You are on page 1of 8

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245304861

Guidelines: Seismic Design of Composite Reinforced Concrete and Steel


Buildings

Article  in  Journal of Structural Engineering · February 2004


DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2004)130:2(336)

CITATIONS READS
28 1,931

3 authors, including:

Hiroshi Noguchi
Shizuoka Institute of Science and Technology
35 PUBLICATIONS   242 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

President View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hiroshi Noguchi on 11 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Guidelines: Seismic Design of Composite Reinforced
Concrete and Steel Buildings
Isao Nishiyama1; Hiroshi Kuramoto2; and Hiroshi Noguchi3

Abstract: Seismic design guidelines for composite reinforced concrete and steel 共RCS兲 buildings consisting of reinforced concrete
columns and structural steel beams were proposed in Japan as a practical outcome of the U.S.–Japan Cooperative Earthquake Research
Program on Composite and Hybrid Structures. A design method satisfying the most prevalent seismic provisions used in Japan, which are
based on the working stress design method, is described. At the same time, an alternative method, which is suitable for use in the context
of the capacity spectrum method, is also briefly introduced. This paper outlines the design guidelines, giving priority to an explanation of
the design method for the working stress seismic provisions. In this method, the weak beam–strong column mechanism is used as the
design basis for buildings under severe earthquake. Therefore, moment magnification factors for both columns and joint panels are
provided to secure the mechanism. Design equations for the ultimate shear strength of joint panels and associated hysteresis models are
also included in the guidelines, and can be applied to a total of twelve details of RCS beam–column joints, including both the through
beam and the through column types.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲0733-9445共2004兲130:2共336兲
CE Database subject headings: Seismic design; Composite structures; Panels; Shear strength; Ductility.

Introduction tive method, 共called ‘‘calculation of response and limit strength’’


in the Japanese Building Standard Law兲, which uses the capacity
A composite reinforced concrete and steel 共RCS兲 structural sys- spectrum method 共e.g., Freeman 1978兲, is briefly introduced in
tem consisting of reinforced concrete columns and structural steel line with the new seismic design code which came into effect in
beams was selected as one of the topics for research in the U.S.– Japan in June 2000. The seismic design system in Japan currently
Japan Cooperative Earthquake Research Program on Composite allows a choice between these two alternatives.
and Hybrid Structures 共U.S.–Japan Planning Groups 1992兲. This This paper, a part of which has been reported previously
program was carried out from April 1993 to March 1998 in Japa- 共Kuramoto et al. 2000兲, outlines the design guidelines, giving pri-
nese laboratories. During the 5 years of this research program, the ority to an explanation of the design method conforming to the
Japanese RCS Subcommittee carried out experimental and ana- seismic provisions based on the working stress design method. It
lytical studies on RCS beam–column joints and frames 共Kura- also gives design equations for the ultimate shear strength of joint
moto et al. 1998; Baba and Nishimura 2000a,b; Nishiyama et al. panels and associated hysteresis models which can be used in the
2000; Noguchi and Uchida 2000兲, created a database of RCS design method based on the capacity spectrum method. The major
beam–column joints 共Iizuka et al. 1998a兲, and attempted the trial seismic design provisions of the 1997 uniform building code
design of theme buildings, including dynamic analyses of these 共UBC 1997兲 and the 1981 Japanese building standard 共Housing
structures, etc. As a final result, seismic design guidelines for Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Construction 1997兲 are com-
composite RCS buildings were drawn up. These design guidelines pared in detail in a previously published paper 共Nakashima et al.
describe a design method suitable for the most prevalent seismic 2001兲.
provisions in Japan, which are based on the working stress design
method. 共In the Japanese Building Standard Law, these provisions
are called ‘‘calculation of allowable unit stress, etc.’’兲 An alterna- Scope of Design Guidelines

