- 2015 Fiber John
- 1123_02cprecast Seismic Design of Reinforced
- A Model for Beam-column Corner Joints of Existing r.c
- 107TOCIEJ-Final2
- Proposed Codal Provisions for Design&Detailing-BeamColumnJointsinSeismic Regions
- 1D Frame Element Formulation for Analysis of Layered Composite Beams
- Distinct Types of Collapse Simulation Models
- Determination of Coefficient for Evalue of Coconut Shell Concrete
- Retroffitng RC Steel-MRF WCEE2012 2824
- SOM I
- Rolled Steel Joists
- Simplified Formulations for the Determin
- Theoretical Behavior of HSC Sections Under Torsion
- lec3
- 80077
- Flexural Analysis and Design of Beamns 7
- 88-m01 (1)
- Ce6306 Strength of Materials l t p c
- Mechanics of Solids
- Behavior and Modeling of Semi - Rigid Steel Beam
- Design of tunnel lining
- Fea Assingment 1 - Final -Online-123
- 13920-2016
- stbu165-0111
- 38tk
- MSc_Thesis_4089146
- 104523993 Behavior of Concrete Moment Resisting Frames Under Seismic Loading (1)
- MM222 Lec 19-20
- Design of Welded Structures
- Dynamic
- Ejemplos adicionales Prof Rodriguez.pdf
- Pendulo Simple Energia
- Fun Din Energia SR 4 DSC
- ING135-2015-2-P01-Solución
- Ejemplos Adicionales Prof Rodriguez
- ESTT Cap1 Ejemplos Adicionales
- Fun Din Energia SR 1 DSC v2
- Estt Cap1 Ejemplo Adicional
- Fund. Dinamica PC 4 1025 2 Solucionario
- ESTT Cap2 Ejemplos Adicionales
- Marcos
- Sismicidad Peru Tavera
- Matriz k Muros Con Aberturas
- Fun Din Energia SR 2 DSC
- Microsoft Word - Apuntes de CA2_red.pdf
- Armaduras
- Fun Din Energia SR 3 DSC
- Modeling of Asymmetric Shear Wall-Frame Building Structures.pdf
- Cuñas_Meriam_Autobloqueo

**ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010.
**

MS No. S-2008-260.R4 received September 1, 2009, and reviewed under Institute

publication policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,

including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.

Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-

April 2011 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2010.

ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER

Through the use of moment-curvature analyses, trends between

strain and curvature for rectangular reinforced concrete (RC)

sections are explored. Variables in the analyses included section

dimensions, axial load ratio (ALR) and longitudinal steel ratio

(ρ

long

). Curvature-strain relationships that depend on ALR and

ρ

long

are developed from the results. These expressions are

subsequently used to develop equations to compute interstory drift

as a function of material strains for RC moment frames. The resultant

equations can be used in performance-based design approaches

such as direct displacement-based seismic design to compute

target drifts and system displacements based on concrete and

reinforcing steel strains. The interstory drift equations were

correlated against 54 frame building analyses using a fiber-based

analysis program. The drift expressions are shown to be accurate

to within ±12% and ±20% for steel tension and concrete compression

strain, respectively. Lastly, the implications of the proposed expressions

on current code-based drift and ductility limits are explored.

Keywords: limit states; performance-based design; reinforced concrete frames.

INTRODUCTION

Performance-based seismic design has been the subject of

significant research activity among the earthquake engineering

community for over two decades. According to the Structural

Engineering Association of California (SEAOC) Vision

2000 document (1995), performance-based seismic engineering

(PBSE) consists of a “set of engineering procedures for the

design and construction of structures to achieve predictable

levels of performance in response to specified level of

hazards (design earthquakes), within definable levels of

reliability.” This is accomplished by the definition of

performance objectives that are selected by the owner and

engineer prior to the design. The Direct Displacement-based

design (DDBD) method has evolved as a way to implement

PBSE in a direct manner (Priestley et al. 2007). In general,

PBSE relies on the identification of structural performance

on the basis of limit states that are often defined on the basis

of drift or displacement. The relationship of these deformation

quantities with material strains becomes important because

damage is often assumed to be well correlated with concrete

compression and steel tension strain levels.

This study has three main objectives. The first objective is

the development of dimensionless curvature relationships as

a function of concrete compression and steel tension strains

for rectangular reinforced concrete (RC) sections typically

used for RC building frames. The impact of variables, such

as longitudinal and transverse steel ratios, reinforcement

layouts, and strain levels on curvature, are explored. The

second goal is to study the relationship between interstory

drift, which is a typical parameter used to define target

displacements, and material strains in beam plastic hinges.

Equations are proposed through the use of fiber-based

analysis with OpenSees (McKenna et a1. 2000) of moment

frame structures. Lastly, this paper investigates the impacts

of the proposed equations on current code-based drift and

ductility limits.

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE

Several researchers have defined expressions for curvatures

and drifts that are based on material strains. Priestley and

Kowalsky (1998) developed dimensionless yield and

serviceability curvatures for structural wall buildings. Also,

Kowalsky (2000) explored the use of moment-curvature

analysis to develop dimensionless curvature relationships

based on strains for circular RC bridge columns to be used in

displacement-based design methods. Such expressions for

RC moment frames, however, are not available in the literature.

The proposed equations are aimed to fill the gap between

current engineering practice and PBSE methodologies. They

have potential use in numerous PBSE applications including

direct displacement-based design.

