This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
3
Series Editors: A . S. Elnashai & P. J. Dowling
DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHRISE REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Editor: Hiroyuki Aoyama
irfk
Imperial College Press
DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHRISE REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES
SERIES ON INNOVATION IN STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCTION Editors: A. S. Elnashai (University of Illinois at P. J. Dowling (University of Surrey) UrbanaChampaign)
Published Vol. 1: EarthquakeResistant Design of Masonry Buildings by M. Tomazevic Implications of Recent Earthquakes on Seismic Risk by A. S. Elnashai & S. Antoniou Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures by H. Aoyama
Vol. 2:
Vol. 3:
Series on Innovation in Structures and Construction — Vol. 3
Series Editors: A . S. Elnashai & P. J. D o w l i n g
DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHRISE REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES
Editor
Hiroyuki Aoyama
University of Tokyo, Japan
ICP
Imperial College Press
Published by Imperial College Press 57 Shelton Street Covent Garden London WC2H 9HE Distributed by World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd. P O Box 128, Farrer Road, Singapore 912805 USA office: Suite IB, 1060 Main Street, River Edge, NJ 07661 UK office: 57 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9HE
British Library CataloguinginPublication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
DESIGN OF MODERN HIGHRISE REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES Copyright © 2001 by Imperial College Press All rights reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system now known or to be invented, without written permission from the Publisher.
For photocopying of material in this volume, please pay a copying fee through the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. In this case permission to photocopy is not required from the publisher.
ISBN
1860942393
Printed in Singapore by UtoPrint
Preface
Reinforced concrete (RC) as construction material has been used for a wide range of building structures throughout the world, owing to its advantages such as versatile architecture application, low construction cost, excellent durability and easy maintenance. However, its use in seismic countries and areas in the world has been limited to lowrise or mediumrise buildings, considering inherent lack of structural safety against earthquakes. In the last several decades, highrise RC buildings finally emerged in Japan, under the increased social need of more advanced types of RC buildings. Such a new type of structures was developed with the tremendous technical efforts for new high strength material, new design method, and new construction method, backed up by vast amount of research accomplishment. A five year national research project, entitled "Development of Advanced Reinforced Concrete Buildings using High Strength Concrete and Reinforcement", was conducted in 19881993 by the coalition of many research organizations in Japan with the Building Research Institute of the Ministry of Construction as the central key organization. The major incentive of this national research project was to further promote construction of highrise RC buildings as well as other advanced types of RC structures, by providing new high strength material and new design and construction methods suitable for such material. This national research project was simply referred to "the New RC" project. Now it is more than five years since the conclusion of the New RC project. It is quite clear that the project was successful and effective in finding numerous applications in the practical design and construction of advanced RC structures. This book was written as an effort to disseminate major findings of the project so as to help develop modern RC buildings in seismic countries and areas in the world. It consists of the following nine chapters. In Chapter 1, development and structural features of highrise RC buildings up to the onset of the New RC project are explained. It was the major motivation of the New RC project to develop even taller highrise RC buildings in seismic areas. Methods of seismic design and dynamic response analysis,
vi
Preface
prevalent at the time of New RC project initiation, are also introduced in this chapter. In Chapter 2, the development goal of the New RC project, development organizations and the outline of expected results are mentioned. Chapter 3 is entitled "high strength materials", and describes the development of high strength concrete and reinforcement and their mechanical characteristics. Chapter 4 describes the structural tests of New RC structural members such as beams, columns, walls, and so on, subjected to simulated seismic loading, and the evaluation methods of structural performance of New RC members and assemblies. Chapter 5 is entitled "finite element analysis", and describes the development of nonlinear finite element analysis models for New RC members, examples of analysis that supplement the structural testing of Chapter 4, and the guidelines for nonlinear finite element analysis. Chapter 6 introduces the New RC Structural Design Guidelines, emphasizing the new seismic design method for New RC highrise buildings, which basically consists of evaluation of seismic behavior through time history response analysis and static incremental load (push over) analysis. Also introduced in this chapter are several design examples. Chapter 7 intends to give an introductory explanation of dynamic time history response analysis to readers who are not quite acquainted with this kind of analysis, or to those who have experience in modal analysis or elastic analysis only. Computational models suitable for RC structures, general trends of seismic response of RC structures, and method of numerical analysis are presented. In Chapter 8, outline of a fullscale construction test and the New RC Construction Standard are presented. The construction standard is the compilation of standard specifications for New RC materials, their manufacturing and processing, and various phases of construction works. In the last Chapter 9, feasibility studies on three new types of buildings using high strength materials are mentioned, and highrise buildings utilizing New RC materials that were actually designed and constructed, or under construction, are introduced. Most chapters of this book were authored by persons who acted as secretaries of the relevant committees of the New RC project. This is the reason why relatively few literatures were referred to in each chapter of this book.
Preface
vii
The authors wish that the publication of this book will further promote the dissemination of the results of the New RC project into practice throughout the world, and will also encourage further research on the use of high strength and high performance materials to RC structures. Hiroyuki Aoyama
Construction Management 1. Increase of Highrise RC and the New RC Project 1.1. Basic Principles ix v 1 1 1 3 5 7 7 10 12 13 15 15 16 17 18 19 21 21 22 22 . Structural Systems 1. Material and Construction 1. Use of Precast Elements 1. Evolution of RC Highrise Buildings 1.1. Concrete Placement 1.3.4. Technology Examination at the Building Center of Japan 1.3.3.3. ReBar Splices and Anchorage 1.4.1.7.2.3. Plan of Buildings 1.6.2. Preassemblage of Reinforcement Cage 1.1.3.5. Elevation of Buildings 1.2.3.2.2.Contents Preface Chapter 1 RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas Hiroyuki Aoyama 1.3.1. Typical Structural Members 1.2. Structural Planning 1.3.2. Reinforcement 1.3.3.1.1. Seismic Design 1.2.4.1. Historic Background 1.4. Concrete 1.
Results of Response Analysis 1.6.1.3.4.6.3.4.1.4.4.4.6. Dissemination of Results 1.6. Input Earthquake Motions 1.6.5.3. 2.2.4.4.3.x Contents Design Criteria and Procedure Design Seismic Loads Required Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity First Phase Design Second Phase Design 1. Ductility of Girders 1. 2.4. 23 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 30 30 30 31 32 32 32 33 33 34 36 37 37 38 40 40 41 44 53 53 55 55 56 56 59 .5.4. Earthquake Response Analysis 1. Nonlinear Frame Analysis 1. Minimum Requirements 1.5. Column Strength and Ductility 1. 1. Development of Structural Design 2.6.4.5.5. 1. Experimental Verification 1.4. Need for Higher Strength Materials Chapter 2 The N e w R C Project Hisahiro Hiraishi 2. Development of Structural Performance Evaluation 2. Background of the Project Target of the Project Organization for the Project Outline of Results 2.4. Linear Analysis 1.4.5. Damping 1.5.6.4.4.1.4. Feasibility Studies for New RC Buildings 2. 1.2.5. Development of Construction Standard 2.1.2. 2.4.2.1. Calculation of Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity .4.5. Beamcolumn Joints 1. Imaginary Accident 1. Factors Contributed to Highrise RC Development 1.2.3.6. Development of Materials for High Strength RC 2.7. For Future Development 1.6.5.2.6.4. Nonlinear Lumped Mass Analysis 1.5.6.4. 1. 1.4.5.4.6.
Properties of High Strength Concrete 3.1.2. High Strength Concrete 3.1.2.1. Effect of High Temperature 3.4.5.5. Specified Yield Strength 3. Corrosion Resistance 3.6.1.3.1.1.4. Advantages and Problems of High Strength Rebars .3.2.1. Fire Resistance 3.6. Beam Bar Anchorage in Exterior Joints 3.4. Drying Shrinkage and Creep 3.2. . High Strength Reinforcing Bars 3.1. Relationship of New Rebars to Current JIS 3.1.2.1.1.2. Bond Anchorage in Interior Joints 61 61 62 64 66 70 71 75 75 76 77 80 82 84 86 86 86 87 88 88 91 91 92 93 93 97 97 99 100 104 104 105 109 .1. Fire Resistance and Durability 3. Mechanical Properties of Reinforced Concrete 3.7. Strain at Yield Plateau 3.2.2.2. Durability 3.2.2.1.2. Chemical Admixtures 3.3. Splice 3.1.2. Aggregate 3. Bond and Anchorage 3.2. . Yield Ratio 3. Method of Manufacture and Chemical Component 3.1. General Outlines 3.1.4.4.2.5.2.1.6.1. Workability 3.1. Proposed Standards for High Strength Rebars 3.2.3. Mix Design 3. Mechanical Properties 3. 3.2.4.1.1.2.3.1.1.2.1.2.3.2.3.3. Mineral Admixtures 3. Elongation and Bendability 3.1.2.2.4. Reinforcement Committee 3.1.1.5.6.1.Contents xi Chapter 3 N e w R C Materials 61 Michihiko Abe Hitoshi Shiohara 3.2.1.4. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength 3.2.4. Cement 3. Material and Mix of High Strength Concrete 3.2. .2.
Lateral Confinement 3.2. Restoring Force Characteristics of Beams Ill 113 113 120 121 122 123 124 127 127 128 129 136 141 147 152 156 162 169 170 178 183 189 191 196 203 206 209 209 .6.4. 3. Upper Limit of Stress in Lateral Reinforcement . BondSplitting Failure of Beams after Yielding 4.1. Concrete under Plane Stress Condition 3. Shear Strength of Slender Walls 4. Vertical Splitting of Columns under High Axial Compression 4.1. Flexural Capacity of ShearCompression Failure Type Walls 4. Slab Effect on Flexural Behavior of Beams 4.1.3. Flexural Bond Resistance of Beam Bars 3. Introduction 4.2.3.5.4.2.3. BeamColumn Joints 4. Columns Subjected to Bidirectional Flexure 4.3.2. Beams and Columns 4.1.7. Stressstrain Relationship of Confined Concrete .3.3.3.1.4. .2.3. Shear Capacity of Exterior Joints 4.2.2.2. Bond in the Interior BeamColumn Joints 4.3. Method of Structural Performance Evaluation 4.2.3. Concrete Strength Difference between First Story Column and Foundation 4. Deformation Capacity of Columns after Yielding 4. 3.3.xii Contents 3. Deformation Capacity of Walls under Bidirectional Loading 4. Walls 4.2.4.3.2. Shear Strength of Beams 4.1.2. Shear Capacity of 3D Joints under Bidirectional Loading 4.4.2.3.1. Shear Strength of Columns 4.5. Buckling of Axial Rebars 3.1.3. Biaxial Loading Test of Plain Concrete Plate .3.3.3. 3. .2.4.3.3.2.2.3.5. Tests of Reinforced Concrete Plate under Inplane Shear Chapter 4 N e w R C Structural Elements Takashi Kaminosono 4.4.2.
5.2.5.5. History of Finite Element Analysis of Reinforced Concrete 5.2.5. FEM and Reinforced Concrete 5.5.2.5.5.3.1. Bond Splitting Along Axial Bars 216 4.2.4.1. Limiting Deflection 214 4.5. Flexural Strength 214 4.5.3. Shear Strength of BeamColumn Joints 221 4.5. Modeling of Concrete 5.2.1. 217 4.5.1.4. Equivalent Viscous Damping 214 4.2. Strengthening 225 4. Flexural Strength of Walls 219 4.2.5.3. Splitting Stress 224 4.5.5. Flexural Compression Failure 215 4.2.2. Modeling of Cracks 5.5.2. Concluding Remarks 225 Chapter 5 Finite Element Analysis Hiroshi Noguchi 5.2. Comparative Analysis of RC Members Using High Strength Materials 227 227 229 229 232 232 232 234 234 234 235 236 .2.5.6.2. TwoDimensional Analysis and ThreeDimensional Analysis 5.2.1.1. Bearing Stress 224 4.2.1.3. Modeling of RC 5.5. Connections of First Story Column to Foundation 224 4. Flexural Cracking 210 4.6.3.2.5.2.2.2. Fundamentals of FEM 5.5.1. Shear Failure in the Hinge Zone after Yielding . Deformation Capacity of Columns 215 4.2. . Yield Deflection 211 4.4.2.5. Modeling of Reinforcement 5.2. FEM of RC Members Using High Strength Materials 5. Shear Strength of Beams and Columns 219 4.5.4.2.Contents xiii 4.1.1.1.3.4.5. Modeling of Bond between Reinforcement and Concrete 5.1. Initial Stiffness 210 4.5.
4.4. Biaxial Effect of Concrete 5. Comparative Analysis of Beams.2.1.5.8.4.8.2. Conclusions FEM Parametric Analysis of High Strength Walls 236 237 237 238 238 239 239 239 240 240 240 240 240 242 242 244 244 246 246 247 248 251 251 251 253 255 255 255 256 256 260 260 . Analysis of Shear Walls 5. Dowel Action of Reinforcement 5.4.3. Uniaxial Compressive StressStrain Curves of Concrete 5.7. Objectives and Methods 5.4.9. .2. Confinement Effect of Concrete 5.4.3. Conclusions FEM Parametric Analysis of High Strength Beams 5. 5.4.4. Shear Stiffness of a Crack Plane 5. Conclusions FEM Parametric Analysis of High Strength BeamColumn Joints 5. Objectives and Methods 5.2. Cracking Strength 5.7. Objectives and Methods 5.4.2.4.1. Results of Parametric Analysis 5.5. Tension Stiffening Characteristics of Concrete . The Effect of Shear Reinforcement Ratio 5. Analytical Models and Analytical Results 5.4.3.3.7.4.2.2.1.6.6.7.4.7. 5.2.5. Analysis of Beam Test Specimens 5. Conclusions FEM Parametric Analysis of High Strength Columns 5.4. Compressive Strength Reduction Coefficient of Cracked Concrete 5.3. 5.5.1.4.7.1.3. Material Constitutive Laws 5.3.4. Analytical Results 5.4.3.2.1. .10.2. StressStrain Relationship of Reinforcement . 5.3.4. 5.2.2.2.6.2.6.4.4. Analysis of Panel Specimens 5.6. Comparison between Test and Analytical Results 5.2.5. Effects of Concrete Confinement Models with a Constant Value of pw<Jwy 5. 5.2.5. Panels and Shear Walls 5.xiv Contents 5. . Bond Characteristics 5.4.3.
5. Proposal of Design Earthquake Motion 273 6. Hysteresis 286 6.5. SoilFoundationStructure Interaction Model .1. Structural Design of Foundation and SoilStructure Interaction 274 6.9.2. Objectives and Methods 5.1. Variation of Material Strength and Accuracy in Strength Evaluation 274 6.2.3. .1. SwayRocking Model 282 6.1. Analytical Results and Discussions 5.2.2. Design Drift Limitations 275 6.1. Objectives and Methods 5.3. Design Criteria 276 6.8.4.2. Member Modeling 284 6.6.2. Modeling of Structures 281 6.1.5.6. 282 6.2.3.1.3.1.2. Characteristics of Earthquake Motion 279 6. FEM Parametric Analysis of High Strength Panels 5. Earthquake Resistant Design in Three Stages 273 6.8. .4.2. Bidirectional and Vertical Earthquake Motions 273 6.1. New RC Earthquake Motion 279 6.1.2.2. Earthquake Resistant Design Criteria 275 6.1. Outline of Research 5. Relation to Building Standard Law 280 6.5.8.3. Direction of Seismic Design 286 .5.4.3.2. Design Earthquake Motion 279 6.4.9.1.1.4.3. Analytical Results and Summary Chapter 6 Structural Design Principles Masaomi Teshigawara 260 260 262 265 265 265 271 6. Design Earthquake Intensity 275 6. Restoring Force Characteristics of Members 283 6. Dependable and Upper Bound Strengths 283 6. Modeling of Structures 281 6.9.2.1.2. Fixed Base Model 281 6. Clarification of Required Safety 274 6.1.3. Features of New RC Structural Design Guidelines 272 6.2.4.3. Relation of Model and Earthquake Motion 281 6.Contents xv 5.3.4.
2. Bidirectional Earthquake Input 6.2.4.8. DisplacementBased Design Procedure 7.1. OneComponent Model for Beam 7.2. Member Models 7. Design Forces in Arbitrary Direction 6.2.2.xvi Contents 6.8. Correlation of Nonlinear Response to Linear Response 7.2.1.2.1.6. Nonlinear Response of SDF System 7.3.3. TwoDimensional Frame Model 7.2.3. Mediumrise Office Buildings (15Story WallFrame. Wall Model 7.1.8.4. Multiaxial Spring Model for Column 7. CoreinTube Structure 6. Multimass Model 7.7. Design Examples 6.1. Numerical Analysis 7.2.5.1.8. ThreeDimensional Frame Model 7.3.2. Foundation Structure 6.3. Double Tube Structure 6.4.8.1.5.2.3. Release of Unbalanced Force Chapter 8 Construction of N e w R C Structures Yoshihiro Masuda 286 289 289 289 291 291 299 299 305 310 315 315 319 319 321 323 324 325 325 328 331 335 335 337 341 341 343 345 . 40Story Double Tube and CoreinTube Office Buildings 6. Numerical Analysis of Equation of Motion 7. Structural Model 7.3.1.2.4. 15Story Space Frame. 60Story Space Frame Apartment Building 6. SoilStructure Model 7.6.6.8.3. Effect of Vertical Motion 6.5.2.2. Earthquake Response Analysis in Seismic Design 7. 25Story Space Frame) Chapter 7 Earthquake Response Analysis Toshimi Kabeyasawa 7.
OP300 Straight Type 408 . Full Scale Construction Testing 8.3. OP200 Straight Type 407 9.2.3.6. .1.4.2.2.1.Contents xvii 8.2.4.5. Highrise Flat Slab Condominium with Core Walls 393 9.4.3.2. Mix 8.3.1.4.2.4. Concrete Mix 8. Introduction 8.5.4.2. Highrise Flat Slab Condominium with Curved Walls399 9. Construction of Frame Specimen 8.3.1. General 8. Construction of Column Specimens 8.3.4.6.2.1.3. Compressive Strength Inspection Chapter 9 Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings Hideo Fujitani 345 345 345 346 349 354 356 356 357 360 366 366 371 374 375 375 375 376 377 377 377 383 384 386 387 388 388 391 9.2.2.5.1. Observation of Cracks on Frame Specimen .3.1.5. Concrete 8. Megastructures 407 9.2.2. Outline of Construction Testing 8. Material 8.3.3.3.1.2.2.3.3. Manufacture of Concrete 8.5.5.2. Highrise Flat Slab Buildings 391 9.2. Fresh Concrete 8. Conclusion 8. Formwork 8.2. 8.1.4.5. Concrete Quality 8.2.3.3.3. Placing and Surface Finishing 8. Concrete Construction 8.1.5. Reinforcement 8.1.1.1.1. Feasibility Studies 391 9.4. Construction Standard for New RC 8.8. General Provisions 8.2. Measurement of Internal Temperature 8.6.2. .1.3. .1.2.4. Reinforcement Construction 8. Objectives 8.7.4. Strength Development 8. Curing 8.5.1.4.2.
1.1.1.xviii Contents 9. BR200 Dbrace Type 9. OP300 Tapered Type 9.7.4. BR300 Xbrace Type 9.3.1. A Box Column Structure for Thermal Power Plant 9.6.1.2.2.2. Example Buildings Index 410 412 412 414 415 418 424 437 .1.2.2.2. Concluding Remarks 9.3. BR200 Kbrace Type 9.5.
The RC construction became popular in the subsequent years.1. Evolution of R C Highrise Buildings Historic Background The national research project on development of advanced reinforced concrete buildings using high strength concrete and reinforcement.1. 731 Hongo. l .1. University of Tokyo. the development of highrise RC buildings up to the onset of the New RC project in 1988.co.jp 1. designed by Naoji Shiraishi. Bunkyoku. Reinforced concrete as building material was introduced to Japan around 1905. for it was generally accepted as fireproof and earthquakeproof construction. in contrast to combustible wooden construction or earthquakecrumbling brick construction. that is. Tokyo 1138656. and constructed in 1906. 1. usually referred to as the "New RC" project and on which basis this book was written. a professor of civil engineering of the University of Tokyo and a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers of the Great Britain. Japan Email: aoyamaal@kozo. The first all RC building was a warehouse in Kobe. was planned and conducted in 19881993 in Japan under the leadership of the Japanese Ministry of Construction. in order to further promote the development and use of higher strength materials for highrise and other advanced types of RC buildings. This chapter is devoted to the introduction of the background of the New RC project.Chapter 1 RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas Hiroyuki Aoyama Department of Architecture. This project was carried out on the background of quick development of highrise RC buildings since about 1975.
Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures However the RC construction as building structure did not trace a favorable history since then. which was initiated by Kajima Construction Co. the Shiinamachi Apartment. The traditional RC construction. was limited to buildings whose height did not exceed 20 m. This limitation was not explicitly prescribed in the building code. This led to the development of composite steel and reinforced concrete (SRC) construction as a uniquely Japanese type of construction for Mghrise buildings. as shown in Fig.1. both for apartment buildings.2 Design of Modem. Regardless of its reputation as an "eternal" architecture. This administrative guidance was carried over to postwar period. It should be mentioned that all the big Japanese construction companies have (a) Shiinamachi Apartment (b) Sun City GBuilding Fig. in 1974. in 1980. the new Building Standard Law was enforced to replace the old Urban Building Law. In 1950. Sun City GBlook Apartment.1. Any building taller than. The more important of the two developments was the latter. seven stories had to be constructed by steel structure or SRC structure. The behavior of RC in this earthquake disaster was generally inferior to concreteencased or brickencased steel buildings. 1. The RC construction was started to be used for taller buildings. many RC buildings in Tokyo suffered heavy damage in 1923 Kanto earthquake. the situation began to change rapidly. by completing an 18story building in Tokyo. This new trend included development of highrise wallframe construction of 10 to 15 stories and highrise frame construction of 20 stories or higher. say. followed by another 25story building also in Tokyo. five years after the end of the World War II. but the situation for RC construction was basically unchanged. Early examples of RC highrise buildings. 1. but was enforced by means of the administrative guidance. on the other hand. Around 1980. .
Professor of Tsukuba University. The chairman was succeeded by Dr. regardless of the possibility to realize the projected plan. columns. this review was especially challenging. and hence the structural design of these buildings was also done by Kajima. Technology of Japan Examination at the Building Center The Highrise RC Construction Technology Examination Committee was formed in 1984 in the Building Center of Japan under the chairmanship of Dr. submitted similar proposal to the Building Center of Japan.. and Konoikegumi Construction Co. has had to be subjected to the technical review of the Technical Appraisal Committee for Highrise Buildings of the Building Center of Japan. which was revised to extend the height limitation to 60 m in 1981. In 19831984. Hiroyuki Aoyama. Taisei Construction Co. leading to the special permission of the Minister of Construction. Professor of the University of Tokyo. Other big construction companies did not allow Kajima alone to go further in highrise RC construction. among others. If one wants to build a taller building. and subassemblages. as it was the first experience for both design engineers and committee members to handle earthquake resistant highrise RC construction. Kajima subsequently submitted 25. particularly the seismic design.RC Higkri. and development of construction technology. For the two Kajima buildings of highrise RC. 1. it became almost like a violent competition of big construction companies to prepare for submission of highrise RC construction.1. The Building Standard Law prescribed provisions for buildings up to 31 m in height in its original version of 1950. It included largescale structural testing in the laboratory of beams. in 1986. The purpose of this committee was to control the spontaneous and violent competition of construction companies for highrise RC construction. and subsequently a special permit of the Minister of Construction is issued. computer programs of advanced analysis technique for nonlinear static and dynamic earthquake response.2. With the help of vast experimental and analytical background data. Kajima had conducted an extensive research and development project within the company prior to designing these buildings. its structural design. Yasuhisa Sonobe. .se Buildings in Seismic Areas 3 design sections within the company.and 30story apartment buildings for technical appraisal in 1983. Kajima could obtain technical appraisal for their first highrise RC buildings.
Some companies wanted to obtain technical appraisal of a highrise RC building only in order to be recorded. as mentioned earlier. in addition to showing the design and analysis of the building project to be appraised. since 1994 up to the present time. The country of Japan makes a sharp contrast to these countries not only for its high seismic risk. and construction guidelines with practices. highrise RC construction as tall as 30 stories is not uncommon. and so on. It also helped release the Technical Appraisal Committee from the abovementioned unfair burden. To this end the abovementioned construction companies established new technologies associated with the design and construction of highrise RC buildings in the course of technical appraisal of the structural design of particular buildings. The Technical Appraisal Committee had to work on materials of the general nature as well as those specifically related to the building in question. Under such a condition one would have to be prudent in the development of highrise RC construction. It was deemed insufficient to utilize the experience of highrise steel or SRC construction. The Highrise RC Construction Technology Examination Committee was formed. they compiled and submitted the materials of general character showing design capability for highrise RC to the Technical Appraisal Committee. It was reorganized in 1992 as the Highrise RC Construction Technology Guidance Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. This movement clearly added improper burden to the Committee. in 1984 in order to control undue competition of construction companies. but also for its high level of protection demand against earthquake damage by the society. The applicant of a highrise RC building — the design section of a construction company — had to show design capability for highrise RC construction by the compilation of experimental data. In spite of having no prospect to realize the project. The Technology Examination Committee's work is different from that of the Technical Appraisal Committee in that there is no concrete project to . Yasuhisa Sonobe. However this meant a dual object in the conduct of technical appraisal. computer programs for nonlinear static and dynamic response analysis. unless the construction company was a repeater of highrise RC such as Kajima. The committee has been chaired by Dr. and was deemed necessary to solve new problems proper to highrise RC construction. Shunsuke Otani. Professor of the University of Tokyo.4 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures In many countries where earthquake is not a potential risk for structural safety of buildings.
and operation tests of various stages of construction.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 5 be designed and constructed. backed up by the beginning of brisk business condition at that time. the ratio of concrete construction . 1. vibrators. usually one.to doublespan frame in two directions. responsibility of contractor in the quality control of concrete and form works. an imaginary building project designed accordingly. It is seen the number fluctuates greatly. and so on. but the annual number for highrise RC construction shows steady increase since 1987. and is carried out in the presence of committee members. concrete pumps. The structural design and construction specifications are required to fully reflect results and implications of these tests.or twostoried and single. It is inferred that the increase since 1987 owes to the increase of construction companies that passed the technology examination of the Building Center of Japan. together with the breakdown into three structural categories of steel. Materials are frequently accompanied by reports of laboratory structural tests of RC members. Instead. The materials usually consist of structural design specifications. proper use of concrete buckets. The construction operation test has been shown to be quite effective in the reform of understanding of both structural and construction engineers to account for new aspects of highrise RC. Such an operation test is almost mandatory to the applicant. Figure 1. separate concreting for columns and floor framing. A few design firms have so far applied by forming a team with construction companies. applicants submit set of materials to demonstrate their capability to design and construct highrise RC buildings.2 shows annual numbers of highrise buildings that passed the technical appraisal of the Building Center of Japan. As an application to the technology examination involves construction technology. or by preparing elaborate construction specifications to be applied to the contractor after bidding is settled. One of the most important aspect of the examination is the operation test of the construction of a fullsize mockup.3. and construction specifications with emphasis on the quality control. presumably according to the construction business fluctuation. majority of applicants are construction companies.1. preassembling of high strength rebar cages. laboratory and field tests of high strength concrete. SRC and RC. Increase of Highrise RC and the New RC Project The number of highrise RC buildings is steadily increasing since about 1985. such as high viscosity of high strength concrete. After the peak of good business of 1990.
the immediate arrival of highrise RC boom was quite apparent. probably to 200 m or higher. As mentioned earlier. such as large scale structural testing. 1. The technology developed in this project can be regarded as an attractive new technology to enhance the possibility of RC construction.ns ®SRC • RC 90 E 80 1 w 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 *3 ^ t ° zo  79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 Year Fig. SRC and RC occupy approximately 70. development of advanced RC buildings using high strength concrete and reinforcement in its full name. In the average of recent ten years. But the most significant and influential factor was the development of high strength concrete up to 42 MPa and high strength.6 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 120 110 100 . steel. The New RC project was an attempt to further promote the development of advanced RC construction in the seismic zones. 15 and 15 percent of total highrise construction. respectively. The quick development of highrise RC construction owed to many factors. . was conducted as a fiveyear project in 19881993 under the leadership of the Japanese Ministry of Construction. Annual highrise construction in Japan. this national research project. Its influence was spread out to RC construction even before the end of the fiveyear project. In 1987 when the New RC project was proposed at the Building Research Institute of the Ministry of Construction.2. advanced analysis techniques. with Building Research Institutes as the key organization. The total number of highrise RC at the end of 1997 exceeds 200. It was a very ambitious project to enlarge the scope of RC construction to a new height in the seismic countries such as Japan. large size reinforcing bars up to SD 390 D41 bars. including SRC and RC to the total highrise construction became larger. and development of construction technology.
The variation employed in those plans included the following. Figure 1.1.3. 1. and symmetric with respect to one or two axes.2. or under construction.5°° Fig. because of better habitability provided by concrete. but other plans investigated in the technology examination were much alike. This is probably the most regular of the all.2 is the result of this influence. 1. 1. slightly different span numbers in two directions.3 shows a typical plan of buildings that were investigated in the technology examination of the Building Center of Japan. As will be seen in Chapter 9 of this book. Structural Planning Plan of Buildings Highrise RC construction is currently used almost exclusively for apartment houses. 1. there are already more than 20 highrise RC buildings constructed. . slightly different span 1200 5000  II  // • » J 5000 1200  *" I m 25000 I" °® © ® © © ©. at least partly.2. Floor plan of these buildings is generally regular. Example of typical floor plan of RC highrise building. as the direct result of this New RC project.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 7 The increase of highrise RC after 1988 in Fig.
0) (h)H59S (21. The span length of 5 m is much shorter than comparable SRC or steel buildings. varying span lengths in one direction.8 3B.3 is 5 m in both directions.8 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures lengths in two directions. The short span was adopted in order to limit the axial load on a column.0) (0H495 (291) x 11.2) Fig. Here lies a possibility for the New RC to liberate the structural constraint.6 37.6 (g)H309 (25. by shaping the plan as simple as possible within the practicability limit. 1.0 36.4) 2 .2) («) H425 (30.2JX2 (i) H505 (30.0 n. 1. eliminating one span each at four corners. Thus it was apparent that designers of highrise RC buildings gave priority to structural characteristics. Z9. at least at the beginning in the stage of technology examination. Key plans of RC highrise buildings. The span length of the building in Fig. eliminating one or two central spans at four sides. to enlarge the span by adopting higher strength materials. and having a courtyard at the center.a (c) H444 (30.3 33.5 (d)H504 (25.0) (a)H729 (22. that is. .2)X2 (b)H789(32.4. but this was also typical for most of the buildings subjected to technology examination. and thereby reduce the seismic force acting on a column.
2) (n)H706 (33.1) (o)H5B0 (37. Figures 1. (i) to (1) are frame buildings with courtyard.1) J L nH 3S.4 shows sixteen examples of structural key plan of highrise RC buildings actually constructed up to 1991.4(a) to (h) are frame buildings without courtyard.4.8 <j)H514 (25. ? r (p)HB84 (41.  (m) HB67 (26. and cantilever balcony slabs are not shown. (m) is the . In the case of actual buildings.1) (RC 13 Et±) Fig.1) (k)H5B3 (332) (1)H466 (30. (Continued) Figure 1.1) dampers wall M j y.3 are apparent. . Floor opening for stairs and elevators are not shown either.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 9 X JZ. Xmarks denote courtyards and similar open bays. 1. These drawings show columns and floor girders only. somewhat larger variations from the regular plan shown in Fig. 1.l 1 1 31.
It should be noted that there are no buildings with a structural core. (o) and (p) are the socalled tube structure buildings also described in the next section. 1. Figure 1.2. By far this type is the most common in highrise RC construction. Chapter 9 of this book introduces an office building with hybrid structure.4 introduces twelve examples of space frame system. space frame with seismic elements. A few examples have balconies inside the peripheral frame lines. Due to the Japanese taste of enjoying sunshine in the dwellings.2.se Reinforced Concrete Structures one with shear walls in one direction. It is then necessary to pay attention to the diaphragm stiffness at the north side of a . Compared to frames with multiple spans. but not used for apartment houses. span lengths in two directions.10 Design of Modern Higkri. What matters is the mixture of frames with variable number of spans. Structural Systems Structural systems of highrise RC buildings currently constructed in Japan are classified into three categories. The core system is better suited to office buildings. This is because of high earthquake resistance required in Japan. Presence of a courtyard does not make any basic difference to the structural characteristics. However it will be seen that all buildings are shaped more or less like a tower with 30 m to 40 m in each direction. Most buildings are equipped with balconies of continuous cantilever slabs around the periphery of the plan. (a) to (1). frames with one or two spans are more susceptible to bending deformations resulting from axial deformation of columns under lateral loading. As a partial result of the New RC project. The space frame system consists of frames with uniform. and doubletube system. stairs and elevators are most often concentrated to the north side of the floor which is disadvantageous in this respect. Such a variation is not found in Fig. 1. space frame system. There is no slabshaped buildings as contrasted to lowrise to mediumrise apartment buildings. and it is usually required to analyze such structures by means of threedimensional structural analysis.4 where all buildings are for dwelling. Unlike RC construction in overseas countries. One important consideration in a building with courtyard is the inplane stiffness of floor slabs as diaphragms. consisting of RC core and peripheral steel frames. or nearly uniform. (n) is a frame building with a special antiseismic device explained in the next section. all frames available in the plan are designed as moment resisting frames.
It is believed that shear walls would be effective in highrise construction as well. 1. but its performance would be different from lowrise buildings. Another example in the space frame with seismic elements category is the building of Fig. the spatial interaction would become more complicated. A tubular structure here means plane frames with relatively short spans arranged into foursided box. The first is the space frame building with shear walls. Challenge to such type of structures depend on engineers' courage. and added complication in construction process. 1. usually referred to as passive seismic control. The most important consideration in the structural design of double tubes is to ensure ductile behavior of shortspan girders in the plane frames. These steel dampers yield at a small story drift. exterior and interior peripheries can be used as this kind of tubes. and the floor between the tubes spans over 10 m or so. .4(m) is one of rare examples of this type of construction where shear walls are provided in one direction only. thereby reducing seismic effect on the RC space frames. Some examples utilize the socalled Xshaped reinforcement in the short girders. The analysis and design of a space frame with shear walls will have to involve more sophisticated nonlinear analysis. but it is limited to the past experience with lowrise to mediumrise RC buildings. and absorb seismic energy through their elastoplastic hysteresis. Span length in the plane frames is usually 3 to 4 m. It is a space frame building having two axes of frames in the diagonal directions. may also contribute to discourage the engineers from adopting shear walls. static as well as dynamic. 1. The space frame with seismic elements refers to buildings like in Figs.4(n). It is an application of the socalled "structural control". such as shown in Figs. which consist of floor slabs with subbeams or slabs with prestressing steel. When shear walls are provided in two directions. Figure 1. hence they are called double tubes. The third category in the structural systems is the doubletube system. It is a well established fact that shear walls are quite effective in earthquake resistance. Restriction in the interior architectural design by the presence of wall. with additional seismic dampers made of honeycomb shaped steel plates at several midspan of girders.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 11 courtyard so that the floor slab openings of stairs and elevators will not cause any problem to the rigid slab assumption.4(m) and (n).4(o) and (p). For an apartment building plan with a courtyard. Presumably for this reason there are strikingly few examples of this type in the current highrise RC construction.
2.12 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 1. containing elevator machinery and roof outlet from stairs. and hence has larger story height of 4 m or more. The total number of stories varies from 20 to 40 or more. Elevation of Buildings Buildings for technology examination as well as those for actual construction have a common feature of regular shape in the vertical direction. but in the basement story most of the lateral load (more . In the first story lateral load is distributed more or less uniformly into column shear forces. and also induces axial force in the first floor girders. Abrupt stiffness change between adjacent stories is carefully avoided. height to width ratio of the building. which also serve as shear walls. the detail design of the connection to the main building is the point of major consideration. which is much smaller than office buildings. Reversed column shear occurs when the basement story does not drift as much as the first story under lateral loading and first story column base moment is transmitted to the basement column. The short story height gives advantage in seismic design by reducing column moments for a given lateral load. or steel frames. is less than 4 in all cases.3. Care should be taken to account for possible reversed shear forces in the basement columns. The first story above ground is usually occupied by entrance hall and other special purpose spaces. It is also necessary to pay attention to the stress around the openings in the roof floor from the lateral seismic force of the penthouse. are often located off the center of gravity of typical floors. They also provide added safety and stability to seismic performance. consisting of RC frames with or without wall. but in actual practice basements are often needed for various architectural purposes. It is also necessary to pay due attention to the transfer of lateral forces in the first floor slabs. The basement is generally provided with thick exterior retaining walls. Thus it has considerably larger lateral stiffness and strength than stories above ground. In case steel frames are used for a penthouse. thus cause eccentricity to the main building body. and the fact that apartment houses do not require larger story height probably lead to the prosperity of current highrise RC construction. More than 80 percent of highrise RC buildings are built on basement stories. Penthouses. In the stage of technology examination many construction companies avoided basements for the sake of simplicity in structural design. The aspect ratio. and the story height is about 3 m. Buildings usually have penthouse. It contributes to the additional lateral force in the basement in the direction of lateral load.
Axial reinforcement ratio is about 2 to 3 percent. and the floor slabs should be designed to account for this loading. 1.4. 1. but in the more recent years it became a governing trend to use subhoops in the shape of Fig. The basement story shear walls add strength and stiffness to these foundation girders. foundation girders must be designed for flexure.2. shear and axial load considering the reaction to piletop bending moment. (b) T y p i c a l c o l u m n sections. but in most cases pile foundation has to be employed. The most popular type of pile system is the bearing piles made by castin situ concrete. but they are often reserved in the structural design as a surplus margin of safety. To provide effective confinement to the core concrete. . In case of pile foundation. 12D41 Spiral Hoop Ol6<f>@75 Hoop D16(J)@75 12D41 Spiral Hoop Dtf)ll@80 Hoop #<J>11@80 (a) F i g .5 shows typical sections of columns. or with partial replacement by continuous wallpiles. constructed by reverse circulation method or all casing method. The foundation of buildings may be directly supported by subsoil if it is firm enough.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 13 than 100 percent when reversed shear forces occur in the basement columns) is carried by shear walls. construction companies devised various types of lateral reinforcement for the technology examination. Figure 1.5(b) consisting of high strength deformed PC steel or flush butt welded (FB) rings. 1. with the maximum dimension of about 90 cm at the lower stories above ground.5. Hence large amount of lateral load has to be transferred to shear walls through the first floor slabs acting as the diaphragm. The foundation of buildings in these cases consists of pilecap tie girders. strong and stiff enough to ensure monolithic performance of the building as a whole. Typical Structural Members Column section is usually square.
J 3 0 J U L C c 3 c 3 3 3 C W 650 c r D c T " ) r1 .Hoop (a) Fig. 1. and thus form a Tshaped section with the monolithic slab.7. The prevalent architectural design to provide balconies around the floor plan prohibits the use of wall girders. 16D41 Stirrup DD16@100 Fig.® 100 T y p i c a l girder sections.14 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures To overcome large seismic overturning moment which produces dominating axial forces in the exterior columns in lower stories. In most cases girders are located below the floor slab. providing space for four large diameter axial bars in a row. 16D41+8D41 J. But in a few cases wall girders were used in the exterior frames which consisted of girders below the slab and spandrels above the floor connected monolithically into girders of large depth. Some examples are shown in Fig. When and where balconies are J D C « cfl 1 r >. additional axial bars (core bars) are frequently located in the central portion of these column sections. High strength deformed P C steel is often used for stirrups to increase shear resistance. 1. 1.6. 1. Hoop S. as shown in Fig.6. . Fourleg stirrups are generally used. Girders are of rectangular section with height not greater than 80 cm and with relatively large width of about 60 cm. i n A rI 880 16D41+8D41 Hoop DiJ)ll@60 #cj)ll@60 (b) E x t e r n a l c o l u m n s w i t h core bars.7. f 650 14D41 Stirrup © D i e .
as the concrete casting into column and floor system simultaneously has been a common traditional practice for lowrise buildings. some construction companies started the use of even higher strength concrete. such as 48 MPa or in some cases 60 MPa before the results of the project were released. Most of highrise RC buildings are constructed by placing column concrete and that for floor system separately. VH separate casting (which means casting separately into vertical and horizontal members) was deliberately adopted for highrise construction with the aim of maintaining good quality in the column concrete. For the practical reinforcement around such openings various prefabricated devices are available in the shape of multiple rings and spirals and so on. Material and Construction Concrete All highrise RC buildings use concrete with specified strength much higher than ordinary buildings. These openings must not pose any problem to the fiexural and shear strength of girders. This was quite a revolution in the Japanese construction practice. Evidently the New RC project created an atmosphere to welcome high strength material. to cope with large axial forces in the columns. Practical use of such high strength concrete required careful evaluation of construction technology including quality control. or when they are located inside the peripheral frame lines. and encouraged construction companies to develop their own voluntary project towards high strength concrete. The number of stories is almost completely dictated by the concrete strength in the lowest story. After the initiation of the New RC project. It is then essential to provide horizontal openings penetrating through the girder web for piping and air ducts. It is a common practice to reduce strength in upper stories. . Concrete strength in the first story was either 36 or 42 MPa before 1988 when the New RC project was started. which have passed the technical appraisal of the Building Center of Japan. 1.3. As mentioned earlier the story height of typical apartment houses is about 3 m.1. wall girders can be used to increase strength and stiffness against lateral load.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 15 not provided.3. this was already very high. as long as current floor plans and column sections are used. 1. with the minimum about 24 MPa. Compared with the concrete used for conventional RC lowrise construction of 21 or 24 MPa.
2. 1. girders. to ensure seismic strength of the structure. In some cases where lower strength concrete in the floor system is strongly required for construction economy. Lateral reinforcement consists of either D16 bars of 295 MPa steel or high strength deformed PC bars with 1275 MPa yield stress (Ulbon). Of course the construction joint of the two types of concrete in this case has to be treated with a special care. Longitudinal bars up to 41 mm diameter (D41) with 390 MPa yield stress (SD390) are commonly used. but it is essential to ensure bearing strength just below the first story column base.3. Concrete for the basement and foundation need not be so strong as the first story columns. they are not very much acquainted with. Use of same concrete strength was probably accepted by most construction companies as a natural consequence from the previous custom of VH simultaneous casting. higher strength for column concrete. or not quite confident in. remedies for low strength concrete in a beamcolumn joint such as in the ACI Building Code. and beamcolumn joints. in conjunction with the VH separate casting. that is. This also sharply contrasts to the prevalent use of D10 and D13 bars of 295 MPa steel in lowrise buildings. .16 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures In United States or other countries it is often observed that. Reinforcement The use of high strength and large size reinforcing bars is indispensable for highrise RC construction. two types of concrete are used for floor system: same concrete as the column for the beamcolumn joint and some portion of surrounding girders and slabs. some attempts have been made to use bars with 490 MPa yield stress which had been specified in the Japanese Industrial Standard since several decades ago but had never been used extensively nor had been easily available in market. Usual practice is to place somewhat stronger concrete than basement or foundation in some top layer portion below the column base. and lower strength for floor slabs. This practice is not used in Japan. and concrete of the same quality is specified for columns and floor system. although engineers are well aware of the importance of a good quality beamcolumn joint. different concrete strength is specified for columns and floor system. After the New RC project was started in 1988. At the same time it can be also said that. and lower strength concrete for the remainder of floor systems.
best suitable for precast concrete construction.8. Precast girders have concrete up to the soffit of floor slabs in the cover.8. It is easier to use precast units in only one of two orthogonal directions of a space frame. the extent of precasting in practice has received a divergence of opinions. Balcony cantilever slabs are often fully precast with elaborate architectural shape./ ^ n . and the central portion is trough shaped. as shown in Fig. n \ <_ >\0 A •. The upper portion is cast monolithically with the floor diaphragm. and the lower half is formed by precast slabs which also serve as the formwork for fresh concrete. Various degrees of precast application are spotted in the current practice. 1. there are currently available two kinds of technique. Bottom reinforcement is spliced at the beamcolumn joint or at the midspan. Columns are the most difficult to apply precast technique. and top reinforcement is carried together with the precast unit and moved later to the prescribed position before concrete for upper portion is cast. The use of precast girders is the next step.3. . No matter precast units are used in one or two directions. as shown castinsitu concrete . On one extreme end are buildings with all members castinplace.v 4 (a) X direction (b) Y direction Fig. \ // r . 1.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 17 1. However considering the inevitable use of castinplace concrete at some critical portions such as diaphragm or joint of precast members. Use of Precast Elements The use of precast members is advantageous for the efficient construction work with reduced work force.3. Precast girders with castin situ slab. A popular and modest application is to use precast concrete formwork for composite floor slabs. it is essential that the units placed first in position must have only one layer of reinforcing bars in the bottom. When they are precast. Upper half of the floor slab is made by castinplace concrete to form the diaphragm for seismic loading. One is to use sleeve type splice for vertical bars located at the column bottom.
3. Concrete fl Structures Ai f" 1   J  I * 1 1 } 1\ ' w K 1 > J in Fig. Another is to precast column without vertical bars but with sheaths for them at each bar location. This practice assures efficient and accurate bar . Centrifugal precasting is sometimes applied to obtain good concrete quality. and the precast units are lowered while bars are piercing through sheaths. which are later filled with mortar.18 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced An f. sleeves are filled with high strength mortar. and after placing on the protruded ends of column bars of lower story.4. around which are placed hoops and subhoops. Individual column bars are welded to those of lower story. Preassemblage of Reinforcement Cage Bars for castinplace girders and columns are all preassembled on the ground and hoisted up to the position.9. 1. 1.
However they are never used in highrise RC in Japan. was a new technique introduced by steel manufacturing companies such as KENmethod by Kobe Steel and NKEmethod by Nippon Kokan. Ordinary arc welding cannot be used for rebars. TS sleeve joint by Toda and Shimizu. several methods to splice bars concentrically.3. was devised by several steel manufacturing companies. Presumably this was the result of structural engineers' fastidiousness not to allow awkward offset of large diameter bars. but in this case due consideration must be given on how to intersect cages in orthogonal directions. in which a microcomputer controls the heat and pressure. Mild steel pipe collar is inserted around deformed bars and pressed to make indents around the lugs of the bars. (2) Welding. Currently available splicing techniques are classified as follows. Instead. and are more reliable for large diameter bars up to D41. where arc from thin wire electrode fills the parallel gap of butt ends of bars while it is enclosed in carbon dioxide gas. ReBar Splices and Anchorage Lapped splices. (3) Pressed collar. may be seen also in highrise construction in seismic areas such as U. commonly used for lowrise construction. for example.S. Grip joint by Obayashi. Takenaka and Okabe. Column bars are often preassembled in case of lowrise buildings also. a double cross. (1) Gas butt welding. Autowelbar by Nippon Steel and Autojointer by Sumitomo Steel.5. or a quadrangle. but the basic principle is same. Main girder bar splices are located either at each midspan or every other midspan. Squeeze joint was developed by Kajima.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 19 arrangement. Resulting cage assumes a shape like a cross. were developed. They use slightly different machines to press the collar tight around the rebars. Enclosed welding. butttobutt. and cages in two orthogonal directions are usually fabricated simultaneously. Powergrip by Taisei. but preassemblage of girder cage is a unique technique developed for highrise RC. but it does not warrant a good quality for large diameter deformed bars used in highrise RC construction. west coast or New Zealand. Hand operated gas butt welding is most popular in lowrise RC construction. . Automatic gas butt welding. In some instances cages in two directions are assembled separately. 1. and of contractors' confidence on the newly developed splice technique.
but are hotrolled by special rollers. meaning screw. NMB splicesleeve. uses high strength mortar. Steel splice is inserted around bars. When the size of the beamcolumn joint does not allow both bars bent into Lshaped anchorage. Recently selection was made to leave in most cases only screwdeformed bars with mortar grouted couplers (nejigrout splice) for castinplace construction and splicesleeves for precast concrete members. Another place where anchorage must be carefully accounted for is the top of the column at the roof. Hence in most cases anchor plates with screw nuts are used. As the hotrolled screw is quite loose it has to be tightened by lock nuts or grouted with resin or high strength mortar. Abovementioned variations came out to the market while construction companies were struggling with the technology examination. as follows: Nejicon by Kobe Steel. Nejitekkon by Tokyo Steel. as popularly seen in New Zealand. but in this case the gap between the sleeve and the bars is filled with mortar or molten metal. top and bottom bar anchorage are united to form [/shaped anchorage. In case of screwdeformed bars anchor plates with screw nuts may be used when the space for anchorage is limited. devised by Japan Splice Sleeve. It is difficult to use bent bars for column axial reinforcement. These screwdeformed bars can be spliced by a steel coupler with machined or diecast screw inside. . The anchorage of girder bars to exterior columns is provided by bend. Ever since the beginning of highrise RC construction the design engineers succeeded in expelling this bad tradition of bent down bottom bars. Suminejibar by Sumitomo Steel. They are named with Japanese word "Neji". (5) Screwdeformed bars. They are not machined screw.20 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (4) Sleeve splices. is never used in Japan. There are numbers of deformed bars with screw shaped lugs. Now in all construction sites top bars are bent down and bottom bars bent up. similarly to above. NejiDbar by Nippon Steel. Different diameter bars can be spliced by using specially manufactured couplers. and Cadweld by Okabe uses molten metal. but it is clearly undesirable for seismic construction where alternate horizontal load produces tension in top and bottom bars by turns. Exterior beamstub for beam bar anchorage. It had been a Japanese tradition to bend both top and bottom girder bars downward for lowrise RC buildings for a long time.
With the VH separate casting. then to cast floor slab concrete.3. In case . This also matches the recent need for barrierfree interior design for coming society of elderly people. and the sequence is first to cast girders up to the slab soffit level. Placement of concrete in the floor system is done by a concrete bucket or a concrete pump. The unit water content is not more than 175 1/m3 in accordance with the definition of high durability concrete. Bathroom floor should also be lowered to accommodate Japanese style washing space. entrance and outdoor corridors should be lowered 10 to 15 cm from rooms. the traditional multiple level floor slabs are often specified in the design. Concrete Placement As mentioned before. To match the Japanese lifestyle of taking off shoes in the house. For architectural purposes it is more desirable to have different levels in different rooms. and hence in general the construction process is not reviewed as far as steel or SRC buildings are concerned.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 21 1. In the recent practice high performance water reducer is used as a chemical admixture in the concrete mix. and the slump at the casting is made to be about 18 cm or slightly larger. 1.6. column concrete is cast prior to the placement of girder reinforcement cage.3. not with the purpose of using different concrete quality to those members. and placement of concrete not more than about 50 cm deep and compaction by means of an internal vibrator are conducted in turn. Construction Management The technical review of the Technical Appraisal Committee for Highrise Buildings is related to structural design. particularly of apartments.7. Floor slabs with flat surface throughout the building is the easiest to construct. and most contractors build floor slabs as single level flat plate. but in order to produce good quality in column concrete. which also has the slump loss reduction effect. and by doing so. Space around the entrance hall and bath room are built with raised floor finishing. to increase the value of the building. and living and bed rooms are in the space one step down from there. A concrete bucket is commonly used for the placement of column concrete. In case of highrise apartment this kind of double level floor slabs are more cumbersome to construct in the field. concrete is cast separately into columns and floor system. However when the building is designed by an architectural design firm. it is possible to use relatively low slump concrete and compact it with an internal vibrator.
Seismic Design Basic Principles Seismic design consideration has the priority over other structural design considerations for highrise RC buildings. particularly that of its surface water. It is possible to make design base shear coefficient lower than lowrise buildings. In the case where the building is designed by an architectural and engineering design firm. just to point out a few important items among others. but the natural period is not long enough to expect a linear response to strong earthquake shaking. It is necessary to absorb earthquake energy through the inelastic deformation.2 to 1. a document prescribing the construction planning is required in the review process. is always assumed. For example. This makes a conspicuous . concrete walls cast monolithically with frames are completely avoided except for those in the basement and designated shear walls in the superstructure.4. beamhinge mechanism. or in other works. For this purpose. casting and compacting. concrete strength at early ages. a specification to manage the quality control of the contractor is required. 1. of the structure. The quality control of high strength concrete includes quality control of aggregate. Recent trend shows prevalent use of high performance water reducer. The beamhinge mechanism is assumed in order to provide large energy dissipating capacity distributed all around the structure. on the contrary.4.10. and at the exterior columns in the tension side of the lower stories. Hence in this section seismic design is described almost exclusively. The fundamental natural periods of highrise RC buildings ranging from 25 to 30 stories fall in the range of 1. For this reason all nonstructural elements are insulated from the structure. or strong columnweak beam mechanism. 1. and management age for specified concrete strength longer than 28 days. 1.22 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures of highrise RC buildings. shown in Fig. Column hinges are allowed at the bottom of the first story and the top of the uppermost story.1. through the ductility.8 seconds. This construction planning is prepared jointly by the design section and construction section of the construction company. and perfect curing. It is not desirable if the abovementioned collapse mechanical is altered by the presence of nonstructural elements.
inner columns).1.2. Precast concrete spandrel walls are sometimes used. Strong columnweak beam mechanism. with the same care to insulate them from interfering with the structure. difference from lowrise construction where concrete walls are rather arbitrarily constructed as needed by architectural reasons. and level 2. a limiting . Two levels of earthquake ground motions are assumed: level 1. 1.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas Hinges are allowed at top of uppermost story columns (esp.10. Hinges are allowed at bottom of all first story columns. Design Criteria and Procedure Earthquake resistant design criteria are summarized in Table 1.4. 1. Exterior walls of highrise RC buildings are made of precast or ALC (autoclaved lightweight concrete) panels. whose maximum velocity is about 25 cm/s. Fig. in both cases installed with allowance to the expected story drift. the strongest ground motion that is expected to occur at least once during the lifetime of the building. 23 earthquake load Hinges are allowed at the exterior columns in the tension side of lower stories. and interior walls are also made of ALC or fiber reinforced plaster panels.
Seismic hazard level Probability of recurrence Maximum ground velocity Maximum ground velocity Member forces Story ductility factor Member ductility factor Story drift angle Level 1 Once in lifetime 25 cm/s 25 c m / s Concrete cracks but no steel yields less than 1 less than 1 less than 1/200 Level 2 Possible maximum 50 c m / s 50 c m / s Steel yields but no building collapses less than 2 less than 2 less than 1/100 ground motion that may or may not happen but that should be considered in the design. The first phase design is to protect the "weak link" of the structure. The building's expected behavior is. level 2. the story drift angle is limited to be less than 1/200 under level 1.1. ground motion. Collapse load associated with the mechanism formation is calculated. For this purpose. that is. as a kind of current consensus among structural engineers. which essentially correspond to the two levels in Table 1. Earthquake resistant design criteria. level 1. and for the latter. usually referring to Building Standard Law and preliminary earthquake response analysis. that rebars may yield but ductility factors are limited in order to avoid excessive inelastic deformation leading to the collapse.24 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 1. design seismic loads are determined. for the former. In addition. whose maximum velocity is about 50 cm/s. They are not explicitly stipulated in the Building Standard Law. These criteria are similar to those for steel or SRC highrise buildings with the height in excess of 60 m. The design procedure consists of two phases. The second phase design is to ensure the assumed mechanism to form under the action of level 2 earthquake. They have been traditionally used in the technical review by the Technical Appraisal Committee for Highrise Buildings of the Building Center of Japan. and 1/100 under level 2.1. ground motion. and structural members outside yield hinges are proportioned to forces associated with the mechanism formation enhanced by appropriate magnification factors. . and members are proportioned to carry forces resulting from the design seismic loads. ground motions. that concrete will crack but rebars remain in the elastic range. yield hinges under the action of level 1 earthquake.
5 1 1. .25 0.1 0.2 0.11. it is a common practice for structural engineers to just extrapolate the provisions to obtain design seismic loads for highrise buildings.5 2 Ti (x.y direction) 2. and modify as needed by a preliminary earthquake response analysis.4.15 0.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 25 A series of nonlinear time history earthquake response analysis are performed to confirm the design criteria in Table 1.5 Ti=0.5 3 (b) Fundamental period from analysis Fig.1 0.05 0 0 0.3.2 0.1.15 0.25 0. Relationship between base shear coefficient and fundamental natural period. Design Seismic Loads Current Building Standard Law and its Enforcement Orders provide design seismic loads for buildings up to 60 m in height only.5 1 1. 1.05 0 0 0. 0. However.5 3 0.36/Ti 2 2. 1.02h (a) Fundamental period from code equation 0.18/Ti 0.
that ultimate load carrying capacity be calculated and be confirmed to exceed the required ultimate load carrying capacity. calculated yield load of each story is compared with the design seismic load to make sure that the yield load level exceeds at least one and half times the design seismic loads.4.e. Figure 1. Required Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity Although the Building Standard Law requires. for buildings up to 60 m in height.26 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Figure 1. it is not necessary for highrise buildings exceeding 60 m in height to conform to this requirement.4. 1. To tell the truth. The range shown by two curves corresponds to most highrise construction in Japan. Ti = 0.11(b) shows the design base shear coefficient against calculated elastic fundamental natural period. The yield load corresponds to the lower bound of the ultimate load carrying capacity in the Building Standard Law. because dynamic time history earthquake response analysis performed on these buildings substitutes the requirement.5. Most design falls above the code curve for second class (intermediate) soil. 1. In the actual seismic design of highrise RC buildings. Probably it would be more fair comparison to take natural period based on cracked sections. although it is not a common practice to do so in Japan.4.02/i (1. i. as long as they are compared on the basis of elastic natural period. the value same as the ductile frames for RC structures in the Law. It seems highrise RC buildings have slightly lower base shear.3.1) where h is building height in m. the requirement to check the ultimate load carrying capacity was incorporated into the Building Standard Law as a substitute to earthquake response analysis. First Phase Design The first phase design consists of structural analysis for design loads and proportioning of members. Structural analysis is carried out for permanent .11(a) shows the design base shear coefficient of highrise RC buildings against the fundamental natural period from an equation stipulated in the Law. The required capacity level of one and half times the design seismic load corresponds to the adoption of structural characteristics factor Ds to be 0. either steel or SRC construction.
6. considering flexural. By doing the redistribution design moments are adjusted to more reasonable distribution. By conducting nonlinear frame analysis from the beginning.4. considering only flexural deformation of members. The ultimate load carrying capacity may be evaluated by limit analysis.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 27 loading as well as design seismic loading. Analysis for permanent loading is carried out usually by displacement method by a computer based on the uncracked section. and reinforcement in each sections determined. Furthermore its appropriateness must be demonstrated in the subsequent nonlinear frame analysis. In the more recent time designers seem to prefer carrying out nonlinear incremental frame analysis using the amount of reinforcement temporarily determined by preliminary analysis. and the appropriateness of moment distribution can be proven simultaneously.1. so that no yield hinges would occur under the action of design seismic loads. Actions on each section of members are found. 1. Rigid zones at member ends are not considered because most computer programs currently available do not include subroutines to calculate fixed end moments and forces of members with rigid zones. The moment redistribution was applied as deemed necessary by designers. Axial deformation of columns is not considered because it sometimes gives unrealistic moment distribution in upper girders. The method of analysis is same as what is explained in the next subsection. 1.6. and to ensure formation of assumed mechanism.4. nonlinear incremental frame analysis (pushover analysis) is usually performed. However. The moment redistribution is an art to account for the stiffness change due to concrete cracking. Analysis for seismic loading in earlier period of highrise RC development was mostly carried out also by displacement method by a computer based on the uncracked section. However the way they are redistributed is largely left to the judgment of designs. shear and axial deformation of members. Second Phase Design Calculation of Ultimate Load Carrying Capacity The second phase design consists of calculating the ultimate load carrying capacity and associated stress distribution. moments are automatically redistributed. much the same way as ordinary structures. Shear deformation is not considered because it does not influence very much on the stress distribution. and rigid zones at member ends. which gives not only the ultimate capacity but also the .
or hysteresis. girder end zones must be designed for yield hinges with sufficient rotation capacity. Almost all girders are assumed to have yield hinges at both ends. 1. The primary portion must be determined prior to the analysis by the input data. consider rebars within the effective width of slab. Bond splitting failure must also be prevented. . which enables us to determine incremental stiffness matrix of a member from the nonlinear stiffness assigned to critical sections at both member ends.2. The static incremental analysis requires only the primary portion of the loaddeformation relation.6. and designers usually find a cracking point and a yield point for each section by appropriate equations found in the literature. Designers usually assume steel yield strength of 1. Shear strength is evaluated by an empirical equation by Ohno and Arakawa (Ref. ultimate strength of each member is investigated whether the assumed mechanism would be actually formed. At the same time.4. and multiply calculated shear force at mechanism by 1. However there is no unified standard for this purpose at present. Shear strength of the girders must be sufficient to prevent premature shear failure. it is necessary to calculate the yield hinge moment with sufficient safety margin.1 times the specified value. so that the same program can also be used for dynamic time history analysis. but such a procedure may not always be safe enough.1). The nonlinear incremental frame analysis must incorporate two kinds of nonlinear models for members. The one is the socalled beam model. but usually a computer program includes loaddeformation relation under reversal of loadings. 1.1 or so. which consists of an elastic member with inelastic rotational springs at both ends.28 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures primary loaddisplacement relation for each story for use in the dynamic earthquake response analysis. The other nonlinear model is the socalled hysteresis model. Ductility of Girders For the calculated member forces associated with the mechanism. to form trilinear primary curve by connecting them. Various beam models are available but the one component model. The first is to ensure the ductility of girders. history of that critical section. For the safety evaluation of shear strength. seems to be the most favorite recently. This confirmation consists of three steps. or deformation. or restoring force model. which determines the incremental nonlinear stiffness at each critical section from the load.
on the other hand. for example. but forces during dynamic excitation are subjected to large fluctuation due to ratio of upper and lower story drift. It is possible for columns to yield at places . say. It is generally felt that the current design provides sufficient rotation capacity by arranging almost equal amount of top and bottom reinforcement. usually referred to as higher mode effect. The ductility of columns.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 29 an equation in the "Design Guidelines Based on Ultimate Strength Concept (Ref. Designers have to employ rather arbitrary magnification factors ranging somewhere from 1. Bond splitting is usually checked by the "Design Guidelines Based on Ultimate Strength Concept". such as first story column base or exterior columns on the tension side. 1. However it is desirable to develop a practical design method for required rotation capacity of yield hinges. There is no unified standard for these aspects. requires good confinement of core concrete. Taking a beamcolumn joint. Even if the inelastic frame analysis indicates the moment at the base of upper column to be.3 to 1. 1. A practical problem in this respect is how to determine design forces. must be maintained in the locations where yield hinge formation is expected. where girders on both sides have already developed yield hinges and hence the flexural moment input to the joint is determined. which. Column Strength and Ductility The second step in the confirmation of the mechanism formation is to ensure that columns possess sufficient strength and ductility. 60 percent of the total girder moment. it can go up to 70 or 80 percent or more during the dynamic response to earthquake motions. Furthermore columns must be protected against forces coming from girders in two directions.3. columns should be protected against flexure and shear associated with the mechanism formation.4 percent or more in terms of web reinforcement ratio). It is the ratio of these column moments that fluctuates by the higher mode effect. and also by providing considerable amount of lateral reinforcement in the hinge zone (typically about 0. On the other hand the rotation capacity of yield hinges is never evaluated quantitatively. Forces determined in the inelastic frame analysis correspond to predetermined load profile. Except where yield hinges are expected to occur. it is now transferred to the top and bottom column ends.5 to multiply to the forces from inelastic frame analysis.4. or in case of using high strength lateral reinforcement an equation used at the technical appraisal of that material. in turn.6.2)".
600. but in some other cases this restriction is waived with the argument that the confirmation of collapse mechanism supersedes such restriction. . 1.30 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures where yield hinges are not expected. set up voluntarily by structural designers. compressiontotension reinforcement ratio. toward somewhat increased minimum values. 1. anchorage length. Minimum Requirements In addition to above calculations there are number of minimum requirements on axial reinforcement ratio. strong volition of the pioneering construction companies toward the realization of highrise RC buildings.4. The provisions proposed in the "Design Guidelines Based on Ultimate Strength Concept" are being applied in many recent designs. 1. development of construction techniques. Highrise RC construction was realized owing to the development of high performance structural members through large size structural testing. Beamcolumn Joints Prevention of premature joint failure is achieved by restricting shear stress in the joint.3). These minimum requirements are largely based on currently prevalent AIJ Calculation Standard (Ref. and by restricting bond stress along the beam bars passing through the joint.4. Axial forces in external columns are often restricted by some maximum values in compression as well as in tension. 1. For exterior beamcolumn joint. development of response analysis techniques for earthquake excitation reflecting the characteristics of structural members. and so on. with some modification toward the more strict direction.4.6. say. In some cases shear span ratio of column is restricted. lateral reinforcement ratio. Nevertheless it is true that some uneasiness or distrust was felt in early stages of development of highrise RC compared to. owing to unforeseen higher mode effect or biaxial effect.6. beam bar anchorage is checked and is carefully detailed. In the compression side the value is usually about (0. above all.6.5.4.6.65) times concrete strength times the gross column area. Hence it is a common practice to provide lateral confining reinforcement in all columns throughout the height of the building. which is too high to expect ductility in unexpected yield hinge formation unless sufficient lateral confinement is provided. and. Imaginary Accident Finally an analysis on an imaginary accident is introduced. that is.
but in many cases similar structural testing was repeated by different construction companies. Tests include girders. Experimental Verification Various parts of a structure. This was due to the competitive mind of companies. analysis was carried out in the process of technology examination by several companies in which an imaginary accident. and subassemblages of members. or different combination of structural parameters. shown in Fig.4.12. beamcolumn joints. Test specimens of structural members. have been tested in the development of highrise RC. 1. complete loss of load carrying capacity of one column in the first story. and some companies found significance of testing in the advancement of consciousness of employees towards the development of a new type of construction. 1. To demonstrate the safety of concrete highrise and to wipe off unreasonable distrust. . It is strongly desired that each structural testing should have some new ideas on the detailing. for example.12. columns. particularly in the technology examination process. was assumed. In some cases new ideas of detailing are tested. Structural testing produces experimental restoring force and hysteresis characteristics to which computed ones based on the method in the design m^TYTOY Fig.7.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 31 steel structures. 1. so that it can contribute to add new knowledge to structural engineering. The analysis showed that the building could escape the collapse even in such an absurdly severe accident.
Therefore. but it has some inherent ambiguity in how to determine the cracked section stiffness and the associated damping. Nonlinear Lumped Mass Analysis As a simplified analytical model for nonlinear analysis.32 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures process are overlapped and compared. 1. Member ductility cannot be found from the shear model analysis. Shear model is generally regarded as an easy model to analyze.5. 1. Linear analysis based on the cracked section is more meaningful. As a slightly more sophisticated model. Users of this model should be aware of these disadvantages.5. Story displacement in the inelastic range is apt to concentrate in particular stories while such concentration would not result in using more elaborate models.2. 1. The restoring force characteristics of stories are defined by simplifying the loaddisplacement relation from incremental frame analysis into an equivalent trilinear relation. It is necessary to pay attention to the displacement range in this comparison. but it also has some drawbacks. Testing is usually performed to the destruction of test specimens. Hence the elastic linear analysis based on the uncracked section serves little in predicting actual behavior. and to the unexperienced eyes the hysteresis with the largest displacement amplitude is often the most conspicuous.5. a lumped mass shear model is almost exclusively used. However the comparison should focus on the range of displacement that is to be practically considered in the design. Degrading trilinear model or Takeda model are used for hysteresis rules under reversal. Earthquake Response Analysis Linear Analysis RC structures start cracking at a relatively low level of loading. a socalled flexural shear model is sometimes used. .1. For example high mode periods and shapes do not agree with those from more exact models. nonlinear time history analyses considering cracking and yielding explicitly are conducted in all cases of highrise RC design for both levels 1 and 2 earthquake responses. The flexural deformation is evaluated on the basis of linear elastic axial deformation of columns. in which flexural deformation due to overturning moment is separately evaluated and added to the shear deformation which is the frame deformation.
5. which consists of many shear models. But it will be some time in future when such analysis becomes a popular design tool to all structural engineers. or flexural shear models. It must be pointed out however that frame analysis at present is in most cases limited to planar frames. . Theoretically this analysis is just an extension of static incremental frame analysis into dynamic domain. it is ideal to carry out nonlinear space frame analysis. some engineers opt to carry out dynamic frame analysis explained in the next subsection. nonlinear frame response analysis to a limited number of input earthquake ground motions. corresponding to each planar frame interconnected by rigid floor diaphragms. where inelastic deformation of constituent frame members are directly accounted for in the time history of earthquake response. However. e. For the building with torsional vibration. Usually member ductility is indirectly evaluated by equating dynamic story drift to the static one in the incremental frame analysis.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 33 When the building is susceptible to torsional vibration. the Building Center of Japan recommends the use of three or more waveforms in the following three categories for any highrise buildings including RC construction: (1) Well known "standard" motions. threedimensional response analysis must be conducted. 1.g. to one or two motions that were shown to be most effective to the structure in the lumped mass analysis. in their recent design works.5. One of the serious drawbacks of lumped mass models is the lack of ability to predict member ductility factors. can compensate all the incompleteness of lumped mass models. El Centra 1940 NS and Taft 1952 EW.4. and a few softwares are currently available for this purpose. but the recent technical advancement of computer hardware enables us to perform such an analysis relatively easily. Input Earthquake Motions As for the input earthquake ground motions.3. For this purpose a dynamic quasithreedimensional model is frequently used. It is an analysis that requires awfully a lot of computation. Recent popularization of excellent software also helps engineers conduct. 1. Nonlinear Frame Analysis Dynamic nonlinear frame analysis. that is.
But it is easy to imagine that the result of numerical integration would reflect larger effect of damping . or viscous. stiffness. With Rayleigh damping it is possible to assign modal damping values to two arbitrary modes. the stiffness matrix is modified in each step to represent incremental. (3) Records containing relatively long period components. When the response goes into nonlinear range due to inelastic strains in the structure. but not proportional to. The analyst must be well aware of the type of damping and its consequence. or instantaneous. internal. 1. and each type of damping requires input data in a form appropriate to the type being used. The incremental stiffness in the inelastic range is lower than. Tokyo 101 1956 NS for buildings in Tokyo. it is theoretically not possible to decompose the system into normal modes. a damping factor is assigned by the analyst. These are. Among damping types in the linear system. In this regard the present state of the art is definitely incomplete. The type of damping is prescribed in the computer program. synthetic ground motions are increasingly used recently. Sendai TH 030 1978 NS and EW.g. damping where damping matrix is proportional to stiffness matrix. Hachinohe 1968 NS and EW.5.g. e. The modal damping values for higher mode decreases in external damping. Caughey damping is the most general in that it makes us possible to assign modal damping values to all modes.5. If the damping matrix in the linear range is unchanged. Damping When time history earthquake response analysis of any kind is conducted. e. Earthquake ground motions are normalized in terms of maximum velocity to the levels as prescribed in Table 1. Rayleigh damping where damping matrix is a linear combination of the above two. the linear elastic stiffness. types of damping that enable us to decompose the equations of motion into classical normal modes. and only these are. In the practical earthquake response analysis internal viscous damping is almost always preferred. and Caughey damping where damping matrix is expressed as a series consisting of mass and stiffness matrices. there are external damping where damping matrix is proportional to mass matrix. In addition to these recorded ground motions. while it increases in internal damping.1 for design criteria.34 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (2) Records taken at nearby stations.
The reason is that the repeated modal analysis at each step in order only to find the fundamental circular frequency is time consuming. Many engineers prefer. and fundamental circular frequency in the linear elastic range. to use the damping matrix of Eq. say.2) while keeping the value of h constant. [K] is the stiffness matrix. In practice this would result in an underestimation of response. The damping matrix in this case can be written as follows. (1. instead.2) with a constant coefficient to incremental stiffness matrix. u is the circular frequency of the first mode.03 for h. Such a procedure is called "damping proportional to incremental stiffness". When the soil structure interaction or coupling vibration of superstructures and substructures is taken into account in the earthquake response analysis. assumed damping is proportional to the square root of the incremental stiffness). then we will end up with a constant fraction of damping throughout the inelastic response time history. that is. and construct new damping matrix based on Eq. As a value of constant (2h/ui). To avoid such an apparent overdamping. The damping proportional to incremental stiffness can no longer be used. By doing so they implicitly assume smaller fraction of damping to critical damping as the incremental stiffness is lowered (roughly speaking. they use prescribed first mode damping of. and h is the fraction of damping to the critical damping. but it can be judged to be on the safe side. 0.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 35 as incremental stiffness becomes lower and lower. use of the internal viscous damping can give us some remedies. In such cases damping values different from those for superstructure are often assigned to soil or substructure. and carry out modal analysis to find the first mode circular frequency w in each step. It is then necessary to find modal damping values which are usually assumed to be proportional to the strain energy of each part in each mode. a constant (2/i/w) value. If we take the incremental stiffness matrix in each step of inelastic range into the above stiffness matrix. and construct a Caughey series type damping matrix.2) where [C] is the damping matrix. Fortunately there are few occasions in the practice where soil structure interaction or coupling vibration would have to be . (1. This would give a slight overestimation of response. The abovementioned procedure is preferred by relatively few engineers. [C] = {2h/u)[K] (1. damping becomes even more complicated.
no matter how tedious it is. 60 ° El Centro 50 40 1 I 20 10 0 0 0.2 0. Primary curves of story shear vs. 1. Other quantities such as maximum floor acceleration or maximum floor displacement are also plotted in some cases.8 1 Fig. 1. However in case they must be employed in the response analysis. story drift with plots of maximum response to earthquake motions. illustrating the distribution along the building height of maximum story shear. Results of Response Analysis In the engineering design document the results of response analysis are demonstrated by two series of figures.13. Plots of maximum response values on the loaddisplacement curves of stories. .5.36 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures considered. and so on. one each for levels 1 and 2 responses. damping matrix formulation must be conducted following the above theory in each step.4 0. maximum story ductility factor.6 Story drift (%) 0.6.
The means to account for large axial forces.0. Selection and standardization are already on the way. and it is expected that some kind of guidelines will be compiled in future. (3) Various types of lateral reinforcement for columns have been developed. have also been devised.6. As a matter of course all response analyses for the design of highrise RC buildings result within the design critical as set forth in Table 1.6. factors that contributed to this development and some future outlook will be summarized for the conclusion of the chapter. particularly in early period.0. 1. serve as a good guide to demonstrate the degree of inelastic deformation. 1. and member ductility factors remain mostly less than 2. (4) Availability of concrete and reinforcement with higher strength than those for conventional lowrise construction was certainly the most important factor to realize highrise construction. Quantities such as member ductility factors are often tabulated. In this section. It has been desired to make longer spans even for residential use. For Future Development Factors Contributed to Highrise RC Development So far the recent development of highrise RC construction in 1980's in Japan has been described and discussed in detail. such as core bars. 1. .13. (2) Relatively regular plan and elevation eliminated possible disadvantages due to torsional vibration or concentrated story drift along the height of the building. This is mainly the consequence of primitive state of the art of structural engineering and prudence of engineers.1. At the same time this structural configuration limited the occupancy to residence only.RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas 37 such as in Fig. design criteria for story drift angle are found to be the governing criteria. (1) Relatively shortspan and low story height realized the reduction of column axial load and seismic forces. Story ductility factors under level 2 response often fall below 1. but at the same time this may end up with structurally unsound buildings in effect. In many cases. Future development of sophisticated analysis techniques will liberate the structural planning to adapt to variety of architectural needs. Further increase of material strength will liberate the structure from current restrictions. for the confinement of core concrete and shear reinforcement.1.
1. It is desirable to establish guidelines such as the "Design Guidelines Based on Ultimate Strength Concept" for highrise construction. (6) Use of precast members also helped the rationalization of construction. the quick development of highrise RC owed to many factors. which had been realized only by steel structures. and large size reinforcing bars was evidently the most fundamental factor. which have been analyzed by lumped mass model almost exclusively in the past. D38 or D41 were the two most important factors towards the realization of highrise construction up to 30 stories or more in an intensively seismic country such as Japan. and high strength large size deformed bars of SD390. This was the basic motive of the fiveyear "New RC" national project of 19881993. .2. (7) Design procedure to ensure assumed collapse mechanism by providing strength and ductility to hinge sections and sufficient strength to nonhinge sections has become a popular understanding among structural engineers. there were two evident need of advanced structures. growing out of lowrise to 20. or 200 m in height. Presently available variety is already subjected to selection to a fewer number of standardized techniques. In reviewing the practice of structural design of highrise RC buildings. 60 stories. would like to reach up to. Another was the increased span length to accommodate freer architectural plan within current range of story numbers. Either of these two needs would require development and use of even higher strength material. based on which results the following chapters have been written. (8) Development of analytical procedure for dynamic frame response in the recent years has been targeted to highrise RC buildings. or 40 stories. Need for Higher Strength Materials As mentioned in the previous subsection. It is desired to proceed this direction with the overall reasonable judgment to use precasting as needed. but development and use of high strength concrete and high strength. 30.38 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (5) Advancement of rebar splicing techniques helped the rationalization of construction. One was the increased number of stories. Highrise RC. are recently being analyzed by more elaborate frame model. Steel or SRC highrise buildings. say.6. together with further improvement of detailing. High strength concrete with specified compressive strength of 36 to 42 MPa. Further development of computer software is desired.
RC Highrise Buildings in Seismic Areas
39
References
1.1. Ohno, K. and Arakawa, T., A study on the shear resistance of reinforced concrete beams, Trans. Arch. Inst. Japan 66, 10 (1960) (in Japanese). 1.2. Design guidelines for earthquake resistant reinforced concrete buildings based on ultimate strength concept, Arch. Inst. Japan, 1990, p. 340 (in Japanese). 1.3. Standard for structural calculation of reinforced concrete structures, Arch. Inst. Japan, 1991, p. 654 (in Japanese).
Chapter 2
The New RC Project
Hisahiro Hiraishi Department of Architecture, Meiji University, 111 Higashimita, Tamaku, Kawasaki 2148571, Japan Email: hiraishi@isc.meiji.ac.jp
2.1.
Background of the Project
The background of this national research project is described in detail in the preceding chapter. It will be briefly summarized here. Reinforced concrete (RC) has been widely used for lowrise building construction ranging from two to seven stories because of its excellent fire resistance and durability, low cost, and easy maintenance. However its application to highrise buildings had been suspended in Japan where high seismic hazard called for high degree of protection, because RC was generally regarded as material inherently inferior to steel in ductility. A breakthrough of this obstacle was achieved around 1980 by the improved potential of RC, namely the development of high strength concrete with compressive strength twice as large as the ordinary concrete, development of detailing techniques to ensure ductility of various structural members, development of computer analysis for earthquake response based on sophisticated theories, development of new construction technology, and improvement of quality control techniques. As a result, highrise apartment buildings in the range of 20 to 40 stories were constructed, which gave a favorable prospect to the future RC construction. However at the same time it became apparent that even higher strength concrete and high strength steel to make good use of concrete strength must be developed, in order to widen the scope of application to even higher apartment buildings
40
The New RC Project
41
or to the nonresidential buildings such as offices where architectural demand would require more liberal structural coniguration. Based on this background, the Ministry of Construction of Japan decided to promote a fiveyear national research project entitled "Development of Advanced Reinforced Concrete Buildings using High Strength Concrete and Reinforcement" (usually referred to as the "New RC"). The project started in 1988 fiscal year, and aimed at producing high strength and high quality concrete of specified strength from 30 to 120 MPa and high strength and high quality steel reinforcing bars with yield strength from 400 to 1200 MPa, and at developing new field of RC buildings by utilizing these materials.
2.2.
Target of t h e Project
The range of material strength set forth as the target of the New RC project is shown in Fig. 2.1. Horizontal axis shows compressive strength of concrete and vertical axis shows yield strength of steel reinforcement. The small zone denoted "ordinary" corresponds to the range for ordinary RC construction, covering concrete from 18 to 27 MPa and steel from 300 to 400 MPa, and the adjacent small zone denoted "highrise" corresponds to the range for recently developed highrise RC construction, covering concrete from 3648 MPa and steel same as "ordinary". As seen in the figure currently used materials for ordinary and highrise RC buildings occupy only small zones. * " 800 n2
)r~^
III
J
j
\ :
i
I
; h~
r
I \ n1
.> 3
400 I Ordinary
i // \ ,
X
h ighr se
I
!
120
30 60 90 Concrete strength (MPa)
Fig. 2.1. Strength of materials and zones (I, IIl, II2 and III) for research and development.
42
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures
In contrast, the ranges of strength in the New RC project are much larger. Concrete from 30 to 120 MPa and steel from 400 to 1200 MPa are included. Comparing the zones for these ranges of material, it is obviously unrealistic to assume that behavior of New RC structures can be understood simply by extrapolating the knowledge of current RC structures. The area in Fig. 2.1 for the New RC was further divided into four zones, namely zones I, II—1, II—2, and III. Structures in these zones were studied by somewhat different tactics. Zone I corresponds to concrete up to 60 MPa and steel up to 700 MPa, which was assumed to be the direct target of the New RC project whose results could be compiled and put into practical use right at the conclusion of the fiveyear project in 1993. For this zone the extrapolation of the knowledge of current RC structures was thought to be relatively effective. On the contrary zone III corresponds to concrete from 60 to 120 MPa and steel from 700 to 1200 MPa, which was regarded as a future "dream". Basic characteristics of RC would have to be reexamined, and hence the project was not expected to produce much practical results. Basic subjects such as material characteristics and performance under loading of structural elements and members would be the major results for the zone III. Zones II—1 and II—2 are the combination of very high strength material and notsohigh strength material. Such combination would not have much practical significance, hence they were regarded to have secondary importance in the project. It would be relatively easy to use such combination of materials once zones I and III were completely understood. Objectives and corresponding final results of the project are summarized in Table 2.1. The first item was development of high strength materials. This required close cooperation of material engineers, structural engineers who must specify basic requirements, material supplier for cement, mineral and chemical admixtures, and steel manufacturers. The second item was investigation into properties of structural members, particularly framing members for the superstructure, under the action of seismic excitation. Experimental approach by conducting laboratory testing was indispensable in this aspect, but theoretical examination of experimental data was also emphasized in this project. The third item was development of design and construction guidelines. Here the word "guidelines" did not mean a type of guidelines that would specify full details of technology, but it was to give only fundamental considerations on principles for design and construction practice. Such a soft type of guidelines
The New RC Project Table 2.1. Objectives of research and development and expected final results.
Objectives (1) Development of high strength and high quality materials Expected final results Methods for mix proportion and quality control of concrete (Zone I) Methods for production and use of reinforcement (Zone I) Principles for developing ultrahigh strength materials (Zones II and III) (2) Evaluation of basic properties of materials, structural members and frames Methods for evaluation of basic properties of materials (Zones I—III) Methods for evaluation of basic properties of members and frames (Zones I—III) Structural design guidelines (Zone I) Earthquake response evaluation guidelines (Zone I) Construction guidelines (Zone I) Development of criteria for structural design, earthquake response evaluation, and construction (Zones II and III) (4) Feasibility study on RC buildings in Zone II—I (5) Feasibility study on RC buildings in Zone III (6) Trial design of a highrise boiler building in Zone II—I New type of highrise RC buildings New image of RC buildings (superhighrise) A structure with steel superbeams and RC box supercolumns
43
(3) Development of design and construction guidelines
was preferred in the worldwide trend towards the performancebased design. The above three items were expected, not only to produce final results as outlined in Table 2.1, but also to throw some light on the current RC technology towards the possible future revisions of specifications and standards. The fourth to sixth items in Table 2.1 were aiming at exploring the feasibility of new type of structures using the New RC material, although they were not essential parts of the project philosophically. It was expected that the New RC project would induce development of new technologies in various related fields, improve potential for international competition of construction industry, and contribute to the activation of the industry.
44
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures
2.3.
Organization for the Project
The Building Research Institute of the Ministry of Construction was in charge of conducting the entire project. Research committees were set up in an organization called Japan Institute for Construction Engineering, to organize people from universities, Housing and Urban Development Corporation, makers of cement, admixtures and steel, and construction companies. The entire organization for the project is shown in Fig. 2.2. Technical Coordination Committee was the center of the committee tree. Research Promotion Committee consisting of representatives from sponsoring companies and Technical Advisory Board consisting of senior researchers of related fields helped the Technical Coordination Committee from financial and technical sides. These three committees were chaired by Dr. Hiroyuki Aoyama, Professor of the University of Tokyo (the affiliation at the time of the fiveyear project, same in the followings). Under the Technical Coordination Committee five technical committees were set up. Concrete Committee was chaired by Dr. Fuminori Tomosawa, Professor of the University of Tokyo; Reinforcement Committee by Dr. Shiro Morita, Professor of Kyoto University; Structural Element Committee by Dr. Shunsuke Otani, Associate Professor of the University of Tokyo; Structural Design Committee by Dr. Tsuneo Okada,
Building Research Institute 9, Building Contractors Society
Japan Institute For Construction Engineering
Technical Advisory BRI Project \g— Team
Technical Coordination Committee
Research Promoting Committee
_jj Private Organization Housing & Urban Development ! Corporation
Concrete Committee
Re inforce m e nt Committee
Structural Element Committee
Structural Design Committee
Construction Manufact ring Committee
""*{ Private Organization
Cement Admixure ^ Makers
Working
Working
Working Group
Working Group
Working Group
1 Private Organization 
AIJ, Universities
Fig. 2.2. Organization for research and development.
The New RC Project 45 Table 2.2. Technical Coordination Committee.
Position Chairman Vicechairman Name Aoyama, Hiroyuki Kamimura, Katsuro Okada, Tsuneo Morita, Shiro Murota, Tatsuro Tomosawa, Fuminori Otani, Shunsuke Masuda, Yoshihiro Hiraishi, Hisahiro Hirosawa, Mas aya Murakami, Masaya Sawai, Nobuaki Nishimukou, Kimiyasu Bessho, Satoshi Saida, Kazuo Noto, Hidekatsu Yamamoto, Kouichi Kurumada, Norimitsu Kidokoro, Motoyuki Habu, Hiroharu Takahashi, Yasukazu Yamazaki, Yutaka Nakata, Shinsuke Abe, Michihiko Kaminosono, Takashi Baba, Akio Teshigawara, Masaomi Shiohara, Hitoshi Fujitani, Hideo Kubo, Toshiyuki Akimoto, Toru Mori, Shigeo Ishikawa, Yukio Affiliation* University of Tokyo Utsunomiya University University of Tokyo Kyoto University Building Research Institute University of Tokyo University of Tokyo Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Kogakuin University Chiba University Housing & Urban Develop. Co. Building Contractors Society Kajima Construction Co. Shimizu Construction Co. Steel Makers Club Kobe Steel Co. Cement Association Ministry of Construction Ministry of Construction Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Japan Institute for Construction Japan Institute for Construction Japan Institute for Construction Japan Institute for Construction
Secretary General Secretary
Member
Administrator
Engineering Engineering Engineering Engineering
*As of March 31, 1993.
Professor of the University of Tokyo; Construction and Manufacturing Committee by Dr. Katsuro Kamimura, Professor of Utsunomiya University. These committees were in charge of making detailed research programs, implementing research works, and integrating research results in five particular fields. Tables 2.2 to 2.9 show the rosters of these eight committees, with due appreciation to the contribution of these committee members which was reflected in this book. Numerous working groups were formed as needed under the five technical committees, but the rosters had to be eliminated here because of the limitation of the space.
46
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 2.3. Research Promotion Committee.
Position Chairman Name Aoyama, Hiroyuki Affiliation* University of Tokyo Utsunomiya University Building Research Institute Building Research Institute
Vicechairman Kamimura, Katsuro Secretary Member Takahashi, Yasukazu Murota, Tatsuro Okada, Tsuneo Tomosawa, Puminori Morita, Shiro Otani, Shunsuke Hirosawa, Masaya Koizumi, Shinichi Nishimukou, Kimiyasu Takata, Kenjo Moriguchi, Goro Ohmori, Kazuhiro Imazu, Yoshiaki Nakane, Jun Miki, Masahiro Nakae, Shintaro Bessho, Satoshi Kato, Takehiko Ono, Tetsuro Tamura, Ryoji Koitabashi, Michikata Higashiura, Akira Saida, Kazuo Nohmori, Masami Matsumoto, Hiroshi Harasawa, Kenya Heki, Hisashi Mogami, Tatsuo
University of Tokyo University of Tokyo Kyoto University University of Tokyo Kogakuin University Housing Urban Develop. Co. Building Construction Society Aoki Construction Co. Asanumagumi Construction Co. Ando Construction Co. Ohki Construction Co. Obayashi Construction Co. Ohmotcgumi Construction Co. Okumuragumi Construction Co. Kajima Construction Co. Kumagaigumi Construction Co. Konoike Construction Co. Goyo Construction Co. Sada Construction Co. Sato Kogyo Construction Co. Shimizu Construction Co. Sumitomo Construction Co. Seibu Construction Co. Zenidakagumi Construction Co. Daisue Construction Co. Taisei Construction Co. Dainippondoboku Construction Co. Ano, Shinji Takenaka Construction Co. Sugano, Shunsuke Chizaki Kogyo Construction Co. Ohkawa, Akinori Tekken Construction Co. Morimoto, Hitoshi Takusagawa, Masamitsu Tokai Kogyo Construction Co. Tokyu Construction Co. Yamamoto, Toshihiko Toda Construction Co. Motegi, Yuji Nakagawa, Mitsuo
J
Tobishima Construction Co.
•—.—_
The New RC Project Table 2.3. {Continued)
Position Name Yamanouchi, Jiro Taguchi, Renichi Yanagisawa, Nobufusa Toda, Tetsuo Koga, Kazuya Saitou, Junichi Teraoka, Masaru Wakabayashi, Hajime Maeda, Yasuji Abe, Osamu Endo, Katsuhiko Inaba, Masahiro Noto, Hidekatsu Yamamoto, Koichi Suzuki, Akinobu Kurokawa, Kenjiro Inaoka, Shinya Shimizu, Hideo Kurumada, Norimitsu Uchikawa, Hiroshi Tanaka, Mitsuo Nakano, Kinichi Nagashima, Masahisa Sakai, Masayoshi Takeda, Shigezo Furukawa, Ryutarou Sawamura, Hirotoshi Makino, Yoshihisa Maebana, Tadao Toda, Kazutoshi Kodama, Kazumi Kidokoro, Motoyuki Habu, Hiroharu Hiraishi, Hisahiro BRI Secretary Masuda, Yoshihiro Abe, Michihiko Kaminosono, Takashi Teshigawara, Masaomi Affiliation* Nishimatsu Construction Co. Nissan Construction Co. Nippon Kokudo Kaihatsu Co. Hazama Construction Co. Haseko Corp. Fukudagumi Construction Co. Pujita Construction Co. Fudo Construction Co. Maeda Construction Co. Matsumuragumi Construction Co. Mitsui Construction Co. Mitsubishi Construction Co. Steel Makers Club Kobe Steel Co. Japan Steel Co. NKK Co. Kawasaki Steel Co. Sumitomo Metal Co. Cement Association Onoda Cement Co. Chichibu Cement Co. Osaka Cement Co. Mitsubishi Material Co. NKK Co. Japan Steel Co. Shinnittetsu Chemical Co. Kawatetsu Kogyo Co. Sumitomo Metal Co. Kobe Steel Co. Chemical Admixture Association Nisso Master Builders Co. Ministry of Construction Ministry of Construction Building Research Institute Building Building Building Building Research Research Research Research Institute Institute Institute Institute
47
Hiroyuki Kamimura. Hitoshi Pujitani. Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Table 2. Tatsuro Shiire. Motoyuki Yokota. Katsuro Umemura. Shiro Yamada. Yukio *As of March 31. Minoru Watabe. 1993. Yoshikazu Kishitani. . Shunsuke Hirosawa. University of Tokyo Kougakuin University Ministry of Construction Ministry of Construction Ministry of Construction Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Administrator *As of March 31. Toru Mori. Kouichi Sonobe. Yoshio Kanoh. 1993. Toshiyuki Administrator Akimoto. Hideo Kubo. Hiroharu Kubo. Toru Affiliation* University of Tokyo Utsunomiya University University of Tokyo Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Kanagawa University Kyushu University University of Tokyo Meiji University Nihon University Meiji University Nihon University Tsukuba University University of Tokyo Kyoto University Kyoto University Kansai University Shimizu Construction Co. Position Chairman Vicechairman Advisor Secretary Member Name Aoyama. Masahide Okada. Yasukazu Murota. Fuminori Muguruma. Shigeo Ishikawa.48 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Table 2.3. Yasuhisa Tomosawa. Masaya Kidokoro. Makoto Otani. Toyokazu Tomii.4. Technical Advisory Board. Tsuneo Ogura. Toshiyuki Akimoto. Mitsuhito Habu. Hiroshi Morita. Kouichiro Kasai. Hajime Takahashi. Position Name Concrete Structures (Continued) Affiliation* Shiohara.
Masaki Tanigawa. Akio Tanano. Hiroyuki Yasuda. Kazumi Kosuge. Motoo Nakane. Keiichi Suguri. Itoshi Hiraga. Eiji Kawase. Hajime Aoki. Yasunori Kittaka. Materials Testing Center Obayashi Construction Co. Satokogyo Corp. Member Shiraishi. Kimio Matsuo. Jun Okamaoto.5. Fuminori Shimizu. Kiyotaka Kemi. Denki Kagaku Co. Yoshihiro Hiraishi. Eiji Administrator Akimoto. Kajima Construction Co. Yoshinori Noguchi. Hideaki Furuta. Ministry of Construction Ministry of Construction Ministry of Construction Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute 49 Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Japan Institute for Construction Engineering *As of March 31 1993. Hisahiro Baba. Itsuo Sudo. Tomoaki Sakai. Takafumi Hamada. Toru Ishikawa. NKK Co. Yukio Affiliation* University of Tokyo Tokyo Science University Building Research Institute Hokkaido University Niigata University Ashikaga Institute of Technology Tokyo Institute of Technology Nagoya University Kyushu University Utsunomiya University University of Tokyo Housing & Urban Develop. Hitoshi Masuda. Akiyuki Abe. Yasuo Matsufuji.The New RC Project Table 2. Norimitsu Kodama. Masayoshi Kurumada. . Masaru Hisaka. Toda Construction Co. Tadashi Izumi. Kiyotaka Shiomi. Masayuki Coop. Cement Association NMB Co. Position Chairman Secretary Name Tomosawa. Takenaka Construction Co. Torao Daimon. Michihiko Member Kamata. Concrete Committee. Co.
Shimizu. Tbshio Masuda. Masaru Kobe Steel Co. Koichi NewJapan Steel Co.50 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 2. Tetsuzo Sakino. Kenji Hayashi. Reiji Tanigawa. Akio Kato. Hajime Aoki. Taisei Construction Co. Yoshihiro Hiraishi. Yamamoto. Toru Ishikawa. . 1993. Shiro Noguchi. Toshiyuki Tanaka. Position Chairman Secretary Member Name Morita. Suzuki. Shizuo Pujisawa.6. Hiroshi Shiohara. Hisahiro Baba. Hiroshi Kaku. Yukio *As of March 31. Fujita Construction Co. Takashige Sugano. Akira Imai. Hitoshi Fukushima. Reinforcement Committee. Hideaki Ministry of Construction Puruta. Hideo Ministry of Construction Suguri. Hirohito Ministry of Construction Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Administrator Akimoto. Takenaka Construction Co. Teraoka. Masami Pujii. Yamamoto. Shunsuke Affiliation* Kyoto University Chiba University Building Research Institute Kinki University Tohoku Institute of Technology Nagoya University Tokyo Science University Tokyo Institute of Technology Tsukuba University Toyohashi Institute of Technology Kyushu University Tokyo Institute of Technology Tsukuba Technical College Kyoto University Shimizu Construction Co. Shigeru Inada. Hitoshi Kubota. Ikuhiro Wada. Akinobu Sumitomo Metal Co. Toshihiko Tokyu Construction Co. Yasuo Matsuzaki. Yasuo Hattori.
. Shunsuke Watanabe. Katsumi Nomura. Setsuro Minami. Kohji Administrator Akimoto. Toshikatsu Bessho. Masami Ichinose. Hitoshi Ministry of Construction Nakata. Structural Element Committee. Kumagaigumi Construction Co.The New RC Project 51 Table 2. Seiji Maeda. Shinsuke Building Research Institute Hiraishi. Mitsui Construction Co. Masamichi Kanoh. Hideaki Tsujikawa. 1993. Satoshi Kato. Pumio Kaminosono. Koichi Kato. Shigeo *As of March 31. Toshimi Joh. Osamu Fujisawa. Katsuhiko Suguri. Yasuji Endo.7. Masaomi Building Research Institute Kato. Hirohito Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Coop. Yoshikazu Takiguchi. Member Oka. Daisuke Kabeyasawa. Ministry of Construction Ministry of Construction Aoki. Toru Mori. Position Chairman Vicechairman Secretary Name Otani. Takashi Fujitani. Takao Affiliation* University of Tokyo Kyoto University Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Kyushu Institute of Design Meiji University Tokyo Institute of Technology Tokyo Science University Fukuyama University Niigata University Yokohama National University Hokkaido University Tsukuba College of Technology Nagoya Industrial University Kajima Construction Co. Maeda Construction Co. Tetsuro Building Research Institute Teshigawara. Taisei Construction Co. Hideo Member Ohkubo. Takehiko Yoshizaki. Hisahiro Building Research Institute Goto.
Co. Structural Design Committee. Masaomi Building Research Institute Pujitani. Nobuaki Izumi. Hazamagumi Construction Co. Toshimi Kanda. Tetsuro Saida. Masaya Kabeyasawa. Tokyo Institute for Construction Engineering Tokyo Institute for Construction Engineering . Hiroshi Hirosawa. Hideo Building Research Institute Sugimura. Masashi Ishida. Masaya Yoshimura. Yoshikazu Yamazaki. Shinsuke Yamanouchi. Haruhito Administrator Akimoto. Haruo Nakano. Obayashi Construction Co. Toda Construction Co. J u n Kubo. Manabu Affiliation* University of Tokyo Chiba University Tokyo Metropolitan University Teshigawara. Member Igarashi. Kazuo Yamamoto. Yutaka Nakata. Tetsuo Takizawa. Hitoshi Kitagawa. Hisahiro Tohoku University Tsukuba University Tokyo Institute of Technology University of Tokyo Kogakuin University Yokohama National University University of Tokyo Nagoya Institute of Technology Hokkaido University University of Tokyo Housing &. Yoshiaki Sawai. Takao Aoki. Isamu Ono. Tobishima Construction Co. Yutaka Wada. Nishimatsu Construction Co.52 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 2. Kohnoikegumi Construction Co. Hiroyuki Hiraishi. Tsuneo Murakami. Yoshihiro Matsushima. Tetsuo Suguri.8. Toru Mori. Urban Develop. Ministry of Construction Ministry of Construction Ministry of Construction Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Member Coop. Akira Akiyama. Kenzo Abe. Position Chairman Vicechairman Secretary Name Okada. Tadashi Toda. Shimizu Construction Co. 1993. Okumuragumi Construction Co. Nobuyuki Yoshioka. Shigeo •As of March 31. Hideaki Tsujikawa.
Takashige Izumi. Hitoshi Kemi. Kobe Steel Co. Torao Tanaka. Hisahiro Yasuda. 2. several cooperative research projects were organized between the Building Research Institute and volunteering companies. Masayuki Nishimura. Itoshi Sugano. In addition. Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Japan Institute for Construction Engineering Coop. 2. Toru Ishikawa. Obayashi Construction Co. Yukio Affiliation* Utsunomiya University Kyoto University University of Tokyo Building Research Institute Building Research Institute Ashikaga Institute of Technology Tohoku Institute of Technology Tsukuba University Tokyo Science University Housing & Urban Develop. Figure 2. High strength concrete . Kimio Hattori. Jun Bessho. Hiroshi Shimizu. Corp. Reiji Imai. Akiyuki Fukushi. Isao Nakane. Kajima Construction Co. Chapter 9 of this book deals with the results of these cooperative research projects.4. Position Chairman Vicechairman Secretary Member Name Kamimura. Taisei Construction Co. The aim of the cooperative research covered the latter three objectives in Table 2. namely various feasibility studies of the New RC structures. Katsuro Morita. 1993. Susumu Akimoto. Shunsuke Yamamoto. together with their test methods and evaluation criteria.4. Koichi Abe.3 shows fresh high strength concrete at the slump test. Construction and Manufacturing Committee. Member Administrator "As of March 31.1. Takenaka Construction Co. Takenaka Constructoin Co. Fuminori Masuda.9.The New RC Project 53 Table 2. Outline of Results Development of Materials for High Strength RC The first major effort was the development of high strength concrete and steel. Yoshihiro Shiohara. Figure 2. Shiro Tomosawa. Kajima Construction Co. Satoshi Okamoto.2 shows these cooperative research projects in the right hand side enclosed by dotted lines. Michihiko Hiraishi.1.
Figure 2.5. 2.4 shows some examples of stressstrain relationship of concrete. together with commercially available reinforcing bars and prestressing steel.3 Strain (%) 0.W/(C+Si)=25% W/(C+Si)=20% ~ m V) 100 80 60 40 20 t ~W/C=35% W/C=65% V\ — / . Examples of stressstrain relationship of concrete.5 0. with compressive strength greater than 40 MPa usually displays viscous iow. 1 \ 0 w I' 01 .54 Design of Modem Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig. as explained in Chapters 3 and 8 of this book.4 0.5 illustrates stressstrain curve of USD 685 steel with specified yield point of 685 MPa that was newly developed for axial reinforcement.7 55 ?/ 0 .4.2 0.3. Handling of such viscous fresh concrete in the site requires special attention. 2. 160 140 120 // ^1.7 ' V. Relatively linear ascending portion and steep descending portion are conspicuous characteristics of high strength concrete. The newly developed . Figure 2. Concrete after slump test. As shown by dotted curves in Fig. 2..6 Fig. 0. stressstrain relationships of steel in tension tends to lose yield plateau as yield point gets higher.
bond . planar RC panel elements subjected to plane stress conditions.71) "0 5 10 15 Strain (%) 20 25 30 Numbers in { ) indicate yield ratio.2. 2. buckling of compression bars.76) ' SD390 (0.86) 5 1. concrete strength in the New RC Construction Standard is defined by the strength of concrete in the structure. Performance of structural members means items as indicated below: flexural behavior of beams and columns as influenced by axial load.The New RC Project 55 2.67) w 500 SD295(0. and so on. Performance of elements here refers to beam bar anchorages to columns. to be controlled by the strength development in the structure and in the cylinders under the corresponding curing condition. Essential features of the New RC Construction Standard are introduced in Chapter 8. lateral confinement. 2. Development of Structural Performance Evaluation A set of evaluation methods for structural performance of New RC elements and structural members was developed.500 ' PC ban (0. Examples of stressstrain relationship of reinforcing bars. In order to procure the specified strength in the structure with the maximum reliability. Fig. 2.000 1. Development of Construction Standard Major achievement in the construction engineering was the development of New RC Construction Standard. USD 685 was a successful attempt to produce high strength steel with well denned yield plateau.4.77) \ • SD590 (0.3.000  New RC USD675(0.5.4. It is different from the current JASS (Japan Architectural Standard Specification) in the definition of concrete strength.
It is introduced in detail in Chapter 6 of this book. and shear failure in the hinge zone. Figure 2. In some aspects. were developed primarily through theoretical studies. empirical approaches were indispensable. whose detail and structural design are also included in Chapter 6. mostly in the form of equations. The guidelines were developed for highrise RC buildings. Chapter 7 was written as an easy introduction to the earthquake response analysis. Chapter 5 was written as a plain guide for the readers to the nonlinear finite element analysis for RC elements and members. 2. as it was shown in the New RC project that finite element analysis was such a powerful tool for structural engineering that it should have a wider application in the structural design in future. Development of Structural Design New RC Structural Design Guidelines was developed mainly for earthquake resistance. This building was assumed to be constructed using materials in zone II—I. and connections of first story columns to foundations.56 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures splitting along axial bars.1. flexural and shear strength of walls. Needless to say that monotonic loading as well as cyclic reversal of loading were considered. It is a sixtystory apartment building.7. The first was a highrise flat slab building shown in Fig. Feasibility Studies for New RC Buildings Application feasibility studies were made for materials in Zones II and III in Fig. 2. These evaluation methods. which was judged appropriate for the complex structural material such as RC.5. shear failure of beamcolumn joints. 2. They consist of the following three types of buildings. and its philosophy should also be applicable to structures of other material. but it will be applicable to RC structures in general. however. Flat slab structures . which were subsequently investigated by experiments for their adequacy and accuracy.4.4.4. 2. keeping those readers with no experience or little knowledge on the response analysis in mind.6 illustrates an imaginary building that was designed using the guidelines. It is based on the dynamic time history response analysis to earthquake ground motions with a clear definition of required safety. Chapter 4 of this book is devoted to this development of performance evaluation methods.
The second was a series of highrise buildings based on the "megastructure" concept. This feasibility study aimed at the breakthrough for this type of construction in the seismic areas with the use of high strength materials. 2. from the ceilings. have significant advantage for dwellings because of no girders protruding below the soffit of ioor slabs. Bird's eye view of a 60story building. However its application in Japan has been quite limited in view of apparent deficit in seismic resistance.The New RC Project 57 Fig. in other words. and much future development is expected. It was shown to be quite feasible. Figure 2. Highrise flat plate building utilizing high strength concrete. Fig.6. .8 shows an example of such structures with 300 m in height. 2.7.
I s 4&:> Fig.8. Highrise boiler building of thermal power plant. The basic idea for this type of structures is that the megastructure constructed by high strength RC can be used for centuries as a kind of infrastructure to the society due to its superior durability and easy maintenance. 2.58 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig.9. whikf the substructure is relatively light and easily alterable according to the future change of occupancy or other changes of . Megastructure of 300 m high utilizing high strength materials. 2. consisting of five rnegastories each of which contains fifteen stories of substructures inside. Materials in zone III are to be used.
will be constructed eventually. 2. Objects of the feasibility studies. 2. (3) Popularization of high strength and superhigh strength ready mixed concrete. Some portions of the results have already been in use in the construction of highrise concrete buildings. . The feasibility study lead to the trial design of two groups of megastructures.The New RC Project 59 architectural needs. 2. In October 1994. Occasional introductions at international meetings were also made (Refs. It is expected that such practical use of results of the New RC Project will increase. seminars were organized each year for audiences from participating universities and construction companies.3). Laboratory experiment was conducted for a portion of box columns. Materials in zone II—1 were assumed. (1) JIS (Japanese Industrial Standards) for newly developed reinforcing steel with 685 MPa yield strength. consisting of four huge RC box columns housing a vertical boiler inside. 2. the Concrete Journal published 55page articles in Japanese covering all features of the project (Ref. Standards for performance evaluation or design and construction guidelines have been partially incorporated into existing standards and guidelines. 2. and thermal power plant boiler buildings.5. In addition.2. suspended from the steel grid girders that connect top of four columns at the height of 100 m. namely highrise flat slab buildings.12. Major findings were condensed into short summary papers and reported at the Annual Conventions of the Architectural Institute of Japan in each year. The third was a new type of thermal power plant boiler building shown in Fig. (4) Acceptance and authorization of New RC design and construction guidelines at the Technical Appraisal Committee for Highrise Buildings of the Building Center of Japan. and disseminated to all parties involved in the project. (2) Incorporation of standard specification for high strength and superhigh strength concrete into existing standard specification and design standards. highrise megastructure buildings. Dissemination of Results Bulky reports were compiled each year during the New RC Project of 19881993 by the research committees shown in Fig.9.4). It is deemed necessary that following items have to be attended appropriately in the near future. and it was also shown that this type of structure was quite feasible by the use of New RC materials. having 200 m or 300 m in height.
Aoyama. References 2. S. and Murota.3. and Bessho. Aoyama. 333340.5 ) .. T. Madrid. pp. Development of advanced reinforced concrete buildings using highstrength concrete and reinforcement. Buildings Research Institute. et al. March 2001.. H. July 1992. Development of new reinforced concrete structures. 2. 561. Report No. Mexico. 32(10). 139. H. pp. Part IVII. Development of advance reinforced concrete buildings with highstrength and highquality materials.. . T. Acapulco.60 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures T h e major contents of this book except C h a p t e r 7 are t h e translation of a report published by Building Research I n s t i t u t e in M a r c h 2001 (Ref.. December 1991. October 1994. H. Murota. 24(4). Aoyama. Vol. Recent Development in seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings in Japan.5. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering. Murota. June 2328. Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Feature articles on new reinforced concrete structures (in Japanese). 2 .. 2.1.. Hiraishi. 33653370. Proc. Aoyama. T. 2. et al.4. Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. H. 2. H. Concrete J. 1995. pp. 6..2.
1.1 and 3.Chapter 3 New RC Materials Michihiko Abe Department of Architecture.ac. Tomosawa.1. Kogakuin University 1242 NishiShinjuku. the most popularly adopted is the first method. Shinjukuku.utokyo. F. Tokyo 1638677.jp 3. 3. the second is to select aggregate with high strength. three methods are available in general. Japan Email: abe@cc.kogakuin.t. Material and Mix of High Strength Concrete In order to obtain high strength of concrete. achieved by the effort of the Concrete Committee under the chairmanship of Dr. 3.ac.jp Hitoshi Shiohara Department of Architecture. The first section deals with the development and properties of high strength concrete. Tokyo 1138656. High Strength Concrete Chapter 3 of this book is devoted to the description of high strength and high quality materials developed for the New RC project. hence the strength of 61 . University of Tokyo 731 Hongo. Professor of the University of Tokyo. The first is to increase the strength of the binder. Japan Email: shiohara@sake.1. and the third is to improve the bond at the interface of aggregate and binder (Refs. Bunkyoku. This is because of the fact that the binder strength of concrete in the ordinary strength range is smaller than the strength of aggregate. Among them.2).
Finally. 3. and achievement on the mix proportioning method of high strength concrete. The increase of binder strength requires the cement and mineral admixtures suitable for high strength. The figure also shows mortar strength for type B fly ash cement and for ordinary portland cement with silica fume. Compressive strength of mortar with watercement ratio of 25 to 65 percent was studied using ordinary. and reduction of waterbinder ratio as the most effective means in terms of mix design. it is necessary to develop chemical admixtures with high capability of dispersing cement and mineral admixtures. Cement A series of experiment was carried out in the New RC project with the aim of developing the cement suited for high strength concrete and of developing the quality standard of such cement. As shown in Fig. which resulted in lower strength even at the watercement ratio of 25 percent. For the strength improvement of the transition zone. chemical and mineral admixtures. highearly strength.1.3) that the concrete strength depends microscopically on the structure of the transition zone between aggregate and binder.1. moderate heat. leading to test results as summarized below. this subsection presents research accomplishment on the development of cement. both suitable for high strength. . 3. In addition. without increasing the unit binder content. to maintain workability of concrete within the practical limit without increasing the unit water content while keeping the low waterbinder ratio. mortar strength is affected by cement type for watercement ratio greater than 30 percent. 3.1. that is. This is a wellknown fact by the classical name of "watercement ratio" theory. not only the reduction of waterbinder ratio but also the use of mineral admixtures with ultrafine particle such as silica fume was found to be effective. but the difference is small for watercement ratio of 25 percent. Hence the selection of aggregate suitable for high strength concrete becomes an important issue. and the selection of aggregate. The increase of binder strength naturally results in producing concrete whose strength is strongly affected by the aggregate strength.1. it is an established fact (Ref.62 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures concrete is dictated by that of binder. Based on these general considerations for high strength of concrete. and type B blast furnace slag portland cement.
4.1. using ordinary. and type B blast furnace slag portland cement of various makers. highearly strength. 3. ratio. Setting and compressive strength tests were conducted of mortar with watercement ratio of 30 percent and sandcement ratio of 1. 3. Relationship between base cement percentage in particle size distribution controlled cement and mortar strength.2.New RC Materials 63 Ordinary Portland ceaent Highearlystrength Portland ceaent Moderate heat Portland cement Type B blast furnace ceaent Type B flyash ceaent O C with silica fume P Age'28 days 25 30 35 40 50 laterceaent ratio (%) Fig. Strength of mortar with various cement types in the range of low watercement 130 120  ^> ° • * o O O>0 ^ o 9 l d»1* 1 1 10 • ° 90 Jeo 70 i I 40 60 I 80 I I 100 Percentage of base cement (%) Fig. High strength could be obtained by any cement. moderate heat. but the correlation between mortar strength and cement strength by JIS (Japanese .
2. The fluidity of mortar and concrete using commercially available cement is greatly impaired when the watercement ratio is low.2.4 shows a similar results as above for mortar. and as shown in Fig. which are marked O. For both watercement ratio of 25 percent and 35 percent. particle size distribution controlled cement was manufactured on trial. to establish method for selection of aggregate suitable for high strength concrete.64 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Industrial Standard) method was not observed. Quality standards for cement to be used for concrete between 36 MPa and 60 MPa were developed. With the increase of unit coarse aggregate content of K or D. This indicates that JIS may not be sufficient as a quality standard of cement for high strength concrete. Major findings were as follows. compressive strength of more than 100 MPa was achieved for the new cement with 60 to 80 percent base cement (40 to 20 percent replacement).1. T.3 shows results for concrete. Using nine different kinds of sand of varying sandcement ratio while keeping the watercement ratio constant at 25 percent. Thus it is clear that coarse aggregate with inferior quality affects the strength of high strength concrete remarkably. Figure 3. mortar strength was tested at ages of 7 or 28 days. Assuming that concrete is a twoelement system of matrix (mortar) and coarse aggregate. concrete was made using four different kinds of coarse aggregate. K and D. To increase the fluidity of mortar with low watercement ratio. 3. by replacing part of ordinary portland cement by pulverized matter such as coarse particle portland cement or finely ground limestone. which will be explained in Chapter 8. 3. and that mortar is another twoelement system of matrix (cement paste) and fine aggregate. Aggregate The relationship between the quality of high strength concrete and the quality of aggregate was studied experimentally. compressive strength decreased almost linearly. Figure 3. Tests of mortar and concrete were conducted using this particle size distribution controlled cement.1. strength variation of concrete and mortar was studied by varying the amount of aggregate from various places while keeping the matrix quality constant. The compressive strength showed tendency to decrease as sand . The fluidity of concrete using this cement at the watercement ratio of 20 percent was also excellent. Compression tests were made at the age of 28 days. while it remained more or less constant with the increase of good quality aggregate such as O or T. and mortar with good fluidity (flow value of 200 mm) was obtained even with watercement ratio of 20 percent or less.
3.3. 3.5 2. NX ^"& NofO A T oo • Hortar 60 40 (b) W/C = 35 X 80 ^v vK OD (a) f/C = 25 % Fig.New RC Materials 65 Unit coarse aggregate content ( / * !•) 0 1 00 200 i 400 i 600 100 ° i 80 200 400 600 S\. Relationship between unit coarse aggregate content and compressive strength of concrete using various kinds of coarse aggregate (O. K and D). Sandceoent r a t i o 120 110 100 ^^ Age^ 28 days 0.0 1.4.« A 2 90 80 70 ©A3 ©A4 OB • C i D vE OF D  A 60 Fig.0 T 1 W/C=25% r Si 90 •M SO I 80 to « S B3 OA1 70 .5 1. T. Relationship between sandcement ratio and compressive strength of mortar using various kinds of sand ( A 1 ~ F ) . N .
5 25 25N 30 Andesite 20 22. by removing very fine component from the fine aggregate.5.1. but the decreasing trend was more conspicuous for some sand.. both coarse and fine.3. Chemical Admixtures Various commercially available as well as newly developed chemical admixtures. content increases for all kinds of sand used. to investigate Young's modulus at 28day age and drying shrinkage at 6month age. Drying shrinkage was also smaller for limestone concrete as shown in Fig.. and andesite aggregates with BS (British Standard) crushing value of 15 to 20 were used for high strength concrete of 100 to 120 MPa compressive strength. and the fluidity can be improved by using fine aggregate with adjusted fineness. 3. Effect of kinds of coarse aggregate on the drying shrinkage of concrete. i. 3.66 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 8r~ W=160kg/m'. generally known as airentraining and highrange waterreducing agents. but angular shape was found to be advantageous for high strength.1.5. 3.5 25 25N 30 w/B (%) Limestone 20 22. Crushed hard sandstone. Limestone concrete showed higher Young's modulus of about 50 GPa compared to about 40 GPa of hard sandstone or andesite concrete. for example with marks D and E. A study into the effect of aggregate size. Drying p e r i o d s months Sfc. . High strength concrete with 120 MPa strength can be made by using selected aggregate. which illustrates shrinkage strain after 6 months of drying period for concrete using three kinds of coarse aggregate and watercement ratio ranging from 20 to 30 percent while keeping the unit water content of 160 kg/m 3 constant.e. All concrete except for 25N used the cement with 15 percent replacement by silica fume for the binder.5 25 25N 30 Hard Sandstone Pig. limestone. shape. No effect was found of aggregate size and aggregate content on the concrete strength. and unit coarse aggregate content on the compressive strength was conducted. 20 22.
. compressive strength.g. As an example. The drying shrinkage strain of concrete using certain brands of admixture was also found to be longer. and air content was in the range of 3 to 4 percent.New RC Materials 67 were compared in a series of unified tests. Figure 3. particularly when the unit water content was low. L_J 0 1 15 i 30 Time (min) I 60 i 90 Fig. and 100 MPa at waterbinder ratio of 22 percent of concrete mixed with silica fume or ground granulated blast furnace slag. Change with time of concrete slump using various brands of airentraining and highrange waterreducing agents. the case of 60 MPa concrete at watercement ratio of 30 percent is illustrated below. Some brands. drying shrinkage. Figure 3. Some brands showed very long setting time. They were 40 MPa at watercement ratio of 40 percent. e. Items such as relationship between unit water content and admixture addition ratio to achieve the target slump or air content. setting time.6. Concrete with four grades of compressive strength were considered. 60 MPa at watercement ratio of 30 percent. and freezethaw resistance. Unit water content of 165 kg/m 3 was kept content.7 shows range of setting time of concrete with unit water content of 165 kg/m 3 and 150 kg/m 3 using the same ten brands of chemical admixtures as above. 80 MPa at waterbinder ratio of 25 percent of both plain concrete and concrete mixed with silica fume or ground granulated blast furnace slag. time variation of slump. marks A and G. 3. were studied. showed larger slump loss with time than other brands.6 shows change with time of slump of concrete using various brands of chemical admixtures.
.68 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 1250 Z l W=165kg/m3 H i W = 150kg/m 3 1000 W/C=30% •S 750 1 D I EH 500 ri H I 151 250 S A B _L C D E _L F G Brand of admixtures Fig. Compressive strength of high strength concrete using various brands of airentraining and highrange waterreducing agents. 3. Setting time of concrete using various brands of airentraining and highrange waterreducing agents. 3. 120 100 80 60 40 20 W/C=3Q% • W=165kg/m\ M W=165kg/m\ W& W=150kg/m 3 .8. Air=3~4X Air=2 % Air=3~4 X *ir=2 * I d e n o t e s r a n g e of max and min rfi 4 [W if" i T I ll 28 Age (days) 91 i Fig. H I W=150kg/m 3 .7.
It was even cleared at 7 days in this test.9 is the results of freezing and thawing test of 80 MPa concrete with watercement ratio of 25 percent. 3 60 a OO D a ° J I I I I I I I o I I I I I I l_ 0. no reduction of durability factor was observed.3 1. Durability factor and spacing factor of concrete using various brands of airentraining and highrange waterreducing agents. plain concrete with low air content and plain concrete with silica fume showed inferior durability. The cases of higher strength concrete indicated the significance of air entrainment on the freezethaw resistance. the target strength was more than satisfied at the age of 28 days.1 0. Test data for higher strength concrete were not compiled into practical form as above at the present stage. which is the relative value of dynamic modulus of elasticity at the end of freezing and thawing test. blast furnace slag air content ^2 % 3~4 % <J2 % ^2 % • V«» L < c 4 ^ ^ c g ^ D Q D ^ £ !  1.3 0. As can be seen in the figure.7 0. Figure 3.8 shows compressive strength for four different combination of unit water content and air content at five different ages. quality standard and usage guideline for chemical admixtures for 60 MPa high strength concrete were developed. Figure 3. compressive strength of concrete was satisfactory for all brands of admixtures. 3. . but they are believed to throw some light into the future advancement of the concrete research. Based on these unified tests.9. indicating the relationship of spacing factor and durability factor. O • Q A 100 Mineral admixture . However.5 0.New RC Materials 69 Nevertheless. aiming at compressive strength of 60 MPa. For plain concrete without mineral admixture with air of 3 to 4 percent and plain concrete with ground granulated blast furnace slag.1 Spacing factor (mm) 1.5 Fig. Watercement ratio of 30 percent was kept constant.9 1. not mixed : not mixed : silica fume .
8000 and 10 000 cm 2 /g. but strength was improved when the specific surface area was greater. Etringite was used to be known as cement bacillus. The concrete with the three components showed greater increase of strength at long term than two component concrete. Fly ash fume is obtained by processing fly ash at high temperature. exposed to air after 2. strength development and freezethaw resistance of mortar and concrete were studied using ground granulated blast furnace slag with specific surface area of 6000. 4. ground granulated blast furnace slag.1.70 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 3. thereby evaporating silicon dioxide whose boiling temperature is relatively low among substances in the fly ash. Mineral Admixtures Mineral admixtures for high strength concrete are to replace a part of cement and form a part of binder. and then coagulating it at the lowered temperature for collection. Figure 3. or 28 days of wet curing either in the form or under standard curing condition.e. 7. Strength of cylinders under standard curing condition is shown in all four groups as a common reference. fly ash fume. with the aim of growing hardened binder body with fine structure by utilizing the growth of needleshaped crystal of etringite (formed by the reaction of aluminate in the cement and gypsum). ground granulated blast furnace slag. and etringite type special admixture were considered. It was found that replacement of 10 to 15 percent of silica fume or fly ash fume lead to the maximum compressive strength. and it was shown that increase of compressive strength of about 15 MPa was obtained by adding this admixture. in terms of compressive strength at 28 and 91 days under four different curing conditions. Fluidity and compressive strength of cement paste.1. Workability. Strength development of concrete with low waterbinder ratio was measured where the binder consisted of three components of cement. Greater specific surface area of fly ash fume resulted in the increase of strength. An exception in this figure is the leftmost group . and silica fume or fly ash fume. Followings are major findings of unified tests for mineral admixtures. Admixtures such as silica fume. Properties of concrete with etringite type special admixture were investigated. mortar and concrete were tested using silica fume or fly ash fume whose specific surface area was modified to range of 260 000 to 700 000 cm 2 /g. but the etringite type special admixture is a kind of mineral admixture mainly consisting of Type 2 anhydrous gypsum. The strength development was slow at low temperature. i.10 shows the effect of curing condition on this kind of concrete.4.
1.10. Concrete with this admixture revealed strength comparable or even better strength compared to standard curing even after 4 or 7 days of wet curing condition. sealed Strip at 2d. and the individual special features must be carefully considered in their practical use. procedure to determine watercement ratio or .) (w/ad.1. ) (w/out ad. ) (w/ad. These mineral admixtures are very important for high strength concrete. this admixture improves the strength development in the concrete exposed in the air. For all four curing conditions.) Fig. ) (w/out ad. where strength of sealed cylinders is shown. then standardcured I Strip at 2d standardcured 1(3 Strip at 2d standardcured 2d than aircured 5d than aircured Strip at 4d then aircured fU Strip at 7d than aircured 2 Strip at 2d standardcured 25dthen aircured • Strip at 28d than ailcured Strip at 2d then aircured 130 120 I 110 S ioo 90 80 70 (w/ad. strength increase due to addition of the admixture is clearly seen. especially in excess of 60 MPa. Mix Design Aiming at developing specification for mix design of high strength concrete of 60 to 80 MPa specified strength. Furthermore.) (w/out ad. In each group strengths with and without etringite type admixture are compared. 3. ) (w/ad. Effect of curing condition on the compressive strength of concrete using etringite type special admixture. which was happened to be similar to that under standard curing.) (»/out ad.5. 3.New RC Materials 71 0 0 Strip at 2d tin.
Furthermore.2 16. and relationship between unit water content or dosage of chemical admixture and workability. For the same slump or slump flow of fresh concrete. silica fume and ground granulated blast furnace slag 8000. as shown in Fig. 140 120 j£^ <?/ S1" I 80 xfe* \ .11. and concrete with silica fume replacement of 15 percent (OPC + SF) and concrete with ground granulated blast furnace slag 8000 replacement of 30 percent (OPC I.7 15 Waterbinder ratio (X) Fig. tests were made on the various concrete properties in the range of waterbinder ratio of 15 to 40 percent and unit water content of 145 to 175 kg/m 3 . Major findings are summarized below. In order to find relationship between required average strength and watercement ratio or waterbinder ratio. compressive strength at ages of 7.72 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures waterbinder ratio. concrete with ordinary portland cement (OPC) showed the strength at 28 days of about 100 MPa. Relationship between waterbinder ratio and compressive strength.BS) showed the strength at 28 days of about 120 MPa. unit water content. when silica fume was used or when unit water content was increased. hence the workability was better. using airentraining and highrange waterreducing agent.. 28 and 91 days increased in proportion to binderwater ratio in the range of waterbinder ratio of 25 percent or more. 3. 3. As shown in the figure. it was found that flow speed of concrete was faster. and dosage of chemical admixtures was studied to achieve the required average (proportioning) strength. both more or less constant for different binderwater ratio above 4.5 20 18.—& OPC OPC+SF 0PC+8S Age=7 days Age28 days Age=91 days o* / / /a •B 60 40 I 4 40 30 _1_ 5 I I Binderwater ratio I J I L 25 22.11. but for lower watercement ratio compressive strength did not increase with the increase of binderwater ratio. air content and slump or slump flow. unit bulk volume of coarse aggregate. .
3. 3. and of 80 MPa concrete with waterbinder ratio of 25 percent and slump 25 cm.5%) l(1. . 100 (2 V//C = 30%. Relationship between unit water content and compressive strength.9%> Jl.0%) Numbers in parentheses indicate dosage of admixture 1 1 I I I I I L_ 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 Unit water content ( k g / m * ) Fig. slu»p=21 en standard curing 28 days 95 90 85 80 75 S^(1.New RC Materials 73 Relationship between concrete mix and various properties was studied of 60 MPa concrete with watercement ratio of 30 percent and slump 21 cm. Relationship between unit water content and setting time.12 indicates setting time of 60 MPa concrete with the same 1000 W7C=30% slunp=2] ca 800 600 D" n S 400 m .2%) >(1.12. aortar final setting I ~1 initial setting ] j right after sizing 200 Q " ^ ] 90 iin. after ailing I J 140 I 160 I 180 200 Unit water content ( k g / m 3 ) Fig. Figure 3.13.
3. 3.13. Appropriate unit bulk volume of coarse aggregate can be determined corresponding to the slump or slumpflow value referring to the mix design for unified tests of chemical admixtures and other available sources. for any of the unit water content considered. On the other hand. To keep the watercement ratio constant while reducing unit water content.74 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced 140  Concrete Structures Waterbinder ratio:25% Age:28 days 130 ja a. one must reduce the paste content. Figure 3. and to keep the slump constant one has to use large amount of chemical admixture leading to higher viscosity.15.14 is for 80 MPa concrete where silica fume or ground granulated blast furnace slag 8000 is used as mineral admixture. Based on the abovementioned studies. ~120 110 100 W=160kg/m 3 W=200kg/m 3 0 I _L _L _L _L _L 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Replacement ratio by mineral admixture (%) 90 Fig. and it can be seen that silica fume replacement of 10 percent and blast furnace slag replacement of 30 to 50 percent resulted in maximum strength. showing longer setting time for smaller unit water content. Detail of proposed . Relationship between replacement ratio of O P C by mineral admixture and compressive strength. concrete with larger unit water content showed smaller compressive strength even under constant watercement ratio.14. a general procedure of mix calculation is organized as shown by a flow chart in Fig. watercement ratio but different unit water content. 3. as shown in Fig. This is the reason for longer setting time for smaller unit water content in the figure. This figure shows the compressive strength for different replacement ratio of mineral admixture.
On the other hand pumping efficiency is low despite large slump. A study was therefore conducted to establish a new index to evaluate workability of high strength concrete by examining its rheological characteristics. is more desirable than the direct use of various consistency test results. 3. 3.1. numerical values for constituent materials and mix elements can be found in Chapter 8.1. and hence high segregation resistance even for large slump.15.2. 3. A conclusion was that use of rheology constants themselves. Figure 3. Properties Workability of High Strength Concrete High strength concrete generally has high viscosity. General procedure of mix calculation. It was also shown that casting performance . such as plastic viscosity or yield value. Thus it can be concluded that the slump may not be a good measure of workability for high strength concrete.2.16 shows that rheology constants can be obtained from the combined results of slump test and ASTM flow test.New RC Materials 75 start of mix calculation establish conditions for determining designed mix proportioning strength air content •lump x determine replacement ratio of mineral admixture determine unit determine watercement (waterbinder) ratio determine unit water content coarse aggregate volume I calculate unit determine dosage of chemical admixture coarse aggregate calculate unit cement (binder) content calculate unit fine aggregate content end of calculation Fig.1.
They are as follows: characteristics of testing machines such as stiffness or swivel detail. tests. various factors that would affect the compression test results were examined. 3. manufacture of cylinder such as forms or method of compaction.17 shows results of compression test of four kinds of concrete by 16 testing machines (A through P). .2. but it may also be resulted from some difference in some of the abovementioned influencing factors. Some testing machines show consistently low values. Thus the use of rheology constants leads to a good prediction of casting performance of high strength concrete. and so on. loading speed. end surface treatment of cylinder by grinding or capping.76 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced 600 Concrete Structures For high strength concrete 500 400 ? £ o 300 I200 J 100 J 1 J_ I & "0 400 800 1200 1600 Yield value r i (P») Fig.1.2. Estimation of rheology constants from the combination of current consistency of fresh concrete in the form could be analyzed by viscoplastic divided space element method using rheology constants. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength Aiming at a proposal of standard test method for the compressive strength of high strength concrete. It may be the consequence of calibration problem. Figure 3. shape and size of cylinder and its dry or moist condition at testing.16. 3.
Based on these studies.1. unbonded capping method was developed which does not require any specific end surface finishing. increase of compressive strength was observed with the increase of rubber hardness in case of high strength concrete. Effect of testing machines on the compressive strength. and that of steel frame diameter was examined by comparing the test results with machineground cylinders. Young's modulus.2. and failure characteristics of high strength concrete. Results are summarized below. 3. and that for test method for compressive strength was made based on JIS A 1108. Mechanical Properties Stressstrain relationship.17. In both cases many cylinders reached the compression failure accompanied by end chipping or vertical splitting. and tensile strength were the major items of the series of investigations into mechanical properties of high strength concrete. As for end surface treatment. compressive strength dropped with the increase of rubber hardness when the diameter of steel frame was large. Effect of rubber pad quality and hardness. a proposal for making compression test cylinders was made based on JIS A 1132. 3.New RC Materials 130 120 110 10 90 80 70 60 77 F. For polyurethane or NBR pads. In conclusion. .3.=80 (MPa) § f  2 ° •1 3 I j 50 40 30 20 10 ° A B C D E F G H I J K L~M~N 0 P Testing machines Fig. basic mechanical properties of confined concrete. For chloroprene rubber pads. conditions of unbonded capping that would give equivalent compressive strength and failure mode to machineground cylinders were presented.
There are several proposals for the stressstrain relationship of high strength concrete. Coarse aggregate content — Max. but the trend differs for different coarse aggregate. which increases gradually as the compressive strength increases. 3.18.19. 3. 3.*) (e) Muguriuzut 2000 4000 6000 Strain (X10«) (d) Popovics Fig. Furthermore Fig. 40010 5 4 500 ! i 4 000 3S0O 55 3 000  2 500 20 60 100 Compressive strength (MPa) 140 Fig.size a/n3) (nn> 5000 o 0 ^ 20020 D 40020 • 40015 5. One problem is the estimation of the strain associated with the maximum stress. Comparison between measured (full lines) and calculated (dashed lines) stressstrain curves.19 shows the different interdependence of strain at maximum stress on . 3.18. and some of them represent the test results quite accurately as shown in Fig. *. Influence of coarse aggregate on strain at compressive strength.78 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 2000 4000 6000 Strain (X10~*) (a) Kent & Park 2000 4000 6000 Strain (X10"') (b) Falitia & Shah 2000 4000 6000 Strain (X10 .
T=2. k2 and y variations X <N 50000 • A A '*> .20. kj=i.4)ix(aJ SO)"1 [MPa] (k.x sa + x v r .New RC Materials 79 Compressive strength (MPa) (a) Without considering ki. 3500X1^ xk. k2 and y variations Fig. 3. Relationship between compressive strength and Young's modulus. X + \ 40000 • °• J*^ l':'^f5.4) * • o * A • O D O V River O ivel Cnishe< Graywacke Cnished Quartzile Crashed Limestone Crushe Andesite Blast F nace Slag 100 H •^ d • + X 120 Calcine Bauxite Crushed Cobble Cnished Basalt Crashed Ctaystone Lightw ght Coarse Ag regale Lightw ght Fine + Co se Aggregate 3 .: a O a 00 "60 . . *z * o <? c • " T/2.° / A * ' c a T3 T3 40 60 80 Compressive strength (MPa) (b) Considering ki.. e A ' RC Equation E.
20(a).3 of this chapter. and that two coefficients fci and &2 are introduced to account for the type of coarse aggregate and mineral admixture.4 t / m 3 . 3. Effect of confinement is further discussed in Sec. Effect of confinement was observed similar to the normal strength concrete. In the figure. waterbinder ratio.3 t / m 3 . Figure 3.20(a) shows the straight results. 3. A new equation developed in the New RC project is shown in the range of concrete strength greater than 36 MPa. indicating the effectiveness of the New RC equation in predicting the Young's modulus of high strength concrete of wide variety. is shown in the range of concrete strength less than 36 MPa. indicating the significance of the term for mass of unit volume.20(b) shows the modified Young's modulus taking into account not only the mass of unit volume but also two coefficients k\ and kz.4. with the constant mass of unit volume 7 of 2. it is clear that the data for lightweight aggregate concrete fall far below that for normal weight concrete. In Fig. which is basically the same as the American Concrete Institute (ACI) equation. The detail for coefficients fci and fo can be found in Chapter 8. Thus it would be necessary for a stressstrain model to incorporate coarse aggregate related parameters. The new equation is different from the AIJ equation in that the exponent to mass of unit volume is 2. but the confining effect decreased as heightdiameter ratio of the specimen increased. the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) equation. Available test data of compression test of cylinders were collected to investigate the relationship between Young's modulus and compressive strength of high strength concrete. Figure 3. and further study is needed in this regard. and dosage of chemical admixture. it was found that drying shrinkage of high strength concrete is strongly influenced by the rock type of aggregate. Drying Shrinkage and Creep Research projects aiming at long term behavior of high strength concrete such as drying shrinkage and creep characteristics produced following results. The scatter of data becomes much smaller than the previous figure.2. Figure 3. the exponent to compressive strength is 1/3.80 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures the compressive strength for different coarse aggregate content or maximum aggregate size. 3. in which mass of unit volume 7 is put equal to 2.21 shows variation of drying shrinkage strain with respect to . From mix tests and unified tests for chemical admixtures. and the effect was not influenced by the aggregate type.0.1.
10 2 x 8 'I 6 2 0 — X V=4.90^(n=30) _L J_ _L 1.23 shows the age at crack appearance for various watercement . unit water content was not found to be influential on the drying shrinkage.0 Dosage of admixture (% to cement) Fig. Relationship between waterbinder ratio and drying shrinkage. Figure 3. Figure 3.0 4. When hard sandstone is used. waterbinder ratio for two rock types of coarse aggregate. 3. 3.10 + 0.0 3.22 shows that drying shrinkage increases when the dosage of chemical admixture is increased. Relationship between dosage of chemical admixture and drying shrinkage strain.New RC Materials 10W=170kg/m s X 8l_ 81 g '* fil— H ° Sandstone I 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Waterbinder ratio (%) 50 Fig.0 2. It was found that high strength concrete develops large shrinkage strain at relatively early age. drying shrinkage increased in proportion to waterbinder ratio. but for river gravel it remained high regardless of waterbinder ratio.22. Within the examined test data. and shrinkage cracks appear in early days. Shrinkage cracks were tested based on the proposed JIS of drying shrinkage crack test method.21.0 5.
The use of shrinkage reducing agent was found to be effective in delaying the shrinkage crack appearance as shown by marks SR in the figure. ratio. Freezingthawing test as specified in ASTM C666 Method A. inwater freezing and inwater thawing method. but creep of 100 MPa concrete did not depend on section size.82 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 40 nee (day SR S R » • SR A Confining plate thickness • l6mm o A ~ 35 CO _ ~ _ o S 25 era 1 •3 20 = 15 * 2. and with various curing conditions. was conducted for concrete with watercement ratio of 28 to 55 percent. 3. With the use of confining plate thickness 2 mm or greater. Shrinkage reducing agent SRa o» S R SR • o A O o 1 10 ~ 5— 0 i • o A A • A* A A • i 25 30 1 1 1 1 40 45 50 55 Watercement ratio (%) i 1 35 60 Fig. as shown in Fig. Free shrinkage strain and creep strain tended to be smaller for higher compressive strength of concrete. frost resistance and alkaliaggregate reaction was tested.24. leading to the following findings. crack age increased almost proportional to watercement ratio. From the figure it can be seen that the effect of low watercement ratio on the . Compressive creep test was conducted using concrete with watercement ratio of 25 to 60 percent in the form of plain concrete columns varying from 20 cm square section to 60 cm square section as well as 10 cm diameter and 20 cm high cylinders.9mm SR '. 3. 3. air content of 2 to 5 percent. Durability In order to evaluate durability of high strength concrete.2.2. Age of shrinkage crack appearance. For 60 MPa concrete smaller creep strain was observed for larger column sections. This is the case of concrete using andesite and river gravel combined for coarse aggregate.23.5.1.0mm .4mm : 2.
Thus it was concluded that certain air content was necessary for frost resistance even for high strength concrete. the minimum curing time to prevent frost damage at early ages is up to the age at which compressive strength of 3. sir exposed £r • A 8 week* inair • — • 2 weeks in water o — O 4 weeks in water Fig. Concrete expansion due to alkaliaggregate reaction was measured by the Japan Concrete Institute (JCI) concrete bar method for high strength concrete with unit cement content of 650 kg/m 3 and watercement ratio of 26 or 36 percent. freezethaw resistance is as high as the entrained air. Relationship between air content and durability factor after different curing. but on the alkali content in the concrete. and so it is recommended to insure air content of at least 3.24(a)). For concrete with air content of 3. However even in case of concrete with watercement ratio of 28 percent some deterioration can be observed in freezethaw resistance after being exposed two years in the outdoor air (dotted line in Fig.5 percent or more. nonreactive aggregate under normal usage has little possibility of producing harmful expansion when used for high strength concrete within usual condition. and a clear difference can be seen between watercement ratio of 28 percent (Fig. Figure 3. 3. and for normal strength concrete with unit cement content of 350 kg/m 3 and watercement ratio of 56 percent both using reactive or nonreactive aggregate and varying alkali content by adding varying amount of sodium hydrate. On the other hand.24(c)). The entrained air has conspicuous effect also in preventing frost damage at early ages. it did not compensate for the low air entrainment under dry condition. It is seen that expansion due to alkaliaggregate reaction depends not on the concrete strength. 3. Although low watercement ratio was effective under moist curing conditions. 3. High strength cannot prevent expansion due to alkaliaggregate reaction.New RC Materials 83 <»>W/C=28% (b)w/C=32% (dw/C=37% (d)w/C = 45% (e) w / C == 5 5 % / / / f Jp JF / Curing conditions • • • • a 2yra.5 percent at concrete casting. It was also confirmed that an appropriate replacement of cement with mineral admixtures such as ground . 3.2 MPa is obtained.24.25 shows the case of reactive aggregate both for normal and high strength concrete.24(a)) and 37 percent (Fig.
5 1 2 3 1 1 I I I I I I 1 I L 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Age (months) (b) High strength concrete. unit cement content 350 kg/m3 0.10 a I 0.05 I 0 Alkali addition (kg/m3) • 1. 3. it was found that the moisture content had dominant influence on the fire resistance. and concrete with moisture content less than 3.10 J g 0. Fire Resistance To evaluate fire resistance of high strength concrete. 4 granulated blast furnace slag.4 • 3.25.05 & 0 J_I I I 0.0 • 3. Explosive failure occurred most often to concrete with the lowest watercement ratio of 25 percent.1.84 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 0.5 percent did not explode even with the watercement ratio of 25 percent.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Age (months) (a) Normal strength concrete. In another heating test of 15 cm by 30 cm cylinders of concrete with varying kind of coarse aggregate and moisture content of concrete. .8 * 2. unit cement content 650 kg/m3 Fig. explosive fracture under varying heating speed was examined of 10 cm by 20 cm cylinder of concrete with watercement ratio of 25 to 65 percent and unit water content of 140 to 200 kg/m 3 . 3.6. silica fume or fly ash fume in case of high strength concrete was effective in preventing alkaliaggregate reaction just as in case of normal strength concrete. Comparison of expansion due to alkaliaggregate reaction of normal and high strength concrete using reactive aggregate.6 0.2.
It is seen that watercement ratio has little influence on the temperature rise. it can be inferred that the heat conductivity of high strength concrete is similar to that of normal strength concrete.e. But the same kind of specimens after oneyear exposed in the outdoor air under rain shelter showed much milder behavior in the fire resistance test. 60. In the figure results for three different watercement ratio. Measured interior temperature of concrete during fire resistance test. and it can be concluded that 2 to 4 cm cover is necessary for threehour fire resistance. in order to keep the steel temperature of a reinforced concrete member below 500 degree Celsius. Figure 3. and specimens with watercement ratio of 35 percent did not explode but those with watercement ratio of 25 percent exploded.26. The specimen with 25 percent watercement ratio showed violent explosion and temperature measurement is shown only for reference. Fire resistance test of 50 cm concrete cube specimens was conducted at two months age of natural drying condition. Also from the fact that temperature rise did not depend on watercement ratio.Lengths outside parentheses indicate depths of measuring point w / c : 60% _^_ ] W/C. .35% QO02* " t IV/C:259S(*) ^+»^ _.26 shows measured time history of internal temperature during the fire resistance test at two months age. are shown.New RC Materials 85 1100 1000 900 ." II § 800 6005 500 400 300 200 100 90 120 150 180 s 1/ / ^ " I / i&m***^ Time after start of heating (min) Fig. i. 3. 35 and 25 percent.•" ^0*~' ^1'.
USD980 for axial reinforcement of nonyielding beams and columns.2.4). Shiro Morita. with the full cooperation of steel manufactures participating in the project. Professor of Kyoto University.86 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 3. such as bond and anchorage. It was confirmed that rebars conforming to all these proposed standards could be actually manufactured. USD785 and USD1275 for lateral reinforcement of beams and columns to provide lateral confinement and shear resistance. The Reinforcement Committee of the New RC project. 3. This portion of the work of Reinforcement Committee will be presented in the next Sec. Proposals for standards of following rebars were presented to the committee: USD685A and 685B for axial reinforcement of beams and columns expected to form yield hinges. Japan Industrial Standard (JIS) for reinforcing bars had included SD490 with specified yield point of 490 MPa as the rebar with the highest strength. 3. studies toward the development and practical application of high strength reinforcing bars (rebars) seem to be meager. 3. The Reinforcement Committee also conducted experimental studies into fundamental mechanical characteristics. and no stronger rebars were available to researchers who wanted to use high strength rebars in the experiment of high strength concrete members.2. 3.2. . Reinforcement Committee At the time when the New RC research project was initiated in 1988. Results of these experiments were compiled into proposals for evaluation of mechanical properties of high strength reinforced concrete (Ref. In the New RC Project. Advantages and Problems of High Strength Rebars Some merits of high strength rebars in the structural members are summarized below.2.3. tackled the task of trial manufacture of high strength rebars that were not specified in the current standards. of reinforced concrete members using various combination of high strength materials. and constitutive equations. under the chairmanship of Dr. concrete confining effect.1. High Strength Reinforcing Bars Compared with recent global effort to develop high strength concrete. development and use of high strength rebars was regarded as an essential factor to extract the maximum potential ability of high strength concrete.
but stress transfer to concrete such as bond and anchorage is not improved by increasing steel strength. SD295B. On the other hand.e. 3. which would result in increased bond or anchorage length leading to congestion and difficulty of rebar arrangement in the construction. SD390 and SD490. i. JIS G 3536 for PC wires and strands and JIS G 3109 for P C bars are available. (1) Currently available high strength steel such as prestressing bars or strands for prestressed concrete has no distinct yield plateau and small plastic elongation before reaching fracture.27 shows stressstrain curves in tensile tests of rebars and PC tendons of different grades. and enlarge the scope of application of high strength concrete. (2) For structural members dictated by cracking or deflection limit states. It was thus necessary to determine new standard specification of high strength rebars to ensure abovementioned merits while solving above problems. high strength rebars can reduce steel amount. Specified strength of PC tendons cover the range of 780 MPa to 1785 MPa. (2) When reduction of member section is attempted by using high strength concrete. namely SD245. which is however different from the use of rebars in reinforced concrete. SD345. and steel of this high strength has already been put into practical use. reinforcement congestion can be avoided by the use of high strength rebars leading to easier construction practice and quality control. Figure 3. there were problems that needed to be solved to realize high strength rebars.2. For members dictated by flexural strength. such as the following.3. and to trial manufacture rebars conforming to the new standard. ultimate limit state. Relationship of New Rebars to Current JIS Current Japan Industrial Standard (JIS) specifies 6 kinds of rebar grades in JIS G 3112 (Steel bars for reinforced concrete) and JIS G 3117 (Rerolled steel bars for reinforced concrete). SD295A. Also it would lead to poor behavior as a structural member. high strength rebars cannot contribute to the reduction of steel amount. For steel tendons for prestressed concrete. particularly of earthquake resistant structures where large plastic deformation is expected to occur. This would lead to poor performance in reinforcement fabrication if rebars were made of such steel. (3) Application of high strength rebars as lateral reinforcement can improve the brittle behavior of high strength concrete.New RC Materials 87 (1) Higher member strength or reduction of steel amount can be achieved. Dotted .
that is. 1998.85) PC deformed bar (0.000 " NewRC USD780 (0. show clear yield plateau despite its relatively high strength. but with larger fracture strain.76) • ^ . USD685. does not. 3.71) Numbers in ( ) denote yieid ratio I 15 I 20 25 Fig. while the higher strength axial rebar. The lower strength axial rebar developed in the New RC project.4.67) SD295 (0. Proposed Standards for High Strength Rebars General Outlines Draft proposal of standards for five kinds of high strength rebars.72) " SD390 (0. Rebars developed for lateral reinforcement.4. lines show curves for currently available steel and full lines show those for newly manufactured rebars in the New RC project. USD980.1. 3.77) • SD590 Equivalent (0. USD785 and USD1275.84) ^NewRC USD685 (0.. . were presented to the Reinforcement Committee in the last year of the 5year project.86) ' NewRC USD980 (0. until March. USD685B. It is clear from the figure that currently available rebars including PC tendons generally show smaller or no yield plateau and smaller fracture strain as the strength is increased. Stressstrain relationships of steel with different strength. USD980.27. PC wire (0. USD685A. .88 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures PC strand (0. show similar trend as other P C tendons of similar strength. ^ SD490(0. USD780 and USD1275.88)  1. 3.2.89) NewRC USD1275 . The full text of these proposed standards was not published for five years after the conclusion of the project conforming to the cooperatives research contract.2.
where manufacture of USD685 was one of the most immediate target. Current JIS G 3112 specifies SD490 as the strongest rebar for reinforced concrete. USD685A. The requirement for surface deformation is more liberal compared to JIS G 3112. On the other hand. but they should be available to order to the steel manufactures who participated in the New RC project. At present these new brands of rebars do not necessarily circulate in the market. and shape of surface deformation of USD685 and USD980 follow the specifications in the current JIS G 3112. As shown partly in Table 3. The new name of USD was adopted to clarify that the nature of these Standards is not an official standard of general nature but is a kind of selfimposed standard with the strength range exceeding that of current JIS.2. Last two columns of Table 3. specifications for USD785 and USD1275 are made to match those of PC tendon manufacturing companies who have already acquired special permission of Construction Minister to practically manufacture rebars of corresponding strength for lateral reinforcement. They are included in the Proposed Standard for High Strength Deformed Bars for Lateral Reinforcement.2. Table 3. and USD685A is the weakest rebar specified in the new Standards. USD785 and USD1275 are to be used exclusively for lateral reinforcement such as lateral confinement or shear reinforcement.1 summarizes the required mechanical properties of five kinds of new rebars. USD685B and USD980. This is the consequence of concentrated and efficient effort for trial manufacture of new rebars in the New RC project. Thus these standards are accompanied with good amount of practical experience. because it is generally accepted that bond requirement for lateral reinforcement need not be as strict as for axial reinforcement.3 shows the diameter ranges for bars of these two grades. Deformed Bars for Reinforced Concrete.1.New RC Materials 89 The specified values in these proposed standards were all confirmed to be sufficiently manufacturable by trial manufacture during five years of the New RC project. are rebars that can be used for axial reinforcement of beams and columns. leaving a large gap of yield strength in between to which no standard exists. First three columns. . They are included in the Proposed Standard for High Strength Deformed Bars for Reinforced Concrete. although it follows the JIS requirements in regard to shape and size of bars. and cover the diameter range from D10 to D51 as shown in Table 3. rebar diameters and other dimensions. and Table 3.
2.2% offset stress in case clear yielding is not observed.7 198.1 41.04 3.4% and above 10% and above 85% and below 2d D10D51 similar to JIS G 3112 axial reinforcement for beams and columns 80% and below 7% and above 90% and below id not specified 8% and above 7% and above not specified 1.95 10.4 28. Nominal diameter mm 9.8 Nominal area mm2 71.9 Grade Mark D10 D13 D16 D19 D22 D25 D29 D32 D35 D38 D41 D51 USD685A USD685B USD980 .53 12. * 2 See Fig.90 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 3.5d S6S13 2.98 5.51 8.9 38.995 1.7 15.6 1140 1340 2027 Nominal perimeter mm 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 160 Unit mass kg/m 0.33 126. Grade of steel USD685A Yield stress* (MPa) 1 USD685B 685755 not specified USD980 980 and above USD785 785 and above 930 and above USD1275 1275 and above 1420 and above 685785 Tensile strength (MPa) Strain at yield plateau* 2 Fracture strain Yield ratio Inner radius for 90° bending* 3 Range of diameter Surface deformation Major use %1 1.8 34.2 25.7 642.4 794. Dimensions and unit mass of USD685 and USD980.25 3.3 50.5 15. 3.28 for definition of strain at yield plateau.2 955. Table 3.560 0.1 22.9 19.04 6.1.5 387.6 31.5d H6H13 indent or groove lateral reinforcement Yield stress is taken as 0.23 7. Required mechanical properties of high strength rebars. * 3 "d" iindicates nominal diameter of the bar.6 286.1 506.56 2.
4. The narrower interval allows the structural engineer more accurate estimation of flexural yield strength leading to smaller magnification of required strength of nonyielding members. strain at the start of strain hardening. As USD685 is to be used in this situation.94 9.2 11. USD980. Strain at Yield Plateau A new concept of strain at yield plateau is introduced in the specifications for USD685A and USD685B.2. The difference between upper and lower bounds is 100 MPa for USD685A.502 0. it is defined as the strain at which upper bound of yield stress is exceeded. Grade Mark S6 S8 S10 S13 H6 H7 H9 Hll H13 Nominal diameter mm 6. It is the strain at the end of yield plateau. These kinds of steel usually show no distinct yield plateau. possibly resulting in higher cost.33 126.2.53 12.0 13.2. and yield stress is defined by 0.3.0 125.0 64. 3. Specified Yield Strength A clear yield plateau is the most desirable feature of axial reinforcement in the yield hinges.4 7. and 70 MPa for USD685B.0 Nominal perimeter mm 20 25 30 40 20 23 29 35 41 Unit mass kg/m 0.51 71.236 0.35 7. It is up to the decision of structural engineers in future which one of USD685A or USD685B would be favored.67 49.7 30.560 0.28.7 6.707 0. have the specified values of lower bound of yield stress only.389 0.0 90. and USD785 and USD1275 both for lateral reinforcement. 3.314 0.0 Nominal area mm 2 31. ultrahigh strength bars to be used in nonyielding members.981 USD785 USD1275 3. As shown . both upper and lower bounds of yield stress are specified in the proposed Standard.New RC Materials 91 Table 3. or in other words. Dimensions and unit mass of USD785 and USD1275. manufacture of USD685B would require more stringent quality control.0 40.4.995 0. compared with USD685A.2 percent offset stress as in the current Standard. As shown in Fig.3.4 9.249 0. On the other hand.
Hence provisions for upper limit of yield ratio were introduced to rebars that are .2% s t r a i n Stain at yield plateau (2 1.l e .7..4 percent for both USD685A and USD685B. However in the New RC project structural tests were conducted to demonstrate the possibility of strain concentration and fracture of bars when steel with yield ratio as high as almost 1.0 depending on the manufacture method.4%) Strain Fig. This type of behavior is believed to be useful for the structural engineers to ensure the occurrence of intended collapse mechanism.28. by avoiding the onset of strain hardening and accompanied strength increase of structural members within certain range of deformation after rebar yielding.4. in Table 3. As may be read in Fig. It was found in the process of trial manufacture that yield ratio of high strength rebars could go up to almost 1.27 where yield ratios are shown in parentheses.1. This requirement is expected to ensure prescribed amount of yield plateau in the stressstrain relationship.2.92 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Stress Tensile Strength y.0 is used. this value is specified not to be smaller than 1.4. Yield Ratio Yield ratio of steel is defined as the ratio of measured yield stress to measured tensile strength. ' ' 0 . but it increases as the yield strength gets higher. Lower the yield ratio. Stressstrain relationship of USD685. Point Upper bound yield stress Lower bound yield stress Strain at yield plateau is taken as strain at which upper bound yield stress is exceeded /. yield ratio of ordinary rebars such as SD295 or SD345 is low. 3. Yield ratio has been an important consideration for steel structures since long ago. but it has received little attention in case of reinforced concrete as a potential source of inferior behavior. larger is the increase of stress after yielding due to strain hardening. 3. around 0. 3." : • M Yield H 0.
2. 10 percent for USD685A and USD685B and 7 percent for USD980 are the specified minimum values of fracture strain.5 times bar diameter. for easier bending process without bar fracture. 3. Table 3.1.New RC Materials 93 expected to be used as axial reinforcement. elongation of 8 percent and 7 percent. tensile tests were conducted of specimens of D32 screwdeformed bars of USD685 manufactured by component adjustment and hot rolling (as roll). To see whether this effect is observed in case of high strength rebars.5. then subjected to accelerated ageing of one hour at 100 degree Celsius in the electric furnace. 3. but loss in elongation capacity is unavoidable as tensile strength increases. while that for USD980 is 95 percent. the New RC project adopted four grades of high strength steel as its aim of . and inner radius at 90 degree bend of 1.5. As stated previously.1. are insured respectively.1 specifies inner radius of 90 degree bend to be twice bar diameter for USD685A and USD685B. first subjected to tensile prestrain of 10 percent. Hence tensile strength is not specified in Table 3. values of limiting yield ratio for USD685A and USD685B are 85 percent and 80 percent. As shown in Table 3. These requirements of yield ratio serve to specify the minimum value of tensile strength in effect.1.4. Elongation and Bendability Elongation of rebars at fracture is desirable to be as large as possible. Method of Manufacture and Chemical Component Steel manufacturers who participated in the New RC project made trial manufacture of rebars conforming to the target performance by adopting two methods: the first one was by component adjustment and hot rolling (as roll) including online heat treatment in the rolling process. For lateral reinforcement of USD785 and USD1275. Bendability of deformed rebars is affected by the shape of surface deformation. It was confirmed no strain age hardening was observed in case of D32 bars of USD685 manufactured by component adjustment and hot rolling (as roll). As shown in Table 3.5 times and 2. and another one was offline heat treatment after completion of rolling. and four times bar diameter for USD980. respectively.2. which means that a bar tends to harden and becomes susceptible to fracture with age after receiving processing strain. Strain age hardening. is sometimes observed depending on the type of steel. and in general rebars with screw shaped lugs are unfavorable to ordinary lateral lugs in bending process.
However. USD1275: This steel is also for small diameter bars to be used as lateral reinforcement. Rebars of this grade can be manufactured either by addition of strengthening chemical elements or by heat treatment. Ti. Adopted methods of manufacture for each of four grades are summarized below. USD685A and USD685B: Since required yield plateau strain is large. all of which are required high degree of ductility in addition to high strength. . First deformed bars are manufactured by adding chemical elements effective for heat treatment or cold work. cold work. Then heat treatment of quenching and tempering is conducted. Some products were already available commercially at the time of New RC project. three methods are conceivable to make high strength rebars: addition of strengthening chemical elements. in order to secure high strength and ductility. fine crystalline particles of austenite can be obtained. heat treatment of quenching and tempering can be employed to the ordinary medium carbon steel with addition of chemical elements effective for quenching. USD785: This steel is for small diameter bars to be used as lateral reinforcement. Addition of one or several kinds of strengthening chemical elements to molten steel results in higher strength due to atomic size effect (solid melting or replacement) or crystallization effect. a careful process design is necessary for each of these methods corresponding to employed equipment.94 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures development. In either of these methods. By adding Al. Hence commercially available P C steel manufacturing technology of JIS G 3109 "PC bars" can be applied. USD980: This steel is high strength but required yield ratio is relatively high. It can be manufactured by methods specified in the current JIS G 3536 "PC steel wires and PC strands" or JIS G 3109 "PC steel bars". In principle. Higher yield stress and strain can be achieved by finer crystalline particles. or Nb at the steel manufacture. On the other hand. and by heating and hot roll. amount of impure elements that affect mechanical properties must be carefully controlled. It can be manufactured by addition of strengthening chemical elements and by online heat treatment at the time of hot rolling consisting of aircooling to quench during hot roll followed by tempering automatically by remaining heat. and heat treatment. or cold work by 10 percent stretching and subsequent brewing are applied. cold work is not suitable as it leads to unclear yield point and reduced ultimate strain. and also required yield ratio is low.
(a) Tensile test of rebar. These are examples of trial manufacture .002 0.004 (a) 1111 (b) (c) (A) Fig.New RC Materials Table 3.4 is the chemical components and mechanical properties of USD685B rebars of four different sizes.32 0.4%. A part of results of trial manufacture is introduced herein.80 0. 3.41 elements D32 0.41 strengthening D22 0.58 1. Trial manufactured USD685B.32 0. It will be seen that all bars conform to requirements in Table 3.29(c) shows microscope structure.75 0. Figures 3.99 *stress at e = 1.1. Table 3. (d) Bending test.32 0.004 0.009 0. i Method of manufacture Size C Chemical component (% by weight) Si Mn P S Mechanical properties 95 Bending Yield Tensile JYield ElonPoint strength ratio gation (MPa) (MPa) (*) (MPa) 726 696 710 702 0. 0.79 0. 3.78 19 14 18 17 745 734 731 732 good good good good ] Add D13 0.006 0. (b) An example of stressstrain curve. Figure 3.010 0.55 0.99 D41 0.33 0.29(d) shows results of 90 degree bending test. and Fig.001 0. (c) Microscopic structure.29(a) and (b) show tensile test of rebar and an example of stressstrain curve.4.29.79 0.70 1.007 0.
stress amplitude directly affected the fatigue strength. carried out assuming cyclic earthquake or wind loading.98 and 0. Stressstrain curves under reversal of loading. showed that for USD685.30 shows two examples of stressstrain curves under reversal of loading. . 3. the number of cycle to failure changed from 6000 to 10 000.96 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (b) Alternate reversal of loading Fig. and hence test stress was high. USD980 has higher yield ratio than USD685. It appeared that the number of cycle to failure was affected more by the shape of surface deformation than the stress amplitude. and (b) in alternative increase into both tension and compression. It will be seen that Bauschinger effect and strain hardening of the new steel are similar to those of currently used steel rebars. For stress amplitude of 0. Highstress fatigue test. (a) into oneway increase into tension. illustrating the possibility to make products of USD685B conforming to the proposed Standard.93 times the specified yield strength. Figure 3.30.
1.. J 1 XUSD980 m w \ / i L ^ / N 1 • SD685A 5D685 3 • 1 ^ 1 \1 x 1 USD345 . Fire Resistance and Durability Effect of High Temperature Mechanical properties of steel changes when the steel is exposed to high temperature of fire.2. it would be necessary to carry out fatigue test assuming the actual design condition to which high strength rebars are exposed..6. Figure 3. 3. considering the possibility of the influence of shape of surface deformation.2.6. 3.31 shows yield stress and tensile strength at room 1400 1200 1000 1 l USD980  1 /USD785 7.„ ' ** _ "" 1 ^USD345 400 200 0 „ Room 400 500 600 700 800 temperature Temperature in degree Celcius (a) Yield stress after heating and cooling 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Room 400 500 600 700 800 temperature Temperature in degree Celcius (a) Tensile stress after heating and cooling Fig. 3.New RC Materials 97 In case of design of structures susceptible to fatigue condition..  "•! S 800 o S 600 3 Vi 1 < r—+ ' USD685A S. Yield stress and tensile strength after exposed t o high temperature.1 USD685B ' .31.
It is seen from the figure that both yield point and tensile strength of axial bar USD685 and lateral bar USD785 starts dropping at heating of 700 degree Celsius. 3..32. 600 V W £ 800 s \ \ . and the 1400 1200 1000 e Room 200 300 400 500 temperature Temperature in degree Celcius (a) Yield stress at high temperature 1400 1200 1000 600 z_ US D980 US3685A US 3685B'. and SD345 for comparison. USD785 for lateral reinforcement. Yield stress and tensile strength at high temperature. after exposed to high temperature ranging from 400 to 800 degree Celsius.98 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures temperature of USD685A. USD685B and USD980 for axial reinforcement.' SD345 600 400 200 0 Room 200 300 400 500 temperature Temperature in degree Celcius (b) Tensile strength at high temperature Fig.
2. 3. 3. The second was measurement of electrochemical natural potential. and corrosion hole depth. the metal on electrically base side tends to corrode due to difference of ionization. tested as shown in Fig. j—r~^ I Fig. Considering the possibility of mixed use of high strength and ordinary strength bars. The third was measurement of coupling current between different grade steel.33. high strength rebars contain many special chemical elements compared to ordinary steel. corrosion tests were conducted of steel in contact as well as isolated in the solution of sodium chloride and calcium hydroxide to simulate the environment in fresh concrete.x specimens chloride and calcium hydroxide of pH 1012 . and that yield point and tensile strength of USD980 which was made by offline heat treatment starts dropping at heating of 600 degree Celsius. Corrosion Resistance When different metals touch in the corrosive environment.New RC Materials 99 reduction rate is slightly greater than SD345. 9 91 solution of sodium ~~". 3.2. there is no mechanical property change of high strength rebars similarly to currently used SD345 steel. Measurement of electric current between different grade steel. during 30 days of immersion at 25 degree Celsius. to determine inertnessbreak voltage by measuring natural potential and anode polarization (rebar in corrosion side). which is the highest temperature expected in case of fire. Furthermore.32 shows yield stress and tensile strength tested while being heated in the electric furnace up to the designated temperature. Tests consisted of three items. Figure 3. but minimum remaining tensile strength of about 200 MPa can be insured at 600 degree Celsius for any grades of steel including SD345. to observe and measure rust appearance. Up to 500 degree Celsius.33.6. There is a general trend of larger reduction of yield stress and tensile strength for higher strength steel. The first was isolated immersion test. . corrosion loss of mass.
arc welding.001 to 0. Hence mechanical splices are more desirable for high strength rebars. 3.2.34. As high strength bars of USD685 are manufactured by addition of strengthening chemical elements and controlled hot rolling or heat treatment. which results in reduced strength. hence is most practically feasible. D35. D25. Corrosion due to different metal touch tended to occur on the lower strength steel while higher strength steel is corrosionproofed. Both organic grout of epoxy resin and inorganic grout of cementitious material are available. spliced with screw coupler with grouting. the most advantageous would be the use of deformed bars with screw type surface deformation. and mechanical splices. D32. It was found that corrosion resistance of isolated specimens of high strength steel was similar to currently available ordinary strength steel. Applicability to USD685 high strength rebars was investigated of this type of screw coupler splices. such as lap splice. However the speed of corrosion in the pH 12 environment was in the range of 0. This kind of coupling does not require special skill of technicians. Screw coupler splices are currently available for screw type deformed bars up to SD490 steel.7.95 times. SD345. Metal crystalline structure is apt to change in the heataffected zone of these splices. grout material is injected through the hole at the center of the coupler. After the coupler is installed to connect bar ends.95 times the specified yield stress and unloaded to 0. and at 0. Splice Current reinforced concrete construction employs various splicing methods of rebars. and three kinds of tension tests. specimen is first loaded up to 0. so it was very small and was on the same order as the corrosion of isolated bodies. They use steel couplers with female screw on the internal face conforming to the screw shaped surface deformation of bars. 3. Among them.70 times. coupling current was measured and corrosion area ratio and corrosion speed were calculated. specified in the bar splice performance acceptance criteria (1982) of the Building Center of Japan.019 mm per year. gas butt welding. Both epoxy grout splices and inorganic grout splices were applied to D19. D38 and D41 bars. Secant moduli at 0. gas butt welding or arc welding are not suitable. were carried out.100 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures After equilibrium in 30 days of immersion. D22. (1) Oneway loading test.02 times the yield. the yield stress are . USD685 and USD980 bars were used as specimens. and is relatively easy to keep good quality control. As shown in Fig.
70 <T. and then increased in tension to the point of failure.50 o. As shown in Fig. corresponding to bar slip. 3.95 times the yield in tension and 0. Offset strain at 0. .New RC Materials 101 Splice specimen 0. Slippage in 20 cycles is also determined as shown.oBase metal rebar 0.02 times the yield. (2) Cyclic test in the elastic range.0 CTy0: specified tensile yield strength of base metal rebar 0. measured. Oneway loading test.„ bar slip Fig. Stiffness in the first and twentieth cycles is measured and the ratio is calculated.02 o y 0 Strain Bar slip Fig. Base metal rebar Splice specimen Strain 0.35.50 times the yield in compression.34. 3.95 c.35. load is reversed 20 times between 0. is also measured. 3. Then it is loaded all the way up to failure to determine maximum strength. Cyclic test in the elastic range.
High strength rebars have relatively high yield ratio. Strain 0.36.50 c. so the criteria for ordinary rebars were simply extrapolated to match the strength of USD685. Lapped splices are not likely to be used in the New RC buildings. 0. As shown in Fig. Cyclic test in the plastic range.37 shows a specimen of cantilever beam having splices of axial bars at the critical section. Criteria of acceptance for these tests of high strength rebars have not been established. It was shown that all splice specimens broke in base metal.5 times the yield stress in compression. Figure 3. Hence structural tests of specimens as in Fig..36.50 a. Bar slip Fig. load is reversed four times between twice the yield strain in tension and 0. (3) Cyclic test in the plastic range. Splices were also tested in the structural tests. The purpose of this test was to see whether splices induce strain concentration at the critical section. with or without bar splices. and that the splices possessed the capacity corresponding to Class A splices specified by the Ministry of Construction. Slippage is determined from the fourth loop as shown in the figure. because bars in New RC buildings are mostly large diameter bars. and then increased in tension to the point of failure. This trend may be exaggerated by the presence of bar splices. and either prefabricated cages or precast members would be used in practice.. Hence no investigation was conducted in the New RC project into the performance of lapped splices. particularly of flexural members with low steel percentage. 3. which may lead to strain concentration at the section of first yield without allowing the plastic hinge zone to expand. 3.102 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Base metal rebar Splice specimen Repeated 4 cycles 8 0.25 CT.37 were conducted using steel with yield ratio of 90 percent and 75 percent. 3. .
X 0 20 Deflection (mm) (a) Yield ratio 90% without splice 20 0 Deflection (mm) (a) Yield ratio 75% with splice Fig. _ bar breakage*—*'' a. Icy : Her r i .38. Test specimen for beams using rebars with different yield ratio.=• V/VMS i _ •    • (YJrmzh Mf\^gp 20 w KJCn^r A JAM i i " "• . . .37.. Loaddeflection curves of beams using rebars with different yield ratio. length 650 Fig..100 .4 . 3.New RC Materials 103 coupler Loading Point I Negative spiral $ 6 0 8 0 dia. . t t . . . ) . . . . 250 150 100 50 50 100 150 200 750 1 : R90 ! . . » . 3.
It can be seen that higher yield ratio results in smaller deflection at a given bar strain. At the same time. Bond and anchorage capacity must be increased along with the increase .38(a). Mechanical Properties of Reinforced Concrete When a new kind of material is introduced to reinforced concrete construction. 3. and this was included in a part of assignment to the Reinforcement Committee. and Structural Element Committee was organized for this purpose.1. to be provided by bond and anchorage. a set of structural tests of members. In the course of New RC research project. However.38(a). Marks indicate points corresponding to particular bar strain. were investigated. 3. 3.3. this kind of structural testing was also considered to be an essential part of research. Subjects such as bond and anchorage in the structure. as shown in Fig. and walls. bars broke in tension in the reversal of loading at an amplitude of 5 percent in terms of deflection angle. columns. such as beams. (a) yield ratio of 90 percent without splices. and behavior of high strength concrete under biaxial stress condition. confining effect of lateral reinforcement. Above basic requirement applies to the New RC material with high strength as a matter of course. and hence concrete and rebars must behave in an integrated manner. This test results form the basis of yield ratio limitation in the mechanical property specification of high strength reinforcing bars. Bars also broke in the same specimen with splices.38 shows load deflection relations of two specimens. Bond and Anchorage Reinforced concrete is a composite structural material consisting of concrete and reinforcement.104 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Figure 3. 3.3. These subjects form a kind of boundary field between materials research and structural research. and (b) yield ratio of 75 percent with splices. meaning that strain is more concentrated in case of higher yield ratio. Although not shown in the figure. It was expected that the emphasis on research into this kind of fundamental mechanical characteristics would help deeper understanding of the behavior of New RC structural elements and subsequently that of whole structure. is usually carried out in the laboratory. emphasis was placed on an effort to clarify fundamental mechanical characteristics of reinforced concrete as a composite structural material. trend of the specimen of 90 percent yield ratio with splices was quite similar to Fig. hence the presence of splices did not accelerate the strain concentration even in case of yield ratio of 90 percent.
10). bend portion. Under the action of bending and shear. and endtail portion. . Beam Bar Anchorage in Exterior Joints Exterior columns usually receive beam bars anchored into beamcolumn joints by 90 degree bend or 180 degree bend (Ubend) occasionally. Tests were conducted using the specimens shown in Fig. Research works toward beam bar anchorage in the exterior and interior beamcolumn joints and flexural bond development of beam bars will be introduced below. 3. 3. Most of anchorage resistance is provided through the bearing at the bend. axial bars in beams and columns are subjected to flexural bond. Bond resistance of bars passing through joints. or anchorage of bars by bending within joints must be activated. Test specimens for bar anchorage of exterior joint (No.1.39. Bond resistance mechanism against splitting failure consists of resistance of surrounding concrete and resistance of lateral reinforcement. It was concluded that combination of high strength materials makes it possible to provide satisfactory bond and anchorage within practical range of detailing. On the other hand. Structural members used for building construction usually have relatively thin concrete cover around axial bars. and bond stress tends to trigger splitting failure of cover concrete. beams and columns in a moment resisting frame structure must transfer forces in each other members through beam column joints. The anchorage resistance consists of those of straight lead portion. and so extensive testing was organized in the New RC project. simulating an exterior column between midheight of adjacent stories and having only one Fig.39. because similar bar arrangement as conventional reinforced concrete is expected in New RC structures. 3.New RC Materials 105 in steel stress.3. Thus flexural bond resistance of beams and bar anchorage in beamcolumn joints received major attention. Experimental data using concrete with compressive strength of 60 MPa and above or using rebars with yield strength of 700 MPa and above did not exist here and abroad.1.
a. 9 ana ^ D23 . 12 Column sections (Nos. 3. Three kinds of concrete strength. ' »T—r . There were another series of 12 specimens with D19 bars anchored with various bent radius. Compression force of concrete on the other side of beam was simulated by the reaction force of bar tension. were used.40. variety of concrete strength. 40. 112) for exterior joint anchorage test.3 sr. the failure takes . 11 Fig. No. When the side concrete cover is small. 80 and 120 MPa.106 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures pg/T~ No. 10. No. layer of bars on one side of beam in tension. Figure 3.40 shows the variation of column size and beam bar arrangement for 12 specimens. the bearing failure is combined with the splitting failure of side concrete cover. The anchorage failure occurs as the bearing failure at the bend provided that bond capacity at the endtail portion is sufficient. 1 . When the straight lead length is small. ar DIP 100 D25 • P'°'«l 40° h I i No. and various amount of lateral reinforcement.
Anchorage strength of specimens without lateral reinforcement was increased by 30 to 50 percent by the addition of lateral reinforcement. (3. However in the experimental study the anchorage strength tended to hit its ceiling when concrete strength reached 100 MPa. 4 3 ^ 1. expressed by kh = O. bend bar diameter and so on. k4 is a coefficient for the bend radius r relative to bar diameter db. Insufficient lead length resulted in large drop of anchorage strength. 7 ^ 1. It is generally assumed that anchorage strength is proportional to the square root of concrete strength.1) where fd is anchorage bar stress in MPa.0. k2 is a coefficient to consider lower anchorage strength for high strength concrete. £3 is a coefficient to take into account the direction of bend in the joint. to be taken as 1. Parameters associated with the anchorage strength includes concrete strength. bend radius. lateral reinforcement. bend direction.1(r/db) + 0 . expressed as follows k4 = 0. <TB is compressive strength of concrete in MPa.1(c/db) + 0 .4) kh is a coefficient for the lead length ldh relative to bar diameter db. was found to have a definite effect on the anchorage strength. to be equal to 1. which is the length of the straight portion of the bar up to the beginning of bend.544 ^ 1. fci is a coefficient for type of concrete. expressed as follows kc = 0.5) . (3.85 for lightweight aggregate concrete. following anchorage strength equation was proposed fd = 100kik2k3k4kckhksy/aB (3.1 / 6 (3.15.New RC Materials 107 a form of conetype pull out failure of concrete. to be taken as 1.7 for outward bend in case of bottom beam bar bent down in traditional Japanese practice (bad practice).0 for aB not greater than 40 MPa and k2 = ( a s / 4 0 ) .15 . (3. spacing of beam bars. bend position.3) kc is a coefficient for the effect of side concrete cover c relative to bar diameter db.2) for ab in excess of 40 MPa. projected horizontal length of embedment. From these experiment. side concrete cover. The lead length.0 for ordinary aggregate concrete and 0.0 for inward bend in normal practice and as 0.Q38(ldh/db) + 0.
5. (1) Projected embedment length should not be less than 8 bar diameter and 15 cm. (3) The endtail portion of a 180 degree bend should be more than 4 bar diameter and 6 cm. d denotes bar diameter.5d 11.5d Upper figures: Lateral reinforcement not considered.se Reinforced Concrete Structures and ks is a coefficient for lateral reinforcement diameter d3 relative to anchored bar diameter db.5 shows the necessary projected embedment length for various combination of steel grade and concrete strength.1) is applicable to concrete strength from 21 to 120 MPa. (4) The endtail portion of a 90 degree bend should be more than 10 bar diameter. Steel grade 24 SD295 SD345 SD390 SD490 USD685 16d 13. steel yield strength from 295 to 685 MPa. .5d 10 60 8d 8d 8d 8d 13.5d Concrete strength (MPa) 36 9d 8d 11. In the table.6) Equation (3.5d 11.5d 14d 10.5d 30 lid 13. (3.5d 9d 100 8d 8d 8d 8d 8d 8d 10.5d 42 8d 8d lOd 8d 13. Necessary minimum lead length of 90 degree bent anchorage (d denotes bar diameter). and bar diameter from D13 to D38. The design should also observe following minimum requirements. and lower figures are for the case where lateral reinforcement is considered which must cover entire anchorage zone of lead length.108 Design of Modern Higkri.4. expressed by ks = 1 + 2/3 (ds/di.5d 8.5d 8d 12. Lower figures: Lateral reinforcement considered (see text). bend and tail length.3d — — — — — 14d — — — — — 14.5d 8d — 13. Table 3. (2) The bend should start from a position beyond the central axis of the member to which the bar is anchored.5d 15.5d 80 8d 8d 8d 8d 10. and upper figures are for the case where lateral reinforcement is not considered.)2 ^1.5d 8d 15.5d 14d 10. and at least two lateral bars must cross the inscribed circle Table 3.
thus the shear resistance is also enhanced. If the column section is sufficiently large. Blanks in the table indicate combinations of material where bar anchorage cannot be made under the prescribed conditions. 3. Tests were conducted using specimens as shown in Fig. In these cases anchorage strength must be calculated. 3.2. and hence the hysteresis of members connected to the joint is stable with a large hysteretic area.1. Test setup for bar development of interior joint. On the other hand. Figure 3.41. .New RC Materials 109 of the bend. beam bar slip in the joint is small. or strut. if the column section is insufficient. beam bar slip and pullout displacement increase. In this case the shear resistance of joints is provided partly by the truss mechanism. A part of interior column having only one beam bar passing through it was fabricated. 3. The beam bar bond through the beamcolumn joint thus becomes an important issue in the seismic design. Shear resistance of joint in this case depends on the arch.42 shows detail of the representative specimens. and one end of the bar was pulled while the other end was pushed simultaneously using the setup as shown while a constant axial load was applied on the column.41. Insufficient beam bar anchorage also results in reduced compression bar effect of beam section and hence loss of ultimate strength and ductility. mechanism only. Bond Anchorage in Interior Joints Anchorage of beam bars passing through an interior column depends on the column size. In tie down strap horizontal support pin Unit: mm Fig. and it is necessary to pay further attention to increase concrete cover and to provide greater amount of lateral reinforcement.3. and hence the hysteresis of members shows inverted S shape with a small hysteretic area.
and bar diameter from D19 to D35. Using this equation.42. (3. following equation was proposed for the local bond strength within the core of interior beamcolumn joint = 2. bar diameter column depth ratio necessary for beam bar development was expressed as shown below (k/he £ 1. Upper and lower figures .8) where hc is column depth and ay is steel yield point in MPa. (3.0 + <To/<TB)((Td fry) 2/3 (3. As the result of these tests. and other notations are same as in Eq. where d denotes beam bar diameter. B is unit column width obtained as total column width divided by number of beam bars.3(0. total.7) where T„ is local bond strength in the joint core in MPa. 3. <TQ 1S average normal stress in the joint in MPa. erg is concrete strength in MPa. the minimum column depth hc can be obtained from Eq.6 shows necessary minimum column size thus obtained. including concrete strength ranging from 40 to 120 MPa. Detail of interior joint specimens.86 + 0. Table 3.4) 2 / 3 (3.84<7 0 /<7B)B/d 6 (a B /36. and db is diameter of beam bars passing through the joint.8) using specified concrete strength and steel yield strength. bar yield point from 345 to 785 MPa.110 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 8 (a) Sseries (b) Lseries Fig. For beam axial rebars going through interior column joint of moment resisting frames designed for beam yielding mechanism. 13 specimens were tested.34(1.7).
7d 23.4d 14.7d 17.7d 40 15. Lower figures: Column compressive stress = <TB/3.4d 17.6d 38.7d 12.3d 20.5d 20.0d 12.5d 26.5) to New RC material.0d 18. with end supports provided through the openings in the web in order to avoid conflict against bond splitting of axial bars in tension.0d 100 8.5d 13. two series of bond tests were carried out.5d 12.0d 40.0d 19.1d 15.3d 9. The one was simple beam bending tests of 36 specimens with various combination of test parameters.4d 16.9d 7.3d 23.3d 23.0d 25.9d 28.9d 10.2d 26.3.2d 33. Necessary minimum column depth at interior joints with through beam bars (d denotes bar diagram). Axial reinforcement in these members are subjected to flexural bond.4d 80 10.8d 13. Id 111 Upper figures: Column compressive stress = <TB/6. In order to expand the scope of application of existing equation as in AIJ Design Guidelines (Ref. 3.3d 20.4d 26.4d 29.7d 18. The other series was numerous tests of pullout specimens for bond resistance.8d 18.0d 36.0d 24.2d 60 12.6d 14.4d 30.8d 46.8d 16.8 30 19.5d 15.9d 23.3d 23.8d 32.3d Concrete strength (MPa) 36 17. 3.2d 25. Steel grade 24 SD295 SD345 SD390 SD490 USD685 23. and the combined use of high strength concrete only partly compensates because the tensile strength does not increase in proportion to the compressive strength.3. Id 32. It should be noted that the use of high strength steel inevitably involve longer projected embedment length and larger column size.1.5d 40.4d 53.9d 20.8d 10.2d 29. with both concentric as well as eccentric bar arrangement.5d 26.New RC Materials Table 3.4d 11.0d 10.7d 18.8d 11.1d 20.6. .4d 46. correspond to column compression stress of onesixth and onethird the concrete strength. respectively.4d 10.0d 17.1d 21.0d 21. The table is based on the assumption that tension and compression yield would take place simultaneously at both faces of the column. Flexural Bond Resistance of Beam Bars Beams and column in the moment resisting frames are subjected to bending and shear under the action of horizontal load. and the unit column width per one beam bar is greater than 6 times the bar diameter.8d 35.8d 12.9d 14.
bi is a coefficient for the effect of concrete between axial bars. This means that fco is 0.2 ) / i V . For the top bars in beams where bond resistance is usually lower.13). .0 + 0 .002857 aB for aB ^ 30 MPa for 30 MPa < aB ^ 100 MPa.9) is applicable to the case where sufficient amount of web reinforcement is provided. If web reinforcement does not satisfy Eq. b is width of member. such as pwawy ^ 0Al5^/aE (3. a coefficient fco is multiplied to obtain bond strength.12) (3. expressed as follows fcn = 1.Ndb)/Ndb. CTB is concrete strength in MPa. (3.415.126i + lOknPtvb/iNdb^y/aS (3. fco is defined as follows fco = 0. S/O~B in Eq.7143 + 0.2 percent. N is number of axial bars.10) kn is a coefficient for the effect of substirrups or subhoops within the peripheral web reinforcement.9) is generally applicable to cases with web reinforcement ratio between 0. and s is spacing of web reinforcement.80 = 0.112 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures As the result of these testing. Equation (3. following equation was proposed for bond strength for design of beam and column axial bars except for top reinforcement in beams rbu = [0.053 + 0.13) where awy is yield strength of web reinforcement in MPa and other notations are same as above. (3.80 for 30 MPa concrete and 1.11) In all of above equations. 8 5 ( n .9) where rbu is bond strength of axial bars in MPa. pw is web reinforcement ratio defined as follows Pw = Ast/{bs). and concrete strength between 30 and 100 MPa. Ast is total cross sectional area of vertical legs in one set of web reinforcement.2 and 1. n is number of vertical legs in one set of web reinforcement. Equation (3. expressed as follows bi = (b. and straight interporation is applied in between.9) must be replaced by pwawy/0. db is nominal diameter of axial bars. (3. (3.0 for 100 MPa concrete.
Consequently higher strength is desired as the building height increases. high strength concrete inherently shows brittle behavior after reaching its maximum compressive strength. On the other hand.43.1.3.2.3. Stressstrain Relationship of Confined Concrete Figures 3. 3. very few experimental data were available on the confining characteristics of high strength concrete over 50 MPa. An extensive testing of short columns of high strength concrete with high strength lateral reinforcement was therefore conducted under concentric compression to investigate the improving effect of lateral confinement on the stressstrain relationship of confined concrete.New RC Materials 113 3. At the time of New RC project. both from gravity load and from the overturning moment due to lateral load. 3. . Lateral confinement using high strength steel is thought to be an effective countermeasure to compensate for rapid decrease in the descending branch of stressstrain relationship of high strength concrete.44 show typical short column specimens with circular or square crosssections subjected to concentric compression.2. Lateral Confinement High strength concrete is used in the building structure to cope with high axial compressive stress in the vertical members. Lateral reinforcement consisted of 1130 MPa D6 bars. Dotted lines indicate perimeter of specimens Fig. Columns were provided with axial reinforcement of 620 MPa D13 bars. Typical circular short column specimen.43 and 3. however.
. \ ^^. 6000 5000 4000 i 3000 2000 1000 0. j. V \ "^.i^.114 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Unit: mm Fig.. axial strain of circular columns. CUD •31 < i iiiiS 1 w i t h cover.44. 2 3 4 5 axial strains (%) (a) Circular columns.. i .• C B L ' ^ * HO ^ ^^^4^. Typical square short column specimen.. 3 4 5 axial strains (%) (b) Circular columns. 80 MPa concrete 2 Fig. . 3._ i „. CC«T>» "°"Y ! ' \ C SL H1 \ KIM. 3...J.45. .i — ^ _ CCJOIIH •i N I CN20KH 1" 1 j ] CC40HH CMOMH j . Load vs. 40 MPa concrete 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 .
Figures 3. The second letter is C or N. SCML S 3000 2000 1000 0 I ifr^l r t "^"^Cl*"' • ^ " • . From these figures. Upper figures are for specimens with 40 MPa concrete. and lower ones for specimens with 80 MPa concrete. . . 3.. 80 MPa concrete Fig. Although not shown.. without concrete cover. it is clear that lateral confinement is quite effective in improving the otherwise brittle behavior of concrete after reaching the maximum stress. The last letter L or MH correspond to concrete strength.— •*»„ _ "* "». 6 5 (b) Square columns.New RC Materials 115 6000 5000 5 4000 j J. Two following digits show the spacing of lateral reinforcement consisting of D6 high strength bars. The first letter is C or S. 40 MPa concrete 2 6000 5000 § 4000 1 3000 2000 1 .46. ays* **' 9 1000 0 0 1 2 3 4 axial strains (%) . axial strain of square columns.s&z^^^: 1 //' 1 — ••>•. indicating specimens with concrete cover or no cover. Concrete cover has almost no effect after the maximum stress of plain concrete as it spalls off easily at the strain of around 0. respectively. MH for medium high 80 MPa concrete../::.45 and 3. ._. In the figure. Load vs. In the figure they are illustrated by full lines or dashed lines. corresponding to circular or square column. 40 MPa concrete.46 show loadaxial strain relationship of some specimens. Stressstrain relationship of confined concrete can be determined from these figures by subtracting the force carried by axial reinforcement.2 percent. specimen marks like CC20L indicate the following. swot SCtOL with covert 3 4 5 axial strains (%) (a) Square columns. medium strength concrete 60 MPa and high strength concrete 120 MPa were also tested. L for low.
5 (3. The maximum stress of confined concrete. ay is yield strength of lateral reinforcement which should not exceed 700 MPa for straight lateral reinforcement. maximum stress of confined concrete a'B. and K is a constant depending on column section expressed as shown below. strain associated with maximum stress eco. A is a constant representing the initial elastic modulus of concrete and is defined by A = Ecec0/(TB (3. D in Eq.116 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Using these test data as well as other existing data of concrete with passive confinement using specimens not smaller than 20 cm in diameter of circle or side of square crosssection.s/2Dc) ks = 11. <r'B is maximum stress of confined concrete as explained later. (Ref. is expressed as follows a'B = flCFB + KPhCTy (3.20) kc = 2.s/2Dc)2 For square or rectangular section K = ks{d"/C){l . (3.15) was originally proposed by Sargin et al. following stressstrain relationship was proposed ac _ AX + (Dl)X* a'B 1 + (A2)X + DX* [6 Li>)  where ac is compressive stress in concrete. (3.16) where sc is compressive strain in concrete and SCQ is strain associated with maximum stress a'B as explained later. For circular section K = kc(l .15) is another constant to define the shape of stressstrain curve.19) .17) where Ec is Young's modulus of concrete. a'B. and constant D must be defined. X is normalized strain defined by X = ec/ec0 (3. For this equation. /i is a constant according to shape of column section and is taken to be 0.8 for circular section and 1.0 for square or rectangular section.09 (3. The form of Eq. 3. ph is volumetric ratio of lateral reinforcement to confined concrete taken to the center lines of peripheral lateral reinforcement. to be explained later.6).18) where as is compressive strength of plain concrete cylinder.
6.23) where the concrete strength is <TB in MPa. (Ref. 8 5 < T B +4. Finally. 3.3 {1 + 4.5 .24) where the constant in front of square root.22) In case of K ^ 1.1)} (3.5 £c0 = 0. The strain associated with the maximum stress.93(<7 B ) 1/4 10. (3.25) Also shown in the figure are three straight lines.21).47 shows the relationship between measured compressive strength of confined concrete a'B and lateral pressure oy exerted by lateral confinement for circular columns.4 in case lateral confinement is provided by steel pipe.5 £c0 = l +^ ^ (3. s is spacing of lateral reinforcement.35 + 20(K ..s/2Dc)2 .21) = 0. The basic equation for eco of unconfined concrete owes to Popovics (Ref. 3.1.1.1oy. Dc is centertocenter distance of peripheral lateral reinforcement within the section (diameter of circular hoop for circular column). (3. was assumed to be obtained by multiplying that of plain concrete by a constant which is a function of strength magnification factor K K = ^ In case of K < 1. The strength magnification factor K should be obtained by Eq.New RC Materials 117 where d" is nominal diameter of lateral reinforcement. £co.93(<7 B ) 1/4 1(T 3 {3.6y/{K 1)CT B /23 (3. . Richart equation is <J'B = 0 .7(A. C is effective lateral support span of lateral reinforcement.15) was determined to fit the measured stressstrain curves as follows D = 1. Figure 3.8). (3. Both axes are normalized by plain concrete strength OB • Lateral pressure aT is defined as follows <?r = Ph(Ty(l .7) and the multiplier is due to Sun et al. may be increased to 2.5)} (3. the constant D in Eq.71 x l(T 2 cr B + 1. 1.
s/2Dc)phcjy The straight line in the figure is a'B — 1. An equation developed in the Building Research Institute in an earlier stage of the project is a'B = 0. 8 0 C T B + 4. Both axes are also normalized by concrete strength OB.2 0. and so an index representing the degree of lateral confinement are was defined as are = {d"/C){\ .72 aB + 4.20) was obtained. (3.18OV from which Eq.5 erre from which Eq. . 3. (3.In case of square sections. lateral pressure cannot be reasonably defined.4 0. Figure 3.26) .1 0.19) was derived.49 illustrates measured and calculated stressstrain curves for various column sections with various amount of lateral reinforcement.0 0. (3. (3. Strength of confined concrete vs. lateral pressure for circular columns.47. Figure 3.3 0.48 shows the relationship between measured compressive strength of confined concrete a'B and lateral pressure index are for square columns.61 ar.15) can reasonably simulate the behavior of confined concrete under compression.0 &B + 11.5 0.6 aJaB Fig. It will be seen that theoretical model based on Eq.118 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 0. The best fit to all test data was found to be a'B = 0 .
• t.5 Matter ol Data:186 Maan v a l u e : .4 0.LWJU1• • > • • • La1.." • " I I I J 11 I t A 1 U ..5 B BQ O CO 2.2 0.« a. 3.^—SNWy.84 a.6 0. V "». ""7 y 0 0. 0 0 Standard error: 0.y \ : ESN23LI I 60 "f 0 1 .  SN50M j . m 60 30 CTOMI reoMf.8 SNBOHI 1 ! : 1—SCSOLI .8 "0 1. Strength of confined concrete vs.4 0. Im ^T^SSa^^j 20 0 2 3 4 5 6 / * S s s f e a == ^ 1 ^ s 1 2 s s = 3 =^ 4 _: 5 6 0.!.B • a B • U.S i..i a.5 . J .87 3.48. . .  60 1i SN25L 1 J SC25MJ SN25M1 I j •] SC25HI SN25H[ •'"j^5""" f^TTJL r .. Measured and calculated stressstrain curves of confined concrete.as <Va B a.6 I \ I 0. 3.la B.49.00 bet 1.13 a=1. • / • ""r^4^ 1 2 : 3 : 4 5 6 "0 \ \ . lateral pressure index for square columns.8 Strain (%) °0 Strain (%) Strain (%) Fig.57 r0. 'r 2 "'^p^^^s^^ 3 1 j : _ .^ 1 2 £ 0 ' 1 2 3 : 4 5 6 0 ^pK^ 3 4 5 6 : 1—sc50L 'J SN50U : I—SCSOM] .. 1 S.aa e.New RC Materials 119 3. 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 'I... XI Fig. B.2 0.0 2.
3. Uniaxial compression test of large size square column specimens was also conducted to confirm the results obtained from test of smaller size specimens.50. Upper Limit of Stress in Lateral Reinforcement The effect of lateral reinforcement may have a limit when high strength steel is used for lateral rebars. The yield stress to calculate confined strength of concrete by Eq. which is the upper limit in the test. Looking into test data a tentative proposal was made to limit the yield strength in Eq. among which three had same hoop spacing of 58 mm with different hoop diameter of D8. D10. may be utilized in the calculation. circular lateral reinforcement was almost always shown to yield in the tests. column section was assumed to be 500 mm square. 3. as stated earlier. Four specimens were tested. resulting in three different amount of lateral reinforcement ratio. On the other hand. As shown in Fig. Section of largescale columns under uniaxial compression. (3.18) should thus be limited to avoid unsafe estimate. . Column height was 1300 mm. and concrete cover was removed to have the exterior diameter of 470 mm.85 i 85 30 120 \\5 15 m 52 s= & 40 ~0 470 85 "30 120 •15 500 C9712  Unit: mm ^ Fig.2.50. For lateral reinforcement in the shape of square hoops and subhoops. (3. and the calculated confined strength using yield stress of lateral reinforcement did not overshoot most of the time. The fourth one had 15 120 470 . Hence yield stress up to 1100 MPa.18) to 700 MPa in case of straight lateral reinforcement. yielding of lateral reinforcement with very high strength was not observed even at the maximum compressive strength was reached. 3.2. approximately twothirds the actual column section.120 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 3. or D13.
tie diameter and tie spacing. 3. As amount of lateral reinforcement increases. Slits were provided between loading stub and test zone with core concrete without cover. The applicability of aforementioned stressstrain model was satisfactory in general.52 shows one of 24 specimens. Figure 3. Buckling of bars was observed after yielding in compression for all specimens. smaller hoop spacing of 42 mm with D8 bars. maximum load shows modest increase. . 3.New RC Materials 121 0 10 20 30 40 50 Axial deformation (mm) Numbers in parentheses indicate lateral reinforcement ratio in % Fig. including the assumed upper limit of lateral bar stress of 700 MPa. Figure 3. resulting in equal lateral reinforcement ratio as the second specimen.2. axial compressive deformation. while improvement of brittleness in the falling branch is conspicuous. Two specimens with same lateral reinforcement but different hoop spacing showed almost identical result. but there was a trend that lateral confinement was more effective for smaller size columns.3.51. Hence the maximum load was always determined by the yield strength of axial reinforcement. in order to transfer compression force through axial bars only. Test parameters were axial bar diameter.3. Buckling of Axial Rebars A limited number of concentric compression tests of square columns were conducted to examine effect of lateral reinforcement in possibly preventing the buckling of axial reinforcement.51 compares load vs. Loaddeformation of largescale columns under uniaxial compression. Even the largest tie spacing of 8 bar diameter in the test was sufficient to produce compression yielding before buckling took place.
122 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures styroform to make a slit in concrete o oV//////Mr test zone with core concrete only 3 JJ(///////XJ( loading stub styroform to make a slit in concrete Fig. Column specimens to examine buckling of axial bars. 3. A minimum tie spacing of 6 bar diameter is tentatively recommended for high strength axial reinforcement. and tie spacing had no effect. respectively.2 or 2.3. On the other hand. It increased to 1.2 times by reducing tie spacing to 6 or 4 bar diameter. As FEM was to be used extensively .3. 3. vertical displacement at maximum load was affected greatly by the tie spacing.52. Tie spacing of 8 bar diameter was judged to be insufficient to secure deformation capability. Concrete. from 8 bar diameters. under Plane Stress Condition Finite element method (FEM) in the inelastic range became recently a popular and useful analytical tool for researchers of reinforced concrete. but higher strength seemed to prevent rapid decrease of compression capacity after buckling. Buckling could not be prevented by increasing tie bar strength. as the number of laboratory test specimens had always to be limited because of financial reasons. It was considered to be an effective method to fill up gaps between experimental data in the New RC project.
For high strength concrete.Also shown in the figure is the failure criterion of 30 MPa concrete. A new equation for failure criterion of high strength concrete derived from the test is the following. constitutive equations of high strength concrete under biaxial compression was vitally needed. 37. 3.2 and 0. the ultimate strength for each stress ratio exceeded uniaxial compressive strength. Fig. 3. as shown in Fig.52. strength increase over uniaxial strength was only 2. and it became largest.9).1. Biaxial loading method for plain concrete plate.53. When stress ratio a%l<J\ was equal to 1. Concrete with compressive strength ranging from 60 to 65 MPa was used. Biaxial Loading Test of Plain Concrete Plate Tests were conducted using plain concrete plate of 200 mm square with 50 mm thickness. on the other hand.5 percent. 3.54 shows comparison of the failure criterion of 62 MPa concrete for various stress ratio 0*2/^l.3. Thus the trend of strength increase due to biaxial compression for high strength concrete is different from that for normal strength concrete. 3.New RC Materials 123 in the New RC project. Biaxial compression load was applied. the same size as those tested by Kupfer et aL (Ref. through three layers of telon sheet and cup grease to avoid deformation confinement due to friction on the loading surface.5 percent greater than uniaxial strength.3. . expressed by the full line curves.53. Figure 3. for stress ratio between 0.
cracking. Twelve specimens.83 (ai/fco) + [ptlfco) + 2041 = 0 (3.025 S cri/fco < 0. and fco is the uniaxial compressive strength of the plate.54.6 0.83 ^cn/U^O 307!/7co)(<Tl/'fee + 1) .55 shows a reinforced concrete plate specimen subjected to inplane pure shear loading. 3.27) For 1. Failure criterion of high strength concrete under biaxial compression.2 0. 70 and 100 MPa concrete.8 0.3. . stressstrain relationship and mode of failure. and tested under pure shear loading to examine the effect of concrete strength. Tests of Reinforced Concrete Plate under Inplane Shear Figure 3. with doubly orthogonal reinforcement. were made using 40.124 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 1.2(<7 1 // c o + 1) = 0 . reinforcement ratio. (3.2 1.0 0.3. and unequal steel amount in two directions. For 0.4 0. on the ultimate strength. 3.4 1.6 1. 600 mm square and 80 mm thick.0 0. steel yield strength.2.2 Fig.28) where <j\ and cr2 are principal stresses in compression under plane stress condition and are interchangeable.
Nagataki. This guideline will be explained in Chapter 5 of this book. 6168. Ser. 8.. p.. With the increase of reinforcement the shear strength increased while deformation capacity was reduced. K. These test data are useful for the calibration of FEM softwares. 3. Research on high strength concrete and its application (in Japanese).New RC Materials 125 Fig.35 to 0. H.2. Japan Concrete Institute Annual Convention 10(1). High strength concrete (in Japanese). Concrete Technol.55. pp. and effective strength of concrete was also reduced. down to about 0. In the course of New RC project.3. the tension stiffening was decreased. 3. References 3. 93. When the amount of reinforcement exceeded certain value concrete started to crush. For higher strength concrete. 1987. was compiled as a guideline for FEM users.4 for 100 MPa concrete.. 1988. standard formulation of constitutive equations for high strength concrete and high strength steel. and ultimate strength increased more slowly with the increase of reinforcement. H. 3. Proc. S. 3 V / O B where OB is compressive strength in MPa.. S. Mod. Uchiyama. including confined concrete.1. Sankaido. Toshisuke. Specimen of reinforced concrete plate subjected to inplane shear.. and Daisuke. Fukuzawa. Evaluation of transition zone thickness of hardened mortar and concrete and relationship between transition . Cracking stress was approximately 0 .
3. 1996. and Hilsdorf. pp. and Sakino.. Sargin. Numerical approach to complete stressstrain curve of concrete.. H. S. Trans. 43654370. pp. pp. 18. 340.7. 3. 583599. Inst. Flexural behavior of reinforced concrete columns confined in square steel tube. 3. S. Development of high strength mild steel deformed bars for high performance reinforced concrete structural members. Japan Concrete Institute 4(2). K. Arch.5.K. 23. 1992. and Hitoshi. June 1971.K. Y.. 3. Effect of lateral reinforcement upon the strength and deformation properties of concrete. Acapulco. 3. Spain. Kupfer. Behavior of concrete under biaxial stresses. Design guidelines for earthquake resistant reinforced concrete buildings based on ultimate strength concept (in Japanese). 3. 1993. Ghosh. Morita. 3. Mag.. Proc.8.6. 10th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Japan. pp. S. Cement Concrete Res. 99100. and Handa. p. Paper No..9.K. Concrete Res. S.126 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures zone thickness and compressive strength (in Japanese). V. 66(8).. Proc. pp. Mexico. M. August 1969. . Popovics. 1742. ACI J. November 1990.4. 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Madrid. 1973. Sun. 656666. H.
1. Codes and Evaluation Research Center. Parametric test program based on "design of experiment" approach was avoided as much as possible not to increase the number of specimens and accompanying budgetary burdens. Beams in a moment resisting frame are often called girders 127 . Emphasis was placed on the development of evaluation method of structural performance based on rational and logical procedure as much as possible. respectively. Sections 4.jp 4. and to propose method to design structural elements for the required performance. and experimental works were carried out in order to calibrate theoretical or analytical predictions. Building Research Institute. Infrastructure and Transport. Tsukuba.go. Introduction The purpose of the Structural Element Committee of the New RC research project was to develop method to evaluate the mechanical performance of structural elements including joints made of high strength concrete and high strength steel. Beams and columns here refer to structural members consisting a moment resisting frame. Japan Email: kamino@kenken. and beamcolumn joints. ttarahi 3050802. walls. 1 Tachihara.Chapter 4 New R C Structural Elements Takashi Kaminosono Associate Director.2 to 4. Ministry of Land.4 of this chapter present results of major experimental programs on beams and columns. Existing theories and analytical methods for structural elements made of ordinary strength materials were adopted as the basis of evaluation methods for high strength elements.
(2) Slab effect on flexural behavior of beams.2. 4.128 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures in order to distinguish them from floor subbeams. combined axial. and shear and anchorage behavior of beamcolumn joints. (3) Deformation capacity of columns after yielding. In this chapter. . They are as follows. the simple word wall is used in this chapter. Columns always refer to those in the moment resisting frame. Walls here mean the socalled shear walls to resist lateral load due to earthquake loading. Sec. or in some case joint panel. It is sometimes called as beamcolumn connection. and vertical posts to support gravity load only are excluded. and structural behavior of such walls is not necessarily governed by shear force. this part receives particular attention in the recent decades. but the word beam is used throughout this chapter. (5) Vertical splitting of columns under high axial compression. (1) Bondsplitting failure of beams after yielding. Seven representative test programs are briefly presented in the following subsections. Finally. Because of importance of this portion of a frame in resisting lateral load.5 of this chapter summarizes the work of the Structural Element Committee in a form readily applicable to the practical design. (6) Shear strength of columns. 4. (4) Columns subjected to bidirectional flexure. for flexural and shear behavior of beams. particularly in case of walls in highrise buildings. (7) Shear strength of beams. girder to column joint. beamcolumn joint is used throughout. Many test programs were organized by the members of Structural Element Committee to clarify various uncertainties in the art of structural performance evaluation. flexural and shear behavior of columns and walls. Beamcolumn joints are not independent elements but they are in fact part of columns in the moment resisting frame. girder to column connection. Since such structural walls resist overturning moment in addition to shear force. B e a m s and Columns A limited amount of experimental data were available at the time of the New RC project as to the structural behavior of beams and columns made of high strength materials.
and ultimately bondsplitting failure as shown in Fig. or more precisely. The study in this section was conducted using beam specimens made of 80 MPa concrete and USD685 rebars subjected to cyclic reversal of antisymmetric bending. small spantobar diameter ratio. and is more apt to occur to members with short span. 4. It aimed at (1) examining the relationship between results of Reinforcement Committee on bondsplitting failure (see Chapter 3) and Fig.1. the shear force in a member causes bond stress around axial bars to develop tension at one end while developing compression at the other end of the member.1.1.2. Typical bondsplitting failure of a beam. BondSplitting Failure of Beams after Yielding When beams and columns of a moment resisting frame are subjected to antisymmetric bending. Bondsplitting failure may occur to beams as well as columns. but experimental data of bondsplitting failure and related behavior of beams with high strength material were not available at the time of the New RC project. It can be prevented if dependable bond strength is evaluated. . This bond stress tends to produce bondsplitting cracks around the axial bars. 4.New RC Structural Elements 129 4.
Beams had loading stubs at both ends. 5 and 6 are for the effect of double layer reinforcement and different amount of rebars at top and bottom of the section.3 shows sections of all six specimens. 6 for No. Six beam specimens were prepared. Lateral deformation at deflection angle of 0.62 percent for Nos. and No. the spantodepth ratio is 3 for No. 1. (2) investigating the effect of double layer reinforcement and spantodepth ratio (shear span ratio) of beams.5. Figure 4. It gives a specimen the forced antisymmetric deformation by keeping the two loading stubs in parallel position. Figure 4. 1 is the basic one. 2. 3. 3 and 5 percent was applied two times each before loading to the final failure.2 shows a representative specimen No. actual bondsplitting behavior of beams. . and 0. Concrete strength at the testing was 83 MPa in compression and 3. and (3) clarifying the relationship between deformation capacity after yielding of beams and bond deterioration.2. 2 is to see the effect of increased lateral reinforcement. Since the clear span of 1080 mm is same. 1). The specimen No. 2. 1. Beam specimen details (Specimen No. and 4 for all other specimens. 3 and 4. Numbers 3 and 4 are for the effect of different spantodepth ratio. 1. and were subjected to antisymmetric flexureshear without axial loading. 4. Shear reinforcement is 0. Loading was applied through a BRItype loading rig frequently used in Japan for testing of columns. 4.0 MPa in splitting tension. and Nos. 5 and 6.39 percent for Nos.130 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 500 1080/2 Fig. while moving one of them laterally in cyclic reversal.
Critical deflection was defined as the deflection at which the envelope of the load deflection curve reached down to 80 percent of the maximum load. Section of beam specimens. The load at flexural yielding was 1. maximum strength.12 times the calculated values of flexural strength (AIJ formula). Figure 4.4 except that the deflection was also normalized with respect to the yield .1 summarizes observed load and associated deflection at flexural cracking.New RC Structural Elements 131 Fig. 4. 4.1 correspond to the cracks at left and right ends of specimens. It was bond failure after flexural yielding. Figure 4.3. and two data in Table 4.4 compares the load deflection envelope curves of all six specimens. and critical deformation. Flexural yielding was determined by a sudden break of load deflection curves endorsed by rebar strain measurement at the critical sections.5 is similar to Fig. Final failure mode of all six specimens was same. Table 4.04 to 1. shear cracking. Flexural cracks and shear cracks were observed with naked eyes. flexural yielding. where the load was normalized by the yield load Py. In case of double layer reinforcement yielding of second layer was confirmed in determining this point.
O OS OS rH O CN T H o CO o CO o < u a c lO 0 V 0 Q) 0 0) 0 Qi O V a c a c CN 0 a c CO 0 a c TP 0 a c to . t. J£ o o mm o rt o rH r H TP CO t 00 CN .CO (N l O CO C I OS T P i n TP i . 00 to oo in co to m iri to ' aS 3 rH O rH «t o* SN I N OS I N CN CO CO r t m oo 1 ( iH — I N CN oo to CO <N rH in rt CN i—i it <N ( N £ E ^ 0 ? Tf X O "^ TP IN tO tO O 00 T4 m to OS OS TP b<N CO M CN bOS X CN I N ? iel E 00 lO lO IC OS TP r H TP ( N CN CO OS m oo T—1 1H t rH b rH <N •O IN r H CS > " 1: 3 lex U* •—* £ _* of —s OS O I N rt 00 TP OS O to oo <N CO ( N CN TP I > : OS OS OS i—1 hX ( N CS to to CN co ( N CN to m rH it in m s rac C) i n CO t> O CN CO b . 0 o o Z Z Z Z Z z .rIN " * CO CO tH OS CO CO il rH 00 Tl* (N t> to co bCN CO rH x m CN I N tear in 11 to co OS O m °> —> 2 JC CO <N to t (X) to t t© rH 2S TP to m co os to co r r m fi TP TP O CO o ^ Tf O as as CO TP" m bO brH b n" H r H <N tO t  OS ( N to x os m to oo t> O co i n 00 X I N <N • X X in OS rH I> 00 rH O .2SE trj* CO TP 6 Load s os m ^ © i ' it »H co m m *r O CO i> .i <N O CO 00 r H TP m O X CO OS CO CN tO rH r H CN O CO (O O <N CO r.H OS OS X to TP TP O X X o o OS r H it to o o o o m m TP TP co m o o CO OS m rt V+ OS t O rH TP o <N in <N Q0 CO to in to o ^ "? rH 00 in m 3* to r p CO o tf Spec ime c OS CO CO t O CO CO •q* IH m to CO •"* os to m m o ^p Tp oo *•** '.132 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures s • 3 S  .—« h J! U U to rf* rH 05 <N O r X in os OS ^ o O o o rH O J_ •—.m X lO u a 3 ft.
Average of positive and negative values in Table 4. 4. double layer clearly affects the deformability of the member. Specimens Nos. Normalized load vs.0 1.0 Elements 133 O—O NOI A—A N02 Q — • N03 #—m Nos A — • N06 0. ductility factor.5 1.5 1. It would be necessary to account for greater margin of bond safety to the double layer rebar arrangement.5 1. deflection angle.New RC Structural 1.5 0 0. 4.5 _ 0 — Q N04 £ fH%: T I 0 0. 4.4. 2 with single layer reinforcement.0 Fig. 2 with larger amount of web reinforcement shows better behavior than the specimen No. indicating the improved bond by lateral reinforcement retarded the strength reduction and contributed to greater energy dissipation.4 . In these figures the specimen No. Normalized load vs. 5 and 6 with double layer reinforcement with No. critical deflection angle and bond index are plotted for all specimens plus five other specimens from pilot testing in BEL Critical deflection .0 AJ _L I _L 4.5 .6. 3.5 8 _L 4.0 2.8 . and they result in smaller deformability for smaller beam depth. In Fig.0 0. 1 and 4 are the series with different beam depth. Comparing Nos.0 Ductility factor 6/Sy 6.0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1. This tendency is more pronounced when the deformability is expressed by the ductility factor.0 0 2.1 was taken for this purpose. 1.6 . deflection 6y.5 1.2 0 2 4 6 8 Deflection angle 5/l(%) Fig.5.
6 except that the critical ductility is plotted on the abscissa. Bond index has been used as an index of inelastic defomability of beams and columns failing in bondsplitting in the ordinary material strength range.6. Although the trend is not very clear. (Ref. Figure 4. Critical ductility is the critical deflection divided by the yield deflection. critical deflection angle. 4.e. and Fig.1).5. low bond index .6 indicates that the bond index can also be used for the same purpose for high strength material. 4. Bond index vs. angle is the deflection angle at which the envelope of the load deflection curve reached down to 80 percent of the maximum load. i.5 • J O! N 0 4 io *joi . From the plotting it can be seen that the critical deflection becomes larger for lower bond index.5 [~ BRI pilot tests ' • < ' 0 2 4 6 J 8 10 L 12 critical deflection angle Rso<%) Fig. Design bond stress is obtained by assuming a rebar in tension yielding at one end and in compression yielding at the other end. inverse of the safety factor for bond. iCD: ND6 N02_.0 i — r 1.134 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 2. 4. and effective bond length of clear span minus effective beam depth is taken considering inclined cracking in the tension zone. Bond strength was calculated based on the paper by Kaku et al. 4. 4. which is similar to the bond strength equation introduced in Sec. : Nos "I r 0. Bond index is the design bond stress divided by the bondsplitting strength.7 is a similar plotting as Fig.
4. . can be a measure of deformability of beams made of high strength materials failing in bondsplitting in the repeated reversal of loading after yielding. These are the specimen with small beam depth or those with double layer rebars.0 is secured for a beam.7.5 TKHf 1 I b Nfc>3 O INOl i D O. as defined by the ratio of design bond stress to the bondsplitting strength.0 D LO • NCH5 0. but deformability of the member is not so much affected as the beam with small depth. bond stress around the outer layer bars accelerates the bondsplitting crack around the inner layer bars.5 D BRI pilot teata I J l__ 4 6 l8_ i10 12 critical ductility \Uo Fig. Conclusions from this test series were as follows.0 T T 1 — D 1. leading to early deterioration in the deformability. critical ductility. excessive deterioration of deformability in the inelastic range can be avoided.New RC Structural Elements 135 2. generally associates with large critical ductility. (2) When rebars are arranged in two layers. If bond index less than 1. 46. except for specimens Nos. N02 N05O 1. (3) A beam with large depth has larger bond index owing to the increase in design bond stress. Bond index vs. (1) Bond index. The fact that these specimens showed inferior deformability should be duly considered.
4.8. the floor slab is in tension and slab concrete will crack. The purpose of the current study was to investigate whether the existing knowledge on the slab effect on flexural behavior of beams. At a section where it is subjected to negative bending.2. but also as a flange to the beam in flexure. .2. act not only as a horizontal diaphragm for the building. Slab Effect on Flexural Behavior of Beams Floor slabs. yield and ultimate strength. plays the cooperating role. In both cases. such as initial and inelastic stiffness.  300 IV)I Mil M I O D e t a i l of s p e c i m e n B S 0 1 . the floor slab is in compression and concrete in the floor slab cooperates with that of beam in compression.::: V 500 I • • — t / * ' r4D1. but rebars in the floor slab cooperate with beam axial bars in tension. using ordinary anchor plate (PL9) 3 S 5 S s.3 I) 300 § 1080 I i r D6@135 ^ «* D6@145 8~ i 500 W W unto Fig.136 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 4. not the entire width of the slab. and so on. but certain effective width of the slab. At a section of the beam where it is subjected to positive bending. r2DCS<SI50 1 270 — I::::::::::. cast monolithically with beam.
9(b). BS02 showed much higher yield load. The behavior in the negative direction . and beam bars yielded at the deflection angle of about 1.0. prototype specimen. In the negative direction where the floor slab was in compression. specimen without floor slab. and loaded to produce shear span ratio of M/VD = 1. Beam axial rebars were grade USD685 D13 bars with yield point 714 MPa and tensile strength 950 MPa. Beam section is 200 mm by 270 mm with effective depth of 243 mm.3 kN at which point the deflection angle was about 0. Slab bars were ordinary grade SD295 D6 bars with yield point 346 MPa and tensile strength 527 MPa. The left end of the specimen was bolted to the reaction wall.8 MPa and Young's modulus 29. BS02.0 GPa. Other specimens involved variations of test parameters.New RC Structured Elements 137 strength material.4 MPa and Young's modulus 27.9 shows loaddeflection curves of three specimens. BS03 had slab concrete with ordinary strength of 30 MPa. BS01. Five cantilever beams with floor slabs and one beam without slab of about one third scale were tested.8 GPa. Positive load did not increase after beam bar yielding. Compared with BS01. Specimen BS01 was made of 70 MPa concrete whose actual strength at testing was 58. yield load was much lower. Figure 4. BS01 had flexural cracks in the slab at load 32. Figure 4. BS02 had high strength slab reinforcement of grade USD980 bars. 4. Figure 4. respecitively. BS06 was a short specimen with 800 mm clear span. BS05 had no floor slab. Stirrups were grade USD980 D6 bars with yield point 978 MPa and tensile strength 1141 MPa. 4.5 percent as shown in Fig. Downward load and deflection associated with negative bending in the usual sense at the critical section were taken positive. BS04 was similar to BS01 except that it had fewer slab distributing bars (perpendicular to beam) of D6 at 255 mm on centers. is applicable to members made of high strength material. Thus the shear span ratio M/VD is 3. and the load continued to increase after beam bar yielding until the deflection angle reached about 5 percent as shown in Fig. specimen with high strength slab bars.12 percent.8. Full lines and dotted lines indicate cracks due to positive loading and negative loading.8 shows the detail of a representative specimen of BS01. whose actual strength was 28.9(a). and floor slab thickness is 50 mm and width is 1000 mm on one side.10 shows final crack pattern of BS01 specimen. and BS05. Deflection was measured at the point of contraflexure. and a reversed cyclic load was applied in such a way that a point 810 mm away from the critical section of the cantilever is the point of contraflexure.
was very similar to BS01.9(c). and smaller cracking and yield loads as shown in Fig.high strength slab bars 20 60 300 200 100 ' I I BS05 . 4. 4. which were similar to those in the negative direction of BS01 or BS02. BS05 specimen without floor slab had smaller initial stiffness. Loaddeflection curves. and BS04 with fewer number of slab distributing bars.138 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 20 0 20 deflection (mm) (a) BS01. 200 100 Flexural cracking.without slab Fig.9. showed quite similar behavior as BS01. 200 60 40 0 20 deflection (mm) (b) BS02. BS06 with short .prototype /Beam bar yielding 300 B S 0 2 . BS03 with ordinary strength concrete in the slab. _Beam bar yielding Flexural cracking _ 0 0^P' [ • 41 0 20 100 60 200 40 20 deflection (mm) (c) BS05.
10. Inelastic stiffness at yielding was obtained by multiplying ay.New RC Structural Elements 139 R=l/20 Fig. Initial stiffness was calculated considering elastic uncracked flexural and shear deformations based on the effective span length assuming the fixed end at one quarter the beam depth away from the critical section. if the deflection was expressed in terms of deflection angle (deflection of the point of contraflexure divided by the distance to the point). 4.11. 4.2). and cracking load in the positive direction were calculated assuming three kinds of slab effective width. Crack pattern of BS01. Initial stiffness. to the abovementioned initial stiffness ay = (0. inelastic secant stiffness at yielding.043 + 1. Sugano (Ref. yield stiffness reduction factor originated by S. shear span showed similar behavior as BS01.64npt + QMZa/D){d/D)2 (4.1) where ay : yield stiffness reduction ratio n : modular ratio of steel to concrete Pt • tensile reinforcement ratio to be obtained as tensile rebar area divided by uncracked concrete area . and compared with the measured or observed values in the test in Fig. 4.
1L i ba=0.11. 4. slightly on the safe side..5L.5L 1 1 2 3 4 specimen No.140 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete 2. and the moment lever arm in the critical section was approximated by 7/8 times effective depth for yield load.1L.hl^B (4.4 " 0. n 8 0.e. 4. calculated values of initial stiffness.0 Structures $ 1. Fig.0 a O O o •v P.3L. 4.22.3L 1 1 r~ ba=0..12. Entire slab width was assumed to be effective in these calculations. yield stiffness by ba = 0. Comparison of measured vs.8§ 0. effective width was assumed in three ways. Cracking strength in Fig.5L (L: distance to the point of contraflexure).11.12. : shear span length (M/V) which is same as the distance to the point of contraflexure D : beam depth d : effective beam depth to the centroid of tensile reinforcement. the assumption of entire width to be effective is a good approximation.6 l A • initial stiffness 4. 4.yield stiffness <> cracking load ^ •a u5»>2 0. Yield load and ultimate load was also calculated and compared with test results in the positive direction in Fig. 4. and 0. yield stiffness and cracking load. D • 9 + D fi ba=0. and 0. As seen.6. beam width plus twice the cooperating slab width ba. initial stiffness is best estimated by ba = 0.2 0. Itemized conclusions are as follows .3L. where cooperating slab width ba was taken to be 0. P.9 times effective depth for ultimate load.11 was calculated by the theory of elasticity assuming tensile strength of concrete as follows cat a = Q. and cracking strength by ba = 0. 0.1L. i.2) where cat : tensile strength of concrete (MPa) <JB '• compressive strength of concrete (MPa). As seen in Fig. In Fig.
"'!""  full width _\ specimen No.New RC Structural Elements 141 1. As structural engineers became aware of the necessity of preventing premature shear failure by providing shear resistance to cover shear demand corresponding to mechanism formation. respectively.80.81. and cracking strength. under negative bending (slab in tension).3.40. (1) High strength of slab rebars contributes to the beam strength under negative bending (slab in tension). effective slab width may be assumed to be equal to the entire width. (3) Amount of slab distributing bars (bars perpendicular to the beam axis) has no effect on the beam strength. yield stiffness. (5) In calculating yield load and ultimate load under negative bending.12. On the other hand. Comparison of measured vs.2. Shear strength of a member is not a unique constant value to the .61.3L and 0. (4) Slab effective width based on cooperating width on one side of beam of 0.1L. 4. 4. (2) High strength of slab concrete does not contribute to the beam strength.60. calculated values of yield load and ultimate load. experimental research works conducted in 1970's and 1980's demonstrated the possibility of shear failure of columns in the inelastic postyield reversal.5L.41. this type of failure seems to decrease in recent earthquake disasters. appears to predict well the initial stiffness.2" D 0 yield load + ultimate load + 6 S a ? v— without slab o.  Fig. Deformation Capacity of Columns after Yielding The most frequently observed failure of columns in earthquake damage used to be the premature shear failure before flexural yielding. In this case the column once reaches the flexural yielding without premature shear failure. This phenomenon has been gradually understood as the reduction of shear strength with respect to inelastic deformation. 0. but it finally fails in shear in the reversal of postyield deformation amplitude.20.o.
but majority of them were from test specimens of ordinary strength materials. but it is a function of inelastic deformation. . 4. and also to examine the effect of axial load on the deformation capacity and effect of reinforcement details on the resistance to vertical splitting failure of columns. it keeps dropping while the flexural shear remains more or less constant as the inelastic deformation increases. a function of ductility factor of the member. where the reduction of shear strength is empirically expressed by reduction of effective concrete strength and variation of concrete strut inclination angle of the truss with respect to inelastic deformation. S10 Fig. The abovementioned concept has been incorporated in the recent design guidelines in Japan (Ref. Column test specimens. or in other words. S9.3). The experimental program of this section was organized to find the applicability of the guideline equation to high strength RC columns. Shear strength is expressed by an equation based on the truss model and arch (or strut) model concept. Even though shear strength at a small deformation exceeds the shear force associated with the flexural yielding. 1300 300 i MI n n « v i 9 Specimen S6.142 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures member. 4. S7 Specimen S8. Eventually shear strength and shear demand would meet.13. and this determines the end of the inelastic deformation. The empirical expressions were confirmed by available test results of beams and columns.
and no axial load was applied when loaded to negative direction. will be introduced here. and lateral reinforcement yield point is 1260 MPa for S6 and S7. S9 and S10 are 250 mm square columns with the height of 1000 mm. Concrete strength is 80 MPa (measured strength ranged from 75 to 77 MPa). hence the shear span ratio of 2.New RC Structural Elements 143 Five specimens. Test set up for a column specimen. . Axial load was supplied by a 2000 tonnes structural testing machine. while lateral load was given by a horizontal oil jack through an Lshaped rig which was kept in parallel position to the test bed by means of a pair of auxiliary oil jacks. 4.14 was used. S9. marked S6 through S10.5. Loading setup of Fig.14. Axial load was kept constant for all specimens except for S7.3) where N : axial load Ag : gross sectional area as '• concrete strength. 0. In terms of axial load ratio 7 as defined below 7 7 = N/(AgaB) 7 (4. 7 was 0.15. and S10.0.50 in terms of axial load ratio when 7 the lateral loading was positive (same as S6). and 0.13 shows the detail of specimens. and 0.50 for S8. S6 and S7 are 300 mm square columns with the height of 900 mm. Fig. and 874 MPa for S8. Figure 4. S8. S9 and S10.35. Specimen S7 was 7 subjected to constant compression of 7 = 0. axial reinforcement yield point is 396 MPa for all specimens.50 for S6. 4. hence the shear span ratio of 1.
Figure 4. 0. S10 had some vertical cracks at the maximum load. and higher the axial load.15 shows cracking of specimens at the stage of maximum loading. 4. Comparing S8.25.50.0 and 2. it is clear that axial load level had controlling effect on the behavior after maximum load. S9 and S10. smaller the deformation capacity. Figure 4. Calculated ultimate load was exceeded by tests for all specimens. Since S6 reached its maximum load at a very early stage.144 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures l/200rad. S10 l/100rad. Fig. Deterioration due to high axial compression was also endorsed by the measurement of axial deformation. S8 reached its maximum in the 2 percent cycle. lateral deformation angle relationship for all specimens.15. Cracking of specimens at maximum load. and maximum load was reached by the crushing of concrete in the compression side. while S9 and S10 reached the maximum in the 1 percent cycle. These vertical cracks joined the cracks in the end compression zone in the later loading stage. and formed the diagonal cracking zone. 1. l/100rad l/50rad. Two cycles each at 0.0 percent of deflection angle were applied before loaded to the final failure. For low axial load of S7 in the negative . S9 1/lOOrad. Horizontal loading was controlled by the deformation angle which is the lateral displacement divided by clear height of column. This was quite similar to S7 except that the diagonal crack formed under positive loading only. In all specimens axial bars yielded in compression first. Deterioration after attaining maximum load was more pronounced for S6 than S7 in the positive direction. which was essentially loaded into positive direction only because the negative loading on S7 had little effect on its ultimate capacity. it shows some flexural cracks and vertical cracks along the central axial bar only.16 shows lateral load vs.
0 (neg) •""• 400 2 <S 200 ss no. 5 i.16. 4.50 7 ••"•• 600 400 S7 n=o.%) (b)S7.New RC Structural Elements 145 SB il=0..2 . Loaddeformation curves. 7j = 0.1 0 1 2 3 4 deformation angle (. . 7j = O..15 Fig.o.5 •• \jf : •2 1 0 1 2 3 deformation angle (%) (a)S6.1 0 1 2 3 deformation angle (%) (c)S8. 4 • 3 . 2 ral load !i Xtt'wl' •////// a200 « 400 600 •800 / fS\ \ L~*r /J/! \  W J\ } P)"^ J ~ 3 i  • 2 . 1 = 0.MXpos. 15 ^ ^ ^ = a 3 o e d •§200 •400 VJ^L^^ JeSH' ! ^I^fe ==£! * 1 1.) 0.
5 200 •?" ••: .35 400 S10 I n=o.2 . axial deformation was negative (elongation).T 'A/~~. (1) Compared to constant axial load.146 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 400 S9 2 200 0 n .5 had vertical cracks which may lead to vertical splitting failure. _i*~*^ ft: •4 3 2 200 400 f 0 1 2 i 43 '") 4 5 6 1 deformation angle (%) (d)S9. (Continued) direction and S8.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 deformation angle (%) (e)S10. but not so extensive as in case of short columns. smaller was the deformation capacity of columns with shear span ratio of 2. As the direct results of testing.0. . 4. Measurement of lateral rebar strain indicated that no lateral reinforcement yielded up to the failure of the specimen.50 Fig.16.o . following conclusions can be stated. 7 = 0. but for other specimens strain at midheight was larger than the strain at yield hinge zones which was not influenced by the axial load. The slender column under high axial load also had some vertical cracks. (2) Higher the level of axial compression. 35 i::::::t:::. 7) = 0. while contraction was more rapidly accumulated in case of higher axial compression. For S8 and S9 that did not develop diagonal cracks the strain of hoops at the midheight zone was small. specimen with varying axial load with the same maximum value showed better deformability. / / •} •:•••• 200 400 !":>$» ]— — • ? — —j ? •4 3 . (3) Columns with shear span ratio of 1.
bidirectional flexure gives a more severe condition to the column than the unidirectional flexure. The study introduced in this section involves tests of high strength columns subjected to high axial load and bidirectional bending.2. Column section is 250 mm square and 1250 mm high. Columns Subjected to Bidirectional Flexure Columns in a space (threedimensional) moment resisting frame are subjected to bidirectional flexure and shear by horizontal earthquake motions in addition to vertical axial loading due to gravity load.5.0. however. 0.0 percent before . When the level of axial load is not so high and the column behavior is controlled by yielding of axial rebars. 4. and the specimen mark expressed these test parameters as shown in Table 4.5. 1. A is for unidirectional loading in NS direction only. columns are quite stable even under bidirectional flexure.2. When. and inelastic deformation capacity of the column is apt to be impaired.18.17.125. The first letter S or C corresponds to the type of loading.5. 0. 1. the column is a lower story column of a highrise building and the column behavior is more directly covered by the concrete in compression.New RC Structural Elements 147 The more important contribution of these test results was that they were used. 4. Specimens were placed in a loading setup shown in Fig. and the behavior can be analyzed by simple models such as the one based on the plasticity theory.4. The test program consists of testing four identical columns shown in Fig. respectively. 2. and so the shear span ratio is 2. and level of axial load were the test parameters.5. to develop shear strength equation for high strength RC members as a function of inelastic deformation. S is for antisymmetric loading with the point of contraflexure at midheight of column.0. There have been some studies on this kind of behavior of columns made of ordinary strength material. and aims at establishing the criteria for axial load limitation in the column design. 4. together with other test series. C is for cantilever loading with the point of contraflexure at the soffit of upper stub. and the shear span ratio is 5.0 and 3. This will be explained in Sec. were used. The second letter A or B refers to the loading path. Type of horizontal loading. 4. Concrete with compressive strength of 90 MPa and axial and lateral reinforcement with yield strength of 714 MPa and 1000 MPa.25. loading path. and load was cyclically reversed twice each at deformation angles of 0. and loaded axially and horizontally in two directions.
4. Fig.17. . increased to final fracture. The by Eq. and the two deformation paths shown in Fig.19 alternatively at each deformation angle as in the unidirectional last two digits corresponds to the axial load ratio rj as defined NS and EW were applied loading. 4.148 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures I 323 I 250 I 325 I Fig. 4. (4.18. Column specimen for bidirectional loading test.3). Test setup for bidirectional loading. B is for bidirectional loading into directions.
60 92. Column specimens under bidirectional loading. Axial Load Specimen SA35 CA35 1950 CB35 CB60 cantilever 5. both subjected to unidirectional loading. = N/(AgcB) Ag = gross sectional area Cycle No M L — '•' m ' R i Cycle No.2 7 V «£ i E V Fig.4 * : r. Flexural cracks were formed in the 0.0 bidirectional 3470 0. maximum load was reached at 1.7 percent deformation.60 for the fourth 7 specimen.2.New RC Structural Elements 149 Table 4.5 percent cycle.5 Type of Loading antisymmetric M/VD 2.5 unidirectional Loading Path Load N (kN) 1870 0. Compression rebars yielded at 0.19. deformation angle relationship for specimens SA35 and CA35.20 shows shear force vs.25 percent cycle. Figure 4. SA35 was loaded while keeping the upper and lower stubs in parallel position to produce antisymmetric bending in the column. The value of 7 was 0. Displacement path in bidirectional loading test. 4. .35 for the first three specimens and 0.35 89. deformation (drift) angle and axial shortening vs.0 percent. and corner concrete crushing was found in the 0.2 Ratio Concrete Strength <TB (MPa) 85.
21 shows shear force vs. Figure 4. both subjected to bidirectional . and axial shortening vs.150 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete 400i 1 1 1 1 1 r Structures NS drift angle (%) NS drift angle (%) (a) Specimen SA35 (b) Specimen CA35 Fig. and a vertical splitting crack was formed along the central rebars at the second negative cycle of 1. The shear force in Fig.5 percent. and increased quite rapidly after 3 percent to the final stage where axial load could not be carried. 4.20. and axial load could not be carried after this point. drift angle and axial shortening vs. The specimen did not pick up load beyond 60 percent of maximum load in the following 2 percent deformation cycles.20(a). In the 3 percent deformation cycle a lateral reinforcement broke.5 percent deformation.5 percent deformation cycle.20(a) for this reason. probably due to this vertical splitting crack.0 percent cycle. Axial shortening started to become conspicuous at 2. CA35 was loaded so that the point of zero moment coincided with the top of the column clear height. 4. 4. as noted in Fig.5 percent loading to the final failure. Shear force vs. deformation (drift) angle relationship in EW and NS directions.20(b) is much smaller than Fig. hence the shear force associated with the same moment at column bottom was half as much of the specimen SA35. NS deformation angle relationship. drift angle. Maximum load was reached at 1. 4. for specimens CB35 and CB60 specimens. and corner concrete started to crush in the 1.5 percent deformation and axial shortening started to increase after 2. Flexural cracks appeared in the 0.
more rapidly than the companion specimen CA35 under unidirectional loading.* _. 4. '*~i—L. .1 0 1 2 EW drift angle (%) I . effect of previous deformation in the perpendicular direction is clearly seen. Testing concluded in 2 percent cycle where axial load could not be maintained. and in the 1. loading..21(a). NS drift angle.. i .25 percent deformation cycle and corner concrete crushing in the 0. 4. _L •2 * i .1 0 1 2 NS drift angle (%) (a) Specimen CB35 (b) Specimen CB60 Fig. Shear force vs.5 percent cycle cover concrete spalled off all around the periphery of the critical section.. drift angle in E W and NS directions and axial shortening vs. 1 !. For example in the second 1 percent cycle to the EW negative direction. Axial shortening accumulated as the result of inelastic loading into any directions.New RC Structural 400 —1 300 200 100 Elements i — i — i — 151 1 1  i — 400 ii i CE35 300 200 100 0 100 200 300 400 . the load was very low due to the previous loading in the NS direction. In Fig. In the 1 percent cycle crushing and axial shortening became more pronounced.5 percent cycle. CB60 l o •100 •200 •300 •400 j i +J i i •w $ 11 u r — +~ "•~** axial shortening (mm) . i i 400 ~ s a 200 a S 100 •S z 300 CB60 ' . T 1 i i 1 0 1 2 EW drift angle (%) 1 i..Mi y . i S o £ loo •a a 2oo 300 ~~^i.2 . ] ' i r — i ' •  1 0 1 NS drift angle (%) . CB35 showed flexural cracks in the 0. that is. i i \ 1 !1 i ! ..21.2 .
A study was conducted therefore to give some more lights to the mechanism of formation of this kind of vertical splitting crack.6 produces compression failure at a relatively small drift angle of 0. and rebar compression yielding was noticed in the 0.5 percent. 4. to find that the vertical splitting crack extended to the central portion of the section. started to crush at corners even at the initial 0. one of four column specimens.2. and the specimen CB60 failed violently when only three quarter of 0. and that it virtually divided the specimen into two pieces vertically.5 percent cycle of CB35 specimen.4. Figure 4. Axial shortening increased rapidly in this cycle.125 percent deformation cycle. This kind of vertical splitting crack had been observed in past experiments. and maximum load was reached.5. and also an effective evidence in establishing the criteria for axial load limitation. Particularly important conclusion from this point of view is. The observed behavior as described above is believed to be a valuable objective for analytical studies.5 percent cycle was completed.152 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures CB60. Vertical Splitting of Columns High Axial Compression under In the previous Sec. and second. and internal crack distribution was examined. and caused drastic loss of load carrying capacity of the column. utilizing available test results as well.5 percent cycle flexural cracking appeared. In the 0. that high axial load whose ratio to A9(TB is 0. that axial shortening is more pronounced under bidirectional loading compared to columns under unidirectional loading. but the phenomenon had not been completely explained.25 percent cycle. The vertical crack appeared along the plane of central axial reinforcement placed at a perpendicular location to the loading direction. accompanied by breaking of lateral reinforcement.2. almost to the level of 1. SA35. 4. subjected to very high axial compression.5 percent under bidirectional forced deformation. and to the expected strength of columns against this cracking.22(a) shows idealized deformation of a column in which yield hinges have formed at both ends and splitting crack has appeared along the . After the conclusion of the loading test the specimen was cut along the loading direction. It was a specimen subjected to antisymmetric bending. first. Buckling of four corner bars was confirmed after the testing. showed a vertical splitting crack at the second cycle of deformation angle amplitude of 1.
New RC Structural Elements 153 Fig. The column is subjected to axial load N and tensile yield force in the section is T. Thus we define forces acting along the potential splitting crack plane of a column in antisymmetric bending to be.22. Idealized deformation and assumed forces. as shown in Fig.22(b). the resultant of Tw and Cp must be zero from the equilibrium of the tensile hinge zone.4) . The forces acting in the tensile hinge zone may be expressed as in Fig. center line. shear force N + 2T and normal force Q. Tw is the resultant of forces in the lateral reinforcement. 4. and Cp is the resultant of compression forces in the concrete struts. 4. Then we obtain simplified assumption of forces shown in Fig. hence the compression resultant is N + T acting at the compression side of the yield hinge. Then the average shear stress acting on the potential crack plane can be expressed by the following equation TS = (N + 2T)/AC where TS : the average shear stress N + 2T : shear force acting on the plane (4.22(c). where A T denotes bond forces along the tensile reinforcement. Q is the column shear force. Splitting crack plane has the area of column height minus depth D times the width of core concrete as shown in Fig.23(b).23(a). 4. before formation of the splitting crack. 4. all in the tensile hinge zone. If we assume AT is zero considering that concrete cover in the hinge zone has spalled off all around the section due to cyclic reversal of loading. 4.