1
Senior Research Engineer, Dept. of Production Engineering, Build- The design guidelines discussed herein are applied to the
ing Research Institute, Tachihara-1, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0802, Japan. earthquake-resistant design of composite RCS buildings which
2 meet the following conditions:
Associate Professor, International Cooperation Center of Engineering
Education Development, Toyohashi Univ. of Technology, 1-1 Hibari- 1. Height not exceeding 60 m;
gaoka, Tempaku, Toyohashi, Aichi 441-8580, Japan. 2. Structural system comprising relatively regular-shaped
3
Professor, Dept. of Architecture, Chiba Univ., Yayoi, Inage, Chiba frame, with or without multistory reinforced concrete shear
263-0022, Japan. walls;
Note. Associate Editor: Sherif El-Tawil. Discussion open until July 1,
3. Design strength of concrete ranging from 21 to 60 MPa; and
2004. Separate discussions must be submitted for individual papers. To
4. Reinforcing bars and structural steel standardized in the
extend the closing date by one month, a written request must be filed with
the ASCE Managing Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted Japan Industrial Standards.
for review and possible publication on July 30, 2002; approved on Feb- Partial or full precast systems may be used for reinforced concrete
ruary 24, 2003. This paper is part of the Journal of Structural Engineer- members such as columns and walls. Relatively regular-shaped
ing, Vol. 130, No. 2, February 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/ frames are distinguished by provisions for an eccentricity factor
2004/2-336 –342/$18.00. and rigidity factor in the enforcement order of the Building Stan-

336 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

Downloaded 10 Sep 2009 to 142.231.95.147. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
dard Law 共Housing Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Construc-
tion 1994兲, the details of which will be presented later.

Principle of Structural Design


As described above, it is specified that the design guidelines are
to be applied to relatively regular-shaped buildings. As a general
rule, the weak beam–strong column failure mechanism is re-
quired in designed buildings. A mechanism forming yield hinges
at the beam ends in each story of the building is adopted in the
frame system. With this mechanism, however, the yield hinges
may form at the top of columns in the top story and the bottom of
columns in the first story, respectively. In frame systems with
multistory shear walls, the formation of yield hinges at the bottom
of the shear walls is also assumed.
Composite RCS buildings are usually applied to long span
frames, as this is the most economic use of this system. However,
it is not easy to design frames which form the weak beam–strong
column mechanism in this type of structure, because the shape
and dimensions of the steel beams tend to be governed by design
for vertical load effects. In relatively low-rise buildings with shear
walls, it is particularly difficult to design frames in which explicit
flexural yielding will occur at the bottom of the shear walls. For
this reason, in buildings with heights not exceeding 31 m, the
design guidelines allow partial yielding of the columns and shear Fig. 1. Joint details used in design guidelines
yielding of the shear walls on the assumption that the buildings
have sufficient additional strength to resist the seismic load.
The typical failure modes in RCS beam–column joints are present, which is based on the working stress design procedure in
shear failure and bearing failure. It has been verified from numer- effect in Japan since 1981, and a method based on the capacity
ous experimental studies 共e.g., Mehanny and Deierlein 2001兲 that spectrum procedure, which became effective in 2000. As the de-
beam–column joints failing by joint shear or bearing failure have tails of the latter method were not in force when the present
a comparatively large deformation capacity. However, these RCS guidelines were completed, only a conceptual explanation is
beam–column joints have a smaller energy absorption capacity given in the guidelines. Therefore, in this section, only the former
than in the case of structural steel beam yielding. This is due to method is outlined.
the larger pinching behavior in RCS beam–column joints, which The flowchart of the design method satisfying the seismic pro-
is caused by the adverse effect of concrete damage in the hyster- visions of the working stress design procedure is shown in Fig. 2.
esis loops. In principle, the design guidelines specify that RCS The choice of Route 1 is allowed only for buildings not taller than
beam–column joints should be designed to have sufficient shear 20 m in height, and Route 3 is applied to buildings taller than 30
strength to prevent large distortions in the joint panel. m in height. Buildings taller than 60 m in height are beyond the
To date, numerous details of RCS beam–column joints have scope of this design procedure and require special approval. The
been proposed in Japan by a range of experts which includes design method consists of a first phase design and a second phase
university professors, structural engineers, and researchers. Shear design, as discussed later.
design equations have also been proposed for most of these de-
tails, based on experimental and/or analytical studies. However,
First Phase Design
the applicable scope of each design equation tends to be small, as
it depends on the scope of the experimental data used to derive The first phase design is based on the working stress design
the equations, which also tends to be small. Thus, the design method. The design shear for earthquake effects at the ith story of
guidelines under discussion here limit the applicable details of the building, Q i , is given by
RCS beam–column joints to those for which a relatively large N
amount of experimental and/or analytical data exist, and give
more general shear design equations. The selected details are
Q i ⫽C i • 兺
j⫽i
Wj (1)
shown in Fig. 1 共the actual equations are presented later兲. Prelimi-
nary investigations of the buildability of these details were carried C i ⫽Z•R t •A i •C 0 (2)
out, and some of the details were used in actual construction in where C i ⫽story shear coefficient; N⫽number of stories;
Japan. Other details, which are not shown in Fig. 1, are also W j ⫽weight of jth story 共this includes dead load plus reduced live
available when the structural performance of those joints has been load and, if located in a designated snowy zone, reduced snow
verified by experimental studies. load兲; Z⫽seismic zone factor; R t ⫽vibration characteristics factor
共this is similar to the normalized design spectrum兲; A i ⫽vertical
Flow of Design Satisfying Seismic Provisions distribution factor for external forces; and C 0 ⫽standard shear co-
Based on Working Stress Design Method efficient 共the value is taken to be not less than 0.2 for this phase兲.
In the calculation of R t and A i , the natural period of the first
The design guidelines show two alternative seismic design ap- mode of vibration, T 共s兲, is used. For composite RCS buildings,
proaches, namely, the most prevalent seismic design method at an approximation of T is given as follows:

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 337

Downloaded 10 Sep 2009 to 142.231.95.147. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Fig. 2. Flowchart of design method satisfying seismic provisions of working stress design procedure

T⫽0.025•H (3) or the shear force in the joint panels obtained from structural
analysis should be confirmed as satisfying
where H⫽building height 共m兲.
Eq. 共3兲 is based on an investigation of the natural period of pM a⭓ pM (5)
several composite RCS buildings and composite buildings com- following the allowable stress design procedure. In Eqs. 共4兲 and
posed of steel reinforced concrete columns and structural steel 共5兲 p M u ⫽ultimate moment of joint panel 关see Eq. 共15兲兴;
beams which underwent a special inspection by the Japanese
b M p ⫽plastic moment of beam; h o ⫽clear height of story 共i.e.,
Ministry of Construction 共Iizuka et al. 1994兲. More accurate val- column height兲; h⫽story height; c M u ⫽ultimate moment of col-
ues of the natural period obtained by an eigenvalue analysis and umn; l o ⫽clear length of span 共i.e., beam length兲; l⫽span length;
other methods are also available.
p M a ⫽allowable 共conservatively, crack兲 moment of joint panel
In the structural analysis for the first phase design, converted 关see Eq. 共18兲兴; and p M ⫽moment of joint panel under the action of
linear models which ignore the assumption of rigid regions due to design seismic shear force.
the existence of the beam–column joint may be used. When com-
posite RCS buildings are designed by Route 1 or Route 2, as
shown in Fig. 2, either the strength of the joint panels should be Second Phase Design
confirmed as satisfying
As shown in Fig. 2, although the most recommended design route
p M u ⭓min共 ⌺ b M p •h o /h,⌺ c M u •l o /l 兲 (4) in the design guidelines is Route 3, design by Route 1 or 2 is also