PRELIMINARY ANALYSES

FOR CURVATURE-STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS

It is clear that longitudinal steel ratio, section geometry,

material properties, and axial load impact the moment curvature

response of RC sections. It is also clear that transverse steel

ratio and longitudinal bar arrangement will affect the moment-

curvature response. It is perhaps not as straightforward to

determine how each of these variables affects the relationship

between strain and curvature, however. Instead of attempting

to analyze all of these variables in a factorial manner that

would lead to more analyses than are likely needed, an

incremental approach was used. Because longitudinal steel

ratio and section geometry clearly impact the relationship

between strain and curvature and small variations in material

properties can be normalized based on past experience

(Priestley and Kowalsky 2000; Kowalsky 2000), initial analysis

was conducted to study the effect of 1) arrangement of

reinforcing bars (six different arrangements, as shown in

Fig. 1(a)); and 2) volumetric ratio of transverse steel

(Fig. 1(b)), ranging from 0.3 to 1.0%.

The initial analysis was conducted on a “baseline” section

with constant longitudinal steel ratio (2%) and dimensions

Title no. 107-S28

Relationship between Strain, Curvature, and Drift in

Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames in Support of

Performance-Based Seismic Design

by Aidcer L. Vidot-Vega and Mervyn J. Kowalsky

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 292

(20 x 30 in. [500 x 750 mm]). The longitudinal reinforcement

ratio is defined as the ratio of the total longitudinal reinforce-

ment area A

slong

to the gross area of the section. The cover of

all sections was 1.5 in. (40 mm). The bar diameter was 1.125 in.

(28.58 mm). The rest of the properties of Sections 1 to 6

(Fig. 1(a)) are shown in Table 1. The analyses were

performed using a moment-curvature analysis program

(Montejo and Kowalsky 2007). This program uses the

constitutive models developed by Mander et al. (1988) and

King et al. (1986) for concrete and the reinforcing steel,

respectively. The general stress-strain curves for the concrete

and steel are shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respectively. In these

figures, f

cc

is the compressive strength of confined concrete,

ε

cc

is the confined concrete strain, E and E

sec

are the tangent

and secant modulus of elasticity of the concrete, F

u

is the

ultimate strength of the steel, and ε

sh

is the hardening strain.

From past comparisons with experimental data, these

expressions have been shown to be accurate for concrete

strengths in the range of 3.6 to 7.2 ksi (25 to 50 MPa), and

for steel yield strengths typically encountered for ASTM

A706 steel (f

y

= 58 to 72 ksi [400 to 500 MPa]). A

compressive concrete strength f

c

′ of 4 ksi (28 MPa) and steel

yield strength f

y

of 65 ksi (450 MPa) was used in all analyses.

The results in this study should be used with caution when

the shapes of the stress-strain curve vary in a significant

manner from those shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b) (for example,

high-strength or lightweight concrete or high-strength or low

ductility steel). The stress-strain models used in this work

will be appropriate in the vast majority of cases for building

design in the U.S. that utilizes ASTM A706, Grade 60, or, in

some cases, ASTM A615, Grade 60, steel.

From the moment-curvature analyses, the curvatures were

identified at discrete levels of concrete compression and

steel tension strain. Concrete compression strain is that

measured at the extreme compression fiber, with the neutral

axis also measured from the extreme fiber. Steel tension

strains are those at the location of the extreme tension bar.

The curvatures were normalized to the total section depth

and were plotted against material strains to study the impact

of the previously described variables. The dimensionless

curvatures are represented by K = φH, where H is the depth

of the section. The results of the analyses on the sections

shown in Fig. 1(a) are shown in Fig. 3. Figure 3(a) represents

the curvature as a function of steel tension strain, whereas

Fig. 3(b) represents the curvature as a function of concrete

compression strain. From this data, it is clear that, in most

cases, reinforcement layout has little impact on the relationship

between curvature and strain, with the exception of when the

reinforcement is concentrated solely in one layer on the

tension and compression sides (Section 1). This section has

the largest amount of compression steel and the smallest

amount of tension steel of any of the sections, thus resulting

in the trends shown in Fig. 3, which were expected. Of

Aidcer L. Vidot-Vega is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Engineering

Science and Materials at University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez (UPRM), Puerto

Rico, where she received her BS and MS. She received her PhD from North Carolina

State University, Raleigh, NC.

Mervyn J. Kowalsky is a Professor in the Department of Civil, Construction, and

Environmental Engineering at North Carolina State University. He is a member of

ACI Committees 213, Lightweight Aggregate and Concrete; 341, Earthquake-Resistant

Concrete Bridges; 374, Performance-Based Seismic Design of Concrete Buildings;

and Joint ACI-ASCE-TMS Committee 530, Masonry Standards Joint Committee.

Fig. 1—Cross sections: (a) in initial set of analyses (Sections 1 to

6); and (b) with different transverse steel percentage.

Fig. 2—Stress-strain curve for: (a) unconfined and confined

concrete (Mander et al. 1988); and (b) reinforcing steel

(King et al. 1986).

Fig. 3—Dimensionless curvatures versus material strains

for first set of analyses: (a) steel; and (b) concrete.

Table 1—Distance of longitudinal steel bars from top of Sections 1 to 6

Section

D

layers

, in. (mm)

1 2 3 4 5 6

1 2.14 (54.29) 27.40 (695.71) — — — —

2 2.14 (54.29) 10.60 (268.20) 18.98 (482.12) 27.40 (695.71) — —

3 2.14 (54.29) 6.65 (168.87) 22.89 (581.45) 27.40 (695.71) — —

4 2.14 (54.29) 22.59 (573.87) 27.40 (695.71) — — —

5 2.14 (54.29) 7.19 (182.67) 12.25 (311.05) 17.30 (439.43) 22.35 (567.81) 27.40 (695.71)

6 2.14 (54.29) 8.45 (214.76) 14.77 (375.2) 21.09 (535.66) 27.40 (695.71) —

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 293

course, this is not surprising; however, it is interesting to

note that all other sections that had different layouts had very

minor differences between strain and curvature.

