Development of A Displacement Based Design Method For Steel Frame - RC Wall, 2007 (Garcia)

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori
Universit degli Studi di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
DEVELOPMENT OF A DISPLACEMENT BASED DESIGN METHOD FOR STEEL FRAME-RC WALL BUILDINGS
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by REYES GARCIA LOPEZ
Supervisor 1: Dr TIMOTHY J. SULLIVAN Supervisor 2: Dr. GAETANO DELLA CORTE May, 2007
The dissertation entitled Development of a Displacement Based Design Method for Steel Frame-RC Wall Buildings, by Reyes Garcia Lopez, has been approved in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Timothy J. Sullivan
Gaetano Della Corte
Abstract
ABSTRACT
In the last years, performance-based seismic design has become an attractive and innovative approach for design of structures. Most of the research, however, has been focused to reinforced concrete (RC) systems and steel systems working independently under seismic attack. By several reasons that will be discussed in subsequent chapters, dual frame-wall systems represent an attractive solution to withstand seismic forces. Additionally, new construction practices that involve the use of RC and steel in a same structural system are emerging as an alternative to the traditional structures. Consequently, dual structures that combine frames steel and RC walls A new direct displacement based (DBD) seismic design procedure for steel frame-RC wall buildings was investigated. The general frame of the DBD seismic design is firstly introduced, to continue with a detailed explanation of the proposed methodology. Within the method, an important step is the estimation of the likely yield drift of the steel frame. A simplified expression that provides an approximate value of the yield drift of steel frames was presented and used due to its simplicity. In order to verify the proposed methodology, a set of five regular buildings with 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 storeys were designed for a PGA of 0.5g using the design spectrum included in the EC8. The five cases study were modelled and subsequently analysed using non-linear time-history analyses. In the analyses, seven artificial records compatible with the displacement design spectrum were used. Maximum displacements and maximum drift demands were obtained and compared with the design values considered at the start of the design process. For the assumptions made in this research, the new DBD method for frame-wall structures has demonstrated to perform reasonably well for the cases study used in the design and evaluation process.
Keywords: displacement based design, steel frame-RC wall buildings, maximum drift demand
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation is the result of many peoples work who, directly or indirectly, have strongly influenced my professional and academic life. Firstly, I really would like to thank my advisor, Dr Tim Sullivan from Buro Happold for his patience and advice. I am pretty sure this work would have not been possible without his help. His encouraging words were a constant motivation during all the research process. I also would like to thank my second advisor, Prof. Gaetano Della Corte from the University of Naples, Italy. His knowledge and corresponding advice in steel design and modelling were invaluable. I also want to thank Prof. Robert Englekirk from the Englekirk Partners Inc., whose advice and help at the early stage of this research were really helpful. A special acknowledgment for the academic and administrative staffs in ROSE School, particularly to Dr Calvi, Dr Pinho, Saverio and Sandra. This work was also possible thanks to my wife, Rebeca. Thanks for your sacrifice and for being with me in the hard moments. Thanks also to my family in Mexico, who gave support during my studies regardless of the distance. I would like to give a special mention to my mentor, Dr Jara Guerrero from the University of Michoacan, Mexico. Thanks to him I was able to hear about the DBD methods and the MEEES Programme. I express my gratitude to the Erasmus Mundus Consortium that provided the funding for my studies and research in Europe. Finally, thanks to God for giving me this opportunity.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................................vii 1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................1 1.1 Generalities of frame-wall structures.........................................................................................1 1.2 Fundamentals of direct displacement-based design...................................................................2 1.3 Current means of performing DBD of frame wall-structures ....................................................6 1.3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................6 1.3.2 Assignment of strength proportions to establish the wall inflection point.......................6 1.3.3 Yield deformation of walls and frames............................................................................8 1.3.4 Design displacement profile.............................................................................................8 1.3.5 Design ductility values, effective period and equivalent viscous damping. ....................9 1.4 Application of the existing frame-wall design procedure to structures with steel frames and RC walls..................................................................................................................................................12 1.4.1 Yield deformation of steel frames..................................................................................12 1.4.2 Equivalent viscous damping in steel frames ..................................................................15 2. DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROPRIATE EXPRESSION FOR THE YIELD DRIFT OF STEEL FRAMES ...17 2.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................17 2.2 Current methods for estimating the yield drift in steel frames.................................................17 2.3 Calibration of the proposed expression to estimate the yield drift...........................................18 2.4 Factors affecting the accuracy of the proposed expression......................................................20 iii
Index
3. PROPOSED DBD METHOD FOR STEEL FRAME-RC WALL STRUCTURES .......................24 4. VERIFICATION OF THE DBD METHODOLOGY .....................................................................27 4.1 Selection of case study structures ............................................................................................27 4.2 Design criteria and main assumptions made in the design ......................................................28 4.3 Summary of case study design results .....................................................................................30 4.4 Non-linear time history analysis verification procedure..........................................................33 4.5 Results of analysis....................................................................................................................35 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ..............................................................................................43 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................45
iv
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1.1. Behaviour of frame-wall structures ..........................................................................2 Figure 1.2. Fundamentals of Direct Displacement Based Design [from Priestley, 2003]..........5 Figure 1.3. Definition of nominal yield curvature using a bi-linear representation of response ...........................................................................................................................................13 Figure 1.4. Relation between plastic modulus and moment of inertia for some groups of AISC [2001] standard W-beams [from Sullivan, 2005] .............................................................14 Figure 2.1. Example of calculation of the yield drift of steel frames to calibrate Equation 2.2 [adapted from FEMA 355C, 2000]...........................................................................................20 Figure 2.2. Accuracy of the Equation 2.2 as a function of the beam length to column height ratio...........................................................................................................................................21 Figure 2.3. Accuracy of the Equation 2.2 as a function of the ratio between beam and column depth..........................................................................................................................................22 Figure 2.4. Accuracy of the Equation 2.2 as a function of the ratio between beam and column inertia........................................................................................................................................22 Figure 3.1. Flowchart of DBD for dual systems [adapted from Sullivan, 2005] .....................26 Figure 4.1. Plan and elevation of frame-wall structures selected for the evaluation................27 Figure 4.2. Design spectrum (left) and displacement design spectrum (right) for 5% of elastic damping.....................................................................................................................................28 Figure 4.3. Displacement design spectrum and artificial accelerograms for 10% of elastic viscous damping (left), and average of artificial accelerograms for 10% of elastic viscous damping (right).........................................................................................................................33
Figure 4.4. Maximum lateral displacements (left) and maximum recorded drifts (right) for the 4 storey structure......................................................................................................................................38 v
Index
Figure 4.5. Average lateral displacements (left) and average recorded drifts (right) compared with target displacements and drifts for the 4 storey structure.................................................................38 Figure 4.6. Maximum lateral displacements (left) and maximum recorded drifts (right) for the 8 storey structure......................................................................................................................................39 Figure 4.7. Average recorded drifts (left) and average lateral displacements (right) compared with target drifts and displacements for the 8 storey structure.................................................................39 Figure 4.8. Maximum lateral displacements (left) and maximum recorded drifts (right) for the 12 storey structure............................................................................................................................40 Figure 4.9. Average recorded drifts (left) and average lateral displacements (right) compared with target drifts and displacements for the 12 storey structure...............................................................40 Figure 4.10. Maximum lateral displacements (left) and maximum recorded drifts (right) for the 16 storey structure............................................................................................................................41 Figure 4.11. Average recorded drifts (left) and average lateral displacements (right) compared with target drifts and displacements for the 16 storey structure...............................................................41 Figure 4.12. Maximum lateral displacements (left) and maximum recorded drifts (right) for the 20 storey structure............................................................................................................................42 Figure 4.13. Average recorded drifts (left) and average lateral displacements (right) compared with target drifts and displacements for the 20 storey structure...............................................................42
vi
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1.1. Z/I values for some AISC W shapes........................................................................15 Table 2.1. Accuracy of Equation 2.2 vs Gupta and Krawinkler expression.............................20 Table 4.1. Characteristics of frame-wall structures ..................................................................30 Table 4.2. Intermediate design results for frame-wall structures..............................................32 Table 4.3. Final design strengths for frame-wall buildings (in kN-m) .....................................33 Table 4.4. First mode elastic viscous damping values for time-history analysis......................35
vii
Chapter 1. Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
During the last decade, seismic design of structures has experienced a revaluation due to the evolution of performance-based design methodologies and the encouraging analytical results given by time-history inelastic analysis. Most of the research has been conducted, however, toward the development and verification of design methods for reinforced concrete (RC), steel moment resisting frames or RC structural walls, whereas less research effort had been directed to the analysis of more complex systems such as combined frame-wall structures. Among the several performance-based seismic design methodologies recently developed, direct displacement-based design (DBD) has demonstrated to be a rational and effective technique to control structural displacements and thus structural damage. Based on the concepts of DBD, Sullivan [2005] has developed an innovative seismic design methodology for RC frame-wall buildings, regular both in plan and elevation. The methodology has been originally developed for RC frame-wall systems. Nevertheless, due to the versatility of the method its recommendations should also be applicable to steel frame-RC wall structures. The main scope of this work is to verify the applicability and effectiveness of the new methodology in terms of control of the storey drifts and maximum storey displacements of buildings with steel frame-RC wall. 1.1 Generalities of frame-wall structures Frame-wall systems (also called hybrid or dual systems) are an attractive solution as earthquake resisting structures which combine the structural advantages of frames and walls. During a seismic attack, frames usually restrain deformation in the upper storeys of the building and possess a large capacity of deformation. Since frames are highly redundant, they can act as a second line of defence in a very strong earthquake in case that walls lose a significant part of their strength and stiffness. On the other hand, walls provide high stiffness to the building, being then suitably to control displacements and drifts in the lower levels of the building. Additionally, due to the intrinsic characteristics of functionality and service, layouts of buildings are usually required to include walls to form stair wells and lift shafts, being convenient to use them also as earthquake resistant members. When acting under seismic attack, an isolated frame system will typically behave in a shear mode with a concave shape [Pettinga and Priestley, 2006], whereas an isolated wall deforms as a vertical cantilever with a convex shape (Figure 1.1). When frames and walls are coupled, the lateral displacements in both structural systems is similar [Paulay and Priestley, 1992].
1
Convex shape
Concave shape
Deformed shape of isolated walls
Deformed shape of isolated frames
Figure 1.1. Behaviour of frame-wall structures
As such, the structural system composed of frames and walls must resist and share the seismic lateral loads and, as a consequence, seismic overturning moments. Paulay and Priestley [1992] found that as the stiffness of the wall increases, the contribution of the walls to resist the overturning moment increases. Furthermore, they found that beyond the midheight of the building the contribution of the walls to resist moment is negligible, and that this contribution depends on the flexibility of the walls. In 1998, Priestley and Kowalsky demonstrated that stiffness and flexural strength are not independent, and instead stiffness is directly proportional to strength. Therefore, as the wall is stiffer, its capacity to resist moment increases. One of the main advantages provided by dual systems is, therefore, that walls give enough lateral stiffness to control displacements and give designer some freedom in the assignment of the frame shear, and can be used to resist most of the lateral load induced by the ground motion to the building. The two systems interact to give an approximate linear displacement shape. As a consequence, sections and amount of steel in beams and columns of dual systems can be smaller compared with those of moment frame buildings, which can represent important savings in economic terms. 1.2 Fundamentals of direct displacement-based design The objective of this section is to establish the fundamentals of the Direct Displacement-based seismic design (DBD) of frame buildings. Some additional particularities concerning its application to frame-wall buildings will be discussed in detail in subsequent sections. The Direct DBD procedure has been developed over the last decade [Priestley, 2003] in recognition of the deficiencies of current force-based seismic approaches. This alternative method utilises the substitute structure approach developed by Shibata and Sozen [1976] and characterises the performance of the structure by a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system at its maximum response. The fundamentals of the method can be seen graphically in Figure 1.2 and the design process is briefly described in the next paragraphs.
The building to be designed is represented by an equivalent SDOF system with effective mass me, and effective height he (Figure 1.2a), and by a secant stiffness Ke, at the maximum displacement d (Figure 1.2b). The maximum or design displacement d can be set by the designer and is commonly defined by setting displaced shape to a design drift d, chosen to ensure acceptable levels of displacement for a given risk event. As it will be seen in subsections 1.3.3 and 1.3.4, the design displacement shape for frame-wall buildings can be calculated by using a series of equations in a straightforward manner. Once the displaced profile of the structure at the maximum displacement is known, then the design displacement d at the effective height he of the equivalent SDOF can be defined using the next expression:
d = mi i2
i =1 N
) (m )
N i =1 i i
(1.1)
Where N is the total number of storeys of the building, mi is the mass of each storey, and i is the design displacement for the storey i. The effective height he, is also a function of the displaced shape of the masses at maximum response, in addition to the storey height hi, and is calculated according to the Equation 1.2.
he = mi i hi
i =1 N
) (m )
N i =1 i i
(1.2)
Where all the terms involved in the equation have been already described in previous paragraphs. To calculate the effective mass of the system me, the participation of the fundamental mode of vibration at maximum response is considered. As such, the effective mass can be estimated with the Equation 1.3.
me = (mi i ) d
i =1 N
(1.3)
Since in the DBD methodology the actual response of the structure is predominately nonlinear, the effect of ductility in the system is through an equivalent viscous damping coefficient SDOF, which includes both elastic and hysteretic damping components, i.e. the total amount of energy absorbed during the seismic response. Recent research [Grant et al, 2005; Blandon and Priestley, 2006] has found, however, that the amount of equivalent viscous damping is also dependant on the effective period of the substitute structure, Te. These two factors affecting the level of equivalent viscous damping will be discussed in detail in the subsection 1.3.5. Presently, it is sufficient to recognise that for the same level of ductility demand, the level of equivalent damping assigned to a steel frame building possessing compact sections is higher than the level of equivalent damping assigned to a RC frame building (Figure 1.2c), as a consequence of the larger capacity to dissipate energy of the steel members during the cyclic response.
As such, the ductility demand of the substitute structure can be calculated with the Equation 1.4. = d y (1.4)
Where is the displacement ductility demand of the equivalent SDOF system, and d and y are the maximum displacement and yield displacement of the equivalent SDOF system, respectively (see Figure 1.2b). The value y is a function of the yield curvature y, which is dependent on the section geometry and material properties of the component members of the original building. Based on the type of structural member to be analysed, Priestley [2003] has proposed the use of the appropriate version of the Equation 1.5 to calculate the approximate yield curvature y. Circular concrete columns Rectangular concrete columns Rectangular concrete walls Symmetrical steel sections Flanged concrete beams
y = 2.25 y D
y = 2.10 y hc y = 2.00 y l w y = 2.10 y hs y = 1.70 y hb
(1.5a) (1.5b) (1.5c) (1.5d) (1.5e)
Where y is the yield strain of the flexural reinforcement, D, hc, lw, hs, and hb are the depths of circular column, rectangular column, rectangular wall, steel shape and flanged concrete beam section, respectively. Paulay [2002] has also found similar equations to approximate the yield curvature of members. Once the yield curvature is known, the yield displacement (or drift) of RC and steel frames can be calculated with relatively simple expressions. Having established the design displacement and mass of the equivalent SDOF system and the corresponding damping expected, for the expected displacement ductility demand, the effective period Te can be read from a displacement spectrum appropriate for the level of equivalent viscous damping (Figure 1.2d). The period T of a SDOF system can be defined in terms of its mass M, and stiffness K, for the next relation:
T = 2
M K
(1.6)
RC walls
Frames
Fd me F d he Fn
rK i
Force
Ke
Vb
(a) Equivalent SDOF system
Displacement
(b) Effective stiffness, K e
5%
60
Elasto-plastic Steel frame Displacement (m)
10% 15% 20% 30%

