Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
Post on 08-Feb-2018
214 Views
Preview:
Transcript
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
1/10
19 19thNational Convention on Civil Engineering14-16 2557 . 14-16 May 2014, Khon Kaen, THAILAND
1
Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings
between standard and substandard detailing.
1,* 2
1
2
5 3 1)(Gravity Load Designed; GLD) 2)
(Intermediate Ductile Frame; IDF) 3) (SpecialDuctile Frame; SDF)(FiniteElement Model; FEM) SAP2000 (Incremental DynamicAnalysis; IDA) (EquivalentSingle Degree Of Freedom; ESDOF) (Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis; NSP) FEMA P-440a
20
:sap2000, , , -
Abstract
The purpose of this study is aimed to comparisons of seismic capacity
of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard
detailing. Three types of the 5-story dormitory buildings were designed
to create finite element model including 1) Gravity Load Designed
(GLD) building, 2) Intermediate Ductile Frames (IDF), and 3) Special
Ductile Frames (SDF). A computer program SAP2000 was employed as
a means of analysis. To reduce analysis times, Incremental Dynamic
Analysis (IDA) of Equivalent Single Degree Of Freedom (ESDOF) with
Nonlinear Static Pushover (NSP) analysis, were applied according to
FEMA P-440a.In this study, seismic waves were simulated for 20 waves
corresponding to design spectrum of BangkokThailand. The analytical
results showed that buildings with the standard detailing have a capacity
greater thanbuildingssubstandard.
Keywords: sap2000, incremental dynamic analysis, seismic capacity,
beam-column joint detailing
1.
(Nonlinear Static Pushover; NSP) (Nonlinear Dynamic Time History) 2 (Nonlinear Dynamic Time History) * (Corresponding author)
E-mailaddress: nobita_pb@hotmail.com
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
2/10
2
(Nonlinear StaticPushover; NSP) ATC 40[1], FEMA 273 [2] FEMA 356 [3] FEMA 440 [4]
(Nonlinear StaticPushover; NSP) FEMA P440A [5](Nonlinear Static Pushover; NSP) (Nonlinear Dynamic Time History) (Equivalent Single Degree Of Freedom; ESDOF)
3 1) 2) 3)- , , - 5 3
[6-8]
2.
- ACI318-11[9]
- - ACI 318-11[9]
nc nbM M (1)
ncM
nbM
', ( )jh u s s y colV A A f V (2)
sA 'sA
; yf ; colV
( 'sA
) 1
() () () 1
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
3/10
3
2.1 5
2.8 14 14.4 x 32 (Gravity Load)
0.15 , - 1,2 3 2 3 - 0.40 21 (Safe Load) 40 1
1
(GLD)Story Description Dimension reinforcement Stirrup
1-2 C1 0.4x0.3 m. 10-db20 Rb6 mm.@20cm.
3-5 C2 0.4x0.25 m. 8-db16 Rb6 mm.@20cm.
1-4 B1 0.25x0.45 m.6-db16 T
6-db16 BRb6 mm.@20cm.
1-4 B4 0.25x0.45m.4-db16 T
4-db16 BRb6 mm.@20cm.
Roof B8 0.25x0.45m.3-bd16 T
3-db16 BRb6 mm.@20cm.
