T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J.

TCG, I, No 1

41

/
.
..

.
.

. ,
/.

. ) , )
)
.


.
,

A
.

1.

1.1. /


.
,
. ,

, .


: 15.7.1998

: 10.5.1999

..
...

( ) ,

. H

-
[1-3]. H ,
,
() .
, ,
. M ,

[4-6],
[7] . A

.
,
( ) .
, ,
[8-11].
1.2. A

,

42

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

.

. E,


, .
A
,
. :
) , )
)
.
.
.
,


A K.

, ,
.

( ),
,
.
.
,


.
,
[12, 13],
, .

2. OPE,

2.1.

E

. ,
, , .
,

.


.

1
10- 2.
10-,
1 5m,
3m. K ,

300 KN. NEAK
: A, II (A=0.16g), =1, =1,
=5% q=3. H x,

5m
m=100KNsec2/m. H ,
, .
10-
,
,

/.

.
, ,
,
. ,
[9, 13], , ,

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

43

1: K .
Figure 1: Plane view of the investigated double honeycomb core.

,
.
: () , ()
1.25m 0.75m , ()
, ,
() ()
,
.


....,
(3.7) . 1, ,

.
,

.... (. 3.2.3.), ,


.
O SAP90 [14] ETABS [15].

2: 10- :
: 1-4 60/60, 5-7 50/50, 8-10 40/40.
: 1 25/80, 2-4 25/70, 5-10 25/60.
Figure 2: 10-storey building:
Columns: storeys 1st-4th 60/60, 5th-7th 50/50, 8th-10th 40/40.
Beams: storeys 1st 25/80, 2nd-4th 25/70, 5th-10sth 25/60.

[18, 20].

1.0m x 1.0m .
E,
, x-y, x-z y-z . E
, SAP90,

(, , ).
O (

)
[12, 13].

2.2.
( N 1)

2.3.
( N 2 N 4)

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

44

1:
1 - 6
x (a) y (b).
Table 1: Foundamental uncoupled natural periods for models
No1 - No 6 and correspondant seismic loadings in x direction (a)
and in y direction (b).

[17]. 2,
( 3
4) .
H
M, Q, N
1.2,
. M, Q, N , ( 2 3),
..
, .
2.4.
( N 5)

(a)

H
[13]
[15]. E,
,
(-)
, , .
2.5.
( N 6)

(b)
[. .. 9,
16]. 3 2 4,
. 2
,
.

,
,
. , -

M , , ()
[14, 18, 20]. ,


.

, o 1.

3.

3.1. E

,


.
.

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

45

3: 3 ( 2 4).
Figure 3: The 3 investigated equivalent frame models (models No 2 - No 4).

H


x y
(N 1 N 6) .
,
.
x x y

.... E, :

11
1.
O

( N
1).
10- 2, ,

,

4: .. 2 6
1 - .
Figure 4: Percentage divergencies of models No 2 - No 6 from model No 1 of displacements and rotations at the storeys mass centers of
open core - Equivalent static analysis.

46

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

[5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17, 19].

3.2. I
3.2.1.

3.2.1.1. M ()
(. 4)
T N 3 N 4
, , (. . 4).
A

( Vlassov) [9, 13].
A N 2
,
N 5 () N 6 (
)
N 1.
3.2.1.2. (. 5)
E N 3 N 4

. , ,


.
(. 5), N 5 N 6
, N 2
.
3.2.1.3. (. 2)
O

. T N 3 N 4 () .
3.2.2.
(. 6, 7)
H
,
.
[13],


.

2: I
N 1 N 6.
Table 2: Natural periods of vibration of isolated core for models No 1
to No 6.

E , , ,
,
. H

, N 3
N 4
.
M, Q, N N
2, N 5 N 6 (. 6, 7)
N 2 (. .. M, Q, N

).
3.2.3.

3.2.3.1. ()
(. 8)
T N 3 (
K..) , N 4 ( K.B.)
1, x (. 8a). y (. . 8b) 3 4 ,
, . , ,
,
.
A, N 2, x y,

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

. ,

(N 5 N
6 ) ,
N 1.
3.2.3.2. (. 9)

: N 3 , . T
N 2

47

N 4,
N 5 N 6 , , .
3.2.3.3. I (. 3)
T ()
:
T N 2, N 5 N 6 , N 2
() . A, N 3 (. .. T2)
N 4 (. .. T1) .

5: 1, 2, 5 6 -
. ( [m]).
Figure 5: Warping at the open cores top for models No 1, No 2, No 5, and No 6 - Equivalent static analysis. (The vertical displacements
are given in [m]).

6: M, Q, N
1, 2, 5 6 - .
Figure 6: M, Q, N diagrams for the left flange of open core for models No 1, No 2, No 5 and N 6 - Equivalent static method.

7: M, Q, N
1, 2, 5 6 -
.
Figure 7: M, Q, N diagrams for the web of open core for models No 1,
No 2, No 5 and No 6 - Equivalent static method.

48

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

8a: .. 2 6 1. x - .
Figure 8a: Percentage divergencies of models No 2 - No 6 from model No 1 of displacements and rotations at the storeys mass centers.
Seismic loading in x direction - Equivalent static analysis.

8b: .. 2 6 1. y - .
Figure 8b: Percentage divergencies of models N 2 - No 6 from model No 1 of displacements and rotations at the storeys mass centers.
Seismic loading in y direction - Equivalent static analysis.

3.2.4.
3.2.4.1.
E,
1.2 2.3, M, Q, N
()
,
.
,

( ),

.
N 4 N 5 M, Q, N

, -

M, Q, N , [12, 13].
3.2.4.2. M, Q, N
11 (. 10)
10 x
My, Qx, N 11. T 4, N 5
N 6
(. .. M Q ), N 3 , , . A,
N 2 () .
3.2.4.3. P M Q 1 (. 11)
K N 2 N 5 N 6 (. .. M Q 1 ).

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

49

9: 1 6. x (a) y (b) . ( [m]).

Figure 9: Warping at the cores top for models No 1 - No 6. Seismic loading in x direction (a) and in y direction (b) - Equivalent static
analysis. (The vertical displacements are given in [m]).
3: i (i=1-10) 1 6.
Table 3: Natural periods of vibration Ti (i=1-10) for models No 1 No 6.

A, N 3
N 4,
(N 1),
.
3.2.4.4. E
[5, 6, 9, 12, 13]
M, Q, N, ,
.

My, Qx, N (.12, b)

50

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

10: y, Qx, N 11 1 6. x -
.
Figure 10: My, Qx, N diagrams of column 1 for models No 1 - No 6. Seismic loading in x direction Equivalent static analysis.
4: .. 0.00m 1
6. x (a) y (b) - .
Table 4: Resultant stresses in cores section at 0.00m for models No
1 - No 6. Seismic loading in x direction (a) and in y direction (b) Equivalent static analysis.

11: , Q 1
1 6. x - .
Figure 11: M, Q diagrams of beam 1 for models No 1 - No 6 of the
1st storey of the building. Seismic loading in x direction - Equivalent static analysis.

,
.
E , M, Q,
(. 4),

,
. E, N 3 ( K..) . A, N 4
N 2 (), N 5 N 6 .

{(i-i)/i}*100
1.
(a)

3.3.
3.3.1.

x.

{(i-i)/i}*100
1.
(b)

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

51

12a: My, Qx, N .. 1 6. x .

Figure 12a: My, Qx, N diagrams in cores section for models No 1 - No 6. Seismic loading in x direction - Equivalent static analysis.

12b: Mx, Qy, N .. 1 - 6.

y - .
Figure 12b: Mx, Qy, N diagrams in cores section for models No 1 - No 6. Seismic loading in y direction - Equivalent static analysis.

,
. , ,
-

. To ,
,

52

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

13: .. 2 6
1 - .
Figure 13: Percentage divergencies of models No 2 - No 6 from model No 1 of displacements and rotations at the storeys mass center of
open core - Response spectrum method.

.
E

( SRSS CQC)
. Ti + 1/ Ti {N.E.A.K.:
Ti+1/Ti> 10/ (10+) =10/(10+5) = 0,667 /},
CQC, o o
SRSS . 10-
T2/T1
0,667 ( T3/T2). T SRSS
,
.
A, ,

. , ,
( )
N 1. A,
, ,

, . H ,
, N 2
N 5 , .
N 4
N 5,
(, , )

.
3.3.2.
(. 13)
A ux,
uy (. 13)
N 5 N 6.
A 30% (. .. ux
) N 2,
N 3 N 4 .
3.3.3. (. 14, 15)
K
M, Q, N (. 14),
N 2
N 5. O
50%,
(. 15) 20% (. ..
).
3.3.4.
A 16,
x y,
ux, uy
N 2 ()
N 1
. I , , N 5 N 6. A, N 3 N 4, , (.

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

53

.. uy
N 3 N 4).
3.3.5.

14: M, Q, N N 2 N 5 -
.
Figure 14: M, Q, N diagrams for the left flange of open core for
models No 2 and No 5 - Response spectrum method.

15: M, Q, N
N 2 N 5 - .
Figure 15: M, Q, N diagrams for the web of open core for models
No 2 and No 5 - Response spectrum method.

A 17 My, Qx, N
11 No 2
, N 1.
T N 5 N 6
, N 3 N 4 (.. N
N 3, My
N 4).
H
1 ( 18). T N 2, N 5
N 6
N 1,
N 3 N 4
(. .. ).
T, ( 19)
N 5 ( ) N 4 (
K.B.).
O
11% 22% (. .. Mx
Qx ).

4.
,

16: .. 2 6 1 - .
Figure 16: Percentage divergencies of models No 2 - No 6 from model No 1 of the displacements and rotations of storeys mass centers Response spectrum analysis.

54

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

17: y, Qx, N 11 1 - 6 - .
Figure 17: My, Qx, N diagrams of column 11 for models No 1 - No 6 - Response spectrum analysis.

18: , Q 1
1 6 - .
Figure 18: M, Q diagrams of beam 1 for models No 1 to No 6 of
the 10th storey of the building - Response spectrum analysis.

19: x, Qx, N
4 5 - .
Figure 19: Mx, Qx, N diagrams in cores section for models No 4
and No 5 - Response spectrum analysis.

.

, .
E, ,
,

.
,
:
) N 3 N 4
.

, . A,
N 2
. E ,

(
). T, N 5 N 6,
,
. )
2

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

1 . ,
5 ( ) 6 (
). 4
, 3 .

1. Mac - Leod, I.A. (1973): Analysis of Shear Wall Buildings by the

Frame Method. Proc. Instn. Civ. Engrs 55, pp. 593-603.
2. Stafford-Smith, B., Abate, A. (1981): Analysis of Non-Planar Shear
Wall Assemblies by Analogous Frame. Proc. Instn Civ. Engrs 71, Part 2,
pp. 395-406.
3. , ., , . (1986): .
- ( ), .
4. Stafford-Smith, B., Girgis, A.M. (1986): Deficiencies in the Wide
Column Analogy for Shear Wall Core Analysis. Concrete International,
pp. 58-61.
5. , .., , . (1991):
/. 10 , , . , 179-186.
6. , ., , .. (1992):
/. 1
, , 96-105.
7. , ., , ., , .. (1994): /
. 11 ,
, 399-410.
8. Girgis, A.M., Stafford-Smith, B. (1979): Torsion Analysis of Building Cores Partially Closed by Beams. Proc. Symp. on Behaviour of
Building Systems and Components, Vanderbilt, Tenn.

55

9. Avramidis, I.E. (1991): Zur Kritik des quivalenten Rahmenmodells

fr Wandscheiben und Hochhoauskerne. Bautechnik 68, H.8, S. 275-285.
10. Xenidis, H., Athanatopoulou, A., Avramidis, I.E. (1993): Modelling
of Shear Wall Cores under Earthquake Loading using Equivalent Frames.
EURODYN 93, 2nd European Conference on Structural Dynamics,
Trondheim, Norway, 901-910.
11. , .., , .. (1994):
. 11
, , 369-378.
12. , .., , ., , ., .. (1994):

. ..., .
13. , ., , .., , . (1998):
/
. ,
..., , 1998, . 18, . 3, . 9-25.
14. Wilson, E.L., Habibullah, A. (1992): SAP90, A series of Computer
Programs for the Finite Element Analysis of Structures. User Manual,
Revised May 1992, Computers and Structures Inc. Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.
15. Wilson, E.L., Habibullah, A. (1992): ETABS, The Three Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems. Version 5.4., Revised August 1992,
California, Berkeley, USA.
16. Mac-Leod, I.A. et al. (1977): Frame Analysis of Shear Wall Cores.
ASCE J. Str. Div. 103, No ST10, pp. 2037-2047.
17. , .. (1993) :
/. , ..., , . 13,
. 3, 135-170.
18. Taylor, R.L., Simo, J.C. (1985): Bending and Membrane Elements
for Analysis of Thick and Thin Shells. Proc. of the NUMETA 1985 Conf.,
Swansea (Jan. 7-11).
19. , .., , ., , . (1996) :
/
.
12 , , , ,
145-156.
20. Batoz, J.L., Tahar, M.B. (1982): Evaluation of a New Quadrilateral
Thin plate Bending Element. Int. J. for Num. Meth. in Eng., 18, 1655- 1667.

,
, , , ..., 540 06 ,
. 031-995838.
/ ,
. , , , ..., 546 32
, . 031-617373.
. ,
, , , ..., 540 06 ,
. 031-995623.

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

56

Extended summary

Investigation of Modelling Techniques

for R/C Double Honeycomb Building Cores
H. XENIDIS
Lecturer A.U.TH.

K. MORFIDIS
Civil Engineer A.U.TH.

Abstract
The reliability and accuracy of simplified models such as panel elements and equivalent frame models used for open and semi-open Usection R/C building cores, have been the subject of many publications until recently. In contrast, there is relatively little work in
relation to the modelling effectiveness of R/C multi honeycomb
building cores. This paper aims to provide a well founded presentation of generalized conclusions concerning the reliability and
accuracy of simplified models of R/C double honeycomb building
cores when using equivalent frame, panel elements and one shell
element for each flange and storey modelling techniques. The
numerical analyses and conclusions are based on the two main
methods dictated by modern seismic design codes: the equivalent
static and the responce spectrum methods. All the assumptions
deemed necessary in the modelling process are in complete agreement with the provisions of the new Greek seismic code. The corresponding finite shell element solutions serve as the basis of comparison.

1. INTRODUCTION
R/C double honeycomb building cores usually surround
staircases and elevators and are generally desirable as earthquake-resistant structural elements due to their significant
contribution to the flexural and torsional stiffness of the load
bearing system as whole.
The most reliable computional modelling technique of
R/C cores consists in their dense discretization with finite
shell elements including all six degrees of freedom at each
node.
However, the use of the Finite Element Method in the
analysis of conventional structures leads to uneconomical
solution. For this reason, simplified models such as equivalent frame models, panel elements and models with one shell
element for each flange and storey, were introduced. In particular, the equivalent frame models are used extensively,
mainly because they can be integrated in various professional
structural analysis computer programs [1, 2, 3].
Submitted: July 15, 1998

Accepted: May 10, 1999

I.E. AVRAMIDIS
Professor A.U.TH.

A few years after the first application of the equivalent

frame models, it was realised that there were intrinsic deficiencies related to their particular modelling technique [4, 5, 6].
The present paper intends to provide an in-depth presentation to generalized conclusions conserning the reliability of
simplified models, of R/C open double honeycomb building
cores which are widely accepted in every-day engineering
practice. For this reason, equivalent frame models, panel elements and models with one shell element for each individual
flange of the core were used. The comparisons between the
various models were made on the basis of the results obtained
for analysis of the structures using highly accurate finite shell
elements [18, 20]. The numerical analyses and conclusions
are carried out using both methods required by modern seismic design codes, namely the equivalent static and response
spectrum methods. All assumptions made throughout the
paper are in complete agreement with the provisions of the
new Greek seismic code.

2. STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS
AND MODELLING
A number of structural systems were analysed. Figures 1
and 2 show in plan view the two which were chosen to be
presented in the present paper. The discretized core using
panel elements and models with one shell element have the
main advantage that only a single element is required for any
individual flange of the wall between two succesive storeys
and for this reason are an attractive solution.
Finally, figure 3 shows the main characteristics of the
three different frame models of the R/C core, the effectiveness of which has been addressed in the present paper.
In models used, the slabs were considered as in-plane
rigid (diaphragm action) while the existence of the openings
in the area of R/C core was ignored.

T. . . . , , . 1 2000 Tech. Chron. Sci. J. TCG, I, No 1

For the frame elements (beams/columns) not only

flexural deformations were taken into account, but also axial,
shear and torsional ones. Computer programs SAP90 [14]
and ETABS [15] were used for the analysis.

3. CONCLUSIONS
In relation to the effectiveness of the various models analysed by both equivalent static and response spectrum methods:
a. The results of a comparative study of the isolated core
indicated that the classical linear equivalent frame
model (model No 2) is in general the most effective one
in providing reliable results relating to deformations
and natural periods of vibrations, while the stresses
exhibit intrinsic deficiencies with respect to the reference solution. Models No 5 and No 6 yielded results
of similar accuracy concerning deformations, natural
periods of vibrations and stresses, while models No 3
and No 4 are rejected.

57

b. For the 10-storey building core it can be stated that the

classical equivalent frame model yielded the most
effective mechanical behaviour in comparison with the
finite shell elements solution. Models No 5 and No 6
also yielded results of similar accuracy concerning
deformations, natural periods of vibration and stresses
in the cores section. Within acceptable limits is model
No 4 which possess one equivalent column in the mass
center of the core. Finally, model No 3, with the
equivalent column in the shear center of the core, is
considered completely insufficient and was rejected for
this reason.

Hariton Xenidis,
Dr civil engineer, lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Division of Structural Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 540 06
Thessaloniki, tel. 031-995838.
Kostas Morfidis,
Civil engineer, postgraduate student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Division of Structural Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki,
546 32 Thessaloniki, tel. 031-617373.
Ioannis E. Avramidis,
Dr civil engineer, professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Division of Structural Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 540 06
Thessaloniki, tel. 031-995623.