13 numerical coefficents. As to the confining stress p from lateral reinforcement.154 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures T Q V .0. The first term on the right hand side corresponds to shear cracking strength of plane concrete expressed as to be proportional to the square root of compressive strength. it is a well known OB . The splitting crack strength of the vertical plane may be expressed by the combination of concrete term and normal force term. The second term has a form of normal stress acting on the plane multiplied by a friction coefficient /?. 4.23.N+2T Q N+2T • potential si "»potei cracking plane cracl ^ N+2T' .8 which gives shear strength of 30 to 40 percent of compressive strength to the ordinary strength concrete. In case of cantilever type bending of previous subsection. Assumed model and crack section. They are assumed as follows Tsu = ay/cTB~ + P(Q/AC + p) (4. and (5 may be assumed as high as 1. Friction coefficient of a concrete crack may involve aggregate interlock. and the coefficient a may be assumed to be about 1.5) where splitting crack strength concrete compressive strength column shear force Q area of crack plane Ac confining stress of concrete from lateral reinforcement P a.\ J "t\: D \7////7/W////\ \W///W///A W/////////////A (b) Assumed section of splitting crack 5 T— N+T (a) Assumed model with forces Fig. this equation has to be modified appropriately. Ac : area of crack plane as explained above.
.4). and whether the column is provided with subhoops or not does not make much difference.6 axial load ratio Splitting crack stress vs. Specimens that formed vertical splitting crack are marked black. axial load ratio. 4.4) depends on the column height. (4. where a = 1.4). On the other hand. /3 = 1. r s is small for cantilever type columns in the preceding subsections.New RC Structural Elements 155 O • ' No subhoops. Hence we may assume p = 0. (4.8. axial load ratio for specimens in the previous subsection as well as other existing data. Also the axial load ratio is irrelevant as long as it is incorporated in the form of Eq.0  /^v * Subhoops. Figure 4. uncracked J)L * Subhoops.0 — SA35 O CA35^CB35 0 5r"03 Fig.3). Splitting crack stress is the average shear stress of Eq. while those that did not form crack are marked white. (4. uncracked I No subhoops. and it is normalized by the splitting crack strength of Eq. (4.5). Plotted in Fig. and TS becomes larger for shorter columns. CB60 O ^ 0.24 are specimens without or with subhoops. cracked 1. It is clear that columns tend to form vertical splitting cracks when r s approaches or exceeds r s u .5 0. cracked 2. observed fact that lateral confining stress is high in the hinge zones but it is low outside the hinge zones including point of contraflexure. (4.24 shows relationship between splitting crack stress vs. 4. Axial load ratio is same as Eq. which correspond to circle or triangle marks in the figure.24. Needless to say that the area Ac in Eq.4 X X _L 0.0 and p = 0 were assumed.
According to the recent knowledge of shear strength in the inelastic range as explained in Sec. which may be referred to as "elastic" shear strength.4) and (4.23 and Eqs. 4. .2.25. Shear Strength of Columns Shear strength of beams and columns of a moment resisting frame plays double roles.2. It is necessary to find out shear strength corresponding to the required inelastic Fig. however crude it is. (4.156 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures It may be concluded that the mechanism of the formation of vertical splitting crack may be explained by the proposed model of Fig. 4.3. shear strength of a member is not a unique constant but is a decreasing function of the inelastic deformation of yield hinge.5). Shape and size of column specimen.6. On the other hand. 4. hinge rotation corresponding to the maximum anticipated deformation must be ensured.e. 4. For this purpose it only suffices to equate the shear force associated with the formation of yield mechanism to the shear strength of the member in the elastic range. one in the preyield (elastic) range and another in the postyield (inelastic) range. For members in which yield hinges are not expected to occur. shear strength at the preyield shear failure. for members in which yield hinges are expected to occur. premature shear failure must be prevented. i.
while the one in the next subsection is related to the inelastic shear strength of beams of high strength RC. W_Jm_L_<m. 4.New RC Structural Elements 157 deformation. and actual yield strength of lateral reinforcement are shown.3. Experimental program of columns involve eight column specimens made of 60 MPa concrete. 4. inelastic deformation corresponding to the inelastic shear strength is ensured to occur to the member.3 lists parameters for eight column specimens._m v J I i . Axial rebars are USD685 12D19 bars with actual yield strength of 757 MPa. while lateral rebars of two different grades.< N •toi—ff dDh=et 40 I 70 J40 ! 40! 70 140 (a) Using D10 lateral bars 4 1—I—I ^ 3S_ (b) Using D6 lateral bars Fig. of 1/6 and 1/3..26.26 shows two sections of column. SD345 and SBPR 785/930 are used. as shown in Fig. As seen in Table 4. Column section is 300 mm square and clear height is 900 mm. both fabricated into closed form by flushbutt welding.^ . By equating the shear force associated with the formation of yield mechanism to this inelastic shear strength. reinforced laterally with D6 or D10 bars.25. with the definition of Eq. The study in this subsection is related to the elastic shear strength of columns of high strength RC. (4. . Table 4. i—i—^ =q . which may be termed as "inelastic" shear strength.3). major testing parameters are axial load ratio. Figure 4. Section of column specimen.
53 1.9 MPa. but those with high lateral reinforcement strength failed in bondsplitting failure .3.19 0.19 (MPa) 402 409 931 1091 402 409 931 1091 (MPa) 2. together with points of flexural and diagonal cracking and maximum load. Figure 4. All columns were tested under constant axial load and incremental reversal of lateral load while keeping the top and bottom stubs of column in the parallel position.158 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 4.87 4. Lines of Pdelta effect and computed strengths.93 12. All specimens first showed flexural cracks at the critical sections.98 1/6 1/3 Pw: lateral reinforcement ratio (%) awy: yield strength of lateral reinforcement (MPa) and amount and yield strength of lateral reinforcement.19 0. Specimen 61 62 63 64 31 32 33 34 Axial Load Ratio Lateral Bar D6 D10 D6 D10 D6 D10 D6 D10 Pv. deformation angle relationship of four columns tested under axial load ratio of 1/3 (more exactly it was 0.53 1. Column specimens for shear strength test.87 4. When the lateral reinforcement strength is low. followed by diagonal cracks in the central portion. Flexural cracks appeared for axial load ratio of 1/6 at 225275 kN. as explained later.27 indicates lateral load (column shear) vs. and for 1/3 at 475500 kN.98 2.13 4. columns failed in a typical shear failure. General appearance of loaddeformation curves of other four specimens under axial load ratio of 1/6 was quite similar to these four columns. Compressive strength of concrete at the testing age was 73. Actual axial load was 1100 kN and 1950 kN for two levels of axial load ratio.93 12. However the failure mode was significantly affected by the lateral reinforcement strength denoted by pw • awy as listed in Table 4. Diagonal cracks appeared for axial load ratio of 1/6 at 350390 kN.5 MPa.53 1.53 1. (%) 0. The increase of cracking loads due to axial load was in good accordance with the analysis based on fundamental theory of strength of materials.13 4. All specimens failed in shear before formation of flexural yield hinges.19 0.30). are also shown. and for 1/3 at 350425 kN.3. and tensile strength was 4. Load at cracking was affected by the axial load ratio.
Deformations at the maximum load and at the failure were slightly larger for higher lateral reinforcement strength. .d e f o r m a t i o n c u r v e s for four c o l u m n s p e c i m e n s failing in s h e a r .4 lists measured and calculated maximum loads.New RC Structural Elements 159 in the flexural compression zones. 4. load L o a d .2 . Table 4. Fig. T : diagonal crack. M: max.27. Axial load ratio did not affect the mode of failure. Looking at measured loads.1 0 1 2 3 deformation angle (%) (b) Specimen 32 4 5 6 1 0 1 2 3 deformation angle (%) (a) Specimen 31 4 5 6 she Note: V : flexural crack. it is clear that axial load ratio has relatively small influence. the maximum load is more significantly influenced by the amount of lateral 1000 800 600 400 2 & 200 a > M u tn o jS 200 400 600 800 2 1000 800 600 400 1^ c5 <8 200 0 200 400 600 800 .
(Continued) reinforcement and its yield strength. . The second specimen with large amount of weak rebars is always stronger than the third specimen with small amount of strong steel. provided with approximately same amount of pw • awy.5. Pw • &Wy. load Pig. deformation angle (%) (d) Specimen 34 Note: V: flexural crack. 4. T: diagonal crack. In terms of lateral reinforcement strength. it is interesting to note that the second and the third specimen in each axial load group. This fact will be investigated in the more general study of Sec. deformation angle (%) (c) Specimen 3 3 1 i . 4.160 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 10001 . showed different maximum load.27. M: max.
which is more complicated than the ultimate strength guidelines (Ref. Flexural strength was obtained by ordinary ultimate strength theory. while flexural.6 507. particularly so for those with low yield strength lateral rebars.5 532.0 704. it can be concluded that Qs estimates the shear strength generally on the safe side without reflecting the effect of axial load.9 919. Bond strength in Table 4.3) was found to be on the safe side for all specimens. and it was much greater than measured strength for all specimens.0 649.3 787.4 are shown by variety of lines. Figure 4. Strength QF (kN) Calculated Shear Strength Qs (kN) 321. and that Q's estimates the shear strength on the unsafe side. When the observed values are compared with calculated lines. though reflecting duly the effect of axial load.3 510.8 926.28 shows relationship between maximum load and lateral reinforcement strength or axial load.0 706. Bond strength QB is shown only on the right hand side.0 665.5 570. Open circles and squares denote observed values.1 816.0 Bond Strength QB (kN) 851. . calculated max. and shear strength Qs is not a function of N. calculated by a theory by Wakabayashi and Minami (Ref.8 898. Shear strength calculated by the ultimate strength guidelines (Ref.3) as it considers effect of axial load also. and positive abscissa shows lateral reinforcement strength pw • awy and negative abscissa indicates axial load N.3 Table 4. 4.4.8 926. shear and bond strengths as listed in Table 4.1 816.3 851.0 321. The ordinate shows maximum load Q. 4.9 919. Measured Specimen 61 62 63 64 31 32 33 34 Max. Calculated bond strength was much higher than observed maximum load.0 744. Comparison of measured vs.4 was calculated by FujiiMorita equation which is the original form of bond strength equation in Sec.4 also lists various calculated values of the column strength. 4.5. Also entered is another shear strength prediction Q's.New RC Structural Elements 161 Table 4.0 649.4).0 Flex. Flexural strength QF is not a function of pw awy. indicating that the observed bondsplitting failure in the flexural compression zone was different from the bondsplitting failure along the axial bars in entire column length.3 510.6 507.5 585. load. Load Q(kN) 465. 4.
of high strength concrete may be evaluated by an equation proposed by CEB. if the effective compressive strength of concrete is appropriately evaluated.28. it appears that greater pw is more advantageous than higher awy.0 15.162 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures I l l 3000 2000 1000 axial load N (kN) I 0 I 5.2.3). WakabayashiMinami theory accounts for the axial load correctly. is not reflected. and axial load effect.0 pw • or wy(MPa) Fig. 4. (2) For the same amount of pw • awy. as explained later. Effective compressive strength for preyield shear strength. (1) Shear strength of columns with 60 MPa concrete increases with pw • awy but not in proportion to it.7. Relationship between max. but overestimates the test results in general. Summarizing the findings from this experiment. beams in a building are mostly designed as . or "elastic" shear strength. one might note as follows.0 l I 10. Shear Strength of Beams In a preliminary investigation of the New RC project it became clear that the shear strength of a beam made of high strength concrete up to 120 MPa can be estimated fairly accurately by the equation in AIJ guidelines (Ref. 4. though small. load Q and lateral reinforcement strength pw • owy or axial load N. On the other hand. (3) Prediction by ultimate strength guidelines is on the safe side. 4.
The equation in AIJ guidelines is provided with two decreasing elements for this purpose. As shown in Fig.29. with the same sectional dimensions. same shear reinforcement. and with the only difference in yield strength and amount of axial reinforcement. 4. specimens have section of 150 mm by 300 mm. same concrete. The study introduced in this subsection was conducted with the aim of establishing a unified expression of effective compressive strength of concrete for elastic as well as inelastic shear strength of beams made of high strength concrete. and appropriate ductility is ensured by considering "inelastic" shear strength which is a decreasing function with respect to the inelastic deformation. consisting of four legs of closed 2400 Reflection measuring point specimen BE1 ^5Dl6 Fig. BE4 with SD 390 steel (actual yield point was 424 MPa). In order to evaluate the effective compressive strength continuously from elastic to inelastic range. and the first specimen BE1 has top and bottom axial rebars of 5D16 SD980 steel (actual yield point was 970 MPa). . and another is the effective compressive strength of concrete. one is the inclination angle of concrete struts in the truss mechanism. four beam specimens were tested under flexural shear. Shear reinforcement of four specimens are identical. with different yield strength. BE3 with SD685 steel (actual yield point was 654 MPa). 4. BE2 is provided with SD980 steel same as above.New RC Structural Elements 163 yielding members. Dimension and reinforcement of beam specimens. Other three specimens have top and bottom axial rebars of 4D16.29.
i. and a yield hinge would form at the left end only. had shear cracks at rotation angle 0.22 percent. 4.5% 1% 1. Concrete with nominal strength of 60 MPa was used for all specimens. 4. shown in Fig. whose actual strength was 69.3 MPa. 4.5% 2% 15 10 5 0 5 deflection (mm) (a) Specimen BE1 rotation angle 0.0.e.30. Deflection of the point of contraflexure was measured relative to the fixed left stub of the specimen. .30 shows loaddeflection curves for four specimens. Specimen BE1 with the largest flexural strength.30(a).5% 1% 1. Figure 4.29. with shear reinforcement ratio of 1. Under this loading the shear span ratio was 2.5% 2% Xl' Kll^'l' 1 5 0 5 deflection (mm) (b) Specimen BE2 Fig.164 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures stirrups of D6 SD295 bars (actual yield point was 337 MPa) spaced at 70 mm. 600 mm from the critical section at the left end of 900 mm clear span. Loaddeflection curves for beam specimens. Beams were loaded in a test rig in such a way that the point of contraflexure came to a point shown in Fig.
4. : j. : \lT£j^Cliit' mffltf^^uL^i f&jhr—_^/ "8E4 T wFriJr4 i 100 i z M « jo ! 20 30 100 u i j .30.1% L 5 % 2 % 300 i i ii i ) i •i i  i i i i Elements 165 4% 30 20 10 0 10 deflection (mm) (c) Specimen BE3 20 30 rotation angle 0.New RC Structural rotation angle 0. axial rebars being in the elastic range.5 percent was exceeded. the load dropped quite abruptly without forming a yield hinge.5% 2% 200  4% J. 1 1 i i i i i i i i i 200 30 20 10 0 10 deflection (mm) (d) Specimen BE4 Fig. the load dropped quite rapidly without forming a yield hinge. owing to smaller stiffness resulting from smaller amount of reinforcement. . then reached the maximum load at the deflection angle of 1 percent which was much lower than the calculated flexural capacity of 387 kN.5% 1% 1. After the deflection angle of 1. 4. and the load at 0.5 percent deflection. barely lower than the calculated flexural capacity of 314 kN. After the first cycle of 2 percent deflection. Specimen BE2 in Fig. was much smaller than BE1.5% .30(b) also had shear cracks at about the same time as BE1. {Continued) the load of about 70 kN.5 percent deflection angle. The load was kept increasing up to 1.
Here the shear strength is expressed by the sum of forces carried by a truss mechanism and an arch (or a strut) mechanism Vu = bjtPwPwy cot <j> + tan 0(1 . Note that the scale on both axes of Figs. BE3 in Fig. and after that load was decreased gradually.30(c) and (d) is different from those of Figs. respectively. Rapid load drop after 4 percent deflection occurred due to bond failure of top axial reinforcement.5 percent deflection and reached the maximum load that exceeded the calculated flexural capacity of 137 kN. and the load was kept going up until 2 percent deflection angle.30(a) and (b). reached the flexural capacity although they also had shear cracks at about the same time as above specimens.7) (4.30(d). The load did not drop up to the deflection angle of 4 percent as shown in Fig. 4. 4.30(c) and (d). The coefficient v is the coefficient for the effective compressive strength of concrete and is expressed as follows. 4. Before yielding.6) (4. 4.3) is shown below.30(c) experienced the axial rebar yielding at 1 percent deflection under the load almost equal to calculated flexural capacity of 212 kN.8) f3 = (1 + cot 2 $)pw<rwyl{vaB) where <JB • compressive strength of concrete awy : yield strength of web reinforcement (to be taken 25<TB if awy exceeds 25a B) b : width of the member jt : distance between top and bottom axial rebars D : total depth of the member L : clear span of the member pw : web reinforcement ratio (pwawy should be taken to be equal to VCB/2 if it exceeds vas/2) 8 : angle of concrete strut in the arch (strut) mechanism (3 : the ratio of compressive stress in the concrete strut of truss mechanism to the effective concrete strength. BE4 with the weakest steel showed yielding at 0. specimens BE3 and BE4 in Figs. 4.(3)bDvaB/2 tan 9 = y/(L/D)2 + 1 L/D (4. The shear strength equation of AIJ Guidelines (Ref. it is a constant equal to .166 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Contrary to above. 4.
31 shows the results of above analysis for two specimens.1 .7 .14) Among the above equations. Eq.25i/0 • (4. (4. Hinge rotation angle Rp was determined from the deformation measurement of hinge zone of 300 mm from the critical section as shown in Fig. 0 . For BE1 in Fig. (4. and potential shear strength was calculated by Eq. BE1 and BE4. (4.9) may not be applicable to high strength concrete. the specimen did not reach the shear strength . 4.31(b).0 cot«£ = j t / ( D t a n 6 0 COt<f) — yv<TB/(Pw<Twy) . (4.9).0 (4.0 .New RC Structural Elements 167 the basic value VQ v = VQ = 0. Figure 4.29. The upper half shows shear forcedeflection envelope curve and calculated shear strength based on measured Rp. As to the basic value of effective strength. 4. and the following equation by CEB was found to be applicable to high strength concrete up to 120 MPa in the various existing studies v0oB = 1. 4.11) is replaced by a function of hinge rotation angle Rp as follows cot</> = 2 .1 5 i ? p ) i / 0 ^ 0. (4. effective concrete strength van from Eq.31(a).9) and after yielding it is a function of hinge rotation angle Rp v = (1. (4. effective concrete strength vaB and truss strut angle cot<^> were evaluated from Eqs.15) was used instead of Eq.10) through (4. and cot <j> is determined as the minimum of the following three equations before yielding cot(£ = 2.6).5 0 i ? p Z 10.<TB/200 (<JB in MPa) (4.15) For the current shear test specimens.10) The angle 0 represents angle of concrete strut in the truss mechanism.12) (413) and after yielding. (4. calculated shear strength is in good agreement with the tested shear strength. and for BE4 in Fig.11) (4.7c7fl/3 (aB in MPa). (4. Eq.14) using measured hinge rotation angle Rp.
4. The lower half of the figures shows measured Rp by full lines with respect to the left ordinate. even at the deflection of 24 mm. Evaluation of hinge ductility. while it goes up to 45 degrees (cot <j> = 1. or 4 percent in deflection angle. It is seen that the angle (j> starts at 26.73) in case of BE1 which failed in shear.31.0) in case of BE4 which formed a yield hinge and deformed up to 4 percent deflection.5 degrees (cot</> = 2.0) and increases to about 30 degrees (cot(/> = 1.168 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures shear strength from measured Rp 6 8 Defkction(mm) (a) Specimen BE1 10  12 14 measured Rp shear strength from measured Rp Deflection(mm) angle < from measured Rp J > (b) Specimen BE4 Fig. and angle 0 determined from this Rp by broken lines with respect to the right ordinate. .
and it behaves more like a flexural member than a bracing member against lateral shear. Strictly speaking. it was confirmed that the shear design of ductile members can be achieved with sufficient accuracy. (3) Shear strength of slender walls. size of structural members may become smaller than ordinary buildings. however.8) and also in Chapter 6 of this book. Throughout this book.6). by the use of effective concrete compressive strength reduction in the AIJ guidelines combined with the basic effective strength as defined by Eq. however. and therefore Rp should be determined accordingly.3. (1) Flexural capacity of shear compression failure type walls. leading to insufficient rigidity against lateral forces. This subject should be further studied in future.6. is preferred. On the contrary. Use of structural walls may be an effective countermeasure in such cases for the addition of rigidity.7 and 4. A multistory structural wall in a moment resisting frame tends to be a slender wall.New RC Structural Elements 169 Prom the tests and analysis of this investigation. Following three subjects are introduced in this section as the representative achievement. Inelastic deformation should theoretically be measured after the formation of a plastic hinge. 4. the use of hinge rotation angle for Rp as the measure of inelastic deformation may be criticized. This choice of wording does not imply negligence of the importance of wall shear strength. Sometimes a word "flexural wall" is needed in order to distinguish this type of wall from a squat wall in lowrise buildings (Ref. In this book.15). or a "structural wall". (4. a simple word "wall". (2) Deformation capacity of walls under bidirectional loading. the word "shear wall" is avoided as much as possible. 4. A series of experimental and analytical studies were conducted in the New RC project into the flexural behavior and shear strength of multistory structural walls. 4. At the same time a multistory structural wall in a moment resisting frame is also effective in equalizing the story drift distribution and in avoiding the formation of single story collapse mechanism. Walls When high strength materials such as those developed in the New RC project are utilized in the building construction. 4. shear strength of a "flexural wall" is a very important design issue as discussed elsewhere (Refs. .
Variables are column axial bars and wall !5cJ20oi Fig.3. Flexural Capacity Type Walls of ShearCompression Failure Structural walls made of high strength reinforced concrete were tested under static reversal of lateral load to produce shearcompression failure in the wall plate nearly simultaneously with flexural yielding. column size 200 mm square.32.1. Four wall specimens will be introduced here. 4. Centertocenter span of 1. with the objective of examining design method for shear strength and flexural deformability.0 m are all common to four specimens. wall thickness 80 mm. 4. They are about a quarter scale single span dumbbell type section walls with the same dimension. .5 m. 1300 2000 I200J150 Detail of wall specimens. shown in Fig. and wall clear height 3.170 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 4.32.
3.33 shows load vs.49) 250 @ 40 (0. 768 MPa. and failed by crushing in the . All specimens had flexural cracks on the tension side column and wall base at the deflection angle of 0.81) 25</> @40 (0. to maintain the shear span ratio of 2. 1258 MPa.34 illustrates specimens after completion of testing. deflection relationship for four specimens.5. and 50. Figure 4. 727 MPa. Specimen NW4 in Fig. Walls were tested under constant axial load and reversal of lateral load. Grade of rebars is also shown in the table. 4.5 percent.7 MPa.49) Spiral Hoop USD1275 (Pw%) Subhoop* USD1275 (Pw%) Wall Vert.33(c) with greater amount of wall reinforcement sustained loading up to 1. Actual rebar yield strength was as follows. Specimen NW5 in Fig. Yielding of column axial bars was observed in all specimens at the deflection between 0. D6.25 percent.0 m above the critical section at the wall base. List of wall specimens.27) 2D6® 150 (0. but actual strength ranged from 56 to 68 MPa.75 percent of deflection.14) 16D10 (2. and on NW4 and NW6 it was slightly lower.e.New RC Structural Elements 171 Table 4. Figure 4. and crisscross network of diagonal cracks as seen in Fig.33(b) started to crush at web wall plate in the positive 1 percent cycle. 4. Hysteresis loops up to this stage were quite similar for four specimens.5.75 and 1 percent.85) 12D13 (3. 740 MPa. Column Specimen Axial Bars USD685 (P9%) 12D10 (2. assuming an S shape with small energy absorption area.53) NW3 NW4 NW5 NW6 'arranged in the lower half (1500 mm) only reinforcement as shown in Table 4.0 with respect to centertocenter wall span of 1500 mm.34 covered the wall under the loading up to 0. D10. i.33(a) started to lose strength in the second cycle of 1 percent. and web wall plate crushed in the third cycle accompanied by breakage of wall horizontal rebars. 4. 4. 1400 kN for the stress of 7. Specimen NW3 shown in Fig. & Horiz. Lateral load was applied at the level of lower surface of top girder.6 MPa. D13. Flexural shear cracks and shear cracks were formed subsequently. Axial load on NW3 and NW5 was 1600 kN to produce average normal stress of 8. USD785 (Ps%) 1D6® 150 (0. and a large central portion of wall crushed in the negative 1 percent cycle accompanied by wall rebar breakage. Concrete with the specified strength of 60 MPa was used.
33. 4.5 rotation angle (%) (a) Specimen NW3 0. .5 0 0.5 rotation angle (%) (b) Specimen NW4 Fig. Loaddeflection curves of walls.172 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 0.5 0 0.
crushing / \ y/j^0^ 2.33.5 0 0.0 0.0 1. 4. ' yielding nf column main bar ! 1 yielding of wall bar ' maximum shear force shear crack t " flexural crack • / web.0 1 1. (Continued) 1.New RC Structural Elements 173 1 : ! .0 0.5 2.0 i Speclaen NW5 1.5 1.0 .5 2.5 0 0.0 4 j 1.5 rotation angle (%) (d) Specimen NW6 Fig.5 rotation angle (%) (c) Specimen NW5 yielding of column main bar force 2.
6). In analyzing the test results. 4. the shear strength equation of walls given in AIJ Guidelines (Ref. It is similar to Eq.(3)tlavaBl2 (416) (4. No rebar breakage was observed.7.17) tan 6 = V(VU 2 + 1 .174 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures central and lower portion of wall without rebar breakage.33(d) was quite similar to NW5 up to 1 percent deflection.2. It is introduced below. 4. but the lower portion of wall crushed abruptly at 1. 4. Specimen NW6 in Fig.h/la . The shear strength is expressed by the sum of shear force carried by a truss mechanism and shear force carried by an arch (or a strut) mechanism as follows Vu = tlbpwawy cot<j> + tan 0(1 .3 percent deflection. (4. the one for beams and columns introduced in Sec. except that confining effect of dumbbell type columns to the wall plate is taken into account.3) was used.
cot cj> for walls is assumed to be cotcj) = 1..40R)v0 v = 0. Eq. la h pw 0 0 (4. The coefficient v is the coefficient for the effective compressive strength of concrete and expressed as follows.0 at all times. It is the sum of centertocenter span of dumbbell columns of a wall lw plus a bonus considering the confining effect of columns A/ a or A/.4i/0 for R ^ 0. and after yielding.02 ^ R.2 . The angle <f> represents angle of concrete strut in the truss mechanism.9) in case of high strength concrete.02 for 0.21) (4.18) '• compressive strength of concrete : yield strength of wall reinforcement (not to exceed 400 MPa) : thickness of web wall plate • effective length of wall assumed in the truss and arch mechanisms and explained later : height of wall to be taken equal to the height of the story being considered : wall reinforcement ratio (pwawy should be taken to be equal to VCTB/2 if it exceeds V<JB /2) : angle of concrete strut in the arch (strut) mechanism : the ratio of compressive stress in the concrete strut of truss mechanism to the effective concrete strength.005 for 0. (4.New RC Structural Elements 175 j8 = (1 + cot 2 <j>)pwaWyl(vaB) where (TB <7wy t lb.15) replaces Eq.19) Similar to the previous case of beams and columns. Effective wall length la and lb are determined as follows.005 ^ R < 0.20) (4. Before yielding. (4.22) .. (4. it is a constant equal to the basic value vQ as given by Eq.9). la = lw + AZ0 lb = lw + Mb A/ 0 = Ace/t Ala = (Dc + ^/AceDc/t)/2 for Ace ^ tDc ) for Ace > tDc (4. (4. and unlike the previous equation for beams and columns. it is a function of deflection angle of wall R as follows v = u0 v = (1.
and the ordinate should be about 1.0. First the shear force .16). and once Ace is not greater than wall thickness times column depth tDc.36 is the result of investigation into deformability of walls. (4. (4. making the effective wall length lb in Eq.0.When Ace is greater than tDc. As seen in Fig. for truss mechanism is taken to be the column depth. six specimens follow this rule in principle.20) longer than the outside length. where both axes are normalized by calculated fiexural strength. (4.21) equal to the outside measurement of a dumbbell wall. and the observed strength should be approximated by the calculated shear strength. In calculating the shear strength from Eq. 0 and cot<f> = 1 . The ordinate was determined as follows.22) makes the effective wall length la in Eq.35. the specimen should fail in shear. and Ace is effective area of a dumbbell column to be determined from Ace = ACNce/crB ^ 3tDc (4. If the abscissa is less than 1.23) In these equations. values of cotcj) = 1 . Figure 4. 4. Ace itself is considered in calculating the bonus wall length A/ a and Alb. 5 were used. (4. Alt.35 shows relationship of observed ultimate load and calculated shear strength for six specimens including two pilot test specimens not described above. (4. it is possible to correlate cumulative deformation to the maximum deflection as shown by vertical chain or broken lines.0. Ala in this case for arch mechanism expressed by Eq. Dc is depth of a dumbbell column. Confining effect of a dumbbell column is thus positively taken into account in the shear strength equation of Eq.24) where Ac : area of a dumbbell column Nce : axial force on a column in the compression side at the deflection associated with the ultimate limit state. and it was found that the latter gave more accurate estimation of shear strength. The above equations imply that the effective column area Ace is reduced from Ac with the increase of axial force. defined as the total of absolute values of deflection up to the point of load drop to 80 percent of maximum. If the abscissa is greater than 1. Figure 4. Since the loading history to all specimens is identical. (4.176 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Alb = Ace/t Alb = Dc for Ace ^ tDc for Ace > tDc. the specimen should fail in flexure. The abscissa is cumulative deformation capacity.16).
larger the cumulative deformation. (4.5 JiW2 Nf1 * "53 ^ 1.15) was obtained.5 0 0.0 shear strength(cal) / flexural atrength(cal) Fig.36 shows the effective concrete strength determined from Eq. A clear relationship is seen. (3) Cumulative deformation capacity of walls increases as the effective concrete strength necessary for flexural shear decreases. that smaller the effective strength. (4. This implies that a similar approach as the Guidelines (Ref. The broken line in Fig. (1) All specimens finally failed more or less in a brittle manner either by web wall crushing or wall bar breakage. Conclusions from this investigation may be summarized as follows.35.5 1. but dumpbell columns were stable and were able to carry axial load even after the failure. 4. and plotted against the cumulative deformation experienced by each specimen. Measured and calculated strength of walls.3) is possible for the deformation capacity procurement.5 2. (2) Shear strength can be evaluated by AIJ guidelines with a slight modification.0 f S 1. .5 n cot ^ =1.0& 0. associated with the calculated flexural capacity was determined. 4.19). Finally the ratio of effective concrete strength thus determined to the one from Eq. Then effective concrete strength necessary to produce calculated shear strength equal to the above flexural shear was found.0 1. 4.New RC Structural Elements 177 2.
5 cot^»l. Deformation Bidirectional Capacity of Walls Loading under A multistory wall in a space moment resisting frame may yield under the inplane lateral load. and wall .0H : 1st and 2nd cycles (3)&<4) 1.0 i (l) : (2) j ! (3) • (4) ' (5) i (6) 1. and it may also be subjected to reversal of outofplane lateral load. An elaborate experimental program was implemented in the New RC project to test structural walls under bidirectional loading. the column must behave as an independent column under high compression. 4.3 0.5 0. ! N 6 W i. They were about a quarter scale dumbbell type walls. i j i NW2 NWJ3 0. i •'• : '•j. taken from a lower portion of multistory wall.0S : lat and 2nd cycles Fig. possibly leading to failure at relatively small deformation.36.0 i " • • • .2.2 •U!"H i ®NI1 i 0. 5 i i i •! I i 1.3. Centertocenter span of 1. Four specimens were tested. imposing high level of axial compression on that column.. 4.5 m.) note: (1)&(2) 1.4 0. Thus it is possible that the deformation capacity of a wall would be smaller under bidirectional loading.1 0.178 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 2.37.. Under the action of outofplane loading. wall thickness 80 mm. 4.5 i i j j i i 0.6 cumulative deformation capacity(rad. Flexural yielding causes the wall to stand on one column in the compression side only. as shown in Fig. column size 200 mm square. Effective concrete strength coefficient and cumulative deformation capacity.5% : 1st and 2nd cycles (5)&(6) 2.
80 percent. and wall reinforcement ratio was 0. 4. a n d D6 rebars for wall reinforcement a n d column lateral reinforcement with yield strength of 826 M P a .0 m are all common to four specimens.14 percent. were used throughout. Concrete with specified strength of 60 M P a . Detail of wall specimens. clear height 2. Gross column reinforcement ratio was 2. D10 rebars for column axial reinforcement with yield strength of 865 M P a .37.New RC Structural Elements 179 MWTypc PType Fig. .
Inplane loading was similar to M35X. Other three specimens with the letter H are subjected to bidirectional loading as shown schematically in Fig.75 m high to the top surface of top loading girder. making the web reinforcement ratio to a doubled value. which was kept constant during the testing using four vertical actuators. with somewhat greater deformation capacity.6 lists variables for four specimens.0. The behavior of M35X was quite similar to NW3 in the previous section. The average normal stress on the gross wall and column area was 9. additional moment was produced by a pair of vertical actuators simultaneously with the loading from horizontal actuators. amount of axial load on each specimen is shown in Table 4.8 to 10.30 bidirectional 1500 Table 4. As the actual concrete strength fluctuated between 62.180 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 4.35 Column Spiral Column Subhoop Axial Load Ratio N 2A0aB Axial Load N kN 1800 1960 1900 Loading Path inplane — 2D6® 60 0. Specimen M35X M35H P35H M30H D6@ 60 2D6® 60 0.0 m. List of walls under bidirectional loading. The next two digits in the specimen mark refer to the axial load level. Outofplane loading was made so that the wall (actually two side columns) would be in an antisymmetric bending. Since the wall is 2. but those with mark M had additional subhoops of 2D6 at 60 mm in two directions. 4.6.0 MPa.6 and 70. P is a specimen without subhoops.6. Peripheral spiral of D6 at 60 mm is common to four specimens whose web reinforcement ratio was 0. The first letter M or P denotes difference in the column lateral reinforcement. This is quite understandable . or shear span ratio with respect to centertocenter span of 2. it was either 35 or 30 percent of concrete strength.2 MPa for the last specimen. In terms of axial stress with respect to column area. The load was applied in such a way that the shear span (critical moment divided by shear force) would be 3. M35X was subjected to reversal of inplane horizontal loading.38. The last letter X or H in the specimen mark corresponds to the type of loading.7 MPa for the first three specimens and 8.53 percent. For this purpose another pair of vertical actuators were activated to apply top moment simultaneously with horizontal loading.
4. Fig.1 t "© ®<D ©1 ©® Kx(S). 5 . 4.New RC Structural Elements 181 ©© ®<D 2.39. Loaddeflection curves of walls under bidirectional loading. Bidirectional loading path. starting of yielding of •column main bar M3 6H t 5 6 z (mm) (b) Outofplane loading of M35H Fig.38.
after sustaining 1 cycle of 1. by the shear compression failure . 4. After sustaining 2 cycles at 1. M35H and P35H..0 1200 800 400  1 •1.0 calculated Qmu starting of yielding column main bar f. with the only difference being the increased wall rebars in M35X.39.0 150 100 i i i yielding of all L column main. bars ••••j i « P3 6H i 3* 1« It • tl H JO 41 ixbtun) (c) Inplane loading of P35H •1.182 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures •2.5 percent deflection. (Continued) when one sees that the cross section. shear compression failure of web wall plate took place at 1..0 1 —t « **M 1 2. M35H failed.0 TT" T Ry<*) 2. leading to a sudden loss of lateral resistance. subjected to the bidirectional loading of Fig.8 percent deflection. I stf2£~ (\ \ failure S •400 800 1200 41 2.0 • starting'ofyieWiitgof column main bar . 4.39 shows loaddeflection relationship of two specimens.failure 8 50 100 150 _l_ 5 yielding of all olumn main bars P3B+» _L II IS (0 S I v II IS 20 6x(mm) (d) Outofplane loading of P35H Fig.5 percent deflection.0 0 1. column reinforcement and level of axial load are similar. Figure 4.38.0 j 1.
New RC Structural Elements
183
of web wall plate at second 1.5 percent deflection. P35H had fewer column
confining rebars, and failed in the first 1.5 percent deflection cycle, also by the shear compression failure of wall. M30H with lower axial struss was similar to M35H, except that it failed in a similar way after sustaining 2 cycles of 1.5 percent deflection. The loaddeflection relationship of four specimens was quite stable in general before the onset of the failure. As shown in Fig. 4.39, load at the peak inplane deflection dropped due to the effect of outofplane load reversal. Similar load drop in the outofplane direction is not observed, as the inplane loading was applied when the outofplane deflection was zero, and only a Vnotch was formed near the ordinate of the outofplane hysteresis. Except for this kind of load drop, effect of bidirectional loading was not conspicuous in Fig. 4.39. The bidirectional effect was more clearly seen in the axial strain measurement. Figure 4.40 is a plot of axial strain of a column and nearby wall at the conclusion of outofplane loading cycles. For all specimens, compressive strain of column increases as the horizontal drift of the wall increases, and furthermore in case of specimens under bidirectional loading, the column strain increases in the second outofplane cycle. On the contrary the wall compressive strain does not increase rapidly while the horizontal drift remains within 1 percent deflection. It is inferred that the sudden wall strain increase at 1.5 percent of M35H and P35H was caused by the high compressive strain of columns at the previous 1 percent deflection. Damage of columns due to outofplane loading should have caused the transfer of axial load to the wall plate, thus accelerated the shear compression failure. To conclude this section, major findings from this experiment were as follows: (1) Deformation capacity of walls under bidirectional loading was smaller than those under unidirectional loading. (2) Deformation capacity loss was more remarkable for higher axial stress or poorer column confinement. (3) Deformation capacity loss of wall should be the consequence of the progress of column axial strain.
4.3.3.
Shear Strength
of Slender
Walls
The experimental study introduced in this section deals with the ultimate shear strength of structural walls made of high strength materials under static
184
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete 1.50 1.25 * •  * MW5H 1 '"&•• A M30H [
Structures
,
l
o— a P S i 3H
/
0.5 1.0 1.5 deflection angle (%) (a) Column compressive strain 1.50 it—fr A—A D—d 1.00J «•••'•'••<• O—6
1.25
2.0
f
1

3 °75
WR5H I U30H T P35B \ M35H ""]' M35X I
0.50 0.25
0
0.6 1.0 1.5 deflection angle (%) (b) Wall compressive strain
2.0
Fig. 4.40. Column and wall compressive strain at various wall drift.
reversal of horizontal load. Emphasis was placed on the study to investigate the applicability of shear strength equation of AIJ Guidelines (Ref. 4.3). In particular, the coefficient for the effective compressive strength of concrete, the angle of concrete strut in the struss mechanism, upper and lower limits of reinforcement were the major points of interest.
Eight specimens were tested. They were all dumbbell type section walls,
designed to fail in shear prior to flexural yielding. The wall shape was very similar to Fig. 4.37. Columns on both sides of wall were 200 mm square, 1.5 m
New RC Structural Elements
185
Table 4.7. Parameters of wall specimens for shear.
Specimen No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 60 72.9 77.6 100 60 Nominal Concrete Strength (MPa) Actual Concrete Strength (MPa) 66.4 72.2 73.2 105.5 78.2 75.6 2000 1.33 SD785 3000 2.00 SD1275 2U6.4® 122 2D6® 80 2D6® 55 0.62 1.00 1.45 2000 1.33 SD785 2D6® 150 0.53 Wall Height (mm) Shear Span Ratio Wall Rebars Wall Rebar Ratio 1% 0.20 0.35
Arrangement
2D6® 400 2D6® 230
centertocenter span, and the wall thickness was 80 mm. Wall height was 2.0 m from the foundation surface to the soffit of loading beam, where the horizontal load was centered to make the shear span ratio of 1.33, except for one specimen, No. 5, whose height was 3.0 m to make the shear span ratio of 2.0. Nominal concrete strength was 60 MPa except for one specimen, No. 4, which was made of 100 MPa concrete, but actual compressive strength varied as shown in Table 4.7. Each of dumbbell columns was heavily reinforced with 16D13 bars of SD785 grade, whose yield strength was 1029 MPa. Columns also had large amount of confining rebars, made of D6 spirals of SD1275 grade at 50 mm on centers and the equal amount of subhoops. The amount of wall rebars was a major variable as shown in Table 4.7. SD785 D6 bars had yield point of 808 MPa, and SD1275 U6.4 bars used for the specimen No. 6 had yield point of 1448 MPa. Specimens were loaded vertically on top of each column with a constant axial load of 800 kN or 1330 kN, corresponding to one third the nominal concrete strength in terms of column compressive stress (not considering wall area), and horizontally under cyclic reversal with increasing amplitude. The process of failure was almost common to all specimens. Figure 4.41 shows envelopes of loaddeflect ion curves for all specimens. Shear cracks appeared on wall panels at deflection angle of 0.07 to 0.11 percent, and fiexural cracks appeared on tension side columns at 0.06 to 0.14 percent. Shear
186
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete
Structures
(ForNo.5) (For others)2.0
1.0 1.5
0.5 1.0
Rotation Angle (%) 0 0.5 0.5 0 0.5 1.0 r
1.0 1.5
2.0
Fig. 4.41. Envelopes of loaddeflection curves.
cracks extended, and their number increased, up to the deflection angle of 0.5 percent, to cover almost entire area of wall panels. By this time, cracks were seen between compression strut of wall and side column, and wall rebars yielded in case of specimens with wall rebar ratio not greater than 0.53 percent, i.e. specimens Nos. 15. At 0.75 percent deflection cycle compression strut of all specimens with shear span ratio of 1.33 failed by crushing, accompanied by a sudden loss of lateral load. Axial reinforcement of columns never yielded, as the measured strain in tension side columns was about 40 percent of yield strain. Specimen No. 5 with shear span ratio of 2.0 followed the similar process up to the deflection angle of 0.5 percent. Large shear cracks along diagonals of the panel formed at 0.75 percent cycle. After that, cracking between compression strut and side column extended, and compression struts crushed at the peak of 1.0 percent cycle. Column bar strain in tension at the maximum load was about 60 percent of yield strain. Figure 4.42 shows sketch of typical specimens after completion of the testing. Hysteresis of load vs. deflection relationship before shear compression failure was Sshaped, very much like those in Figs. 4.33 or 4.39, with even smaller hysteretic area.
New RC Structural
Elements
187
(a) Specimen No. 3
(b) Specimen No. 5
Fig. 4.42. Final crack pattern of typical wall specimens.
iHW1
0.5
1.0 l.S calc. Vu/calc. Vf
tO
"0
0.S
1.0 . 1.5 calc. Vii / calc. Vf
2.0
(a) Assuming cot* =1.0
(b) Assuming cot 4 =1.5 >
Fig. 4.43. Measured vs. calculated wall strength {Vu: shear strength, Vf. flexural strength).
Measured maximum load is now compared with calculated flexural and shear strengths. Flexural strength was calculated by an approximate equation as shown below. Vf = Mu=Ag Mu/hw (4.25)
188
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures
where : flexural strength in shear : flexural strength in moment fiyj : wall height (shear span) : centertocenter span of columns fw A A : gross sectional area of column and wall axial bars y ? ^tvy : yield stress of column and wall axial bars N : total axial load on the wall. Shear strength was calculated using Eq. (4.16), using Eq. (4.15) instead of Eq. (4.9) for effective compressive strength of concrete. It was confirmed in this test series also that the use of Eq. (4.15) improves the shear strength evaluation over the use of Eq. (4.9). Another point of concern for the shear strength calculation was the value of cot<f> to be used in Eq. (4.16). As it was discussed in Sec. 4.3.1, use of cot<j) = 1.0 did not lead to a satisfactory agreement compared to the use of cot</> = 1.5. For the current test series, it was found that cot <j) should assume a higher value, say cot <j> = 2.0, for specimens with small wall reinforcement ratio such as Nos. 12, and cot<j> = 1 . 0 gave a good agreement to specimens with large wall reinforcement ratio such as Nos. 7 and 8. Figure 4.43 shows comparison of measured VmEtx/calc. Vj vs. calc. V u /calc. Vf for two cases of cot<£ = 1.0 and cot</> — 1.5. It also shows plots for specimens in Sec. 4.3.1 failing in flexural shear. Use of c o t 0 = 1.5 in Fig. 4.43(b) may be preferred for the overall accuracy, but for practical purposes use of cot</> = 1.0 in Fig. 4.43(a) will be justified for the safe side estimation of shear strength. It will be noted in Fig. 4.43(a) that the shear strength of specimens Nos. 6 and 8 was underestimated even by the use of cot cj> — 1.0. Horizontal wall bars (shear reinforcement) of those specimens, as well as those of specimen No. 7, did not yield, and the assumption of wall bar yielding in Eq. (4.16) was not applicable. This gives implications as to the upper limit of wall reinforcement. As stated in Sec 4.3.1, pwawy in Eq. (4.16) is to be limited to the value of UCTB/2. However, specimen Nos. 68 did not show wall bar yielding nevertheless the value of pwawy (8.1 to 11.7 MPa) did not exceed vaB/2 (14.9 to 15.5 MPa). Nevertheless, shear strength of two of these specimens were underestimated. A more stringent upper limit than I/CTB/2 will be necessary in practice. To summarize the investigation reported in this section, followings may be stated. Vf
Mu
New RC Structural Elements
189
(1) Restoring force characteristics of walls of high strength material shows S shaped hysteresis with small energy absorption, and specimens with shear span ratio of 1.33 failed in shear compression failure of struts at 0.75 percent deflection angle, while the one with shear span ratio of 2.0 failed in the same manner at 1.0 percent deflection. (2) Wall horizontal bars yielded in case of specimens with wall reinforcement ratio not greater than 0.53 percent, while those with greater reinforcement ratio did not show yielding. (3) The shear strength equation proposed in AIJ Guidelines was found to be satisfactorily accurate with the use of Eq. (4.15) for effective compressive strength of concrete and value of cot cf> greater than 1.0 (say 1.5). However for practical purposes use of cot<^> = 1 . 0 gives a safer estimate. (4) When the amount of wall reinforcement is very high either by the use of very high strength steel or by providing heavy amount, its effectiveness is reduced, and a more stringent upper bound than AIJ guidelines will be necessary. 4.4. B e a m  C o l u m n Joints
A beamcolumn joint refers to the portion of a column within the intersection of connected beams. This is a relatively new area to receive attention of researchers and engineers working on the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete structures. Basically there are two aspects of its behavior that give influence to the overall behavior of a frame. First is its deformation in the elastic range. As long as we visualize beams and columns of a frame as linear flexural elements based on the BernoulliEuler hypothesis (plane section remains plane), end portions of an element lying within the beamcolumn joint do not deform, because the second moment of section of those end portions is infinitely large. However if we idealize beams and columns with end rigid zones corresponding to beamcolumn joints and assume only the clear span portion is deformable, we will definitely end up with an overestimation of frame stiffness. Beamcolumn joints are subjected to extensive shear stress and deform, even in the elastic range, considerably to render the frame more flexible. There are three methods available to take the effect of beamcolumn joint deformation into account. The first method is to shorten the rigid zones and
190
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures
to make the deformable portion longer than the clear span. The effect of joint deformation is then indirectly taken into consideration. This method is a standard method of analysis in the AIJ Calculation Standard (Ref. 4.9), and is so prevalent in Japan that the word rigid zone usually refers to this method of analysis. With the use of this method, however, the ends of rigid zones do not coincide with the critical sections which are usually located at the surface of intersecting members. This leads to some difficulties at the analysis in the inelastic range. The second method to consider beamcolumn joint deformation is not to shorten the rigid zones but to reduce the second moment of section of deformable portion in the clear span. A formula for such effective second moment of section is available in the AIJ Guidelines (Ref. 4.3). This is also to consider the effect of joint deformation implicitly. The third method is to consider the joint shear deformation explicitly in the frame analysis. This is the most perfect method from theoretical point of view, and it is possible to accommodate inelastic joint deformation as well. Needless to say it requires more sophisticated theory of structural analysis and corresponding software for computers. The second aspect of beamcolumn joint behavior that influences the overall frame behavior is its inelastic deformation which may possibly lead to premature joint failure. Particularly with the use of high strength materials and with the inherent reduction of member size, beamcolumn joints of New RC frames are apt to be subjected to higher shear stress. Bond stress of rebars passing through a joint, or being anchored in a joint, will also increase by the increased tensile strength of rebars. High shear stress or bond stress may lead to shear or bond failure, and even if they do not, they will definitely lead to large shear strain in the joint or increased slip deformation due to pull out of rebars, thus ultimately to reduced overall stiffness and increased earthquake response deformation. It is this second aspect of beamcolumn joint behavior that was studied in this section. Following four subjects are discussed, with, the aim of establishing ways to evaluate shear strength and stiffness of joints, to prevent bond and anchorage failure, and to estimate bar ship deformation. (1) Bond in the interior joints. (2) Shear capacity of 3D joints under bidirectional loading. (3) Shear capacity of exterior joints. (4) Concrete strength difference between first story column and foundation.
New RC Structural
Elements
191
4.4.1.
Bond in the Interior BeamColumn
Joints
Under the action of horizontal load, a reinforced concrete frame is expected to form a beam yielding mechanism, where yield hinges form on both sides of a beamcolumn joint. To develop full yield strength as well as deformability, beam bars passing through the joint have to be well anchored by means of bond stress within the joint. When the bond strength is not sufficient, bars would start slipping leading to reduced strength and increased deformation, thus to impaired energy absorption. The AIJ Guidelines (Ref. 4.3) provides a design method to preserve good bond by limiting bond stress to a certain level. However, its application to beamcolumn joints with high strength materials has not been justified experimentally. The study reported herein aims at investigation into bond deterioration and related behaviors of beam bars passing through the joint after beam yielding. Specimens are cruciform beam column subassemblages of about one third scale as shown in Fig. 4.44. Story height measured between points of contraflexure of upper and lower columns is 1470 mm, and beam span measured between midspans of adjacent beams is 2700 mm. Column section is 300 mm square, and beam section is 200 mm by 300 mm. Table 4.8 lists bar arrangement of members. As it will be noted in the table, these specimens use
Fig. 4.44. Beamcolumn joint specimen (MKJ1).
4 Concrete Strength aB (MPa) Joint Shear Stress at Beam Yielding Tjy (MPa) Beam Bar Bond Index \x 8.to column depth Dc and ratio of beam bar yield strength ay to square root of concrete strength erg. Material used for beam bars is SD685 steel with yield point ranging from 757 MPa to 786 MPa. Concrete strength is shown in Table 4.0 100. Major parameters for four specimens are concrete strength and joint shear .192 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 4.54% 86. This relationship can be easily obtained when the bond stress 17 is calculated assuming that the beam bar stress difference at both column surfaces is equal to twice the yield stress.33% MKJ4 3D22 2D22 2D6® 50 Pw = 0.8.54 relatively large size beam bars.43% MXJ1 2D19 2D19 MKJ2 3D19 3D19 MKJ3 2D22 2D19 2D6® 50 Pw = 0.8.63% 12D19 2D6® 40 Pw = 0. An index for beam bar bond /x is defined by M = 2T//V5I = (db/Dc)(ay/^).0 or less for good bond. (4.26) Thus fi is twice the bond stress at beam yielding r / divided by square root of concrete strength ag. Interior joint specimens.27% 2D6® 60 Pw = 0.36% 12D10 2D6® 80 Pw = 0. Beam bar diameter is directly related to bond behavior as follows.2 12.53% 12D16 2D6® 50 Pw = 0.8.37 5.46% 12D13 2D6® 65 Pw = 0.4 5. and is expressed as the above equation by the product of ratio of bar diameterrf..5 13. Specimen top bars bottom bars Beam stirrups axial bars 2D6® 90 Pw = 0. which means that these specimens would exhibit poor bond behavior after beam yielding.4 9. The value of beam bar bond index /i recommended by AIJ Guidelines is 4. Columns are sufficiently reinforced to prevent premature yielding. but the /x value calculated for specimens MKJ1 to MKJ4 is more than 5 as shown in the bottom line of Table 4.53% Column Joint hoops hoops 4D6 x 3 sets @ 50 Pw = 0.
which was kept constant during the test. Figure 4. 4. which was cyclically reversed at the story drift angle of 0.New RC Structural Elements 193 stress at beam yielding as shown in Table 4. All specimens showed beam yielding in the 2 percent cycle. Beamcolumn joint had extensive diagonal cracking. and so it was larger for MKJ4. but it was most pronounced in the case of specimen MKJ1.8. with relatively small energy absorption. and partially spalled. Joint shear stress at beam yielding is either about 10 percent or 15 percent of concrete strength. . story drift relationship. Specimens were loaded first by the column axial load with axial stress of about 10 percent the concrete strength. and reached the maximum load in the subsequent 3 percent cycle. and then loaded at beam ends antisymmetrically to simulate lateral loading. The hysteresis loop of four specimens was similarly S shaped. The maximum load was dictated by beam yielding.45 shows story shear vs. Story shear vs. This is an indication of the failure mode usually referred to as "joint failure after beam yielding".45. 3 and 4 percent. 2. story drift relationship of MKJ1 overlapped with the skeleton curves of the other three specimens. SO 40 >» 0 70 40 60 story drift (mm) Fig.5. which is low enough for us to anticipate no joint shear failure prior to beam yielding. 1. towards the end of testing. Concrete cover at beam ends crushed. and the percentage of joint deformation in the story drift gradually increased up to about 20 percent at the maximum load. twice each.
2. (4. As shown in Table 4.8. The AIJ Guidelines postulates that heq of 10 percent at 2 percent drift constitutes the limit of bond deterioration. 4. To investigate the effect of beam bar bond deterioration on the hysteresis characteristics.e q 1 AA 2TT E A e 1 AA 2TT P m a x • S„ (4. and drift angle Fig.46 shows equivalent viscous damping factor heq in each cycle for four specimens.0 experimentally. For all specimens bond slip of beam bars was clearly observed. leading to an added beam deformation.5% 3 ^_. and on that basis recommends bond index // of Eq. £A e is sum of elastic potential energy to the positive maximum and to the negative maximum. 8 l_J0 4% 2% 3% cycle No.27) where AA is the energy absorption in one cycle. area of a hysteretic loop. more than 50 percent even at the end of loading for all specimens. Equivalent viscous damping factor.194 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures LJ 2 0.4 LJ> 1% I_.26) less than 4.e. Equivalent viscous damping factor heq is denned as follows. the current . to be calculated as half the product of maximum load P ma x and the deformation 5maK associated with the P m a x . They are all in good agreement with theoretical prediction. Fig. 3 and 1 in that order. h.This heq is an indication of energy absorbing capacity in the inelastic reversed loading cycle. the percentage of beam deformation including the effect of bond slip was dominating.46. i. 4. Although the percentage of joint deformation in the story drift increased as stated before.
all specimens showed /ieq less than 10 percent at 2 percent cycle. or in other words. Db is beam depth. poor bond behavior in terms of energy absorption. and hence bond deterioration was anticipated from the beginning.0.4 Fig. The ordinate of Fig.5.8 bond index i 6. <ry is yield stress of beam bars. (4. due to its early stage of development. At the same time. the shear failure due to diagonal compression of concrete.47 is plotting of bond index n and the inverse of joint failure index J .5. 4.28) where be is effective width of beamcolumn joint taken as the average width of beam and column.47 roughly corresponds to the inverse of J so it is denoted as J . 1 < S 3.1 . at is tensile bar area of beam.2 4.47. which.9). is defined differently from the next subsection as follows r _i J~1 = beDbvaB ^at(Ty (4.New RC Structural Elements 195 specimens had bond index fi greater than 5. 4. VOB is effective concrete strength for shear in Eq.1 of the current specimens as well as many existing test results. The joint failure index J will be explained in more detail in the next subsection and also in Sec. Figure 4.46 shows that except for the first cycle of MKJ1. however. 4. Figure 4. it has to be mentioned that bond failure is not a brittle failure as. . Discrimination of failure mode. and the hysteresis is more stable than.
4.8. none of them failed by premature joint shear failure.0 would probably lead to beam yielding. But all of them had progressive joint failure after beam yielding.0 would result in premature joint shear failure. we may state the following.1 greater than 1. the compressive stress concentration to concrete strut in the joint due to bond deterioration. Because of relatively high value of J"1.47.0 showed poor bond behavior in terms of hysteresis shape and energy absorbing capacity. Looking at Fig. and secondly.8 showed joint failure in the later stage.2. (3) The joint failure index J should take into account the effect of bond index /x.5 or 2. (2) Although joint shear stress level was low to enable beam yielding prior to joint failure. lie at abscissa of about 5. This may be attributed to. while J .1 is an indication of concrete strength relative to the joint shear stress at beam yielding. The research project reported herein consists of testing of such realistic beamcolumn . Also. shear deterioration of joint was progressed after beam yielding.47.0. It was expected that J~l less than 1. Equivalent viscous damping factor at 2 percent drift cycle was less than 10 percent. there are large number of specimens failing in BJ mode (joint failure after beam yielding) above the limiting line. Shear Capacity of 3D Joints Bidirectional Loading under A beamcolumn joint of a moment resisting space frame receives beams coming from three or four directions to be connected to the column. This leads us to a modification in the definition of J index as explained in the next subsection. however. plotted by double circles in Fig. In conclusion. in order to be more effective in predicting the mode of failure of a beamcolumn joint. and in particular.0 and at ordinate above 1. J .196 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures and I! is for the sum of left and right beams of a joint. but it goes up gradually as bond index fi increases. (1) Beam column joint with bond index [h greater than 4. first. it is clear that the limit for joint shear failure is not J . 4. in the area where there were almost no previous specimens. the lowered coefficient v for effective compressive strength of high strength concrete. even MKJ1 and MKJ3 with J1 value as high as 2.1 = 1. The four specimens. 4. due possibly to beam bar bond deterioration and high strength of concrete. 4.
one each of about one third scale. a. a is also taken to be 1. but is doubled for very poor bond.32) This equation is a direct reflection of the trend in Fig.29) is a coefficient to consider the effect of joint bond index p.26). (4.. .2 is another coefficient to consider effect of lateral confinement to the joint expressed as follows a 2 = 1 + 0.30) a. the sum of yield force of beam tensile bars. was greatly improved to take many related factors into account.2 < /j. (4.47. It is now defined as follows beDbaia2V(TB where T.28).0.1(<7j.2)/3.2 for 3.New RC Structural Elements 197 joints subjected to bidirectional (northsouth and eastwest) lateral loading. briefly introduced in the preceding section. . Specimens were designed so that the joint shear failure would occur simultaneously with beam yielding. (4.\ is a coefficient to consider the reduction of effective strength VOB when high strength steel is used. effective concrete beamcolumn joint width. and ay and OB are steel yield point and concrete strength. (4..4 for /u > 6. beam depth. respectively. to be expressed as follows a =0 a = (fj. Both interior and exterior joints. 4. The joint failure index J. Finally a in Eq.350)/350 . (4. effective concrete strength for shear in Eq. (4. The value of J index is same as in Eq. was tested. and if the joint has perpendicular beams on both sides. (4.2 a = 1 for p < 3.3.atay is same as in Eq.6lpway/(TB (4.0 for exterior beamcolumn joint. D.28). be. expressed as follows c*i = 1 . (4.31) where pw is lateral reinforcement ratio of the joint in the section parallel to the loading direction. respectively. as defined by Eq.4.9). axial bars in these beams can be added to the joint hoops in calculating pw. Emphasis was placed whether the joint failure index J developed for planar frame beamcolumn joint is applicable to 3D joints. and VOB are same as in Eq.28) for good bond (except for a\ and 02). < 6.
0 would correspond to premature joint shear failure. Figure 4. reinforced with D6 bars at 150 mm on centers in two directions. and J value greater than 1.198 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 4 1200 g $ I 1200 2700 1Z W 2 note: exterior joint specimen (J13) lacks the hatched portion (b) Plan view Fig. The exterior beamcolumn joint specimen J13 is similar to J12. 4.0 would correspond to beam yielding prior to joint shear failure. Column is 300 mm square and beams are 240 mm by 320 mm. Figure 4.0. The value of J index less than 1. The 3D beamcolumn joint specimens in this subsection were designed aiming at J equals 1.49 shows cross section of column and beams. and floor slab is 60 mm thick.48.48 shows side and plan views of interior beamcolumn joint specimen J12. Interior beamcolumn joint specimen (J12). except it lacks the .
4.«o /I. 4 9  *<» I I l\ 40 40 40 40 4Q 40 J*L I I I I I • • • » . 30016 • n—«r \ i 4 3D6«» a (a) column section 240 *o. lateral reinforcement (USD780).(•)• < 10D13 10D13 /2D6»J0 160 320 2D6®50 4 r . EW beam bars of specimen J13 are Ushape anchored in the beamcolumn joint. 4.5 MPa for both specimens. and the bars in parentheses of Figs.New RC Structural Elements 199 30 Ml 40 40 40 J2L 30 3Q 30 60 40 40 100 40 60 30 n—i ii r f— 7^ w i—n .49(b) and (c).49. 4. and slab bars (SD345).48(b). 993 MPa. 816 MPa and 345 MPa. Concrete strength is 61...^ M o . Nominal joint shear stress at beam yielding considering .i D13 10D13 160 320 » » » * (b) EW beam section (c) NS beam section note • exterior joint specimen (J13) lacks bars in parentheses Fig. respectively. and yield points of beams bars (USD685).f?...... hatched portion of Fig. Member sections of interior joint specimen (J12). I 4 o. column bars (USD980). are 725 MPa.
Fig. in the range between 150 kN and 1620 kN. and it was varied in proportion to the column shear force in the EW direction in such a way that N — AP + 810 (kN) where N is axial load and P is column shear force.1 0 1 2 3 . as shown in the previous Fig. the load was always first applied and unloaded in this direction.50. and story drift was controlled in a fourleaved clover shape as shown in Fig. respectively. Figure 4. 4.50(a). Otherwise the trend in 1 ^ 4 @® " (5)(6) "1 1 1 r * T3 (z>®  6 43 T3 >> O 2 l .200 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures slab bar contribution to the beam strength is 35 percent and 22 percent of concrete strength for J12 and J13. where the load was always first applied and unloaded in this direction. Bidirectional horizontal loads were applied indirectly as vertical loads at beam end.51(a) shows NS direction of J12. . where.1 a •rH •l± J" ) ffl 0 . Large drops after each peak of load deflection curves correspond to loading in the EW direction. followed by loading and unloading in the EW direction.51 shows two examples of load deflection curves.3 . The interior joint specimen J12 was first loaded by a constant column axial load of 1620 kN to produce compressive stress of 30 percent the concrete strength. the load is much lower than J12.4 .3 . Numbers in circle indicate cycle numbers. Similarly.2 . Story drift history of beamcolumn joint specimens.4 .51(b) shows EW direction of J13. Because there is only one beam in this direction. thus each pair of two leaves was repeated twice before going into the next pair of other two leaves. 4. 4.2 .—i \ 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 o si z 5 ^ 1 1 _ W 4 _l I I I I I I !_ 33 . where beam end deflections at both ends were kept the same at all times.50.1 0 1 2 3 4 5 NS direction story drift (%) NS direction story drift (%) (b) Exterior joint J13 (a) Interior joint J12 Fig. 4. Figure 4. The exterior joint specimen J13 was loaded by 810 kN axial load. and a steep valleys near the vertical axis correspond to unloading in the EW direction.©(D T ®@ >> m ®@ • u o I UX2> ~ _ 0 .4 5 .
4.New RC Structural Elements 201 200 £ 3 A 0) IB ! 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 S O NS story drift (mm) (a) J12. E W direction Fig. NS direction 80 60 40 20 0 20 40 60 80 EW story drift (mm) (b) J13. . Story shear vs. story drift relations.51.
1 I. Theses figures are much higher than those usually observed in planar beamcolumn joint specimens. Beam bars in the first layer of tension side of J12 yielded either in the 2 percent or 3 percent drift cycle. Yielding of column bars was never observed. J •. hysteresis loops are fatter than those under unidirectional loading. and this low value of J3%. Figure 4. J13 was an interior joint in the NS direction. quite similar to NS direction. I I •.37CTB for NS direction of J12. Beam bars in the first as well as the second layer of J13 yielded mostly in the 2 percent drift cycle.1 1. Corners of beamcolumn joint had extensive crushing and spalling. after reaching its maximum in that direction. An interesting point is that the shear stress in one direction decreases.51 and also from the joint deformation measurement. J «.52 shows history of joint shear stress divided by concrete strength. 4. Tns/OTB (b)J13 . I. M .202 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures the load deflection relation is similar to Fig. 4 •.36CTB. from the loss of strength in Fig. Thus both specimens failed in the BJ mode. EW direction of J12 was 0. The maximum shear stress is 0. under the loading in perpendiculur direction. 1 I. 11.20<7B for EW direction of J13.27(Ts. «•.52. and 0. 41. I ».1 • 1. 4. M . 4.51(a).4rift 1. it was concluded that the joints of both specimens failed in the 3 percent drift cycle or later. I •. Jl.drift 2%. and although the damage of joint concrete could not be directly observed. In most cases yielding of beam bars in the second layer occured immediately after that. S Xns / GB (a) J12 Fig. History of joint shear stress.11. joint shear failure after beam yielding. i (.11. The general trend of history is similar to that of column shear. However NS direction of J13 reached only to 0. Due to abovementioned bidirectional effect.
(2) Joint shear stress in one direction decreases. J9. joint lateral reinforcement ratio. with 250 mm square column and 200 mm by 250 mm beam. 4. There are four specimens in this test series. and possibly the adverse effect of bidirectional loading. Table 4. The objective of this subsection is to investigate the shear strength of exterior joints constructed by high strength materials. Specimens are about one third scale. Specimens were placed on the test bed as the column in flat position and the beam in upright position. As the majority of test data on shear strength of interior as well as exterior beamcolumn joints are based on planar specimens without perpendicular beams and floor slabs. they have different joint lateral reinforcement and beam bar embedment length. Apart from difference in material strength. J8. Column was lightly loaded by axial force only to keep the specimens in a stable position. shear flexure strength ratio which is ratio of joint shear strength to the joint shear stress at beam flexural yielding. under the loading in perpendicular direction. . From the second column of the table it can be inferred that specimens J8 and J9 would fail in joint shear while specimens J12 and J13 would fail in beam flexural yielding. J12 and J13.0 was shown to be adequate to prevent premature joint shear failure prior to beam yielding. The specimen J13 in the previous subsection is a typical exterior joint in the EW direction.53 shows the detail of specimens. where the beam and column form a sidewayslaid T shape subassemblage. (1) The maximum shear strength of 3D beamcolumn joints is higher than 2D (planar) joints due to the presence of perpendicular beams and slab effect. Shear Capacity of Exterior Joints Exterior joint here refers to the beamcolumn joint at the end of multiple span beams. In conclusion. tests in this subsection also employ planar beam column subassemblages.New RC Structural Elements 203 maximum shear stress indicates the significance of lack of beam member in the perpendicular direction. Figure 4.9 lists concrete strength.3. we can summarize as follows. and beam end was loaded horizontally in the cyclic reversal of increasing amplitude. and embedment length (horizontal projection) to beam bar diameter ratio. (3) Design of a 3D beamcolumn joint for joint failure index J equals 1. after reaching its maximum in that direction.4.
Exterior joint specimen details.204 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 1600 Fig.54 shows plottings of the most important test results of joint shear strength vs.5 Specimen J8 J9 J12 J13 1.53.6 0. Table 4. concrete strength together with results of some previous test specimens. and all specimens failing in joint shear (J mode) are .5 16.8 50.6 (4) Embedment Length Beam Bar Diameter Ratio 16.4 81.0 16. Exterior joint specimens.39 1. (1) Concrete Strength OB (MPa) 54. J8 failed in joint shear simultaneously with the yielding of first layer beam reinforcement.5 12. 4.90 1.2 0.34 Figure 4.9.02 0.3 85.0 (2) Shear Flexure Strength Ratio (3) Joint Lateral Reinforcement Ratio Ratio Pj% 0.2 j 0.
54 also shows the relationships of test results with AIJ recommendation for external joint (4.54 with squares. Joint shear stress and concrete strength. 4. It will be seen that Eq. 4.0 40.33) .9) TJU = 1 . (4. respectively). 4.54.54 with circles (black and white for positive and negative maximum. and it failed in anchorage failure (Ja mode) with splitting cracks along beam bars.New RC Structural Elements 205 0 20.33) underestimates joint shear strength in medium concrete strength range but approximates well in high strength range. and all specimens failing in this mode (BJ mode or BJa mode) are plotted in Fig. Figure 4.0 60.0 concrete strength OB (MPa) 100.0 80. 1 7 v ^ i where TjU : joint shear strength in MPa <JB : concrete strength in MPa.34) (4.3) Tju = 0. (4. (4. J12 and J13 failed in beam flexural yielding followed by joint shear failure. and its strength is plotted with triangles together with another specimen in the same failure mode. J9 is a specimen with small embedment length of 156 mm compared to 215 mm of other specimens.18crs and ACI corner joint Eq.0 Fig. plotted in Fig.
and it was concluded that the anchorage capacity of the second layer is greatly reduced due possibly to the concrete distress around the first layer. Under the action of monotonic vertical loading. on the other hand. Equation (4. It deals with the joint between first story column and footing beams. Foundation of highrise reinforced concrete buildings usually consists of a grid of very large footing beams.35) where Tju and (JB are in MPa. Figure 4. in cruciform. Footing beams are either 100 mm wide. 4. specimens with cruciform footing beams failed in the column. This fact should be somehow taken into account for the detailing in practical structural design.4. with 20 MPa concrete.206 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures of those specimens failing in J mode. Although data are not shown here. reinforced appropriately.or Lshaped footing . It is this strength difference and its consequences that was the concern of the research project in this subsection.34).86cr%655 (4. and appropriately reinforced. Such grid of large size footing beams is deemed necessary for rigidity and strength to transmit stresses in the superstructure induced by lateral forces to the substructure of piles or subsoil. or 150 mm wide. compared to the first story column where the highest strength within the building is usually specified. several meters deep and more than a meter wide. 50 percent wider than the column. Because of large amount of concrete used in footing beams. while those with T. The regression analysis of only those specimens in J mode resulted in the following expression rju = 0. and the column size is 100 mm square. same as the column. Concrete Strength Difference Column and Foundation between First Story This subsection deals with a somewhat different subject of beamcolumn joint.55 shows shapes of compression test specimens. it is quite common to specify lower concrete strength to footing beams.4. is a good approximation of the lower limit of all specimens including Ja mode and BJ mode. Tshape or Lshape. Shaded portion represents lower part of first story column with 60 MPa concrete. no matter whether it is supported by piles or directly by hard subsoil. bond and anchorage capacity of double layer beam bars were studied utilizing strain measurement. White portion is a part of footing beam grid.
Face A FaceB FaceB * X X  FaceB 4' \ *'* * . % Face A I \_ Face A % Face C FaceB % 1 FaceB Face A FaceB Face A Fig. Compression test specimens of columnfooting beam joint. .55. 4. + 10 at 450 kN T10at30kN FaceC L10at30kN '. Principal strains on the side face of footing beams.56.New RC Structural Elements 207 "Tllf QaXMPa) 60(MPa) Fig. 4.
a cruciform beam grid receives the load at a relatively large area. Tshaped. .56. As seen in the figure. 4.7 kN and 23.6 kN. respectively. Thus it can be concluded that the concrete strength difference between first story column and foundation may not be a problem for interior column.208 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures beams failed in the footing beam portion. or Lshaped footing beams. However the load deflection relationship was quite similar. 4. weak footing specimen could sustain 88 percent of load for strong footing specimen. From the measurement of principal strains at the side faces of footing beams shown in Fig. it is possible that partial collapse of foundation may happen even AJL (a) 60 MPa column and 60 MPa footing (b) 60 MPa column and 20 MPa footing Fig. while a Tshaped beam receives mainly by beams in the continuous direction. Columnfooting beam specimen after failure. or in other words. and the maximum load was 26. and an Lshaped beam receives at a relatively small zone near the corner. it is inferred that load path in the footing beam is different between cruciform. For exterior or corner columns. crushing failure was more spread out into the footing in case of weak footing concrete. 4. and horizontal load was applied at the column top to produce flexural failure at the column base.57 were made using 60 MPa concrete in the column and 60 MPa or 20 MPa concrete in the footing. at about 83 or 63 percent of cruciform specimens. even when the strength difference is as much as threefold. Furthermore specimens as shown in Fig.57. As shown by the hatch in the plan view sketches.
and a careful check of bearing strength of foundation is mandatory in the practical design. measured yield load is confirmed at maximum strength or the load at 2 percent drift angle. and a load corresponding to the three quarters along the way from yielding eQ. Idealized forcedeformation relationship. 4.New RC Structural Elements 209 under axial loading.58.6 01 ^ —y cracking o cQo c<y»< deformation Fig.58. . The prevalent practice of using higher strength concrete in the upper half of footing beam depth would help reduce the problem discussed herein. M e t h o d of Structural Performance Evaluation Restoring Force Characteristics of Beams Frame structures of buildings usually assume weakbeam and strongcolumn type collapse mechanism. where yield hinges would form at the first story column bases and beam ends of all upper floors.5. Firstly. The restoring force characteristics of beams would dictate the overall behavior of frames under earthquake excitation.5. y~cQbc) +cQbc maximum load or load at 2% drift angle S7 V*^ \ idealized Q' 8 experimental Q.1. a point corresponding to the first cracking is determined from the initial stiffness and observed crack load. It may be clear from the figure how to construct trilinear idealization of an experimental curve. and therefore it must be accurately evaluated in the design. In the New RC project. 4. 4. 4. experimental force displacement relationship was supposed to be idealized as shown in Fig. Secondly.
2. Characteristic points of this method are that the yield load corresponds to ultimate flexural load carrying capacity.210 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced 300.1. 100.58 will follow. calculated initial stiffness.0 Concrete Structures I 2 3 200.0 rectangular D Tbeams • rectangular (New RC) • Tbeams (New RC) 0 . 4. Initial Stiffness Initial uncracked stiffness is calculated considering flexural and shear deformation of members. Flexural Cracking Cracking moment is calculated from the tensile strength of concrete and the equivalent section modulus including effect of reinforcement. 4.59.1. 4.§ o. A point marked "A" is found for this load.3). Large scatter is conspicuous as it is inherent to phenomena like cracking.1. Either splitting tensile strength or 0. Figure 4. and that the stiffness after yield is zero.0 100. Figure 4. cracking to yielding is determined. but it will be agreed that the calculated values generally . 4.59 shows relationship of observed vs. calculated cracking load of beams where the tensile strength was evaluated by the latter method. How to determine each parameter in Fig.0 200.0 calculated values (MN/m) 300. 4.56 times the square root of concrete strength in MPa may be used as tensile strength.5.5.0 Fig.60 shows the relationship of observed vs. calculated initial stiffness. and a straight line connecting the crack point and point "A" and its extension is drawn to find the deformation at yielding. Experimental vs. considering rigid zones at the ends of each member as specified in the Calculation Standards of Reinforced Concrete Structures of AIJ (Ref.
the commonly used Sugano's equation may be applied to New RC members.3. 4.36) . Yield Deflection Figure 4. Experimental vs. This is due. and secondly.64npt + 0.60.5.33?7o)(d/D)2 where ay : yield stiffness reduction factor n : Young's modulus ratio of steel and concrete Pt : tensile reinforcement ratio bared on gross concrete section (4.New RC Structural 98 & <u J3 CO Elements 211 78 1 73 c 2 59 39 0 rectangular Q Tbeams • rectangular (New RC) • Tbeams (New RC) 0* i 1 i i i 0 20 39 59 78 98 C a l c u l a t e d v a l u e s (kN) Fig. however.043a/D + 0.043 + 1. and no different trends are seen between previous tests and New RC tests. due to increased pullout displacement of beam bars from columns or loading stubs. calculated cracking load. In terms of yield stiffness reduction factor. New RC beams with high strength material clearly show greater yield deflection. first. 4. and increased yield hinge length.61 shows experimental values of yield deflection of New RC beams as contrasted to those of conventional RC beams. inherent to relatively poor bond behavior of high strength concrete. Yield stiffness reduction factor is defined as the ratio of secant modulus at yield point of RC members to the initial uncracked stiffness. shoot the average of observed values.1. to larger yield strain of high strength steel. and is expressed based on a statistical survey as follows ay = (0.
4 61.0 O O O a O rectangular • Tbeams • rectangular (New RC) • Tbeams (New RC) * 0. Experimental yield deformation and material strength.0 r I 1.0 j 1. 400 500 600 700 steel yield point(MPa) 800 (b) Relation to steel strength Fig. a : shear s p a n length determined from t h e ratio of m a x i m u m bending m o m e n t t o t h e m a x i m u m shear force D : d e p t h of t h e m e m b e r 770 : axial stress ratio determined from the axial stress considering concrete area only divided by t h e concrete s t r e n g t h (rjo = 0 for beams) .5 0 300 L.5  1.5 0 30 _J_ 50 concrete (a) Relation to 40 _L 2.0 I I: °a • O rectangular Q Tbeams • rectangular (New RC) • Tbeams (New RC) 60 70 80 90 strength (MPa) concrete strength • _L 0.212 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 2.5 t 1.
2 0.36).0r O D • • rectangular Tbeams rectangular (New RC) Tbeams (New RC) 2. concrete strength 40 Fig.3 calculated values (a) Exp.1 0. : effective depth of the member i. (4. vs.New RC Structural Elements 213 0.4 r O D • • rectangular Tbeams rectangular (New RC) Tbeams (New RC) 0. calc. Although large scatter is seen.62. values 3. x. d . 4.0 cS= Al.e.62 is the comparison of experimental values of yield stiffness reduction factor to the values from Eq. Yield stiffness reduction factor. j _ _i_ 30 90 50 60 70 80 concrete strength (MPa) (b) Accuracy vs.0 1. Figure 4. depth from the most compressive fiber to the centroid of tensile reinforcement. it may be concluded that Sugano's equation is equally effective to the New RC beams as those of conventional material.