In the analysis of the sections shown in Fig. 1(b), the

primary objective was to study the effects of transverse steel

ratio and axial load on the relationship between longitudinal

strain and section curvature. These results are shown in

Fig. 4. Note that in Fig. 4 (a) and (b), which compare

Sections 1 and 1(a), where the only difference is transverse

steel amounts (0.3% and 0.6%, respectively), there is little

impact on the relationship between strain and curvature. A

similar result can be seen in Fig. 4(c) and (d), which

compares Sections 2, 2(a), and 2(b) (0.3%, 0.6%, and 1.0%,

respectively). It is important to note that this does not imply

that all of these sections have the same strain capacity. It is

clear that a more highly confined section will have a higher

strain capacity. What is shown in these figures is that up to

the deformation capacity of the most lightly confined

section, the relationship between strain and curvature was

not affected by the amount of transverse steel.

On the basis of these initial analyses, additional analyses

were carried out with reinforcing bars distributed along the

entire perimeter because such a configuration was effective

at describing all reinforcement bar layouts, with the exception

of the concentrated reinforcement bar case. It is also worth

noting that sections (both beam and column) with distributed

reinforcing steel were heavily favored for seismic design

(Priestley et al. 1996), making this a fortuitous outcome.

Subsequent analyses also use only one level of transverse

steel, as it had little impact on the results.

SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS FOR CURVATURE

STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS

Following the initial series of analysis, rectangular

sections used in the subsequent analysis included sections

with the following geometry: 20 x 30, 12 x 20, 16 x 24, 10 x

17, 20 x 40, 20 x 47, 24 x 40, and 28 x 40 in. (500 x 750,

300 x 500, 400 x 600, 255 x 425, 500 x 1000, 500 x 1200,

600 x 1000, and 700 x 1000 mm). The longitudinal reinforce-

ment ratio varied from 0.5 to 6% to cover typical beam and

column reinforcement ranges. The longitudinal bar sizes

varied from 0.5 to 1.75 in. (12.70 to 44.75 mm) to reach the

defined longitudinal reinforcement ratios. The axial load

ratio was varied from 0 to 0.5 for compression loads and

from 0 to –0.10 for tension loads. As previously noted, the

transverse reinforcement ratio was kept constant in all

sections because the first series of analysis described in this

paper indicated that different levels of transverse steel ratio

had little impact on the relationship between curvature and

strain. A total of 648 section configurations were analyzed.

Section curvatures were obtained for concrete compression

strains ε

c

of 0.004, 0.010, 0.014, 0.018, 0.03, and 0.04 and

steel tension strains ε

s

of 0.010, 0.015, 0.03, 0.04, 0.06, and

0.09. Curvatures were again normalized to the section depth

and were plotted versus axial load ratio for the nine longitudinal

steel ratios considered. Examples of these plots are shown in

Fig. 5(a) and (b) for a section with dimensions of 20 x 30 in.

(500 x 750 mm) and a longitudinal steel ratio of 2% and 4%,

respectively. Similar plots can be obtained for the other

sections (Vidot-Vega 2008). The solid lines in Fig. 5(a) and

(b) represent curvatures φ based on concrete compression

strains (at the unconfined extreme compression fiber),

whereas the dashed lines represent curvatures defined by

extreme steel tension bar strains. It can be noted that the

section curvatures at constant concrete compression strains

are strongly influenced by the axial load ratio (ALR) and

longitudinal steel ratio. For tension or low compression axial

loads, the section curvatures varied considerably, especially

when the section had a low longitudinal steel ratio. Section

curvatures became more linear for both compression and

tension strains as the longitudinal steel ratio increased,

particularly for low levels of strains. The section curvatures

at constant steel tension strains showed very little variation

with the longitudinal steel ratio. In addition, the ALR had a

minimal impact on section curvature at constant steel strains,

especially at low levels of tension strains. The entire data set

was analyzed to obtain a relationship for dimensionless

curvature that depends on the ALR, longitudinal reinforcement

ratio, concrete compression strain ε

c

, and steel tension strain ε

s

.

STRAIN-BASED CURVATURE EQUATIONS

Equation 1(a) to (c) (concrete compression strain) and

Eq. (2) (steel tension strain) represent the proposed equations

based on analysis of the data. These equations represent the

average values of the fits performed on the eight sections

described previously to provide a best estimate of the section

curvatures. In Eq. (1) and (2), the longitudinal steel ratio

ρ

long

was expressed by the mechanical reinforcing ratio ω

s

,

which is given by Eq. (3). ALR are expressed (Eq. (4)) as the

ratio of the axial load over the product of the compressive

concrete strength f

c

′ and the gross section area A

gross

. The

equations are also a function of the cover ratio cR, given by

Eq. (5), which varied from 0.65 to 0.92. In Eq. (4), f

y

is the

Fig. 4—Dimensionless curvatures versus steel and concrete

strains for Sections 1 and 1A, 2, 2A, and 2B.

Fig. 5—Dimensionless curvatures for equal strain lines: (a)

2%; and (b) 4% ρ

long

.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 294

yield strength of the longitudinal steel. The range of application

of the equations is shown.

Concrete compression strain based

(1a)

(1b)

(1c)

Steel tension strain based

(2)

(3)

(4)

cR = (d – d′)/ H (5)

There are three equations to define the relationship

between curvature and concrete compression strain and only

one to define the relationship between curvature and steel

tension strain. This reflects the higher degree of variation

between concrete compression strain and curvature.

Equation (1a) attempts to define the entire concrete

compression strain versus curvature relationship; however,

as will be seen in the following, it results in a higher error

than Eq. (1b) and (1c), which subdivide the data set into two

parts while eliminating axial load as a variable. Because the

primary interest will be for beam members, Eq. (1b) and (1c)

were developed. Whereas beams are clearly subjected to

axial forces due to column shear forces in a moment frame,

the response on a story-by-story basis is best described by

the average beam axial load of zero. Also, beam axial loads

are generally small, supporting the use of expressions with

zero axial load for beams.

