Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Seismic Damage Analisis Building and Damage Limiting Design
Seismic Damage Analisis Building and Damage Limiting Design
,~
UILU.;.ENG-84-2007
'I
CIVIL ENGINEERING STUDIES
STRUCTURAL RESEARCH SERIES N.O. 516
"'::
"'-"
ISSN: 0069-4274
SEtS E N L SIS N
ITI N
F R. BUlL
By
Y. J. PARK
A. H-S. ANG .e~z BSTerence ~00~
.Un1vers1t.y o:f Illino~;:.·
and BI06 NCEL
Y. K. WEN 208 N. Romine Street
Urbana, Illinois 6180~
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
at URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
URBANA, ILLINOIS
OCTOBER 1984
i
50272 -101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION '1. Rf.POflf NO.
I4
PAGE UILU-ENG-84-2007
4. Title and Subtitle IlL R~ Date
OCTOBER 1984
SEISMIC DAMAGE ANALYSIS AND DAMAGE-LIMITING DESIGN OF R. C.
BUILDINGS
1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -..- - - - - - - - - - - - - - t--------------~
7. Author(s) L PGtrforml.,. Or"llllnlxlltlon Rept. No.
Y. J. Park, A. H-S. Ang, Y~' K. Wen SRS No. 516
9. Perform Ins O'llanlzlllltion Name and AddrHlIl 10. Projed/Tnk/Woril Unit No.
~----------------.---------
·16. Abllltnact (limit: 200 words)
. -------------------------------i
~------------------------------------------------------------------------4
b. Identlfierlll/()pen·Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement !119. Security Ciauis (This Report) 21. No. of Pales
~.~UN
__CL~AS~S~_I_F_I_ED
________~!----1-6-3--.---.---
; 20. Security ChllllUI (This PallID) 22. Price
! IJNCl.ASS I FI ED
(SIN ANSI-Z39.18) SIN Instructions on RfJlVfJlrfut OPTIONAL FORM 212 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER Page
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Object and Scope of· Study 1
1 .. 2 Related Previous Studies ................ " .................. " .......... 2
1.2.1 Inelastic ·Behavior of Reinforced Concrete 2
1.2.2 Damage Assessment .............................. co . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Organization ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 6
1.4 Notation ..•. fi) CD .. ., .......... ., • " •••••••• ., ••• .; ••••••••• ., • ., ". 7
Page
Page
5.2.1 General 54
5.2.2 Optimal Strength Distribution and Mode Shape 55
5.2 .. 3 Application to Weak-Beam-Type Buildings ......... 58
5.3 Equivalent SDF Concept • It ••••••••••• " ..... It • • • • • • • • • • • • • 60
5,,3.1 Modeling of Buildings 60
5.3.2 Equivalent Short Duration Excitation • 61
5.3.3 Response of SDF Systems •••••••••••• CD ••• " " ....... . 62
5.4 Ductility Requirements 63
5.4.1 Ductility Requirement of Components 63
5 . 4.2 Ductility Requirement of Building 65
5.5 Design Procedure 66
5.5 .. 1 Design Setup ...................... . 66
5.5 .. 2 Strength Design •••••••• 67
5.5.3 Structural Analysis 67
5.5.4 Ductility Check ......... . 67
5.6 Design Examples ........... "." ......... " ........... " ........ . 68
5.6.1 Design of Frame A ••••••••••••••••••••••••• 69
5.6.2 Design of Frame B • " " •• CD • ell" • • • e 71
5.6.3 Design of Frame A' ,. •••• 4\) " 0 • CD .... 71
5.6.4 Design of Frame B' 00@& •• 00o • • • • 73
5.6.5 Examination of Designed Frames 73
5.7 Limitation 74
vi
Page
APPENDIX
Page
LIST OF REFERENCES •• ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., • • • lit .. lit ., " " ., lit ................. (I ••• ., •• Cit ••• 157
viii
LIST OF tABLES
Table Page
LIST OF FiGURES
Figure Page
Page
Page
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Since the early 1950's, there has been considerable research on the
inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete structures. The early
research concentrated primarily on the flexural behavior of components
under monotonic loadings (e.g., Gaston, Siess and Newmark, 1952;
3
McCollister, Siess and Newmark, 1954; Burns and Siess, 1962). Research
on the inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete components under
earthquake-like loading reversals was initiated in the 1960's (e.g.,
Naka, 1963; Aoyama, et al., 1966; Umemura and Aoyama, 1969; Ikeda,
1970). Under inelastic loading reversals, the ductility capacity of
components is generally decreased, mainly due to the increase of shear
deformation and bond deterioration (Naka, 1963; Ikeda, 1970).
By testing twelve reinforced concrete beams under various loading
reversals, Brown and Jirsa (1971) showed the close relationship between
the shear deformation and the amount of stirrups. Celebi and Penzien
(1973) conducted dynamic destructive tests on relatively ductile beams;
the results indicated a significant effect of the shear span ratio and
the amount of longitudinal reinforcement on the shear deformation under
repeated cyclic loadings.
Wight and Sozen (1973) conducted similar tests by changing both the
axial load and the transverse reinforcement. Their results showed a
significant decay of both the ~trength and stiffness in specimens
subjected to high axial load\ and/or containing poor transverse
reinforcement.
KHstH and Bouwkamp (1975) conducted cyclic loading tests on eight
beam-column subassemblages. Extremely brittle shear failure was
observed in all of the columns although every column was designed to
fail in flexure under monotonic loadings--revealing the inadequacy of
design provisions based entirely on monotonic test results.
A comprehensive research program was conducted by Japanese
researchers on about three hundred half-scale reinforced concrete
columns under reversed loadings (Short Column Committee, 1973-77). The
main factors considered included the loading history, axial load, shear
span ratio, stirrup ratio, axial steel ratio, and concrete strength.
The results revealed the complex failure mechanism of reinforced
concrete components under reversed loadings. In short, a member
designed to fail in flexure tends to fail through shear under repeated
loading reversals. When the number of loading reversals is increased
significantly, the member tends to fail through bond at a much lower
4
1.3 Organization
1 .. 4 Notation
CHAPTER 2
OM 8
D = 8 + -Q
0 IdE (2.1)
u y u
or
dE (2.2)
E (0)
c
where,
The damage model proposed in Eq. 2.1 contains the three parameters
0, Q and S. In Eq .. 2.2, two additional parameters a" and E (0) are
u Y. c
also requ~red. These parameters can be evaluated on the basis of
deformation analysis and available experimental data as described below.
2.3.1 Determination of a
u
ou ~ 0
u y
(2.3)
oy (2.4)
E
Y (2.5)
<P y' (l-k)d
where:
a cr a 0' E d
c y c
p --~
bdf' p'
= bdf' Ct =~ ; and S =-
Y E C d
c c 0
The above parameters are defined further in Figures 2.2 and 2.1.
Because of the inelasticity of concrete and the effect of axial forces,
Eq. 2.5 tends to underestimate the actual curvature. Based on results
of iterative analysis (e"g., Aoyama, 1964), the following improvement is
proposed:
n
{C I + (C 2 - CI ) O~3} ¢; (2.6)
where:
or
x 1.286 (n
o
+ p - yp')/a'c (y' > 1.0)
where,
f'
C 1.5
lis'c _- _x :s; 1.0
__
8' hid; y 1 and y'
C cr y a.
y
x
(2 .. 8)
where:
a- (in ksi) (2 .. 9)
o
16
where:
The validity of Eq. 2.9 had been examined with available pullout test
data (Ferguson, et al., 1965), assuming LM = 1.5 ksi for the bottom
bars, and L = 0.9 ksi for the top bars. When the anchorage length is
M
longer than 10D, Eq. 2.9 agrees well with experimental results as shown
in Figure 2 .. 5 ..
Results of other pullout tests (Clark, 1946 ; Jirsa and Marques,
1972 ; Koike, et al., 1974; Ma, et al .. 1I 1976 ; Morita, et al .. , 1967 ) are
also shown in Figure 2 .. 6 e On the basis of the above experimental
results, it can be observed that the bond slippage is largely a function
of the degree of compactness of the concrete, and independent of the
concrete. strength.. For the purpose of determining the deformation due
to bond slippage, a mean value of L = 1.2 ksi may be assumed if the
M
degree of compactness is not specified.
Inelastic Shear Deformation -- The shear deformation, 0, may be
S
obtained by subtracting the calculated 0 ,0 and 0 from the measured
f b e
yield deformation 0.. The ratio of the shear deformation to the
flexural deformati~n as a function of the shear span ratio is shown in
Figure 2.7 for 244 beams and columns in which yielding of the tension
reinforcement is clearly recorded. In slender beams· and columns, the
shear deformation is not prominent; however, as the shear span ratio
approaches unity (i.e., ~/d + 1.0), the shear deformation becomes
dominant ..
It is well-known that the bond stress and stirrup ratio also affect
the shear deformation. Available experimental results (e.g .. , Japanese
Short Column Committee, 1973-77) indicated that as the stirrup ratio is
increased to about 1%, the shear deformation generally decreases;
however, higher stirrup ratios do not always insure decreasing shear
deformations. Figure 2.8 illustrates a well-known bond failure
mechanism .. As the ribs of the longitudinal reinforcements bear against
17
the surrounding concrete, conical micro cracks are formed around the bar
0
with an inclined angle of about 45 (Goto, 1971). The presence of a
stirrup will disturb this failure mechanism and reduce the bearing
stress transmitted to the surrounding concrete .. Assuming that the
shaded part of the longitudinal bar (see Figure 2.8) is not effective
for bond, the effective average bond stress Tis,
B
I::.T (2.10)
'¥(l - 1.71 nd)
where:
os I.e..l 8 S (2 .. 11)
18
in which, £ = the arm. length measured from the· end of the shear crack.
i
According to Olsen, et ale (1967), the shear cracking load Q is
c
Q
c
= If'
c
bd + M (£. -
c
d/2) (2.12)
£.' M /(Q
eye
- If' bd) + Z (2.13)
where, Z = the effective depth of the member. The location and number
of shear cracks are obviously unpredictable. It is reasonable to assume
that cracks are equally likely within the "shear crack zone if (£ - £ ') ,
with an occurrence rate of p = liz. Then the mean shear deformation is
(2.14)
Using Eq. 2.14, the shear rotations, e , were evaluated for the 244
s
available test beams and columns. On the basis of the calculated
results, the following observations were obtained:
(i) There is a high negative correlation between the shear span
ratio and e •
However, for shear span ratios £/d <
s
8 is approximately independent of £/d.
s
( ii) For T /1£' > 5.0 and £/d ~ 4.0, a positive correlation
B c
between 8 and T /II' was observed.
s B c
( iii) For > 2.5, the stirrup ratio, p , does not affect e •
£/d
w s
Also, when p > 1%, e is independent of p •
w s w
0.002
8S = il d-O. S 'for u<S or l/d>4
0.002 .
l/d-O.S {1+0.27(u-S)} for u>S and 2.S<l/d<4 (2.15)
0.002 . u-S
l/d-O.S {1+0.18S } for u>S and l/d<2.5
vPw-0.4
e: (2.16)
p
20
in which,
Figure 2.13 shows the plot between the principal strain normalized
by e: and the ultimate ductility factor. The correlation between ~ and
o u
e: Ie: is maximized when the strength drop (for gradually failing
p 0
members) is assumed to be. about 10% of the maximum strength. However,
the strength drop at the failure point has been defined as 20% of the
maximum strength in this study, because the majority of tests to
ultimate collapse indicate that total repair is generally needed beyond
this point (e.g., Japanese Short Column Committee, 1973-77).
From ¥igure 2.13, it can be observed that the ultimate ductility
factor is not influenced by the failure mode, indicating the validity of
Eq. 2.16. Figure 2.14 shows the same plot for ~ versus
with e: Ie:
p.o.
u
different confinement ratio p , which is defined as the volumetrlc ratlo
w
of the stirrups to the core concrete. A positive correlation between
~ andmay be observed in Figure·2.14. Based on these observations,
p
u w
the following is proposed for the ultimate ductility factor ~ :
u
e: 0.218p -2.15
(1) W exp (0.654 p + 0.38) (2.17)
e: W
o
2.3.2 Determination of B
Pw
for Eq II 2. 2; S (-0.165 + 0.0315 lid + 0.131 p
t
)0.84 (2.19)
in which,
22
in which p and n are defined in Eqs. 2.5 and 2.6.. The scatter
o
associated with Eq. 2.20 is relatively small: c.oov. = 12% (see
Figure 3.4).
2.3.4 .Determination of E ~
c
E
c
(~) = Q 8 (0.77
y y
~ - 0.22) (2.21)
. f (y
the absorbed energy also lncreases .
see Flgure 2 "19) • At low va 1 ues 0 f
8 /8 , the scatter of the data increases considerably as shown in
f y
Figures 2 .. 19a through 2.19c; in this range, 8 and 8 become dominant.
s b
Linear regressions were also performed using the data with ~ ~ 1.0 to
determine the constants f and f
of Figure 2.20. The results are
1 2
summarized in Figure 2 .. 21. Therefore, the hysteretic energy per cycle
in the large deformation range (~ > 1.0) is given by:
8 8
f f
E (~) = Q 8 {(O.S + 2.34 ~)(~ - 1) + (0.7 - 1.54 ~)} (2 .. 22)
c y y y y
specimens were evaluated with Eqs. 2.1 and 2.2 at the respective failure
points. The results obtained with Eqsa 2.1 and 2.2 are plotted on
lognormal probability paper in Figures 2.22 and 2.23, respectively.
These show that the damage index is reasonably lognormally distributed
with the respective standard deviation indicated in Figures 2.22 and
2.23. The standard deviation associated with Eq. 2.2 is slightly lower
than that of Eq. 2.1. However, by virtue of its simplicity, Eq. 2.1 is
preferred for seismic damage assessment of reinforced concrete
structures.
The high degree of scatter (or uncertainty) in the damage capacity
of reinforced concrete components (c.o.v. ~ 0.5) indicated in
Figures 2.22 and 2.23 is in agreement with results of similar previous
studies, e.g., Banon, et al. (1980) and Hwang (1982). It may be
emphasized that such high uncertainty should be expected, as the
capacity under repeated cyclic loadings is much less predictable than
under monotonic loadings.
25
CHAPTER 3
3 .. 1 General Remarks
3.2 Methodology
The damage index defined in Eq. 2.1 ~s used for assessing the
structural damage of reinforced· concrete components under earthquake
loadings. In order to incorporate the uncertainties in the structural
capacity as well as in the random response, a damage index ratio may be
defined as follows:
D
r
Di =D (3.1)
a
where:
D. (3 .. 2)
1
Thus, the statistics of damage index ratio can be obtained from the mean
and variance of the responses 0 and dE.
M
27
M .,I .Vr;:-t"f'
r' '7
I...J
• ...L.
I
Tl.TL.
lUll U
I c.
c C e
M'
c
11 1fT
c
Z
e
+ Nh/6 (3.5)
Whereas, for the second turning point, the "apparent yield deformation"
0' is proposed as
y
o y
(0.485 + 3.3 K /K - 0.836 n )0 (3.6)
y yeo y
28
in which;
K = elastic stiffness;
e
K = secant stiffness at yielding; and
y
n = normalized axial stress (replaced by 0.2 if n < 0.2).
o 0
,.
mu + eu + aku + (1 - a)kZ -mx
g
(3.7)
and,
z= ~ - o.5Y(I~lz + ~IZI) (3 .. 8)
Metz Beference Boo~
University o~ Illinois
BI06 NeEL
208 N. Romine Street
29 VrQ~~, Illinois 61802
/ 2 2
a = O.SeA + 3A - 2 + I(e /4 + 3e + 4)A - (8 + 3e)A + 4 (3 .. 9)
1 - a
y (3.10)
where:
e = E (6 ) /8 P, energy ratio.
c M M M
o (3 .. 11)
in which,
C
21
= o. 5 y II1T [E ( liZ)
0"
+ 0
Z
] - 1. 0 an d
U
4 2 2 2
wG + 4wG l;G W
S (w) S (3.12)
0 (2 2)2 2 2 2
W - wG + 4wG l;G W
Gy + F (3.13)
in which,
T
Y = {u, z, x , u, x }
G g
0 0 0 1 0
0 -K
22
0 -c 21 0
G = 0 0 0 0 1
2
-aK/m -(1-a)K/m W -c/m 2l; W
G G G
2
0 0 -w 0 -2l; W
G G G
and,
T
F = {O, 0, 0, 0, x }
g
~S GS + SG + B
dt
where:
31
T
S = E[y(t) y(t) ] ;
B 0, except = I( t) ; and
B
I(~~
55
= intensity function of excitation.
t
M(~, t) f E [N «(, t) ] d.t (3.15)
o
The response may be approximated by a Gaussian stationary process during
each incremental time intervale Then, according to Middleton (1960),
the following is obtained;
E[N(~,t)]
(3.16)
where:
au 0·
u
a
3
= 0 ..
u Is I
E [N (~, t) ]
, for ~ <0 ( 3 .. 1 7 )
in which,
Using Eqs. 3.15 and 3.17, the mean peak number can be evaluated by a
simple numerical integration at several discrete points-" Based on the
assumption of Poisson occurrence of peaks, the probability distribution
function for the maximum response 0 may be expressed by-the peak
M
distribution function (Lin, 1967). Since the relevant distribution
function is for the absolute maximum value, both positive and negative
peaks should be taken into account; i"e.»
(3 .. 18)
where:
-a. (y-u )
n n
exp [-e ] (3.19)
in which:
(3.20)
a. (3.21)
n
where:
c . k
CJ •• E[ {- x u-a.-u (3.22)
u g m m
t t
f dE J (1 (3 .. 23)
o o
The variance of the absorbed hysteretic energy is obtained from the
two-time covariance matrix Set ,t ) (Pires, 1983), which is the solution
1 2
of the following differential equation,
(3.24)
34
2
l(t) = I (~) for 0 < t < t
o tl 1
in which:
t = 0 .. 15 t ,
and t2 = 1 .. 15 t ;
1 0 0
t = the strong-motion duration; and
0
I = intensity of strong motion.
0
I (3.26)
c
3.4.1 Gener~J
n
m.(
1. j=l
I u. +
J
i )
+q; - qi+l + f. - f i + 1
g. 1.
= 0 , i=l,n (3 .. 27)
in which:
6EI. Zu.
q; = -Z-
1. ~ _
( ___
h
e. -
e . 'I ) (3.28)
• h. i 1. 1.-
1.
and
where:
f.
1.
c.
C 1.
u. +
1.
u.
C 1. C 1.
k. u. + (1 -
1.
a.) k. Z.
C 1. C 1. 1.
(3 .. 30)
n.
1.
a
b 1.. bk.1. e.1. + (1 - ba')b
1.
k . Y.
1. 1.
(3.31 )
{ ii }, = [ c ] { ~} + [ k] { u } + [ B ] { Z} + [A] { e} (3.32)
{ti} [c]{~} + {[k]-[A] [F)-l[E] }{u} +·[B]{Z} -:- [A] [F]-l[D]{Y} (3.34)
For the hysteretic components Z. and Y., the following equations are
1. 1
obtained after linearization (see Eq. 3.11); namely,
..
Z.1. + C'll
C "-.
u.1. + c k"'2
"-
Z.]. o (3.35)
1. .I
(3 .. 36)
o (3.38).
.. .. T
y { u l ' ... ,u ,u '..., U , Z1 ' ... ,Z ,Y , ... , y } (3.39)
n l n non
l.
response vector of the corresponding shear-beam model. The details of
the matrices in Eqs. 3.32 and 3.33 are illustrated for a three-story
building in Appendix-C.
39
(Q 0 ).
\'
LS.
YU 1 (3.40)
i 1 LQ.o(:8
1 U
l.n which,
s
0 = the ultimate deformation for each spring.
u
D = EA D (3.41)
T i i
SC--two Frame-A and one Frame-C are connected in parallel. The yield
base shear 'is the same as SA. The fundamental natural period is
0.68 sec. For the rocking spring at the base of the shear wall,
hysteresis loop is determined so that hysteretic energy dissipation
through rocking motion is equivalent to 10% of critical damping at
all deformation levels .
The mean value of the story drift, absorbed. hysteretic energy, and
damage index for building SA are shown in Figure 3.14. The damage
concentration in the first story is clearly observed both in the stqry
drift and in the absorbed hysteretic energy. For the shorter excitation
(t =5 sec.), the damage is caused primarily by excessive deformation;
o
whereas for the longer excitation (t = 15 sec.), the effect of repeated
o
cyclic loadings becomes dominant.