The approximate equation in the first method gave approximately 10 percent smaller values both for rectangular and tee beams.4. and they predicted the observed flexural strength of both rectangular and tee beams reasonably well. it was found necessary to follow the same procedure as will be described later for columns. The first is to use approximate equation given by the Building Center of Japan (Ref.1. It was shown that the difference between results of the second and third methods was small. It was about 10 to 15 percent at the drift angle of 2 percent. 4.7) Mu = 0.5. same as the ACI method. The second method is to conduct theoretical analysis assuming rectangular stress block of American Concrete Institute. For such beams it was shown that the equivalent viscous damping at yielding is about 5 to 10 percent.3 percent.37) : : : : : is flexural ultimate moment of a beam is tensile reinforcement area is yield strength of tensile reinforcement is effective depth of the beam to the tensile reinforcement is for different tensile reinforcement groups. and it increases as deformation gets larger.9Zat<Tyd where Mu at ay d S (4.1.5. provided for the latter that the entire slab width is taken effective. even for the latter if the entire slab width is taken. 4. The third method is to use stress block proposed by the high strength steel committee of New RC project.5. 4.5.1.6. . Limiting Deflection In order to avoid shear failure in the yield hinge zone. and to secure the plastic hinge rotation capacity. Flexural Strength Flexural strength of a beam may be obtained by one of the following three methods.3 percent. and ultimate compressive strain of 0. and ultimate compressive strain of 0. Equivalent Viscous Damping Flexural deformation usually dominates the beam deformation.214 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 4.
to bond splitting failure along axial reinforcement.5 . starts carrying compressive stress.1. However.38a) (4. Flexural Compression Failure Columns subjected to high compression fail first by crushing of cover concrete.38b) : concrete strength to be taken 0. Deformation Capacity of Columns Columns subjected to lateral load usually retain deformation capacity of more than 2 percent when tensile reinforcement yields first.24s/D) where Ru N Ac f'c Fc pw Ca ^ 0.41a/3(l .2. 4.5.38c) : limiting drift angle : axial force : core area : core concrete strength expressed by Eq. 4.38b) (4.N/Acfc)/7 f'c = Fc + CaPwawy Ca = 4. confined by compression axial reinforcement and lateral reinforcement. up to certain limiting deformation.04 (4. but thereafter the core concrete. (4. or to shear failure in the yield hinge zone. it is usually reduced to smaller values when the column is subjected to flexural compression failure due to high axial load. it will be necessary to refer to the original research data. Equation (4. (4.85 times the cylinder strength '• hoop reinforcement ratio : yield strength of hoop reinforcement : a coefficient to reflect the effect of hoop arrangement detail.1.38) was proposed to evaluate this limiting deformation in terms of drift angle Ru = (0.New RC Structural Elements 215 Thus it was concluded that the restoring force characteristics of New RC beams can be formulated generally by the same methods as the conventional beams.38c) .5. expressed by Eq.2. However in case where a more precise idealization is required by the analysis software such as separation of flexural and shear deformations. Followings are the studies leading to evaluation of deformation capacity of columns.
4.39a) (4. (4. and is linearly reduced for greater axial stress ratio up to 0. (4. becomes zero. which is the ratio of working bond stress to the ultimate bond strength.10).38a) is readily applicable to New RC columns if core concrete strength is expressed by Eqs.39c) where Tf : working bond stress cry : yield stress of axial reinforcement db : diameter of axial reinforcement Lb : effective bond length expressed by Eq. As to the ultimate bond strength.38c). Equation (4.39b) (4.22.3) where the effective bond length along the member is reduced with the increase of axial load Tf = 2oydb/(4Lb) Lb = L .5 where Ry.38a) was originally developed for columns of ordinary strength material as an equation to express lower bound of limiting deformation in terms of axial stress relative to core concrete strength. 4. 4.39b) L : clear length of a member d : effective depth of a member 7 : a coefficient for axial effect.2.9). As to the working bond stress./3: correction factors for number of interior tie legs s : hoop spacing D : column depth. (4.0 (a = 3) (4. it is reasonable to use the bond index. (4. Bond Splitting Along Axial Bars In order to evaluate the deformation capacity as limited by the bond splitting along axial reinforcement.39) was proposed (Ref. 4. Eq.39c) N : axial load Ag : gross area of a member CTB : concrete strength. According to Eq. It was shown that Eq.84. expressed by Eq. (4. (4.(1 + 7)d 7 = aN/{AgoB) ^1.5.38b) and (4.38a). Ru is constantly 4 percent for axial stress ratio less than 0. the bond index was .2. Based on the literature (Ref.216 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures a. there are several proposals such as literature (Refs.
except for the following three points: effective strength of concrete. cot <j> value outside the hinge zone and value inside the hinge zone are used.0 .5. However.00 1.63. Bond index and limiting deflection.7. 4.2.5 10 limiting deflection (%) Fig. As seen the scattering of test data is very large. 4.50  a r •% o • X= 0. and limiting value for lateral reinforcement yield strength K = bjtPwCwy cot <j> + t a n # ( l .40) 13 = (1+ cot 2 <$>)Vv>awyl{vaB) • In the case of calculating /3 value only.3.41) (4. calculated and related to observed limiting deformation in Fig.New RC Structural Elements 217 2.00 0.63.7). crack inclination angle. which was introduced in Sec. 1 1 4 7 Column Beam 1.40) was proposed in the New RC project as an equation to evaluate limiting deformation of a yield hinge dictated by the shear failure after yielding. Two straight lines in the figure are regresseion lines for the average and lower limit.42) (4. It is similar to the shear strength equation in the AIJ Ultimate Strength Design Guidelines (Ref. 4.149 .50 0 j 2. 4. 4.1677 X= 0.5 5 7. Shear Failure in the Hinge Zone after Yielding Equation (4.149 —0.2./3)bDt/crB/2 where tan0 = y/(L/D)2 + 1L/D (4. . it will be more practical to show the upper limit of bond index to ensure certain deformation limit such as 2 percent.
0 .2.7. (4. 4. Vu : ltimate shear force b : member width D : member depth jt : distance between axial reinforcement (in case of multilayer section.45) (4. and cot <f> is determined as the minimum of the following three equations.10 • (4.0 .44) where Rp : plastic hinge rotation of yield hinge i/0 : effective concrete strength factor outside hinge zone n : axial load ratio [n = N/Agas)The angle 4> roughly corresponds to crack inclination. (4.43) which is same as Eq.15i?p)z/0 ^ 0.25^0 i/0 = 1.44) v = (1.15) to consider the axial load level as in Eq. and pwawy should not exceed I/CTB/2 awy : lateral reinforcement yield strength as : concrete compressive strength. (4.46) (447) . (4. distance between plastic centroids of axial reinforcement) L : clear length of member 9 : inclination angle of strut in the arch (strut) mechanism.50RP c o t 0 = j t /(£>tan0) cot <f> = Jtyas/iPw^wy) . but more precisely it represents angle of concrete strut in the truss mechanism.41) /3 : concrete stress in truss mechanism relative to effective strength 4> : crack inclination angle to be explained later v : effective concrete strength factor in the hinge zone.14) cot <j) = 2. effective concrete strength factor in the hinge zone. The coefficient v. but i/0 is modified from Eq.3n .45) is different from Eq. is expressed by Eq. where Eq.7(1 + 2n)/a~1/3 (4.218 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures In the above equations. (4.10) in Sec. to be explained later pw : lateral reinforcement ratio. (4. to be determined from Eq. (4.43) (4.
In this case hinge rotation angle Rp must be put to 0.40) can also be applied to members not expected to produce yield hinges.40) gives highly dependable evaluation of shear strength.1. Flexural Strength of Walls As it was shown in Sec. Figure 4.65 shows the relationship of observed shear strength of New RC members and those calculated by Eq.64. (4.4.0 — 3n from Eq. (4. Then Eq. It is seen that calculated values are lower than test values.43) gives v = u0. Figure 4. limiting deformation Rp associated with shear failure after yielding was inversely calculated. Finally the limiting value of awy is modified from 25<TB to 125^V0(TBUsing the above equations and equating the flexural capacity of a yield hinge to the shear strength. (4. Comparison of experimental and calculated limiting deformation.64 shows the observed limiting deformation in the tests and calculated values.3. It is seen that Eq. 4. The load at this point was . l / 6 < n £ l / 3 a l/3<n£l/2 I I 1— 0 2 4 6 calculated drift (%) » Fig.iVetu RC Structural Elements 8 r 219 / / XI CI £ o " / a a. it is seen that the overall load deformation curve comes to a general yield point. 4. 4.45). when all the column bars in the tension side column yields. load deformation curves of flexural walls do not generally have a clear and well defined yield point. (4. particularly for high strength concrete. However. both normalized by the calculated flexural strength. 4. hence the limiting deformation can be estimated on the safe side. / / / ^L ° / o 0 <n=£l/6 A.5.40). Shear Strength of Beams and Columns Equation (4.2.5. and cot<f> = 2.3.
5 3. for the condition that the most compressive fiber strain reaches 0.8Ty + 0. Assuming plane wall section to remain plane.48) may be used as a practical approximation My = {0.50) N/{(Aw+HAc)aB} n)}L (4.65.0 1.50) may be used Mu = {0.220 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 1.5iV(l n = where yield moment of wall tensile force of all axial bars in the tension side column tensile force of all vertical wall bars Jwy N : axial force acting on the wall n : normalized normal stress of the wall : wall area Aw : column area : concrete strength L : total length of wall. the yield strength can be calculated by a simple theory. on the other hand. Eq. defined as flexural yield strength of a wall in the New RC project. For ordinarily proportioned wall sections.5AT(l n)}L. Accuracy of shear strength equation. For ordinarily proportioned wall sections. (4.0 Fig. Eq. however.0 2. 4. (4.9Ty + 0ATwy + 0.5 1. Ultimate flexural strength. It can also be calculated by a simple theory based on the same assumption as above. (4. for the condition where all tensile column bars yielded./Qj 2.48) (4.0 > 5 0 0 0.49) Where Mu is the ultimate moment of wall and other notations are same to . corresponds to the maximum load carried by a wall failing in flexure.3 percent.5 Q.2Twy + 0. and it was investigated separately from the ultimate strength.
a = 1. 4. this stress field is constructed in such a way that equilibrium of force is satisfied and no internal force violates the yield criterion. story shear force is obtained from the lower bound theorem of plasticity theory.67 shows an example of formation of stress field within and around an interior beamcolumn joint. In Fig. and if the bond is very poor.49). a = 0.48) and (4. Using strut and tie concept. 4. For the condition of the load Pi at right beam end to be maximum. Figure 4.66.51) . (4.4. 4. Tested and calculated values of ultimate flexural strength of walls.67. Shear Strength of BeamColumn Joints As it is possible to make column sections of a New RC buildings smaller than those of ordinary material.5. a is a coefficient for the bond characteristics of beam bars passing through the joint.66 shows the favorable comparison between observed and calculated flexural strength of New RC walls and other existing test results. Such a stress field is called statically admissible stress field. Figure 4. we obtain D_ bvdB ~2 (4. Assuming that beam and column bars are infinitely strong. beamcolumn joints become the critical portion in a frame in horizontal resistance. The design method proposed in New RC project is based on the lower bound theorem of plasticity theory. those in Eqs. If the bond is good.New RC Structural 2000 a : New RC specimens / o : other specimens ju / 1500 •a a Elements 221 / •i IOOO 500 500 1000 1500 calculated load (kN) 2 000 Fig.
VOB is effective compressive strength of concrete. These are incorporated in the following Eq. 4.2. Statically admissible stress fields of a beamcolumn joint. we obtain Ti + aT2 bv<TB D 2 (4.67. A similar strut and tie model can be constructed for an exterior beamcolumn joint. The effective compressive strength of concrete proposed in the CEB Model Code 90 (Ref. The story shear thus obtained for Fig. An index J to evaluate the possible joint shear failure was derived in the Sec. the joint shear failure could not happen.53). 4.4. but it was improved into the following form in view of all available data. 4. If the story shear from Fig. the depth of beam struts is thus half the beam depth.67. 4. adverse effect of high strength steel to joint shear strength and favorable effect of beams in the orthogonal direction were observed.67 is now compared with the storyshear corresponding to beam yielding.67 is greater.52) where 7i and T2 are forces as shown. 4. (4. and is to be used in the design in such a way that beam bars should . and for the condition of the load P2 at left beam end to be maximum.11) was found to be applicable to high strength concrete in Japan. As illustrated in Fig. Furthermore. b is width of beamcolumn joint. 4.222 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig. and D is the beam depth.
6 : lateral reinforcement ratio within the joint : yield strength of lateral reinforcement : total axial bar area in orthogonal beams divided by beam area '• yield strength of orthogonal beam bars • concrete strength. to be taken as K = 1.56) where K Pw awy Pg aty <JB : enhancement factor due to confinement.18S^p (4. but is now modified by two multipliers. and is expressed as follows ai = l0.54) where as is concrete strength in MPa. Thus a = 1 for SD345.7<4/3 (4. Thus it is basically similar to CEB Model Code 90. The effective concrete strength is expressed as follows VOB = aia2 • 1.New RC Structural Elements 223 satisfy the condition shown in the following equation 'fet'+'x" (453) ' where Eat : total tensile reinforcement area of beams to be anchored in the joint (Ty : yield strength of beam bars D : beam depth 6 eq : effective width of beamcolumn joint to be taken as average of beam width and column width VOB '• effective concrete strength as shown below a : bond coefficient. as shown below.55) where ay is yield stress of beam bars in MPa.82 for SD685. and it reduces to a = 0. and is expressed as follows a2 = 1 + KWW+P&V OB (4. a\ and a2.The first multiplier ot\ is for the joint strength reduction due to high strength beam bars. Another multiplier a2 is for the strength enhancement due to beams in the orthogonal direction. .
Bearing Stress Interior columns sitting on the continuous footing beams with width larger than column size should be safe. > 6 (4.5.1.224 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures The bond coefficient a is formulated as shown below. Connections of First Story Column to Foundation The effect of high strength first story column on the bearing capacity of foundation made of notsostrong concrete is discussed in some detail in Sec. Based on the testing reported therein and also based on the engineering judgment. For exterior joints.2 percent of lateral reinforcement ratio. a set of design recommendations were developed.3)/3 a — 1 db y/&B Dc for n ^ 3 for 3 < n ^ 6 ) for fj.57) where /x oy OB db Dc : bond index : yield strength of beam bars in MPa '• concrete strength in MPa • beam bar diameter : column depth. Minimum requirement for joint lateral reinforcement is set forth for both interior and exterior joints as 0. Design for this stress may follow the provisions for prestressed concrete structures at the bearing zones of PC steel anchorage. but exterior and corner column sitting on Tor Lshaped footing beams should be checked for bearing strength of footing beams. 4.5.4.58) (4. 4.5.5.5. 4.5. a is always 1 a = 0 a = (u . .4. Splitting Stress Local compression on the footing beams would produce splitting tensile stress in the directions perpendicular to the bearing stress.2. 4.
p. and effect of bidirectional loading. Proceedings. p.3. Wider scope of application was always sought. pp. 4. 4. January 1992. were devoted to presentation of representative experimental programs on beams and columns.24. exterior beam stub of about onethird the beam depth. References 4.5. such as yield deflection. 4.New RC Structural Elements 225 4. 340 (in Japanese). Strengthening Footing beams may be strengthened by increased width. Design Guidelines for Earthquake Resistant Reinforced Concrete Buildings Based on Ultimate Strength Concept.3.5. each conclusion in Sec. 97108 (in Japanese). or by increasing the concrete strength at least in the upper part of footing beams. the author tried to present the scope of the Structural Element Committee of the New RC research project.6. and beamcolumn joints. Concluding Remarks In this chapter.5 may be applied to wide range of circumstances on the rational basis. .4. It was attempted to summarize each experimental program on the entire basis covering several years of its conduct. et al. 4. but the emphasis had to be placed on the results of the last year of the project for which complete reports were presented to the BRI from the individual investigators. although it still does not assume a form of guidelines. 654 (in Japanese). 1993. Standard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced Concrete Structures. 1990. 4. Architectural Institute of Japan. walls. Japan Concrete Institute 3(1).5 summarizes the entire work in a form readily applicable to the structural design of buildings. It is expected that continued research effort should be given to these problems after the conclusion of the New RC project. Major portions of this chapter. T. As the result of the effort of the Structural Element Committee to place an emphasis on the development of structural performance evaluation based on rational and logical procedure. limiting deflection. A proposal of bond splitting strength equation of reinforced concrete members including high strength materials. Section 4. Architectural Institute of Japan. but some problems had to be left without reaching thorough understanding.1.2.. steel reinforcement as in PC steel anchorage. Kaku. from Sees.
Architectural Institute of Japan. 245277 (in Japanese). 213214 (in Japanese). A proposal of a formula for bond splitting strength of reinforced concrete members. 163168 (in Japanese). 4. 1985.. USJapan Research. Analysis of the Full Scale SevenStory Reinforced Concrete Test Structure. June 1991. pp.6. Earthquake resistant design of reinforced concrete frame building with "flexural" walls. S. J. 4. Faculty Eng. pp. H.. Maeda. Struct. 4. 203239.. Ductility of reinforced concrete columns using high strength materials. Kaku. Architectural Institute of Japan. First Draft. Proceedings. 367 (in Japanese).. S. Comite EuroInternational du Beton. 293306 (in Japanese). Aoyama. Kyoto University.7. D.. and Aoyama. pp. p.4. No. pp. Annual Report of Disaster Prevention Institute. S. and Iizuka. S. 4. 195 and 196. 87109. Earthquake Effects on Reinforced Concrete Structures. K. March 1990. Y. Kabeyasawa.5. .8. 24B1. Wakabayashi. Otani. H. M. Otani. 38B. H. Lausanne. Bulletin d'Information.. July 1991. T. and Minami. CEBFIP Model Code 1990. September 1991. No.11... Guidelines for structural calculation under the building standard law. M.9.10.. pp. Eng. 4.. and Kato. On the shear strength of structural concrete members. Kumagai. University of Tokyo (B) X X X I X ( 2 ) . 4. March 1992. Zhang.. J. April 1981. pp. Bond splitting strength of reinforced concrete beams with high strength concrete. V.. Proc. Symp. Japan Concrete Institute 13(2). Murakami. Building Center of Japan. T. H. Annual Convention Speech Summary. SP84. 1987. American Concrete Institute. Shiohara. 4.226 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 4. and Aoyama..
1.ta. Subsequently energetic research and development were undertaken on "matrix structural analysis". The FEM is a method to express systematically and uniformly the calculation procedure of structural engineering in practical analysis and design by mathematical language of matrix algebra. and its clearness was suitable for computer handling (Refs. 227 . architecture. Chiba University. Inageku. The computer can understand this language perfectly.jp 5. 133 Yayoicho.Chapter 5 Finite Element Analysis Hiroshi Noguchi Department of Architecture. Fundamentals of F E M The finite element method (FEM) was first proposed in the middle of 1950's by researchers of aircraft structural mechanics in Europe and North America. 5. Before long this method was introduced to other disciplines of structural engineering such as civil engineering. and it has enabled us to deal with very complicated and large structural calculation in short time. International competition on the space development gave impetus to this movement. Chiba 2638522.chibau.ac.15. Japan Email: noguchi©archi. shipbuilding and mechanical engineering with the support of surprising development of computers. This technique was formulated in the form of matrix. and the Boeing Corporation developed the displacement method of structural analysis in which displacements are taken to be unknown and analysis was formulated using energy principle which was convenient for analyzing complicated structures.3).
in contrast with the finite difference method. because it has a finite size. 5. the FEM is a method to approximate an object with infinite degrees of freedom of deformation by an aggregate of many elements with finite degrees of freedom. f(x+Ax. Finite difference method (Ref. In comparison. They are as follows: . 5.2. 5. which becomes simultaneous linear equations.4). Various types of finite elements have been proposed in order to express an object as an aggregate of finite elements. it is clear that the finite difference method solves a physically exact governing equation by the mathematical approximation of the finite difference. In the FEM. 5. and to adapt the shape of the element to the object problem. as shown in Fig. The FEM can be easily understood. Boundary C Finite element Finite element Approximation Fig.4).2. 5. 5. y+Jy)f(x. The element that has finite degree of freedom is called "Finite Element". and the FEM obtains a mathematically exact solution of governing equation physically approximated by finite elements.228 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Grid points Boundary C (i. Bx~~ Jx y) ' 3 / . as Miyoshi explained (Ref. as shown in Fig. _ f(x. The finite difference method is a method to solve the governing equation for an object by the finite difference representation on the lattice points in the area D. the governing equation is rewritten for an aggregate of elements.1.4). dy~ Ay y) Fig. On the other hand.y) 3f . y+Ay) Deferential approximation {x+Ax. Finite element method (Ref.1. 5. y)f(x.
but when cracks are generated in concrete. The main reason why the FEM has been used so widely in various areas is its generality. etc. it shows complicated nonlinear behavior in which the superposition is not generally applicable as in case of linear behavior. etc. (2) Shell problem: triangular plate element. (4) Axialsymmetric problem: triangular ring element. quadrilateral plate element. heat transfer. weak in tension. electromagnetism and reaction engineering.1.Finite Element Analysis 229 (1) Twodimensional problem: triangular element. 5. A basic characteristic of RC is that concrete.3). F E M and Reinforced Concrete History of Finite Element Reinforced Concrete Analysis of A reinforced concrete (RC) is a composite structure that consists of steel reinforcement and concrete with different material properties. capable of solving any shaped object under any arbitrary boundary conditions. Since the FEM has been developed initially for isotropic continuous material. etc. The FEM is mathematically based on the variation analysis of partial differential equations. aggregate interlock along the crack interface.2. as it . The principle of the FEM is described in detail in the literature (Ref. is reinforced by steel reinforcement. It is now a powerful means to analyze what is called migration phenomenon theory in aeromechanics. 5. etc. dowel action by the local bending of reinforcement crossing cracks and compressive deterioration of cracked concrete. which is strong in tension. It can be applied to any phenomena governed by partial differential equations including fluid. heat conduction and electromagnetism. 5. quadrilateral element.2. quadrilateral ring element. etc. RC behaves as a composite structure under load. The main phenomena after cracking are bond action between reinforcement and concrete. and also observing deformation distribution and detailed state of stress. hexahedral element. (3) Threedimensional problem: tetrahedral element. its application to RC structures was extremely difficult.
It can be said that the research in this field was drastically advanced by the systematic research activities mainly by young committee members in only four years (Ref. and FEM researchers were asked to attend the competition and to submit analysis corresponding to the experiment. They represented concrete and reinforcement separately using different sets of finite elements. Modeling of the material behavior of RC was discussed. In 1983. This research gave a significant effect on the subsequent researches on RC. an important problem in the earthquakeresistant design. The shear problem. The experimental result was suppressed from disclosure during the analysis.6) was the first international conference in this area. the University of Tokyo in Japan Concrete Institute (JCI). from 1981 to 1984. But many FEM researchers failed to predict the behavior with sufficient accuracy.7). an international blind competition for the analytical prediction of behavior of RC panels was managed by Collins at the University of Toronto. Applicants with better prediction had confirmed the concrete compressive deterioration characteristics by their own biaxial tests before the analysis. towards the formulation of constitutive laws for the modeling of material behavior of RC. The research on the FEM analysis of RC structures in 1970's and 1980's was oriented. and second. Publication of test data of selected test specimens for the verification of analytical models was a significant activity of the committee. Isohata and Takiguchi published papers on the application of FEM to RC shear problems in 1971. 5. was discussed from the viewpoints of macroscopic models and microscopic FEM models. and it was concluded that a future problem was to fill up the gap between FEM researchers and experimental researchers. the Netherlands in 1981 (Ref. 5. Many analytical researchers of RC learned from this international competition that it is important to carry out basic experiments for the modeling and to evaluate the reliability of analytical . A committee on the shear strength of RC structures was established under the chairmanship of Okamura. Their models for cracking and bond slip could simulate physical phenomena splendidly. 5. first.5). The first application of the FEM to RC was a crack analysis of RC beams by Scordelis and Ngo in 1967 (Ref. It was unique that they could trace in detail the change of internal stress condition with load that had been difficult to observe in the physical experiment. They investigated the propagation of shear cracking and the subsequent role of shear reinforcement in detail.230 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures becomes discontinuous after cracking. the application of FEM to clarify nonlinear behavior of RC members. The IABSE Colloquiums held in Delft.
Finite Element Analysis 231 models. In JCI committee on "FEM analysis and design method of RC structures" under the chairmanship of Noguchi of Chiba University from 1986 to 1988. A calculation method of shear strength derived from a macroscopic model was adopted in the Architectural Institute of Japan ultimate strength design guidelines. A gap between FEM analytical researchers. from 1986 to 1989. The second USJapan seminar on the FEM analysis of the RC structure was held in Columbia University. A researcher group verified the validity of previously proposed shear strength equations and macroscopic models of RC members by FEM analysis. The research fruits were presented in one session of the ASCE Structures Congress and also in the Tokyo seminar in 1989. aiming at the development of rational macroscopic models and design equations.8). collected from design practitioners of thirteen construction companies in Japan. based on the activities of the abovementioned JCI committee (Ref. future problems indicated in the above USJapan seminar were made to be activity goals.12). 5.13). Aoyama and Noguchi reported future prospects of RCFEM. A design practitioner group published "Guideline on the application of FEM analysis to RC design" (Ref. "Basic experiment on accuracy improvement of FEM analysis of RC structures and development of analytical models". 5. The Tokyo seminar was very successful with more than 200 participants (Ref. Shirai reported on a detailed questionnaire results on the application of nonlinear FEM analysis to practical design. This experience was succeeded by the integrated research supported by the Ministry of Education GrantinAids for Scientific Research. experimental researchers and practical designers was discussed.10).11). A cooperative research group mainly composed of young researchers made lively discussions overcoming academic clique. 5. 5. New York in 1991. The first USJapan seminar on the FEM analysis of RC structures was held in Tokyo in 1985. 5. represented by Morita of Kyoto University. . They indicated the necessity of the direct application of FEM to the practical design and the application of FEM to the development of macroscopic models and design equations as future research goals (Refs. His report represented the characteristics of the Japanese research (Ref. and analytical models for applying FEM to RC structures (RCFEM) were discussed. and Japanese basic and systematic research on the application of RCFEM to development and design of new structures was introduced. It was characteristic for the US side to introduce the concept of fracture mechanics in their research reports.9 and 5.
2. It has been applied not only to structures such as shear walls with explicit plane stress condition but also to beams. Threedimensional stress flow is generated in a RC member subjected to twodirectional input load. 5. The emphasis was placed on the application of the FEM analysis on the shear design of RC structures by making full use of basic researches. In these members. columns and beamcolumn joints. and footings. 5. and the plane stress condition was assumed.2. represented by Noguchi of Chiba University and supported by the Ministry of Education GrantinAids for Scientific Research. Modeling of RC When the FEM is applied to RC structures. which do not necessarily exhibit plane stress or plane strain conditions. the model of a beam shown in Figs. Reinforcing steel was idealized into plane elements. concrete column confined with steel plates or lateral reinforcing bars. 5. threedimensional analysis is desirable for representing more realistic state of stress and deformation. twodimensional analysis that assumes plane stress state or plane strain state is widely used except for special structures like nuclear pressure vessels.2.2. This was a cooperative research based on previous researches and by young generation researchers standing aloof from academic clique. .14 and 5. 5.232 Design of Modern Highriae Reinforced Concrete Structures Over three years from 1992 to 1995. TwoDimensional Analysis and ThreeDimensional Analysis In previous FEM analysis. beamcolumn joints with lateral beams.2. By progress of research on the constitutive laws and advance in computer hardware such as workstations.2. It was twodimensional analysis.35. 5. Modeling of Concrete When Scordelis and Ngo applied the FEM to RC beams in 1967 for the first time.2. threedimensional analysis has come to be gradually used. The concrete was made to have a unit thickness except for reinforcement position.1.15).5 was used. it is necessary to consider the form that is easy to express characteristics of reinforced concrete structures with FEM (Refs. the integrated research on "Reconstruction of the shear design method of reinforced concrete structures by extremely precise FEM analysis" was carried out. and concrete elements overlapping steel elements were modified to have reduced thickness.
4 / ^ ^". 5. sand and cement. Crack linkage element (Ref. This element can represent reinforcement layers.14). Though concrete is a composite material composed of aggregate. It is also possible to consider crack .3.5. it is usually handled as a uniform material like steel in the FEM analysis. 5.if" AV&&0 Fig.14). Crack models (Ref.Finite Element Analysis 233 UNIT . triangle and quadrilateral elements are usually used.4. In the twodimensional analysis. WIDTH ..5). Zero stiffness normal to cracks (a) Discrete Crack Model (b) Smeared Crack Model Fig. dividing the concrete into the thickness direction. Analytical model for RC simple beam (Ref. In the threedimensional analysis. a layered shell element is often used. 5. 5. 5. Normal direction to crack surfaces t Node Parallel direction to crack surfaces The same coordinate before cracking Fig. 5.
2. 5.3.4.4. outofplane shear deformation cannot be considered. However. 5. the reinforcement was expressed like a long column of a plane material. reinforcing bars can be represented by one of the following elements: a bar element like a truss or a beam.3. 5. a plane and a hexahedron solid. A reinforcement layer or a truss element is usually used.2. It is easy to divide an RC element into finite elements by using this model. Modeling of Reinforcement In the analytical example of Fig.4. 5. According to the type of analysis. Modeling of Cracks In the analytical example of Fig.3. a layer in a shell element. It was overlaid with a concrete layer. For the expression of . After cracking.2. 5.2. and connected by a link element that expressed bond behavior.234 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures propagation and concrete compressive failure by stiffness evaluation for each layer. as the effect of bending stiffness and dowel action of a reinforcing bar is not so large.2. a smeared crack model handles the concrete as an orthogonal material with zero stiffness normal to crack directions in an element as shown in Fig. It is effective when a small number of cracks will open like in case of shear tension failure of a beam with small amount of lateral reinforcement. This expression method is called a discrete crack model. Concrete nodes on both sides of crack surfaces are connected by a crack link element that consists of two orthogonal springs. Modeling of Bond between Reinforcement and Concrete Unless we can assume a perfect bond between reinforcement and concrete. In the smeared crack model. cracks are distributed uniformly in one direction in the element.5. It is not necessary to set a crack path before the analysis like discrete crack model. A large value is given to the spring stiffness before the crack opens. However. it is necessary to express bond slip in the FEM model. such as a shear wall. the spring stiffness in the orthogonal direction is set to zero.2. and the spring in the parallel direction is used to express shear transfer across the crack plane. 5. and it is suitable for elements with many cracks widely distributed. concrete cracks were closely set in advance to actual locations between elements. spacing and width of cracks cannot be evaluated. as shown in Fig. On the other hand. 5. The unique feature of the discrete crack model is that the crack width can be evaluated.
Finite Element Analysis 235 bond. The modeling of RC using high strength materials was established from the basic tests performed in the New RC project. and future research items were pointed out. determined from bond stress and slip relationship. Principal members of RC buildings. including a common program. The main items of the investigation in this study were as follows: (1) Modeling of nonlinear constitutive laws of high strength materials and its implementation to FEM programs. Constitutive models for the FEM analysis of high strength RC structures were derived from the basic systematic experiment that had been carried out in the FEM WG. Most of object specimens in the analysis were tested by Structural Element Committee of the project. This model assumes that concrete can carry some tensile stress caused by bond after cracking. including the common program. The spring stiffness along the longitudinal direction of reinforcement represents the bond characteristics. In the analytical example of Fig. such as panels. These analytical models were installed into several FEM programs including a common program. 5. Analytical results gave generally reasonable agreement with the test results.3. From the systematic FEM parametric analysis. columns and beamcolumn joints. Another method is the tensionstiffening model. Characteristics of dowel action of reinforcement are represented by the spring stiffness normal to the longitudinal direction. 5. F E M of R C Members Using High Strength Materials RC structural members using high strength materials were analyzed using nonlinear FEM by members of a Working Group of Constitutive Equations and FEM chaired by Noguchi of Chiba University in the Reinforcement Committee of the New RC project. were analyzed systematically by the working group members using FEM programs. "FIERCM". as shown in Fig. shear walls. 5. This method is used for members like shear walls in which reinforcing bars are arranged uniformly and bond slip is relatively small. the bond slip is represented by a bond link element with two orthogonal springs between nodes of reinforcement and concrete.3. . Principal research fruits in the Working Group on Constitutive Equations and FEM are introduced below. effects of major parameters on the shear strength were investigated and the applicability of design and experimental equations was discussed. there are two ways.3. beams.
This guideline gives instructions for the nonlinear FEM analysis of RC members with high strength materials especially for design engineers and experimental researchers. Comparative FEM analysis of RC beams. (2) and (3) above are introduced.16) in order to verify the constitutive laws for RC using high strength materials. 5. Application of FEM analysis to the structural design of New RC building structures. The reliability of the programs was investigated from the comparative analysis. institutes and construction corporations were used for the comparison and verification. Panels and 5. 5.17 and 5. (4) and (5) are introduced in (Refs. In this chapter. was modified for high strength materials and used as a common program. 5. Stevens and Uzumeri of the University of Toronto (Ref.4.18). "FIERCM" developed by Stevens (Ref. panels and shear walls was carried out using several FEM computer programs including a common program.236 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (2) (3) (4) (5) The FEM analytical program.1. "FIERCM".16). Shear strength and deformation of RC members using high strength materials were investigated by FEM parametric analysis using several programs including the common program. Comparative Analysis of R C Members Using High Strength Materials Comparative Analysis Shear Walls of Beams. A guideline was compiled for the nonlinear FEM analysis of RC members using high strength materials. high strength: 16 specimens Ordinary strength: JCI selection test specimens . Total number of analyzed specimens was 48: Beams: 20 specimens: ordinary strength: 4 specimens.4. Original FEM programs developed in several universities. 5. which was developed by Collins. RC members using high strength and ordinary strength materials were analyzed using several FEM programs. Details of (1). A largescale box column of a New RC boiler building in a steam power plant using high strength materials was analyzed (see Chapter 9).
6. Material Constitutive Laws The constitutive laws used for the FEM analysis of RC using high strength materials are outlined below. 5.2.4.4.1. 5. . high strength: 14 specimens Ordinary strength: JCI selection test specimens High strength: New RC test specimens Series NW tested by Yokohama National University From Specimens Nos. The ascending curve of ordinary strength concrete decreases its stiffness from about 25 to 33 percent of the maximum strength. Uniaxial Compressive StressStrain Curves of Concrete A uniaxial compressive stressstrain curve of high strength concrete is shown schematically in Fig. 1 to 8 tested by Nihon Kokudo Kaihatsu Corporation and Meiji University.2.6 as compared with ordinary strength concrete. Shear walls: 16 specimens: ordinary strength: 2 specimens. 5. S t " ' n at conpressive strenjlh TensiIc strength StrainCComprcssive) Fig. The ascending curve of high strength concrete is kept linear and its stiffness degradation is small up to about 90 to 95 percent of the maximum strength. Panels: 12 specimens: high strength: 12 specimens High strength: New RC test specimens tested by Hazama Corporation. and it becomes a parabolic curve. Series ASB tested by Chiba University.Finite Element Analysis 237 High strength: New RC test specimens Series PB and Series B tested by Kyoto University. Stressstrain relationships of concrete. 5. StressCCooprcssivc) ilighstrcnglh Compressive strength Ordinary strength iffeninu lensionstiffening ^ I s .
5.4.23).7.32 and 5.4 for high strength concrete in contrast to 0. 5.23) and Sakino equation (Ref. Compressive Strength Reduction Coefficient of Cracked Concrete After shear cracking. and the strength finally decreases to the stress near the ultimate stress of the ordinary strength concrete. Compressive reduction factors of cracked high strength concrete.7.2.4.238 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures The negative gradient after the maximum strength is large. the confinement cannot be very much expected unless high strength steel is used for lateral reinforcement.2. 5. 5.3. This was confirmed from the basic experiment by Ohkubo and Noguchi (Ref. Confinement Effect of Concrete The KentPark equation (Refs. the compressive strength reduction coefficient of cracked concrete reaches 0. 5. Principal tensile strain / Strain at compressive strength Fig. The Fafitis and Shah Model (Ref.2. they are also applied to the analysis involving flexural shear behavior. (Ref. 5. Though these models were developed for flexural analysis. The compression test result of a concrete cylinder is used for the uniaxial compressive strength.21) which expresses these features well has been often used in the analysis. as shown in Fig. 5.22) and Sumi et al. As for high strength concrete. The reduction of the compressive strength is more remarkable for high strength concrete than for ordinary strength concrete. 5. 5. .24) proposed by the confined concrete working group of the New RC Reinforcement Committee have been often used.6 for ordinary strength concrete.
Shear Stiffness of a Crack Plane The crack of high strength concrete often penetrates through the aggregate. The shape of yielding surface of high strength concrete for biaxial loading differs from ordinary strength concrete as shown in Fig. 5. and a new formula was proposed.4.« 0.6 0.6 1.2 0. In this case. 5. Biaxial failure criteria of high strength concrete. This happens due to the strength balance between the matrix and the aggregate. Tension Stiffening Characteristics of Concrete The tension stiffening characteristics are used to express the contribution of concrete between cracks to carry some tensile force by bond.8.8.2.2 1.25) by the FEM working group of New RC Reinforcement Committee is referred. the shear stiffness of the crack plane becomes very small.2.1 (.6.6 0. The strength increase under biaxial stress state with equal magnitude seems to be small in the case of high strength concrete.2.4.4. There is a model considering the remarkable decrease of tensile stress in the case of high strength concrete.Finite Element Analysis 239 g i / g i »0/i 1. 5. 5. But the shear force can be transferred over a crack plane by the macroscopic .5. especially panels with high reinforcement ratio.0 Fig. 5. 5.0 0. Biaxial Effect of Concrete The basic experiment (Ref.4.
Cracking Strength Cracking strength of high strength concrete does not increase as much as ordinary strength concrete as the compressive strength increases.23). respectively.4.2.2. Dowel Action of Reinforcement It is similar to the ordinary strength reinforcement. hence a function of compressive strength (such as 0.3. loaddeflection curves and cracking patterns are shown in Figs. and it tends to approach a certain maximum value. Bond Characteristics Referring to the research results of bond and anchorage WG in the New RC Reinforcement Committee (Ref. maximum shear strengths.10.240 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures zigzagshaped crack even in case of high strength concrete. 5.10 and 5.7. failure modes. 5. 5.4. 5. The splitting strength is often used for the uniaxial tensile strength for beams. observed in the tension test. 5.4.9. 5.9.26). panels and shear walls. the bond characteristics of high strength concrete are taken into account appropriately. .2.11 from representative analytical results of beams. Analytical Models and Analytical Results Analytical finite element meshes. But the splitting strength becomes a little too large to be used as tensile strength for panels and shear walls with thin thickness.3^/CTB : OB in MPa) is often used. can be easily idealized into a model.4. columns and beamcolumn joints. because its elastoplastic behavior. 5. StressStrain Relationship of Reinforcement The characteristics of high strength reinforcement are not particularly considered. 5.2.4. Models where the shear stiffness decreases with the increase of the crack width or the concrete strain normal to the crack are used like the AlMahadi Model (Ref.8. 5.
Finite Element Analysis 241 S P M I M U S tor u t l r t i t . 5. Ar a) Finite Element Idealization Failure mode shear strength Flexural yielding Experimental result 730kN Shioharas model 684kN 655 kN Naganuma's model Flexural compression failure Uchida.0 IS.' it hi A * ill !*. PB4 tested by F. Finite element idealization and analytical results of New RC beam.K a i a n u u ' t Bodel Uchida's sodel 1 Uchida's oodcl2 10.s model1 Shear compression failure 427kN Uchida's model2 607kN Shear compression failure(edge) b)Comparisons of Analytical Results with Test Results of Beam PB4 B 00 700 100 E x x r i M n U l result Shjohara's oodcl . Watanabe.O Displacement (mm) c) LoadDisplacement Relationships P3U d) Crack Pattern (PB4 at Maximum Strength) Fig. .9.
4. As for the shear transfer mechanism through a crack plane. 5. when the stressstrain curve of high strength reinforcement is different from the ordinary strength steel. The analytical strength is generally lower than the test results. The shear transfer characteristics denned by a function of crack width or strain normal to the crack direction like the AlMahaidi equation may underestimate the strength. Figure 5. the AlMahaidi equation based on the deep beam test is often used. the spacing of shear reinforcement is 50 mm and relatively dense with high confinement on the core concrete. but the strength does not seem to decrease in beams or columns with a relatively large width as compared to the thin panels. Therefore. Shirai. though there is some difference between the models in the behavior right after the initial cracking. There is scattering in the maximum shear strength by each analysis. Analytical results were compared with each other as well as with experimental results in terms of shear stressshear strain curves. High confinement on the core concrete is also given by heavy longitudinal reinforcement. a model considering the steel test result is preferred over simple models such as a bilinear model. There is not a large difference in general.1. Analysis of Panel Specimens Eleven panel specimens with high strength concrete were analyzed. .2.4. the effect of modeling of stressstrain curve of reinforcement appears quite clearly in the analytical results. B series using high strength concrete in the New RC project. PB series. and the strength was evaluated generally high. But it is considered that the contribution of the dowel action of reinforcement is relatively large in the case of these specimens with large amount of longitudinal reinforcement and shear reinforcement. In the case of failure mode where yielding of reinforcement takes place prior to compressive failure of concrete. and six specimens in the beam test.3.3. e.g. Sumi and Takagi. This is particularly true in case of a simple stress condition like a panel.10 shows an example of comparison of a test with analyses by Noguchi. Analysis of Beam Test Specimens In the analysis of four specimens in the beam test. the analytical stiffness corresponds to the test results as shown by an example in Fig. The analytical reduction factor of the compressive strength of cracked concrete is based on the previous panel test. Naganuma. Higher values of tested strength are attributed to the details of specimens.242 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 5.9. 5.
10.2MPa 11.37MPa 10.4MPa 9.2MPa 11. a) Finite Element Idealization b)Comparisons ol Analytical Results with Test Results of Panel 888 Shear strength Experimental result Noguchi's model Shirai's model1 Shirai's model2 Shirai's model3 Shirai's model4 Shirai's model 5 Naganuma's model1 Sumi's modet1 Sumi's model2 Takagi's model 9.0MPa 10.Finite Element Analysis 243 A panel is idealized as a single eleacnt. 5.0 . 1.2MPa 10. Finite element idealization and analytical results of New RC panel 888 tested by K.2MPa I0.0 Shear Strain (%) c) Shear StressShear Strain Fig.62MPa 9.2MPa 10. Sumi of Hazama Corporation.4MPa 10.02MPa Failure mode Cut off reinforcement Cut off reinforcement Yielding of reinforcement Cut off reinforcement Cut off reinforcement C O I— CD C W cfl 2.
it is inferred that the input value of the concrete compressive strength was too high.244 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures In the case of failure mode where concrete compressive failure occurs before steel yielding. the loaddisplacement curves were well simulated up to the ultimate stage. the maximum shear strength was overestimated. 5. The pattern of the loaddeflection curves could simulate the test results. and the comparison and verification of the material constitutive law were carried out. Analysis of Shear Walls Two specimens were analyzed for ordinary strength concrete and fourteen specimens were analyzed for high strength concrete. shown as Shirai's model1 in Fig.11.4. In the NW series including both ordinary strength concrete and high strength concrete. From the comparison between the analytical and test results of specimens with concrete strength of 100 MPa and 70 MPa.3. In the Stevens model.3. 1 to 8 gave a good agreement with the test results. gave a better agreement with the test results than the analysis using the original equation of Stevens where the compressive reduction factor was given only as the function of tensile principal strain. the analytical results using the modified equation of Stevens (Ref. 5. 5.10. 5. Conclusions RC structural members using high strength material were analyzed by FEM. Considering that the experimental failure mode was flexural compressive failure. In the case of specimens with different reinforcement ratios between longitudinal and lateral rebars. The analytical initial stiffness of the specimens Nos.4.16) considering concrete strength.3. There is also a scatter among analytical results due to . 5. there is a scatter among analyses using different evaluation of compressive reduction factor. there is difference in the analytical results using different modeling of the shear transfer characteristics of crack planes. Although the stiffness tended to be higher.4. but the stiffness after cracking and the maximum strength were overestimated as compared with the test results. The comparison between the test results and analytical results revealed that few analytical cases gave a perfect agreement of stiffness and maximum strength. the maximum shear strength was grasped well by each analysis as shown in Fig. and there is high possibility that the shear transfer effects of the crack planes were overestimated in his model.
Kabeyasawa.0 WSPLACEMEMT (mm) c) LoadDisplacement Relationships Fig. .0 40. 5. Finite element idealization and analytical results of New RC shear wall.0 60.0 20.Finite Element Analysis 245 ( M i l i u m r A\VT . NW1 tested by T . Compressive failure at the bottom of compression Naganuma's model1 1016KN columns after flexural yielding Compressive failure at shear wall Takagi's model 999KN after column flexural yealding 1500 500 Experimental result Noguchi' 5 sodel — Shirai's model3 Naganuaa' s BodelI Tafcagi" s node] 0.11.7S i : — i  ~7\7 <> d) Crack Pattern (NW1 at Maximum Strength) a) Shirai's model b)Comparisons of Analytical Results with Test Results of Shear Wall NW1 Shear strength Failure mode 1063KN Flexural failure Experimental results Noguchi's model Flexural yielding failure 1113KN Shirai's model3 1013KN .
The constitutive laws are explained in detail in Ref. The specimens were analyzed by the FEM program developed by Noguchi Laboratory of Chiba University. Effect of shear reinforcement on the shear behavior of beams was studied. 5. 4 and 6 (section: B x D = 200 mm x 300 mm. and no material constitutive laws were found to be definitely applicable. The target specimens were five RC beams. and the proposed equation by  1 Concrete element Hoop element o Bond linkage element 1 I [ \ } Nj — —' ' I t t >r£ i ' Tested zone —' i  Z00 ) gaO  220  210  150  150 11Q0 100100)5^ Fig.29) using a concrete strength reduction factor in the draft of CEB Model Code 90 (Ref.28).24) was used for the descending portion of stressstrain curves of concrete after the peak. The shear reinforcement ratios were determined according to AIJ Guideline (Ref.5.12. Finite element idealization of beam. 5.33) with high strength materials tested by Noguchi and Amemiya (Ref.5. Therefore.31). F E M Parametric Analysis of High Strength Beams Objectives and Methods FEM parametric analysis of RC beams using high strength materials was performed with the ratio and strength of shear reinforcement as parameters. ASB1.26. 2. The Sakino's equation (Ref. 5. 5. But there are some analyses that gave good agreement with the test results for the loaddeflection curves and the maximum strength. 5. .1.246 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures the different material constitutive laws. 5. 5. 3. it is expected that a more reliable simulation of RC members using high strength materials can be achieved by the accumulation of research on the material constitutive laws. shear span to depth ratio: a/D = 2. 5.
the ultimate shear strength did not increase so much and had a tendency to reach a peak.5 5.4 percent.0 Relative Displacement (mm) Fig. Shear forcerelative displacement relationships. One half of the specimen was analyzed considering symmetry around a point. Here. 5. As the shear reinforcement ratio becomes greater than pw = 2.4 P*= 1.Finite Element Analysis 247 Noguchi and Ihzuka (Ref. Unit:% P*= 2.29). and 0.634 Pl»= 0.2 ?1P 0 . . 5. 5.5 15. The failure mode changed into shear compression failure without yielding of shear reinforcement when the shear reinforcement ratio exceeds 1.27) was used for the compressive reduction factor of cracked concrete.13. 0.0 7.8 Pw» 1. The finite element idealization of the specimen is shown in Fig. and shear reinforcement was represented by uniformly distributed layered elements. The failure mode was brittle shear tension failure with a remarkable shear crack opening and yielding of shear reinforcement in the case of low ratios like pw = 0.2 percent. the amount of beam longitudinal reinforcement was assumed to be large enough to avoid flexural yielding based on the specimen ASB3.3. The compression zone at the beam end and the compression strut failed in compression.5.6 percent.13.2.5 10. 5.3 P«r» 0. 5. A linearly varying quadrilateral element with eight nodes was used for concrete. 8 Put* 0. 5. The Effect of Shear Reinforcement Ratio The analytical shear forcedisplacement curves are shown in Fig. 5.0 0 2. compared with the calculated results by AIJ Guideline using several compression strength reduction factors: AIJ equation (Ref.12.14.0 12. A linear bar element was used for reinforcement. The analytical shear strength and shear reinforcement ratio relationships are shown in Fig.
The New RC Sakino's Model (Ref.33) were used for the confinement effects on the stressstrain curves by shear reinforcement. \ £ 30 \ H o d i f i e d KentPark model (Net RC Sakino's model" \T loon IOOOO —! nooo Strain (p.5 3.0 Fig.14. 5. The difference is seen for the strain at the peak and the descending curve.32 and 5. Effects of Concrete Confinement Constant Value of p Twy Models with a FEM parametric analysis was carried out by setting the value of pwawy (pw: shear reinforcement ratio. It is indicated that the analytical results are located between AIJ and CEB equations. The difference of both stressstrain curves is shown in Fig. 5.15. 5.) Fig. Differences of compressive stressstrain relationships by two models. . CEB equation (Ref.248 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Reinforcement not yielded Reinforcement yielded £^F O O — — Large amount of main bars ASB3 CEB equation AIJ equation *— Ichinose equation 0. ASB2.3.5 2. Ichinose's equation (Ref.0 1. awy: yielding strength of shear reinforcement) at a constant value for the specimen ASB2.31). 5.0 Lateral reinforccDent ratio 2.30). Ultimate shear strengthshear reinforcement ratios relationships. 5. 5.15. 5.5.5 1. 5.24) and the modified KentPark Model (Refs.
There is small difference in the strain at the peak when the amount of confining reinforcement is varied.6% \ .2 0. Parameters in Sakino model.2 trwj (MPa) 1697 1069 566 283 Concrete Peak Strain (/*) 7840 8630 8850 9100 Pw=0.317%~Pw=1. The shear forcerelative displacement curves Table 5. 450 400 350 Pw=1 2% • _ 300 / 2 200 a tii #5?T'" \ \ =w=0. 5.17. Pw • (Twj = 3.1.16.Finite Element Analysis 249 The parameters of analysis using New RC Sakino's Model are shown in Table 5.6 1. 5. .2% PL /' I '50 100 50 0 1 i i 5 10 Displacement C m m ) 15 20 Fig.16. Shear forcerelative displacement by Sakino model. Concrete stressstrain curves by Sakino's Model are shown in Fig. 5.39 M P a Pw (%) 0. Stressstrain curves by Sakino model. Pw=p.317 0.2% Strain ( u ) Fig.317% Pw=0.1.
250 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 5.5% °0 0 v .5 0.2%  5 150 100 50 0 L i i I 1 1 ' 0 s ! 19 1 15 ! 20 ! 25 30 Di splaceaent (am ) Fig.5% o 5000 woo \m Strain ( / O 20000 Fig. Stressstrain curves by modified KentPark model.6% Pw= s0@~ —— ' ^ ' ^""r^T"" j I j / 250 2 <  rw( Pw=0. Shear forcerelative displacement by modified KentPark model.6 1. 450 400 350 ? 300 f S a> i I j Pw=0.19.— «=0.317% i Pw=0. ..»0. 1.39 M P a Pw (%) 0. Pw • <rwj = 3.4% i. 5.2.317 0. Parameters in modified KentPark model.2 0.6% P . 5.2% P. 0.4 1.2 oWj (MPa) 1697 1069 848 679 566 283 Concrete Peak Strain (/x) 9251 15 732 21173 28505 36 993 102 271 P.18. .
5.8 percent and axial stress ratio: n = N/CNU = 0. 0. it gradually approaches to a peak value when the shear reinforcement ratio becomes very high. 5. when the amount of confined steel is varied.6. Parameters were shear reinforcement ratio: pw = 0.1. 1. Noguchi et al. Effect of parameters on the shear behavior of columns was studied. From the parametric analysis. but the slope of descending curves does.5. 5. the ultimate shear strength was larger. F E M Parametric Analysis of High Strength Columns Objectives and Methods FEM parametric analysis of RC columns using high strength materials was performed with shear reinforcement ratio and axial force ratio as parameters. 5.6. This trend can be attributed to the greater confinement effects provided by the greater geometrical ratio. the ultimate shear strengths were different. which become larger for larger pw as shown in Fig. The parameters of analysis using modified KentPark Model are shown in Table 5. 1. 0.2. Although the stiffness is higher as pw increases.18.2. Conclusions Although the ultimate shear strength increased according to the increase of the shear reinforcement ratio. .1.3. The objective specimens were based on those tested also by Noguchi et al. Concrete stressstrain curves by the modified KentPark Model are shown in Fig. 5.Finite Element Analysis 251 are shown in Fig. 0.15. It is inferred that the concrete strain at the compression failure.3.17. in Chiba University analyzed column specimens using their original FEM program. As the yielding strength of shear reinforcement was lower and the shear reinforcement ratio was larger. The shear forcerelative displacement curves are shown in Fig. 5. 0.18. of shear reinforcement. gave an effect on the ultimate shear strength. Some difference was seen in the confinement effect from the different modeling of concrete in the analysis.19. the maximum strength is not changed very much. pw.05. The strain at the peak does not change very much. 0. not the mechanical ratio.4. it was shown that the ultimate shear strength increased as pw increased even though pwcrwy was kept the same. 5. Although there is small difference in the stiffness.6.
20. 1 k. and the finite element idealization is shown in Fig.5 en (MPa) 3. 5.252 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 0. 0.2% offset (MPa) 56. Material properties. Fig.6.3.19 x 10 5 2.60 Ccu 5 ary (MPa) 721 847 3360 6670 2250 °\ 1. Material properties are shown in Table 5.75 where CNU is axial strength including longitudinal reinforcement.25P A miMitiit L.20.14 x 10 Concrete Ec (MPa) 3.2SP liiuniiii i"T~~ I b .25P Concrete element — Q r* 44 < — ><— Hoop element Bondlink 2.76 x 10 4 tO. i _ . . Reinforcement Es (MPa) Main bar Shear reinforcement* 2. — 3 2. Table 5. 5.A 3 Finite element idealization.3.. . 0.45.
5.1 /''T— . 1 .  nl.f T  T 1 400 300 3 fi^^=r. (Ref. 5. however.21 from (a) to (d). B % Fig.. Zhang et al. 5. n—•3 — . the shear strength increased almost parallel with the axial stress ratio increase. n =«.'"" i • l'~~yi~ j 200 100 i i 0 /•* ^ 5 (mm) (c) Pw=1 . The analytical shear strengthaxial stress ratio relationships are shown in Fig.21.. 6 % 60 (mm) (a) Pw*0. ft'' i^i \*' X.6.» . 4 j. The analytical results gave reasonable agreement with the test results for this . As seen in Fig.. — n=J. M. Analytical Results The shear forcedeflection curves are shown for each shear reinforcement ratio in Fig. But his tests and analysis were carried out for RC columns with ordinary strength materials..1 j.C.22. For every shear reinforcement ratio the increased initial stiffness.22 with a parameter of shear reinforcement ratio as compared with the test results. n8. 5.35) reported that the increase of shear strength due to the increase of axial stress ratio was more remarkable for lower shear reinforcement ratio."'. the shear strength increase due to the axial stress ratio increase was observed for any shear reinforcement ratio. shear cracking strength and maximum strength were observed when the axial force ratio was increased...2% /='" ! « r ' 6 (mm) (d) P w = 1 .. S _ L : " n0.. 1 .3 % (kN) 500 400 300 o 200 100 0 (KN) 6 (mm) . But the drift at the maximum strength tends to decrease for greater axial force ratio. 5. 5._ P n0 n«. ..Finite Element (kN) 500 1 T"1 Analysis 253 • • 400 300 o 200 100 0 __ „ .7 J..2.t 20 _l_ 40 (b) P w = 0 ..3S fO''A''. ! . " fS ''• "" /'•. In our case of high strength columns. n . . Shear forcedeflection relationships.
9 Axial force ratio n Pig.8(%) 0.32 and 5.6 0. It indicates that .6 0. 15 0. This difference between Zhang el al. 5.22 also indicated that the shear strength deceased under high axial force ratio when the shear reinforcement ratio was small.2(%) _1_ 0.3 Structures = 400. tendency.23.1 0 0. Figure 5.3(%) O P»=0.22. 5.1 0. 5.23 with a parameter of axial stress ratio. The confinement effect was not considered in the Zhang's analysis. Shear strengthaxial force ratio relationships.2 0.33) in our analysis.8 0. but no decrease was observed under high axial force ratio for high shear reinforcement ratio. while the confinement effect was considered with the modified KentPark equation (Refs. The analytical shear strengthshear reinforcement ratio relationships are shown in Fig. and ours is considered to be the result of different assumptions on the confinement effect of shear reinforcement on the core concrete. Shear strengthshear reinforcement ratio relationships. ca200 £asflj(%) ~l OPw=0.254 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Axial force r a t i o n 0.6(%) Analytical Experimental MM 0. 5. 0.S 0.2 1.5 Shear reinforcement ratio p« (%)• Fig.9 1.4 £ Pw=1.7 0.3 OPW1.
verification of the guideline equation and the previous design equation of ultimate joint shear strength was discussed.26) was used for the compressive strength reduction factor of concrete.6. 5.7. This trend is considered to be the result of the confinement effect on the core concrete by the shear reinforcement. The effects of concrete strength and joint lateral reinforcement on the joint shear strength were also investigated. shear cracking strength and maximum strength were observed when the axial force ratio was increased. The bond link elements composed of two orthogonal springs were used to represent bond between longitudinal bars and concrete. The bond stressbond slip relationships were determined from the test results. The drift at the maximum strength had a tendency to decrease with the increase of axial force ratio. The Ihzuka's equation (Ref.1. After a constant axial loading was applied at the top of the column. . 5.Finite Element Analysis 255 a similar increase of shear strength was observed with the increase of shear reinforcement ratio.32 and 5. FEM parametric analysis of RC beamcolumn joints using high strength materials was performed with the parameters of concrete strength and joint lateral reinforcement. 5. Conclusions Increases of initial stiffness.33). The increase of shear strength due to the increase of axial force ratio was similar for any shear reinforcement ratio. From the analytical results. The modified KentPark's Model was used for the confinement effects of lateral reinforcement on the core concrete (Refs.7. The Fafitis and Shah's Model represented the linear property of the ascending curves of high strength concrete. 5. F E M Parametric Analysis of High Strength BeamColumn Joints Objectives and Methods 5. Though the increase of shear strength became a little blunt in case of high axial stress ratio. this tendency was not so remarkable as that reported for the ordinary strength concrete. One half of the specimen was analyzed considering the symmetry around a point. lateral displacement control was used.3. A twodimensional nonlinear FEM program with the constitutive laws of high strength materials was used for the analysis.
As for the material properties.2.4 percent and concrete strength Table 5. i.25 Fc Joint lateral reinforcement Joint shear stress at beam yielding.5 MPa.18% 14. 0.e. the yielding strength of joint lateral reinforcement was 804 MPa and concrete compressive strength was 80. Specimen Main bar Beam Stirrup AT2 6D13 D 2D10® 150 Pw = 0.24.4.89% D 2D6 x 2@ 60 Pw = 0.09.9. 0.15 Fc 11. 5.36.54. r py (MPa) • 4D6 x 3® 50 Pw = 0.71% AT4 AT5 10D13 • 2D10® 80 Pw = 0.2. The analytical initial stiffness. 2. the AT series beamcolumn joint specimens tested by Takezaki and Noguchi (Ref.4. for four specimens of AT series including two failure modes. Specimens.18. Results of Parametric Analysis Beamcolumn joints were parametrically analyzed for the shear reinforcement ratios. 0. Comparison between Test and Analytical Results Specimens in the AT series are shown in Table 5. 5.9 = 0. 0. the yielding strength of beam main bars was 556 MPa.20 Fc .3. pw = 0. But after the beam yielding. 1. The maximum strength and the associated story drift were a little larger than the test results.7.256 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures In order to verify the analytical model. Analytical results of the story shear forcestory drift curves are shown with the test results in Fig. joint failure and beam flexural yielding.92 = 0. and the stiffness degradation by the yielding of beam main bars gave good agreement with the test results. 5. crack propagation. 5.7.47% 8. 0.9 = 0.36) were analyzed and compared with the test results. The analytical story shear forcestory displacement relationships gave reasonable agreement with the test results.47% AT3 8D13 D 2D10® 100 Pw = 0. the displacement increased without strength decay under monotonic loading in the analysis. It was different from the test results where the strength decay was observed after the peak under reversed cyclic loading.
5. Subsequent strength decay also became larger. 80.2 4t it 10 9 20 Story Drift (mm) Fig. Effects of joint shear reinforcement ratios and concrete compressive strength were studied. the maximum strength was reached earlier when the shear reinforcement ratio was lower.25. . In the parametric analysis.25. 65. 36. 5.A T . Although the initial stiffness was almost the same. 120 MPa. The analytical story shear forcestory drift relationships for different shear reinforcement ratios are shown in Fig. aB = 21. by Noguchi and Takezaki using their original FEM program.Finite Element Analysis 257 300 p" 1 ~~ i Analytical Experimental 1 * [ •••' 1 i^l. . Story shear forcestory drift relationships. Story shearrelative displacement relationships. 51.24. 300 5 200 . 5.100 Fig. The basic specimen was the specimen AT4. the amount of beam main bars was deliberately increased to avoid beam flexural yielding prior to the joint shear failure. 100.
The analytical joint shear strengthjoint shear reinforcement ratio relationships are shown in Fig. I. 5.27.27. 5. The analytical story shear forcestory drift relationships for different concrete strength are shown in Figs. Constant ratio of beam main bare (AT4) 300 Unit: MPa Fc=20. the strength remained almost the same. It is seen the initial stiffness tends to increase as the concrete strength increases. In the case of the constant beam main bar ratio. 5. The joint shear strength increased remarkably from pw = 0 to 0. On the other hand. but afterward the .26. 5. Story shear forcestory drift relationships.54 percent. 5 2. 0 1. The beam main bar ratio was kept constant in Fig.3 Fc=53. Even when the shear reinforcement ratio was very large like pw = 2.36 percent and nearly reached the maximum strength at pw — 0. 5 Fig.28 for ultrahigh strength concrete such as 100 MPa or 120 MPa in order to maintain the joint shear failure mode.28.26. 5.27 and 5. the increase of joint shear strength was remarkable up to 80 MPa of concrete strength.4 percent.4 Fc=98. 5.1 Fc=118 20 30 Story drift (mm) 40 S O Fig.258 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures O— 0. the beam main bar ratio was increased in Fig.9 Fc=78. 0 Lateral reinforcement rations (%) Joint shear stresslateral reinforcement ratio relationships.6 '^ Fc=35.
5.9 x (the square root of as) as shown in Fig.Most of test results of specimens failing in joint shear failure were distributed just above the curve of 1. 5. 5. Fig. In the case of the joint shear failure type by increasing beam main bars ratio.28.29.29 comparing with test results. erg. but it increased in proportion to the square root of as.29.Finite Element Analysis 259 Story drift (mm) Fig. 5. Story shear forcestory drift relationships. Joint shear stressconcrete strength relationships. the strength increase did not stop even in ultrahigh strength concrete like 100 MPa and 120 MPa. strength came to a peak owing to the change of failure mode from joint shear failure to the beam flexural yielding. The analytical joint maximum shear stressconcrete strength relationships are shown in Fig. The analytical joint maximum shear stress did not increase in proportion to concrete compressive strength. .
5.6. 5. The analytical and experimental ultimate shear strength was compared. .8.4.39) and eight specimens in NO series (Ref.37).8. but increased in proportion of the square root or twothirds power of <JB5. the test specimens of NO series were selected as the object of parametric analysis. The specimen No. no strength increase was observed. The applicability and problems in applying these equations to high strength shear walls were investigated. 5. Then. Conclusions The analytical joint shear strength increased remarkably from pw = 0 to 0. 5. Finally. CTB. The analytical joint maximum shear stress did not increase in proportion to concrete compressive strength.38 and 5. 3 was made to be the reference specimen. had installed the constitutive law model for ordinary strength materials only. 5.5 and 5.36 percent and nearly reached the maximum strength at pw = 0.40) tested by the JDC Corporation and Meiji University were analyzed. F E M Parametric Analysis of High Strength Walls Objectives and Methods The constitutive law model was proposed not only for ordinary strength but also for high strength concrete by the FEM WG in the New RC project.1.54 percent.4 percent.2.16) in which Stevens et al. Dimensions and material properties of the test specimens are respectively shown in Tables 5. six specimens in NW series tested at Yokohama National University (Refs. parametric analysis was carried out by the modified FIERCM in order to complement the region between test results.8. 5. Outline of Research In order to verify the accuracy of the modified FIERCM. Even for higher shear reinforcement ratio such as pw = 2. It was applied to high strength shear walls tested by the Structural Element Committee.7. The resulted program was called "modified FIERCM" (Ref.260 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 5. Next. The accuracy of the ultimate shear strength was investigated by comparing analysis with tests. empirical formula and design equations of shear strength. These constitutive laws were installed into the nonlinear FEM program (FIERCM) (Ref. parametric analysis was carried out using previously available macroscopic models.
00] 2D6® 230 (0.5 76. 4 No.5 76.33] 2D6® 150 (0.62) 2D6® 80 (1.35) 2000 [1.08 .33] 3000 [2. Columns Concrete Specimen strength (MPa) No.99 2. 1 No.53) 800 x 1300 2D6® 150 (0. Material properties.53) 2D6® 150 (0.8 71.86 3.58 3.7 74. 8 Days 49 70 60 95 101 94 70 66 Strength (MPa) 65. (a) Concrete Specimen No. 5 No.8 103. 6 No.1 Young Modulus (10 5 MPa) — 2. b x D (mm) Main bars SD 80 Ties SD 130 spiral (P™) Height (mm) [M/Q • D] Wall Width x Length (mm) Reinforcement ft (%) (ft) 1 2 3 4 5 6 60 7 8 100 60 2D6® 400 (0.45) 200 X 200 Table 5.53) 2U6.4® 122 [SD 130] (0.1 71.20) Top 1/2 2D6® 40 (0. 2 No.01 2.1 70.00) 2D6® 55 (1.5.80%) 16D13 (5.6.08%) Bottom 1/2 2D6® 50 (0.Finite Element Analysis 261 Table 5.99 3.64%) 20000 [1.03 3. 3 No. 7 No. Specimens.
the applicability and problems were investigated.89 2.31) was used. 5. 5.6. (1). the empirical equation: Hirosawa's equation (Ref.7 . In the AIJ Guideline Eq.262 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 5.94 2. Analytical Results and Discussions The comparison of tests and FEM analysis on NW and NO series specimens are shown in Fig. Wall reinforcement ratio: pw = 0.98 Wall Main bars Column Column tie Column subtie D6 D13 Following four parameters were investigated in this study.31. In the AIJ Guideline Eq.42) and the design equation: the AIJ Guideline (Ref.875 to 2. 5.43) were applied to the above shear walls in the parametric analysis. 5.29) was used for the effectiveness factor v of concrete. Column main bar ratio: pg = 1. the FEM analytical results tended to overestimate a little the ultimate shear strength of NO series. 5. the CEB equation: v = 1. Material properties and dimensions except for the parameters were identical to No. the modified CEB equation . By comparing the results from these equations and the FEM analysis.8.10 1. The accuracy of the FEM analysis was good within 5 percent for NW series and within 12 percent for NO series. 5. In the AIJ Guideline Eq.41).(7^/200 (Ref. (2). The previous macroscopic model: the Shohara and Kato's Model (Ref. (Continued) (b) Reinforcement Grade SD785 SD1275 SD785 SD1275 Diameter Yield strength (MPa) 808 1448 1028 1422 D6 1422 Yield strain (xl0~6) 6187 8928 7205 8637 9003 Tensile strength (MPa) 1015 1529 1132 1532 1512 Young modulus (105MPa) 1.3. the Nielsen equation: v — o.063. 5.2 to 1. (1) (2) (3) (4) Concrete compressive strength: as = 20 to 100 MPa.5 to 6. Shear span ratio: hw/L = 0. 3 specimen. 5.05 1.25 percent.30. (3). The effect of concrete compressive strength on the ultimate shear strength is shown in Fig. However.7 x o~B (Ref.45 percent.
5. (v = 1.Finite Element Analysis 1 1 1 '' — 1 i 263 r ' < ! _..32. every design equation tends to overestimate the effect of wall reinforcement according to the increase of pw x say compared with the test results. needs more consideration in case of high strength material. the calculated value by the AU Guideline Eq. 5. (3) expressed the effect of concrete strength the most appropriately. cot <f> = 1.30.7 x <r B 1/3 > 0.•' 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Concrete strength (MPa) Fig.31.5) was used. ! i  j * T?""T~ ~2f~ "T ~T " ' 9 \a NW series l°_ NO sene i 12 14 i to Analytical with FIERCM(MPa) Fig. The effect of pw x say (pw: wall reinforcement ratio. as the concrete strength increased. Comparisons between experimental and F E M analytical values. say: yielding strength of wall reinforcement) on the shear strength is shown in Fig. In the meantime. The effects of concrete strength. In the range of the examined pw x 3ay values. (1) tended to underestimate compared to the test results and the FEM analytical results.— ^ ShinoharaKato model 7 — 7 Hirosawa's equation O " " ' 0 AUGuidelineeq1 0 0 AU Guideline eq. ..3 .2 0 0 AU Guideline eq. The AU Guideline Eq. It is concluded that the assumption of truss mechanism angle in the AIJ Guideline equation. 5. Q A Experimental RERCM ^ .
". 5.5 Column reinforcement ratio (%) Fig.•..5 1. *»——. The effects of column main bar ratios..0 25 Shear span ratio (rWL) Fig.33.".32. 5..34.i AU GukMlna aq. fflQ.J AUQuklallrw>q. 5. Hi • ' o—a 0— 0 0—0 0."°••^!^*^^^Xlu» —*1 S 6 ShinoharaKato model Hirosawa's equation AU Guideline eq... The effects of shear span ratios.0 4.>C\_.3 ""*""*— .5 5. 0—0 ft—ft 4—A 7"7 Experimental $. 2 o> c r—:A •V ~ 7 •"*"*• 0 0 0 0 3.. The effects of pWs&y Q Q Experimental s JZ • " 14 12 10 ft A * ™SCM ShinoharaKato mods) Hirasavra's equation AU Guideline eq.1 1.264 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3 6 g 0—0 4—* FEBCM «—~ 4 » "V 0" * "Q 0" * "0 0***0 STWnoharaKato model Hrrouwataquation AU GuidWn* *q. °v .5 2.2 AU Guideline eq.3 12 15 Amount of lateral reinforcement p* • s c>{MPa) Fig.1 AU Guideline eq. .2 AU Guideline eq. JC 14 S 12 n) c 03 10 «.1 AU Guideline eq.•. 0 ^.0 7.3 _.
the effect of shear span ratio on the ultimate shear strength is shown in Fig. uniaxial compressive stress and bidirectional axial compressive stresses.1. The failure mode in the test was concrete shear failure. 5. (3) Tension stiffening characteristics: Stevens equation (Ref. the effect of main bars ratio is not considered in the AIJ Guideline equation.9. 5. F E M Parametric Analysis of High Strength Panels Objectives and Methods FEM parametric analysis was performed on parameters that had not been included in RC panel tests in the New RC project.Finite Element Analysis 265 The effect of column main bar ratio on the ultimate shear strength is shown in Fig. The list of specimens is shown in Table 5.1) was applied. The Hirosawa's equation represented this effect very well.37) was applied.6) was applied. (4) Compressive stressstrain relationships of concrete: For the ascending curve the FafitisShah Model (Ref. and for the descending curve the Shirai equation (Ref.2. 5. 5. The following common basic conditions were applied to all specimens in this analysis. Finally. (3) and the Hirosawa's equation grasped the tendency of the test results and FEM analysis. The ultimate shear strengths are shown in Table 5. respectively.9. The calculated results of the AIJ Guideline Eq. The AIJ Guideline Eq. (1) Concrete compressive strength:CTB= 70 MPa.35. 5. 5.34.7.37) was applied.33. 5. it . Although the increase of ultimate shear strength according to the increase of main bars ratio was observed in the FEM analysis.7.9. (2) Crack strength: acr: 0.3 times square root of <j&. (3) gave the best agreement with test results. From Fig. 5. 5. 5. (3) gave the best agreement with test results. Parameters in the analysis were reinforcement arrangement methods. Analytical Results and Summary The analytical shear stressshear strain relationships are shown in Figs.355. The AIJ Guideline Eq. 5.37. (5) Compressive strength reduction factors of concrete after cracking: Shiohara Model (Ref.
3 <r B ir it h ..37.005 0. j < u o 0 / .—. 0.005 0.. .— ^ .. 2 lo £ 0) T^^wmm f' r *. 5.015 say. . . Analytical results of a series with variation of combination of pt and i 1 1 t 05 o a 2 ft i •—"y .266 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures ra u a.010 Shear Strain 0.0 .• " 5 55 01 / 1 1 s" /' / "if—:CL 0 0. 5..005 0. Analytical results of a series with variation of axial stress ratios.'^"sj.015 Fig.. • f f 'rOSa. 5.35.010 Shear Strain 0.•• / / / \S 0.010 Shear Strain Fig. . ' • •  ^r. .— \~/r 0 / ^ 0.015 Fig.34. Analytical results of a series with variation of bidirectional axial stress ratios. .
Delft.34 15.14 16. McGraw Hill Book Company Ltd. IABSE.C. pt.1.48 24. D. Series 1 of Basic and Application of FEM.17 33.3 Ofl Axial force. Specimen Max. Baifukan. Baifukan. K. .. uniaxial or biaxial. = 2. T. none Axial force. 0. p.0% SD295.6.0% SD490. Strength MPa SD980. contributed t o t h e increase of cracking strength a n d ultimate shear strength.17 18. 0./7. From soy Figs. ed. p. 152163. p. References 5. = 6.87 267 t t t <— a1 I •4t— a2 a3 b1 b2 b3 b4 c1 c2 c3 c4 1 ~v <*— A ^ I 1 4— r is indicated t h a t t h e stiffness after cracking a n d t h e u l t i m a t e shear s t r e n g t h increased according to t h e increase of reinforcement ratio.1 aB Axial force.2. Advanced mechanics of reinforced concrete. Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams. = 4. O.36 a n d 5.6 o 8 Axial force.87 15. Baifukan. 255 (in Japanese). Reports of IABSE Colloquium. H. 5. 5. Specimens and maximum strength. March 1967. Ngo.1 oB Axial force.37..11 19.Finite Element Analysis Table 5. Introduction to FEM. 1977.. No. and Scordelis. September 1981. December 1994. 0. ACI J. none Axial force. 0.6 o"B 15.94 19. 5.14 17. 5.3.3 ofl Axial force.. Zienkiewicz. Finite Element Method Handbook.p. it is seen t h a t t h e axial compressive stresses.C. 443 (in Japanese).4. 0. Revised Edition. 0.p. Washizu. A. Third Edition.6% Axial force. The Finite Element Method. 324 (in Japanese). even when pt x (s<Ty'.. Togawa. pp. Miyoshi. November 1981.14 17.5. Introduction of Finite Element Method. 64(3). 1981.7. T h e effect was more remarkable for biaxial compressive stresses t h a n uniaxial compressive stress. 5.yielding s t r e n g t h of the reinforcement) was kept constant. 5. Part 1: Basic Edition.
. pp. 5.268 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 5. New York. 5. 5. FEM analysis as a design method of concrete structures. June 1991.18. Concrete J. FEM analysis as a design method of concrete structures.. Guideline on the Application of FEM to Design of Concrete Structures. p. H. Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structures II. 5. March 1993. published from ASCE.19. Int. Suzuki. Stevens. No. Guideline for nonlinear FEM analysis of RC structures. March 1989 (in Japanese). Research Reports of the GrantinAid. 8693 (in Japanese). Reports of the 2nd JCI Colloquium on Analytical Studies on Shear Problems of RC Structures. and Noguchi.. Japan Concrete Institute. 5. 8186. 30(6). H. Reports of JCI Colloquium on Analytical Studies on Shear Problems of RC Structures. Research committee on shear strength of RC structures. N. published from ASCE. p. JCIC1. January 1987. Naganuma. 1993. Proc. pp. October 1983. Concrete J. March 1992 (in Japanese). Kokudo Kaihatsu Technical Research Center. N. March 1989 (in Japanese). Kokudo Kaihatsu Technical Research Center.8. Analytical Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Subjected to Monotonic and Reversed Loadings. (Representative Researcher). Research Reports. 207 (in Japanese).. USJapan Seminar. Analytical model of concrete structures. 1986. Proc. JCIC16. Part 3.J. Reports of the Analytical Studies on Macroscopic Models and FEM Microscopic Models of RC Shear Walls. Proc. 7681 (in Japanese). Research committee on shear strength of RC structures. Research committee on FEM analysis and design method of RC structures. 5. 5.15. S. FEM analysis as a design method of concrete structures. N. Aoyama. Japan Concrete Institute. pp. 871. Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structures. 31(9). 54 (in Japanese). pp. pp. Japan Concrete Institute. Shirai. Concrete J. 5. May 1985. University of Toronto. 5. 1992. Constitutive equations and FEM WG in the subcommittee on high strength reinforcement.17.14. 7883. 1989 (in Japanese). Research Reports.11. JCI18. published from ASCE.10. 1992 (in Japanese). Test Data of the Specimens for Verification of Analytical Models.13.7. Concrete structures and FEM analysis. Basic test and development of analytical models necessary for development of prediction accuracy of F E M analysis of RC structures. 5. 1986.12. Tokyo. 667681. et al. K. 30(8). 5.20... the Ministry of Education. May 1985. 1993. Research committee on F E M analysis and design method of RC structures. Pub. 5. 1993. Morita. JCIC6.9. Workshop. Parts 1 and 2. June 1982 (in Japanese). 5. Japan Concrete Institute.16. Part 4. Tokyo. USJapan Seminar. Future prospects for finite element analysis of reinforced concrete structures. 31(8). Structural performance subcommittee in the New RC project.
10511054. A. Hamada. pp. R. T. 5. 1985. August 1992. 1990. 5. A. and September 1991. 1992. Takezaki. and Gill W. 1722 (in Japanese). 5. M.37. and Noguchi. 340 (in Japanese). Study on Constitutive equations and FEM analysis of reinforced concrete using from ordinary to high strength materials. JCI 13(2). H. and Noguchi. Ohkubo. Mechanical Characteristics of confined concrete. 5. Research Reports of SubCommittee on High Strength Reinforcement. Kent. Nonlinear analysis of shear behavior of reinforced concrete members.35. August 1992. Noguchi.32. Sakino.. M. D.. Kokudo Kaihatsu Technical Research Center. Study on development of high strength reinforcement. Ohkubo. October 1990. and Zhang. Convention.31. Structure 2. Park. Proc. 5. 5.36.34. Lateral reinforcement for high strength concrete columns. 1988.. Basic test on compressive deterioration characteristics of cracked concrete under seismic loading. H. Structure 2.. p. Architectural Institute of Japan. 5. R. Zhang. Parts 10 and 11. Structure 2. 1971. ACI J. Shear design method of reinforced concrete members considering deformation capacity. A.Finite Element Analysis 269 5.. Proc. AIJ Ann. October 1991 (in Japanese). 513516 (in Japanese). 5. October 1992. Proc. pp.J. Ductility of square confined concrete columns. Doctoral Thesis of Chiba University. Proc. and Noguchi...30. Proc. 19691990. 5. 635638. AIJ Ann. Noguchi.. JCI Colloquium. 213232. ASCE 108(ST4). 381384 (in Japanese). M.. 5. A.C. and Park. Flexural members with confined concrete. Summary reports on New RC research projects. 627630 (in Japanese). AIJ Ann. K. 1990 (in Japanese). H. pp. H. Structure 2.. CEBFIP model code for concrete structures. Matsudo. S. Priestly. M. Ihzuka. Shirai. and Shiohara. A.23. Proc. N. pp. Doctoral Thesis of Chiba University. Study on constitutive laws of reinforced concrete element using ordinary and high strength materials.N. Convention. pp. S.26.25. 5. Proc. Analytical study on the effects of axial force on the shear strength of RC columns.. Abe. Comite EuroInternational Du Beton. March 1992 (in Japanese). H..27.. pp. Convention. . Ichinose.24. Study on behavior of reinforced concrete columns using high strength materials. 473476 (in Japanese). Design guideline for earthquake resistant reinforced concrete buildings based on ultimate strength concept.22. T.28. 5. and Shah. pp.21. March 1992 (in Japanese). Fafitis. 5. AIJ Ann. AIJ.D. pp. 1992 (in Japanese). H..33. Structure 2. 5. H. Amemiya.. April 1982. Trans. AIJ Ann. M.. Proc. S. Convention. M..P. Experimental study on shear behavior of ultrahigh strength beams. pp. Parts 1 and 2. 1991. Experimental study on failure criterion of ultrahigh strength concrete under biaxial compressive stresses.. 5. 5. ASCE 97(ST7). 1991 (in Japanese). and Noguchi. JCIC18.29. Convention. Nimura. Proc.. Kokudo Kaihatsu Technical Research Center.. Seo.
41.3. 607610. pp. Kabeyasawa. R. AIJ Ann. March 1992. Kabeyasawa. H. M. January 1988. 3.. 76. 5..40. JCIC11. 5. N. Hirosawa. JCI Ann. Shohara. Summary Reports on New RC Research Projects.40 (in Japanese). 5.. March 1977 (in Japanese). Proc. pp. 1992.270 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 5. Trans.353. et al. Strength and ductility of reinforced concrete members. et al. Comparisons of macroscopic models of reinforced concrete shear walls with test results. and Kuramaoto. Loading test of high strength reinforced concrete shear walls with large shear span ratios. JCI.39. 4160 and 97102 (in Japanese). Restoring force characteristics of reinforced concrete shear walls with the flexural yielding using high strength materials.38. Shirai. H. Promotion Association of Building Research.42. T. Study on the shear strength. and Yanagisawa. 819824 (in Japanese). October 1990... Reports of Panel Discussion on Macroscopic Models and FEM Microscopic Models of RC Shear Walls. Kano. and Noguchi. T. Kokudo Kaihatsu Technical Research Center.. Structure 2. 5. Parts 1 and 2. Y. Research Reports of Building. Convention 14(2).3. . pp. N. pp. Convention.
particularly of lowrise to mediumrise buildings. at most. 271 . except. Although the title of this chapter refers to the structural design in general. First. it is possible and necessary to take full advantage of high strength. for possible reduction of elastic deflection. For RC buildings with ordinary strength materials. 1 Tachihara. Ministry of Land. Structure Division. but based on the earthquake response analysis. is concentrated on the seismic behavior and seismic design of RC structures with high strength materials. Tsukuba. not based on the assumed mechanism. is to assume weakbeam strongcolumn type collapse mechanism. In this chapter. This limited scope is due to the following two reasons. and many beams do not necessarily yield within the design seismic deformation limit. Building Research Institute. Japan Email: teshi@kenken.go. this chapter is entirely devoted to the seismic design. Infrastructure and Transport. Highrise buildings. tend to receive significant influence of higher modes. The use of high strength materials in the vertical load design does not warrant a merit. Secondly. on the results of which this book is based. Department of Structural Engineering. basic ideas and principles of this design guideline will be explained. As far as seismic design is concerned. the recent trend of seismic design. Design forces are calculated.jp The Structural Design Committee of the New RC research project compiled as its outcome "the structural design guideline for New RC buildings". it is usually regarded that the use of high strength concrete and steel does not necessarily improve the behavior under vertical loading.Chapter 6 Structural Design Principles Masaomi Teshigawara Head. on the other hand. the New RC research project. Ibaraki 3050802.
amplifies this trend.6 again discusses the earthquake motions.8 introduces several buildings ranging from 15 to 60 stories designed in detail using New RC material. about twice as much as that of ordinary material. Design for permanent loading including dead and live loads. 6.3 features simulated earthquake motions specifically developed for new RC structures. and the last. 6. It is assumed that usual structural design method for these loadings would be applied equally to New RC buildings. temperature changes. The yield deflection of members with such material becomes larger.1 introduces the main features of the proposed design method. are not dealt with in the guideline. particularly on the effect of bidirectional horizontal motions and that of vertical motions. Highrise buildings with high strength members would not produce much beam yield hinges within the design seismic deformation limit. In this situation the design based on the collapse mechanism is not realistic. Section 6. and it is mandatory to use earthquake response analysis for the design. Section 6. particularly that of high strength steel.2 is on the seismic design criteria in three stages. Rather it aims at basic principles to establish required performance of a building and method to evaluate behavior of a building to be designed. Section 6. However Japanese RC buildings are usually governed by seismic design considerations. for snow loading. Section 6. For this reason the proposed guideline deals mainly with the seismic design. Section 6. The design of a structure involves various kinds of external loading. This guideline does not assume a style of specifications on detailed procedures of structural member proportioning. Hence a completely new seismic design method was developed for New RC structures. creep and shrinkage. Sec.5 discuss the modeling of structures for response analysis and restoring force characteristics of structural members.4 and 6.272 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures The use of high strength material. Features of N e w RC Structural Design Guidelines The structural design guideline for New RC buildings was a proposal of a method of structural design for highrise and ultrahighrise buildings utilizing high strength materials within the strength range that would be used in practice in the near future. design for wind loading. .7 is devoted to foundation design.1. Six specific features of the guideline are introduced below. Sections 6. This chapter explains background and characteristics of this design method in the following order.
1. and postlevel 2. safety against collapse should be maintained. but also for bidirectional horizontal motions.3. For level 2 earthquake motion which may be the possible maximum motion to the structure. Earthquake Resistant Design in Three Stages The guideline proposes seismic safety investigation by means of dynamic and static analyses in three stages. However. characteristics of motion and method to produce simulated motion are proposed. Bidirectional and Vertical Earthquake Motions As a part of abovementioned rationalization. the third stage may become unnecessary. This variation can be incorporated into design procedure. though not quite completely.2. the variation of earthquake motion or that of earthquake response arising from the idealization procedure of analytical models cannot be fully accounted for in the first two stages.Structural Design Principles 273 6. The third stage was added in an attempt to answer to this uneasiness. strength and deformability of structural members inherently show certain variation (scatter) around their mean values. Proposal of Design Earthquake Motion The guideline includes a proposal of earthquake motion that should be used in the design of New RC structures. For the postlevel 2 stage. Thus earthquake ground motion levels and characteristics of motion are proposed not only for one component of horizontal motion. This proposal was made as an attempt to rationalize the currently prevalent use of available strong ground motion records such as El Centro 1940 or Hachinohe 1968. For level 1 earthquake motion which would happen once in the lifetime of the building. 6. The adoption of the first two stages may be easily understood.1. . Due to structural material characteristics. serviceability should be maintained. the structure should still maintain suitable collapse mechanism and lateral loadcarrying capacity. When a more reasonable approach to take all kinds of uncertainties into account is established for seismic design. levels 1 and 2. 6. The third stage was added by the following reason. threedimensional earthquake motions are considered.1. namely. Thus it may be regarded as a temporary measure reflecting the current stateoftheart of seismic design.1. Also some mention is made on the method to consider vertical motions. Earthquake ground motion levels to be considered in the structural design.
the overall structural stability is investigated in the postlevel 2 stage. The restoring force characteristics of overall structure and internal forces for member design are to be calculated considering these two levels of strength. These features are quite general in nature. Hence it is recommended to use unidirectional ground motion applied to the building in any directions.6. Even in the direct application of this guideline to New RC structures. 6. it is not practical to consider three dimentional motions explicitly. Structural Design of Foundation SoilStructure Interaction and Soilstructure interaction and superstructuresubstructure interaction are to be considered in the design of foundation and evaluation of earthquake input to the superstructure.274 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures However at the present stateoftheart of earthquake response analysis. 6.1. Clarification of Required Safety The safety of a structure under level 1 and 2 earthquake motions and at the postlevel 2 stage is specified in the material level and member level. Variation of Material Strength in Strength Evaluation and Accuracy The concept of dependable and upper bound strengths was introduced to consider the variation of material strength and accuracy of strength evaluation equations.1. Owing to the limited time of the project. . there are many subject not thoroughly investigated. as it was the basic concept that was emphasized in the development of the guideline.5. and the basic concept of the guideline is believed to be applicable not only to New RC structures but also to other concrete or steel structures. It is thus quite natural to assume that much works would have to be done before such application becomes practical. In this way the required safety levels are explicitly specified for all three stages. however.4. In addition. sound judgment of structural engineers would be required at every turn of structural design. This will simplify the probability estimation of assumed performance. 6. Also a method to consider the effect of vertical ground motion in the static analysis is introduced.1.
response drift limit. Level 2 earthquake motion is the largest earthquake motion that is possible to occur at a site. Level 1 earthquake motion is the largest earthquake motion expected to occur once during the lifetime of a building. The design drift limit is defined as .Structural Design Principles 275 6. The response drift limit is defined in terms of structural drift.2. the intensity of a level 1 motion should be approximately equal to 0. The serviceability drift limit is defined in terms of story drift. and design drift limit. respectively. Three limiting drift levels are identified in the guideline. two levels of intensity are used for design earthquake motion. 6. but should not exceed 1/200 (0.83 percent). and is intended to control the deformation under the possible strongest intensity earthquake motions.2. and significance of P5 effect on structural response especially in a highrise building.5 percent) and 1/120 (0. and corresponds to earthquake motion of a return period of approximately 400 years. respectively. 6. and is used to control structural and nonstructural damage. the probability of earthquake intensity exceeding the design level is 60 percent for level 1 and 20 percent for level 2 earthquake motions. The response drift limit may be determined considering the extent of damage that can be repaired. Design Drift Limitations Seismic response of a structure is controlled by the story drift and the structural drift. Roughly speaking the structural drift is defined at the twothirds height of the building. The story drift is denned as lateral story deflection divided by story height. The structural drift is denned as lateral deflection at the centroid of lateral force distribution profile divided by the height of that point. The serviceability and response drift limits may be selected by a structural engineer.2. and corresponds to earthquake motion of a return period of approximately 100 years. and is used to examine the deformation at yield hinge regions and to determine design forces in nonyield hinge regions under the probable largest response deformation considering uncertainties. In general.4 times the intensity of a level 2 motion.1. They are serviceability drift limit. For an assumed building lifetime of 100 years. The design drift limit is also defined in terms of structural drift. Earthquake Resistant Design Criteria Design Earthquake Intensity As was previously introduced.2.
Stage Level 1 Earthquake Drift (1) Story drift < serviceability drift limit (1) Structural drift < response drift limit (2) Story drift < 1.5% response drift limit ^ 0. as shown in Table 6.25RtZ Note: servicealibity drift limit ^ 0. The structure is assumed to exert some nonlinear behavior associated with yielding of rebars under the action of level 2 earthquake motion. A structure must also satisfy safety performance criteria for level 2 earthquake motions. To achieve this end.5 x response drift limit Members (2) No yielding in structural members (3) No damage of nonstructural elements (3) Yielding is permitted but no resistance reduction Level 2 Earthquake Postlevel 2 Stage Structural drift = design drift limit (1) Yield hinge rotation < deformability limit (2) No unexpected yield hinges (3) No brittle failure (4) Base shear coefficient > 0. and (3) nonstructural elements should not be damaged. 6. The serviceability is examined by nonlinear earthquake response analysis.2.276 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures a structural drift at which the work done by static lateral loads becomes two times that at the response drift limit. Safety criteria are examined by the nonlinear earthquake response analysis.1. develop yielding. Design Criteria The earthquake resistant design criteria are expressed as the combination of design earthquake intensity and design drift limitations. (2) no structural members should. but to remain in the range of stable deformation without loadcarrying capacity drop. A structure must satisfy serviceability performance criteria for level 1 earthquake motions. Design criteria for earthquake motion.3. in principle. The serviceability criteria are: (1) story drift in any story should be less than the serviceability drift limit.83% . the safety criteria for the response analysis Table 6.1.
safety performance is examined also by static (pushover) analysis. Figure 6.1. because it is inferred that the check for the postlevel 2 stage would automatically cover the safety criteria for the members. 6. For the level 2 and postlevel 2 stages. But in reality the force and deformation of each member at this stage is not examined.Structural Design Principles 277 are set forth as follows: (1) maximum structural drift should be less than the response drift limit. at least approximately. . hence a safe side solution. Considering the possibility of further increase of response due to uncertainties in the earthquake level and any unforeseen factors.1. design drift limit is Force forcedrift relation based on upper bound strength design force for members Co fe 0.e. As shown. (2) maximum story drift in any story should be less than 1. The response drift limit should correspond to the upper limit of such distribution. deformation relationship in two ways. Hence it is essential to carry out response analysis for several cases in order to estimate. one based on the dependable material strength. the distribution of the response as shown in Fig. The earthquake response fluctuates due to uncertainties in earthquake motion itself and restoring force characteristics of the structure. In case of dynamic analysis it usually gives larger response.25 forcedrift relation based on dependable strength distribution of earthquake response (drift) Drift response limit design limit distribution of earthquake response (force) lower bound of deformation capacity distribution of deformation capacity evaluation Fig.5 times the above limit. 6. As to the state of the members (3) yielding is permitted but no resistance reduction is allowed. Seismic design concept. It is customary to perform dynamic as well as static analyses on the basis of the former one. and another based on the upper bound material strength.1 shows the idea of static analysis in conjunction with level 2 and postlevel 2 stages. it is possible to draw force vs. i. based on the dependable strength.
50.e. For current RC buildings. (3) brittle failure. broken line in Fig. 0.25RtZ in terms of base shear coefficient where Rt is dynamic characteristics factor and Z is zoning factor. i. It is seen that the required lateral resistance of New RC buildings is about the same as that of recently constructed highrise RC buildings. but it is necessary in principle to carry out this check based on the forces associated with the upper bound material strength. Base shear coefficient of highrise RC buildings. 6.2 w 0) 0. Figure 6.1. The fourth one above. 6. should not take place. Results of static analysis at this level should be used to check the safety criteria as follows: (1) yield hinges must remain within their deformation limit. The first one enables us to ascertain that the design drift limit lies at the lower limit of deformability of members. i.278 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures defined at a larger deformation range as shown in Fig. Philosophically. The required lateral resistance is a measure to compare the safety level with the current structures.e. The purpose of second and third ones is obvious.i 0 0 1 2 3 fundamental period (sec) 1. 6. (2) the locations where yield hinges are not expected to occur should not develop yielding.7.18/7\ ft H^ 3 o. such as shear failure or bond splitting failure. ultimate base shear coefficients were estimated approximately by multiplying the design base shear coefficients by 1. and (4) lateral resistance in terms of base shear coefficient should be larger than some prescribed value.1. required amount of lateral resistance.36/T \ 0 24/r \ • A •* New RC buildings (for ultimate strength) existing RC buildings (for allowable stress) existing RC buildings (for ultimate strength) I °CO 4 8 °3 _g 0. The recommended value is 0. It would be practical to estimate these forces approximately by magnifying the forces associated with dependable strength with an appropriate coefficient. . Fig. dynamic and static design criteria without the fourth one should suffice to secure the safety against level 2 earthquakes and postlevel 2 stage.2.2 shows the ultimate base shear coefficient of New RC trial designs and those of current highrise RC buildings.5 to 1. was introduced for the continuity with the highrise RC buildings currently designed and constructed in Japan.
Design Earthquake Motion 6. New RC Earthquake Motion Proposal for level 2 motion was made in the form of response spectrum as shown in Fig. Hence it is of utmost importance for the design of New RC buildings.05). and it recommends that the simulated ground motion developed from this spectrum should be used simultaneously with the currently used strong motion records. Design earthquake motion should be determined considering seismicity of the site and ground conditions.Structural Design Principles 279 6. Characteristics of Earthquake Motion The design earthquake motion is directly used in the response analysis for levels 1 and 2 criteria checking.00 10. 6. 6.05 0.10 0.1.2.3.1.3.02 0. 6. The use of multiple earthquake motions should enable us to get an idea of response distributions as shown in Fig. The guideline proposes the spectral characteristics covering period range up to 10 seconds.50 1.3.3.00 Period (sec) 5.00 Fig.00 20.3. 6. This motion was assumed on the exposed engineering bedrock 0. Design response spectrum on exposed engineering bedrock (damping = 0. .
Rt curves in Building Standard Law vs. 100 years for level 1 and 400 years for level 2.4. The engineering bedrock roughly corresponds to an earth stratum with the shear wave velocity not less than 400 m/sec.4 shows the acceleration response spectrum of the design earthquake in terms of dynamic characteristics factor Rt. The latter is denned only up to about 2 seconds to cover buildings not taller than 60 m in height. 6.3.9. This spectrum was developed from studies of earthquake motion prediction assuming an earthquake of magnitude 7. The design earthquake motion for level 1 is assumed to be 40 percent of the above level 2 motion.4. 6. This was derived from the study concerning the return period of two levels of earthquake motion. It is seen that the design earthquake motion denned on the exposed engineering bedrock is similar to that of class 1 soil in the Building Standard Law. The intensity of earthquake ground motion of this spectrum was found to be comparable to. class 1 soil (hard) class 2 soil (others) class 3 soil (soft) design response spectrum for New RC s 1 ! period (sec) Fig. similar to the Great Kanto Earthquake. 6. . design response spectrum for New RC. which struck Tokyo and Yokohama area in 1923. the earthquake intensity commonly used in the highrise building design as level 2 earthquake. or slightly stronger than. but it is extrapolated to 8 seconds in Fig.3. The exceedance probability of earthquake intensity for a 100 year lifetime building is approximately 60 percent for level 1 and 20 percent for level 2. respectively. comparing with those in the Building Standard Law for three classes of subsoil.280 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures on which the building is to be supported. . Relation to Building Standard Law Figure 6.
Dynamic analysis is performed basically in order to investigate the drift during earthquake excitation. if any.1.2. 6. Unless the building is directly supported by such bedrock. Fixed Base Model This is a building model of the case in which the ground can be regarded as being sufficiently stiff compared to the superstructure and foundation. story drift relations into appropriate polylinear spring.Structural Design Principles 281 6. to carry out at least one case of dynamic response analysis using frame model. Hence it is not always necessary to be done by a frame model.1. Relation of Model and Earthquake Motion The guideline specifies design earthquake motions at the exposed engineering bedrock. 6.4. simple mass and spring model may be used.5(a)). For this purpose a usual procedure is to perform static incremental (pushover) analysis first. This would clarify problems that are associated with the use of simpler model. Provided that the nonlinear characteristics of members are adequately reflected. Each model must be idealized from the prototype building in a way that the objective of the particular analysis can be achieved.4.4. When the foundation is constructed directly on the engineering bedrock. 6. preferably for earthquake motion that produces the largest response to mass and spring model.4.2. Typical examples of modeling a structure including the soil effect are shown below. it is convenient to analyze a building by different models according to the different methods of analysis. It is recommended. taking into account the nonlinear mechanical properties of constituent members. 6. Modeling of Structures Modeling of Structures In the practical design. however. When the engineering bedrock is covered by surface layers and the foundation is constructed . Static analysis should be carried out based on an appropriate frame model. the standard earthquake motion defined on the exposed engineering bedrock (2 x E{) can be directly given as the input ground motion (see Fig. certain modeling techniques must be employed to reflect the foundation condition. and idealize the story shear vs. preferably a space frame model.
282
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete design motion
Structures .
2^Ei : input motion . t engineering bedrock
t seismological bedrock (a) model on engineering bedrock 2Eo : input motion t surface layers . , free surface

Ei t engineering bedrock (ascending wave) (b) model on surface layers Fig. 6.5. Input motion for fixed base or swayrocking model.
on top of the surface layers, input ground motion is determined considering amplifying characteristics of the surface layers. In this case, the ascending wave (E\) from the engineering bedrock is used as the input to the surface layers, and the response wave of the free surface (2 x EQ) is calculated, which is used as the input to the building (see Fig. 6.5(b)). 6.4.2.2. SwayRocking Model
The lateral and vertical stiffness of piles and soil under the structure is represented by sway and rocking springs. The stiffness of soil springs may be determined by an elastic analysis. The definition of the input ground motion is same as the fixed base model. Depending on whether the building is constructed on the engineering bedrock or on the surface layers, either 2 x £ i wave or 2 x E0 wave is used as input to the swayrocking model. 6.4.2.3. SoilFoundationStructure Interaction Model
The superstructure, basement, foundation structure and the surrounding soil above the engineering bedrock are idealized into an interaction model. Various methods of analysis are available, such as finite element method, grid model, discrete model such as Penzien model, and thin layer element method. When the bottom of the soil portion is fixed on the engineering bedrock as shown in Fig. 6.6(a), the input ground motion should be evaluated as the sum of ascending and descending waves ( £ 2 + F 2 ) obtained from the wave
Structural Design Principles
E2: ascending wave F2: descending wave free surface surface layers
t
Ez(=Ei)
I engineering bedrock F2
7777777777777777777777777777777777777E1+F1: input motion
(a) Model with fixed base
E2: ascending wave F2: descending wave
design motion 2 E1
#_ 1
free surface engineering bedrock 2 E1: input motion
R(=E1)
(b) Model with viscous boundary Fig. 6.6. Input motion for soilfoundationstructure interaction models.
transmission analysis of surface layers subjected to the input of ascending wave Ei (— E\ in this case, i.e. half the design earthquake motion). When the bottom of the soil portion is idealized by a viscous boundary as shown in Fig. 6.6(b), the design earthquake motion (2 x E{) is directly used as the input to the boundary. If the bottom of model soil does not correspond to the engineering bedrock, free surface response at the model bottom (2 x E0) is obtained by wave transmission analysis, and is used as input ground motion to the model in Fig. 6.6(a) or (b).
6.5. 6.5.1.
Restoring Force Characteristics of Members Dependable and Upper Bound Strengths
The guideline suggests to define dependable and upper bound strengths of members considering scattering of material properties and uncertainties involved in the equations for strength, stiffness, and deformation calculation.
284
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Table 6.2. factors.
Structures
Probability of nonexceedance and strength modification
Probability of Nonexceedance 90% 95% 99% 99.9%
4>
For Column 1.01 0.94 0.81 0.67
4>
For Beam 0.97 0.95 0.92 0.88
7 For Column 1.49 1.55 1.68 1.83
7 For Beam 1.11 1.13 1.16 1.20
tp: strength modification factor for dependable strength 7: strength modification factor for upper bound strength
The restoring force characteristics is then determined for each strengths. In determining the dependable and upper bound strengths, a probability of nonexceedance of 0.90 is used on a statistical basis of experimental data. If ratios of the observed to the calculated strength are assumed to take a normal distribution, the dependable and upper bound strengths of a member is estimated as follows from the calculated resistance R based on the average material strength, average ratio AR of the observed to the calculated strength, and coefficient of variation COV of the ratios: Dependable strength = R x AR x (1.0  1.28 x COV) = R x <j> Upper bound strength = R x AR x (1.0 + 1.28 x COV) = R x 7. Table 6.2 shows the ratios <p and 7 for various nonexceedance probability for columns and girders. The dependable strength must be used for all members, when response drift of a structure is examined in the earthquake response analysis under level 1 or 2 earthquake motions, and when lateral force resisting capacity of a structure available at the design drift limit is examined in the static analysis. The upper bound strength is assumed at the location of prescribed yield hinges in the static analysis when design actions are determined for regions other than prescribed yield hinges or when the brittle failure of a member is examined. 6.5.2. Member Modeling
The stiffness of a reinforced concrete member may be assumed to change at cracking and yielding. Yielding here refers to the point at which the stiffness degrades significantly under monotonically increasing force. It does not
Structural
Design Principles
285
necessarily correspond to the first yield of the material that constitutes the member. The guideline suggests to use average values for the initial stiffness and cracking moment. Variation of yield strength between dependable and upper bound strengths is idealized as shown in Figs. 6.7 and 6.8 for columns and beams, respectively. This is based on the general trend of these members in the testing. For columns, the yield deformation does not change appreciably with yield strength. Hence it is reasonable to obtain the yield deformation from average yield strength and average yield stiffness, and assume dependable and upper bound yield points at the same deformation as shown in Fig. 6.7. On the other hand, yield deformation of beams increase almost linearly with the increase of yield strength. Hence after obtaining the average yield point from average yield strength and average yield stiffness, dependable and upper
force yield strength (upper found) yield strength (dependable) crack strength (average) yield stiffness (average) . . / yield strength (average)
deformation yield deformation (dependable, upper found)
Fig. 6.7.
Restoring force characteristics for columns.
yield strength (upper found) yield strength (dependable) crack strength (average)
deformation yield deformation (dependable) yield deformation (upper found)
Fig. 6.8. Restoring force characteristics for girders.
286
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced
Concrete
Structures
1 ""
'oS 8oB°
2 0 2 drift angle R (%)
Fig. 6.9. Equivalent viscous damping factor of a New RC test specimen (example).
bound yield points are determined on the second slope combining crack point and average yield point, as shown in Fig. 6.8. 6.5.3. Hysteresis
Hysteretic characteristics must be properly selected to account for the hysteretic energy dissipation of members. An assumption of too large hysteretic area results overestimation of energy absorption, which leads to underestimation of response deformation. Commonly adopted simple nonlinear hysteretic models, such as bilinear or trilinear models, inherently possess this tendency and so their use should be limited in practice. A more complicated model, such as Takeda model or degrading trilinear model, is recommended. The degree of hysteretic energy dissipation is best represented by the equivalent viscous damping factor. Figure 6.9 is an example of beam test data showing equivalent viscous damping and deformation. Such data should be useful in determining hysteretic model.
6.6. 6.6.1.
Direction of Seismic Design Design Forces in Arbitrary Direction
Needless to say that there is no definite direction in an earthquake ground motion, and a building should be safe against earthquake motions coming from
Structural Design Principles
287
any directions. Bidirectional horizontal earthquake motions develop varying axial force in a corner column significantly larger than a uniaxial earthquake motion due to the overlapped overturning effect, and also develop simultaneous bidirectional bending moments and shears in the column. The guideline requires that the safety of a structure should be examined for uniaxial horizontal earthquake motions and uniaxial horizontal static forces, but occurring in all possible directions. In ordinary frame buildings of rectangular plan, it usually suffices to design longitudinal and transverse directions plus one oblique direction, usually taken at 45 degrees. In most cases, longitudinal and transverse directions are dictated by deformation criteria, while the oblique direction is dictated by strength criteria. The reason is as follows. In a twoway moment resisting frame system, suppose that the horizontal force resisting characteristics are comparable in the two principal directions, and also suppose that horizontal forces in the oblique direction develop the overall yield mechanism by forming yield hinges at all girder ends and at the base of the first story columns. Then under the oblique loading the columns develop shear force and bending moment square root of two times larger than those in a principal direction. The axial force in a corner column is doubled. This is an extreme case, but in general column shear, bending moment and axial force at a drift beyond yielding are larger when loaded in an oblique direction. On the other hand, earthquake response to the same uniaxial ground motion is smaller in the oblique direction than in the principal directions due to the abovementioned strength enhancement. For a beam yielding frame, restoring force characteristics for loading in any direction can be obtained by superposing restoring force characteristics for loading in principal directions. In Fig. 6.10, drifts 5X and Sy in the principal directions are shown in the first quadrant, and the force P and drift 5 relations in two directions are shown in the second and fourth quadrants. Although they are shown by elastoplastic models for simplicity, they can be any restoring force model. The third quadrant shows the force on the vertical members. Therefore, the force corresponding to any deformation can be found by combining forces in two principal directions. In the first quadrant the zone surrounded by x and yax.es and the curve BCG corresponds to the force in the vertical members not greater than Pym, the yield force in ydirection, and it is denoted as Zone I. In the third quadrant it is the zone within the circle with radius OB. In the first quadrant the hatched area to the upper right of point D is the zone corresponding to the yielding in
288
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete
Structures
yielding in Ydirection only II
yielding in Xdirection only
p. S in Xdirection
I : Zone for column shear force ^ P ym II: Other than zone I and III III: Zone for yielding of both X and Y frames H : Any drift point in zone III
Fig. 6.10.
Force and deformations, yielding conditions in X and Y directions.
two directions, and denoted as Zone III. In the third quadrant it is represented by the point D in case of elastoplastic restoring force models in two principal directions, and the force in the vertical members is the largest. The zone in the first quadrant between Zones I and III is denoted as Zone II, and is the zone where the force in vertical members exceed Pym, but frames in two directions are either both elastic or only one of them yielding. The force in vertical members falls in zone BCD in the third quadrant. By the way the force in the vertical members is represented by the length of a vector in the third quadrant. So the maximum shear can be found as the point of tangency to a circle with center at point O. Similarly, the maximum axial force is given as the direct sum of those in two principal directions. Hence a similar diagram as Fig. 6.10 may be drawn for axial forces, and a straight line in the third quadrant with minus 45 degrees gradient represents a constant axial force resultant. If one decides to design his structure in the Zone III in Fig. 6.10, or in other words, to design for simultaneous beam yielding mechanism in two directions, no more problems would arise as to the strength of vertical members. However this may result in an overdesign, particularly for highrise buildings for which
Structural Design Principles
289
the guideline was drafted, where large inelastic deformation is not expected
to occur. In our case, it may be more reasonable and also practical to design vertical members in the Zones I or II corresponding to the drift expected under level 2 earthquakes. 6.6.2. Bidirectional Earthquake Input
As mentioned earlier the motion only in one direction is assumed to act on a structure in any horizontal direction, and it is not in general necessary to consider simultaneous action of bidirectional earthquake input. However, in a case where, e.g. an appreciable amount of eccentricity exists in the structure, bidirectional response analysis will be required. If a bidirectional earthquake motion is desired in the practical design, the amplitude of a motion in the minor principal direction may be assumed to be two thirds of that in the major principal direction. 6.6.3. Effect of Vertical Motion
The effect of vertical ground motion is believed to be more important in a taller building. As the height increases, the fundamental natural period becomes longer, and horizontal acceleration becomes relatively small. On the other hand the vertical acceleration is not reduced, and in some cases it may be amplified due to vertical response of the structure. Thus, the vertical to horizontal acceleration ratio will be larger for taller buildings. The guideline recommends to increase the axial force in the lower story columns under gravity loading by 20 percent to account for the effect of vertical ground motion. This was derived from an estimate of maximum vertical ground acceleration of 10 percent of gravity acceleration, amplification factor of 3.0, and nonconcurrency of the maximum horizontal overturning response and maximum vertical acceleration response.
6.7.
Foundation Structure
Same design criteria as the superstructure should be applied to the substructure, namely, design criteria for level 1 earthquake motion, dynamic design criteria for level 2 earthquake motion, and static design criteria for postlevel 2 stage will have to be satisfied. However, in practice, the level 2 investigation can
290
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced
Concrete
Structures
be replaced by those in postlevel 2 stage, i.e. investigation at design drift limit. Hence the foundation design criteria can be expressed at level 1 earthquake and postlevel 2 stage, in terms of bearing capacity and lateral resistance. Of course the bearing capacity under permanent loading must satisfy usual design criteria for foundation. Table 6.3 summarizes the design criteria for bearing capacity. The foundation structure must satisfy these criteria under permanent loading, seismic loading at level 1 earthquake, and seismic loading corresponding to design drift limit. Table 6.4 shows the design criteria for lateral resistance of foundation, particularly that of piles. The foundation structure including foundation beams, pile caps and piles must satisfy these criteria.
Table 6.3. Design criteria for bearing capacity of foundations. Stage Permanent Loading Working Force less than allowable bearing stress for permanent loading less than allowable bearing stress for temporary loading less than ultimate bearing stress (denned as load at settlement of 10% of pile diameter) Settlement no harmful effect on superstructure no harmful effect on superstructure no excessive inclination or deformation to superstructure Uplift Force on Piles less than Wv
Level 1 Earthquake
less than 2 T u / 3 + Wp
Postlevel 2 (Design Drift Limit)
less than Tu + Wp
Wp: weight of the pile considering buoyancy Tu: ultimate pullout resistance
Table 6.4. Design criteria for lateral resistance of foundation. Stage Level 1 Earthquake Postlevel 2 Criteria All members remain elastic. Partial yielding is permitted, but not reduction of total lateral resistance. Comments Lateral deflection should be checked when it affects the superstructure. Permissible lateral deflections limit may be selected by the engineer.
(Design Drift Limit)
It is a 60story apartment building as shown in Fig. In the trial design of three mediumrise office buildings.e. 6.12.2 m. with a regular space frame structure of 5. In particular. and 51 MPa concrete is used in 41st story and above.8.1.6 m.1). (1) 60story space frame structure for highrise apartment building. possibility of space frame or wall and frame structures applied to this kind of buildings was explored with the use of New RC materials. With the height of the building to the top girder of 175. and also to expose any problems that may arise in the application of structural design guideline to tube structures. These buildings were subjected to the trial structural design with the aim of investigating the effectiveness of the structural design guideline. 2 (Fig. (2) 40story double tube structure and coreintube structure for highrise office buildings.Structural Design Principles 291 6. 15story wall and frame structure. i. Design Examples Six buildings from the following three categories were selected for the trial structural design following the proposed structural design guideline for New RC buildings. was conducted to explore the possibility of application of New RC material to highrise office buildings. As a building in the Zone I of Fig. (3) 15story space frame structure. 6. Study of two tube structures.11. concrete with compressive strength of 60 MPa is used from the first story to 41st floor.1. The width of the building as measured at the centertocenter of exterior columns is 34. but was arbitrarily selected from the structural design point of view.8. 60Story Space Frame Apartment Building This example structural design was prepared for the illustration of a structure that could be designed by using New RC materials in the Zone I as shown in Chap. the aspect ratio is 5. Figure 6. The typical floor plan is shown in Fig. 40story double tube and coreintube office buildings. and 25story space frame structure for mediumrise office buildings.1. 2. This building shape was not resulted from any particular architectural study. 2. 6.7 m span in two ways. Axial reinforcement in the columns and girders . the 60story space frame apartment building was studied in order to show an example of superhighrise structural design utilizing high strength concrete and reinforcement according to the structural design guideline.13 shows the frame elevation. which means that the building is a considerably slender structure.
. 6. while their lateral reinforcement is USD785. T storage T HQ {JBB]BBJ ]. and floor slab reinforcement is SD295A.5. Typical floor plan. Their dimensions and rebar arrangement are shown in Table 6.292 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig. . Bird's eye view of 60story apartment building.11. Girders have rectangular sections ranging from 450 mm by 900 mm to 400 mm by 700 mm. Columns are all square sections. with the dimension of 1000 mm in the first ten stories decreasing to 750 mm in the top ten stories. 5 700.12.5700 [ 5700J 5700 [ 5 700 1500 1500 37 200 Fig. is USD685B steel. 6.5700 .
13. .Structural Design Principles 293 §f  Save height VRF 175 6 m v5oP = V40F = = V20F z X o V2F V1F 1 Fig. 6. Typical frame elevation.
294 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 6. Bars 4D19 4D19 4D22 4D22 4D22 4D22 4D29 4D29 +2D22 4D29 +2D19 Stirrups 2D10® 100 2D10® 100 2D10® 100 2D10® 100 2D10® 100 2D10® 100 2D13® 100 4D13® 150 4D13® 150 Hoops 4D10® 150 4D10® 150 4D10® 150 4D13® 150 4D13® 150 4D13® 100 4D13® 100 Interior Girders Floor RF57F 56F52F 51F47F 46F42F 41F32F 31F22F 21F12F 11F3F 2F Section 400 x 700 400 x 700 400 X 700 400 X 700 400 X 750 400 X 750 450 X 750 450 X 750 450 X 900 Top & Bot. Interior Columns Story 6051 5041 4031 3021 2011 102 1 Section 750 X 750 750 X 750 800 X 800 850 X 850 900 X 900 1000 X 1000 1000 X 1000 Axial Bars 12D25 12D29 12D29 12D29 12D29 12D32 12D32 Hoops 4D10® 150 4D10® 150 4D10® 150 4D13® 150 4D13® 150 4D13® 100 4D13® 100 Section 750 X 750 750 X 750 800 X 800 850 X 850 900 X 900 1000 X 1000 1000 X 1000 Corner Columns Axial Bars (core bars) 12D29 12D32 12D35 16D35 (+4D38) 16D38 (+8D38) 16D41 +8D41 16D41 (+8D41) Exterior Girders Stirrups 2D13® 150 2D13® 100 2D13® 100 2D13® 100 2D13® 100 4D13® 150 4D13® 150 4D13® 150 4D13® 150 Section 400 X 700 400 X 700 400 X 700 400 X 700 400 X 750 400 X 750 450 X 750 450 X 750 450 X 900 Top & Bot.14 shows the structural design flow that was adopted specifically for the design of this building.5. It is the responsibility of structural engineers to establish structural design flow such as . Section of members (60story frame). Bars 4D19 4D25 4D29 4D29 4D25 +2D22 4D29 +2D22 4D29 +2D29 4D29 +2D29 4D29 +2D19 Figure 6. The structural design guideline shows the necessary seismic design criteria and means to achieve the required criteria. but not the detailed procedure to determine structural member sections.
82 sec establish design drift limit (R=1/90) prelim. This preliminary design flow may be substituted by any other approach. planar frame model confirm member strength for actions at design drift limit confirm structural drift lies w/in design drift limit . as long as they are reasonable in deriving suitable member sections and rebar arrangement.14. Figure 6. linear 3D analysis  assume rebar arrangement  prelim. and ultimate load carrying capacity as determined by an approximate analysis (node moment distribution method). Flow diagram of structural design.) ] I  response spectrum & SRSS member force analysis for rebar arrangement  establish lateral load profile I equiv. static 3D nonlinear analysis  — \ prelim. 6. calculation ~ member strength (dependable & upper bound) confirm that work done at design drift limit exceeds twice that at response drift limit is: static 3D nonlinear analysis earthquake response analysis 1.0629. and then preliminary static threedimensional nonlinear analysis and earthquake response analysis were conducted to establish member sections and rebar arrangement. T. Fig.14. earthquake response analysis  Input waves: standard waves 1 ^ ' & New RC wave establish member sections. massspring system (flexural shear model) 2. Also shown for comparison is a story shear distribution determined by the Ai distribution of the Building Standard Law with the same .15 shows the design story shear force as determined by the response spectrum and SRSS (square root of sum of squares) method.Structural Design Principles 295 structural planning •—I assume member section & Co (base shear coef. rebar arrangement & Co establish serviceability drift limit (R=1/200) establish response drift limit (R=1/140) CB =0. =3. to be subjected to the main structural design analysis. 6.  + confirm seismic design criteria design of foundations check tor wind load  safety against overturning and contact pressure of ground compare with seismic load L ( END ) Fig. In this case an equivalent linear threedimensional analysis was first performed to make a preliminary assumptions of member sections and rebar arrangement.
6. A partial reason for this is the influence of sensitivity of response displacement to the yield deformation and strength distribution of stories. It is possible to readjust the member section assumptions in Table 6. Design story shear force and ultimate load carrying capacity based on dependable strength. except for upper stories around 50th story. Also the change of fiexural strength evaluation from approximate analysis to a more precise analysis contributed in increased ultimate capacity. The structure did not reach the mechanism even at the design drift limit of 1/90 (1233 mm). analysis) 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 80 story shear (MN) Fig. the design shear by SRSS is smaller in general. Figure 6. with almost same secant slope. and hence the analysis based on the dependable strength and that on the upper limit strength .16 shows loaddeflection curves in terms of base shear and structural drift. Loadings into X direction and 45 degrees direction are shown.5 to reduce the ultimate capacity and thereby realize a more economical structure.15. showing that the assumed member sections in Table 6.296 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete story 50 Structures 50 A idistribution 40 ultimate load carrying capacity (approx. base shear as the design value. Compared to Ai distribution. The ultimate load carrying capacity exceeds the design story shear by a relatively large margin in most stories.5 was somewhat "overdesigned". and the load in 45 degrees direction is greater after cracking. They are similar in the elastic range.
25 0.17 and 6. and also to the fact that stiffness of columns under 45 degrees flexure and axial stiffness were much more reduced than in the X direction.75 structural drift (m) 1. 6.71 percent). or in terms of story drift angle it was 1/110 (0.Structural Design Principles 70 297 60 50 I 40 20 10 0 0. the maximum response deflection was 598 mm.50 Fig. 6. This is smaller than the response drift limit of 1/140 (0.5 times the response drift limit of 1/93 (1.50 0. which is much lower than about 40 percent increase estimated from the superpositon of load in X and Y directions. or in terms of structural drift angle it was 1/190 (0.00 1. The maximum story drift of 25.16. At the centroid of lateral load profile located at the 39th floor. they were quite similar to the results of massandspring models.16 is the one based on the upper bound strength). Maximum response story shear and story drift are plotted in Figs. do not make appreciable difference (Fig. The load at the design drift limit is about 10 percent greater in 45 degrees direction than in X direction. The maximum response story shears were smaller than the story shear at design drift limit. Base shear vs.91 percent). 6.53 percent).07 percent).5 mm occurred in the 42nd story.18. This is due to the fact that few yield hinges were developed in the loading up to the design drift limit. and they were approximately same as those . Story shear and story drift under static loading at the design drift limit are also shown. This falls within 1. respectively.25 1. Although the response values from frame response analysis were plotted in these figures. structural drift relationship.
6. In concluding this design example of 60story apartment building. it may be mentioned that.18. X direction). Maximum response story shear (level 2.298 Design of Modem Highrwe Reinforced Concrete Structures 20 40 story shear (MN) Fig. 6. maximum response overturning moment was found to be less than the overturning moment by static analysis at the response drift limit. Maximum response drift angle (level 2. X direction).7 m and column size of 1 m . at response drift limit. at design drift limit drift angle {%) Fig. although the span length of 5.17. Although not shown in the figures.
6. having aspect ratio of 3.' ii ii ii •' •• " y I'l I'l I'l l'l II—TT 4.1. Figure 6. Typical floor plan. 40Story Double Tube and Office Buildings CoreinTu.be These design examples of highrise office buildings were studied in order to expose any problems in structural and seismic design procedures that may be found in the application of structural design guideline to highrise tube structures utilizing New RC materials. and that from 31st story columns to roof floor 63 MPa. .00(l (!) Fig.8.4.8.20 shows the elevation of an exterior frame.19.2.19. this example clearly demonstrated that an apartment building of 60 stories could be constructed in a seismic zone using New RC materials. The interior tube composing an architectural core is 16 m square with the same 4 m span. Double Tube Structure The building is a 40story office building with the typical floor plan shown in Fig. USD785 steel is to be used i " '. 6. that from 16th story columns to 31st floor 78 MPa. This building is to be designed using high strength materials in Zone III.MOxl?=48. Concrete from 1st story columns to 16th floor has compressive strength of 90 MPa. span length and column size would become more realistic. If 60 MPa concrete is replaced by 100 MPa concrete. 6.2. 6.Structural Design Principles 299 in lower stories may be disappointing for architectural planning. Exterior tube consists of 48 m square frames with uniform 4 m span.
21. Figures 6. Exterior frame elevation. and those only for the former motion are plotted in Fig.22 show the maximum response story shear and story drift.21 and 6. 6.20. respectively.000 . Table 6.__. 6. From the response analysis for various input waveforms. In the process of seismic design. somewhat different approaches were adopted for this building compared to those recommended in the structural design guideline. with the only difference being the phase spectrum used in the synthesis of simulated earthquake motions (the former used the phase spectrum of Hachinohe 1968 NS record.300 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures . 48.7.22. These differences were resulted from the difference in time of works towards the structural design guideline and the design examples. © Fig.i j n 4U CO OT O o  CD 000'9 GL .6 shows dimensions and axial rebars of columns and girders. as axial reinforcement of columns and girders and USD980 steel for lateral reinforcement. 6. while the latter used a random phase . It is believed that none of these differences give essential effect on the structural design of the example building. result for two synthetic motions (New HA and New RAN) are plotted in Fig.. They are summarized in Table 6. obtained by the frame response analysis. These synthetic motions conform to the design response spectrum in Fig.000 6. 6.3..
1. Also it was found that the maximum story drift occurred at the 32nd story under New HA wave. Bars 5D32 6D32 7D32 8D32 4D35 + 4D32 8D35 Interior T u b e G i r d e r s Section 750 X 800 750 X 800 800 X 800 800 x 800 850 X 800 850 x 800 T o p & Bot. Exterior T u b e Story Corner Column section 3640 3135 2630 1625 415 13 750 X750 750 X800 800 X800 800 x850 850 X800 850 X850 rebars* 12D25 12D25 16D32 16D32 16D32 (+8D32) 16D32 (+8D32) Side C o l u m n section 750 X750 750 X800 800 X800 800 X850 850 X850 850 X850 rebars 12D25 12D25 16D32 16D32 16D32 16D32 Interior T u b e Corner Column section 800 X800 800 X900 900 X900 900 X1000 1000 X1000 1100 xllOO rebars 12D25 12D25 12D29 12D29 12D29 16D32 section 800 X800 800 X900 900 X900 900 X1000 1000 X1000 1000 X1000 301 Side C o l u m n rebars 12D25 12D25 12D29 12D29 12D29 16D32 Exterior T u b e Floor 36FRF 32F35F 29F31F 17F28F 13F16F 2F12F G i r d e r s Section 750 X 800 750 X 800 800 x 800 800 x 800 850 X 800 850 x 800 T o p & Bot.64 percent) so that the maximum story drift of 1/108 (0. distribution). From the response analysis it was found that the maximum structural drift at the centroid of lateral load profile (located at the 30th floor) was 1/184 (0. Also the design drift limit for . which is less than 1/120 (0. Section of members (double tube). Bars 3D32 4D32 5D32 6D32 4D35 + 3D32 8D35 * Rebars in ( ) i n d i c a t e core b a r s . the New HA wave gave the largest response to the structure.5 times the response drift limit.6.Structural Design Principles Table 6.25 percent) as set forth in Table 6.93 percent) lies below 1.93 percent) which is less than 1/80 (1.83 percent) as stipulated in Table 6. The response drift limit for this building was selected to be 1/156 (0. In general. and its value was 1/108 (0.54 percent) under the action of New HA wave.1.
Figure 6. Item Material Strength Material Constants Direction of E Q Motion Structure Design Guideline Zone I proposed formula any direction (ID) Double Tube Building Zone III ACI formula principal direction (force enhancement for 45° direction) pseudo 3D model 1st column base fixed Aj distribution dependable strength of hinges magnify by 1. to be 1 percent so as not to violate design criteria for strength and strain energy absorption. the story drift from the static analysis at the response drift limit of 1/156 (0. and they even exceed the static values at the response drift limit particularly in the upper stories.22 shows. .64 percent).15 confrim on interaction diagrams confrim by frame response analysis confrim by frame response analysis Structure Model Soils and Foundation Static Lateral Force Profile Mechanism at Design Drift Limit Member Force at Design Drift Limit Allowance of Member Strength Check for Level 1 E Q Check for Level 2 E Q space frame model (in principle) interaction or coupled model (in principle) appropriate distribution dependable strength of hinges upper bound strength of hinges not less than design forces no yield hinges deformation capacity of members this building was selected. Figure 6. Comparison of design guideline and this building (double tube).7. It is seen that dynamic response values exceed the static value at the same structural drift.54 percent) and that corresponding to the abovementioned design drift limit of 1 percent.21 shows also plots of story shears from static analysis corresponding to the response structural drift of 1/184 (0. but they do not exceed the static values at the design drift limit. but they lie within the static values at the design drift limit. Like the story shear in Fig. in addition to the two above.302 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 6. from the static elastoplastic (pushover) analysis mentioned later. 6. dynamic response drifts exceed the static value at the same structural drift.21.
and the maximum ductility factor of 1.Structural Design Principles 303 story l at design drift limit of 1% l at response drift of NEW HA wave response for NEW HA wave I response for NEW RAN wave 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 story shear (MN) Fig. Maximum response story drift (level 2. 6.23 shows the axial forcemoment interaction diagrams of first story corner columns with the plots of working force and moment at permanent loading and seismic loading. It was found that yield hinges form only in the interior tube girders under the action of level 2 earthquake motion. points 2 and 3 are for lateral loading corresponding to positive and . Point 1 in the figure is for permanent (vertical) loading. X direction). X direction). Figure 6. at response drift of * r~ New HA wave at response drift limit of 0.21. The frame response analysis also gave informations on the member ductility factors. story at design drift limit of 1 % y.22. 6.64% response for New HA wave 10 20 30 40 story drift (mm) Fig. Maximum response story shear (level 2.08 was recorded at the 36th floor girder.
and lateral reinforcement was appropriately changed to accommodate enough shear strength.)\ ' 1 (permanent) 20 3(negative d.23. interior tube ^ p ^ l 5(negative 45°) 10 15 20 5 M (MN • m) fJ 20 ~t 3 (negative d. and axial force due to 45 degrees direction loading will increase by a factor between y/2 and 2 multiplied by 0.l.) 1 (permanent) 2 4 1 i / f5 \ ) / M(MNm) 10 i z 60 40 2(positive d.d.i. it appears that a more reasonable design would result for the Zone III structures. Thus rectangular zones indicate the range of internal force variation under the 45 degrees loading. In some girders shear strength was not sufficient.l. From the example structural design of a highrise double tube structure as outlined above.d. The last ones were estimated as follows: bending moment in 45 degrees direction will increase by a factor between 1 and y/2. negative design drift limits. 6. an analysis taking the tensile yielding of corner column into account may be required. Girders were checked for the shear and bond strengths under the loading at the design drift limit. not by determining the design drift limit unconditionally.) 0 20 (b) corner column. although such adjustment of rebars may be necessary in the practical design.d.d. but by relating it to the response drift limit in such a way that it would reflect . No feedback to the structural design was undertaken. zones marked 4 and 5 are for the loading into 45 degrees direction.304 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 80 100 60 80 4(positive 45°) 40 N _ 4 ( p ositive 45°) I z 3~ > i 20 4 ^(positive d. Interaction diagrams of corner columns and design actions. Comparing those with the interaction curves. Alternately.8 which is the overturning moment reduction factor. exterior tube Fig. corner columns of both exterior and interior tubes do not have sufficient reinforcement under axial tension and bending.l.) 5(negative 45°) (a) corner column.
2. USD980 rebar for column and girder bars. from 21st story column to 31st floor is 70 MPa. f?i) 16000 Gl 48000 16000 16000 G1 Gl Gl Gl Gl G1 G2 (V5) (YI) Ct C2 C2 C2 C3 C4 C4 C4 C3 @ Fig. is to be used from the first story columns to the 26th floor girders. It will be seen that members are considerably smaller than the previous example of double tube structure. In general there are always columns dominated by high tension and high compression.24. Table 6. CoreinTube Structure The second example of highrise office building is a 40story building with the typical floor plan shown in Fig. not available at present despite the New RC project. Exterior tube consists of 48 m square frames with 4 m span. and interior tube is now replaced by a structural core walls. from 31st story column to roof floor is 60 MPa.8 shows the dimensions and axial rebars of columns and girders. from 11th story column to 21st floor is 80 MPa.25 shows the frame elevation. 6.Structural Design Principles 305 dynamic characteristics of the structure. Another conclusion was that the use of high strength steel was meritorious for external tube corner columns where tensile force dominates under oblique loading. USD980 reinforcement is also used for lateral reinforcement. Figure 6.24. Typical floor plan. The merit of high strength concrete has been established in case of columns under high axial compression. (X13) . 6.2. and USD785 is used in the upper stories. This building is also to be designed using Zone III material. 6. Concrete strength from 1st story column to 11th floor is 90 MPa.8. hence the use of both high strength concrete and high strength steel in good balance will be required for the advancement of RC construction.
25. 6.78 percent) in 45 degrees direction. Figure 6. The drift at the . this example was also designed by slightly different design procedures compared to those recommended in the structural design guideline.26 illustrates forcedeflection curves in terms of loading step and structural drift at the centroid of lateral load profile both in X direction and 45 degrees direction. It is believed also that none of the differences to the structural design guideline cause essential effect on the structural design of this example building.306 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (a) Y1 frame Fig. (b) Y5 frame Frame elevations.9. to the previous example of double tube building. They are compared in Table 6. Similar to the previous one.88 percent) in X direction and 1/128 (0. The design drift limit is taken at 1/114 (0. but not identical. It will be found that the design procedure for this building is similar.
Section of members (coreintube). .Structural Design Principles Table 6. Exterior T u b e Story Corner C o l u m n section 3140 2630 2125 1120 110 800 X 800 800 X 800 800 X 800 800 X 800 800 X 800 rebars* 12D25 12D29 12D29 16D29 16D32 (+4D32) Side C o l u m n section 800 X 800 800 X 800 800 X 800 800 X 800 800 X 800 rebars 12D25 12D29 12D29 12D29 12D32 Material Concrete (MPa) 60 70 70 80 90 Material C o r e coupling section 600 X 800 600 X 800 600 X 800 600 X 800 600 X 800 600 X 800 Wall Story Column Portion section 3140 2630 2125 1120 910 78 56 34 12 800 X 800 800 X 800 800 x 800 800 X 800 800 x 800 800 X 800 800 X 800 800 X 800 800 X 800 rebars* 12D25 12D25 12D25 12D25 12D25 12D29 16D29 16D32 16D32 (+8D32) Wall P o r t i o n thick 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 rebars 2D16@ 200 2D16® 200 2D16® 200 2D16<9 200 2D16® 200 2D16® 200 2D16® 200 2D16® 200 2D16® 200 rebars 4D29 6D29 4D32 +2D29 4D32 +2D29 6D32 6D32 Concrete (MPa) 60 60 70 70 80 90 Material Concrete (MPa) 60 70 70 80 90 90 90 90 90 Steel (Mpa) 800 800 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 Steel (Mpa) 800 800 800 1000 1000 1000 Steel (Mpa) 800 800 1000 1000 1000 307 Girders Floor Exterior t u b e section 37R 3236 2731 2226 1221 211 600 X 800 600 X 800 600 X 800 600 X 800 600 X 800 600 X 800 rebars 5D29 6D29 7D29 6D29 7D29 7D29 * R e .b a r s in ( ) indicate core b a r s .8.
3125R1Z 50 40 30 20 10 0 design drift limit response drift limit]** o.0 (b) 45° direction loading structural drift (m) (a) X direction loading structural drift (m) Fig.3i25Rtz o.9. v ~ff r i i i i i ! ill i i 1/114 i\l 1/128 0. Loading step vs.2 0.6 0.8 1. Item Material Strength Material Constants Direction of E Q Motion Structure Model Structure Design Guideline Zone I proposed formula any direction (ID) space frame model (in principle) TubeinCore Building Zone III ACI formula principal direction (45° directions) static: nonlinear space frame dynamic: massspring model 1st column base fixed based on preliminary response analysis dependable strength of hinges dependable strength x l .O illustration by 3D interaction diagrams (MnMyN) confirm by massspring response analysis confrim by massspring response analysis Soils and Foundation Static Lateral Force Profile Mechanism at Design Drift Limit Member Force at Design Drift Limit Allowance of Member Strength Check for Level 1 E Q Check for Level 2 E Q interaction or coupled model (in principle) appropriate distribution dependable strength of hinges upper bound trength of hinges not less t h a n upper bound strength at hinges no yield hinges deformation capacity of members step 50 40 30 20 10 0 design drift limit ot>oV response drift limit ^rf>° I j £ r ! 0.308 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 6. 1 5 except t h a t axial force xl. Comparison of design guideline and this building (coreintube).26.25Rtz. 6. .25RK l step 0. structural drift relationship.4 0.
57 percent) at 40th floor and 1/185 (0. for X direction loading and 45 degrees direction loading. and it even supersedes the story drift from the static analysis at the design drift limit. and in some stories it is even greater than the story shear at design drift limit.54 percent) at 26th floor.27. Results for two input waves as above are plotted. The largest deflection angle of tube girders is 1/175 (0. New HA and New RAN waves as explained before.17 percent) under 45 degrees direction loading. Two kinds of input earthquake motion were considered. the response story drift is generally greater for 45 degrees direction input. both in terms of story shear and story drift.79 percent) at 7th floor. Figure 6. i. .23 percent) at 11th floor and 1/127 (0. It will be seen that design criteria were not satisfied by the 45 degrees direction response. 6. respectively. Figure 6.e. Maximum response story shear. and that of coupling girders is 1/81 (1.28 shows the maximum response story drift for X direction response and 45 degrees direction response.Structural Design Principles 309 first story where column hinging is expected is 1/408 (0.25 percent) under X direction loading and 1/605 (0. The response story shear is in general greater for 45 degrees direction input. Also the slight difference in the models of preliminary analysis 0 30 60 90 0 30 60 90 story shear(MN) (a) X direction input story shear(MN) (b) 45° direction input Fig.27 shows the maximum response story shear for X direction response and 45 degrees direction response. This was caused by too conservative definition of the design drift limit in 45 degrees direction which had been determined referring to the preliminary analysis in X direction. Similarly to the response story shear.
In case of space frame structures where Zone I high strength material (60 MPa concrete and SD685 rebars) are used. When the structure is equipped with walls. 15Story Space Frame.8. Thus the example design of a 40story coreintube office building indicated that such a building is feasible by using Zone III high strength materials and following the structural design guideline. the reduced member size to take full advantage of Zone I material was explored. Maximum response story drift. although some reexamination is needed to the illustrated example in some parts of the seismic design and analysis. 6. it is possible to determine a small value to the design drift limit.310 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures response drift limit x1.3. and main analysis caused the increased response. 25Story Space Frame) Three office buildings raging from 15 to 25 stories were designed to study the feasibility of New RC structures in the mediumrise buildings.28. thus the advantage of Zone III high strength material (80 MPa concrete and SD685 rebars) can be fully utilized. 6.5 16 30 story drift (mm) (a) X direction 15 30 storage drift (mm) (b) 45° direction Fig. Mediumrise Office Buildings (15Story WallFrame. . It is inferred that all design criteria can be satisfied by defining the design drift limit in 45 degrees direction to a larger value. then to reduce the framing member sections even to the extent that they are dictated by the vertical loading.
Structural systems and material.10. Wall Thickness WF15 wallframe 15(+1) 80MPa USD685 USD785 800 x 800 400 x 900 400 F15 space frame 15(+1) 60MPa USD685 USD785 900 x 900 550 x 1000 F25 space frame 25(+l) 60MPa USD685 USD785 1000 x 1000 650 x 1000 _ ~ .30 shows the elevation of transverse frames.6 m for 15story and 100. Table 6.5 m uniform spans in the longitudinal direction. Buildings Structural System No. Table 6.29 shows the floor plan of 15story wallframe building (WF15). Typical floor plan of W F 1 5 building.10 summarizes major parameters of the three buildings. Figure 6.Structural Design Principles 311 Three buildings have common plan of center core type office building. the plan lacks the exterior transverse walls and interior longitudinal walls. In case of 15story or 25story space frame buildings (F15 or F25). Figure 6. The standard story height is 4 m. and 6.29.5 m © © ( D C © ® © ® ® Fig. of Stories (basement) Concrete Strength Steel Grade (main bars) Steel Grade (lateral bars) Max. Column Size Max. 6. and the building height is 60. Grider Size Max. The buildings have 12 m and 9 m spans in the transverse direction.
Frame elevations. while F15 and F25 employ members as large as. 6. Results of static nonlinear (pushover) analysis.96 percent) for WF15.32.00 D I ZE W20 W20 W20 W20 W20 W20 W20 IW20 W20 W20 IW20 W20 IW20 W20 W20 W20 ~1 [W20~ "llwgo ~ll "ll W20~ ~llW20 "~1W20 W20~ uc "I I IIW20~ "1IW20 ~IW20 X ZE (b)F15 Fig. or even greater than.33 illustrates relationship between story drift at design drift limit and axial load ratio of first story columns.00 I 12. The design drift limits were determined as 1/104 (0. WF15 is very stiff up to relatively high load.00 C I 9.00 C I 12.00 D  I 9. for 25story. It will be clear that WF15 consists of beams and columns with relatively small sections. shown in Fig. and there is a trend of large story drift occurring in the intermediate stories. 6. and 1/85 (1.00 D I ~ii—ir A I B 12. Figure 6. F15 and F25 show ordinary trilinear type of loaddeflection relation. Figure 6.30.312 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures A 12. those in the 60story apartment buildings.18 percent) for F15 and F25. and the story drift is almost constant through the building height.00 B  9. clearly illustrates the structural characteristics of wallframe structure and space frame structure.31 summarizes the typical cross section of framing members.00  C 12. Axial load ratio is defined as the .
31. 1992). Encircled plots correspond to WF15. axial load divided by gross concrete area and concrete strength. Straight lines indicate the prediction proposed by the literature (Report from the ductility subcommittee. and hence it is subjected to a large fluctuation of axial load. Architectural Institute of Japan. the feasibility by such buildings using New RC high strength materials was established. and those with small drift are for the longitudinal and oblique directions. The axial load ratio of frame structures (F15 and F25) falls below the line that dictates the limiting drift angle.Structural Design Principles 313 Fig. In the practical design of medium to highrise buildings in general. . where the plots with large drift are for the transverse direction. Typical member sections of mediumrise buildings. To conclude the example design of three mediumrise office buildings. However it is seen that the axial load ratio of these columns does not exceed the limit to allow 1 percent drift. 6. The columns in WF15 are the wallside column of dumbbell shaped shear walls. At the same time the validity of the structural design guideline was proved with some minor modifications as to the definition of response and design drift limits. axial load on the columns would be the subject for the most significant design consideration.
6.7 0.2 0. story drift of three buildings. Story drift at design drift limit and axial load ratio of first story columns. Story shear vs.3 0.314 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 0 25 (a)WF15 50 75 100 story drift (mm) (C0=0.33. 6.32.29)_ 0 25 (b) F15 50 75 100 0 25 (c) F25 50 75 100 story drift (mm) story drift (mm) Fig.5 0.9 0. .1 0 (variable axial load) prediction by literature / "—•+ {constant axial p load) • d longitudinal and oblique directions transverse direction * c2 O C4 First story drift augle (%) Fig. 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.
Various methods of earthquake response analysis have been developed and improved during these thirty years. Earthquake Response Analysis in Seismic Design Earthquake response analysis is an art to simulate the behavior of a structure subject to an earthquake ground motion based on dynamics and a mathematical model. Rapid progress in the research field as well as in computer technology enabled engineers to use the earthquake response analysis as a tool in practical seismic design to estimate responses of structures to design earthquake motions.jp 7. 111 Yayoi.Chapter 7 Earthquake Response Analysis Toshimi Kabeyasawa Earthquake Research Institute. recent trends in the methods of the earthquake response analysis are introduced.utokyo. improvement and verification of accuracy for the response analysis methods have been major research themes in earthquake engineering. Earthquake response analyses of damaged structures or idealized structures have been carried out using accelerograms of strong motions which were recorded during past major earthquakes. Tokyo 1130032.ac.1. Typical or general results of the earthquake response analyses have been interpreted theoretically and reflected on the revision of the requirements in the traditional seismic design codes. University of Tokyo. structural modeling and hysteresis modeling. such as highrise buildings and nuclear power 315 . Development. The earthquake response analysis has been applied to particular seismic design of special structures. such as methods for numerical calculation procedure. Japan Email: kabe@eri. Bunkyoku. In this chapter.
the earthquake response analysis has not yet been established as a standard tool in the requirements of seismic design codes. The earthquake response analysis is useful to estimate nonlinear and dynamic responses of the designed structures including local behavior. nonlinear response must be estimated from the elastic response spectrum. the hysteretic response of the modeled structure can be calculated by numerical stepbystep procedure. If the earthquake is given as a deterministic timehistory of motion at the base. if the design earthquake is given by an elastic response spectrum or Fourier spectrum as commonly adopted in recent design codes. which is called as "timehistory response analysis". Even though the earthquake is specified by the elastic response spectrum. which is synthesized so that its response spectrum be fitted to the specified target spectrum. which correlates nonlinear responses with linear response spectrum. interstory displacements and local deformations. based on past accelerograms at other sites. If the design motion is given by the elastic response spectrum and the nonlinear displacement response is used as design criteria. However. However. Available methods of earthquake response analysis in design analysis essentially depend on how the design earthquake motion is expressed or assumed as the input information. such as. such as member forces. the response spectrum is only smoothed from past earthquakes and not general for the future earthquake on the site. the maximum responses of any elastic system can be estimated by "modal analysis". The method is useful to estimate nonlinear responses of the structure. Therefore. in addition to traditional design based on elastic structural analyses under equivalent static loading. and the essential timehistory characteristics are assumed in the synthesis of the artificial motion. in terms of "envelope . However.316 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures plants. The maximum response can definitely be determined for each fundamental mode and the maximum responses can be estimated by the superposition of all dominant modes. a rational theoretical background on the linearization is essential in the development of design code. so as to verify the serviceability or the safety performance based on actually expected behavior of the structure during the earthquake. On the other hand. This is nothing but socalled "equivalent linearization". if the response of a structure exceeds the elastic limit. it is still difficult to simulate the deterministic timehistory of a future earthquake motion at the construction site. by means of square root of sum of squares. for example. for example. another way of calculating nonlinear response is to perform timehistory response analysis under an artificial motion.
nonlinear timehistory response could be different under different motions with the same elastic response spectrum. However.Earthquake Response Analysis 317 curve" or "phase spectrum". Another possible method. which is a nonlinear static analysis under assumed lateral load distribution. Therefore. the timehistory analysis is still useful in design. the source parameters of the earthquake can be determined by the global network of hypersensitive observation. is to simulate the strong motion on site based on the model of the earthquake source function. the timehistory of other sites can be simulated as wave propagation based on the model of underground structures. recently proposed performancebased design methods using nonlinear displacement criteria adopt "pushover analysis" as a standard design tool to estimate nonlinear response. especially the absolute maximum of the response value. However. a rational method is still difficult. including heterogeneous rupture process of the fault called "asperity" can also be determined based on the strong motion records near the source. it is still very difficult to give the earthquake motion rationally as a design motion expected on the site. such as 1994 Northridge earthquake and 1995 HyogokenNanbu Earthquake. and has been verified through the simulation of recent nearsource earthquakes. if engineers or structural designers understand the assumptions and the possible errors . It should be noted that the result of a timehistory analysis. namely by an equivalent linearization procedure. The nonlinear response point on the calculated loaddeformation relation is estimated deterministically from specified linear response spectrum. Moreover. is peculiar to the analytical case. Therefore. Based on these determined parameters. The detailed source function. which is susceptible to the assumption on the characteristics of the input earthquake motion. Therefore. and the performance criteria in design code must be adopted considering the variety of the response. the structural model of underground is still difficult to be identified because the data are not enough except for the limited areas. The methodology for the simulation of the strong motion is rapidly in progress by the recent research in the field. However. As for the earthquake that recently occurred anywhere in the world. there are no means to determine the source function for future earthquakes. The variety of the results must be understood in relation with the assumptions. A rational theory is needed to explain the nonlinear response based on the expected characteristics of the earthquake motion at the site. These are socalled "inversion analyses" of the source rupture process. by which a rational timehistory for the design motion could be given.
or the number of degrees of freedom. On the other hand. is still under investigation. More detailed model is also available for timehistory response analysis. These are. which cannot be simulated by the static analysis. based on the rational theoretical background. especially under cyclic loading. for example. Sophistication or use of complicated model to no purpose is not only useless but also sometimes misunderstanding on the contrary in practical design. columns and walls. Various types of structural models are selected and used for nonlinear timehistory analysis. . member deformations and member forces due to higher modes. Therefore. Or it is recommended that deterministic dynamic analyses should be carried out for as many cases as possible by varying probabilistic parameters of the structure as well as of the earthquake motion.318 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures properly. and its application to timehistory analysis of a whole building might be too sophisticated as a standard practical design procedure. the program could be socalled "black box" for the user so that their results might be believed as deterministic behavior. the minimum unit elements in the most detailed structural model are supposed to be "members" of the building structure. because it makes difficult to correlate results with assumptions. Here. The designer can imagine the detailed dynamic behavior in general even from several cases under the particular motions. Models may be classified mainly by essential difference in the degrees of freedom. It is more preferable that they understand the correlation between the assumptions and the results in the analysis generally. The constitutive law in the finite element model. These results give useful information to reinforce judgment in design. in which each member is divided further into small elements. such as beams. such as "finite element model". should be selected carefully considering the objective of the analysis. it is important to select an appropriate and simple model to match the purpose of the analysis. In order to reflect the results of the earthquake response analysis properly on seismic design. The model. inelastic displacement responses. if an engineer or a researcher performs nonlinear response analysis using a commercial computer program without knowledge of the analytical methods. it will be indispensable for the structural designer to understand the methods and the assumptions at least conceptually. The nonlinear modeling for the finite element analysis is described in Chapter 5.
2. where the displacement and force vectors are denned and calculated. 7. the structural model will be a threedimensional frame model.1 will be modeled as illustrated in Fig. walls and slabs are idealized using "member models". are located at the joints of beams and columns in the model. Each node has six degrees of freedom and a mass and second moment of inertia concentrated from the tributary area of the node as shown in Fig. Shear deformation M • • — • pi • pi • • T i w — • =jp Fig. 7. 7. Fig. sevenstory reinforced concrete building. Plan of an example sevenstory reinforced concrete building with shear walls.1.2. The nodes.Earthquake Response Analysis 319 7. shown in Fig. 7. As an example.3. Columns. 7. Threedimensional model for the example building structures. ThreeDimensional Frame Model If a building structure is idealized as exactly as it is for the nonlinear timehistory analysis or pushover analysis in practical design. . which give constitutive relations among these nodes.1.2.2. The nonlinear relations under cyclic loading path are idealized as "hysteresis models". Structural Model 7. beams.
for example. Stiffness of foundation or soil may be considered using springs which are fixed to the ground. especially in .3. inplane shear deformation of slab as well as axial deformation of beam. Beam and column model with axial deformations.1 and 7. However. as shown in Fig. For the example building in Figs. where Nn is the number of nodes. In this case. 7. in the beamcolumn joint panel is often considered in addition.2. Instead. the threedimensional model has not yet used even in the most sophisticated design practice. Nn = 8 x 12 and Ndoi = 6 x 8 x 12 = 576. because some components of member deformations can be neglected. while the horizontal displacement at each node can be expressed using the two displacements at the center of mass and overall rotation of a floor. this model is too complicated in most cases of practical design analysis. Vertical displacement is considered at each node. 7. which becomes almost onehalf of the previous model. the horizontal translational and rotational degreesoffreedom of each node are often reduced to one in a floor by assuming inplanerigid floor slab.4. A threedimensional model has independent displacements at each node and we can consider any type of behavior. The number of degreesoffreedom N$0f in above model is 6 x Nn. where number of floors are eight and number of the nodes in a floor are twelve. verification and numerical calculation. Because of the difficulties in modeling. where Nf is number of floors.320 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig. 7. the panel zones are expressed with equivalent rigid zone lengths at the ends of beams and columns. where the earthquake motion is supposed to input. The actions in columns and walls can change. Otherwise. between the two models with and without consideration of axial deformation in beams. therefore JVdof = 3 x 8 x 1 2 + 3 x 8 = 312. JVdof = 3 x JVn + 3 x JV/.
2.2. the verification by the test. the threedimensional model may be reduced into a twodimensional plane frame model in each principal direction as shown in Fig. inelastic region of beam yielding structures. such as fiber stress in the wall base with Lshaped horizontal sections. even with the assumption of inplanerigid slab. These are. .2. 7. The model connects all the plane frames in one principal direction by assuming the identical horizontal displacement in a floor. was not enough in the past. Assumption of inplane rigid slab. Moreover. in which shear distribution in the columns and walls are measured. TwoDimensional Frame Model If the structure has a symmetric plan and torsional response is expected to be small. for example. Evaluation of the errors due to the assumption of inplanerigid slab as well as modeling of slab with nonlinear inplane deformation need be investigated further.5. are especially useful to simulate the responses with threedimensional effects. The response analyses with the threedimensional models. The effects should be taken into account by the judgment of engineers at present. Otherwise. (a) displacement in a frame due to the torsional response in the structures with eccentric distributions of stiffness or mass.4. However. 7. twodimensional plane frame models in the following section will be also available for design analyses. (b) axial force in the corner column or shear and moment in the internal column under the earthquake motion in two directions or in skewed direction.Earthquake Response Analysis 321 Fig. and (c) stress distribution at the base of the members with effective transverse members. the distributions are affected by the redistribution among the change of inelastic stiffness during the response.
7. JVdof = 2 x iVn 4. 7. therefore iVdof = 2 x 8 x 8 + 8 = 136. In this case. Vertical displacement and rotation is considered at each node and the horizontal displacement is identical at each floor. strength and weight. Usually axial deformation is neglected in beam but considered in column using onecomponent model shown in Fig.1. Twodimensional frame model for building structures.6. 7. Beam and column models in twodimensional frame model. these two frames may be modeled as one frame with doubled stiffness. Axial deformation in the beam member model is neglected in this case. 7. . The axial deformation in the beam may also be included into Fig. The number of degrees of freedom can be reduced about onefourth compared to the threedimensional model.6(a).322 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures In the example of Fig.JV/} where Nf is number of stories. •©• gf—jn—g£ m <S> m mmm (b) MultiSpring model (a) Onecomponent model Fig.5. twodimensional member models are used for beams and columns as shown in Fig. In the plane frame model.6. where the two outer frames with wall are supposed to be identical. 7.
as shown in Fig. as shown in Fig. 7. the responses calculated by the multimass model would be in fair agreement with the Fig. The reduction of the frame model to a multimass model is based on the static pushover analysis by the frame model as above or more simplified model.6(b). The degreesoffreedom of the model is the number of story Nf.3. interstory drift relations obtained from the pushover analysis.3.Earthquake Response Analysis 323 the plane frame model by considering independent horizontal displacement at each node and using the multispring model. If the properties of the nonlinear springs are determined properly. Simplified method based on inelastic story stiffness of columns and beams are also available to determine the relations. equivalent multimass model shown in Fig. . Multimass Model In the early age of application of nonlinear response analysis to the practical design of highrise buildings in Japan. The characteristic of the nonlinear spring. Especially for the analysis of highrise buildings. which is the forcedeformation relation. 7.2.7. Multimass system. Detailed description of the member models are given in Sec.8. 7. is idealized based on storyshear vs. 7. 7. 7. The model is simple and the required amount of calculation and storage can be very much efficiently reduced from the frame model. not only shear spring but also rotational spring must be located in every story to simulate an overall flexural deformation of the building due to axial deformation of columns or bending deformation of wall.7 has been most frequently used.
should be taken into account in design of these members in addition to the static calculation by the pushover analysis.7. One of the innovative features in seismic design procedure is that safety performance is to be verified by the limit states criteria defined using inelastic displacement response and deformation capacity of the structure. the member forces in the columns and walls including the effects of the higher mode responses cannot be evaluated directly from the pushover analysis.8. 7. The inelastic deformation of the members may be estimated from the pushover analysis. on condition that the first mode responses are dominant and within moderately inelastic displacement range. Another is that the standard design earthquake is specified as the elastic .4. responses calculated by the frame model. for example. which is called dynamic magnilcation.324 Design of Modern Highrwe Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig. the multimass model is still useful in practical design. On the other hand. a new procedure was adopted for the verification of seismic performance in addition to traditional design requirement. In case that the higher mode response is dominant or the response is in well plastic range. 7.4 However. Shear and rotational springs.2. because the responses of highrise buildings to design earthquake motion are relatively small in Japan and the buildings are designed to ensure the beamyielding mechanism so that the first mode response would be dominant. SoilStructure Model In the recent revision of Japanese Building Standard. calculated responses could be different from those by the frame model. Another disadvantage of this model is that the responses of the members such as inelastic deformations or internal forces cannot be calculated. at the corresponding interstory displacement. The effect of the higher mode responses on the moment and shear forces in columns and walls.
A nonlinear shear spring is also placed in the midspan of the elastic line element.1. 7.10. The soilstructure model is not being used frequently even for the special design procedure for highrise buildings. When the model is used for column. 7. while soilstructure model. M e m b e r Models OneComponent Model for Beam Onecomponent model shown in Fig.9.Earthquake Response Analysis 325 Fig. may be used as a sophisticated design tool. 7. Soilstructure model for response analysis. 7. because the rocking deformation is relatively small and the design motion is defined at the base of the structure. (b) input energy loss due to deformation or viscosity of soil.3. Usually rigid zones are added outside the inelastic springs to express the depth of intersecting members.10 has been used most popularly for the member model of beams and columns (Ref. response spectrum at the engineering bedrock. stiffness matrix of the model can be formulated as the inversion of the flexibility matrix as follows. The model has an elastic line element with two inelastic rotational springs at the two ends. According to the notations in Fig. Amplification by the surface soil should be calculated for each construction site. The flexibility matrix [F]. 7. a nonlinear axial spring may also be introduced into the elastic line element. when nonlinear shear deformation should be considered independently to flexural deformation. 7. Simple method is available for this calculation. 7.9.3. which gives the constitutive relation between the moments and . shown in Fig. and (c) action of piles induced by the response of soil shear deformation. The model will be useful in the future to estimate (a) amplification of input earthquake by the surface soil.1).
11 is most widely used to give the momentrotation relation of the model. Fig.2). as Eq. can be based on the serial flexibility of these springs and elastic line elements.326 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures relative rotational deformations at the ends of the springs. then the model gives a fair simulation of nonlinear structural behavior. Onecomponent model for beam. as shown in Fig. To determine the flexibility of Fig.1). Takeda hysteresis model (Ref. If the inelastic stiffness or the yielding deformation is determined properly. by the use of compatibility matrix [H] considering the rigid zones and translational displacement. 7. 7. as Eq.2). 7. Takeda hysteresis model. . 7. (7.11. The yield stiffness of beam or column may be determined by an empirical equation. (7. Then the relation is transformed into the global coordinate in terms of force and displacement vectors at the two nodes.10.
The calculated member forces could be different mainly because of the inelastic axial elongation of the beam. because the member forces are not measured in the tests. which has verified experimentally recently by a few test result (Ref. because the prediction is not so difficult for building structures consisting of regular frames. especially on the member forces of members in a frame structure. 7. the effects cannot be taken into account in general by the onecomponent model. Ami A05 ' Ami A7B2 Api > = [H\T\FY\H\ [F] Amo 2/o + /i+3 fo+9 ( A6X < A62 Avi lAz/ 2 ) (7. However. The effects of varying axial force on the bending stiffness. inelastic curvature distribution must be assumed along the member. / 6EI T7T7 and / 1 . The model is basically applicable only in unidirectional bending. the verification of the onecomponent model is not enough. the effect can approximately be considered by the predetermined hysteresis relations based on the predicted varying axial force level.2) fo + 9 2f0 + f2+g Ami (7. However. . and interaction of biaxial bending cannot be considered. cracking and yield strength are also important. Usually antisymmetric curvature distribution is used to formulate the flexibility matrix. fi : flexibility of nonlinear spring g : flexibility of shear spring. Practically.3).Earthquake Response Analysis 327 nonlinear spring at one end.1) I Ap2 J where \H\J — 1 1 1A2 A2 1Ai l/l l/l l/l l/l 1A!A2 JO (i _ Al _ A 2 .