d
Damping (%)
50 40 30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4
RC frame
Unbonded prestressing
5 6 1 2
Te
3 4
Period (sec) Ductility
(c) Equivalent damping vs. ductility
(d) Design displacement spectra
Figure 1.2. Fundamentals of Direct Displacement Based Design [from Priestley, 2003]
Finally, the design lateral force Fd, equivalent to the design base shear Vb, is given by Equation 1.8. Fd = Vb = K e d (1.8)
The shear force Vb can be distributed over the height of the building as a function of the mass mi, and the design displacement i of each storey. Thus, the corresponding force for the storey i can be defined by
Fi = Vb (mi i )
(m )
i =1 i i
(1.9)
Where all the terms have been defined in preceding paragraphs. This expression is similar to that proposed in a force-based approach. However, the difference is that Equation 1.9 utilises an inelastic displacement profile, rather than a displacement profile proportional to the building height as is done by current force-based approaches. Due to its versatility, the procedure can be applied to any type of structural system. However, to be used in frame-wall structures some additional considerations must be done. These considerations are discussed in the following sections.
5
1.3
Current means of performing DBD of frame wall-structures
1.3.1 Introduction An innovative DBD procedure of dual systems was recently developed by Sullivan [2005], and has proved its effectiveness in terms of controlling the maximum displacements and interstorey drifts in regular RC frame-wall structures. The method starts by assigning strength proportions to frames and walls, and by calculating the inflection height of the wall at which the moment and curvature are zero. Secondly, yield deformation of walls and frames are established to calculate the design displacement profile of the building. After this, the characteristics of the substitute structure are calculated and the design procedure can be carried out. These steps are described thoroughly in the following subsections. 1.3.2 Assignment of strength proportions to establish the wall inflection point In order to develop an accurate SDOF representation of the frame-wall structure, strength proportions are assigned at the start of the procedure. This involves setting the proportion of base shear -or overturning resistance- offered by frames and walls, in addition to the relative strength distribution of yielding elements within the frames. For this purpose, a weak beamstrong column approach is adopted in such a way that yielding is concentrated at the ends of beams and at the base of ground storey columns of frames. Hence, any inelastic activity in the upper storey columns in inhibited. Having established the strength proportions, the shear and moment profile in the walls enable the calculation of the inflection height, from which the design displacement profile will be obtained. The walls are expected to remain elastic in the upper floors through application of suitable of suitable capacity design guidelines, and a plastic hinge action is expected to take place only at the base of the walls. In this way, the shear force acting on the walls is dependent on the strength of the walls, whereas the frame shear is dependent on the strength of the beams. Since the frame storey shear is dependent only on the strengths of the beams up the building height, the wall shears can obtained as the difference between the total shear and the frame shear: Vi,wall Vb = Vi,total Vb Vi, frame Vb (1.10)
where Vb is the total base shear, Vi,wall is the wall shear at level i, Vi,total is the total shear at level i, and Vi,frame is the frame shear at level i. The next step is to calculate the inflection height at the wall. For this purpose, a triangular distribution of the fundamental mode of inertia forces up the height of the building is assumed. With this approximation, the total storey shear can be obtained as a function of the total base shear:
Vi,total Vb
= 1
i (i - 1 ) n (n + 1 )
(1.11)
Where Vi,total is the total shear at level i, Vb is the total shear base, and n is the total number of storeys in the building. As Equation 1.11 provides the distribution of total storey shear up the building height, the only term unknown of Equation 1.10 is the frames storey shear distribution. In order to obtain this shear proportion, the relative strength distribution of yielding elements within the frames is used. As proposed by Paulay [2002], design by using beams of equal strength for the full height of the structure is an attractive solution for design and construction purposes. It is noteworthy, however, that the designer is free to choose any strength distribution that he or she prefers. Assuming that beam moments are carried equally by columns above and below a beamcolumn joint, the frame story shear can be obtained as a function of the beam strength:
Vi, frame = ( M b,i + M b,i -1 ) 2( hi + hi -1 ) =
M
hcol
b,i
(1.12)
Where Vi,frame is the frame shear at level i, Mb,i and Mb,i-1 are the beam strengths at levels i and i-1, hi and hi-1 are the storey heights at levels i and i-1, and hcol is the inter-storey height. It is noteworthy that the last term of the latter equation is only valid for constant beams strengths. Although the beam strengths are not actually known to begin with, Equation 1.12 is useful as indicates that, provided that beams of equal strength are to be used, then the frame storey is constant up the height of the building. Consequently, if 40% of the base shear will be carried by the frames, this 40%Vb will be carried up the entire height of the frame. This recommendation is in line with the findings made by Paulay [2002] who found that for dual systems, allocating a constant shear force up the total height of the frames is convenient in order to obtain similar seismic demands on all the beam members. The shear proportion that the designer sets to be carried by the frames can be substituted into Equation 1.10, and both the wall shear and bending calculated as a function of the design base shear. The storey shear and consequently the moment in the walls are used to establish the inflection height in the walls hinf, where moment and curvature are both zero. This inflection height is used as shown in subsection 1.3.3 to calculate the displacements of the structure at yield of the walls, as well as the design displacement profile y. The strength proportions also allow the calculation of the corresponding overturning proportions that will be resisted by the frames and walls. These overturning proportions can be calculated using the shear profile up the height of the building. The walls shears and bending moments are already known since they were required for estimation of the wall inflection height. As a consequence, the proportion of overturning moment resisted by the wall is the base moment in the walls divided by the total moment associated with the unit base shear. The proportion of overturning moment resisted by the frames is then simply one minus the proportion of overturning resisted by the walls for the unit base shear. These proportions
of overturning moment will be used as shown in subsection 1.3.5 in the process for calculation of the system damping. 1.3.3 Yield deformation of walls and frames The wall yield curvature and displacement at yield are important parameters for the development of the design displacement profile because the walls tend to control the response of the structure. The frame yield displacement (or yield storey drift) is also important to the design process as it is used to provide an indication of the energy absorbed during the hysteretic response of the frame. The yield curvature of the walls can be obtained with the Equation 1.5c, repeated here for didactical purposes.
yWall = 2.00 y l w
Where y is the yield strain of the flexural reinforcement and lw is the wall length.
(1.5c)
The design displacement profile of the structure at yield of the wall y, can then be established using the wall yield curvature, inflection height hinf, and height at the storey of interest hi, in accordance with the appropriate version of Equation 1.13.
iy =
yWall hinf hi
2
2 yWall hinf
, for hi hinf
(1.13a)
iy =
yWall hi2
2
yWall hi3
6hinf
, for hi < hinf
(1.13b)
The yield drift of a RC frame, yFrame, is obtained in accordance with Equation 1.14 [Priestley, 2003].
yFrame =
0.5l b y hb
(1.14)
Where lb is the average beam length, y is the yielding strain of beam longitudinal reinforcement and hb is the depth of the beams at the level of interest. This value is used to calculate the ductility demand and equivalent viscous damping of the frames. It is noteworthy that the latter equation is only applicable to RC frame structures. 1.3.4 Design displacement profile The design displacement profile can be calculated with the Equation 1.15.
yWall h inf i = iy + d 2
h i
(1.15)
Where i is the design displacement for level i, iy is the displacement of level i at yielding of the walls, d is the design storey drift, yWall is the yield curvature of the walls, hinf is the inflection height, and hi is the height at level i. Despite of the fact that the first mode shape tends to control the lateral displacement in a building, higher modes can have an important effect in increasing the displacement in tall structures. The design storey drift can be initially taken as the code limit for non-structural damage. Nevertheless, by considering the results in Sullivan [2005], the code limit drift is reduced to allow for higher mode effects in accordance with Equation 1.16.
d = d ,lim it 1
( N 5) M Frame + 0.25 d ,lim it 100 M Total
(1.16)
Where N is the total number of stories, MFrame is the overturning resistance offered by the frame and MTotal is the total overturning resistance of the structure. The ratio of frame overturning to total overturning moment can be calculated in terms of the base shear as was discussed in previous sections. The design drift d, may be reduced further if it is found that inelastic demands on walls and/or frames are likely to be excessive. Notice that Equation 1.16 effectively acts as a reduction factor for structures having more than five storeys. Once that i is found, the design displacement, effective height and effective mass which characterise the substitute structure can be calculated with Equations 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, respectively. 1.3.5 Design ductility values, effective period and equivalent viscous damping. An important issue in the DBD procedure is the calculation of the equivalent viscous damping. This is mainly a function of the ductility value defined with Equation 2.4, and, according to recent findings by Grant et al [2005] and Blandon and Priestley [2006], the effective period of the substitute structure. In order to use the equivalent viscous damping approach, the ductility demand on the walls should be calculated using the displacement at the effective height. Therefore, the wall ductility displacement demand Wall, can be defined as the design displacement divided by the yield displacement of the walls at the effective height, according to Equation 1.17. Wall = d he, y (1.17)
Where d is the design displacement calculated with the Equation 1.1, and he,y is the yield displacement of the wall at the effective height, obtained substituting the effective height into the appropriate version of Equation 1.13. Note that this expression is in fact Equation 1.4, now adapted to calculate the wall displacement ductility demand. The displacement ductility demand on the frame at each level up the height of the building can be estimated using the storey drifts:
9
i i -1 1 Frame ,i = h h i 1 yFrame i
(1.18)
Where i, i-1 , hi and hi-1 are the displacements and heights at levels i and i-1, respectively, Frame,i is the frame ductility at level i, and yFrame is the yield drift of the frame calculated with the Equation 1.14. If beams of equal strength are used up the height of the structure, the ductility defined by Equation 1.18 for each storey can be averaged to give the frame displacement ductility demand. The system ductility demand is found by taking the average of the frame and wall ductilities weighted by their overturning resistance, as shown in Equation 1.19.
sys =
M Wall Wall + M Frame Frame M Wall + M Frame
(1.19)
Where Mwall and MFrame are the wall and frame overturning resistance, and Wall and Frame are the ductility displacement demands for the wall and frame, respectively. Although the wall ductility demand given by Equation 1.17 is appropriate for estimation of the equivalent viscous damping, it is not an accurate measure of the inelastic deformation that the walls will undergo. A more appropriate parameter is the wall curvature ductility Wall, which can be obtained in accordance with Equation 1.20.
Wall = 1 +
1 L p yWall
yWall hinf d 2
(1.20)
Where Lp is the wall plastic hinge length, d is the design storey drift, yWall is the yield curvature of the walls, hinf is the inflection height. The wall plastic hinge length to be used within Equation 1.21 is taken as the minimum of:
L p = 0.022 f y d b + 0.054 hinf L p = 0.2 Lw + 0.03hinf
(1.21a) (1.21b)
Where fy is the yield stress expressed in MPa, db the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement in the wall (in millimetres), Lw is the wall length and hinf is the inflection height. These two equations have been adapted from [Priestley, 2003] with the inflection height substituting the total height. The curvature ductility capacity of a RC wall will depend on the strain limits selected for the concrete in compression c, and the longitudinal reinforcement in tension s. For reasonably
10
conservative values of c=0.018 and s=0.06, Priestley and Kowalsky [1998] found that the ultimate curvature of a reinforced concrete wall is well represented by:
u =
0.072 Lw
(1.22)
Where u is the ultimate curvature and Lw is the wall length. Combining Equation 1.5c and Equation 1.22, it is found that the curvature ductility capacity is approximately equal to 0.036/y. If the checks on ductility indicate that the inelastic deformation associated with the design drift will be excessive, then the design drift must be reduced and the design displacement profile recomputed as discussed in the previous subsections. If the ductility demands are sustainable, then the next step in the design procedure is to compute equivalent viscous damping values. Equivalent viscous damping has usually been computed as the sum of elastic and hysteretic components [Priestley, 2003]. For RC structures it is commonly assumed that an elastic damping component of 5% critical damping is reasonable. Priestley and Grant [2006] however, have shown that care must be taken to ensure that 5% damping is actually provided taking account of the changing stiffness characteristics of the structure. Recent work by Grant et al [2005], recommends that the hysteretic component of the equivalent viscous damping be computed as a function of the effective period. As this effective period is unknown at the start of the design process, a trial value can be used and an iterative design process adopted. A reasonable estimate for the trial value of the effective period Te,trial, can be obtained from Equation 1.23.
Te ,trial = N 6
sys
(1.23)
Where N is the total number of storeys and sys is the system ductility. Equation 1.23 is similar in form to a code-based equation that uses the height -or number of storeys- to estimate the initial period. The ductility term accounts for the difference between the initial and effective period, neglecting the effect of the strain hardening of steel. Given the nature of Equation 1.23, trial effective period values may be different that the final effective period; however, by using such a trial value, it will be found that convergence is attained within two iterations as maximum. With the trial effective period and expected ductility values established, the frame and wall components of equivalent viscous damping can now be calculated. In their research, Grant et al [2005] have also proposed a series of calibrated equations to calculate the equivalent viscous damping for different hysteretic behaviours. For design purposes, the frame and wall equivalent damping can be obtained by using Equations 1.25 and 1.26, respectively
11
Frame = 5 + 24.9 1
1
0.527 Frame
1 1 + 3.250 (T + 0.761) e ,trial
(1.25)
Wall = 5 + 18.3 1
0.588 Wall
1 1 + 3.607 (T e ,trial + 0.848)
(1.26)
All the above parameters have been defined in previous paragraphs. Once the wall and frame damping components have been obtained, the damping of the equivalent SDOF system can be evaluated with:
SDOF =
M Wall Wall + M O / T ,Frame Frame M Wall + M O / T ,Frame
(1.27)
At this point of the design process, all the characteristics of the substitute structure have been defined. The next step is proceed with the development of the displacement spectrum at the design level damping of the equivalent SDOF given by Equation 2.27, and use it to read (or interpolate) the required effective period as shown in Figure 2.3. The effective period read from the displacement spectrum is then compared with the trial effective period value (Equation 1.23). If the periods do not match, then the period obtained from the displacement spectrum replaces the trial period and the design step is repeated. When trial period finally matches the period read from the displacement spectrum, the effective stiffness and design base shear can be calculated by using Equations 1.7 and 1.8. Finally, having calculated the design base shear, the seismic forces acting at each storey can be calculated and distributed on the height of the building with the help of Equation 1.9. 1.4 Application of the existing frame-wall design procedure to structures with steel frames and RC walls Up to this point, the proposed methodology has been focused only on RC frame-wall systems. Nevertheless, its principles can perfectly be applied to other type of structural component materials, as steel frame-RC wall buildings. Some modifications should be done, however, with regard to the calculation of the yield drift of the steel frames, as well as the estimation of the equivalent viscous damping of the frames. These issues are discussed in the next paragraphs. 1.4.1 Yield deformation of steel frames In order to calculate the yield curvature of a steel I-shape, Paulay [2002] has proposed a similar expression to that proposed by Priestley [2003] (see Equation 1.5d), as a function of the depth of the frame beam:
y = 2.30 y d b
(1.28)
12
Where y is the nominal yield curvature of the steel I-beam, y is the yield strain of the steel and db is the beam depth. For seismic design purposes, the nominal curvature is defined using a bi-linear relation of moment-curvature response as shown in Figure 1.3. Nonetheless, designers must be aware since Sullivan [2005] has found that, even for beams with exactly the same depth but different weight, calculation of yield drift with Equation 1.28 could only provide approximate results. Additionally, he also notes that the strength of typical steel members is changed by changing the section depth. This differs considerably from RC structures, where the member strength can be controlled by the designer just by modifying the amount of longitudinal reinforcing steel, without changing the cross section geometry.
Figure 1.3. Definition of nominal yield curvature using a bi-linear representation of response
As a consequence, in order to use depth-dependent yield curvature (or yield displacement) expressions in displacement-based design, an iterative design approach should be adopted. Since iterative processes are time consuming, Sullivan [2005] has developed an alternative expression that allows the calculation of the yield curvature in a straightforward way. Based in the approach showed in Figure 1.3, it is suggested that the yield curvature be calculated by:
y =
Mn M y Mn = M y EI EI
(1.29)
Where y is the nominal yield curvature, E is the modulus of elasticity of the steel, Mn is the nominal strength, My is the first-yield strength, and I is the moment of inertia of the shape. For seismic design, the nominal strength of a steel frame can be calculated as Mn=Zfy, where Z is the plastic modulus of the section and fy is the yield strength of the steel. Substituting this into Equation 1.29, the yield curvature can be defined as:
y =
Zf n Z = y I EI
(1.30)
Where all the parameters have been defined in precedent paragraphs.
13
An analysis of Figure 1.4 explains the reason why the yield curvature is expressed in terms of the plastic modulus and moment inertia of the shape. Figure 1.4 is a plot of the plastic section modulus versus the moment of inertia for different groups of standard AISC [2001] W-shape sections. It is evident that, for a group of sections with specific depth, the relationship between the plastic modulus and the moment of inertia can be represented by linear trendlines.
1400
1200
W14 W18 W16
Plastic Modulus, Z (in3)
1000
800 600
W21 W24 W30
400 200
W27 W33
0 0 5000 10000 15000