The ratio between the curvatures calculated K

calc

with the

proposed equations and with moment-curvature analyses

K

MC

was obtained and statistical analyses were performed to

determine the accuracy of these equations. Tables 2 to 3

present the mean and standard deviation of the curvature

ratio (K

calc

/ K

MC

) according to several values of longitudinal

steel ratio and material strains using Eq. (1a) and (2). It can

be seen that for Eq. (1a) the mean varies from 0.938 to 1.053

and the standard deviation from 0.08 to 0.152. In general, the

standard deviation decreased as the axial load and ρ

long

increased, and the concrete compression strains decreased.

However, the mean obtained from Eq. (1b) and (1c) for axial

loads equal to zero was 0.96 considering concrete

compression strains. The standard deviation was less than

0.11 for Eq. (1b) and (1c). It can be observed in Table 3

that the standard deviation was less than 0.095 and the

mean varied from 1.007 to 1.051 using Eq. (2). Figures 6(a)

and (b) and 7(a) and (b) show the curvature ratio K

calc

/ K

MC

as a function of the longitudinal steel ratio and material strains

using Eq. (1a) and (1c) and Eq. (2), respectively. The agreement

is much better for the Eq. (1b) and (1c) and Eq. (2) when

compared to Eq. (1a) and, in general, it improved for

longitudinal steel ratios higher than 2%.

DRIFT-STRAIN RELATIONSHIPS

FOR RC FRAME BUILDINGS

This section investigates the relationships between strain

and interstory drift. This was accomplished by using the

previous dimensionless curvature Eq. (1) and (2) and the

K

c

ΦH 2.8ε

c

ω

s

0.3 –

e

0.8∗ALR∗ω

s

0.5 –

– ( )

= =

0.009 ρ

long

0.05 0.05 ALR 0.40, ≤ ≤ , ≤ ≤

0.004 ε

c

0.04 ≤ ≤

K

c

ΦH 2.3cR 0.8 + ( )ω

s

1.7cR 1 – ( ) –

ε

c

0.005 + = =

0.005 ρ

long

0.021 ALR 0 0.004 ε

c

0.040, < ≤ , = , ≤ ≤

0.60 cR 0.95 < ≤

K

c

ΦH 1.6

∗

ω

s

– 4 + ( )ε

c

0.005 + = =

0.022 ρ

long

0.06 ALR 0 0.004 ε

c

0.040, < ≤ , = , ≤ ≤

0.60 cR 0.95 < ≤

K

c

ΦH 1.75ε

s

ω

s

0.15

e

0.75∗ALR∗ω

s

0.30 –

( )

= =

0.005 ρ

long

0.06 0.01 A ≤ – LR 0.05 ≤ , ≤ ≤

0.001 ε

s

0.090 < ≤

ω

s

ρ

long

f

y

f

c

′

----- =

ALR

P

A

gross

f

c

′

-------------------- =

Table 2—Statistical parameters for K

calc

/K

MC

using Eq. (1a) for concrete strain

ε

c

0.004 0.01 0.014 to 0.018 0.02 to 0.022 0.025 to 0.03 0.04 Total

x 0.938 0.978 0.990 1.001 1.019 1.053 0.998

σ 0.099 0.099 0.114 0.124 0.130 0.135 0.122

ρ

long

0.01 to 0.015 0.02 to 0.023 0.025 to 0.026 0.03 to 0.033 0.04 to 0.043 0.048 to 0.052 Total

x 0.993 1.017 1.008 1.010 0.996 0.974 0.998

σ 0.152 0.122 0.113 0.109 0.105 0.088 0.122

Table 3—Statistical parameters for K

calc

/K

MC

using Eq. (2) for steel strain

ε

s

0.01 0.015 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.09 Total

x 1.051 1.048 1.027 1.021 1.013 1.007 1.031

σ 0.081 0.087 0.095 0.093 0.088 0.083 0.090

ρ

long

0.01 to 0.015 0.016 to 0.023 0.025 to 0.027 0.028 to 0.033 0.04 to 0.043 0.048 to 0.06 Total

x 1.042 1.029 1.034 1.027 1.020 1.022 1.031

σ 0.085 0.088 0.094 0.095 0.095 0.088 0.090

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 295

results from computer analyses. A total of 54 frame buildings

having 2, 4, 8, 12, and 16 stories were designed using direct

displacement-based design (Priestley et al. 2007) and

capacity design principles. The buildings were symmetrical

with two and three bays. Beam aspect ratios, defined by the

ratio of the beam length to the beam depth (L

B

/H

B

), were

varied from 6.5 to 15 (Table 4). These frames deformed

according to the beam-sway mechanism, in which plastic

hinges at the ends of the beams and at the column base of the

first floor were formed. As a consequence, the results should

not be extrapolated to frames that do not satisfy this failure

mechanism (for example, older RC frames with deficient

detailing resulting in soft story mechanisms or extensive

column hinging due to dynamic amplification of moments in

taller buildings). Also, the equations should not be used for

beam aspect ratios smaller or higher that the ones considered

in this study. Rectangular and square reinforced concrete

sections were used for the beams and columns, respectively.

The sections were modeled using the fiber element approach.