5). and reinforcing bar arrangement. as shown in Fig.d0 j '"J" y (b) MS element and the forces and displacements (positive) Fig.328 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 7. at least four springs. There are then two internal nodes between the line element and the MS elements. steel springs may be placed at the location of reinforcing steel bar center point. has been developed and used (Ref. It may include inelastic shear deformation represented by shear spring or a shear element. 7. multiaxial spring model. For a reinforced concrete member. The spring deformation conforms to the plane section assumption or linear strain distribution at a section. called MS model. The MS model has a line element and two multiaxial spring elements (MS element) at the columnends. 4 x 4. i lspring IW do (a) Column with MS element fa. 3 x 3.12. 7. and concrete springs may be placed at the center of portions properly divided into for example.2. . The line element is elastic in flexural behavior and axial deformation. 7. or more. The MS element consists of a number of uniaxial springs.3. Multiaxial Spring Model for Column To reproduce the behavior of flexural and axial deformation of column element representing the interaction among bidirectional bending moments and axial load. 2 x 2.12. Column member model by MS model. The number X. The number of springs in MS element depends on material properties. section shape and size.
7.14. The plastic zone length riL0 can be selected by the user of analytical program. the different hysteresis models may be used for the cover concrete and the confined core concrete. esy are the steel material yielding stress and strain.£sy • r/Lo (for ith spring) (for concrete) (f° r steel) where K\. namely called as "plastic zone" of the column is assigned to the spring as its initial flexibility. the stiffness of the steel spring is reduced at a point lower than yielding. rjLo may be taken as D/2 or O.13. In that case. as shown in Fig.asyAi. 7. The MS element has elastoplastic flexibility under moment and axial force but is rigid to shear force. <jc. Fsy . and D is the depth of the column cross section. Trilinear curves may be used to represent the forcedeformation relation of steel and concrete springs shown in Fig. Assumed plastic zone for determining spring initial stiffness. Calibration and reliability examination is given in Ref. where Lo is the column clear length. If the cover concrete is modeled separately.Earthquake Response Analysis 329 of springs in MS element may affect the accuracy in simulating the column forcedeformation relation. £ c are the concrete material compression strength and corresponding strain. The relations between tensile force and averaged strain of steel covered with concrete degrade before yielding due to cracking and bond deterioration. 7. and asy. The flexibility of a small portion. . and TJLQ is the length of assumed plastic zone.6. dc — ec • r]Lo dsy . Different mathematical formula from above based on the curvature at the two ends and distribution along the member is also available. Assumed plastic zone. Empirically.13. It is roughly determined by magnifying yielding displacement of the spring by the . 7. is initial stiffness of ith spring. the spring initial stiffness and strengthdisplacement are simply calculated as K^ — • ^ i fc — acAi. To allow for such stiffness degradation.lLo. Ai is the spring governed area. i]Lo XL Column deformable part Lo i Fig. Ei is the material young's modulus.
a flexibility reduction factor is considered for the line element to make total initial flexibility approximately equal to the original column member. 7.D>1. 0 1.Lp = ~ 0.0 (7.4) $s0 ZEtAi ~~ EA . Skeleton curve of spring forcedisplacement relations.9EI _ Tj. To balance the initial stiffness of the line element and two MS elements.Lp (7.14.0 ho/D < 1. The initial rotational flexibility 5sr and axial flexibility <5s0 of the MS element (to its section centroid) can be calculated as osr T) • Lp ^ T] • Lp ZEiAiY? T).330 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures City *D (a) Steel spring fcOcAi dc=scrjLo *D (b) Concrete spring Fig. and D is the depth of the cross section of the column.3) where ho is the shear span. factor of 1 .0 + ^ ^ ° h0/D ko.
.0 . or 71 > 0. the total bending flexibility of a column in unidirection is given by 6EI Lo 3EI EA 6EI I2L0 n. Wall Model In the architectural design point of view. and EA is the initial axial stiffness of the column. which may be either structural or nonstructural.5) (for rj < 0.Earthquake Response Analysis 331 where EI is the initial flexural stiffness of original column section around concerned axis.LO 0.15) 2r. > .15) (for rj < 0.L0 EA ' EA ' EA (7.3.5.15(a). 70.3.5 ZEI 6EI J u 3EI 5 = o ^x U 3EI (70>0) l\Lp 3EI V.5) = 72 = 1. a wall is an element used to partition the space.5) V LQ •yoLo T}.Lo 0.9EI1 3EI U 6EI (7. a wall can clearly . the initial stiffness may not be balanced if the plastic hinge zone parameter 7 is over certain value.9EI Lp 6EI LQ Including the flexibility of MS elements. which is called as "shear wall". 7. In this case. 7 Stiffness matrix can be transformed into the relation between nodal displacements and nodal forces as in the same way as shown for the one component model. (for T] > 0. is dumbbell shaped section with two boundary columns. A typical structural wall in Japan. the bending and axial flexibility of the line element can be expressed as 7I [*L] = A) 3EI L0 6EI 6EI I2L0 It must be „ „ . 72 > 0. Using flexibility reduction factors 71.^ That is. 72.6) That gives the following flexibility reduction factors 71 > 0.5 7l (for r) > 0. 7. as shown in Fig.
. 7. Analytical models for the column may be used for a wall member.15(c). because the characteristics of walls are generally different in the following points: (1) The ratio of shear deformation to flexural deformation of the wall is relatively large. 7.e. a wall may be designed without boundary columns. In this case. Horizontal sections of wall. (2) The wall member consists of different elements. The behavior is affected by their composite actions.15. boundary columns and beams. The only difference between the wall and the column is the shape of the horizontal section. However. i. 7. Instead. Further. the boundary regions are designed with sufficient confinement to ensure flexural ductility. especially for slender wall. it is difficult to define the boundary between column and wall.15(b). which is different from the member model for the column.—p:—TBI 7m • • (c) Walltype column Fig. wall panel. However. (3) Nonlinear axial elongation of the tensile boundary column is not negligibly small but is much larger than that of the compressive boundary column. the horizontal section of a vertical member could be with thick and short depth as shown in Fig. which may be called as either of walltype column or columntype wall. be differentiated from "columns". it may be preferable to use a special model for wall member.332 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures i • i 1 1 • • • • • • • • • • < r r i * • . Not only flexural mode of failure but also shear failure need be considered in design and analysis. as shown in Fig.1 i 1 t i » « « t u j (a) Wall with boundary columns » W I M • » « • • 1 > 1—• • II I (b) Wall with confined regions i » p.
three vertical line element model (Ref. To consider the larger inelastic axial elongation on the tensile side.16(c) has often been used as a practical model. i. shear and axial springs at the base. For the multistory wall. though axial elongation of the boundary beam is important in some cases. has been used not only for walls but also for beams and columns (Ref. is not considered in this model.16(a). which give flexural rigidity under symmetric bending moment. 7. one component model for column with flexural. although it will also be one of practical models in the future. the model does not express nonlinear shear deformation or bond deterioration so that theoretical model does not simulate the experimental behavior. shown in Fig. it is not so rational for frame analysis to use many fiber slices. 7. though the model requires relatively large number of degreesoffreedom. 7. larger axial elongation in tension side. However. The boundary columns are idealized using line element with nonlinear axial spring. The panel element is idealized by onecomponent model with nonlinear flexural. shear and axial springs can be used as a simple model for wall members.7). However. 7. Here. Therefore. the analysis by this model does not express the difference of ductility of connecting beams on tension side and compression side. As shown in Fig. for example. because the rotation occurs around the center line. The overall behavior of the wall can be simulated well if the nonlinear characteristics of the springs are determined appropriately.8). The central line element is intended to give shear and flexural rigidity under antisymmetric bending moment. linear strain distribution at horizontal section is usually assumed using rigid beams. as shown in Fig. Therefore. Finite element model is not included. Above characteristic behavior is simulated by models in which several nonlinear springs or line elements are used. flexural spring is removed and only shear and flexural springs are used in .16(b). movement of centroid of strain in nonlinear range. To separate the effects more clearly.Earthquake Response Analysis 333 (4) Stiffness of wall is relatively large in a frame and greatly affects the results of overall structural analysis. various macroscopic member models for walls are introduced. Flexural spring must be evaluated so as to separate the effects of boundary columns and panel. The socalled fiber model. (5) Moment distribution is not antisymmetric in a story and depends on the structures. 7.e. by which the flexural curvature distribution along the wall height is intended to be simulated as rigorously as possible.
7. which has been used for a model in elastic analysis. which may be called as multiple vertical line element model. especially of .16. 7. The truss model.16(e). 7.334 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (a) Onecomponent model (b) Fiber model (c) TVELM model (d) MVELM model (e) MS model (f) Truss model (g) Panel and boundary element model Fig. This model is especially useful under biaxial bending.16(d).9). The model is developed to meet with the resistance mechanism of truss and arch model for the evaluation of ultimate shear strength. it is a little difficult to determine the inelastic stiffness rationally.16(f). The MS model for column is also useful for walls as shown in Fig. is equivalent to the fiber model of one layer. which is easy in elastic range. The method to release the unbalanced force is important in this model. 7. as shown in Fig. Various wall models. 7. another model (Ref. is also used for nonlinear analysis. shown in Fig. However. This model. The stiffness of each element is to be given so as to give equivalent stiffness of the whole section.
1. The wall model need be sophisticated further for frame analysis on the following points: (1) Axial deformation of beam with slab must be idealized. More complicated model with additional truss element. which simulate shear and flexural behavior very well.4.11). a simple model for the wall is also proposed. especially under cyclic loading. under skewed loading. the elastic fundamental mode shape. 7. (3) Linear response spectrum of the design earthquake is specified for the levels of the design earthquake motions with corresponding damping ratios.Earthquake Response Analysis 335 tensile truss element. 7. (3) Simple but rational 2D constitutive model need be developed. has also been proposed. the dynamic response of which is estimated from an equivalent linearization. Instead of timehistory response analysis. for example. Further study is needed to verify the stability of the model in numerical calculation to apply the method to practical design analysis. (5) Modelling of irregular walls should be developed. (4) 3D model need be developed. Based on the constitutive law for twodimensional reinforced concrete element for FEM analysis (Refs.4. shown with dotted lines in the figure. 7. (2) Column axial property must be idealized with the effect of confinement. 7. A standard procedure may be as follows: (1) Pushover analysis is performed to obtain lateral loaddisplacement relations of the MDF structure. . (2) The loaddisplacement relations of the MDF structure are reduced into those of the equivalent SDF system assuming a constant basic mode shape. Nonlinear Response of SDF S y s t e m DisplacementBased Design Procedure A displacementbased seismic design procedure has been adopted by recently revised Japanese Building Code in addition to the traditional design procedure.16(g). Nonlinear and dynamic response of a structure as multidegreeoffreedom (MDF) system is evaluated based on the response of a reduced singledegreeoffreedom (SDF) system.10 and 7. static pushover analysis for equivalent linearization is supposed to be the standard design tool to calculate nonlinear displacement response of a building structure. as shown in Fig.
are magnified from the values in the pushover analysis superposing the static force and higher mode forces.[ M ] { e } * 0 (7. damage control or ultimate limit state criteria are deined and selected for each member using inelastic deformations. {e}: unit matrix. shown in Fig. or safety factors. MDF equation of motion is expressed as [M]{x} + [C}{±} + {/} = . 7. Tm. especially shear in nonyielding members. Maximum response displacement of the structure as a multidegreeoffreedom (MDF) system can be estimated with reduced equivalent singledegreeoffreedom (SDF) system. which corresponds to the equivalent linear stiffness at the maximum response in the nonlinear region.17.336 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (4) On the loaddisplacement relations of the SDF system. response displacement is determined at the elongated equivalent period. . which are verified to be larger than the responses with appropriate degrees of reliability.7) where [M): mass matrix. then the damping coefficient h is supposed to be defined to the frequency. (7) Member forces. Onemass (singledegreeoffreedom) system. (8) Shear capacity is verified to be larger than the maximum response at the ultimate limit with appropriate degrees of reliability.17. (5) Member deformations or strains can be calculated from pushover analysis at the corresponding displacement determined by the SDF response. if u) is taken as a frequency of the first mode. 7. {x}: relative acceleration and velocity vectors. 2huj. (6) Serviceability. constant. {x}.[M]). such as columns and walls. as follows. and {/}: restoring force vector. The above equation of motion for a multidegreeoffreedom system can m Fig. [C]: massproportional damping matrix (= 2/io.
7. 7. /3 — \U}T{M}{U\ : participation factor.12). and. Calculated timehistory of the displacement response of a nonlinear system to the accelerogram at KMO is shown in Fig.18. The hysteresis rule is "Takeda model". equivalent linearization (Ref. The method is especially useful in graphical presentation of equivalent linearization on linear response spectrum based on pushover analysis. is very sensitive to the displacement response in well inelastic range. which represents the nonlinear behavior of reinforced concrete structures with trilinear initial skeleton and degrading unloading stiffness. As an example of an earthquake record and response of SDF system. In the frame structure. and the effect of higher modes of response should be considered carefully. 7.8) where xe: equivalent displacement and fe: equivalent force.19. that is.Earthquake Response Analysis 337 be reduced to the following equation of motion for an equivalent SDF system by assuming a dominant basic mode of {x} — {u}/3xe and {/} = as xe + 2hujxe + fe = XQ [M]{u}Pfe. The hysteretic damping in relation to the ductility is based on the Takeda model as is used in the beam model in MDF analysis. a simple procedure. The skeleton curve may be idealized as a trilinear skeleton so that the strain energy is equivalent. The elastic first mode may be assumed for {«} in the following estimation. SDF response. (7. especially of the force vector. 7. The period of the structure calculated using the yielding stiffness is one second. these effects are expected to be small within small inelastic ductility level. Pushover analysis is carried out under the first mode force for the system.13). called "capacitydemand diagram method" has become popular recently (Ref.4. Correlation of Nonlinear Linear Response Response to To estimate nonlinear response of SDF system from linear response spectrum. can be determined based on the response spectrum as is described in the following section. from which nonlinear relations between the equivalent force fe and displacement xe are obtained. an accelerogram recorded at Kobe Meteorological Observatory (KMO) during the 1995 HyogokenNanbu earthquake is shown in Fig. However. the assumed mode shape. The yield strength . 7. the maximum equivalent displacement.2.
21 for the system with . The elastic response spectrum of the acceleration. 7.19.20. 7. 7. 7.2 Disp.4 0 0. By the timehistory analysis. not only the maximum response but also hysteretic behavior of the system can be simulated in detail. M 0. velocity and displacement for the accelerogram (KMO) is given in Fig.20.2 of the system is selected so that the maximum displacement response would reach the ductility factor of four. 7. Displacement timehistory response of a nonlinear system with Takedahysteresis model to the input acceleration of KOB. where the ductility factor is denned as the ratio of the maximum displacement to the yielding displacement. 0. Timehistory of accelerogram recorded at Kobe Meteorological Laboratory during 1995 HyogokenNanbu Earthquake (KOB). The calculated hysteretic response of the system is shown in Fig.338 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig.18. Hysteretic response of the nonlinear system with Takedahysteresis model to the input acceleration of KOB. LIII1G ISj Fig. (m) Fig.
^ 400 o "Z 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 T (sec. Elastic response spectra of accelerogram recorded at Kobe Meteorological Laboratory during 1995 HyogokenNanbu Earthquake (KOB).05. because the maximum ductility factor is four.Earthquake 4000 Response Analysis 339 32000 ' 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% < !/5 0 1 2 3 4 5 T (sec.) 600 . 0.21. 0. . The spectrum expresses the maximum response of the system with corresponding fundamental period during all the timehistory.0 second and the damping coefficient of 0. 7. The fundamental period defined using the secant stiffness of the nonlinear system from the origin to the attained maximum displacement response is 2.20 corresponds to the hysteretic damping of Takeda model with the maximum amplitude of ductility factor four in stationary cyclic load reversal.25. 7. which means that the secant stiffness is onefourth of the yielding stiffness. The viscous damping coefficient of 0.20 and 0. The timehistory displacement response of an elastic system with the fundamental period of 2. 7.15. 0.22.0 second in this case.) Fig.20 is shown in Fig.) 100 I 50 0 1 2 3 4 5 T (sec.10. The waveform is similar to that of the nonlinear system in Fig.19. damping coefficients of 0. 0.
The estimate by the diagram is fairly close to the calculated maximum from nonlinear response analysis. Equivalent linearization of the nonlinear response on accelerationdisplacement response (capacitydemand) diagram. the nonlinear response ._ 't v Z^^S<g 0. The quadrant of the calculated nonlinear hysteretic response is plotted for the direction of the absolute maximum response on the SaSd response spectrum.22. 7. the correspondence by this simple method is not always good like this case. shown in Fig. 7. because the response is not stationary under the actual earthquake motion. 7. shown with shaded circle in the figure.23. The response by equivalent linearization may be estimated simply as the crossing point of the envelope of the hysteresis and the spectrum curve with the corresponding damping coefficient 0. Using the capacitydemand diagram.4 Disp.340 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 20 time (s) Fig.23. In another case. Displacement timehistory response of an equivalent linear system for t h e nonlinear system with Takeda model. This is an example in case of which a relatively good correlation is observed between nonlinear response and linear response by the simplest equivalent linearization.20.2 >Sj w. or accelerationdisplacement (SaSd) response spectrum format.24. (m) Fig. 0. / *• » ) . above correspondence of the nonlinear response to linear spectrum can be expressed as shown in Fig. However. 7. 20 15 h=5% h=10% h=15% h=20% h=25% ^l 1 $ Estimatedfromequivalent linearization 3 10 5 0 W6 j r » \ '// )i .
although stiffness matrices are different . Te = 1.2 Disp. In other words.Earthquake Response Analysis 341 10 20 time (s) (a) Nonlinear timehistory response 0.2  T=1.1 0.5. the maximum response is induced suddenly to one direction within relatively short time. Equivalent linearization for another system (Ty = 0. which formulates the equivalent period and equivalent damping for any nonlinear system generally based on the fundamental characteristics of earthquake motions.1. 7. equivalent period is shorter than the secant stiffness to the maximum displacement. (m) (c) Hysteretic response 0. is smaller because the displacement response in the opposite direction is small.1 0 0. In this case.24.20.20' ' 1 —~~J Mf*""*** ' 10 20 : time (s) (b) Equivalent linear response 0.0 second).5.1 0. a common mathematical formula is available to all the models.1 0 0.2 0. A rational linearization is still needed.0sh=0. 7.5. Numerical Analysis Numerical Analysis of Equation of Motion To calculate the responses stepbystep numerically. 7. (m) Fig.2 0.4 Disp.
10) for ith step and (Eq. From this point of view. an appropriate numerical calculation technique is still required. Time step should be short enough to satisfy these assumptions for stable numerical procedure. 7. In a frequently used numerical procedure.11) for the next (i + l)th step [M]{x}i + [C\ii{±} + {fh [M]{x}i+1 + [C\i{x}i+1 + [K\i{Ax}\+1 + {fh = [M){e}x0i = [M}{e}x0i+1 (7.342 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures depending on the structural modeling.10) where. called N e w m a r k ' s /?method. However. by which accuracy and .7){*} i + 7{*}i+i] • The parameters (3 and 7 express the change of the acceleration vector during the integration time from ith step to (i + l)th step. To integrate the equation of motion (Eq. timehistory analysis need be efficient to meet practical purpose. (Eq. it is rewritten into the incremental form as follows. 7.11) (712) { i } i + 1 = {xh + At[(l .8) by a numerical procedure. and the status at the next time step can be definitely determined by assuming that: (1) the stiffness of the structure is constant during the small incremental time step of calculation.9) (7. 7. Instantaneous stiffness matrix is formulated using tangent stiffness of the structure at one step. the calculation time and memory storage become large. t h e following relations are assumed {Az}* + 1 = At{x}i + At2 (\ ~ /?) {*h + 0{x}i+i (7. for the equation of (i + l)th step. Therefore. [M] : mass matrix {x}i+i : relative acceleration vector [C]i : damping matrix {x}i : velocity vector [k]i : instaneous stiffness matrix {Ax}* + 1 : incremental displacement vector {f}i : restoring force vector {e} : unit vector XQi : input base acceleration. especially for analyses in a practical design. if the time increment is made small and the number of degreesoffreedom of the model is large. and (2) input acceleration or response acceleration is linearly changed during short time step.
ASCE J. The numerical calculation technique is important for the development of a computer program. Kato M. Reinforced concrete response to simulated earthquake.. I. Release of Unbalanced Force In the numerical calculation procedure as above.N. a line element with two MS elements at its ends. . N. 95(ST2). T.11)—(7. However. the unbalanced force must also be released for the damping term. Takeda. AIJ.5. 96(ST12).. 25572573. the error accumulates with numbers of cyclic hysteresis paths to some extent. Prom Eqs. M. (7. can be determined. 137157. In case of using the Multiaxial Spring (MS) model described in 7. In nonlinear analysis stiffness changes occurred in any element may cause force unbalances among the elements. In this case. Struct. Trans. numerical iteration method is needed in some cases to find out a set of force increment against a set of given displacement increment for the three elements to satisfy the equilibrium condition..Earthquake Response Analysis 343 stability of numerical integration is selected. three unknown vectors. M. 1970. If the damping matrix is assumed to be proportional to stiffness matrix. where the member stiffness changes during the timestep. Construct. the instantaneous stiffness matrix during the integration time step At is assumed to be constant. Giberson. In other words.A.2. Sozen. the assumed loaddeformation relationship is piecewise linear corresponding to the prescribed time step. Div. even though the unbalance in one step is small. 149156 (in Japanese). In the dynamic timehistory analysis. pp.3. Experimental study on overall seismic behavior of 12story coupled shear wall. Eng. K.. Struct. 7.2. incremental displacement.F. J.2. and Nielsen. Div. pp. which eliminates the error by applying the fictitious external force from the node to the member. unbalance of external force and internal force due to the stiffness change is inevitable. References 7..1. Two nonlinear beams with definition of ductility.. 1997.3. the loaddeformation of any member passes through the stiffness interruption point of the hysteresis model. 1969. 7. velocity and acceleration vectors at (i + l)th step. 7. M. ASCE J. Struct.13). this problem is especially important. The column idealized by MS model has three elements. Sugaya. Therefore. Teshigawara. which should not be neglected. and Nishiyama. pp.
N. K. Li. and Maekawa.8. Reviewing the multispring model and fiber model. 7. T. Struct. Berkeley..6. 1998. Analysis of the fullscale sevenstory reinforced concrete test structure.. and Aoyama. S. Report No.10. . Fac. Shibata.. T. Div. H. Struct. 434. Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations. UCB/EERC87/19. Struct. Kabeyasawa. Stud. Eng. pp. T.344 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 7. 1983. GihodoShuppan. A. W. ASCE J. 102(ST1). pp. 7. T. J. Ninth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering V I I I . Multispring model for 3dimensional analysis of RC members. 1730. Prediction of response of concrete buildings to severe earthquake motion.. Proc. A. Freeman. OECDNEA. Mech. 589605. S. Second Workshop on Seismic Shear Wall International Standard Problem.. J.. V. 7. 7. 1(1). pp. Publication SP55... Evaluation of column and wall actions in the ultimatestate design of reinforced concrete structures. Res. 7. T.V. Analytical models for predicting the lateral response of RC shear walls. S.. and Schnobrich. ACI.5. 7. Shiohara. K. Takanayagi. Otani. 7. and Bertero. Proc. 1991. 10th Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium 2. 7. Eng. pp. University of Illinois. H. 118. 431478. 23692374.7. Computed behavior of reinforced concrete coupled shear walls. Civil Eng.A. and Kubo. University of Tokyo X X X V I I ( 2 ) . April 1996... Yokohama. 1978. Substitute structure method for seismic design in RC. and Otani. Okamura. Urbana. Ser. 1993. 1976. Nonlinear Analysis and Constitutive Models of Reinforced Concrete.A.12.9.11. OECDNEA SSWISP Short Reports. and Sozen M. 7.4. 699704.13.C.. pp. Vulcano.N. Li. Comparison ReportSSWISP. K. Kabeyasawa. pp. 1988. 1976.
8. Hence construction of New RC structures cannot be made by the same construction method as that for ordinary RC structures of low strength materials. Full Scale Construction Testing Objectives The objectives of the full scale construction testing are. the full scale construction testing and the New RC construction standard are introduced. to actually construct a full scale structure consisting of typical member sections selected from 345 . Tochigi 3218585. manufacture.Chapter 8 Construction of New RC Structures Yoshihiro Masuda Department of Architecture. based on these testing and also on the construction standard of private companies for the current highrise RC buildings. A new construction standard was developed for the construction utilizing high strength concrete and high strength steel.jp 8. 8. The High Strength Concrete Committee and the Construction and Manufacturing Committee of the New RC project carried out various series of indoor tests and a full scale construction test using high strength concrete and steel.2. mix. and investigated material. Utsunomiya University.1. In this chapter. Introduction High strength concrete and high strength steel have considerably different physical properties compared to ordinary strength concrete and steel. Utsunomiya.ac.utsunomiyau.2. 112 Yoto.1. first. construction and management in order to realize structures with prescribed quality. Japan Email: masuday@cc.
8.Xu.9 m story height. four zones are defined. a 60story building that was trial designed in the project. A half portion of fourcolumn structure is open frame. Outline of Construction Testing The structure to be constructed is a frame specimen shown in Fig. 8. Testing was conducted in the period from September to November. It will be seen that construction testing was performed using material combinations corresponding to Zones I and II—1. . and two stories with 2.1. Table 8. and ultimately to provide background data for the development of the New RC construction standard including results of current construction techniques.2.1 indicates the relationship of material strength zoning and construction tests. 8. Current [ highrise 0 0 30 60 90 Concrete strength (MPa) 120 Fig.M RC\ 200 r . Construction site was located in the Building Research Institute of the Ministry of Construction.. It represents a part of lower stories of a highrise building designed in the New RC project. Ibaraki.1 shows combination of specimens and construction methods. and another half is frame with shear wall with 300 mm thickness. five isolated column specimens. consisting of single bays in X and Y directions with 6 m span length.2. 850 mm square crosssection and 2900 mm high. and at the same time to point out problems in construction if any. Material strength zoning for New RC project and material for construction testing. to ascertain that required quality of structural concrete is obtained. Tsukuba City. were also constructed. Material strength zoning is same as in Chapter 2. Two circles denote material strength combinations of full scale construction testing. 1991.346 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 1200 1000 "TO"  112 III Construction testing ^ 800 to / 1 111 V I 400 t \ 1 !. Figure 8. In addition.2. According to strength of concrete and steel.
Construction of New RC Structures
347
©
Mf^T M
Wall
300
M
i
i
500 I
M
Wall
"f~"W
850
©850
o
1500 I
^4,
Wall
58o~
J..I
»::::Q1::
^r
3rd floor
1500
I
3000
I
9000
3000

1500
I " "
(a) Column
(b) Frame Fig. 8.2. Construction test specimens.
Two kinds of high strength concrete were used. One was 60 MPa specified design strength without using mineral admixture, and another was 100 MPa specified design strength using silica fume as mineral admixture. Four kinds of control cylinders were manufactured for each of two kinds of concrete. They were cured in water on site, sealcured on site, standardcured, and drilled cores. Control age was either 28 days or 91 days.
348
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete
Structures
Table 8.1. Specimens and method of construction. Specimen Column No. 1 Column No. 2 Column No. 3 Column No. 4 Column No. 5 Al Zone Frame 1 story A2 Zone B Zone C Zone column Frame 2 story D Zone CD Zone column wall girder, slab, joint
21 60 60 100
Member
Strength (MPa) Slump
Form steel
Placing
Consolidation
Curing
VH plywood separation
25
column
plywood steel plywood steel monolithic
internal vibrator form 1 day sheet 6 days
column, girder, slab, joint
25
steel plywood
monolithic
form 1 day
form 3 days internal vibrator sheet 4 days for girders, slabs, and steel columns form vibrator for plywood form VH walls separation 7 days plywood
Slump target was set at 21 cm or 25 cm. As chemical admixture to realize this slump, high range AE water reducing agents from two manufacturers were used. Axial reinforcement in columns and girders was high strength large diameter deformed bars of SD685 D41 and D35. Formwork consists of steel forms or plywood forms, with partial use of transparent forms. Two kinds of concrete casting method were used. One was VH separate casting, i.e. to cast column and wall (vertical) concrete first before girder and slab rebars are brought in, then place girder and slab cages and cast (horizontal) concrete. The other one was monolithic casting, i.e. place all reinforcement first including girder and slab bars, then cast concrete in column and wall as well as girder and slab in one operation. In this case concrete in vertical members is cast through girder and slab bars. Compaction was made in principle by means of internal (spud) vibrators with sufficient time, but a part of concrete was compacted with external vibrators while the use of internal vibrator was eliminated. Two kinds of curing method were employed. One was to leave formwork for seven days in place to give sufficient curing. Another was to remove formwork
Construction of New RC Structures
349
Fig. 8.3. Column specimens.
Fig. 8.4. FVame specimen.
the next day or three days later, then wrap exposed concrete by polyethylene sheets until the seventh day. Concrete mix was determined by trial mix conducted in the laboratory as well as that using actual plant machinery. Figures 8.3 and 8.4 show an isolated column specimen and the frame specimen at the conclusion of construction, respectively.
8.2.3.
Concrete
Mix
The concrete mix used for the full scale construction testing was determined, after laboratory test mixes, by manufacturing high strength concrete in the
350
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete
Structures
plant actually used for the concreting, which would satisfy needed workability of the construction job. Materials used for concrete was as follows. Cement was ordinary portland cement with specific weight of 3.16. Silica fume for 100 MPa concrete had specific weight of 2.20 and specific surface area of 200 000 cm 2 /g. Fine aggregate was 7:3 mixture by weight, of land sand from Kashima with saturated and surfacedried specific weight of 2.62 and water absorption rate of 1.25 percent, and crushed limestone sand with saturated and surfacedried specific weight of 2.69 and water absorption rate of 1.66 percent. Coarse aggregate was crushed hard sandstone gravel from Iwase with saturated and surfacedried specific weight of 2.66, water absorption rate of 0.59 percent and percentage of absolute volume of 61.1 percent. Chemical admixture was high range AE water reducing agent and following three kinds were used: A was polycarbonate acid chain used for 60 MPa concrete, B was aminosulphonate acid chain used for 60 MPa concrete, and C was also aminosulfonate acid chain used for 100 MPa concrete. Table 8.2 shows concrete mix for both 100 MPa and 60 MPa concrete for column specimens, and two kinds of mix for 60 MPa concrete for the frame specimen. Mix was conducted in a forced doublespindle mixer of 3.0 m 3 capacity, with the procedures illustrated in Fig. 8.5. Fresh concrete tests and manufacture of concrete cylinders were carried out at the readymixed concrete plant and the construction site. Fresh concrete tests consisted of slump test, slump flow test, air content measurement, and Ltype flow test (conducted only on site).
Table 8.2. Mix proportioning. Specimen Column No. 1, 2, 3 Column No. 4, 5 Frame 1 story Frame Strength (MPa) 100 60 60 60 Slump (cm) 25 25 25 21 Air W/C f.a.r.* Unit mass ( K g / m 3 ) W 160 165 165 165 C 720 611 611 611 SF 80 Si 414 499 499 453
(%)
2 4 4 4
(%)
20 27 27 27
(%)
39.6 44.1 44.1 44.0
s2
177 214 214 194
G 910 910 910 976
— — —
2 story
*fine aggregate ratio
Construction of New RC Structures Mixing procedure for 60MPa concrete c+s w, Ad G
351
30sec.10sec.
rotate stop
150sec.
rotate
10sec. 90sec.
stop rotate *—Mixer
Mixing procedure for 10OMPa concrete C+S+SP W, Ad G
I
I I
I
II
150sec rotate
t
10sec. 90sec. stop rotate a— Mixer
30sec.10sec. stop rotate stop
II
I
Fig. 8.5. Procedure of concrete mixing.
Compression tests of cylinders (100 mm diameter and 200 mm high) were performed on 7, 28 and 91 days of age. Table 8.3 shows the mix of tested fresh concrete and result of fresh concrete tests. The time for transportation from the plant to the site was about 30 minutes. Mix Nos. 1 and 6 showed segregation of paste and coarse aggregate at the unloading on site, although the segregation was not noticeable when the concrete was shipped from the plant. The slump flow of these two concrete mix exceeded 70 cm at the shipment, and it was inferred that the unit water content was too high. Except for mix Nos. 1 and 6, concrete with 25 cm slump revealed very little time dependent change of slump and air content. Concrete with slump of 21 cm or less showed slump loss of 1 to 2 cm and slump flow loss of about 10 cm, although air content did not show any definite change. Concrete with 18 cm slump had poor fluidity, and construction difficulty was anticipated with the use of this concrete. Table 8.4 summarizes the compression test results of concrete cylinders at three ages. Almost no difference was observed between the strength of concrete at the plant (shipment) and on site (unloading). Figure 8.6 shows the relationship of slump and compressive strength or amount of high range AE water reducing agent for both plant test and laboratory test. In both cases, amount of chemical admixture increased as slump increased. The compressive strength at 91 days also increased as slump increased, which was attributed to the amount of chemical admixture. Figure 8.7 shows the relationship of binderwater ratio and compressive strength at 28 days from plant tests and laboratory tests for 60 MPa concrete
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced
Concrete
Structures
Admixture
Che mical
i—i
i—i
i—i
iH
rt
CN
yt
r<
O
tf
»—1
en
Ol
O)
Ol
Temperature (°C)
o
o
1008
o <t Ol
co t~ Oi
O
O
O o I—t O l O)
Note
t
CN
r — i n ^H O !
r H
m
05
p to M
o
p
o
©
segregation
o w M >n i n
segregation
(%)
m
to
6
ho
co
.—i
i 
CO CO I *  CO o iH T f T — 1 I  1  b  CO CO c o
Tf
in Ol CO CO i n
*
i o i  s oo CS ( N I N M
co i n i n CN CN CN
•
*
Site (unloading)
Air Content
it Mass
* ' —
fc. co
1 1 1 I
1
1 1 1 I
1
1
1
CO CO t  t  00
o
(%)
»C
CO N
I N l O CO H « (N
co
iq
TP
CO I N ( N
o d d
£>
O
Slump Flow (cm)
o ~H t—» rH CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
in m i n i n CN CO CO t 
o
q
in
co
co m
in
H
in
cq
o
d o i ^ >o co 0 0 CN CO ITO ( N
00
CN CO O Is ^ CO
Slump (cm)
£
*
in in io i n in in a s CO CO CO CO CO
o
o O CO CO CO N CO O N CN W o oo p
TJ d CN H
c£) d oo i o CN CN H CN
co CN i n CN CN CN
—1
O
CO
o
• *
o
CO
• * •
•*
Temperature
^6?
•
*
•*
Tl" O 0 0 CN *3> T f TJ CO >tf
CN CN
o> CO
p q p p p o
CO CO CO 1 ^ N CO CN CN CN CN CN CN
q
in
q
tI cd b^ CN CN CN
*
M~^
J 2 ~~CJ s ^
Plant (shipment)
> S
o co in
O to in o
O ^H o CO O CN CO i n c o CO i n
o
o o CO CO CO in in m
o o
(%)
o
o
o o
o
o
o
Air Content
Tf
lC
CO CN CO CN CO CO
CO CO T p
CO CN CN H
o d d
3 5
CO
y
Slump Flow (cm)
r n 00 i n lO m CN CN CN CN ^ 4
IO CN
in in m CN CN CN
CO CO O
CO 0 0
O
in H b
in
o
~'
CO 0 0 l O I O l C 0 0 N CO CO T f CO S
CO 0 0 •«* W
bt in CN CM CN CN CN CN
CN CN O CN CN CN
Slump (cm)
^ (^
^
w
m
ifl
I
O
W
O
in
m
m
i n CN i n H d N CN CN CN CN CN CN
co co i n CN CN CN
Mix
X
S
X.
2
i—i CM CO TP i n
CO
1
00
a>
1
H
CN
co
Tf
m
co
b
CO OS
Strength
c
PL,
o
o
f—t
V.
s
o CD
100
*0 c
IS
1
Construction
of New RC Structures
353
and 100 MPa concrete. Plant tests correspond well with laboratory tests for 100 MPa concrete, but plant tests for 60 MPa concrete was much lower than laboratory tests, which may be attributed to the surface water of fine aggregate and wash water remainder in mixer cars. The concrete mix to be used in the construction testing was finally determined for the following three kinds of concrete, considering the construct ability as the top priority:
Table 8.4. Compressive strength. Strength (MPa) Mix No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Plant (shipment) 7 days 44.1 62.2 74.0 74.2 69.3 54.4 90.6 86.2 96.4 28 days 55.0 69.0 85.8 89.3 81.6 61.8 115.7 109.2 123.8 91 days 58.4 88.6 95.8 98.1 92.4 70.5 125.6 109.2 135.7 Site (unloading) 7 days 45.9 62.9 76.0 73.1 73.1 59.9 93.6 86.1 97.6 28 days 54.1 70.1 81.6 82.4 80.3 65.9 112.2 115.1 122.0 91 days 57.6 83.9 101.9 99.1 95.7 77.9 137.9 123.0 135.6
60
100
3.0
Plant test w/c . 27% IV: 165kg/m3
Laboratory test W/C: 30% IV: 163, 164ltg/m3
g
<2.0
CD
t_
11.0
<
0.0 _ 110
CL
n 0
91days 28days
§ 90 p 70 50 18 21 25 18 Slump (cm) 21 25
Hfl 7days
Fig. 8.6. Relationship of slump and compressive strength or amount of chemical admixture.
354
Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced
Concrete
Structures
60MPa concrete 130 120 ^110 £100  Lab. test S 90 c o> 80 £
03
100MPa concrete
O
70 60
X
1 3.0
I I
_
J
^
Lab. test
o
O: Plant test
i i i
50 0~Z 2.5 1 3.5
I
1 4.0
I
"C 3.5
4.0
I
4.5
i
5.0
i
BAN
35
30 27 25 25 W/B (%)
22
20
Fig. 8.7.
Relationship of binderwater ratio and compressive strength.
(1) 60 MPa concrete with target 28day strength of 80 MPa, watercement ratio 27 percent, water content 165 kg/m 3 , slump 25 cm, admixture A or B (notation: 602725A or B). (2) 60 MPa concrete with target 28day strength of 80 MPa, watercement ratio 27 percent, water content 165 kg/m 3 , slump 21 cm, admixture A (notation: 602721A). (3) 100 MPa concrete with target 28day strength of 120 MPa, watercement ratio 20 percent, water content 160 kg/m 3 , slump 25 cm, admixture C (notation: 1002025C). 8.2.4. Reinforcement Construction
Reinforcing bars used in the full scale construction test were as follows. For column bars, USD685 D41 bars with screwtype deformation were used. For beam bars, USD685 D35 bars with screwtype deformation were used, with Utype bent anchorage at the exterior columnends. For wall and slab bars, USD685 D16 and D13 bars with ordinary deformation were used, respectively. Column hoops were SD290 D16 bars with ordinary deformation, built into closed form by flush butt welding. Beam stirrups were SD785 D13 bars with ordinary deformation, also built into closed form by flush butt welding. Thus high strength steel was used throughout except for column hoops where ordinary grade steel was adopted in order to accommodate welding joints.
Construction of New RC Structures
355
Fabrication of reinforcing bars was carried out after careful examination of fitting by detailed rebar work drawings and rebar assembling drawings. This was necessary for rebar fabrication with congestion such as this test structure. As a result of detailed examination, the work precision requirements for each rebar element could be made more stringent than current JASS 5 as shown below, except for the length of wall and slab bars. Precision of length of column and girder axial bars was plus zero and minus 10 mm. In case of Ubend girder bars with inner bend diameter of 4 times bar diameter, length from bar end to the exterior surface of vertical portion and length between exterior surface of horizontal portions must also be plus zero and minus 10 mm. Length of wall and slab bars must be plus or minus 20 mm. Hoops and stirrups with 90 degrees bend and/or 180 degrees hook with inner bend diameter of 4 times
Fig. 8.8. Election of girder cage.
Fig. 8.9. Corner column to girder joint.
Concrete Construction Fresh Concrete Fresh concrete tests were performed at the shipment from plant and at the unloading on site for 60 MPa concrete of full scale test structure. The slump flow and air content showed j£ Q : Slump 0 ^ : S l u m p f l o w A u A & A A ^ A : Air content A 4 A A White : Shipment A A Black: Unloading I 4 0 2 1 A A 1 0 ~ „ O A J A J J A * fl fi J * E ^ A " Li 70H o a —i £ 2. of agitator truk Column Column Frame (Monolithic) Frame (Vertical) Frame (Horizontal) 1002025C 602725B 602725A 602721A 1 4 3 5 1 2 Fig. .2 cm range.0 cm and plus 1.8 shows erection of a girder unit.10 shows slump. Column and girder bars were spliced mechanically by screwtype coupler joints. * ' • D D !* ! *n l n D a o a ° a 1 1 50 g a. slump flow and air content. slump flow and air content measured at the shipment and unloading. Figure 8.9 shows the view of corner column to girder joint while election. i.0 cm and plus 4. in order to investigate its performance and quality. 0 1  ' a 1 ^ a 1 j o 1 o • 1 5 a 1 a • i— o D 1 o D 1 3 . Figure 8.e.2. 8. within minus 1. 30 a. Variation with time of slump.5. lengthwise as well as crosswise.10. Column bar splices were located 300 mm above floor slabs except for core bars. and erected into the designated positions using a truck crane.1. and its actual value for 25 cm slump concrete was within minus 2. length between exterior surface of parallel portions. 8. 500 mm above the splices of periphery column bars.356 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures bar diameter. 8. Figure 8. which were spliced 800 mm above floor slabs. 30  —1 1— 1 ' 1 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 No. Reinforcement cages for columns and beams were prefabricated firmly on the ground. o.5.2. The slump at these occasions was almost same. while the value for 21 cm slump concrete was somewhat higher.0 cm range. Column cages of one story high and girder cages of doublecross shape were made as one unit of prefabrication. must be plus or minus 3 mm.
in case of high strength concrete. The upper H portion concrete was placed 4 hours 20 minutes after completion of V portion casting.2. and after formwork removal. and it was raised in accordance with the rise of concrete surface up to the height of girder soffit (2150 mm). Curing for all column specimens was same. general decrease from shipment to unloading. it often happened that concrete with similar slump had considerably different flow values. In case of VH separate casting. The variation of air content was less than 1 percent.072 1=0.912x139.11. and was cast all the way to the top of the column. 8.205 1=0.622 r=0. In case of monolithic casting. Although they showed some correlation.11 shows relationship between slump and slump flow.Construction of New RC Structures 357 y=5. concrete was dropped from the top of girder level through girder rebar cages. i. columns were wrapped by vinyl sheet. the flexible hose at the end of concrete pipe was lowered to the bottom of form. . Rate of casting was 25 m 3 /hr.13 shows a view of concrete placement in a column.956 y=7. formwork was remained in place for 1day.933 Fig. 8.e.907 y=4. It was deemed appropriate to evaluate workability of concrete by slump flow.2. and casting and compacting operation was carried out continuously.12 shows the sequence of column concrete casting schematically. Figure 8.5.4 m having maximum outlet capacity of 65 m 3 /hr. Relationship between slump and slump flow. Construction of Column Specimens Casting of concrete was done by concrete pump truck with a boom of 22. through girder and column rebar cages.952x68. Figure 8. Figure 8. rather than slump.265x74.
358 Design of Modern Highrwe Reinforced Concrete Structures Figure 8.12. Shown here are data of two columns using 100 MPa concrete and different method of casting. one point o o 8 o o u Construction joint — vibrator Q oo vibrator 850 ° / o r • Horizontal portion 750 Vertical portion 2150 o4 ^vibrator J @ JL I ® I ^vibrator Monolithic casting VH separate casting Fig.13. but fluctuation of concrete strength along height was similar for VH separate casting and monolithic vibrator <£43mm.14 shows distribution along height of concrete strength obtained from test of drilled core specimens. Sequence of column concrete casting. 8. Concrete casting of a column. Fig. 8.120Q0VPW! m 20 sec. . per one layer.
surface) 0. Figure 8.15 shows distribution along height of surface bubbles observed externally and on the core cylinder surfaces. Plotted values on the abscissa are bubble area rate in percent. casting.3 playwood — monolithic casting 10OMPa concrete 2000 1000 \ 70 80 90 100 110 120 Core strength (MPa) 130 140 Fig. The maximum strength difference along height was 9. 8. using different form material. or about 10 percent of specified strength.1 No. Distribution along height of concrete strength. 3000 r.5 Bubble area rate (%) Fig.15. 8.2 playwood —VH sparate casting • No.14. surface) plywood (core surface) plywood (ext.2 steel (core surface) steel (ext. This figure shows data of two columns using 100 MPa concrete placed by VH separate casting. Bubble area rate .1 No.10OMPa concrete 2000 1000 • o A A No.7 MPa.5 1 1. defined as total bubble area divided by total surface area times 100. Distribution along height of surface bubbles.Construction of New RC Structures 359 3000 A No.2 No.
3(100MPa) Col. wall concrete was placed in two operations. with 10 seconds of vibration at each location. and hence it was made clear that H portion concrete of VH separate casting could be placed 1. Settlement was concluded in about 1. was greater for steel form than plywood form. and also greater in the upper portion of the column. Settlement of concrete upper surface after casting was measured as shown in Fig. . 8.3.9 mm. Concrete placed in girders was compacted by a high frequency rodtype vibrator inserted into fresh concrete at 40 cm spacing along girder axis from a point 20 cm away from the girder end. Due to its limiting dimension. Conveying speed of concrete was 25 m 3 /hr.2 Concrete Structures . In general more bubbles were found on core cylinder surface than external surface of the column.5.360 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced 0. No. Fresh concrete in the columns and column girder joints was compacted at four corners of formwork by 20 second each of vibration. 8.5 hours for all concrete mixes. No.19 shows concrete casting into girders and floor slabs of the third floor.0 0. Figure 8. concrete casting to walls is the one that requires utmost attention in the practice. each followed by vibration from a form vibrator. Settlement of concrete upper surface.2.18 shows the flow of wall concrete in the form of a wall in the first story. Construction of Frame Specimen Figure 8.5 (60MPa) ett w < B 0.5 hours after casting V portion (column) concrete. and considering the column height of 2900 mm it was judged very small.17 shows a view of concrete casting of a wall.2 0 4 8 Time (hr) 12 16 Fig.16. much smaller than ordinary strength concrete. The maximum value was about 0.16. Figure 8.8 1.0 1.4 $ h OR ? Col. . As shown in the figure. but there were no honeycombs and so concrete filling was judged good. 8. 0.
Material segregation of concrete was not noticeable in columns and walls even when concrete was dropped from the top of girder rebar cages. 8. compacting and leveling operations of column and wall concrete. Flow of wall concrete in the form. Placing sequence (B zone. 1st layer) ©(DKD^©~»form vibrator © © Placing sequence (B zone.18. 8.Construction of New RC Structures 361 Fig. but it was found that higher conveying speed such as 35 or 50 m 3 /hr was too fast to make satisfactory .17. Concrete casting of a wall. Conveying speed of 25m3/hr was appropriate for placing. 2nd layer) (CD: after form vibration) ^®*®*i)*i)^#*(D)*©»forrn vibrator Fig.
The concrete pump was an IHI IFF 85B machine which is lateral single action double spindle hydraulic piston type.19. The reduced horizontal length of conveying pipe that corresponds to conveying load of the boom pipe was taken to be 180 m. theoretical conveying pressure of 7. placing. Concrete conveying by concrete pump was measured for high strength concrete of 60 MPa.45 m3.36 MPa. cylinder size 195 mm diameter and 1400 mm long. . 8. compacting and leveling operations. boom pipe of threestep hydraulic operated bending. 8. with maximum conveying speed of 65 m 3 /hr.7 m. General view of construction work. Concrete casting of girders and floor slabs Fig.362 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig.20 shows a general view of construction work in progress. Figure 8.20. conveying pipe diameter 125A. watercement ratio of 27 percent and slump 21 cm. and maximum aboveground height 20. hopper capacity 0. used for the third floor girders and floor slabs.
Conveying pressure for high strength concrete from ref.Construction of New RC Structures 363 Figure 8.5 cm making the change rate of 21 to 36 percent. Figure 8.21 shows relationship of theoretical conveying speed and theoretical conveying pressure and actual values.5) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Theoretical conveying speed (rrr/hr) Fig. Conveying limit S 7 = . in the construction Zone B. 8. first.5). due mainly to the large viscosity of high strength concrete. Comparing lath mesh and air tubes for the construction joint. it was found that the latter. and subsequently in the Zone A 60 to 180 minutes later.23 shows the sequence of construction of the frame specimen. The high frequency rodtype vibrator used for concrete compaction was not inserted into the preceding concrete. The slump dropped by 4 to 7.4) O 1st truck o 2nd truck A 4th truck v 5th truck ?5 b 3 V6A A a 1  a Conveying pressure for ordinary strength concrete.1 to 0. Concrete in girders and floor slubs of second and third floors was cast. 8. (8. Slump flow change rate is defined as the ratio of the slump flow change before and after conveying to the slump flow before conveying expressed in percent. The air content. However the conveying load of high strength concrete was found to be 2 to 3 times the ordinary strength concrete of same slump of 21 cm shown in the concrete pump guidelines (Ref. slump 21cm from ref. together with locations of concrete core boring after the completion of construction. . The construction joint between the two zones was made using lath mesh and air tubes. on the other hand. increased by 0.2 to 15. Relationship of theoretical conveying speed and pressure.22 shows the relationship between theoretical conveying pressure and slump change or slump flow change rate before and after conveying.21.5 percent by conveying. Figure 8. The slump loss and slump flow loss was greater for higher conveying pressure. As shown the concrete pumping operation was carried out with a sufficient margin.5 cm by conveying. (8. and the slump flow dropped by 8.
22.75 2 2.91) X A 17.5 2.94) 30 27.2P(r=0. 8. 8.5 ?5 \ / / / * r^AT A y \° I I c/\ 0 25 22.364 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures o Slump loss (SI) A Slump flow change rate (7. O slab core (J girder core ESggcolumn core Construction joint '.5 ! 17.5 2.25 2.62+5.1 1 .5P/' A/ / r f (r=0.vx + ir Fig. Relationship of theoretical conveying pressure and slump loss or slump flow change rate.) (numeral) indicates slump flow change (cm) 37. 7 H / A 35 32. Sequence of construction of frame specimen and location of core boring.25 Theoretical conveying pressure P (MPa) I I I Fig. Column 7T I ! ®Girder t::j: 1 ZoneB preceding placement < i Zone A following concrete placement Wall^ _ \ J _ _(k concrete *~' • 6 j ©1500 I T ar.9 °>8 ?7 7) = .5 §1 551.5 20 AT Sl= 7.75 3 3.23. .
Combination of finishing and curing conditions of second floor slab. metal trowel finishing. Figure 8. metal lath mesh need not be removed. was easier to install. and by subsequent water washing. . 8. It was found that concrete with 21 cm slump was harder to finish compared to 25 cm slump concrete. On the other hand.24. but on its removal the preceding concrete had to stay up by itself that requires more than 120 minutes after completion of Zone B to commence the Zone A concreting.25 shows a view of floor slab casting and finishing. the second story column concrete was cast up to the soffit of third floor girders.r 2nd floor B zone 1 st finishing tamping water spraying troweling 2nd finishing water spraying Ehr 10min after start of casting 1 J "I j  I j I I i j rh _ tf. The sequence of concrete casting of columns was as follows. so the construction time can be shortened. Surface finishing work generally required larger amount of time and labor because of high viscosity compared to ordinary strength concrete.T~~L_^ 2nd floor A zone 1st finishing tamping no spraying 2nd finishing none 0 '" I '' • _J j ! L Fig. Water spraying of 100 to 200 ml per i i f?V Hirj. and upper concrete was cast 8 days later to the top surface of the third floor slabs. but it requires more work to install.Construction of New RC Structures 365 air tubes. Concrete surface finishing and initial curing method was examined by applying different methods of tamping. First.24 shows combination of finishing and curing conditions applied to the second floor slab. and whether or not applying water spraying. Figure 8. Construction joint in Zone B was not treated. Column construction joint in Zone A was treated on the next day of column casting by wire brush to remove laitance.
5. core strength was about 87 percent of standardcured cylinder strength. The dotted line Y = X indicates the equal strength. For 60 MPa concrete. and the best accuracy of plus or minus 0.366 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig.27 shows relationship between cylinder strength standardcured in water at age of 28 days and core strength at age of 91 days. Strength Development Development of concrete strength was examined from various points of view. This corresponds to 75 to 100 percent of standardcured cylinder strength. Measurement of Internal Temperature Table 8. m 2 of floor was effective for plaster's work. 8. and returned to the external air temperature after 4 or 5 days. the core strength was lower than standardcured cylinder strength by 0 to 18. which is about the same as column concrete. with the average 13. Floor slab casting and finishing.2.2 mm was obtained by metal trowel finishing.26 illustrates temperature history of first story columns at the central axis or at a corner of the section. Figure 8. For 100 MPa concrete.5.5 shows the results of internal concrete temperature measurement at representative locations of the frame specimen. . The level of surface finishing varied by the method of leveling.5.4. Figure 8.2.0 MPa. Temperature in girders and walls was also about 70 degrees Celsius at its maximum in case of first story where monolithic casting was employed. The lower half of the figure shows the temperature difference between the corner and the center column section. 8. 8. The table and the figure indicate that concrete in any location reached its maximum temperature 14 to 15 hours after casting.0 MPa.25.
Temp.32 Column No. No.2 75.2 74.69 0. but for 60 MPa concrete.80 0.0 28.0 72. core strength was about 93 percent of onsite watercured cylinder strength.0 22.0 14.7 68. Rise Per Cement (°C /10 kg) 0.79 0.0 13.0 2nd story column 2nd floor girder 3rd floor girder 1st story wall 2nd story wall 2nd floor slab 3rd floor slab 23. The difference was smaller than the previous figure.0 Figure 8.0 70.0 17. at Casting (°C) 26.5 70.8 MPa.87 0.0 14. 1 2 3 4 5 1st story column 24.5 63. Temp.0 18. the core strength was lower than onsite watercured cylinder strength by 0 to 16.0 16. From this data it was judged difficult to adopt cylinders cured in water on site for the strength control of concrete in the structure.0 23.0 14.0 28.0 14.0 15.76 0.73 0.69 0.0 29.83 0.9 76.3 64.81 0.74 0.68 0.0 15.0 13.0 14.76 0.1 65.75 0.75 0. For 100 MPa concrete.6 67. No.7 73. Internal temperature measurement.4 41.28 shows relationship between cylinder strength cured in water on site at age of 28 days and core strength at age of 91 days.0 15.0 Frame 24.0 367 Specimen Member Point Max.5.5 70.0 15.0 14. .0 17.67 0.0 14.40 0.7 48.1 72.83 0.0 15.69 0.3 76. (°C) 74.0 24.0 MPa.0 26. No.5 70.0 22. No. with the average of 9.0 14.0 18.3 Temp.5 73.0 15.0 24. (h) 14.63 0.2 69.0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Time of Max. This corresponds to 80 to 100 percent of onsite watercured cylinder strength.0 72.0 14.70 0.6 74. Temp.73 0.Construction of New RC Structures Table 8.84 0.
. . 8.29 shows relationship between cylinder strength cured in seal on site at age of 28 days and core strength at age of 91 days.4 . center and comer J 3 4 5 6 I 7 Elapsed time (dav) Fig. Temprature difference r Column C1 .368 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 80 70 60 50 C) 40 I IU Member Column A1 Column A2 Column C1 Form Curing removal Column A1 center Column A2 center Column C1 center Column A1 come Column A2 corner 30 a b 1 ?n 10 0 10 20 30 40 0 Column C1 corner A ' \ • // \ Column A2 1 2 ^ .c u r e d cylinder s t r e n g t h and core s t r e n g t h . . but it was still higher than core strength by . HI III I . • Isolated column OColumn in frame D Wall A Girder A Floor slab J I I 70 80 90 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 130 140 Standardcured 2 8 d a y cylinder strength (MPa) Fig. T e m p e r a t u r e history of first story columns.26. 0 to 10 MPa with the average of 4. The onsite seal cured cylinder strength was closer to the core strength than standardcured or onsite watercured cylinders. 8. Figure 8.8 MPa. btw. Relationship between s t a n d a r d .27..
or strength of cylinders under similar curing condition. .e.79 95) 5 100 ? Core 91 c C D 90 .29. Relationship between onsite watercured cylinder strength and core strength. Y=0. cylinders under similar curing condition as cores means cylinders sealcured on site. the last one. 8. 120 110 Q_ / y Y=0.Construction of New RC Structures 369 120 110 r Y=1.' Y=0.S Y=0.8X en <D o O • Isolated column OColumn in frame O Wall A Girder A Floor slab 100 110 120 Onsite watercured 28day cylinder strength (MPa) Fig. core strength at age of 91 days of age. Relationship between onsite sealcured cylinder strength and core strength. In general the structural concrete strength is denned as the compressive strength that emerged in concrete in the structure.9 (r=0. Among them.950X0.85X 80 70 60 50 • Isolated column O Column in frame D Wall A Girder A Floor slab ' ' ' 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Onsite sealcured 28day cylinder strength (MPa) Fig. 8.04X12. i. The Building Standard Law in Japan defines it by the compressive strength at age of 28 days of onsite watercured cylinders.93) 1100 I s o C D 80 70 60 50 50 60 70 80 90 .28.
1) where Fc : specified strength S : strength difference between standardcured cylinders at 28 days and structural concrete a : standard deviation K : a coefficient for the increase of proportioning strength and further if the strength of structural concrete is controlled by the standardcured cylinders at age of 28 days.1) and abovementioned quality control method are applicable to 60 MPa concrete.0 MPa and standard deviation a of 5. and that quality control of concrete be done accordingly. the strength control of concrete in the structure has been traditionally executed by onsite sealcured cylinders. and onsite sealcured. For 60 MPa concrete. and to determine proportioning strength by adding surcharge to the specified strength.0 MPa for standardcured cylinders. all showed greater strength than the core strength. i. If the proportioning strength F2s is determined by the following equation.2 MPa. then taking the adjustment S of abovementioned 13. the strength of control cylinders was 85.9 MPa. and recommends that the concrete mix be determined so that the structural concrete strength satisfies the specified strength in design.1).8 MPa.e. (8. 83. It is considered possible for concrete up to 60 MPa to control the strength by means of control cylinders. because the adjustment S is 14. For 60 MPa concrete used in the full scale construction testing the average value of standardcured cylinder strength was 89. hence it can be inferred that the proportioning strength of Eq. if applied to 100 MPa concrete. for New RC structures the proposed standard specification defines the structural concrete strength by core strength at age of 91 days. gives necessary proportioning strength of F28 = 129. the control cylinders of three kinds in this full scale construction testing. As shown above. standardcured in water.6 MPa (or 2a of 11. On the other hand. However. onsite cured in water. and 80.6 MPa which was more than satisfactory for specified strength. However the .2 MPa) we obtain F2S = 84.2 MPa for Fc = 60 MPa.0 MPa for onsite sealcured cylinders. the average core strength was 70. the same Eq. F2S = FC + S + Ka (8. On the other hand. (8.7 MPa and twice the standard deviation 2a is 15.0 MPa for onsite watercured cylinders.370 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures For this reason.
8. no water spraying was done in this area at the surface finishing.30 shows cracks on the second floor slab. Crack width and length were measured using crack scales.08 to 0. and it was commenced right after the form removal for columns. . 1500 <4* 3000 i 3000 rH 1500 Fig. which was lower than the necessary proportioning strength. Cracks on the second floor slab. Observation of Cracks on Frame Specimen Surface cracks of the frame specimen was observed by naked eyes.9 MPa. There were 21 cracks on this floor slabs among which 14 cracks were observed already on the next day of concrete placement. Thus the control method of 100 MPa concrete is left for future studies. and their location. Crack width was mostly about 0. shape.2. until the age of 41 to 57 days.6. which should have affected to produce these surface cracks. The location where many cracks concentrated was along line 1 girder that had no wall underneath.5. walls and girders. As indicated in Fig. and around Al column. Crack observation was started on the next day of concrete placement for floor slabs.Construction of New RC Structures 371 average value of standardcured cylinder strength was 122.30. 8.24.10 mm. 8. and the observed dates were recorded. Figure 8.
372 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (A) Line exterion side \ J 1 (i)Line exterion side 1 \ /' X' 1 \ 7  S70 I 3000 9000 /' \ JO 2900 i O \ / g \ /' X / \ / \ 1500 I 3000 I 1500 O 2150 o 1 • ^ Jt = © " ® ©Line exterion side Fig.31. Cracks on the walls and girders. . 8.
Figure 8.25 0. and Table 8.08 0.17 0.06 0. Number of cracks found on the monolithic wall and girder was 10.36 0. Total length of cracks at the first observation was 855 cm for monolithic.06 0.Construction of New RC Structures 373 Cracks were not observed on columns.12 0.14 0. Age of Cracking (day) 19 4 19 4 4 4 Length Initial (cm) 60 215 180 200 10 20 Length Final (cm) 60 215 190 200 30 30 Width Initial (mm) 0. total crack length.10 0.02 — 0. and 945 cm for VH separate.02 0.04 Width Final (mm) 0. In the lower rows of Tables 8.43 — yes yes Note: Forms remained in place for 3 days. Table 8.7.6.12 0.72 0.22 0. while shoring below girders remained for 19 days. while the formwork removal time and curing condition were shown in the footnote.02 0. Total width of cracks at the first Table 8.15 0.04 Penetration yes yes yes yes no yes Line A (west) Member girder wall B (east) girder wall 1 (north) girder wall 2 (south) girder wall Total girder total — 7 57 40 20 — 40 20 — 0. No curing was applied after form removal.71 1. and their sums are shown.10 0.31 shows cracks observed on wall and girder surfaces.25 0. and crack width on the walls and girders. and average length and width were entered in these tables.6 summarizes crack appearance on the first story walls and second floor girders that were cast monolithically. Cracks in the first story (monolithic casting).30 0. .47 0.7 shows cracks on the second story walls and third floor girders constructed by VH separate concrete casting.83 — 0. When cracks were found on both front and back sides it was judged to be a through crack.6 and 8. while that on the VH separate cast wall and girder was 14. The age at which cracks were found was shown in the table. expect for line 1 wall which was cured for 4 days.02 — yes no — 7 7 50 60 595 260 855 — 50 60 605 290 895 — 0.
this testing gave prospects of its practical construction. and further the total crack width at the final stage was 1. Age of Cracking (day) 4 3 3 3 7 4 4 4 7 4 4 3 4 4 Length Initial (cm) 50 150 130 60 55 50 55 50 100 55 10 80 50 50 575 370 945 Length Final (cm) 50 170 150 140 170 50 55 50 135 55 10 140 50 50 905 370 1275 Width Initial (mm) 0. observation was 0.13 mm for VH separate.03 0.20 0.12 0.11 0.06 0. Cracks in the second story (VH separate casting). and the reverse for VH separate casting.6. The results of the full scale testing was fully incorporated into the construction standard introduced in the next section. Conclusion The full scale construction testing clearly revealed the possibility of practical construction of 60 MPa concrete with assured quality. however.17 0.2. Thus. 8.05 0.83 mm for monolithic and 1.7.06 0.09 0.374 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 8.10 0.15 0.13 Width Final (mm) 0.17 0.04 0.01 0.68 mm.43 mm and 1.07 0. fewer number of shorter and thinner cracks were observed for monolithic casting.08 0.11 0.60 0.53 1.01 0.06 0. Shoring below girders remained for 6 days. regardless of walls and girders.03 0.17 0. Some problems were left for future study for 100 MPa concrete.65 1. respectively. .20 0.09 0.12 0.06 0.17 0. No curing was applied after form removal.68 Penetration yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes Line A (west) Member girder wall B (east) girder wall 1 (north) girder wall 2 (south) girder wall Total girder total Note: Forms remained in place for 3 days except for line 1 wall where forms remained for 7 days.10 1.07 0.17 0.
Reinforcement Axial reinforcement of girders and columns.3. 8.3 of Chapter 2. Followings are the description of only the very basic features of the new construction standard. or USD980 of the New RC reinforcement standard developed in the New RC project.2.3. In the fabrication of reinforcement. USD685B. USD685B and USD980 are rebars of general use that can be applied to axial reinforcement of framing members and structural walls.1. shall conform to USD685A.Construction of New RC Structures 375 This construction testing was carried out at the Building Research Institute with the cooperation of academic members of the Construction and Manufacturing Committee chaired by Professor K. USD785 and USD1275 are rebars that can only be used for shear reinforcement or confining reinforcement. It was intended to cover the concrete strength range between 36 and 120 MPa and reinforcement with yield strength range between 390 and 1275 MPa. Construction Standard for N e w R C General Provisions A new construction standard specification for the construction using high strength concrete and high strength steel was developed by the High Strength Concrete Committee and Construction and Manufacturing Committee of the New RC project. USD685A. 8. and lateral reinforcement of girders and columns shall conform to USD785 or USD1275 of the New RC lateral reinforcement standard. also developed in the New RC project.3.. attention should be paid on the fact that high strength steel generally possesses inferior elongation capacity compared . Chapter 3 already elaborated on these high strength reinforcement. Kamimura. Concrete construction using up to 36 MPa concrete and reinforcement work using up to 390 MPa steel may depend on the current JASS (Japan Architectural Standard Specification). and also the cooperation of companies represented by the members of the Research Promotion Committee listed in Table 2. with sizes and quality standard same as those already in practical use. Actual construction work of reinforcement was carried out by Sato Komuten Co. 8. and its diameter range and shape of surface deformation are same as the standing JIS G 3112. and manufacture of high strength concrete was done by the Tsukuba Factory of Chichibu Readymix Concrete Company. and structural wall reinforcement. with nominal diameter from D10 to D51.
provisions for formwork left permanently with the structure are included. are developed. As to the quality control.3. it should serve as effective means of initial curing until forms are removed. higher lateral pressure on formwork is specified considering low yield value of fresh concrete. 8.376 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures to ordinary strength steel. careful consultation with the structural designer is required accompanied by advanced bend test and complete specification of temperature condition and work procedure. It is hence stipulated that shape of standard hook and bend radius shall be determined by the structural designer. without giving detrimental influence on the finishing. Hence the next equation is specified to calculate lateral pressure P = W0Hg (8. These are basically same as ordinary strength concrete. hence the allowance for axial bars is taken more strictly than the current JASS. without producing harmful displacement. Cage prefabrication is recommended throughout the standard. in the air temperature. and acceptance criteria are shown for reception on site of reinforcing bars. such as precast composite floor slab elements. provisions for formwork as a part of permanent structure. Mechanical splices are prevalently used. it should have sufficient strength and rigidity to maintain its original position during concrete placement and compaction.2) .3. and splices. it should be manufactured with sufficient accuracy to produce the structure with prescribed positions and sizes within the prescribed tolerances. Secondly. Hence. necessary items of inspection. Although high strength concrete is highly viscous. uniformity and strength of concrete. in principle. Second. deflection or lateral deformation. the requirements for formwork are quite similar to those in current JASS. as this can eliminate undesirable possibility of reverse bend at the time of bar election. leading to inferior bendability. Some particular features of the New RC standard are the followings. processing of bars and manufacture of rebar cages. Bars shall be bent. Thirdly. however in case of need for heated bend for smaller bend radius. time and frequency of inspection. Firstly. First. The allowance of fabrication is determined from the accuracy of splices and accuracy required in the cage fabrication. Formwork Formwork is required to perform the following roles. its yield value is low and lateral pressure does not decrease from the static liquid pressure. Thirdly.
Finally. If segregation resistance has been confirmed to allow larger slump flow. For column.4. forms should remain in place until concrete strength reaches 8 MPa instead of 5 MPa. and for concrete between 50 MPa and 60 MPa slump shall be not more than 23 cm or slump flow not more than 50 cm.2. Compressive strength Compressive strength of structural concrete shall be defined by the 91day strength of concrete core bored from the structure.3.4.2. Slump Slump of concrete between 36 MPa and 50 MPa shall be not more than 21 cm.3. Strength control .1.3.2.4. The period before removal of girder and floor slab shoring is same as the current JASS.4. corresponding slump flow may be specified. 8. 8.3.4.1. wall and girder sides.2. longer period before form removal is specified compared to ordinary strength concrete. 8. 8.3. but in no case it shall exceed 65 cm. Concrete Quality 8. Concrete exceeding 60 MPa and up to 120 MPa in strength should be treated along with this standard in principle but after preliminary laboratory and construction tests in order to ascertain that the built structure would possess required quality. and the strength control shall be made by testing concrete cylinders cured under conditions that would reasonably represent the condition of structural concrete.Construction of New RC Structures 377 where P : lateral pressure on the form (Pa) Wo : unit mass per volume of concrete (kg/m 3 ) H : head of fresh concrete (m) g : gravity acceleration (m/s 2 ). Concrete General Concrete with specified design strength between 36 MPa and 60 MPa is dealt with in full detail herein.
Strength development of standardcured i — Strength development of watericured on site : Strength development of sealcured on site (same as core) 20 28 40 60 80 91 100 (n^91) Age (days) (a) Normal strength concrete (JASS 5) S (adjust to structural concrete) Jinday strength of temperaturehistorycured with structural concrete * Strength development in structure (core) ' Strength development of standardcured Strength development of watericured on site Strength development of temperaturehistorycured with structural concrete (same as core) J 0 20 28 40 i l_ 60 80 91 100 Age (days) (b) High strength concrete (New RC) Fig. Concept of concrete strength development in structure. of standardcured nday strength of sealcured on site 28djay strength of watercured on site • Strength development in structure (core) .378 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 28day strength.32. 8. .
currently specified by the Building Standard Law and adopted in the standard specification JASS 5 or JASS 5N. is to evaluate the structural concrete strength from the ATday standardcured cylinder strength minus temperature correction factor T/v. Figure 8.32(a).3) .32 illustrates the concept of strength development of concrete under various curing conditions. and it is possible to estimate the structural concrete strength from cylinder testing of standard curing if the correction factor has been established beforehand by construction tests. 8. which is defined as the correction for mean anticipated curing temperature (difference of standardcured TVday strength and strength at N days of specimens cured with mean curing temperature). it is approximated either by 28day strength of watercured cylinders on site. The second method of approximation. This strength is approximated by one of two methods.Construction of New RC Structures 379 criteria shall be based on 5 percent badness ratio. or by nday strength of sealcured cylinders on site. not shown in Fig. (8. Figure 8. and it is assumed to be represented by the core strength at the age of quality control. Concrete strength to be controlled is that in the structure.4) (8. The condition to reasonably represent that of structural concrete may be satisfied by temperature history chasing curing or simplified adiabatic curing. Firstly.32(a) shows the concept of strength development of normal strength concrete. For the former the proportioning strength F28 is obtained by F2& = FC + T + Ka and for the latter F2s = FC + Tn+Ka where Fc : specified concrete strength T : correction factor for temperature at age of 28 days (difference of standardcured 28day strength and watercured onsite 28day strength) T n : correction factor for temperature at age of n days (difference of standardcured 28day strength and sealcured onsite raday strength) K : a factor to multiply standard deviation o : standard deviation and judgment on the cylinder test result X is based on X ^ Fc.
8.7) and judgment on the test result is done by X ^ Fc + S. the proportioning strength is found as FN = FC+TN+ Ka (8. Like the ordinary strength concrete. . It was also found that onsite sealcured specimens were inappropriate to represent core strength of concrete.5) and judgment on the test result X is based on X }?.32(b) illustrates the concept of strength development of high strength concrete.32(b) due to high cement content and large sectional area of New RC members.380 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures In this case. These approaches for high strength concrete were adopted considering the early development of structural concrete strength as illustrated in Fig. In this case the proportioning strength Fn is given by Fn=Fe + S + K<r (8. it is assumed to be equal to the strength of temperature history chasingcured cylinders at age of n days. For these reasons the structural concrete strength for the New RC was defined by the 91day core strength. Firstly.6) where P : correction factor for the temperature history (difference of standardcured nday strength and temperature history chasingcured nday strength — not shown in the figure) and judgment on the cylinder test result X is based on X ^ Fc. SO much for the case of ordinary strength concrete. The second method is to evaluate the structural concrete strength from the nday standardcured cylinder strength minus correction factor S. then the proportioning strength Fn is given by Fn = Fc + P + Ka (8. which is defined as the correction factor for structural concrete strength development (difference of standardcured nday strength and 91day strength of core specimens or equivalent). and Fig. this strength is approximated by one of two methods. 8. FC + TN.32(b) shows the core strength at age of 91 days. In the course of laboratory and full scale construction testing it was found that the onsite watercured cylinders were inappropriate to represent concrete strength in large section members such as columns made of high strength concrete of 60 MPa or higher. 8. The black dot in Fig.
4. and crushed boulder fci = 1 .4. fly ash fume and ground granulated blast furnace slag fc2 = 1.Construction of New RC Structures 381 8. crushed clay stone.2. An equation shown in Chapter 3 was developed for the New RC concrete to cover wide range of concrete strength and material variety.0 for the case where no mineral admixture is used. Durability and fire resistance The durability requirement for high strength concrete is summarized into the following six items: (1) Chloride content in the concrete shall be less than 0. which is the following E = 33 500 x fci x fc2 x (7/2. The coefficient fci is to be taken as follows: fci = 1. crushed andesite.95 for silica fume. crushed basalt. (2) Concrete shall be free of alkaliaggregate reaction. but they are best to be determined by tests at each job site.3.3. Young's modulus Young's modulus of concrete is an important parameter to describe seismic performance of New RC structures. 8.20 kg/m 3 by the amount of chloride ion.4) 2 x ( < T B / 6 0 ) 1 / 3 (8. Some representative values are given in the construction standard.4.3. and so it is recommended to establish the value prior to structural design by trial mix using available material for concrete.95 for crushed liparite. .2.8) where E : CTB 7 : fci : k2 : Young's modulus of concrete in MPa : compressive strength of concrete in MPa specific weight of concrete a coefficient for the effect of coarse aggregate type a coefficient for the effect of mineral admixture.2 for crushed limestone and burnt be auxite fci = 0. 0 for all other coarse aggregate and the coefficient fc2 is to be taken as follows: fc2 = 0.
6). Concrete with watercement ratio of 40 percent or less does not show neutralization. JASS5 for high durability concrete specifies the value of 6 x 1 0 . 5 percent carbon dioxide concentration. 8. Specified neutralization depth of 20 mm was determined considering the building life time of 100 years. but it was found difficult to meet this requirement. and in the zone 20 mm inside the concrete cover at the interior surface. Hence the drying shrinkage rate of 7 x 1 0 . and the resulted neutralization depth shall be less than 20 mm. so that neutralization remains in the concrete cover at the exterior surface. due to fine structure of high strength concrete which would retard drying of concrete interior. and its examination is necessary. The accelerated neutralization test quoted here was carried out under the condition of 20 degrees Celsius.4 specified in the Recommendation for Design and Construction Practice of High Durability Concrete (Ref. Hence tests using actual material or proportioning cannot catch up the construction job. but for concrete with watercement ratio greater than 40 percent shows the progress of neutralization. (5) Hydration heat of concrete shall be less than the value that would trigger cracks in the structural members harmful from durability point of view. and 6 months of accelerated neutralization. in 100 years of time.6) is taken here as the target value. In general tests for the durability takes long time. 8. 60 percent relative humidity. stating that harmful deformation. (4) Drying shrinkage rate of concrete shall be less than the value that would trigger cracks in the structural members harmful from durability point of view. and available past records must be utilized in the judgment of durability. a provision of fire resistance was included in this construction standard. For this reason. failure or drop out during fire should be prevented. For drying shrinkage rate. .382 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures (3) Neutralization resistance of concrete shall be tested by the accelerated neutralization test method shown by the Recommendation for Design and Construction Practice of High Durability Concrete by the Architectural Institute of Japan (Ref.4 . Fire resistance of high strength concrete is regarded to be somewhat inferior to the ordinary strength concrete. leading to possible explosion in case of fire. (6) The durability index for concrete subjected to possible frost damage shall be more than 80 at 300 cycles. and care should be taken for cracking when this value is exceeded.
JlScompatible cement shall satisfy.4.4. As to alkaliaggregate reaction. material judged as innocuous by test shall be used. and so high strength concrete can resist fire in the same way as ordinary strength concrete unless harmful deformation. However room drying or forced drying is effective in controlling the explosion. For coarse and fine aggregate. 8. However crack appearance and fire resistance requirements may prohibit the reduction of coverage. and details are specified separately for JlScompatible cement and for others separately.Construction of New RC Structures 383 Experiments in the New RC project presented the following conclusions: (1) Internal temperature distribution during fire of high strength concrete is similar to that of ordinary strength concrete.3. Hence they must be tested prior to construction even if they conform to the class I of JASS 51975.3. in addition to all requirements in JIS. (2) Concrete with low watercement ratio is apt to explode when subjected to fire. . 8. as high strength concrete usually has higher unit cement content and hence it contains higher amount of alkali substance.3. failure or drop out do not take place. and the strength at 91 days exceeds 60 MPa. Concrete cover Concrete cover to the reinforcement can be made smaller for high strength concrete if its fine structure and high durability is considered effective in resisting the neutralization and osmosis of chloride ions. Material Cement shall conform to the New RC standard "the Quality Standard of Cement for High Strength Concrete". and they shall satisfy the strength requirement that the compressive strength at 28 days of watercement ratio 30 percent mortar with adequate high range AE water reducer exceeds 50 MPa. This leads to the conclusion that same cover as in the current JASS 5 is specified in the New RC construction standard. JlSincompatible cement includes low heat portland cement and fineness adjusted cement that was developed during the New RC project. it is necessary to produce not only required strength of concrete but also required Young's modulus. and the compressive strength at age of 91 days exceeds 60 MPa.2. the strength requirement that the compressive strength at age of 28 days of watercement ratio 30 percent mortar with adequate high range AE water reducer exceeds 55 MPa.5.
The waterbinder ratio is determined so that the target strength for proportioning is obtained.8.3. Chemical admixture to be used in high strength concrete is high range AE water reducing agent.9(FC + S0) + 3<T0 where Fn : proportioning strength at control age of n days Fc : specified design strength So : strength difference at age of n days between standardcured cylinders and estimated compressive strength of structural concrete strength control cylinders (To : standard deviation of strength of structural concrete strength control cylinders.4. The (8. usually in the range of 2 to 2. fly ash fume.4.384 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures For water the requirements are same as J ASS 51993. and etringite type special admixture.9) (810) . Mineral admixture such as silica fume or ground granulated blast furnace slag need not be used for high strength concrete up to 60 MPa. Mix The proportioning strength for high strength concrete is represented by the standardcured cylinder tests at control age between 28 and 91 days. There are also quality standards issued from the Architectural Institute of Japan or Housing and Urban Development Corporation. These and other mineral admixtures must be used for high strength concrete in excess of 60 MPa. 8. to be taken as one tenth of (Fc + So) if tests are not performed K : a coefficient corresponding to the permissible badness ratio of structural concrete strength control cylinders. and is expressed by the following equations Fn ^ Fc + S0 + Ka0 Fn ^ 0. ground granulated blast furnace slag.5. The construction standard includes quality standards for silica fume. and its quality is specified in the standard. and the approximate range is shown in Table 8. Manufacture of 60 MPa concrete becomes easier when these mineral admixtures are used. and no recycled water shall be used.