4
20000
Moment of Inertia, I (in )
Figure 1.4. Relation between plastic modulus and moment of inertia for some groups of AISC [2001] standard W-beams [from Sullivan, 2005]
As can be seen, the relationship between Z and I for a given set of beam shapes is linear; therefore, from Equation 1.30 it can be inferred that the nominal yield curvature for each group of sections is rather constant. Notice how these values of nominal yield curvature are constant despite the changes in section depth. Table 1.1 presents the trendline values for Z/I obtained for the different groups of AISC [2001] W-beam sections. In order to optimise the design in terms of amount of steel required to build the structure, some experience in design of steel frames could be required to propose, at the start of the process, the beam and column groups to be used in the design. This experience, however, can be easily achieved once the designer is familiar with the method. Even more, the beam shape group can be initially calculated based on a control of maximum gravitational deflections, checking subsequently whether or not the selected shape group satisfies the earthquake demands. For design purposes, therefore, the engineer should select a beam group at the start of the design procedure. The appropriate value of Z/I can then be multiplied by the yield strain of the steel to give the nominal yield curvature of the frame element being considered (Equation 1.30). For beam and column groups not listed in Table 1.1, the designer can obtain their own values for Z/I using the property tables provided by AISC [2001], or the local steel supplier.
14
Table 1.1. Z/I values for some AISC W shapes.
W-shape group W12 W14 W16 W18 W21 W24 W27 W30 W33 W36
Z/I (in-1) 0.157 0.140 0.136 0.119 0.103 0.087 0.077 0.066 0.072 0.060
Z/I (m-1) 6.19 5.52 5.36 4.67 4.04 3.44 3.04 2.58 2.82 2.35
The yield drift of a steel frame, ySteelFrame, can then be estimated using Equation 1.31 [Sullivan, 2005], where Lb is the beam length and hcol is the column height. y,beam and y,col are the beam and column nominal yield curvature respectively, obtained using Equation 1.30 and the Z/I values appropriate for the beam and column group being considered.
ySteelFrame =
y,beam Lb + y,col hcol