The elements were modeled using a lumped plasticity

approach, which in OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2000)

program is achieved by the use of the “beam with hinges”

element (Scott and Fenves 2006). The confined and unconfined

concrete in the fiber sections was modeled using the Kent

and Park (1971) concrete model with degraded linear

unloading/reloading stiffness (Karsan and Jirsa 1969). The

steel was modeled using a reinforcing steel model developed

by Moehle and Kunnath (2006). The bond slip (yield

penetration) was not directly modeled in the members. The

plastic hinge length does account for this indirectly

through the length of strain penetration, however, thus

addressing the impact of bar slip on the strain versus

displacement. The 54 frame models were analyzed in

OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2000) program under monotonic

loading until 3 to 5% drift. The strains were taken at the

extreme steel tension bar and at the extreme concrete

fiber (cover).

Until yield, the interstory drift θ

j

is assumed to be approx-

imately equal to the beam rotation. This assumption will be

verified in the following. After yield, the interstory drift was

expressed in terms of the beam rotation and frame yield drift.

The beam rotation θ

beam

is expressed in terms of the

curvatures (K/H

B

) using Eq. (6). The beam yield drift (Eq. (8))

can be found elsewhere (Priestley et al. 2007) and was

derived by engineering mechanics principles. In these

equations, L

p

is the plastic hinge length (Priestley et al.

2007), H

B

is the depth of the beam, L

B

is the length of the

beam, F

u

is the ultimate steel strength, d

bl

is the longitudinal

bar diameter, and ε

y

is the steel yield strain. The dimensionless

yield curvature (Priestley and Kowalsky 1998) is given by

Eq. (9). The dimensionless curvatures K were obtained by

using Eq. (1) and (2) for concrete compression and steel

tension strains, respectively.

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Figure 8 (a) and (b) show the beam rotations and interstory

drift as a function of steel tension strains for two cases. Similar

results were obtained for all 54 cases (Vidot-Vega 2008). It

can be seen that the interstory drift and beam rotations are very

similar. After yield, the beam rotations were slightly larger

than the interstory drift. This is likely due to the shortened

length between beam plastic hinges, thus resulting in higher

beam rotations when compared to the interstory drift. As the

difference is small, however, the interstory drift can be

approximated by the use of the beam rotations. This implies

that the interstory drift (or joint rotations) can be estimated

θ

beam

θ

by

K K

Y

– ( )

L

p

H

B

-------

\ .

| |

+ =

L

p

max

kL 0.022F

y

d

bl

+

0.044F

y

d

bl

¹ )

´ `

¦ ¹

k ; 0.2

F

u

F

Y

------ 1 –

\ .

| |

0.08; ≤ = =

L L

B

2 ⁄ (double bending) =

θ

by

K

Y

L

B

6H

B

----------

\ .

| |

=

K

Y

φ

Y

H

B

2.1ε

y

= =

Table 4—Beam aspect ratios for cases with n stories

and numbers of bays

n

Beam aspect ratios (L

B

/H

B

)

2 4 8 12 16

Two-

bay

7.60, 9.50,

11.25

7.0, 9.0, 9.5,

9.78, 12.0

7.0, 9.0, 9.1,

9.25, 9.5,

11.1, 15.0

7.0, 8.0, 9.0,

10.0, 11.0,

12.0

6.5, 9.0,

9.25, 9.5,

10.0, 10.59,

12.0

Three-

bay

—

7.0, 8.5,

10.0, 10.0,

13.0. 14.0,

14.5, 15.0

7.0, 10.0,

13.0. 14.0,

14.5, 15.0

7.0, 8.5,

10.0, 11.5,

12.0, 13.0.

14.0, 15.0

7.0, 10.0,

11.5, 13.0.

14.0, 15.0

Fig. 6—Curvature ratio K

calc

/K

MC

versus: (a) longitudinal

steel ratio; and (b) concrete strain for Eq. (1a) to (1c).

Fig. 7—Curvature ratio K

calc

/K

MC

versus: (a) longitudinal

steel ratio; and (b) steel strain for Eq. (2).

Fig. 8—Rotations versus steel strains for: (a) four stories,

two-bays; and (b) 12 stories, two-bays.

296 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

using the beam rotation expressions developed in the previous

section with some minor changes.

STRAIN-BASED DRIFT AND DISPLACEMENT

DUCTILITY EQUATIONS

To develop the strain-based drift equations, the beam rotation

expressions (Eq. (6)) shown previously were used with some

modifications. To be useful for design, the axial load in the

beams was assumed to be equal to zero because under the

action of seismic loads in both directions, there is the

possibility for tension and compression loads at opposite

ends of the beams; and their average will be approximately

equal to zero. Also, to simplify the drift expressions, only

Eq. (1c) was used for concrete compression strains. The

beam yield drift was modified to account for shear deformation

components. The yield drift (Eq. (11)) includes the contribution

of several components according to Priestley (1998) such as

1) the joint rotation due to shear and flexure; and 2) column

deformation due to shear and flexure. The general form of

the drift θ

j

expressions is shown in Eq. (10). A factor (β) was

added to the equation to account for the slightly larger beam

rotations (compared to the joint rotation) as the inelastic

deformations increases (Fig. 8). A power fitting was

performed to the data from moment-curvature analyses to

find the factor (β) to modify the beam rotation expressions

previously shown.

(10)

(11)

Substituting Eq. (2) for ALR = 0 and Eq. (11) into the drift

equation based on steel tension strain results in Eq. (12).

Using steel tension strain

(12)

Now, substituting the yield drift (Eq. (11)) and the curvatures

(Eq. (1b) and (1c)) into Eq. (10), the drift equation for

concrete compression strain can be shown as Eq. (13).

Using concrete compression strain

(13)

Displacement ductility expressions based on concrete

compression and steel tension strains were obtained by

dividing the (Eq. (12) and (13)) by the yield drift and are

given by Eq. (14) and (15).

Using steel tension strain

(14)

Using concrete compression strain

θ

j

θ

y

K K

Y

– ( )

L

p

H

B

-------

\ .

| |

+ β =

θ

y

0.5ε

y

L

B

H

B

-------

\ .

| |

=

θ

j

0.5ε

Y

L

B

H

B

-------

\ .

| |

1.75ε

s

ω

s

0.15

K

y

– ( )

L

p

H

B

-------

\ .

| |

+ 0.70ε

s

0.080 –

=

θ

j

0.5ε

Y

L

B

H

B

-------

\ .

| |

+ =

1.6

∗

ω

s

– 4 + ( )ε

c

0.004 K

y

– + ( )

L

p

H

B

-------

\ .

| |

0.85ε

c

0.065 –

µ

∆s

1

2

ε

y

----

\ .

| |

1.75ε

s

ω

s

0.15

K

y

– ( ) L

p

L

B

⁄ ( ) + 0.70ε

s

0.080 –

=

(15)

In the aforementioned, K

y

and L

p

are obtained from Eq. (9)

and (7), respectively. The accuracy of the proposed equations

is explored in the following.

ACCURACY OF STRAIN-BASED

DRIFT EQUATIONS

The ratio from the drift obtained from the computer

(θ

OpenSees

) analysis and the proposed equations (θ

calc

) was

tabulated for all cases as a function of steel tension and

concrete compression strains to determine the accuracy of

these equations. The ratio calculated here uses Eq. (12) and

(13) without the inclusion of the shear deformation

components in the yield drift equation. This was done for

comparison purposes only because the computer analyses

did not include the effects of member shear deformations on

joint rotation. Thus, the yield drift was calculated only with

beam flexural components (Eq. (6)). For design, it is

recommended to include all the components in the yield drift

equation as presented in Eq. (12) and (13). These results are

shown in Fig. 9 (a) to (d) and 10 (a) to (d) for steel tension

and concrete compression strain, respectively. The list of

number of bays and beam aspect ratios appears in the legend

of each plot. The plots were divided according to the number

of stories. It can be seen that the difference between the drifts

from the analysis and proposed equations for steel tension

strains is less than 12% for all cases. For concrete compression

strain, the differences between the calculated drift and those

obtained from computer simulations are as high as 22% for

some cases. In general, errors for concrete compression

strain equations are higher for beam aspect ratios less than

7.6 or greater than 14.5 as well as for taller buildings (12-

and 16-story) with three bays. This can be attributed to

changes in the inflection points of the deflected shape for the

beams and columns that do not exactly represent the middle

points of each element. The results obtained from the

proposed equations, however, are quite good for all ranges of

interstory drift and strains considered in this study. The mean

and standard deviations were calculated for all cases (Table

5). The mean for the ratio θ

OpenSees

/θ

calc

ranged between

0.87 to 1.00 for concrete compression strain and 0.97 to 1.06

for steel tension strain. The standard deviations varied from

0.059 to 0.091 and 0.029 to 0.042 for concrete and steel

strains, respectively.

DRIFT AND DUCTILITY EXPRESSIONS

VERSUS CURRENT CODE LIMITS

The final objective of this paper is to discuss the implications

of the strain-based drift and ductility equations proposed in

µ

∆C

1

2

ε

y

----

1.6

∗

ω

s

– 4 + ( )ε

c

0.004 K

y

– + ( ) L

p

L

B

⁄ ( ) + 0.85ε

c

0.065 –

=

Table 5—Statistical parameters for all cases

Strain

Statistical

parameter

θ

OpenSees

/θ

calc

No. of stories

2 4 8 12 16 Total

Concrete

strain

Mean 0.869 0.90 0.96 1.06 1.00 0.95

Standard

deviation

0.062 0.059 0.069 0.077 0.091 0.072

Steel strain

Mean 1.06 1.01 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.00

Standard

deviation

0.037 0.039 0.041 0.029 0.042 0.038

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 297

this paper when compared to ASCE 7-05 code guidelines.

Interstory drift ratios for concrete compression (Eq. (13))

and steel tension strains (Eq. (12)) were obtained for

different values of ρ

long

including shear deformation

components. These drifts are shown in Fig. 11 as a function

of the beam aspect ratio and for a section with ρ

long

= 2.5%.

Different values of concrete compression (Fig. 11(a)) and

steel tension strains (Fig. 11(b)) were considered. Each

figure also includes the drift limits defined in ASCE 7-05 for

RC frames of 0.015 (occupancy Category IV) and 0.025

(occupancy Categories I and II).

Whereas drift limits are not necessarily linked to structural

damage, such limits exist; and it is interesting to study the

implied levels of structural damage as defined by material

strain for a prescribed drift limit. As noted in Fig. 11, the

strains in beam plastic hinges vary considerably depending

on the beam aspect ratio. As the beam aspect ratio becomes

larger, the code drift limits can be nearly accommodated

only with elastic response. This result implies that at the

code-based drift limit, varying levels of structural damage

will be evident, depending on building configuration. Of

course, drift ratio limits have as their primary purpose to

control nonstructural damage, rather than structural damage,

in which case the code limits are reasonable. It is the interplay

between the implied level of structural performance based on

code-drift limits and force-reduction factors that is perhaps

most interesting to explore, however.

Fig. 9—Drift ratio comparison as function of steel tension strain for: (a) two- and four-

story; (b) eight-story; (c) 12-story; and (d) 16-story frame cases with several beam aspect

ratios and number of bays at first floor.

Fig. 10—Drift ratio comparison as function of concrete compression strain for: (a) four-

story; (b) eight-story; (c) 12-story; and (d) 16-story frame cases with several beam aspect

ratios and number of bays at first floor.

298 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

Shown in Fig. 12 are the displacement ductility values

computed with Eq. (14) and (15) as a function of beam

aspect ratio for a section with a ρ

long

of 0.025, the implied

ductility level based on the ASCE 7-05 C

d

of 5.5 for special

RC moment frames, and the displacement ductilities

achieved using ASCE 7-05 drift limits. Displacement

ductilities decreased as the ρ

long

increased in the section for

concrete compression strains and vice versa for steel tension

strains. For the implied ductility level of 5.5 based on C

d

, the

damage level, as defined by strains in beam plastic hinges,

will vary greatly. This indicates that the use of a constant

force reduction factor does not imply a constant level of

damage across a variety of building geometries for a given

structure type. Also from Fig. 12, it can be noted that the

implied level of ductility based on the code drift limits was

rarely in agreement with the displacement amplification (and

hence force reduction factor). As a result, in many cases, the

code drift limit will govern the design with ductility levels

far smaller than that implied by the force reduction factor

given by the same code. Whereas such an outcome is

acceptable, the problem arises with regard to the method in

which drifts are typically evaluated in force-based design.

Consider an example of a moment frame with an aspect ratio

of 8 that is designed using ASCE 7-05. From Fig. 12, the

drift limit for this aspect ratio will govern design; and if the

limit of 2.5% applies, then the actual displacement ductility

level will be approximately 3. The force reduction factor and

displacement amplification factor for a concrete moment

frame, however, are 8 and 5.5, respectively. Then, the engineer

designing this structure would divide the elastic base shear

by 8, magnify the elastic displacements by 5.5, and compare

the resulting drifts with the code limit of 2.5% where the

actual displacement ductility is 3. If the drifts are greater than

2.5% in any story, the engineer would follow by strengthening

(and as a result, stiffening) the structure until the evaluated

drifts are less than 2.5%. This approach would be acceptable

if the displacement magnification factor equals the actual

ductility level at the drift limit; however, that is rarely the

case (Fig. 12). It should be noted that this does not suggest

that structures designed by such an approach are unsafe. To

the contrary, they are likely to have greater than required

strength and required ductility capacity, both of which are

fine for life safety considerations. Such an approach,

however, is of limited value if one desires to implement

some form of performance-based seismic design. A much

more logical approach would be to determine design

displacement levels based on both material strains in plastic

hinges as well as nonstructural drift limits, with the lower of

the two governing. Then, that displacement and its corre-

sponding ductility level are used for design, thus eliminating

the need for an arbitrary choice of the force reduction and

displacement amplification factor.

CONCLUSIONS

This study had three main objectives:

1. Develop dimensionless curvature relationships as a

function of material strains for rectangular RC sections

typically used for RC building frames.

2. Study the relationship between interstory drift and

material strains in beam plastic hinges.

3. Investigate the impacts of the proposed equations on

current code-based drift and ductility limits.

The proposed expressions depend on the ALR, mechanical

steel ratio, material strains (steel and concrete), beam aspect

ratio, and cover ratio. These expressions are intended for

sections with bars distributed around the perimeter. The

research indicated the following: 1) curvatures at concrete

compression strains are strongly influenced by the ALR and

ρ

long

, 2) constant steel tension strains show little variation

with the ρ

long

and ALR, and 3) constant values of drift ratios

and ductility demands imposed in building codes are

generally not in agreement with each other, and that in

neither case do they imply uniform levels of damage.

The proposed expressions based on steel tension and

concrete compression strains are accurate to within less than

12% and 22%, respectively, which is perhaps sufficient

when one considers the variations found in seismic design.

These expressions are valid for RC moment frames that have

been designed to develop beam swing mechanisms and for

the range of variables considered in this study. Also, the

accuracy of these equations is impacted by the models used

for the concrete and steel materials in the analyses. Further

studies in this area include the study of the impact of load

history on the proposed relationships.

NOTATION

A

gross

= gross section area

A

slong

= longitudinal steel area

cR = cover ratio

d

bl

= longitudinal bar diameter

E and E

sec

= concrete tangent and secant modulus of elasticity

F

u

= ultimate steel strength

f

c

′ = compressive concrete strength

f

cc

= confined concrete strength

f

y

= yield strength of longitudinal steel

H = section depth

H

B

= depth of beam

K = dimensionless curvature

K

y

= yield dimensionless curvature

L = member length

L

B

= length of beam

L

p

= plastic hinge length

β = factor to modify drift

ε

c

and ε

s

= concrete compression and steel tension strains

ε

sh

= steel hardening strain

ε

y

= steel yield strain

Fig. 11—(a) Interstory drift for equal concrete compression

strains; and (b) tension steel strain lines.

Fig. 12—(a) Displacement ductility for equal concrete

compression strains; and (b) tension steel strain lines.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 299

Φ = curvature

µ

∆

= displacement ductility

µ

∆C

= displacement ductility based on concrete compression strain

µ

∆S

= displacement ductility based on steel tension strain

θ

beam

= beam rotation

θ

by

= yield beam rotation

θ

j

= interstory drift

θ

y

= frame yield drift

ρ

long

= longitudinal reinforcement ratio

ω

s

= mechanical reinforcing ratio

REFERENCES

ASCE 7-05, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,”

ASCE, 2007, 450 pp.

Karsan, I., and Jirsa, J., “Behavior of Concrete under Compressive

Loadings,” Journal of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 95, No. 12, 1969,

pp. 2543-2563.

Kent, D. C., and Park, R., “Flexural Members with Confined Concrete,”

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 97, No. 7, July 1971, pp. 1969-1990.

King, D. J.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., “Computer Programs for

Concrete Column Design,” Research Report 86/12, Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand, May, 1986, pp. 1-61.

Kowalsky, M., “Deformation Limit States for Circular Reinforced

Concrete Bridge Columns,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 126,

No. 8, Aug. 2000, pp. 869-878.