Bulk volume of coarse aggregate. Unit water content. or large drying shrinkage. resistance to segregation.Construction of New RC Structures 385 unit binder content of more than 350 kg/m 3 is recommended. Too meager use may result in large slump loss during construction. proportioning strength and watercement ratio.9. Table 8. as it is necessary to provide such amount to obtain good workability. Specified design strength. retardation of setting. and durability. based on the recommended standard amount. Specified Design Strength (MPa) 18~24 27~36 39~48 54~60 80 100 120 Proportioning Strength (required mean strength) (Mpa) 24 ~ 30 33 ~ 4 5 48~60 70~85 100 ~ 110 120 ~ 130 140 ~ 150 WaterCement Ratio (waterbinder ratio) (%) 50 ~ 65% 40 ~ 50% 30 ~ 40% 25 ~ 30% 20 ~ 25% 20 ~ 22% <20% Table 8.10.8. Table 8. Excessive use may lead to segregation of materials.60 ~ 0.63 0. determined based on the test results of New RC. The amount of chemical admixture is determined to obtain required consistency of concrete in terms of slump or slump flow.59 ~ 0.9 summarizes the approximate range of unit water content for each waterbinder ratio.58 ~ 0. The unit water content of less than 175 kg/m 3 is recommended. Slump (cm) 18 21 23 Bulk Volume of Coarse Aggregate Per Unit Volume of Concrete ( m 3 / m 3 ) 0.64 0.62 . WaterBinder Ratio (%) 45 30~40 25 22 Unit Water Content ( k g / m 3 ) 165 160 155 150 ~ ~ ~ ~ 175 170 165 160 Table 8. and it should be determined so that excessive use of chemical admixture is avoided.
Kind and quality of admixtures. This trend is applicable to high strength concrete. covering: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Kind and quality of cement. Kind and quality of aggregate. it is customary to use unit bulk volume of coarse aggregate as the basic parameter in order to maintain certain amount of coarse aggregate. (6) Transportation route and time of concrete. There is a trend for unit bulk volume of coarse aggregate to decrease with slump increase.386 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures To determine aggregate content. Method of proportioning of concrete.3. High strength concrete requires longer mixing time due to its high viscosity resulting from low . mixing time and mixing volume). except when freezing is expected the largest value of above is taken.4. 8. Table 8. but the standard value of unit bulk volume of coarse aggregate cannot be determined from waterbinder ratio or slump (or slump flow). Method of mixing (order of material input. Before placing an order for readymixed concrete. (7) Inspection of readymixed concrete at unloading. but for large slump concrete. trial mix should be made and detailed quality and manufacturing specifications must be established. stationing of a licenced chief concrete engineer. Manufacture of Concrete High strength concrete is always manufactured in a readymixed concrete plant having past experience of producing high strength concrete or having sufficient production capability. In principle a single concrete plant should be selected. but storage and management of material must be made more carefully as the quality of high strength concrete is more susceptible to variation of material than ordinary strength concrete. Concrete manufacturing equipments may be same as those in ordinary readymixed concrete plant.5. either unit bulk volume of coarse aggregate or fine aggregate ratio may be used as the basic parameter. and location from construction site within 120 minutes of transportation and placing time.9 shows recommended approximate range for various slump values. The entrained air may be between 2 and 4. Necessary conditions of such plant are JIS accredited plant. and to increase with lower watercement ratio and with the use of higher dispersing agent.5 percent.
as to inspection items. Inspection of fresh concrete on site must follow the details shown in the construction standard. 8. water spraying and arrangement . Work zones. The inspector should reserve the right to refuse the shipment of fresh concrete that would not satisfy inspections at the unloading on site. formwork. and cleaning.3. in order to ascertain that manufacturer is executing quality control items specified in JIS A 5308 and also items particularly specified for the job. an equipment with sufficient conveying pressure must be selected as the conveying load of high strength concrete is much higher than ordinary strength concrete. Proper mixing time may be effectively determined from the electric current measurement of the concrete mixer. as the surface of high strength concrete tends to develop thin membrane of stiff substance attributable to low watercement ratio. because it is possible that the plant start mixing initially without getting hold of the real aggregate condition. and laborers must be appropriately arranged.6. and measures against sudden rain or sudden stop of concrete supply must be determined in advance. hence it is necessary for the general contractor to get in touch with information on the plant operation. frequency and lot size of inspection. Inspection at the plant by general contractor must be made as needed. and embedded hardwares must be inspected. concrete carrying devices. Concrete transportation is made by bucket or concrete pump. judgment criteria. In case of pump. Before concrete placement.Construction of New RC Structures 387 watercement ratio and high unit cement content. test method. Both verticalhorizontal separate placing and monolithic placing are possible. Frequency of tests thereafter is determined based on the assumption that perfect quality control is being executed in the plant. placing sequence.4. and one of them is selected with due consideration of reinforcement congestion. and countermeasures in case of failure in the inspection. Placing and Surface Finishing Placing and consolidation of fresh concrete must follow detailed planning made prior to the construction. and placing rate must be appropriately determined. consolidation devices. Slump and air content measurement must be made on all up to the fifth concrete mixers. reinforcement cages. time. Transportation time within 90 minutes is recommended between shipment and unloading. Time interval between placing must be tested in order not to cause unexpected cold joints.
wall. Spraying water after surface finishing is effective to prevent excessive drying and cracking.8.4. Consolidation is made by internal (spud) vibrators placed within 60 cm of distance. and the surface tends to dry out. curing mats or membrane curant. Curing Moist curing by water spraying. Metal laths. It is important to level off the surface at the time of placing and consolidation. Concrete placing is executed from working platform. at least 3 days (until 4 days of age) for 40 to 50 MPa concrete.3. If sheathing is removed before these days. but at the same time with the purpose to see whether concrete is being manufactured under a stable condition. and construction work on unhardened concrete must be restricted. Compressive Strength Inspection Compressive strength of concrete being used is tested by standardcured cylinders at specified control age with the purpose of confirming potential concrete strength.388 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures of concrete placement devices must be properly done.4. wood sticks. Surface finishing of high strength concrete is more difficult than ordinary strength concrete due to its high viscosity.3. in the column. and sprayed before concrete casting. or air fences are used for horizontal construction joints. For this reason. for the period of at least 2 days (until 3 days of age) for 50 to 60 MPa concrete. Harmful vibration or loading must be avoided before concrete hardens sufficiently. or walking board arranged not to disturb rebar cages or formwork. concrete surface must be kept moist until above ages by appropriate methods such as water spraying. inspection . Construction joints are placed near the midspan of girders and slabs. Curing temperature must be specified for cold weather concreting to avoid initial freezing. scaffold board. 8.7. Joints are cleaned to remove laitance and weak concrete to expose healthy concrete. at least 4 days (until 5 days of age) for 27 to 40 MPa concrete. Bleeding seldom happens to high strength concrete. and to enhance development of required strength at the specified control age. curing mats or membrane curant must be made after placing. Rebars outside the concreting zone must be covered to avoid staining by splash. as well as girder concrete. and 7 days for up to 27 MPa concrete. 8. and girder soffit and slab top of columns and walls.
one test for the lot is sufficient. but inspection lot consists of each placement zone and day.282). Compressive strength of structural concrete must be tested to confirm that concrete in each part of structure satisfied the specified design strength. Frequency of inspection is made equal.9(Fc where + S0) XN '• Average of compressive strength of one lot N tests Xmm : Minimum of compressive strength of one lot N tests Fc + SQ : specified strength Fc : specified design strength So : difference between compressive strength of standardcured cylinders at control age and estimated compressive strength of structural concrete strength control cylinders K : normal deviation of compressive strength of structural concrete strength control cylinders for permissible badness ratio Ka : normal deviation for producer risk N : number of test for one lot <TO : standard deviation of compressive strength of structural concrete strength control cylinders.12) Xmin^0. at least one test per 100 m 3 is required. one lot can cover two days of concrete placing. Usually N is taken to be 3. in principle. and three tests per lot is required. but if the concrete quantity for oneday operation does not reach 30 m 3 .Construction of New RC Structures 389 is made for each lot of concrete quantity for oneday operation. at least one test per 100 m 3 is required.64). to the above tests for concrete being used. Three tests per lot is required. In case concrete quantity for oneday operation exceeds 300 m 3 . This inspection method is based on the scheme that the producer risk becomes a when N specimens are tested out of concrete population with known standard deviation of a0 and badness probability of P for the specified strength. and producer risk is 10 percent (Ka = 1. Acceptance criteria for compressive strength are following two equations XN^FC + S 0 +(K ^j *o (8. . but if the concrete quantity for one lot is less than 30 m 3 . and in case concrete quantity for one lot exceeds 300 m 3 .11) (8. badness probability is 5 percent (K = 1.
Concrete J... Architectural Institute of Japan. 1424. Tomozawa. pp. 8. Concrete J.2. Current stateoftheart and future problems of highrise reinforced concrete buildings. if t e m p e r a t u r e history chasingcured cylinders or simplified adiabaticcured cylinders are used.6. 1987 Annual Convention Construction Division Report. 8. Architectural Institute of Japan. O n t h e other hand. Recommendation for Design and Construction Practice of High Durability Concrete. a n d the acceptance j u d g m e n t is m a d e by XN ^ Fc + SQ. et al.c u r e d cylinders. T w o kinds of structural concrete s t r e n g t h control are available. 8. T. Trend in research on high strength concrete in architectural engineering.. 28(12). Kemi. it can b e replaced by cylinders for t h e concrete being used. Masuda.. 1990 Annual Convention Speech Summary. Current stateoftheart and future problems of high strength concrete for highrise reinforced concrete construction.390 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Acceptance criterion for compressive s t r e n g t h is t h a t t h e average of est i m a t e d s t r u c t u r a l concrete s t r e n g t h for one lot exceeds t h e specified design strength. December 1990.c u r e d cylinders are used. .1. 8. O n e is t o use s t a n d a r d . Recommendations for Practice of Placing Concrete by Pumping Methods.5. Architectural Institute of Japan. Architectural Institute of Japan. Y. H. F. 8.3. pp. W h e n s t a n d a r d . 24(5).4. July 1991. References 8. January 1994. Aoyama. a n d t h e other is t o use t e m p e r a t u r e history chasingcured cylinders or simplified adiabaticcured cylinders. Experimental study on pump conveying of high strength concrete. t h e acceptance j u d g m e n t is m a d e by XN ^ Fc. 413. May 1986.
Ministry of Land.1. This feasibility study was conducted to see whether fiat slab construction can be made acceptable in seismic zones by providing lateral stiffness and resistance with the use of structural walls.1. Japan Email: fuji@kenken. It is particularly advantageous for apartment buildings and hence it is widely used in many parts of the world. Three kinds of such studies are introduced in this chapter: highrise flat slab buildings.go.Chapter 9 Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings Hideo Fujitani Performance System Division. because it is generally difficult to withstand seismic load solely by columns and floor slabs. Highrise Flat Slab Buildings Flat slab construction has an architectural advantage in providing large window openings or intensive underfloor piping because of no floor beams protruding down from the soffit of floor slabs. Infrastructure and Transport.1. However it has not been used much in highly seismic countries such as Japan. Feasibility Studies In the course of New RC project. megastructures. 9. 1 Tachihara Tsukuba. and a large size box column structure for thermal power plant. 391 . feasibility of new structures utilizing high strength materials was studied in several cooperative research projects between the Building Research Institute and private sectors.jp 9. ttaraki 3050802. Codes and Evaluation Research Center Building Research Institute.
4 . 9. 1iES pfl* •gnus IOFL SfjK SFL 2FL_ IFL_ «™ H^E ^m CiTIt °.tla= B"P u lt(m? Y Fr Fig. 6. k&h w&B. 9. LO © © tb ^r to ^r to CO • C7 • C4 • C5 • C6 .392 Design of Modern.•ess 10FL_ TO" •ft".2.4 1. 50FL s1 i e !Wfra IMS SSJt 45FL_ M& *K!32 taas 4&5u — JOFL^ mw ass 35FL» —. 15FL sga.4 6. 1. © © fa . Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures c ©@©©©©@© o •— ejCD T LO (Y8) * LO LO ** ^.4 5.8 6. Section of the building.4 5.. . Highrise flat slab condominium with core walls.4 6. 8 41 8 Uint(m) Fig.4 5.1.— <s>m tt^i wr sfta •Bf rwr* iSBH _30FL_ 25FL_ ..
Structural materials. Girders 1roof Rebars Member Slabs Columns. Hence the target of material usage was changed from Zone II—1 to Zone III.1. that is.1. assumed to be placed Table 9. One floor area is 2061 m 2 . They were both designed initially by using materials in Zone II—1 of Fig. Girders Wall (vertical) Wall (horizontal) Lateral Rebars in Columns.1. is shown in Figs.5 m. It has no basement. and total floor area is 103 058 m 2 . 2. Concrete Member Story 3150 Columns. Girders Grade SD345 USD685 USD685 USD980 USD1275 Yield Points (MPa) 345 685 685 980 1275 Strength (MPa) 60 70 80 90 100 60 .1.2. Story height is 3 m except for the first story of 4.1.5 m. Walls 2130 1120 610 15 Slabs. However it was found during the feasibility study that the use of ultrahigh strength rebars was indispensable. The total building height is 151. Highrise Flat Slab Condominium with Core Walls The first building. 9. a highrise flat slab condominium of fifty stories. 9. the combination of ultrahigh strength concrete and high strength reinforcing bars. The foundation.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 393 Two types of highrise flat slab buildings were adopted as the object of this study. and the second was a fortystory flat slab resort condominium with curved structural walls. The first was a fiftystory flat slab condominium with structural core walls.1 and 9.
85% w / i n core 60 cm X 80 cm "four legs in two ways . Table 9.b a r s USD980D13O150 Pw = 0.75% USD685D41 Pg = 4. is regarded outside the scope of the study.33% USD12754D13O100 P „ = 0. square columns ranging from 950 mm in the lower five stories to 800 mm in the upper 25 stories.70% USD980D16Q150 P „ = 1.2.Lshaped core walls with the same width as walls. Typical structural member sections.94% USD12754D16Q100 Pw = 0.40% USD6854D32 Pt = 0.b a r s USD685D35 Pg = 3.50% USD12754D10Q100* P „ = 0.76% Lateral Bars USD12754D16@100 Pw = 1.17% USD68512D38 Pt = 2. The structure consists of flat slabs 250 mm thick.56% USD12754D13@100 P „ = 0. As mentioned earlier.68% USD980D13<ai50 P „ = 0.35% Columns Story 3650 1635 1115 610 15 Section 80 cm X 80 cm 85 cm x 85 cm 90 cm x 90 cm 90 c m x 90 cm 95 cm x 95 cm Axial Bars Lateral B a r s Horizontal R e .06% USD12754D16@100 Pw = 0.56% USD12754D13@100 Pw = 0.394 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures on the piles in the intermediate soil. they belong to Zone III in the New RC material combination. = 2.36% USD68512D35 Pt = 0.1 shows the materials used for this building.53% USD68512D38 Pt = 0.33% USD685D38 Pg = 3. coupling girders which connect . Columns have no capitals. Depth of all girders are uniformly 800 mm. and slabs have Table 9.30% USD68514D38 Pt = 2.84% USD12754D13@100 P „ = 0.53% Story 22R 1221 211 Section 75 cm X 80 cm 85 c m x 80 cm 95 cm x 80 cm Axial B a r s USD68510D38 P . F l a t Slabs Story All floors Thickness 25 c m Column Strip SD345D13Q100 L .74% Girders USD12754D10@100 Pw = 0.56% USD68516D38 Pt = 0. core walls with thickness from 950 mm in the lower ten stories to 750 mm in the upper 30 stories. and girders within the core 600 mm wide.s h a p e d Walls Story 2150 1120 110 Thickness 75 c m 85 c m 95 cm Vertical R e .70% USD68516D41 Pt = 0.12% Middle S t r i p SD345D13Q100 USD68512D35 Pt = 0.
9.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 395 no drop panels. The first is the protection against punching shear failure. and an equation in the AIJ Reinforced Concrete Table 9. Design criteria for highrise flat slab buildings.3) girders: flex. yield (7.25 RtZ w/in limit Deformation (13) no hinges formed at unexpected positions "For explanation of ranks 1 and 2 of evaluation standard.1) walls: before flex. . columns.3. summarized in Table 9.3. Table 9. The effective critical section was assumed at half depth away from the column surface as shown in Fig.8% Design limit Deformation (11) walls: before (14) w/in limit deformation (15) horizontal ultimate capacity (aviod shear failure at capacity w/in connections) (12) columns. and vibration w/in rank 2 of evaluation standard* (8) reusable after earthquake with repair (6) story drift w/in 0. girders) (1) w/in allowable stress Performance of Flat Slabs (2) w/in allowable stress (3) vibration w/in rank 1 of evaluation standard* (4) w/in elastic limit Level 1 Earthquake (5) reusable after earthquake with minor repair. External Force (design condition) Permanent Load Performance of Frame (walls. The structure is reasonably regular and uniform. The design criteria. girders: 0. These design criteria were commonly applied to this building and the following resort condominium. Additional design criteria were adopted as needed for each building specifically. essentially conform with those for general New RC structures. As related to the structural design of flat slabs. yield (7.3.5% Deformation (capacity) Level 2 Earthquake (7.2) columns: before flex. as presented in Chapter 6.2 summarizes the reinforcement arrangement in the structural members. yield permitted (9) total drift at centroid w/in 0. refer to the text. several points should be mentioned.
which accounted for cracking. and for the postlevel 1 earthquake state it also remained within the range of rank 1 although the design criteria of Table 9. respectively. 9. creep. where effect of both vertical shears and moments around the critical section was taken into account. Calculated values were not to exceed 20 mm nor 1/350 of span length. and drying shrinkage of concrete.3.2 mm. assuming damping coefficient of 0. 9.3) the response of floor vibration due to human walk was analyzed by elastic finite element timehistory analysis. 9. An equation in the AIJ Reinforced Concrete Standard (Ref. The third item is the evaluation of deflection under permanent loading. The guidelines (Ref. Crack width was calculated using the equation in the AIJ Structural Design Guideline for Prestressed and Reinforced Concrete (Ref. For the "new" structure prior to level 1 earthquake the result remained within the desired range of rank 1 response. The next item is the evaluation of flexural crack width under permanent loading.02 for floors. or serviceability in ambient vibration. 9. Standard (Ref.396 Design of Modern Highiise Reinforced Concrete Structures d/2 Cx d/2 d.effective depth of slab Fig.1) was used for the safety evaluation against punching shear.2) which takes into consideration average steel strain and concrete drying shrinkage. 9. Ranks 1 and 2 here refer to recommended (or more desirable) level and standard level of habitability. Effective critical section of flat slab around a column. The fourth item for the flat slab design is the habitability.1) was used for this purpose.3) indicate following examples of human senses for a stationary vibration of rank 1 . Calculated crack widths were not to exceed the permissible value of 0.3 allowed rank 2 response in this case. 9. According to the AIJ Guidelines for the Evaluation of Habitability (Ref.
whether it is located within exterior frame. (3) in an office. ~~i «~~ A"" Condensation from frame model to condensed model.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 397 of a floor: (1) in a living room or bedroom. It was found that effective width to span ratio varied with span length and location of flat slab within the building. some people sense the floor vibration.4.50. both considering nonlinear restoring force characteristics condense wall boundary beams 1 condense frame A" 1 f > A A"" \ l~h £ & A A A A A a a"~ A — A A a •• & a a & A" A" A A A A A a A A A A A " : A A A A  ""A A A A A A ' A A A A' A a 1 Fig. using condensed model and more elaborate frame model shown in Fig. 9. For rank 2. most typically 0.60. (2) in a conference room. 9. the guidelines give following examples: (1) in a living room or bedroom. nobody senses the floor vibration. but did not vary much with the column size. (3) in an office. . some people sense the floor vibration. or frames near the core walls. (2) in a conference room. most people sense the floor vibration.45 to 0. few people sense the floor vibration. The ratio was approximately from 0. few people sense the floor vibration. A threedimensional finite element analysis was carried out and the result was compared with an equivalent planar frame analysis considering flexural and shear deformation and rigid zones around joints. The final item was the determination of effective width of flat slabs in the idealized frame in each direction. that is. Earthquake response analysis was conducted for levels 1 and 2 earthquake ground motions. interior frame.4.
.34 5th 0. Table 9. Natural periods.1 based on upper bound strength \ based on dependable strength 0.9 was used. and Takeda model with 7 = 0.55 4th 0.06 ^ 0.14 3rd 0. The Lshaped walls in the core were first analyzed by fiber models under static incremental loading.33 0.89 3.08 —~~~ C„=0.98 2nd 1.02 1.398 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures of members which were determined as follows.8% design drift limit 1 0.04 response drift limit 0. For the columns and connecting girders.25Rf \ 0. Mode Frame Model (second) Condensed Model (second) 1st 3.23 0.3% / 50 100 V . 9.10 1. Takeda model with the unloading stiffness index 7 of 0.23 0. Takeda model with 7 = 0.4 summarizes natural periods in the elastic range for frame model and condensed model.54 0.4.4 was used. and all the response values stayed within the prescribed design criteria. response of condensed model showed the same trend of larger response values for two kinds of New RC motions (synthetic ground motions developed in New RC project).5.5 was determined by the best fit. For the flat slab with the aforementioned effective width. Frame model was analyzed for these two waveforms only. 150 200 250 centroidal deflection 8 (cm) Fig. Static pushover analysis with response drift limit and design drift limit. The maximum response structural drift at the centroid of lateral forces under level Table 9. For five kinds of input earthquake motions of levels 1 and 2 intensity.
is a highrise flat slab resort condominium of forty stories. The building was also analyzed for earthquake input in the 45 degrees direction.7. Thus it was shown that a 50 story flat slab building with core walls was a feasible structure using New RC material. and the design drift limit of 1.73 percent for New RC 01 waveform.0650.5.83 percent to cover this maximum response. The structure consists basically of flat slabs 250 mm thick and structural walls 400 mm thick except for the first story where walls are 600 mm thick.6 and 9. The second was that there was a need for more experimental data for the behavior of Lshaped walls. Static pushover analysis was carried out as shown in Fig. hence development of practically accurate and simple model was desired. Maximum ductility in the coupling beams and flat slabs are 3. respectively. Story height is 3 m with the exception of the first story of 6 m. The response drift limit was determined to be 0.1. called "hyperwall".30 percent was determined from the doubleenergy criteria as explained in Chapter 6.6 and 2. It has no basement. that is. the base shear at the design drift limit under diagonal loading exceeded that under parallel loading by 27 percent. The third point was that the condensed model developed for this building did not quite successfully simulate the response of frame model which could be regarded too complicated for practical purposes. one story . 9.25i?t' which was 0. Under static pushover analysis.2. those in the parallel direction. having the depth of 3 m.0. One floor area is 1440 m 2 . However several problems were pointed out during the course of this feasibility study. or in some cases smaller than.1. 9. and is connected to the main structure at three levels with socalled "superbeams". the base shear coefficient based on the dependable material strength was 0. and total floor area is 57600 m 2 . 9. In addition the exterior wall of service core is made into a curved shape with flanges. shown in Figs. The first was that the restoring force characteristics of flat slabs were determined by empirical equations from experimental data for ordinary strength materials which might be different from high strength materials. Dynamic response values in the diagonal direction are generally similar to.0727 which exceeded the design criterion of 0. and the total building height is 123 m above ground. At this design drift limit. Highrise Flat Slab Condominium with Curved Walls The second building for the feasibility study.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 399 2 earthquake motion was 0.
9.400 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures OIL) :  »  "  7oon I \ (c) upper floors typicol floors/ floors above super beams ±^r j (A) super b X^ h yper. (a) ground floor © Highrise flat slab building — a resort condominium.QQp I I I ©<*)<£> Fig.wall JJffiLi k't 61»6 (b) middle and lower floors © I » I " I '"nil I r3s. .6.
mesonette (twostoried) units at stories of superbeams (which block the hallway) to .7. high. This structural planning provided a variety of architectural possibilities in addition to flat slab. sky lounge or sky discotique above the superbeams. ® (A) Section of the building — a resort condominium.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 401 look—out restaurant (123m 40F ' ' mesonette j unit units skj£jounge_ 27F super beam mesonette unit hyper—wall units sky lounge 14F super beam mesonette unit units entrance hall 1J i_i2. 9.0 AD_j IAD P) Fig. such as wide frontage of condominium rooms to enjoy open view.
Walls in the first story had to have large openings to provide open spaces for entrance reception. Structural materials. this building also utilizes material in Zone III of Fig.3 for general New RC buildings. The structural design criteria were essentially same as those in Table 9.5 summarizes the material to be used for this building. Superbeams Shear Reinforcement Size D28.402 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures increase the variety of dwelling units. Walls arranged into various directions and curved hyperwall were intended to prevent torsional vibration. At the same time the structural planning gave rise to several structural design problems. The design for gravity loading follows the same principle of allowable stress Table 9. concrete up to 100 MPa compressive strength and main bars in walls. and a more complicated model for static structural analysis. Table 9. lounge and restaurant. D38 D16 Grade USD980 USD1275 Strength (MPa) 60 70 80 90 100 60 Flat Slabs Beams D19 D22 SD490 SD345 . Concrete Member Story 2840 Walls.5. A megastructure composed by superbeams connecting the main building and hyperwall required development of a suitably simplified model for earthquake response analysis.1. with several additions specifically for this building. exterior surface of hyperwall used as sign board or large screen for outdoor events. columns and superbeams of 980 MPa yield point. Like the previous example of a flat slab structure. Columns. Columns. 2. D35. Superbeams 2227 1521 814 17 Flat Slabs 1roof Rebars Member Walls. D32. but they required threedimensional analysis against seismic ground motion in any directions. and the structural effect of large openings had to be investigated in full detail.
. The overall deformation of building is limited as shown in Table 9. up to the ductility factor of 2. Superbeams which couple two shear walls and other coupling beams subjected to stress concentration may yield. the floor slab vibration was required to remain within the severest criterion of rank 1 of the Evaluation Guidelines for Habitability by AIJ (Ref.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 403 design as for general RC buildings. residual crack width after the level 1 earthquake is to be controlled in order that the structure is serviceable after a light amount of repair works. For this purpose the response deformation at the slabwall connection was limited so that the residual crack width remains within certain permissible value. the direction of loading must be carefully considered because of uneven arrangement of walls. In other words the high strength of materials used for this building has no particular advantage. Considering that walls carry essentially all the lateral load due to earthquake. Also no yield hinges are allowed in the columns considering high level of axial load. Experimental works carried out for this feasibility study were referred to in establishing relationship between the deformation angle and residual crack width.8. 9. on the other hand.3. In addition to the conventional design for gravity loading. As for flat slabs. Four directions shown in Fig. The yield deformation of flat slabwall connection is very large. including two principal axes of X and Y. The effective width of floor slab is to be determined by static elastic analysis. may yield under level 2 earthquake motion. 9.3). were chosen as representative directions. The check for allowable shear stress was substituted by the check for shear cracking. 9.0. Wall coupling beams. which is same as Chapter 6. This will automatically protect flat slabwall connection from yielding. Walls and columns must remain essentially within the elastic limit. In carrying out structural analysis as well as response analysis. no yield hinges are allowed at the wall base. but its deformation should remain within the ultimate deformation limit. The design for level 1 earthquake motion is basically same as Chapter 6.3) after the light repair work such as epoxy injection. The criteria associated with the ultimate limit under static pushover analysis are same as in Chapter 6. to be about 2 to 3 percent in terms of drift angle. so the crack width control is more critical. The design for level 2 earthquake motion is more conservative than Chapter 6. In addition the floor slab vibration after the level 1 earthquake was required to remain within rank 2 of the Evaluation Guidelines (Ref. It turned out that principal axes were the most fundamental in representing the stress and deformation in any direction. Elastic limit is defined by maximum concrete strain on the compression fiber or steel yield strain in the outermost rebar in tension.
Space model of linear elements. The first mode periods are in reasonable agreement. . 9. Fig. Table 9. 9. Direction of loading.9.8.9 illustrates the threedimensional frame model composed of linear vertical elements for each wall and linear horizontal elements for fiat slabs. Numbers in parentheses indicate natural periods determined from the FEM analysis. Figure 9.6 shows natural periods of vibration for first four modes in the direction of two principal axes.404 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig. Effective width of flat slab was determined from the finite element (FEM) analysis.
077 s e c o n d Longitudinal (X) T 2 = 0.220 T4 = 0. The natural frequency in elastic range was about 10 Hz.3. connecting the main building with the hyperwall at three levels.296 T 4 = 0.207) (0. major structural members could be . top and bottom.592 T 3 = 0.431) (0.177 rp I q y o s e c o n d 405 (2. D19 bars at 200 mm on centers are to be provided in two directions.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings Table 9. hence the 40story building was idealized into 37 masses.173 s e c o n d ) (1.575) f\ '^•r'ysecond's Transversal (Y) T 2 = 0. were concentrated into a single mass.834) (0. notwithstanding the wall thickness increased to 600 mm from 400 mm in upper stories. Thus. Damping of 3 percent for first mode and 4 percent for second mode was assumed to define a Rayleightype damping. connecting the flat slab cracking point and the deformation associated with base shear coefficient of Co = 0. both of which happened to be within rank 1 of the Evaluation Guidelines. 9.454) (0.8. and that after level 1 earthquake was about 6 Hz. the most intensively stressed portions were found to be in the first story.200) Earthquake response analysis was carried out using massandspring models consisting of equivalent shear springs and equivalent torsional springs. Two synthetic waves.6. Natural periods of linear model [FEM Model in ( )]• Ti = 2.483 T3 = 0. Both level 1 and 2 responses were found to satisfy all the design criteria depicted in Table 9. Figure 9. Two floors above and below superbeams. introduced in Chapter 6. Among walls. The restoring force characteristics of each spring was assumed to be bilinear.126 (0. Flat slabs with 25 cm thickness were found to be satisfactory for both serviceability and seismic safety.10 illustrates bar arrangement in some part of the first story walls. it was shown that a 40story flat slab building with shear walls was a feasible New RC building in seismic zones.25. By conducting structural as well as response analyses in four directions. were chosen and assumed in four direction in Fig.
and flat slabs maintained their serviceability. shown to be proportioned in the practically reasonable dimensions. The use of high strength materials enhances the strength of the structure. It should be mentioned that the experimental works carried out in conjunction with this study gave helpful evidence of satisfactory performance of flat slabvertical member connections within the deformation range assumed in the design. 1st story 600 wall with opening.1% ) hoop:D16D@100 (Pw = 0.33% ) 3. and increases the possibility of remaining within the elastic limit even under the severest earthquake motion for design.66% ) 15D38 hoop:D16D@100 vertical : D19@200 double horizontal : D16O200 double horizontal : D169200 double (Pw = 0. major structural members with the exception of superbeams remained within the elastic limit.10. 9.000 J Fig.406 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures key plan (1 st story) wall in line C. Sections of 1st story walls. . Under two levels of earthquake motions. 1st story vertical : 48D38 ( Pg = 2.
090 with drift angle of 0. a megastructure gives dynamic appearance to the architecture. Six buildings were proposed and studied. In the past. Concrete with compressive strength of 100 MPa and steel with yield srength of 1200 MPa are used. 9. Megagirders are rectangular 2 m x 6 m section. Fundamental natural period is 3.1 MPa.4 second. This base shear coefficient at the design deformation limit is larger than the following OP300 Straight Type. They are shown in Figs. Much longer lifetime is expected to such a megastructure. due to the .16.05. The base shear coefficient for seismic design is 0. It consists of straight single span open frames in two directions with five stories. Megastructures Megastructure usually means a structure composed of members much larger than usual. At the design seismic deformation limit. Combined with secondary members of much smaller size.88 percent. Floor plan is 40 m square. Average normal stress of gravity loading at the bottom section of the first story column was estimated to be 10. and is supposed to carry vertical load. this concept had been applied only to steel structures. At four corners Lshaped megacolumns are located. whose size is 6 m x 6 m with 2 m thickness.1.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 407 9. 9. more than enough to accommodate 8 story substructure on each megafloor. the maximum normal stress in the column is 22. Reinforced concrete megastructures had never been attempted probably because of excessive weight.1. and the maximum response shear for level 2 earthquake motion is 0.11 is called OP200 Straight Type. both in length as well as in sectional dimensions. hence reinforced concrete becomes the most desirable construction material. but no horizontal load. with the new idea that a megastructure might be utilized as the artificial ground — that is.11 to 9. In the course of feasibility studies possibility of reinforced concrete megastructure was explored.101. possibly of centuries long. Hence the height of one megastory is 40 m. The service core at the center of the megafloor has wall thickness of 800 mm. 9. OP200 Straight Type The megastructure in Fig. a megastructure is to offer the base for lowrise buildings to be constructed atop each floor of the megastructure. Total height is 200 m.2. Substructures are to be made of steel frames.3 MPa and the base shear coefficient is 0.1.2.
*± 40000 r" :_::~ plan <0. 9.2. 9. Each megafloor accomodates up to 13 story substructure of steel construction.2.408 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures \ * — l JJ 1W IP ll 1—.000 3 elevation Fig.1. OP200 Straight Type. forming two span open frames in two directions.11. It consists of five megastories.12 is called OP300 Straight Type. fact that larger safety margin was assumed for OP200 Straight Type considering it was supported by only four columns at the corners of megafloors. 9. OP300 Straight Type The megastructure in Fig. The first megastory has Kbraces on each face to eliminate central columns. each 60 m high. It has 8 columns along the periphery of 56 m square megafloors. and the total building is 300 m. .
5 m square.5 MPa. Concrete with compressive strength of 120 MPa and steel with yield point of 1200 MPa are to be used. OP300 Straight Type.5 m thick box section (2.12. 9.05.5 m x 9.5 m thickness. but the first story is designed for shear coefficient of 0. The design shear coefficients for seismic design of upper stories correspond to base shear coefficient of 0. with solid cross section for central columns and with 1. ifbraces in the first megastory is 5 m solid square section. Megacolumns are 5. Average normal stress of gravity loading at the bottom section of the first story column is 17.5 m square hollow space) for corner columns. Fundamental .17 considering high stiffness of braced structure.0 m with 1. Megagirders are also box section of 5.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 409 28a  2m 8 5m 6 elevation Fig.
9. 9.410 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures natural period is 5.69 in the short direction. +600m elevation Fig.3.1. The total height is 300 m with five megastories. OP300 Tapered Type The megastructure in Fig.75 in the long direction.2.8 m x 73.9 MPa and the upper story shear coefficients correspond to base shear coefficient of 0. forming a tapered (trapezoidal) elevation. 9. It is again single span open frames in two directions.13.0 second. but the floor plan varies from 48 m square at the roof to 60. . and 3. OP300 Tapered Type. and at the design seismic deformation limit the maximum normal stress in the column is 46.13 is called OP300 Tapered Type. each of which accomodates 12 or 13 story steel substructures. G L. Height to base width ratios are 4.078.6 m rectangle at the base.
Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 411 Lshaped megacolumns are located at four corners.51 24 .0 46H 20. the maximum normal stress in the column is 45. Megagirders in the lower two stories are 1. At the design seismic deformation limit.0 1FI plan elevation Fig. and those in the upper three stories are 1.0 Uft 10. The level 2 response drift remains under twothirds of a percent.35 m with 1.5 LL.0 31fl 20.2 MPa.35 m x 10. whose size is 10. The tapered shape was shown to be effective in resisting earthquake.0 16fL <5. 0 10.6 second in the long direction.5 m thickness.0 21FL 20.5 m wide and 12 m deep.0 20.2 MPa. BR200 Kbrace Type.LUr 10. Fundamental natural period is 6. 20. The service core at the center of floor plan has vertical members to carry vertical loads only. 9. Average normal stress of gravity loading at the bottom section of the first story column is 28. RL F 20.0 45. .14. and the base shear coefficient is 0. In proportion they are almost Lshaped walls.1 second in the short direction.04.0 6FI 5 20.062.0 36fl 20.0 26FI m ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 20. The design base shear coefficient is 0. Concrete with compressive strength of 120 MPa and steel with yield point of 1200 MPa are assumed.5 m wide and 8 m deep.0 41FI 20. and 5.
The level 2 response drift was less than 0.15. and the base shear coefficient is 0. In other words. Because it is a braced structure and has relatively high lateral stiffness. braces in two adjacent faces come to the corner column at the same height.4.8 m x 2. thereby easing the stress in the megagirders due to gravity loading.6 second. It consists of ten megastories. It has eight megacolumns around 45 m square megafloors.15 is called BR200 Z?brace Type (D stands for diagonal). BR200 Dbrace Type The megastructure in Fig. the selected value is the highest among six megastructures. and ten megagirders along the height of 200 m. Concrete with compressive strength of 100 to 120 MPa and steel with yield strength of 1200 MPa are to be used.179 referring to the level 2 seismic response analysis. Size of megacolumns vary from 1.2. It has eight megacolumns. 9.5 m. BR200 Kbrace Type The megastructure in Fig. forming ten story two span frames in two directions.se Reinforced Concrete Structures 9. each 20 m high for five story steel substructures.1. This arrangement guarantees symmetric forcedisplacement relationships under positive and negative lateral loading. Braces also carry major portion of seismic loading.2 m x 2.0 m in the first story to 0. Braces in the orthogonal direction are arranged so that symmetric forcedisplacement relationship is maintained under rotational loading.8 m in the first story to 1. By the independent arrangement of frames in two directions. The design base shear coefficient was selected to be 0. The fundamental natural period is 3. placed inside the building space. causing no yielding of steel.14 is called BR200 ifbrace Type.412 Design of Modern Highri. Frames in two directions have ATbraces in each story. and braces vary from 0. Megagirders are 1. They transmit major portion of gravity load to the column. One brace is placed in each story of a frame as shown in Fig. 9.5.0 m in the top story. 9.9 m x 1. forming two single span frames of 45 m long and 24 m apart. At the design seismic deformation limit. and another one in the opposite direction in each story of the parallel frame. independently in two directions. 9. with the total height of 200 m.0 m x 2.6 m x 1.189.7 percent.4 MPa.2 MPa.1. each megacolumn is subjected to forces from unidirectional seismic loading only. the maximum normal stress in the column is 80.0 m in the top story.2. . Average normal stress due to gravity loading at the bottom section of the first story column is 25.
Average normal stress of gravity loading at the bottom section of the first story column is 22.5 45. .2 m x 3.5 22. BR200 Dbrace Type.5 m 8 plan.0 elevation Fig.5 • «  r\& 22. and structural steel of SM490A (JIS G 3101) are to be used. Concrete with compressive strength of 100 MPa.0 MPa.6 m square and those at the midspan are 2.5 + 1 mm  _j^ w :_ — 22. typical floor — 22. reinforcement with yield point of 800 MPa. and supported by steel trusses under megafloors.4 m rectangle. having 1. megafloor H 22. Megagirders are 1.5 45.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 413 1 T T T T ' TTTTTT j 22. Braces are made of composite steel and RC.5 plan. Megacolumns at corners are 2. Substructures of three to four story on each megafloor are constructed by steel structure.05 m square cross section.15.0 22. The building has core walls around the central service core to carry the vertical loads only.75 m x 4.5 f 45 0 22.0 m rectangle. 9.
135. Other floor girders connecting opposite megagirders are also pinconnected to avoid torsional effect on the megagirders. Megagirders connecting these megacolumns have thus 1 1 m cantilevers at both ends.0 MPa.1.8 second. Average normal stress due to gravity loading at the bottom section of the first story column is 29. Xtype braces are located between the two megacolumns on each face. Megagirders are all 2. 38 m apart.08. with the total building height of 300 m. 9. 9. It consists of six megastories of 50 m high for steel substructure of 10 to 12 stories. made of structural steel.4 percent in terms of maximum story drift. Megacolumns on the adjacent sides of a floor corner are connected by diagonal girders to produce threedimensional stiffness and strength. The preliminary response analysis for level 1 earthquake motion showed that the design base shear could be taken as 0. It has two megacolumns on each face of 60 m square megafloor.8 sec. The fundamental natural period is 2. and floor girders connecting opposite megacolumns. and lateral reinforcement with yield strength of 800 MPa are to be used.414 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures The design base shear coefficient was determined to be 0.6. The design base shear coefficient was determined to be 0.5 m square.184.9 MPa. which is the longest among six megastructures. The maximum . The response under level 2 earthquake reached the base shear coefficient of 0.8 m square and 2.5 m. which help reduce the gravity moment at the midspan. but it was increased to twice as much by engineering judgment. BRZ00 Xbrace Type The megastructure in Fig. The fundamental natural period is 5. where the diameter is reduced to 1.8 m and 1.4 percent. The maximum response for level 2 earthquake motion was 0.16 is called BR300 Xbrace Type. main bars with yield strength of 1200 MPa.0 m square except for upper two stories where the size is reduced to 2.0 m diameter except for upper two stories. Concrete with compressive strength of 120 MPa.04. and the base shear coefficient at the same limit is 0. Braces carry major portion of lateral loads.118 in terms of base shear coefficient. and about 0. with the maximum story drift of about 0. The maximum normal stress in the column at the design seismic deformation limit is 56.2. No yielding occurred. Xtype braces are made of concretefilled steel pipes of 2.0854 from level 1 response analysis.0 m. Size of megacolumns is 3. are pinconnected to megacolumns not to carry lateral loads. no yielding was initiated under level 2 earthquake.0 m x 8. Similar to other megastructures.
—1 1 1— !1 u 1 1 plan.7. and the base shear coefficient at the same limit is 0. 9.1. megafloor elevation Fig.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 415 1rN t— tI. Concluding Remarks By comparing six megastructure buildings and their seismic design. BR300 Xbrace Type.2.16.9 MPa. following concluding remarks could be made.119. normal stress in the column at the design seismic deformation limit is 76. typical floor a j^ plan. 9. .
0 in one group. namely up to 120 MPa for concrete and up to 1200 MPa for steel. Each megastructure building was designed with some kind of devices for gravity loading in structural planning. relocation of megacolumns from corners to the inside of span with exterior cantilevers. composite steel and reinforced concrete. or increased number of megacolumns.5 in another group. chiefly in order to reduce dead weight. the use of central core to resist dead load only. or heighttowidth ratio. except in some cases steel trusses are used for floor girders of megastory.0. and it was subjected to several earthquake motions of levels 1 and 2 intensity. It will be easily understood when one thinks of cracking or deflection limit state. which ranges from 10. The largest number of aspect ratio is 6. However. span length of megafloor girders become very long. Braces in three braced buildings are designed by using different materials. the latter being BR200 ifbrace and BR200 Dbrace types. Massandspring dynamic analysis model was constructed based on the static analysis. and about 0. Due to large column spacing which was required for a versatile architectural use of megastories. Various methods are applied for the load transfer from substructures to megastructures. Thus the design of long span reinforced concrete girders for gravity loading became a common problem to be further studied in future. First.1 to 29.5 to 5. static incremental load analysis was conducted. Average normal stress of gravity loading at the bottom section of first story columns is described for each building. Reinforced concrete is used for girders connecting megacolumns. and concretefilled steel pipes.9 MPa. all satisfying the common criterion of one quarter of concrete strength. which is about the same as commonly constructed highrise buildings in Japan. it should be noted that the detailing of structural member joints was not fully studied in general. They include the use of subcolumns that carry vertical load only. For some examples frame analysis was conducted to earthquake response. On the other hand the heighttowidth ratio of one megastory is about 1.0. Design for gravity loading presented a common problem to all megastructures. but high strength of materials cannot be fully utilized in the design for gravity loading. High strength materials are required to most buildings up to the highest limit of material range prescribed for the New RC project. Steel structure is adopted to most substructures. All megastructures . of buildings ranges mostly from 4. Reinforced concrete is used to most parts of megastructures.416 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures The aspect ratio. Seismic safety of all six buildings was checked by the same process. namely reinforced concrete.
Fig.8 second. Box column thermal power plant.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 417 remained in the preyield stage in level 2 response. Thus the megastructures sustained the elastic state. but it was shown here to be applicable to structures of Zone III material combination. . This process. as described before. 9.4 MPa.189. This implies that these design parameters vary considerably according to the structural planning of megastructures. were shown to be from 2.062 to 0. and the base shear coefficient at this limit ranged from 0. Response deformation limit was defined at a deformation level covering all level 2 response. was created for New RC structures of Zone I material combination. as described in Chapter 6.17. and twice the potential energy of loaddeflection curve as that for this limit was used to define the design deformation limit. Natural periods for the fundamental mode.3 to 80. Structures were checked at the design deformation limit if there were any defect or excessive local strain at any part of the structure.8 to 5. implying very narrow crack width remaining after a level 2 earthquake. the maximum compressive stress in the column at the design deformation limit ranged from 22.
and Fig.17.3. Elevations of the building. The building is 100 m high. For the top girders.18. 9. was designed.21 illustrates the section of the building including this cantilever. A Box Column Structure for Thermal Power Plant A recent trend in the design of thermal power plant is to arrange boiler. Unlike feasibility studies in the preceding two sections. into a vertical array. Hence the material selected for this study was 60 MPa concrete and SD 685 steel. An example of such power plant is shown in Fig. In other words. a power plant building. 9. structural steel of grade SM570 was used. desulfuring and denitric equipments and so on.1. and Fig. 9. 9. this study aimed at the more practical feasibility. supporting steel top girder grill. It has cantilevers on one side of the square plan. which elevations are shown in Fig. At the center of this top girders is the boiler hanging. . and to make an effective use of the land. lj ® ® ® ® © ® HBiaioooa irao ® msn lonool aa © © © Fig. they were selected from the Zone I material range. consists of four box reinforced concrete columns of 10 m square.20 shows the plan of the top girder grill. electric precipitator \ /t\ /l\ / I electric precipitator boiler bldg.18. turbine bldg.418 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 9. Figure 9. turbine. For the feasibility study of using New RC materials to this type of structure.19 shows the plan of the foundation and four box columns. 9.
Plan of foundation. © © Fig.5m 6 5 3 2 Fig.19. . 9.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 419 10250 10230 1Q250 10250 foundation girder D=3. 8 8 I 1 " "8 8 1 : 8 8 © © 10000 G1A G1A 35500 10000 © © Plan of top girders. Gl m Gl 1 O Ui =§.0m_ foundation girder D=7. CGI " O 1 1 0 Ui =3.20. i 0 ® ! O O m 1 °. 9.
0 2D32@200 2D25@200 2D32@2O0 2D29O200 10000 29.21.9 60 41. Plan and reinforcement schedule of box columns.4 83.0 41.0 0.420 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures _S2_ _£Q1_ VFLJHOOO VFL«0 T¥ Fig.0 70 29.0 70 2D35@200 2D29O200 grade: vertical SD685 horizontal SD390 Pig.22. 9. AA section of the building. 9. vertical horizontal /~~ bars y ^ b a r s III level FL(m) 99.9 reinforcement vertical 2D35O200 horizontal 2D25O200 50 thickness 83. .
and anchor bolts of SD685 with D51 size. use of anchor plates or splicing to wall bars are temporarily considered.5 m square or 17. both 7. Figure 9. Also it is desirable to increase the stiffness of crown elements to avoid stress concentration at the corners and to evenly distribute the reaction forces.22 was determined by the proportioning of a column with the largest openings.19 illustrates arrangement of 1. 200 mm on centers. which was determined by assuming an imaginary site with relatively deep bed rock. This is another points to be explored in future. however its detail is yet to be developed. and the wall thickness varies from 700 mm at the base to 500 mm at the top.5 m.5 m diameter piles. It is considered necessary in future to investigate means to reduce amount of material for the foundation. For this purpose the wall thickness at the top of box columns is increased from 500 mm to 1200 mm. Figure 9. and foundation beams have 12 m x 7. which have to be rigidly connected to the top of box columns.5 m deep. 9. The portions of top girder grill that rest on the box columns are called crown elements. Schedule of top girders.23 illustrates the schedule of top girders.5000X100 BH3J0OXMO BK60OOX9O0 BH35O0X9O0 BHMO0X900 BH1KOXKOX50XJ25 •HOJOOXWOX » X  O 0 BH3500XIOOXJOX1M BHJKUXIMXWXIOO XSOX100 X40*M x N X 123 XWX1O0 X 5OX10O Fig.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings CndeSM570 mark position end G O cent.22 summarizes the section of box columns.5 m section. are embedded in the wall. Its outside measurement is 10 m square. For the anchorage of high strength steel anchor bolts. Footings measure 20. Crown element itself is 3. Girders are made of builtup I sections with the depth of 3. 03 through G3 through CGI fixed end CG2 fixed end 421 ~ "= g section I  "^ 1  """ d ba [ml I  I g "*" 8 "*" Ll m U Heel In»l UsJ U u bad boJ BH. and the reinforcement shown in Fig. These box columns have many openings in the wall.5 m deep.23. consists of flanges 950 mm wide and 125 mm thick and web plates 80 mm thick with stiffners and rib plates. The plan shown in Fig. GO girders suspending the boiler and Gl(GlA) girders holding GO girders have midspan depth of 6 m.3500XKU BH. Foundation of the structure is to be supported by castinplace concrete piles. 9. 9. to investigate the evaluation method of pile group effect including proper pile . end Cl cent eti4 G1A cent.5 m square.
Design stress distribution for top girders and box columns were analyzed using linear elements for members and plate elements for joints. or those in Chapter 6. On the other hand the structure is used as power plant. Design seismic forces were determined independently to four box columns from the preliminary response analysis. Dynamic response analysis was conducted for Hachinohe UD waveform corresponding to level 2 intensity. Earthquake response analysis was conducted against four waveforms using basefixed model and swayrocking model considering deformation of piles. crown elements and box columns. Another consideration was the effect of temperature change of box columns and top girders. Rigidity of connection between top girder crown elements and anchor bolts to box columns was a concern from the early stage of the feasibility study. Design shears and design moments were independent as they do not necessarily act on the box columns simultaneously. Design criteria to evaluate the response analysis results were set to be similar to those in Chapter 6. hence the degree of statical indeterminateness is low. Top girders hanging the boiler will be subjected to considerable effect of vertical earthquake motion. It was shown that the top girder end moment increases due to vertical response by 10 to 20 percent from the values due to horizontal response. as well as in the 45 degrees direction. Input waves were assumed to act in x. Top girders were designed to remain elastic even under the combined effect of vertical motion. alternate use of continuous underground walls in place of castinplace concrete piles. supporting boiler and other equipments. In addition to gravity loading and seismic loading. This was determined after the following consideration. It was shown that the temperature effect was negligible as it increases the member forces not more than 2 percent from the design values. . and no heavy human or furniture occupancy is expected. An additional analysis using a model with spring elements between crown elements and box columns showed that the flexibility of connection did not affect very much on the stress distribution in the top girders. it was concluded to adopt similar criteria as for general highrise residential or office buildings. stress distribution for gravity loading considering the erection progress was also analyzed.and ydirections.422 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures arrangement. On one hand this structure is composed of only four columns and is basically a single story structure. Considering these two contradicting factors to influence on the decision of design criteria. which may lead to more conservative design criteria.
and ydirections fell well below the design criterion. They behaved elastically up to deformation drift of 0.and ydirections. but the stress was lower than the previous case. but still conforming to design criteria.27 percent. Top girders produced yield hinges. being 0. Hence it is necessary to evaluate overall stress distribution considering the size. Elastic behavior of box columns and formation of yield hinges at top girder ends were also similar to those of basefixed model. also satisfied the criterion. Finite element static analysis of box columns was conducted to investigate effect of openings to the overall stress distribution and also the local stress concentration around openings. but it was still in the elastic range. From the FEM analysis. Openings are to be provided with additional periphery reinforcement.72 percent. and it is generally understood that the periphery reinforcement improves the structural behavior after cracking. Experimental works were also conducted of two box column specimens in 1/7 scale. but it does not prevent cracking itself. Also it was found that cracking at the opening corners did happen at the early stage of loading. and they were subjected to bidirectional reversal of loading. being 0. The rotation angle of column bottom of 0. Response drift under level 2 earthquake motions. and another in 45 degrees135 degrees directions. but yield hinges were formed at the ends of top girders.12 percent. one in 0 degrees90 degrees directions.40 to 0. to fiexural cracking with steel strain about halfway to yielding. according to the experiments mentioned later.15 to 0.4 m square and 4. and bar yielding was initiated at drift of . but it did not lead to the rebar yielding. concentrated arrangement around the periphery is found to be more effective for stiffness as well as strength than the diffusive arrangement.2 m long. Response under level 1 and 2 earthquake motions in the diagonal direction was essentially similar to that in the x. Analysis of swayrocking model showed slightly larger response drift. shape. It is anticipated from the box column deformation that columns would not even crack at this stage.38 percent corresponds. and overall stiffness and strength were not affected very much. Strain in the rebars of box columns was higher. that is 1. The overall stress distribution significantly changes due to openings.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 423 Response drift under level 1 earthquake motions in x. and it could not be corrected by providing additional reinforcement around openings. Box columns and top girders did not show any yielding under level 1 input. and distribution of openings. Box column reinforcement did not yield.
Thus it was concluded that a thermal power plant boiler building utilizing reinforced concrete box columns. with slight advantage of slip forms in the reduction of construction period.75 percent. Example Buildings This section of Chapter 9 summarizes construction examples to March. connected together and to the anchor bolts. both slip forms and jump forms were found to be applicable. Finally. method of construction should be mentioned. then shear compression failure progressed gradually.2. the last fiscal year for the fiveyear New RC project. 1997. Both of them showed 5type loaddeflection curves under load reversal. or in other words small energy absorbing capacity. The failure occurred after the maximum load of 942 kN was reached. The specimen in 0 degrees90 degrees directions failed by a sudden crushing in the compression flange at the side of opening at the box column base. was a feasible structure with the use of material combination of Zone I of New RC project. 9. with relatively small hysteresis loop area. As early as 19921993. of buildings utilizing high strength concrete and high strength steel that were explored in the New RC project. jacked down to the position. cost. without being accompanied with the strength reduction. then slided laterally at the column top. Such construction process is judged to be the most superior in terms of quality control. Top girders together with cantilever portions and divided crown elements are uplifted first. The erection of top girders are to be as follows.39 percent. Table 9. Observed damage and failure at various deformation stages were directly useful in evaluating the structure's behavior under levels 1 and 2 earthquake input. Several construction methods for these two stages were selected and compared. at the deformation drift of 1.5 to 0. 10 m square and 100 m high. and subjected to review of the Technical Appraisal Committee for Highrise Buildings of the Building Center of Japan.7 summarizes all buildings using either high strength concrete in excess of 48 MPa or high strength reinforcement in . and then central portion of top girder grill is lifted up. construction period. a building with concrete strength of 60 MPa and USD685 steel for column axial core bars was designed. and construction safety. As to box column construction. The specimen in 45 degrees135 degrees directions showed concrete crushing at the box corners.05 percent. Two most important construction stages are the construction of box columns and the erection of top girders including crown elements. maximum load of 939 kN being observed at drift of 1.424 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures 0.
seismic design method developed in the New RC project and described in Chapter 6 has been applied in the practice. 1994 Nov.A.7(1). Buildings that passed the technical appraisal. Date of T. 1992 Dec.30 m 42 MPa USD685 60 MPa SD490 60 MPa SD490 60 MPa SD490 60 MPa SD490 8 Seiyo Hasune Project Ikeshita Redevelopment Building B HonKomagome 2Chome Building B Tsuchiura Redevelopment Project Building 9 10 11 excess of 390 MPa yield point. of Story Height 38 story 133.00 m 26 story 88. The table contains 28 examples.35 m 41 story 126. Kajima Construction Co. 9. Nissoken Design. and the highest strength used for concrete and reinforcement in each building is tabulated. 1992 Mar. Shimizu Construction Co. 1993 May 1994 June 1994 Sept. Feb.25 m 20 story 63. No. 1997. and approved in the review process as an effective method of seismic design. Ikeshita Redevelopment Building B. 1992 July 1992 Sept.85 m 25 story 107. 1 2 3 4 5 Name of Building Viraton Shima Hotel Ebina Prime Tower The Garden Towers The Scene Johoku Gran Corina SeishinMinami Hankyu Hills Court Takatsuki Structural Design Taisei Construction Co.00 m 22 story 68. Kajima Construction Co. Starting from the Building No.30 m 22 story 67. N T T Design. RIA Kumagai Construction Co. and passed the review of the Technical Appraisal Committee by the end of March.90 m 425 Max Strength of Materials 60 MPa SD390 60 MPa SD490 60 MPa USD390 60 MPa USD685 60 MPa SD490 60 MPa SD490 6 7 Ship Residence Mar. Taisei Construction Co.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings Table 9. .30 m 45 story 160.80 m 39 story 125.65 m 31 story 100. KonoikeKokedoPudo JV Toda Construction Co. Obayashi Construction Co. Obayashi Construction Co. 1994 28 story 88. Takenaka Construction Co. 1993 No. 1992 Feb.
1995 Jan.00 m 41 story 128. 1995 Dec.7 does not show the construction site. Obayashi Construction Co. Buildings that passed the technical appraisal.90 m 40 story 128.75 m 43 story 142. Kuma Design. Toda Construction Co. 1995 Apr.58 m 30 story 96. Name of Building Fujima Building King Mansion Doujimagawa King Mansion TenjinBashi II I'm Fujimino Yamagata Kaminoyama Mansion Furukawa Station West Project Sakai Station Redevelopment Project Section B Sakai Station Redevelopment Project Section A Matsubara Station Residence River Sangyo Kyobashi Structural Design Sato Construction Co.10 m 30 story 89. and design criteria as in Chapter 6 are generally applicable. Building No. 1995 Sept. ObayashiOkumuraDainippondoboku JV TakenakaTaiseiTokai Kogyo JV Toda Construction Co. It is a mixed structure.426 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Table 9. All buildings are constructed in Japan. No.88 m Max Strength of Materials 60 MPa SD490 60 MPa SD490 60 MPa SD490 60 MPa SD490 100 MPa USD685B 60 MPa SD490 70 MPa USD685 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Mar. 9. Maeda Construction Co. 2. of Story Height 22 story 71. Shimizu Construction Co. Taisei Construction Co. Ebina Prime Tower. The seismicity in these areas are more or less same. Date of T.24. Short coupling girders at the . mostly in Tokyo or in Osaka areas.00 m 28 story 91.05 m 70 MPa USD685 60 MPa SD490 60 MPa SD390 20 21 Table 9. Kumagai Construction Co. 1995 Sept. consisting of reinforced concrete boxshaped core walls and steel peripheral frames. Core walls take up most of lateral seismic load. 1996 July 1996 July 1996 43 story 138. 1996 Feb. is a 25story building for office and hotel use shown in Fig.7(2). Steel hat trusses are provided at the top of core walls to reduce flexural deflection of core walls.A. 1996 No.45 m 43 story 131.30 m 31 story 108. Jan.
7(3). Date of No.00 m 43 story 134. 1996 31 story 95.A. Souzousha Design. 22 Name of Building  Structural Design 8Canal Town West MotoYawata Dl Redevelopment Project Ritto Station Commercial Area Residence Rinkai FukuToshin Daiba Section I Tokorozawa East Project River City 21 North Block Building N Moji Port Retro Heimat Kajima Construction Co.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings Table 9. I 1997 32 story 99. .55 m 100 M P a SD685 100 M P a USD685 100 M P a USD685 60 M P a SD490 1 26 27 ! 28 Fig. 1997 Feb.24. ! Height Nov. 9. Ebina Prime Tower (Building No. 1997 Feb. 1996 37 story 111.15 m 427 Max Strength of Materials 60 M P a SD490 60 M P a SD490 23 24 Dec. 1996 Jan. 2). Fujita Construction Co.10 m 60 M P a SD490 25 Dec. 1996 Dec.65 m 24 story 78.55 m 31 story 126. TaiseiMitsuiHaseko J V Takenaka Construction Co. Buildings that passed the technical appraisal. of Story T. No.90 m 27 story 84. Mitsui Construction Co. TaiseiKumagaiTobishimaKokudo J V Shimizu Construction Co.
The Garden Towers (Building No. and high strength bars of SD490 grade is used for Xbars in the coupling girders. is a 45story residential building with the height of 160 m. 9. Building No. is a 39story building for residence. the Scene Johoku. . 9. with partial use for stores shown in Fig. using precast concrete elements for columns and partially precast units for girders. shown in Fig. It consists of space frames of reinforced concrete. 4. High strength concrete of 60 MPa is used in core walls. the tallest among 28 buildings tabulated Fig. High strength concrete of 60 MPa is used for columns. The Garden Towers.428 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures core wall openings were provided with Xtype bar arrangement.26. 3).25. 9. 3. Building No.25.
Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 429 Fig. with increased number of stories and longer spans than preceding reinforced concrete highrise buildings and yet composed by approximately same size members as before. Building No.26. 9. 9. . It consists of reinforced concrete space frame. before the completion of the New RC project in 1993. 4). Also the use of shallow depth girders around the building periphery provided better view and feeling of openness to the residents. Gran Corina SeishinMinami. is a 22story residential building as in Fig. The Scene Johoku (Building No. in Table 9.7. which was realized owing to the use of high strength material.27. This is the building utilizing 60 MPa concrete and 685 MPa steel. 5. Its structure consists of frames in the longitudinal direction. An architectural improvement was achieved by the adoption of stepped girders that made it possible to eliminate steps on the loor finishing in a dwelling unit.
9. High strength concrete of 60 MPa and SD490 steel are used in columns and shear walls up to the 5th story. spandrel beams with floor slabs connected to the lower face of beam sections.27. Hankyu Hills Court Takatsuki. 9. .430 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Fig. The peripheral frames consist of columns with reversed beams. Gran Corina SeishinMinami (Building No. Anchorage of beam bars in the beamcolumn joints is a special feature of the structural design. and frames with two singlespan shear walls in the transverse direction. Ship Residence.29. 9. is a 28story residential building as shown in Fig. is a 20story residential building shown in Fig. 5). Building No. that is.28. Building No. It is a reinforced concrete building with special features of structural design. It is a reinforced concrete frame building with the full use of precast construction technique. 7. 6.
6). 9. ^§li' ^ Fig.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 431 Fig. .29. 7). Ship Residence (Building No. 9. Hankyu Hills Court Takatsuki (Building No.28.
Fig.432 Design of Modern Highrwe Reinforced Concrete Structures consisting a tube structure which is connected to interior frames only by floor slabs. shown in Fig. Its structural feature is reinforced concrete space frame with span length 8. allowing free arrangement of architectural partitions. 9). Building No. which is much longer than other highrise buildings up to date.30. At the central portion of interior frames are located what the structural engineers call "honeycomb dampers" made of mild steel plate with hexagonal openings. 9. Girders are made of halfprecast construction. Ikeshita Redevelopment Building. 9. .30. In other words the first interior span around the building has no beams. High strength concrete of 60 MPa is used in lower part of the structure. is a 26story building for residence and partial use for stores. Concrete up to 42 MPa is combined with high strength steel of USD685. 9.5 m in both directions. Ikeshita Redevelopment Building B (Building No. which are expected to yield at relatively small story drift and to dissipate seismic energy. and floor subbeams are constructed by PRC (prestressed and reinforced concrete) where SD490 steel is used for pretensioning.
11). Tsuchiura Redevelopment Project Building (Building No. 9. Fig.32. 9. Hon~Komagome 2chome Building B (Building No.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 433 Fig.31. . 10).
It is a reinforced concrete space frame building whose material and construction method are similar to Building No. Building No.33. is a 43story residential building.33. is a 22story residential building. 9. 13. 9. Building No. to speed up the construction. 12. 9. is a 31story residential building.31. HonKomagome 2chome Building. Fujima Building (Building No. K Fig. Columns are precast.34. .434 Design of Modem Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures Building No. It is also a reinforced concrete space frame. and girders and floor slabs are partially precast. 12). It is a reinforced concrete space frame building whose material is similar to three preceding examples. is a 22story residential building as shown in Fig. 10. Tsuchiura Eedevelopment Project Building. utilizing precast technique in all structural members. Fujima Building. but precast units are used for girders and floor slabs only. shown in Fig. 9. Building No. 10 above. shown in Fig. King Mansion Doujimagawa.32. shown in Fig. 11. Columns are cast in place. It consists of reinforced concrete space frame using concrete up to 60 MPa and steel of grade SD490. 9.
25 and 27. that is. 25 and 27. and in Building Nos. Secondly. and is comparable to the span length that had been regarded as being suitable for composite .7 are more or less similar to these buildings. Thus. where 100 MPa concrete is used in the limited part of the structure. where 70 MPa concrete is adopted. 18.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings 435 Fig. 16. 9. 18 and 19. but high strength material is also widely used for mediumhigh buildings.34. King Mansion Doujimagawa (Building No. grade USD685 is used for Building Nos. High strength steel higher than 490 MPa yield point is used in five cases. the scope of reinforced concrete construction is being extended to taller buildings than before. They are mostly residential buildings. Other buildings in Table 9. 13). USD685 steel is always combined with concrete stronger than 60 MPa. First. Use of concrete in excess of 60 MPa in compressive strength is seen in Building Nos. ranging from 24 to 43 stories. The recent trend as extracted from the analysis of these example buildings of New RC is summarized below. span length of reinforced concrete is now getting longer than before. 19. 16.
Thirdly. 1992. References 9. 9. .3. 2 will be made in future. Standard for Structural Calculation of Reinforced Concrete Structures. it seems that the precast construction will increase. 1986.1. and at the same time more attempts of hybrid structural system as in Building No. Architectural Institute of Japan. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Habitability to Building Vibration. it appears that the use of SD490 steel for girders and that of USD685 steel for columns will become the favorite choice of structural engineers in future. Recommendation for Design and Construction of Partially Prestresed Concrete (Class III Prestressed Concrete) Structures. Architectural Institute of Japan. 9.2. Architectural Institute of Japan.436 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures steel and reinforced concrete construction. Lastly.
110 bars with screwtype deformation. 107 andesite. 105. 289 bidirectional flexure. 66 air tubes. 348. 107 bend radius. 192 beam bar slip. 128. 350 analytical models. 418 buckling. 100 ascending and descending waves. 28 beams. 229 bond index. 147 bidirectional horizontal motions. 106 bend direction. 196 60story apartment building. 93 chloride content. 231 anchorage. 20 anchorage strength. 104. 107 bend position. 94 column section. 30. 381 circular section. 389 aggregate. 108 bar diameter column depth ratio. 129 box column structure for thermal power plant. 216 bondsplitting failure. 128. 236 bearing failure. 109 beamcolumn joints. 66. 123 bidirectional earthquake motion. 178. 105 3D joints. 381 alternate reversal of loading. 369 capacitydemand diagram method. 93 biaxial effect. 121 Building Standard Law. 384 chemical component. 12 beam bar bond index. 62 chemical admixture. 354 base shear coefficient. 104 anchorage of girder bars. 326 437 . 13 columns. 291 Ltype flow test. 105 180 degree bend. 272 bidirectional loading. 282 bar diameter. 337 cement. 239 biaxial loading test. 382 acceptance criteria. 235 bond splitting. 255 beamhinge mechanism. 107 bendability. 251 compatibility matrix. 26 basement. 363 alkaliaggregate reaction. 64 aggregate interlock.Index 90 degree bend. 66 arc welding. 22 beam model. 350 accelerated neutralization test. 121 buckling of axial rebars. 189. 196 bond. 229 airentraining and highrange waterreducing agents. 135 bond link element. 96 aminosulfonate acid chain. 116 cold work.
118. 125 cracks. 15 concrete temperature. 382 exposed engineering bedrock. 337 equivalent viscous damping. 366 confined concrete. 93 endtail portion. 10. 388 cylinder strength cured in seal on site. 11 dowel action. 215 deformation capacity of walls. 336 equivalent linearization. 283 design criteria. 274. 32. 349 concrete placement. 100 equation of motion. 382 ductility of girders. 102 cured in water on site. 184 durability. 229 Concrete Committee.438 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures deformation capacity after yielding. 279 design seismic deformation limit. 315 effective width. 379 corrosion resistance. 76. 316. 82. 198 . 386 epoxy grout splices. 141 deformation capacity of columns. 382 earthquake response analysis. 286 discrete crack model. 108 entrained air. 388 construction management. 305 core strength. 384 example buildings. 275 design earthquake intensity. 229 compressive strength. 381 durability index. 113 confinement effect. 347 curing. 35 explosion. 21 concrete pump truck. 238 confinement. 277 dependable strength. 23 design drift limit. 234 dissemination of results. 170. 357 concrete strength. 77. 375 core bars. 34 damping proportional to incremental stiffness. 368 correction factor for temperature. 240 cracking stress. 248 concrete core. 125 Construction and Manufacturing Committee. 59 double tube structure. 238 concrete. 234 creep. 377 concrete cover. 387 constitutive equations. 194. 14 coreintube structure. 21 Construction Standard for New RC. 345 construction joints. 275. 13 consolidation. 278 design drift limitations. 383 concrete mix. 80. 424 compressive deterioration of cracked concrete. 97. 279 exterior beamcolumn joint. 272 direction of seismic design. 99 cracking. 229 drilled cores. 80 critical section. 229 cracking strength. 337 equivalent SDF system. 178 degreesoffreedom. 286 etringite type special admixture. 363. 140. 28 dumbbell type section walls. 61 concrete confinement models. 320 dependable material strength. 368 damping. 214 equivalent viscous damping factor. 299 doubletube system. 377 compressive strength reduction coefficient. 140 elongation. 70. 275 design earthquake motion. 347 drying shrinkage. 271.
70 form vibrator. 97. 94 hydration heat. 363 . 35 JASS (Japan Architectural Standard Specification). 319 hysteretic energy dissipation. 227 fine aggregate ratio. 100 lapped splices. 356 full scale construction test. 235 high strength rebars. 28. 124 index J. 187. 122. 319 freezingthawing test. 13 foundation structure.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings exterior joints. 222 initial stiffness. 100 ground granulated blast furnace slag. 29 highrise flat slab buildings. 219 floor plan. 97 High Strength Concrete Committee. 286 hysteresis model. 123 feasibility of new structures. 353 lap splice. 109 internal viscous damping. 345 highstress fatigue test. 24. 375 JIS G 3109. 195. 90 high strength reinforcing bars. 354 fly ash fume. 327 flexural bond. 111 flexural compression failure. 231 FEM. 289 frame model. 7 flush butt welding. 214 flexural strength of walls. 105 flexural bond resistance. 210 flexural shear model. 122. 118 lateral reinforcement. 87 joint failure index. 348. 105. 342 interior beamcolumn joint. 391 lateral confinement. 210 inorganic grout splices. 198 interior joint. 94 high range AE water reducing agent. 19 large size box column structure. 345 high temperature. 382 first phase design. 70. 399 hot rolling. 86 high strength steel. 379 failure criterion. 26 fixed base model. 286 439 inplane shear. 345 gas butt welding. 32 flexural strength. 215 flexural cracking. 384 high strength concrete. 84. 227 fire resistance. 345 high strength materials. 391 highrise flat slab condominium with core walls. 113 lateral pressure. 382 HyogokenNanbu earthquake. 203 factor to multiply standard deviation. 61. 281 flexibility matrix. 19. 117 lateral pressure index. 34. 82 fresh concrete. 96 higher mode effect. 386 finite element method. 87 JIS G 3112. 337 hysteresis. 197 laboratory tests. 360 formwork. 113 lath mesh. 384 heat treatment. 100 instantaneous stiffness matrix. 191. 393 highrise flat slab condominium with curved walls. 391 FEM analysis. 87 JIS G 3117. 376 foundation.
281 moist curing. 94 . 44 outline of results. 62 MS model. 335 multiaxial spring model. 229 RC members. 235 RC structures. 16. 272. 123 plane stress condition. 350 organization for the project. 323 neutralization. 273. 231 readymixed concrete plant. 41 RC. 387 plain concrete plate. 342 nonlinear earthquake response analysis. 93 mineral admixture. 287 online heat treatment. 124 reinforcement. 273 level 2. 384 pushover analysis. 108 projected horizontal length of embedment. 229 reinforcement cages. 107 proportioning strength. 232 modeling of structures. 71 modal analysis. 27. 338 restoring force characteristics. 1.440 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures onsite watercured cylinder strength 367 onecomponent model. 265 parametric analysis. 96 ordinary portland cement. 256 P C steel. 407 member models. 12 placing. 319 metal trowel finishing. 279. 271. 350 possible strongest intensity earthquake. 391. 279 New RC project. 353 polycarbonate acid chain. 53 panels. 328 multidegreeoffreedom (MDF) system. 116 reinforced concrete. 122 plant tests. 100 mediumrise office buildings. 384 minimum lead length of 90 degree bent anchorage. 283 levels 1 and 2. 66 limiting deflection. 348 mortar strength. 316 modeling. 274 Newmark's /3method. 276 nonlinear frame analysis. 310 megastructures. 108 mix. 229 reinforced concrete plate. 273 level 2. 382 New RC buildings. 317. 277 preassemblage of reinforcement cage. 284 projected embedment length. 275 postlevel 2. 104 response drift limit. 27 monolithic casting. 40. 273 level 1. 337 range of material strength. 277 limestone. 356 Reinforcement Committee. 384 mix design. 214 mechanical properties. 18 precast members. 33 oblique direction. 275 response spectrum. 272 New RC construction standard. 347. 386 rectangular section. 325 oneway reversal of loading. 345 New RC earthquake motion. 94 penthouse. 328 multimass model. 236. 388 moment redistribution. 365 method of manufacture. 235 New RC structures. 17 pressed collar. 66. 104 mechanical splices. 19 probability of nonexceedance.
379 singledegreeoffreedom(SDF) system. 379 static incremental (pushover) analysis. 108 stiffness matrix. 183 shear walls. 217 shear model. 350. 377 Structural Design Committee. 247 shear stiffness. 70. 10 specified design strength. 11 seismic design. 174 shear strength of beamcolumn joints. 377 seismic dampers. 350 smeared crack model. 11. 22 structural concrete. 91 splice. 347 standard curing. 282 soil structure interaction. 35 soilstructure model. 188. 281 steel grade. 236 side concrete cover. 127 . 377 slump flow loss. 356 SD245. 113 strong columnweak beam mechanism. 360 shearcompression failure. 91 strain concentration. 66 SaSd response spectrum.Feasibility Studies and Example Buildings restoring force characteristics of beams. 20 screwtype coupler joints. 22 serviceability. 209 restoring force model. 169. 350 slump loss. 170 shear failure in the hinge zone. 27 segregation resistance. 234 soilfoundationstructure interaction. 275. 166. 77. 384 simple mass and spring model. 239 shear strength. 360 safety performance criteria. 321 rodtype vibrator. 24. 276 sandstone. 100 splitting failure. 377 slump flow. 162 shear strength of columns. 102 stressstrain relationship. 340 screw coupler splices. 117 rigid slab. 281 simplified adiabatic curing. 104. 87 SD295A. 275 serviceability performance criteria. 32 shear reinforcement ratio. 277 Structural Element Committee. 156 shear strength of slender walls. 335 slab effect. 271 structural drift. 107 441 silica fume. 221 shear strength of beams and columns. 136 sleeve splices. 325 space frame system. 28 Richart equation. 379 standard deviation. 87 SD295B. 87 sealcured on site. 100 screwdeformed bars. 2 standardcured. 276 settlement. 275 strain at yield plateau. 87 SD490. 118 SRC. 20 slump. 87 SD390. 230 shear strength equation. 347 second phase design. 87 SD345. 331 story drift. 275 serviceability drift limit. 106 square sections. 219 shear strength of beams. 363 slump flow test. 363 slump test. 10 space frame with seismic elements. 377 specified yield strength.
125. 86. 331 walls. 277 upper bound strengths. 348 wall girders. 19 workability. 375 vertical ground motion. 77. 102 stiffness reduction factor. 86. 260 waterbinder ratio. 42 III. 359 surface cracks. 379 tensile strength. 289 vertical splitting. 86. 75 yield yield yield yield deflection. 375 USD685B. 211 structural performance evaluation. 275 ratio. 211 hinge regions. 15. 42 II2. 77 tension stiffening. 7 structural systems. 365 tangent stiffness. 112 transportation time. 375 USD785. 239 threedimensional analysis. 282 Takeda hysteresis model. 375 USD685A. 316 top bars. 283 Young's modulus. 237 unit bulk volume of coarse aggregate. 388 swayrocking model. 41 temperature history chasing curing. 232 Ubend girder bars. 169. 384 weakbeam strongcolumn type collapse mechanism. 274. 355 Utype bent anchorage. 387 twodimensional analysis. 375 USD980. 271 web reinforcement ratio. 386 unit water content. 42 II1. 385 upper bound material strength. 169 surface bubbles. 14 wall model. 326 tamping. 139.442 Design of Modern Highrise Reinforced Concrete Structures USD1275. 209 structural planning. 342 target of the project. 152 vertical splitting crack. 232 timehistory response analysis. 10 structural walls. 86. 26 uniaxial compressive stressstrain curves. 152 VH separate casting. 354 ultimate load carrying capacity. 371 surface finishing. 112 welding. 42 . 365. 92. 86. 381 zone zone zone zone I.
P204 he ISBN13 9781860942396 ISBN10 1860942393 Imperial College Press www. in Christchurch. and awards from the Architectural Institute of Japan and the Japan Concrete Institute in 1977 and 1975 respectively.co. The project covered all the aspects of reinforced concrete structures. and is President of the Aoyama Laboratory. a fellow of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering. structural elements. He has tested and formulated restoring force characteristics of reinforced concrete members and structures.icpress. pioneered the use of high strength concrete and reinforcement in seismic regions. and a visiting professor in 197172. Hiroyuki Aoyama is Research Professor of Nihon University.S. Professor Aoyama's research interests include seismic behavior and design of structures. i. conducted nonlinear earthquake response analysis. and a professor of structural engineering in 19793.This book presents the results of a Japanese national research project carried out in 19881993. Developing advanced reinforced concrete building structures with high strength and high quality materials under its auspices. structural design. His honors include the Alfred E. a consultancy for structural engineers. he received a doctorate in Engineering in I960 from the same university. and also a visiting professor in 198081 at the University of Canterbury (Department of Civil Engineering). in the Department of Architecture of the University of Tokyo. a foreign associate of the National Academy of Engineering. New Zealand. He is also Professor Emeritus at the University of Tokyo.Tokyo. the project aimed at promoting construction of highrise reinforced concrete buildings in highly seismic areas such as Japan. finite element analysis and earthquake response analysis. particularly of reinforced concrete structures. Lindau Award of the American Concrete Institute in 1995. the Minister of Science and Technology Agency Award in 1992. He was a visiting research scientist in 196163. In addition to presenting these results. and developed seismic design methods for highrise concrete structures in seismic countries such as Japan.A.e. He is currently a vicepresident of the International Association of Earthquake Engineering. namely materials. U.uk 9 "781860"942396" . Illinois. Department of Architecture in 1955. He served as a lecturer in 196064. usually referred to as the New RC Project. and a member of several engineering societies in the U. the book includes two chapters giving an elementary explanation of modern analytical techniques. and feasibility studies. an honorary member of the American Concrete Institute. at the University of Illinois (Department of Civil Engineering) at Urbana.A. After graduating from the University of Tokyo.S. construction. and Japan.. an associate professor in 196478.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.