame modeling of shear wall cores under earthquake loading.51(2): 71–74. Proceedings 66(12): 1005–1007. Habibullah A. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers 71(Part 2): 395–406. 7–11 January. 1973. Lateral stiffness of shear walls with openings in tall buildings. ETABS. Berkeley. Xenidis H. 1973. Chapman & Hall: London: 239–248. Berkeley. Xenidis H. MacLeod IA. 1967. Xenidis H. Stafford-Smith B. a series of computer programs for the ﬁnite element analysis of structures. Struct. 1992. International Conference on Computational Engineering Science. Analysis of shear walls using standard computer programs. Frame idealization for shear wall systems. Stafford-Smith B. 1992b. 2nd European Conference on Structural Dynamics. Proceedings of EURODYN’ 99. 1992. Schwaighofer J. 1969. Avramidis IE. Prague. EURODYN’ 93. Der Bauingenieur 44(10): 370–373.3D ANALYSIS OF 2-CELL CORE MODELS 363 MacLeod IA. California. 1984. 399–410. 1994. 1992a. MacLeod IA. Hosny HM. Provisions of the new Greek seismic code. 17–22 December. Structural analysis of wall systems. Proceedings of the 1st Greek Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Seismology. Wilson EL. USA. Technical Chamber of Greece. Wilson EL. Revised May 1992. Ltd. Girgis AM. 901–910. Norway. 1993. Modeling of shear wall cores under earthquake loading using equivalent frames. Avramidis IE. Avramidis IE. 1969. Analysis of shear wall buildings by the frame method. Frame analysis of shear wall cores. USA. The Structural Engineer (London) V. Version 5Á4. Bending and membrane elements for analysis of thick and thin shells. Revised August 1992.

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd