Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.

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: [email protected]


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


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


Roof B8 0.25x0.45m.3-bd16 T


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


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,


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


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)


7/10

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


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


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


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

Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.

Documents

Comparisons of seismic capacity of reinforced concrete buildings between standard and substandard detailing.