2 (IDF)
Story Description Dimension reinforcement Stirrup
1-5 C 0.4x0.4 m. 12-db203Rb9@15cm.(H1)
3Rb9@20cm.(H2)
1-4 B1 0.25x0.5 m.5-db20 T
5-db20 B
Rb9@10cm.(L1)
Rb9@15cm.(L2)
1-4 B4 0.25x0.5 m.4-db16 T
4-db16 B
Rb9@10cm.(L1)
Rb9@15cm.(L2)
Roof B8 0.25x0.5m.3-bd16 T
3-db16 B
Rb9@10cm.(L1)
Rb9@15cm.(L2)
3(SDF)
Story Description Dimension reinforcement Stirrup
1-5 C 0.4x0.4 m. 12-db203Rb9@15cm.(H1)
3Rb9@20cm.(H2)
1-4 B1 0.25x0.5 m.4-db20 T
4-db20 B
Rb9@10cm.(L1)
Rb9@15cm.(L2)
1-4 B4 0.25x0.5 m.4-db16 T
4-db16 B
Rb9@10cm.(L1)
Rb9@15cm.(L2)
Roof B8 0.25x0.5m. 3-bd16 T3-db16 B
Rb9@10cm.(L1)
Rb9@15cm.(L2)
2
3
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
4/10
4
2.22.2.1 28 = 240 ./.2 = 2.35e5./.2
= 2,400 ./.22.2.2 SD 40 = 4,600 ./.2 SR 24 = 3,480 ./.2 = 2.04e6 ./.2
Kiattivisanchai[10]ACI 318-11[9]
3. (Lump
Plastic Model)
3.1 Sung et
al.[6] (Moment Rotation; Mb-) (Transform MomentRotation; M
v-)
4
3.2 -- Sung et al.[8]
FEMA 356[3]
'n c jV f A (3)
1 0.75 ; '' 4; 'cf ; jA
-
4 FEMA 356[3]
''
Value of
Interior
Joint withtransverse
Beam
Interior
Jointwithout
transverse
Beam
Exterior
Joint withtransverse
Beam
Exterior
Jointwithout
transverse
Beam
Knee Joint
< 0.003 12 10 8 6 4
0.003 20 15 15 12 8
* '' = volumetric ratio of the horizontal confinement reinforcement in joint.
- Rigid Bar5
5
() () ()
4,
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
5/10
5
/ 2cosstrutP V (4)
cosstrut (5)
strutP ;V; strut ;
;
- jA ; jB
-
0.4EcAg; jC ; jD
; jE
-6
6-
3.3 (
Equivalent diagonal compressive strut) 7 FEMA 273[2]
7
n-0.4
1 col ina = 0.175 h r
(6)
1
4
1
sin 2
4
me in
fe col in
E t
E I h
(7)
meE ; feE ;
colI ;
int
( sR )
(ine
V )
0sin
ine in in f sV l t R (8)
cos /ine s in in sV R l r R (9)
0
1- /s in in
f in in
R r th l
(10)
4.
(Artificial GroundMotion) Chomchuen Boonyapinyo [11] (Intensity EnvelopeFunction) SeismoArtif
SeismoArtif
n n n
n
Z t I(t) A sin( t ) (11)
Z t I(t)
n
A n
P
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
6/10
6
n
(Phase Angle)
I(t)(Trapezoidal Envelope) 8
8 I(t)
20 20 9
9
5. Equivalent Single Degree OfFreedom(ESDOF)
(Incremental Dynamic Analysis, IDA)
Vamvatsikos and Cornell[12]
Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) FEMA P440A [5](Capacity Curve)Equivalent Single Degree Of Freedom(ESDOF) Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) (Capacity Curve)
Equivalent Single Degree Of Freedom(ESDOF) 10
10 EquivalentSingle Degree Of Freedom
EquivalentSingle Degree Of Freedom(; ( 1,5%)Sa T ) (;
max ) 11
11 EquivalentSingle Degree Of Freedom
6. 6.1Nonlinear Static Pushover
. 1302-52[13] 5 (1) (GLD); (2) (IDF); (3)
(SDF)6
I(t)
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
7/10
7
5Story High
(m.)