6
(1.31)
By using the full yield curvature of the columns in Equation 1.31 in addition to the beam and column lengths between centrelines, some allowance is made for deformations in the panel zone and shear deformations along the member lengths. Calibration of Equation 1.31 has not been done against full-size experimental tests or analytical results, and this will be undertaken in detail in Chapter 2. Finally, the beam and column sections that will provide the necessary strength can then be selected from the steel section groups chosen at the start of the design procedure. One significant advantage of the method proposed by Sullivan [2005], is that exact section dimensions do not need to be known at the start of the design process, and therefore an iterative design is avoided. 1.4.2 Equivalent viscous damping in steel frames In order to obtain the equivalent viscous damping of the steel frames, the ductility displacement demand on the frames can be estimated using the design displacement profile and the yield displacement calculated with Equation 1.31. For a structural member with bi-linear hysteretic behaviour, the equivalent viscous damping can be estimated with enough accuracy by Equation 1.32 [Grant et al, 2005], which is adopted in the method for use with steel frames.
15
SteelFrame = 5 + 16.1 1
1
0.952 Frame
1 2.648 1 + (T e ,trial + 0.945)
(1.32)
Where SteelFrame is the equivalent viscous of the steel frame, Frame is the frame ductility demand, and Te,trial is the effective trial period calculated with the Equation 1.23. The substitution of Equations 1.14 and 1.25 by Equations 1.31 and 1.32 in the design process permits the application of the methodology described in Section 1.3 for the calculation of dual structures possessing steel frames and RC walls.
16
Chapter 2. Development of an Appropriate Expression for the Yield Drift of Steel Frames
2. DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROPRIATE EXPRESSION FOR THE YIELD DRIFT OF STEEL FRAMES

2.1 Introduction As was discussed in subsection 1.4.1, the proposed expression to calculate the yield drift of steel frames (Equation 1.31) has not been calibrated against other tests or analytical findings. In order to be used in the proposed DBD design methodology, a sufficiently accurate calculation of the yield drift and displacement is essential, since the ductility demand, the equivalent viscous damping of the steel frame and consequently the design base shear are dependant on this value. The objective of this chapter, therefore, is the development of a calibrated expression appropriate for design purposes. 2.2 Current methods for estimating the yield drift in steel frames In recent years, the calculation of the drift demand of a moment resisting steel frame has received particular attention by the scientific community. Particularly, after the widespread destruction generated in steel structures by the Northdridge earthquake, many research has been focused to the estimation of seismic drift demands [FEMA, 1997; Gupta and Krawinkler, 2000a]. A more recent research has studied the relationship between story drift demand and element plastic deformation demands [Gupta and Krawinkler, 2002]. By using a series of code compliant regular moment resisting frames, the authors propose a straightforward methodology to estimate the total storey drift demand based on the storey yield drift calculated with the weakest element in a connection (beams and panel zones). To estimate the demand, the method utilises the storey geometry and member properties that consider the beam and panel zone plastic deformation demands. By using a series of expressions that consider explicitly the drift components of beams b, columns c, and panel zones pz, to the total yield drift of the building, the total yield drift of a regular steel frame can be estimated with enough accuracy y using Equation 2.1.
y,G & K =
+ c + pz ) h
(2.1)
One of the main assumptions made in the calculation of the yield drift is that the column behaves elastically. The storey yield drift is only associated with yielding in beams and panel
17
zones, so that the columns are protected against plastic hinging. Additionally, the effect of gravity load in yielding of beams and panel zones is neglected, which is considered as acceptable in high seismic areas. Another important simplification is that a midpoint inflection points is considered in the model used to develop their equation, which is a reasonable assumption provided that structure is regular in storey stiffness. This assumption, however, is not always valid particularly for the lowermost storey of a building. In the model used to develop the procedure, beam plastification is considered to occur at the column face. This is not always the case because new connections after the Northdridge earthquake have been developed in order to locate and force the plastic hinge to form far from the column [FEMA 350, 2000]. Fortunately, connections such as those formed with reduced beam sections (RBS) or connections with cover plates can be considered in the expression proposed by Gupta and Krawinkler by amplifying the beam plastic moment. Furthermore, it is also possible to consider the case when different beam shapes are framing in the connection which can be useful when height limitations exist. Since the expression considers as weak member only beams and panel zones, a column hinging case is seen as improbable. However, it is evident that the slab can contribute significantly to the beam strength. If the bending strength of the beam is underestimated in the design, undesirable plastic hinging can occur in columns. In this case, the expression ignores the influence of the concrete slab. Other aspects as partitions walls or secondary girders are also disregarded. 2.3 Calibration of the proposed expression to estimate the yield drift In order to obtain an adequate expression to calculate the yield drift of steel frame buildings, the calibration of Equation 1.31 should be ideally made using experimental results of full-size steel frame tests. Nonetheless, most of current research on steel frames is done with scaled models which use small steel shapes which are not included in steel tables. Even more, it was found that the scientific community tends to direct its attention toward other structural alternatives, such as braced systems. Therefore, due to the lack of reliable results, in this work the calibration of Equation 1.31 was done using analytical results of a series of push-over curves, obtained for the set of model buildings of the SAC Joint Venture programme [FEMA 355C, 2000]. The structures possess 3, 9 and 20 storeys and are located in three different seismic regions of the United States, so that 9 push-over curves are available. The characteristics of the buildings as well as the assumptions made for modelling can be consulted elsewhere [FEMA 355C, 2000]. The push-over curves were idealised by a bi-linear relation representative of the initial elastic stiffness and the nominal strength of the structure. The yield displacement was then estimated graphically as the point where the elastic stiffness intersected the nominal strength. An example of this calculation is presented in Figure 2.1, where the push-over curve and the corresponding bi-linear idealisation are plotted. In this case, the push-over curve corresponds to a 3-storey steel frame located in Seattle, USA [FEMA 355C, 2000]. Since a beam yield mechanism is selected in the proposed methodology, the portion of yield drift of the beam that contributes to the total yield drift of the frame is known. In contrast,
18
other contributions which are not actually known can be included in the contribution of the column to the total yield drift. Due to this fact, any modification should be done to the column component of the Equation 1.31 since the contribution of the column is not known at this stage. Based on the column and beam sections reported in the study, the yield drift of each steel frame was estimated by using Equation 1.31. It was found that results given by Equation 1.31 were slightly larger compared with those from the push-over curves. Hence, to match the results between the yield drift from the push-over curves and the yield drift from Equation 1.31, the contribution of the column to the total yield drift was modified by a factor of 0.9. After this modification, the form of the expression to calculate the total yield drift of a steel frame is that given by Equation 2.2.
ySteelFrame =
y,beam Lb + 0.9( y,col hcol )

6
(2.2)
It is reminded that the yield curvature of beam and column should be calculated with the Equation 1.30 and the appropriate Z/I values according to the Table 1.1. Due to the format of the Equation 2.2, it is important to note that the calibration could depend on the code used for design. Since the yield drift of the column is dependent on the nominal strength acting on the column, this strength is then affected by the capacity design approach adopted for design. Furthermore, the factors used for capacity-based design are different from one code to another and, as a consequence, different proportions of yield curvature could be appropriate depending on the code used for design. Therefore, the reducing factor affecting the contribution of the column to the yield drift could be different to the 0.9 proposed in this work.
0.4
Bi-linear idealisation
Normalised base shear (V/N)
0.3
Push-over curve
0.2
0.1
Building yield drift, y