338 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

Downloaded 10 Sep 2009 to 142.231.95.147. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
permitted for practical convenience. In particular, Routes 1 and 2 Table 1. D s Value for Composite Reinforced Concrete and Steel
are effective for relatively low-rise frames with or without shear Buildings
walls. Structural type
In Routes 2 and 3, a check for story drift angle in each story is
共a兲 共b兲 共c兲 共d兲
required. The story drift, ␦ i , under the action of the design seis-
Framing members ␤ u⫽0 0⬍␤ u⭐0.3 0.3⬍␤ u⭐0.7 0.7⬍␤ u
mic shear force shown in Eq. 共1兲 is calculated by elastic analysis,
and the story drift angle, R i , is calculated as 共i兲 Most ductile 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
共ii兲 Very ductile 0.30 0.30 0.35 0.40
R i ⫽␦ i /h i (6) 共iii兲 Considerably ductile 0.35 0.35 0.40 0.45
共iv兲 Ductile 0.40 0.40 0.45 0.45
where h i ⫽story height.
共v兲 Others 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.55
R i should not be greater than 1/200. However, if nonstructural
elements which can accommodate greater drift are used, or if they Note: 共a兲–共d兲 ␤ u⫽Ratio of load carried by shear walls to total story shear.
共i兲–共v兲 These depend on restrictions on length-to-depth ratio, axial force,
are made of deformable materials, R i can be increased, but in no
axial reinforcement ratio, shear stress level at ultimate state, and mode of
case should R i exceed 1/120. failure. For details, see Housing Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Con-
The design guidelines provide a limitation of rigidity factor, struction 共1997兲.
R s , and eccentricity factor, R e , in order to ensure the design of
‘‘relatively regular-shaped buildings.’’ Using the reciprocal of the
story drift angle, r si(⫽1/R i ), and the average value, r sa
(⫽ 兺 r si /N; N is the number of stories兲, the rigidity factor of the
inelastic deformations and energy dissipation and is used to re-
ith story is defined as
duce the elastic story shear according to the available ductility, as
R si⫽r si /r sa (7) given in Table 1. The ultimate shear capacity may be calculated
by any method, including nonlinear pushover analysis, limit
The design guidelines require that R si be more than 0.6 for all analysis, and simplified methods suitable for approximate hand
stories. calculation.
The eccentricity factor associated with loadings in the x and y At the formation of a lateral failure mechanism in a building,
directions, R ex and R ey , are defined as follows, using eccentricity the summation of the ultimate moments of the columns at each
distances e x and e y node of the frame, ⌺ c M u , should satisfy the following relation-
ship to secure the weak beam–strong column mechanism. The
R ex ⫽e x /r ex , R ey ⫽e y /r ey (8) coefficient, 1.4, is determined considering both magnification due
to dynamic effects and the strength increase of the composite
where r ex and r ey ⫽elastic radii, which can be defined as the
beam
square root of torsional stiffness divided by lateral stiffness.
The design guidelines specify that R e be not more than 0.15 in ⌺ c M u ⭓1.4•⌺ b M p (10)
either direction in all stories.
In the design of bearing wall systems and moment resisting For buildings with heights not exceeding 31 m, however, the
frames with wing-wall systems in Routes 1 and 2, simple empiri- provision of Eq. 共10兲 can be neglected on the condition that the
ultimate shear capacity of each story under the story failure
cal equations proposed by Shiga 共Housing Bureau of the Japanese
mechanism assumed, Q ui , satisfies the following relationship:
Ministry of Construction 1997兲 are used to calculate the ultimate
shear capacity of each story in the same way as in the design of Q ui⭓ 共 1.5⫺0.5•␤ u 兲 •D s •Q udi (11)
reinforced concrete buildings under the current seismic provi-
sions. In the design of moment resisting frame systems in Route where ␤ u ⫽ratio of the load carried by the shear walls to the total
2, buildings can be designed without calculation of the ultimate story shear 共see Table 1兲.
shear capacity of each story, on the condition that the weak Eq. 共11兲 requires additional strength in frames which do not
beam–strong column mechanism is secured. However, in this form a beam yield mechanism. Because frames with shear walls
case, the shear design of the reinforced concrete columns would are required to have higher strength, applying the factor, D s , the
be stricter than that in Route 3. Here, it should be kept in mind penalty factor is reduced by ␤ u . Also, the ultimate shear capacity
that this route 共Route 2兲 is a simplified practical method, and of columns, c Q u , should satisfy