Total
Weight
(tons)
IDF SDF
Fx
(tons)
Vx
(tons)
Fx
(tons)
Vx
(tons)
5 14 269.97 12.191 12.19 7.62 7.62
4 11.2 513.93 18.567 30.76 11.604 19.22
3 8.4 513.93 13.925 44.68 8.703 27.93
2 5.6 513.93 9.283 53.97 5.802 33.73
1 2.8 513.93 4.642 58.61 2.901 36.63
SUM 2,325.7 58.61 36.63
6 1 GLD 0.71994
IDF 0.65378
SDF 0.65378
(Pushover Curve) 12 3 (Base Shear) (Roof Displacement)
B4 B1 B1 B1 B1
B1 B1 B1
-
2
12 (1 bay)
6.2ESDOF (Incremental
Dynamic Analysis; IDA) (Equivalent Single Degree Of Freedom; ESDOF)
(Nonlinear StaticPushover Analysis; NSP) 12 13, 14 15
13 EquivalentSingle Degree Of Freedom GLD
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
8/10
8
14 EquivalentSingle Degree Of Freedom IDF
15 EquivalentSingle Degree Of Freedom SDF
(Initial Stiffness) IDA ()
(Dynamic Instability)
7. 3 1)
(GLD) 2) (IDF) 3) (SDF)
= 0.003 .1302-52[13]
GLD ,IDF,SDF 19.25%W , 27.82%W
25.92%W W GLD ,IDF ,SDF 0.89%H , 1.24%H 1.49%H 16
2 2
16
3 20 50% 17 , 18 19
17 (16%, 50%84%) GLD
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
9/10
9
18 (16%, 50%84%) IDF
19 (16%, 50%84%) SDF
17, 18, 19
1) (BKK GLD) 5% 0.31g 0.29%0.032 . 32,188.21 .
2) (BKK IDF) 5% 0.448g 0.366% 0.038 . 42,795.52 .
3) (BKKSDF) 5% 0.409g 0.328% 0.034 . 39,923.79 .
., .
[1] ATC. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete BuildingATC-40 Report, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City,
California, 1996
[2] FEMA NEHRP. Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation ofBuilding (FEMA273). and NEHRP Commentary on the
Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Building (FEMA274),
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Washington D.C.,
1997
[3] Federal Emergency Management Agency, Pre-standard andCommentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA-
356, Washington D.C., Building Seismic Safety Council., 2000
[4] FEMA 440. IMPROVEMENT OF NONLINEAR STATICSEISMIC ANALYSIS PROCEDURES. Applied Technology
Council (ATC-55 Project) Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C., 2005
[5] FEMA P440A. Effects of Strength and Stiffness Degradation onSeismic Response. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)., 2009
[6] Sung YC, Liu KY, Su CK, Tsai IC and Chang KC. A Study onPushover Analyses of Reinforced Concrete Columns. Journal of
Structural Engineering and Mechanic, 21(1): 3552.,2005
[7] Akanshu Sharma, G.R. Reddy, K.K. Vaze, R. Eligehausen.Pushover experiment and analysis of a full scale non-seismically
detailed RC structure.Engineering Structures, Vol.46,2013[8] Y.C. Sung, T.K. Lin, C.C. Hsiao, and M.C. Lai, Pushover
analysis of reinforced concrete frames considering shear failure at
beam-column joints. EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND
ENGINEERING VIBRATION, Vol.12, No.3, September, 2013
[9] ACI Committee 318 , Building Code Requirements for StructuralConcrete (ACI 318-11) and Commentary, Farmington Hills,
Michigan, U.S.A., American ConcreteInstitute.,2011
7/22/2019 Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.
10/10
10
[10] Kiattivisanchai, S. Evaluation of Seismic Performance of anExisting Medium-Rise Reinforced Concrete Frame Building in
Bangkok, M.Eng. thesis, Thesis No. ST-01-11, Asian Institute of
Technology, 2001
[11] Prakit Chomchuen and Virote Boonyapinyo, Comparisons ofCurrent Seismic Assessment Methods for Non-Seismic Designed
Reinforced Concrete Bridges, 15th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 24-28 September, Lisbon, Portugal,2012
[12] Dimitrios Vamvatsikos and C. Allin Cornell, SEISMICPERFORMANCE, CAPACITY AND RELIABILITY OF
STRUCTURES AS SEEN THROUGHINCREMENTAL
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS, Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering Stanford University, August 2005
[13] . (. 1302) .,2009
top related