0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
Roof drift angle
Figure 2.1. Example of calculation of the yield drift of steel frames to calibrate Equation 2.2 [adapted from FEMA 355C, 2000]
19
2.4 Factors affecting the accuracy of the proposed expression In Section 2.2 the proposed expression to calculate the yield drift of a steel frame has been calibrated considering only the push-over curves of nine steel frames, and ignoring therefore possible changes both in the building dimensions and in the beam and column members. The accuracy of Equation 2.2 in relation with other expressions which are considered to give results closer to the actual values is therefore studied in this section. Additional factors that could influence the results of the expression, such as frame geometry, depth of beams and columns, and moment of inertia of steel members, are also studied. For comparative purposes and with the aim of evaluating the accuracy of Equation 2.2, the yield drift of three 10-storey steel frames studied by Gupta and Krawinkler [2002] is calculated with Equation 2.2. The frames possess constant storey height of 3.6 m and bay length of 9.0 m. Steel Grade 50 is used for the columns, and Grade 36 is used for the beams. The results of such comparison are shown in Table 2.1. Based on the results of the Table 2.1, it can be concluded that results of yield drift given by Equation 2.2 are not far from those given by Equation 2.1 proposed by Gupta and Krawinkler.
Table 2.1. Accuracy of Equation 2.2 vs Gupta and Krawinkler expression.
Building 1 2 3
Beams (inlb/ft) W36150 W3099 W2784
Columns (inlb/ft) W14500 W14283 W14257
y,G&K 0.0093 0.0101 0.0106
y,Equation 2.1 0.0095 0.0099 0.0108
It is recognised that the expressions suggested by Gupta and Krawinkler provide a result closer to the actual value of the yield drift and, as such, it is also recognised the Equation 2.2 gives only an approximate estimation of the yield drift. To investigate the factors that mainly influence the accuracy of Equation 2.2, some geometric parameters as span length to storey height ratio, beam to column depths ratio, and beam to column inertia ratio are modified in the set of steel frames studied in Table 2.1. The results are discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. Figure 2.2 presents results about the accuracy of Equation 2.2 as a function of the beam length and the storey height (Lb/hcol) ratio. All the other geometrical parameters are kept constant in the calculation process. The vertical axis of Figure 2.2 presents the ratio between the yield drift obtained from Equation 2.2 and the yield drift calculated with Equation 2.1. The value of the Lb/hcol ratio is varied from 1 to 4. In real structures considered as typical cases, this relationship commonly varies from 2 to 3 which implies that the bay length is 2 to 3 times greater than the storey height. The average results of the three studied frames indicate that Equation 2.2 marginally overestimates the yield drift as the value of Lb/hcol tends to be smaller, whereas the yield drift is underestimated as the value Lb/hcol tends to larger values. Note also that for typical values of Lb/hcol going from 2 to 3, the yield drift calculated by both equations is quite similar. As a consequence of the small influence of the Lb/hcol relationship in the calculation of the yield
20
drift, it is considered that Equation 2.2 can be used with confidence in the range of beam length to column height ratios commonly used in actual structures.
2 1.75
y,Equation (2.2) /y,G&K
1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3 Avg
L b /h col
Figure 2.2. Accuracy of the Equation 2.2 as a function of the beam length to column height ratio
The accuracy of Equation 2.2 in calculation of the yield drift of steel frames was also evaluated as a function of the beam depth to column depth ratio db/dcol, and as a function of the relationship between beam Ib, to column inertia Icol. For this evaluation, a series of real steel shapes taken from the AISC tables are used, combining the section properties of possible solutions for beams and columns shapes. In this case it is not possible to set constant all the values because in symmetrical I-shaped sections the value of the plastic modulus is always directly proportional to the inertia. For steel sections which are symmetrical about their major axis, the plastic and elastic neutral axis coincide, and therefore the inertia and plastic modulus of an I-shape section are related by Equation 2.3.
hs I = 2 Z
(2.3)
Where hs is the depth of the steel shape, and I and Z are the corresponding moment of inertia and section modulus. As a result, in this evaluation both the plastic modulus and moment of inertia are modified. When designing a steel frame subjected to seismic loads, it is unlikely that only the beam section be required to change without changing also the column section, generating thus that the inertia of the columns increases or decreases proportionally to the inertia of the beams. Based on this, it is considered that the actual relationship between beam and column inertia is likely to be between 1 and 2. The results of the calculations are presented in Figures 2.3 and 2.4. It was decided to vary the value db/dcol from 1 to 3 because in actual steel buildings this ratio is commonly between 1 and 2. Analysing Figure 2.3, it can be noticed that the best match is obtained for a db/dcol ratio close to 1.3, where the average results yielded by Equations 2.1 and 2.2 are practically the same. For ratios db/dcol larger than 1.5, the actual yield drift is underestimated, implying
21
therefore that results between Equations 2.1 and 2.2 diverge significantly as the ratio db/dcol is considerably far from a value of 1.5.
2 1.75
y, Eq. (2.2) /y,G&K
1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
d b /d col
Figure 2.3. Accuracy of the Equation 2.2 as a function of the ratio between beam and column depths
Finally, in Figure 2.4, Equation 2.2 is evaluated as a function of the relationship between beam Ib, to column inertia Icol. The average results from Figure 2.4 follow a similar tendency to those of Figure 2.3, and indicate that Equation 2.2 provides accurate values of yield drift when the Ib/Icol relationship is between 0.5 and 1.0, where most of the results are located. Values of Ib/Icol from 0.5 to 1.0 are not atypical in actual steel frames and therefore Equation 2.2 can be used with relatively good confidence between these ranges.
2 1.75
y, Eq. (2.2) /y,G&K
1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
I b /I col
Figure 2.4. Accuracy of the Equation 2.2 as a function of the ratio between beam and column inertia
Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show a large scatter in the calculation of the yield drift of a steel frame by using Equation 2.2 in comparison with the expression suggested by Gupta and Krawinkler.
22
Differences of around 50% are important and can have a significant impact in the design process. The results yielded by the plots allow an insight on the main factors affecting the accuracy of the proposed expression. Whereas the ratio of the beam length and the storey height (Lb/hcol) seems to have little influence on the process, the beam to column depth ratio (db/dcol) and beam to column inertia (Ib/Icol) have an important influence on the results. Considering the limits of this investigation and the small number of structures studied, Equation 2.2 used in conjunction with the values of Z/I included in Table 1.1 can lead to reasonable estimates of the yield drift of moment steel frames. Factors affecting the accuracy of Equation 2.2 as such studied in this section impact in a significant manner the results only for cases seen as uncommon. An uncommon case, for instance, could be the use of large depth steel beams combined with small depth columns (or vice versa) that will surely produce unreal estimates of the yield drift. These extreme cases should be then avoided for the designer if he or she wishes to use Equation 2.2. It is important to recognise that the expression proposed by Gupta and Krawinkler (Equation 2.1) represents an attractive approach to estimate the yield drift of a steel moment frame. With the proper calibration, it is thought that Equation 2.2 can also provide a good estimate of the yield drift value of that type of structures. The small number of study cases used in the calibration of Equation 2.2 and the use of push-over curves to assist the calibration can be considered as a possible limitation of this research. Nevertheless, by carrying an appropriate calibration process based on results coming from full-scale tests of steel frames, it is expected that both equations can provide satisfactory results. As such, the designer can select the approach that he or she prefers to estimate the yield drift of a frame, provided that the study case is congruent with the assumptions made in the development of the selected approach. Consequently and considering its simplicity, in this work will be used the Equation 2.2 for the evaluation of the yield drift of steel frames.
23
Chapter 3. Proposed DBD Method for Steel Frame-RC Wall Structures
3. PROPOSED DBD METHOD FOR STEEL FRAME-RC WALL STRUCTURES

The proposed DBD method to design RC dual systems has been thoroughly discussed in Chapter 1. With the aim of applying the current method to structures formed with steel frames and RC walls, some additional modifications were introduced in Section 1.4. In this chapter, a synthesis of the method is briefly presented. The flowchart of the proposed methodology by Sullivan [2005] is presented in Figure 3.1. The first steps in the method deals with the substitution of the original building by the equivalent SDOF system required to implement DBD seismic design. This is achieved by assigning strength proportions to walls and frames, and subsequently using the moment profile in the walls to establish a displacement shape. Additionally, a steel beam group must be selected from charts, based on the designers experience and/or maximum allowed deflection under gravity loads. The second steps are aimed to determine the required effective period of the equivalent SDOF system and its corresponding effective stiffness. The design base shear is then obtained by multiplying the necessary effective stiffness by the design displacement. Finally, the strength of individual structural elements is set taking care to ensure that initial strength assignments are maintained. It is noteworthy that in this work the procedure described in Figure 3.1 is carried out up to the steps before the capacity-based design of members that will be protected against premature failure, since the interest is mainly focused on the effectiveness of the proposed DBD methodology in control the maximum displacements and inter-storey drifts. The design procedure can be optimised to achieve the lowest possible design base shear by altering the strength proportions for given storey drift and curvature ductility limits. The lowest design base shear will occur when the design drift and the curvature ductility design drift are both at their maximum values. In the proposed procedure, the designer is free to assign any value of inflection height by changing the relative strengths of the frames and walls. For a given design drift, if the designer uses a large value of inflection height it may be that the curvature ductility capacity of the walls is not fully utilised. Hence, the designer could opt by increasing the proportion of overturning moment resisted by the frames to reduce the inflection height and increase the value of the curvature ductility demand in the walls. Alternatively, if the designer uses a low value of inflection height, the curvature ductility in the walls can go beyond reasonable limits.
24
In this case, the designer should reduce the value of design storey drift to maintain a curvature ductility limit. The inflection height is dependent on the frame and wall strength proportions. Based on the results of his research, Sullivan [2005] found that the required frame strength is relatively independent of the number of storeys of the building. This means that, for a given value of inflection height, the strength proportions carried by walls and frames is relatively constant, being only slightly dependent on the total height of the structure. In order to assist in the design procedure, Sullivan [2005] also provides a series of graphics that can be easily used to assist in the selection of the appropriate inflection height for a given ductility curvature limit. In his work it is also provided a plot that can be useful to select the proportion of base shear to be carried by the frame as a function of the total base shear. The designer can then select the inflection height of the wall and estimate the frame strength proportion associated to that inflection height, or set the frame strength proportion and calculate the inflection height. It should be recognised that, in general, it is difficult to maximise design drift and curvature ductility limit both at the same time. Some restrictions as maximum reinforcement contents or dimensional limitations can influence the design choices, forcing the designer to propose solutions that are not necessarily optimal. The designer should then use his or her criteria and assign strength proportions and curvature ductility demands to achieve the most desirable design solutions. Furthermore, the design solution can be influenced by more aspects than the purely structural. As it will be discussed in Section 4.3, the economic feature is also important and influences the assignment of strength proportions, having therefore an important impact on the final choice.
25
Assign strength proportions to frames and walls
Select a beam group from steel tables or charts Determine yield displacements of RC walls and yield drift of steel frames
Determine RC wall inflection height, h inf
Calculate design displacement profile
Reduce drift limit. YES
Determine effective height, he, effective mass, me , and design displacement, d
Calculate the ductility demands on steel frames and RC walls. Are ductility demands excessive? NO Choose a trial effective period, Te Determine equivalent viscous damping values for steel frames and RC walls Reset Te,trial = Te
Use proportions of overturning moment resisted by the steel frames and RC walls to factor damping values and obtain an equivalent system damping value sys
NO
Plot displacement spectra at system damping level and use design displacement to obtain required effective period, Te . Check if Te = Te,trial YES Determine effective stiffness, Ke, and design base shear, Vb = Ke d
Obtain beam and column strengths by factoring strength proportions by shear base.
Distribute base shear up the height in proportion to displacement of masses. Substract frame shears from total shears to obtain wall shears and thereby moments.
Perform capacity design with allowance for higher mode effects to obtain strengths in non-yielding elements, and design shears in frames and walls
Figure 3.2. Flowchart of DBD for dual systems [adapted from Sullivan, 2005]
26
Chapter 4. Verification of the DBD Methodology
4. VERIFICATION OF THE DBD METHODOLOGY

4.1 Selection of case study structures Five buildings with 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 storey are selected for verification of the proposed methodology. The structures have a regular layout both in plan and elevation, and their general characteristics are presented in Figure 4.1. The earthquake lateral resistant system is formed by two RC walls and two lateral steel frames in each orthogonal direction. The storey height is constant over the building and equal to 4 m (157 in), whereas the bay length is 8 m (315 in). The length of each wall is equal to 4 m (157 in) for the 4 storey building, 6 m (236 in) for the 8 and 12 storey structures, and 8 m (315 in) for the 16 and 20 storey buildings; the wall thickness is equal to 0.35 m (14 in). Notice that the proposed layout tries to reflect an authentic case by including areas for shafts, stairs, etc.
Figure 4.4. Plan and elevation of frame-wall structures selected for the evaluation.
The lateral seismic force is considered to act parallel to the short dimension of the building. Additional beams are considered as vertical load carrying members, connected to the walls and steel frames in a way that only vertical shear load can be transferred. It is assumed that a series of composite steel decks act as a rigid diaphragm in the horizontal direction at each level. Additionally, the foundations were considered as fixed.
27
4.2 Design criteria and main assumptions made in the design The design spectrum selected for the DBD corresponds to the spectrum type 1 and soil type C according to the EC8 [CEN, 2003]. The level of ground acceleration used for design is 0.5g. In Figure 4.2 it can be seen the acceleration and displacement design spectra for a 5% of elastic damping, in accordance with the parameters given by the Eurocode EC8. The displacement design spectrum was developed using the relation between the acceleration and displacement, sD=(T/2)2 sA. Although it is accepted that at high periods the spectral displacements can be considered as independent on the period value, in this work it is decided to simply extrapolate the initial linear spectrum without applying a cut-off period. The concrete and reinforcement properties considered for the structures are, for concrete fc=30 MPa (4.35 ksi) and Ec=25740 MPa (3730 ksi), while for reinforcement fy=400 MPa (58 ksi) and Es=200000 MPa (29000 ksi). Note that these are expected values of strength and stiffness, and therefore are not factored.
1.6 1.4 2 1.8
Spectral displacement (m)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Spectral acceleration (g)
1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Period (s)
Period (s)
Figure 4.5. Design spectrum (left) and displacement design spectrum (right) for 5% of elastic damping
The seismic weight of the concrete deck was calculated considering a concrete density of 24.5 kN/m3 (156 lb/ft3) and a slab thickness of 200 mm (8 in). A super-imposed dead load of 1 kPa (20.8 lb/ft2), a reduced live-load of 1 kPa and a loaded floor area of 982 m2 (10565 ft2) at each level are also considered. Since the proposed procedure requires the spectral values for levels of viscous damping larger than 5%, these values are obtained by using the damping correction factor, , suggested by the EC8, in accordance with Equation 4.1.
10 0.55 (5 + )
(4.1)
The initial storey drift selected for design purposes was 2.5%. This limit intends to control damage of non-structural elements in the building. Damage to structural items was controlled by imposing strain limits on the concrete and reinforcing steel. Ultimate compressive strains of 0.018 for the concrete and 0.06 for the reinforcing steel were deemed appropriate for these case studies. Priestley and Kowalsky [1998] have argued that these strain limits are
28
reasonably conservative estimates for well-confined concrete and well-restrained reinforcement such as provided using the detailing requirements of NZS3101 [1995]. They have also observed that the ultimate curvature ductility of a wall, , is well represented by Equation 4.2, in which y is the yield strain of the wall longitudinal reinforcement.
0.072 2 y
(4.2)
For the material properties used in the analysis, Equation 4.2 suggested that the curvature ductility of the walls should be limited to a value of 18.0 [Sullivan, 2005]. Yield strain limit in the steel beams and columns was set 0.002. This value is considered unlikely to be exceeded since it is expected than the frames will undergo little inelastic activity. In application of the DBD methodology, the design drift was reduced from the limit of 2.5% in order to control the deformations caused by higher mode effects. Sullivan [2005] has found that despite the fact that the fundamental mode controls the response of these structures, higher modes can increase storey drifts significantly. To account for this effect therefore, the design storey drift has been reduced in accordance with Equation 1.16 presented in Chapter 1. The strength assignment is a critical step in the proposed methodology since it controls the wall inflection height. If a large proportion of shear is to be carried by the frame, the inflection height will likely be low and this will impose a large curvature ductility demand onto the walls. If the demand is excessive, then the design storey drift should be reduced, or a larger strength proportion assigned to the walls. In contrast, if a large proportion of shear is assigned to the walls, the reinforcing steel ratio in the walls could be large, and the steel members of the frame would be quite small. For each of the case study structures, steel beams with equal strength are selected and assigned over the height of the building. In his research, Sullivan [2005] assigns a roof storey beam with half strength of that for other storeys in order to avoid spikes in frame storey shear at the top level. The base column strengths are set to be larger than the beam strengths to provide an inflection height of 0.66 times the storey height. In such a way, some protection is provided against possible formation of a plastic hinge at the top of the columns, which is necessary in frame structures to avoid a soft storey mechanism. It has been argued however, that this provision is not required in frame wall structures since walls will protect against the soft story mechanism. In some countries, current seismic codes allow for some yielding in the panel zone of steel frames in order to dissipate energy. The deformation experienced within the joint clearly contributes to frame deflection and inter-storey drift, but it is not easy to take into account analytically [Englekirk, 1994]. In order to restrict the contribution of the panel zone to the yield drift of the frame, doubler plates are welded to panel zones to achieve an elastic behaviour in that zone, so that the joint does not have any influence on the frame drift. Since in this work only a beam sway mechanism is considered for all case studies, it will be assumed that all steel frames possess panel zones reinforced with doubler plates perfectly
29
welded to beams and columns in the joint zone, and that the panel zone has only a limited contribution to the lateral deformation of the frame. The selection of a beam section group was initially done by considering deflection control criteria due to gravity loads. Typically, a beam length to beam depth ratio of 19 (in inches) is considered as adequate to satisfy deflections constraints imposed by some codes. Nevertheless, this value is greatly dependent on the code selected for design and its corresponding constraints. Furthermore, since the beam to depth ratio is only a rough approximation for the beam size and does not have a direct influence on the design methodology, the designer is free to choose the ratio that he or she considers more appropriate. For the case study structures considered in this work, a beam length to depth ratio of 15 is adopted. Hence, for a 8 m (315 in) bay length, a first trial with a W21 (21 inches) depth beam would be adequate. Initial column sections are selected based on the fact that columns in modern medium rise steel buildings are commonly built with W14 shapes. Furthermore, the wide availability of W14 shapes and plastic section modulus, Z, included in this shape group make them appropriate to be used as column sections. 4.3 Summary of case study design results The general characteristics of the structures are shown in Table 4.1. The dimensions of bays and the properties of the group shapes selected for design are within the ranges explored in Chapter 3 where the calibration of Equation 2.2 was carried out. Hence, Equation 2.2 can be used with relative confidence to estimate the yield drift of the steel frames. The axial load ratios were computed using the floor weights factored by the tributary area of floor supported by the individual element, wall or column. Wall axial load ratio is calculated at the ground level by using the formula N/Agfc for the RC walls, and N/Agfy for the steel columns.
Table 4.1. Characteristics of frame-wall structures
4 storey 8 storey 12 storey 16 storey 20 storey Wall length (m) Wall thickness (m) Inter-storey height (m) W-Beam depth (inlb/ft) Interior W-columns depth (inlb/ft) Exterior W-columns depth (inlb/ft) Wall axial load ratio Interior columns axial load ratio Exterior columns axial load ratio Floor seismic weight (kN) 4.0 0.35 4.0 2144 14109 1461 0.033 0.035 0.033 7250 6.0 0.35 4.0 2168 14176 1490 0.053 0.044 0.044 7250 6.0 0.35 4.0 2162 14159 1482 0.085 0.073 0.073 7250 8.0 0.35 4.0 2162 14176 1490 0.098 0.088 0.088 7250 8.0 0.35 4.0 2183 14211 14109 0.142 0.091 0.091 7250
30
Intermediate design results can be seen in the Table 4.2. Proportions of shear carried by walls and frames are assigned in accordance with the optimisation process suggested by Sullivan [2005], described previously in Chapter 3. Additionally, because structural steel can increase significantly the cost of an engineering project, an effort in reducing the weight of the steel sections required in the DBD design of the structure was also done. This fact highlights one advantage of the proposed DBD method: by assigning the strength proportions at the start of the design process it is possible to control not only the amount of seismic moment carried by walls and frames, but also (and directly) the cost of the structure. This economical issue is particularly significant in those countries where the price of structural steel is an important factor. By considering the design results for a given structure, a designer could, for instance, decide to decrease the depth of beams and columns to make the walls more effective at resisting lateral loads; yet, this would demand an increase in the amount of concrete and/or steel in the wall. In contrast, if the longitudinal reinforcing ratio in the wall is excessive, the designer could opt to increase the beam and column sections. Notice how the frame yield drift is equal for all the buildings due to the fact that W21 beam and W14 column groups were selected as initial trial sections. Additionally, note that the design storey drift was not reduced in the 4 storey building since this case study has less than six storeys; hence, Equation 1.16 does not modify the design storey drift originally selected for design. Nevertheless, the design drift was effectively reduced in the other case studies to consider the higher mode effects. For all the study cases, the wall curvature ductility ( Wall ) is limited to values of less than 18. It is important to note that, for a design drift of 2.5% which is around the largest acceptable storey drift limit for life safety events in some seismic codes, the average frame ductility, Frame, is only slightly larger than 1.0 for all the case studies. Since the structures are designed to remain almost elastic in the DBD procedure, little inelastic activity in the steel frames can be expected to occur. If low ductility demands are likely to occur in the frames, then the amount of detailing in connections will not be stringent. Nevertheless, the designer should keep in mind that the frame ductility demand should match a demand level associated with an appropriate capacity design, which is commonly related to a capacity design earthquake or maximum credible earthquake. Hence, the level of ductility capacity must be significantly larger than that provided by the limit state initially considered in the DBD procedure. Additionally, notice that the values of wall ductility are significantly larger compared with those from frames. Because frames and walls must maintain displacement compatibility, this implies that frames will undergo low ductility demand even for large values of wall ductility demands and inelastic deformations. From these points, it seems that any effort to provide steel frames with a large inelastic capacity should be avoided. Hence, if the ductility requirements are not very stringent, detailing in steel connections can be reduced, for instance, from a high structural ductility class (DCH) to a level of intermediate ductility class (DCM). Furthermore, in terms of force based design, this would suggest that the ductility dependent reduction factors suggested by the codes could be relatively smaller than those currently included. This, in turn, is in line with the findings made by Paulay [2002] in framewall structures.
31
It is interesting that the average frame ductility tends to be smaller as the height of the structure increases. This seems to be a direct result of the influence of the walls on the displacement response. This fact suggests that structural walls could have a larger effect in controlling drifts and displacements in taller buildings than in lower structures. Taller structures with a large number of storeys usually provide a good amount of axial load to the walls. If the walls have a reasonable amount of axial load acting on them and such a load tends to re-centre them during the seismic event, the frame-wall system will undergo low damage and residual displacements, particularly under more frequent events. It can be expected, therefore, that low-rise structures with low load axial load ratios will undergo more damage and residual displacements in comparison with tall structures with high load axial load ratios. A possible disadvantage of such low values of ductility demand is that the steel frames are not really dissipating much energy even for a large design drift associated to a life-safety level. Hence, their potential can not be fully used under such levels of shaking. Even more, under more frequent low intensity earthquakes, it could be expected that the frames may not yield. If the designer wants the frames to undergo more inelastic activity, it would be necessary to increase the proportion of strength carried by the frame at the start of the design.
Table 4.2. Intermediate design results for frame-wall structures
4 storey 8 storey 12 storey 16 storey 20 storey Proportion of Vb assigned to walls (%) Frame yield drift, ySteelFrame (%) Inflection height, hinf (m) Design storey drift, d (%) Design displacement, d (m)
Wall curvature ductility, Wall
60 1.74 16.0 2.5 0.26 14.28 4.78 1.28 5.33 6.77 3.22 13.0 2377 1.66
50 1.74 24.0 2.44 0.50 13.82 4.16 1.29 12.0 10.67 2.64 11.8 4515 2.76
50 1.74 30.83 2.36 0.71 10.44 2.87 1.23 17.33 16.0 2.02 10.6 6557 4.12
50 1.74 40.0 2.29 0.90 10.21 2.84 1.20 22.67 21.33 1.99 10.4 8658 5.24
45 1.74 46.9 2.19 1.06 7.80 2.22 1.13 30.80 23.87 1.60 9.0 10615 5.85
Wall displacement ductility, Wall Average frame ductility, Frame Frame overturning moment, MFrame (kN-m) Wall overturning moment, MWall (kN-m) System ductility, sys System damping, SDOF Effective mass, me (kNs2/m) Effective period, Te (s)
Final design strengths and longitudinal reinforcement of walls are included in Table 4.3 It is noteworthy that the reported values of beam and column flexural strength correspond to the values yielded by the design procedure and not to those corresponding to the actual values provided by the selected shapes. The actual values of flexural strength are marginally larger, so that this issue has a negligible influence on the results of next section. In all the cases, wall longitudinal reinforcement ratios are between the maximum and minimum values suggested by Paulay and Priestley [1992]; hence, they are considered as realistic.
32
Table 4.3. Final design strengths for frame-wall buildings (in kN-m)
4 storey 8 storey 12 storey 16 storey 20 storey Base shear (kN) Wall strength (kN-m) Wall longitudinal reinforcement (%) Beam strength (kN-m) Interior column strength (kN-m) Exterior column strength (kN-m) 9035 29526 1.40 765 1530 765 11760 61492 1.21 1244 2489 1244 10770 84474 1.62 1140 2279 1140 11255 117699 1.16 1191 2382 1191 12977 151826 1.44 1511 3021 1511
4.4 Non-linear time history analysis verification procedure In order to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method in terms of displacement and drift control, the structures are analysed by performing non-linear time-history analyses in Ruaumoko [Carr, 2004]. The set of buildings were designed in accordance with the displacement spectrum derived from the design spectrum of the EC8. Additionally, the records used for the evaluation must be compatible with the design spectrum used for design. The selected records correspond to seven code-compatible artificial accelerograms generated using the program SIMQKE [Carr, 2000]. Values of equivalent viscous damping calculated in the design process range between 9 and 13%. Figure 4.3 shows the displacement spectra for the seven records for a viscous damping level of 10%, the average demand produced by the seven records for the same damping, and the corresponding displacement design spectrum used in the DBD procedure. Notice how the records fit remarkably well the displacement design spectrum up to a period of approximately 4.0 s. On average, the displacement demand imposed to the cases study can be considered as practically equal to the design displacement spectrum up to a value of 4 s. For structural periods beyond of 4 s, it is evident that lower levels of demand will be induced. Note that at around a value of 1.5 s the demand spectrum is approximately 10% greater than the design spectrum.
1.2
1.2
1 R1 Displacement (m) R3 0.6 R4 R5 R6 0.4 R7 Des. 0.2

Displacement (m)
0.8
R2
0.8 Avg. Des.
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 0 1 2 3 Period (s) 4 5 6
0 0 1 2 3 Period (s) 4 5 6
Figure 4.6. Displacement design spectrum and artificial accelerograms for 10% of elastic viscous damping (left), and average of artificial accelerograms for 10% of elastic viscous damping (right).
33
The use of artificial records in time-history non-linear analysis has received several criticisms in regard with the different phase content and duration of actual earthquakes records compared to artificial records. Nevertheless, these issues are considered to have little impact on the time- history results. Furthermore, a limited number of structural analyses using real and artificial records that possess similar demand spectra have indicated that dual systems respond similarly using either real or artificial accelerograms [Sullivan, 2005]. As such, it is considered that the use of artificial records was acceptable for these case studies. In his research, Sullivan [2005] found that the use of beam elements for all members was deemed acceptable for verification purposes and, for the sake of congruency with his research, in this work the same approach of modelling has been adopted. Hence, walls, beams and columns are modelled using 2-hinge Giberson beam elements [Carr, 2004]. The beams are modelled from column centreline to column centreline, without using a specific element to represent the beam-column joint. This modelling approach is consistent with the assumptions made in the design where both the height of columns and length of beams are considered from centre to centre between connections. The hysteretic behaviour of the RC walls was represented by the Takeda model [Carr, 2004] with 5% post-yield displacement stiffness and the unloading model of Emori and Schonbrich [1978]. Parameters for the Emori and Schonbrich model included an unloading stiffness factor of 0.5, together with a reloading stiffness factor of 0.0 and a reloading power factor of 1.0. On the other hand, yielding steel beams and columns are modeled with a bi-linear hysteresis model with a 5% of post-yield stiffness. Refer to the Ruaumoko manual [Carr, 2004] for further details. The plastic hinge lengths associated with the RC wall were calculated using the recommendations from Paulay and Priestley [1992], whereas the plastic hinge length in the steel in beams and columns was set equal to the steel section depth. The models developed in Ruaumoko use effective section properties up until yield, obtained by taking the design strength and dividing by the yield curvature. Approximation for yield curvature in walls was obtained from the expression provided by Priestley [2003], while the yield curvature in frames was evaluated by using Equation 2.2. The elastic columns above the ground floor were modeled with their initial stiffness. Inertia of steel beams and columns was directly taken from the AISC tables. The flexural strength of steel beams and columns was set equal to the strength calculated in the DBD procedure, which is quite similar to the flexural strength of the selected steel sections. In the analyses, elastic damping was modelled using tangent stiffness Rayleigh damping with a first mode damping value set to provide the effect of 5% tangent stiffness damping for the MDOF structure, according to Priestley and Grant [2006]. Priestley and Grant [2006] provide an expression for this value that considers the stiffness and mass proportional components of the Rayleigh damping equation. By specifying the same damping value at two different frequencies, where the higher frequency is times the lower frequency, then the damping in the first mode attributed to stiffness proportional damping, sp, is given by Equation 4.3. In addition, the damping attributed to mass proportional damping, mp, in the first mode is given by Equation 4.4.
34
sp =
1 +1
(4.3)
mp =
+1
(4.4)
Having established the proportions of mass and stiffness proportional damping, Priestley and Grant [2006] recommend that for time-history analyses using Rayleigh tangent stiffness damping, the damping on the first mode, 1st, should be set using Equation 4.5.
1st = ( mp -0.75 + sp ) 5%
Where is the system displacement ductility of the equivalent SDOF system, sys.
(4.5)
The initial periods of the five buildings were obtained from eigen-value analysis, and the ratio between the first and second mode periods were calculated to estimate the ratio . The values of together with the system displacement ductility sys, were then used to calculate the first mode elastic damping values for time-history analysis, as it is shown in Table 4.1. The time step used in the non-linear analysis was set to 0.005 s.
Table 4.4. First mode elastic viscous damping values for time-history analysis
4 storey 8 storey 12 storey 16 storey 20 storey T1 (s) T2(s) 1 1.33 0.25 5.40 2.53 2.46 0.47 5.18 2.83 4.32 0.85 5.08 3.29 5.54 1.08 5.13 3.31 6.94 1.42 4.87 3.76
4.5 Results of analysis Results from time-history analyses for the five cases study are presented in Figure 4.4 to Figure 4.13. In this set of figures, the left plot shows the maximum absolute lateral displacement at each story obtained from the analyses, whereas the right plot presents the maximum absolute inter-storey drifts. Additionally, a comparison between these values and the target drifts and target displacements considered during the design process are also included in a subsequent figure. In Figures 4.4 and 4.5 are presented the results for the 4 storey building. On average, drifts and displacements from time-history analyses are larger in approximately 20% than the target values used for design. In Figure 4.3 it can be seen that the demand imposed by the average of the artificial records is approximately 10% larger than the design spectra at the period of the equivalent SDOF. It is then possible to presume that the error could be associated with the expressions used in the calculation of the equivalent viscous damping. This fact, however, was not verified in this research and it is possible that some additional factors can be affecting the results, suggesting that more research is required in this area.
35
Results from time-history analysis for the 8 storey building are shown in Figure 4.6 and 4.7. The effectiveness of the proposed method is quite clear in this case study. On average, drift and displacement demands are practically equal to the target values. In Figure 4.7 it is possible to identify the small reduction due to the effect of higher modes by comparing the target and first mode results. For the 12 and 16 storey buildings, Figures 4.8 to 4.11 show that average demands tend to be slightly larger than the target values. The proposed method is considered as satisfactory because the levels of seismic demand are rather similar to the target values. However, it is interesting to note that the scatter in the results from time-history analysis tends to increase in comparison with the 4 and 8 storey buildings. Finally, the results for the 20 storey structure are showed in Figures 4.12 and 4.13. Once again, the method is effective in predicting the behaviour of the structure and in limiting the maximum displacements and drifts. In despite of the large scatter of the output provided by the inelastic analysis, average results are practically identical to the target values. It is clear that the reduction for produced by Equation 1.16 becomes significantly important as the height of the building increases. Nevertheless, at this stage it is important to consider that the 16 and 20 storey structures undergo a lower level of seismic demand during the time-history analysis, mainly because the average of the artificial records is below the design spectrum. It is important to underline the scatter in the results of maximum drifts and displacements from the time-history analyses. As it can be seen in Figures 4.4 to 4.13, scatter seems to increase as the height of the structure increases. Maximum values of scatter are evident in the 20 storey building. A possible explanation to this effect is that, for large values of structural period, the spectral values of the artificial records do not fit the design spectrum used in the for design. Notice that in Figure 4.2, for periods beyond a value of 4.0 s, all the accelerograms and the corresponding average tend to deviate from the design spectrum. It is therefore obvious that as the period of the substitute structure increases, the level of demand varies significantly from one record to other, generating a larger level of scatter for long period structures. Figures 4.4 to 4.13 show the influence of the walls on the global behaviour of the systems, a feature previously discussed in Section 4.3. As a result of the increasing wall axial load ratio considered in the cases study, notice how the maximum inter-storey drifts tend to be smaller as the number of storeys increases. In consequence, since the drift is considered a good indicator of the likely level of damage in a structure, based on these results it can be envisaged that the amount of damage and residual displacement in the 20 storey building will be slightly smaller than, for instance, the corresponding ones of the 16 storey structure. This, however, can not be generalised for all dual frame-wall systems. It is clear that walls tend to control the behaviour in lower storeys of the dual systems. Moment resistant frames commonly have very large drifts at lower storeys and, in fact, drift limits rather than strength usually control the structural design of many frame systems located in seismic areas with high intensity ground motion. In contrast, in the cases study the maximum drifts tend to be located at the upper storeys as a consequence of the compatibility
36
of displacements that must be maintained between walls and frames. Consequently, provided that the compatibility can be guaranteed, larger drift demands and damage can be expected at the upper storeys of the building. Based on the results yielded by the analysis, it is clear that the first mode shape predicts with enough accuracy the behaviour of the models used in this work. These results confirm that frame-wall structures are primarily controlled by a first mode shape behaviour [Sullivan, 2005], and in turn validates the assumptions made in the design stage. The results indicate that the design methodology controls the deformations and therefore damage of the 4, 8 and 12 storey buildings relatively well. The maximum deformations for the 16 and 20 storey structures are also acceptable. However, given that the artificial accelerograms used for the verification process did not match the design spectrum at the corresponding periods of these two tall structures, it is difficult to draw conclusions.
37
R1 R2 Storey No. Storey No. R3 2 R4 R5 R6 R7 Avg
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Avg
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Displacem ent (m )
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Drift (%)
Figure 4.7. Maximum lateral displacements (left) and maximum recorded drifts (right) for the 4 storey structure
Storey No.
Storey No.
Avg 2 Target
T-hyst avg Design drift Limit drift
0 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Displacem ent (m )
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Drift (%)
Figure 4.8. Average lateral displacements (left) and average recorded drifts (right) compared with target displacements and drifts for the 4 storey structure
38
R1 R2 Storey No. Storey No. R3 4 R4 R5 R6 R7 Avg
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Displacem ent (m )
0 0 0.01 0.02 Drift (%) 0.03 0.04
Storey No.
Storey No.
Avg Target
T-hyst avg Design drift Drft limit
0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Displacem ent (m )
0 0 0.01 0.02 Drift (%) 0.03 0.04
Figure 4.10. Average recorded drifts (left) and average lateral displacements (right) compared with target drifts and displacements for the 8 storey structure
39
12
12
10
10
8 R1 R2 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Avg
Storey No.
Storey No.
R3 6 R4 R5 R6 R7 Avg
0 0 0.5 1 Displacem ent (m ) 1.5 2
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Drift (%)
12
12
10
10
Storey No.
Storey No.
Avg 6 Target
0 0 0.5 1 Displacem ent (m ) 1.5 2
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Drift (%)
40
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10 R1 R2 Storey No. R3 8 R4 R5 R6 R7 6 Avg
Storey No.
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Displacem ent (m )
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Drift (%)
16
16
14
14
12
12
10
10
Storey No.
Storey No.
Avg 8 Target
0 0 0.5 1 Displacem ent (m ) 1.5 2
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Drift (%)
41
20
20
18
18
16
16
14
14 R1 12 R2 Storey No. R3 10 R4 R5 R6 8 R7 Avg R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 Avg
12 Storey No.
10
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Displacem ent (m )
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Drift (%)
20
20
18
18
16
16
14
14
12 Storey No. Storey No.
12 T-hyst avg Design drift 8 Limit drift
10
10
0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Displacem ent (m )
0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 Drift (%)
42
References
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Frame-wall structures are an alternative solution for medium and high hazard seismic areas that combine the structural advantages of frames and walls. Walls give to the structure enough lateral stiffness, and are appropriate to withstand the lateral loads induced by the ground shaking. In this term, walls are able to control drifts in the low storeys of the building. On the other hand, frames can support the gravity loads acting on the building and, because of their redundancy, can act a second line of defence in case that walls lose a significant part of their strength and stiffness. In recent years, composite construction combining steel/reinforced concrete has gained importance between engineers. It is expected that dual systems built with steel frame-RC wall will be more commonly used in future years. A DBD method to design steel frame-RC wall structures was proposed. The method was applied to a set of five low- and mid-rise regular buildings, both in plan and elevation. To consider a significant range of structural periods in the analyses, it was proposed the use of structures with 4, 8, 12, 16 and 20 storeys. The effectiveness of the method in terms of drift and displacement control was verified through a series of non-linear time-history analyses. Based on the results obtained in this work, the following conclusions can be drawn: An expression to estimate the appropriate yield drift of steel frames was introduced. Considering the limited number of cases study used in the calibration and the possibility of variations according to the code used for design, the proposed calibrated expression (Equation 2.2) should not be applicable for other structures or other research. As such, the proposed equation is only an approximation and it is recognised that must be still calibrated and verified using experimental results from real full-size steel frame tests. This issue must be a matter of further research. Consequently, the designer can opt for using an alternative expression to estimate the yield drift of the steel frame. For the selected level of ground motion, the performance of 4, 8 and 12 can be considered as appropriate and congruent with the assumptions made in the design process. The proposed method shows its effectiveness in controlling maximum drifts, and therefore damage.
43
References
Dispersion of drifts and displacements results in taller structures is mainly due to the matching between the design spectrum and the artificial records used in the verification process. In the long-period range of the displacement spectra beyond approximately 4 s, it is clear that the records do not match the design spectrum. The corresponding structural period of the equivalent SDOF system of the 16 and 20 storey buildings are clearly beyond 4 s, so that they fall within the large scatter zone. If it is true that the results are acceptable, the results prove that the proposed design methodology is less efficient for the 16 and 20 storey structures. Due to large scatter discussed in the latter point, it is adventurous to draw definitive conclusions from the obtained results. For the cases study considered, the method seems to work more efficiently on small structures than in the taller ones. In the set of buildings studied in this work, the response is primarily controlled by the first mode shape. However, higher modes in taller structures can have an important effect and must be considered in the design procedure. The proposed method allows controlling the design process in accordance with the designers wishes. Based on his or her experience, a designer can decide how to proceed with the design of the dual system. He or she could, for instance, select light steel shapes for the frame, increasing maybe the section and/or reinforcing ratio of the RC wall. On the other hand, large steel shapes in the frame will avoid a massive use of concrete, and can be an attractive approach in countries where the price of steel is high.
44
References
REFERENCES
Paulay, T, Priestley, M.J.N. [1992] Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry Buildings, John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA. Priestley, M.J.N. [2003] Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy. Shibata, A., Sozen, M. [1976] Substitute Structure Method for Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete, Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. 1, pp. 1-18. Grant, D.N., Blandon, C.A., Priestley, M.J.N. [2005] Modelling inelastic response in Direct Displacement-Based Design, Research report No. ROSE-2005/03, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy. Blandon, C.A., Priestley, M.J.N. [2006] Equivalent viscous damping equations for direcet displacement-based design, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 9, No. Special Issue 1, pp. Sullivan, T. [2005] Pettinga, D., and Priestley, M.J.N. [2006] Paulay, T. [2002] A Displacement-Focused Seismic Design of Mixed Building Systems, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp 689-718. Carr, A. [2004] Ruaumoko 3D. A program for Inelastic Time History Analysis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, NZ. Priestley, M.J.N., Kowalsky, M.J. [1998] Aspects of Drift and Ductility Capacity of Cantiliver Structural Walls, Bulletin, NZ National Society for Earthquake Engineering, No. 31, No. 2, June 1998. Priestley, M.J.N., Grant, [2006] AISC [2001] Manual of Steel Construction. Load and Resistance Factor Design, Vol. I, Amreican Institute of Steel Construction, USA. FEMA 355C [2000] State of the Art Report on Systems Performance of Steel Moment Frames Subject to Earthquake Ground Shaking, prepared by the SAC Joint Venture for the FEMA, Washington, DC. Ascheim, M. [2002] Seismic Design Based on the Yield Displacement, Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp 581-600. Paulay, T. [2003]
45
References
FEMA [1997] NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings, FEMA 273, Federal Emergency Management Agency. Gupta, A., Krawinkler, H. [2000a] Estimation of Seismic Drift Demands for Frame Structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 29, No. 10. Gupta, A., Krawinkler, H. [2002] Relating the Seismic Drift Demands of SMRFs to Element Deformation Demands, Engineering Journal, pp. 100-108. FEMA 350 [2000] Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment Frame Buildings, prepared by the SAC Joint Venture for the FEMA, Washington, DC. Comit Europen de Normalisation (CEN) [2003] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Final Draft, Brussels, Belgium. NZS3101 [1995] Emori, K., Schonbrich, W.C. [1978] Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Frame-Wall Structures for Strong Motion Earthquakes, Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series, No. 434, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA. Englekirk, R. [1994] Steel Structures: Controlling Behavior Trough Design, John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
46