c Q u ⭓1.1• 共 c M mt⫹ c M mb 兲 /h o
Route 3 is the preferred procedure. (12a)
The most recommended route in the second phase design is
Route 3, which results in a more accurate calculation of the ulti- when using Eq. 共10兲 and
mate shear capacity of each story. The calculated ultimate shear
c Q u ⭓1.1• 共 c M ut⫹ c M ub 兲 /h o (12b)
capacity of each story must exceed the shear force, Q uni , given
below when using Eq. 共11兲, respectively. In Eqs. 共12a兲 and 共12b兲 c M mt
and c M mb⫽moments at the top and bottom of a column when the
Q uni⫽D s •Q udi (9) building forms a lateral mechanism; and c M ut and c M ub⫽ultimate
moments, respectively.
where D s ⫽structural characteristics factor; and Q udi⫽seismic The strength of joint panels should be confirmed to satisfy the
shear in the ith story. following relationship. Because an RCS beam–column joint is
The seismic shear in the ith story, Q udi , is calculated using similar to a reinforced concrete column with respect to deforma-
Eqs. 共1兲 and 共2兲. Thus, this procedure is similar to the evaluation tion capacity, the safety margin is not included in the following
of seismic force in the first phase design, except that the standard equation for column hinging:
shear coefficient, C 0 , in Eq. 共2兲 is now taken to be not less than
1.0. The structural characteristics factor, D s , takes into account p M u ⭓min共 1.4•⌺ b M p •h o /h,1.0•⌺ c M u •l o /l 兲 (13)

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 339

Downloaded 10 Sep 2009 to 142.231.95.147. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
Table 2. Factors Relating to Shear Design Equation of Joints
Design equation Factors
C1 0.8:with neither FBP nor cover plates
0.9:with FBP or cover plates 共a-l兲

C2 0.8:with neither FBP nor cover plates


1.0:with FBP or cover plates 共a,b,c,d兲
1.1:with extended FBP or small column 共g,j,k兲
1.1:with interior band plates 共h兲
1.5:with exterior band plates 共e兲
1.5:with FBP and vertical reinforcement 共l兲
Fig. 4. Idealized shear force versus shear strain relation of shear
1.5:with transverse stiffeners 共f兲
panel
1.6:with diaphragms 共i兲
1.6:with wide FBP and transverse stiffeners

C3 0.9:without transverse beam 共d兲


a conservative prediction of joint strength compared to test results
1.0:with transverse beam 共a-c,e-l兲 in order to make the equation applicable to a greater number of
Note: symbols 共a兲 to 共l兲 correspond to joint details in Fig. 1; FBP⫽face joint details.
bearing plate. The cracking shear strength and yield shear strength of the
joint panel of RCS beam–column joints, Q cr and Q y , and corre-
Shear Design Equation for Composite Reinforced sponding moments, p M c and p M y , are given as
Concrete and Steel Beam–Column Joints Q cr⫽a 1 •Q p (16)

The ultimate shear strength and moment of the joint panel of RCS Q y ⫽a 2 •Q p (17)
beam–column joints, Q p and p M u , are given as
p M c ⫽Q cr• sbd (18)
Q p ⫽Q w ⫹Q f ⫹Q h ⫹Q c (14)
p M y ⫽Q y • sbd (19)
p M u ⫽Q p • sbd (15)
where a 1 ⫽ratio of the cracking shear strength to the ultimate
where Q w ⫽C 1 •A w • s ␴ wy / 冑3: shear strength of web panel; Q f shear strength of the joint panel; 0.6 for the through beam type
⫽0.5•A f • s ␴ f y / 冑3: shear strength of cover plates; Q h ⫽0.25•p w and 0.5 for the through column type; and a 2 ⫽ratio of the yield
•␴ wy •b c • mcd: shear strength of transverse reinforcement; shear strength to the ultimate shear strength of the joint panel; 0.9
Q c ⫽0.04•C 2 •C 3 •b c •D c •␴ B • J ␦: shear strength of concrete; for both the through beam type and the through column type.
A w ⫽sectional area of steel web in joint region; s ␴ wy ⫽yield stress The shear force versus shear strain relationship of the shear
of steel web; A f ⫽sectional area of cover plates; s ␴ f y ⫽yield stress panels is shown in idealized form by the four lines in Fig. 4, in
of cover plates; p w ⫽transverse reinforcement ratio in joint re- which the first break point represents the initiation of cracking,
gion; ␴ wy ⫽yield stress of transverse reinforcement; b c ⫽column the second represents shear yielding in the panel, and the last
width; mcd⫽maximum distance between tensile and compressive represents the achieved ultimate shear strength. The ratios of a 1
reinforcement; D c ⫽column depth; ␴ B ⫽compressive strength of and a 2 , which are shown in Fig. 4, were determined based on
concrete in joint region; C 1 , C 2 , and C 3 ⫽factors which depend existing test data for RCS beam–column joints collected to give
on the details of beam–column joints and are given in Table 2; an average hysteresis model for RCS beam–column joints 共Ka-
J ␦⫽shape factor of beam–column joints for which the values are
mogawa et al. 1998兲. The shear strain at the initial crack, ␥ c , can
taken to be 3.0 for interior joints, 2.0 for exterior and top-interior be estimated considering the effective shear stiffness of the beam-
joints, and 1.0 for top-corner joints, respectively; and sbd⫽depth column joints, K e , as shown in the following equation:
of structural steel beam. ␥ c ⫽Q cr /K e (20)
Eq. 共14兲 is based on the existing test data for RCS beam–
column joints collected by the Japanese RCS Subcommittee 共Ii- where Q cr⫽shear force of the beam–column joint when initial
zuka et al. 1998b兲. As shown in Fig. 3, Eq. 共14兲 was made to give crack occurred; K e ⫽0.4A c •G c ⫹0.9A s •G s : effective shear stiff-
ness of the beam–column joint; A c ⫽sectional area of the concrete
portion in the joint panel; G c ⫽shear stiffness of concrete;
A s ⫽sectional area of the steel portion in the joint panel; and
G s ⫽shear stiffness of steel.

Conclusion

Seismic design guidelines for composite RCS buildings are out-


lined, giving priority to an explanation of the design method for
the prevalent seismic provisions in Japan, which are based on the
working stress design method. The design guidelines are applied
to relatively regular-shaped buildings, in which the failure mecha-
nism is the weak beam–strong column mechanism. The design
Fig. 3. Predicting accuracy of Eq. 共14兲 for test results
guidelines give a new shear design equation for RCS beam–

