Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DETAILING OF RC BUILDINGS
Yogendra Singh
Professor, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorkee
1. INTRODUCTION
As brought out in the previous Chapters, the structures are to be designed to have
sufficient strength and ductility for safety against earthquake forces. Both strength
and ductility are important for seismic safety. The current codal practice of design of
RC buildings is based on a linear analysis and Limit State Design philosophy. The
effect of ductility is considered in the form of a “response Reduction Factor”, which
is used to reduce the earthquake forces for design.
The RC members are to be designed for three actions: (i) Axial Force, (ii) Shear
Force, and (iii) Bending Moment. Beams are generally monolithic with slabs and
these are not designed for axial load. On the other hand, the columns are to be
designed for an interaction of axial load and bending moment. The design for Shear
is independent.
Concrete is known to be brittle material. Typical to brittle materials, it has much
lower strength in tension, than in compression. The behaviour of concrete can be
greatly enhanced by confining it. The ductility of concrete can be significantly
improved by proper detailing of the reinforcement. This Chapter deals with
important aspects of the design and detailing of RC buildings.
Extensive research on this front over the past decades has revealed that the shear
strength (Vn) of a column can be considered to have distinct contributions from
concrete (Vc) and transverse reinforcement (Vs). Contribution of concrete in shear
strength is rather complex and is influenced by several factors including axial
compressive force, column aspect ratio and deformation ductility demand (Priestley
Table 1
Overview of shear strength models of RC columns considered in the present study
Model
Vc Vs
reference
6 f c' 0.74 P
Vc k 1 0 .8 Ag
MV f c' Ag
FEMA-356 d Av f yvd
Vs
(2000) s
2<M/Vd <3
k = 1.0 for low ductility region and
0.7 for high ductility region
ACI 352R-02 0.5 f c' P Av f yvd
Vc k 1 0.8 Ag Vs k
(2002) sS 0.5 f c Ag
'
s
d
P '
Vc 0.171 f A ; if P 0
14Ag c g
ACI 318 Av f yvd
Vs 0.66 f c' Ag
(2005) 0.29P ' s
Vc 0.171 f c Ag 0; if P 0
A
g
3P
Vc 1 0.07 10w f c' Ag
Sezen and A f' Av f yvd
g c
; Vs
Moehle (2004) s
0.08 f c' 0.07 10 w f c' 0.2 f c'
where, M/V is the largest ratio of moment to shear under design loadings for the column, P is axial
load on column, Ss is shear span, d is depth of column, w is area of flexural tension
reinforcement, and Av, S, and fyv are area, spacing, and yield strength, respectively, of the transverse
reinforcement.
Table 2
Overview of shear strength models of RC beam-column joints
Model reference Interior Joint Exterior Joint
Unlike, the joint strength models of Eurocode-8 (2004), ACI-352R-02 (2002) and
FEMA-356 (2000), the model in NZS-3101:Part1 (2006) requires considerable amount
of transverse reinforcement in the joint to transfer the tensile forces and therefore not
applicable to the non-ductile gravity designed buildings, where no transverse
reinforcement is provided in the joint region. Indian Standard (BIS 1993) provides
some detailing guidelines for beam-column joints, but does not provide any model
for estimation of joint shear strength.
(b)
Fig. 2 Shear resistance mechanism of beam-column joint in: (a) bare and (b) infilled frame
V jh C T Vc
(1)
V jh C T Vc R cos
(2)
where, Vc is the shear force in column, and R cosθ is the shear force exerted by the
infill. It is evident from the figure that strut action of infill results in increased
shear in column, which in-turn results in reduced shear force in the joint.
The most important issue in ductile design of RC structures is avoiding the failure in
brittle modes. This is ensured through capacity design. Fig. 8, shows a chain, which
has one ductile link, while all other links are brittle. This chain is subjected to load P
In a RC frame building, two common modes of failure are possible (Fig. 10). In the
first mode of failure columns of one storey yield and building fails in a local
mechanism. On the other hand, in the second mode of failure, all the beams yield
first than the columns. This type of failure mechanism is called global mechanism. It
is obvious that the second mode of failure provides much larger ductility than the
first mode. This can be achieved by designing the beams of the building weaker than
the columns. “Weak beam and strong column design” is the most important concept
of building design.
REFERENCES
1. ACI 352R-02. 2002. Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in
Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures. Detroit, Michigan, American Concrete
Institute.
2. ATC 40, 1996, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Applied
Technology Council, California.
3. Erduran, E., and Yakut, A. 2007. “Vulnerability Assessment of Reinforced Concrete
Moment Resisting Frame Buildings.” Journal of Structural Engineering; American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 133 (4):576-586
4. Eurocode-8. 2004. BS EN 1998-1: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-
Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. Brussels, Belgium,
European Committee for Standardization (CEN).
5. FEMA-356. 2000. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of
Buildings. Washington, DC, U. S. A., Federal Emergency Management Agency.
6. Hegger, J., Sherif, A., and Roeser, W. 2003. “Nonseismic Design of Beam-Column
Joints.” ACI Structural Journal, 100 (5):654-664.
7. IS 13920-1993, Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to
Seismic Forces – Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
8. IS 1893-2002, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures, Part 1 General
Provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
9. IS 4326-1993, Earthquake Resistant Design and Construction of buildings – Code of
practice, Bureau of India Standards, New Delhi.
10. IS 456-2000, Plain and Reinforce Concrete – Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
11. Key, David, 1988, Earthquake Design Practice for Buildings, Thomas Telford,
London.
12. Lehman, D. E., and Moehle, J. P. 2000. Seismic Performance of Well confined
Concrete Bridge Columns, PEER Rep. 98/01 University of California at Berkeley,
Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center.
13. NZS-3101:Part1. 2006. Concrete Structures Standard, Part 1, Design of Concrete
Structures. Wellington, New Zealand, Standards Association of New Zealand.
14. Paulay T., and Priestley, M.J.N., 1992, Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and
Masonry Buildings, John Wiley & sons, Inc., New York.
15. Penelis, George G., and Kappos, Andreas J., 1997, Earthquake Resistant Concrete
Structures, E & FN Spon.