Mander, J. P.; Priestley, M. J. N.; and Park, R., “Theoretical Stress-Strain

Model for Confined Concrete,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE,

V. 114, No. 8, Aug. 1988, pp. 1804-1826.

McKenna, F.; Fenves, G. L.; Scott, M. H.; and Jeremic, B., “Open

System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation-OpenSees,” 2000, http://

opensees.berkeley.edu.

Mohle, J., and Kunnath, S., “Reinforcing Steel: OpenSees User’s

Manual,” 2006, http://opensees.berkeley.edu.

Montejo, L. A., and Kowalsky, M. J., “CUMBIA—Sets of Codes for the

Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Members,” Report No. IS-07-01, CFL,

NCSU, Raleigh, NC, 2007, 41 pp.

Priestley, M. J. N., “Brief Comments on Elastic Flexibility of RC

Frames, and Significance to Seismic Design,” Bulletin of the New Zealand

National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 31, No. 4. Dec. 1998,

pp. 246-259.

Priestley, M. J. N.; Seible, F.; and Calvi, S. M., Seismic Design and

Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 1996, 679 pp.

Priestley, M. J. N., and Kowalsky, M. J., “Aspects of Drift and Ductility

Capacity of Cantilever Structural Walls,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National

Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 31, No. 2, July 1998, pp. 73-85.

Priestley, M. J. N., and Kowalsky, M. J., “Direct Displacement-Based

Design of Concrete Buildings,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National

Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 33, No. 4, Dec. 2000, pp. 421-444.

Priestley, M. J. N.; Calvi, G. M.; and Kowalsky, M. J., “Displacement-

Based Seismic Design of Structures,” IUSS Press, Italy, 2007, 721 pp.

Scott, M., and Fenves, G., “Plastic Hinge Integration Methods for Force-

Based Beam-Column Elements,” Journal of Structural Engineering,

ASCE, V. 132, No. 2, Feb. 2006, pp. 244-252.

Structural Engineers Association of California, SEAOC Vision 2000,

Sacramento, CA, 1995.

Vidot-Vega, A. L., “The Impact of Load History on Deformation Limit

States for the Displacement-Based Seismic Design of RC Moment Frame

Buildings,” PhD dissertation, Department of Civil, Construction, and

Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2008.

- 2015 Fiber JohnUploaded byRafael Triminio
- 1123_02cprecast Seismic Design of ReinforcedUploaded byrakoll
- A Model for Beam-column Corner Joints of Existing r.cUploaded byMuhammad Rizwan
- 107TOCIEJ-Final2Uploaded bydmardetk
- Proposed Codal Provisions for Design&Detailing-BeamColumnJointsinSeismic RegionsUploaded byshamimzubery1969
- 1D Frame Element Formulation for Analysis of Layered Composite BeamsUploaded byMostafa Nouh
- Distinct Types of Collapse Simulation ModelsUploaded byKaustav Sengupta
- Determination of Coefficient for Evalue of Coconut Shell ConcreteUploaded byalexjos1
- Retroffitng RC Steel-MRF WCEE2012 2824Uploaded bygorgika papand
- SOM IUploaded byNitin BuZz
- Rolled Steel JoistsUploaded bymanish dhariwal
- Simplified Formulations for the DeterminUploaded byChristian Viau
- Theoretical Behavior of HSC Sections Under TorsionUploaded bysokamanty
- lec3Uploaded byJames Mcguire
- 80077Uploaded byjesusgameboy
- Flexural Analysis and Design of Beamns 7Uploaded byAdil Javed Chaudhary
- 88-m01 (1)Uploaded byYuvaraj Dhandapani
- Ce6306 Strength of Materials l t p cUploaded bymunijack
- Mechanics of SolidsUploaded bypmagrawal
- Behavior and Modeling of Semi - Rigid Steel BeamUploaded byShoyeb Kalkundri
- Design of tunnel liningUploaded byBhaskar Reddy
- Fea Assingment 1 - Final -Online-123Uploaded byLoc Nguyen
- 13920-2016Uploaded byShakeel Waseem
- stbu165-0111Uploaded byJose Carril
- 38tkUploaded byAshis Biswas
- MSc_Thesis_4089146Uploaded byMrk Brkng
- 104523993 Behavior of Concrete Moment Resisting Frames Under Seismic Loading (1)Uploaded bysubzarbhat
- MM222 Lec 19-20Uploaded byObeydullahKhan
- Design of Welded StructuresUploaded byManuelGonzales
- DynamicUploaded byGeuchy Mohammed

- Ejemplos adicionales Prof Rodriguez.pdfUploaded bydenniscrema
- Pendulo Simple EnergiaUploaded bydenniscrema
- Fun Din Energia SR 4 DSCUploaded bydenniscrema
- ING135-2015-2-P01-SoluciónUploaded bydenniscrema
- Ejemplos Adicionales Prof RodriguezUploaded bydenniscrema
- ESTT Cap1 Ejemplos AdicionalesUploaded bydenniscrema
- Fun Din Energia SR 1 DSC v2Uploaded bydenniscrema
- Estt Cap1 Ejemplo AdicionalUploaded bydenniscrema
- Fund. Dinamica PC 4 1025 2 SolucionarioUploaded bydenniscrema
- ESTT Cap2 Ejemplos AdicionalesUploaded bydenniscrema
- MarcosUploaded bydenniscrema
- Sismicidad Peru TaveraUploaded bydenniscrema
- Matriz k Muros Con AberturasUploaded bydenniscrema
- Fun Din Energia SR 2 DSCUploaded bydenniscrema
- Microsoft Word - Apuntes de CA2_red.pdfUploaded bydenniscrema
- ArmadurasUploaded bydenniscrema
- Fun Din Energia SR 3 DSCUploaded bydenniscrema
- Modeling of Asymmetric Shear Wall-Frame Building Structures.pdfUploaded bydenniscrema
- Cuñas_Meriam_AutobloqueoUploaded bydenniscrema