340 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

Downloaded 10 Sep 2009 to 142.231.95.147. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
column joints with a hysteresis model, which can be used in ad- c M mt , c M mb ⫽ moments at top and bottom of column when
vanced analysis that considers the inelastic behavior of beam– building forms lateral mechanism,
column joints. respectively;
cM u ⫽ ultimate moment of column;
c M ut , c M ub ⫽ ultimate moments at top and bottom of
Acknowledgments column when building forms lateral
mechanism, respectively;
The seismic design guidelines for composite RCS buildings pre- pM ⫽ moment of joint panel under action of
sented herein were drawn up as one result of the U.S.–Japan design seismic shear force;
Cooperative Earthquake Research Program on Composite and pM a ⫽ allowable 共conservatively, crack兲 moment of
Hybrid Structures. The writers wish to offer their sincere thanks joint panel 关see Eq. 共18兲兴;
to the members of the Japanese Technical Coordinating Commit- pM c ⫽ crack moment of joint panel;
tee chaired by Professor Emeritus H. Aoyama and Japanese RCS pM u ⫽ ultimate moment of joint panel 关see Eq.
Subcommittee chaired by Professor H. Noguchi for their many 共15兲兴;
useful suggestions and dedicated efforts in developing the guide- pM y ⫽ yield moment of joint panel;
lines, and in particular, wish to express their deep gratitude to the N ⫽ number of stories;
late Mr. Toshio Toritani for his great contribution in the course of pw ⫽ transverse reinforcement ratio in joint
developing the shear design equations for RCS beam–column region;
joints. Qc ⫽ shear strength of concrete;
Q cr ⫽ shear strength of joint panel when initial
crack occurs;
Notation Qf ⫽ shear strength of cover plates;
Qh ⫽ shear strength of transverse reinforcement;
The following symbols are used in this paper: Qi ⫽ design seismic shear in ith story;
A c ⫽ sectional area of concrete portion in joint Qp ⫽ ultimate shear strength of joint panel;
panel; cQ u ⫽ ultimate shear capacity of columns;
A f ⫽ sectional area of cover plates; Q udi ⫽ seismic shear in ith story;
A i ⫽ vertical distribution factor for external Q ui ⫽ ultimate shear capacity of ith story under
forces; assumption of story failure mechanism;
A s ⫽ sectional area of steel portion in joint panel; Q uni ⫽ required ultimate shear capacity of ith story;
A w ⫽ sectional area of steel web in joint region; Qw ⫽ shear strength of web panel;
a 1 ⫽ ratio of cracking shear strength to ultimate Qy ⫽ yield shear strength of joint panel;
shear strength of joint panel, 0.6 for through Re ⫽ eccentricity factor;
beam type and 0.5 for through column R ex ,R ey ⫽ eccentricity factors associated with loadings
type; in x and y directions, respectively;
a 2 ⫽ ratio of yield shear strength to ultimate Ri ⫽ story drift angle in ith story under action of
shear strength of joint panel, 0.9 for design seismic shear force;
both through beam type and through column Rs ⫽ rigidity factor;
type; R si ⫽ rigidity factor of ith story;
b c ⫽ column width; Rt ⫽ vibration characteristics factor;
C i ⫽ story shear coefficient; r ex ,r ey ⫽ elastic radii 共square root of torsional
C 0 ⫽ standard shear coefficient 共value taken to be stiffness divided by lateral stiffness兲
not less than 0.2 for first phase design兲; associated with loadings in x and y directions,
C 1 ,C 2 ,C 3 ⫽ factors which depend on details of beam– respectively;
column joints, given in Table 2; r si ,r sa ⫽ reciprocal of story drift angle of ith story
D c ⫽ column depth; and their average value, respectively;
D s ⫽ structural characteristics factor; T ⫽ natural period of first mode of vibration 共s兲;
mcd ⫽ maximum distance between tensile and Wj ⫽ weight of jth story 共includes dead load plus
compressive reinforcement; reduced live load and, if located in designated
sbd ⫽ depth of structural steel beam; snowy zone, reduced snow load兲;
e x ,e y ⫽ eccentricity distances in x and y directions, Z ⫽ seismic zone factor;
respectively; ␤u ⫽ ratio of load carried by shear walls to total
G c ,G s ⫽ shear stiffness of concrete and steel, story shear 共see Table 1兲;
respectively; ␥c ⫽ shear strain when initial crack occurs;
H ⫽ building height 共m兲; ␦i ⫽ story drift in ith story under action of
h ⫽ story height; design seismic shear force;
h i ⫽ story height of ith story; J␦ ⫽ shape factor of beam–column joints for
h o ⫽ clear height of story 共i.e., column height兲; which values are taken to be 3.0 for
K e ⫽ effective shear stiffness of beam–column interior joints, 2.0 for exterior and top-interior
joint 关 ⫽0.4A c •G c ⫹0.9A s •G s 兴 ; joints, and 1.0 for top-corner joints,
l ⫽ span length; respectively;
l o ⫽ clear length of span 共i.e., beam length兲; ␴B ⫽ compressive strength of concrete in joint
b M p ⫽ plastic moment of beam; region;

JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004 / 341

Downloaded 10 Sep 2009 to 142.231.95.147. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright
s␴ f y⫽ yield stress of cover plates; Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) Annual Meeting, Kyushu, AIJ,
␴ wy ⫽ yield stress of transverse reinforcement; and 1301–1302 共in Japanese兲.
Kamogawa, N., et al. 共1998兲. ‘‘U.S.–Japan cooperative research project
s ␴ wy ⫽ yield stress of steel web.
on composite and hybrid structure 共RCS-46兲, study on the database of
composite RCS joints 共Part 11: proposition on Q-␥ relationship兲.’’
Summaries of Technical Papers of the AIJ Annual Meeting, Kyushu,
References
AIJ, 1305–1306 共in Japanese兲.
Kuramoto, H., Nishiyama, I., and Noguchi, H. 共2000兲. ‘‘Outline of Japa-
Baba, N., and Nishimura, Y. 共2000a兲. ‘‘Seismic behavior of RC
column—S beam moment frames.’’ Proc., 12th World Conf. on Earth- nese design guidelines for composite RCS buildings.’’ Proc., 6th
quake Engineering (12WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand. ASCCS Int. Conf. on Steel–Concrete Composite Structures, Vol. 2, Y.
Baba, N., and Nishimura, Y. 共2000b兲. ‘‘Stress transfer on through beam Xiao and S. A. Mahin, eds., Los Angeles, 1183–1190.
type steel beam—reinforced concrete column joints.’’ Proc., 6th Kuramoto, H. et al. 共1998兲. ‘‘Structural performance of through column
ASCCS Int. Conf. on Steel–Concrete Composite Structures, Vol. 2, Y. type joints for composite RCS frames.’’ J. Struct. Constr. Eng.,
Xiao and S. A. Mahin, eds., Los Angeles, 1183–1190. Architectural Institute of Japan, Tokyo, 514, 199–205.
Freeman, S. A. 共1978兲. ‘‘Prediction of response of concrete buildings to Mehanny, S. S. F., and Deierlein, G. G. 共2001兲. ‘‘Seismic damage and
severe earthquake motion.’’ Proc., Douglas McHenry Int. Symp. on collapse assessment of composite moment frames.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,
Concrete and Concrete Structures, American Concrete Institute, De- 127共9兲, 1045–1053.
troit, 589– 605. Nakashima, M., Roeder, C. W., and Maruoka, Y. 共2000兲. ‘‘Steel moment
Housing Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Construction. 共1994兲. ‘‘The frames for earthquakes in United States and Japan.’’ J. Struct. Eng.,
building standard law of Japan.’’ The Building Center of Japan, Tokyo 126共8兲, 861– 868.
共in Japanese兲. Nishiyama, I. et al. 共2000兲. ‘‘Bi-directional behavior of interior-,
Housing Bureau of the Japanese Ministry of Construction. 共1997兲. ‘‘The exterior-, and corner-joints of RCS system.’’ Proc., 12th World Conf.
structural provisions of buildings—The 1997 edition.’’ The Building
on Earthquake Engineering (12WCEE), Auckland, New Zealand.
Center of Japan, Tokyo 共in Japanese兲.
Noguchi, H., and Uchida, K. 共2000兲. ‘‘FEM analysis of hybrid frames
Iizuka, S., Kasamatsu, T., and Noguchi, H. 共1994兲. ‘‘Analytical study on
with R/C columns and steel beams.’’ Proc., 6th ASCCS Int. Conf. on
the joint of RC and S beam structures.’’ Proc., Japan Concrete Insti-
tute (JCI), JCI, Tokyo, 16共2兲, 1235–1240 共in Japanese兲. Steel–Concrete Composite Structures, Vol. 2, Y. Xiao and S. A.
Iizuka, S., et al. 共1998a兲. ‘‘Compilation based on the data base on the Mahin, eds., Los Angeles, 1183–1190.
RCS joint.’’ Proc., 5th Joint Technical Coordinating Committee Meet- Uniform Building Code 共UBC兲. 共1997兲. Proc., Int. Conf. of Building Of-
ing on Composite and Hybrid Structures, Building Research Institute, ficials, Vol. 2, Whittier, Calif.
Tokyo. U.S.–Japan Planning Groups. 共1992兲. ‘‘Recommendations for U.S.–
Iizuka, S., et al. 共1998b兲. ‘‘U.S.–Japan cooperative research project on Japan cooperative research program—Phase 5 composite and
composite and hybrid structure 共RCS-44兲, study on the database of hybrid structures.’’ Rep. No. UMCEE 92-29, Dept. of Civil and
composite RCS joints 共Part 9: The proposal on equation of ultimate Environmental Engineering, The Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
shear strength for RCS joint.’’ Summaries of Technical Papers of the Mich.

342 / JOURNAL OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / FEBRUARY 2004

View publication stats Downloaded 10 Sep 2009 to 142.231.95.147. Redistribution subject to ASCE license or copyright; see http://pubs.asce.org/copyright

You might also like