Development of A Displacement Based Design Method For Steel Frame - RC Wall, 2007 (Garcia)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of A Displacement Based Design Method For Steel Frame - RC Wall, 2007 (Garcia)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori

Universit degli Studi di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK

by REYES GARCIA LOPEZ

Gaetano Della Corte

Deformed shape of isolated walls

Deformed shape of isolated frames

Figure 1.1. Behaviour of frame-wall structures

(1.5a) (1.5b) (1.5c) (1.5d) (1.5e)

(b) Effective stiffness, K e

Elasto-plastic Steel frame Displacement (m)

10% 15% 20% 30%

Period (sec) Ductility

(c) Equivalent damping vs. ductility

(d) Design displacement spectra

Current means of performing DBD of frame wall-structures

, for hi < hinf

( N 5) M Frame + 0.25 d ,lim it 100 M Total

M Wall Wall + M Frame Frame M Wall + M Frame

1 1 + 3.250 (T + 0.761) e ,trial

1 1 + 3.607 (T e ,trial + 0.848)

M Wall Wall + M O / T ,Frame Frame M Wall + M O / T ,Frame

Where all the parameters have been defined in precedent paragraphs.

W14 W18 W16

Plastic Modulus, Z (in3)

W21 W24 W30

0 0 5000 10000 15000

Moment of Inertia, I (in )

Table 1.1. Z/I values for some AISC W shapes.

y,beam Lb + y,col hcol

1 2.648 1 + (T e ,trial + 0.945)

2. DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROPRIATE EXPRESSION FOR THE YIELD DRIFT OF STEEL FRAMES

y,beam Lb + 0.9( y,col hcol )

Normalised base shear (V/N)

Building yield drift, y

Roof drift angle

Beams (inlb/ft) W36150 W3099 W2784

Columns (inlb/ft) W14500 W14283 W14257

y,G&K 0.0093 0.0101 0.0106

y,Equation 2.1 0.0095 0.0099 0.0108

y,Equation (2.2) /y,G&K

1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Bldg 1 Bldg 2 Bldg 3 Avg

y, Eq. (2.2) /y,G&K

1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

y, Eq. (2.2) /y,G&K

1.5 1.25 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Chapter 3. Proposed DBD Method for Steel Frame-RC Wall Structures

3. PROPOSED DBD METHOD FOR STEEL FRAME-RC WALL STRUCTURES

Chapter 3. Proposed DBD Method for Steel Frame-RC Wall Structures

Chapter 3. Proposed DBD Method for Steel Frame-RC Wall Structures

Assign strength proportions to frames and walls

Determine RC wall inflection height, h inf

Calculate design displacement profile

Reduce drift limit. YES

Determine effective height, he, effective mass, me , and design displacement, d

Chapter 4. Verification of the DBD Methodology

4. VERIFICATION OF THE DBD METHODOLOGY

Chapter 4. Verification of the DBD Methodology

Spectral displacement (m)

Spectral acceleration (g)

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Chapter 4. Verification of the DBD Methodology