The corresponding results for building SB are shown in Figure 3.15.
The effect of the interstory coupling is reflected in the almost uniform
distribution of the story drifts. Although the sustained deformations
at the hinges are almost the same for all members, the damage is
concentrated in the bottom of the columns in the first story, indicating
the poor ductility of the columns (because of relatively high axial
stress). The dominant effect of repeated cyclic loading on structural
damage under the longer excitation duration is also observed in this
weak-beam~type building. By comparing the results for buildings SA and
SB, the advantage of the weak-beam-type building is apparent (see also
Table 3.1). In the weak-beam-type building, SB, the input energy is
distributed more uniformly throughout the building; whereas, the input
energy tends to concentrate in the weakest story in the case of the
weak-column-type building, SA. However, the increased energy absorbing
capacity is made possible at the expense of larger inelastic deformation
throughout the building (see Figure 3.15), which may lead to more
extensive nonstructural damages.
The results for building SC are shown in Figure 3.16; damages in the
columns and beams are shown separately. The interstory coupling due to
the rocking-type shear walls is reflected in Figure 3.16. Because of
the uniform distribution of the story drift, an almost uniform
distribution of energy absorption is achieved in the weak-column-type
frames .(Frame-A). The damage in the lower story columns (see
Figure 3.16a) tends to increase because of increased axial stresses.
In the damage analysis of SDF systems, under specified ground motion
parameters, a linear relationship was observed between the
"characteristic intensity," I , and the damage index, D. Similar linear
c
43
plots are also obtained for the story-level damage indices as shown in
Figure 3.17; the corresponding relationship for the overall damage index
of the three buildings is also shown in Figure 3.18. These results
would suggest that the potential destructiveness of ground motions can
be appropriately represented by the characteristic intensity, I •
c
The overall seismic performance of buildings may be expressed by the
"damage ratio,"
R (3.42)
CHAPTER 4
This six-story building is the main unit of the Olive View Hospital
which was heavily damaged during the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The
building was located 3 miles from Pacoima Dam where a maximum horizontal
ground acceleration of 1.25g was recorded. Because of the symmetric
plan, only one-quarter of the building was analyzed as shown in
Figure 4.1A. The damage was concentrated in the lower two stories.
Almost all of the tied columns in the base story collapsed as shown in
Figure 4.2A-b. The first story suffered a lateral displacement ranging
from 15 to 28 inches as shown in Figure 4.2A-a. Most of the columns in
the first story were reinforced with closely spaced spirals; however,
these spirals were not extend~d into the joints. Since large-size
deformed bars (#18) were closely reinforced in the longitudinal
direction, conspicuous bond failure was observed in these columns. The
upper stories suffered slight or no damage.
The buildings were modeled based on the available design plans and
elevations, and dynamic as well as static analyses were performed using
the method described in the previous two chapters. The results of the
respective damage analyses are summarized in Table 4.1. The basic
characteristics of the buildings are also listed; namely; the
fundamental natural period, yield acceleration capacity of the weakest
story (in terms of g), and the ultimate ductility factor capacity of the
most brittle story. The results of the damage analysis for each
building are described below.
4.4.1 Building A
4.4.2 Buildi~
columns in the first story is relatively brittle due to the high axial
stress and poor confinement = 0.15%).
(confinement ratio p
w
Consequently, damage was concentrated in the first story; the calculated
damage index exceeds 1.0 in the first story, whereas the corresponding
damage indices in the second and third stories were only 0.11 and 0.05,
respectively.
4.4.3 Building C
4.4.4 Building D
4.4.5 Building E
4.4.6 Building F
4.4.7 Building G
4.4.8 Building H
4.4.9 Building I
CHAPTER 5
5.2 .. 1 General
The first method is appropriate when the story strength can be made
proportional to the lateral force; whereas in the second method, the
strength of the constituent components should be proportioned so that
the weak-beam-type failure mode is dominant at every story under the
"design lateral forces." Therefore, adequately determining the design
force distribution is essential in either method.
55
minimize (5.1)
where,
( 5 .. 2)
subject to E = constant
p
in which,
Then, both the kinetic energy and potential energy may be expressed as
follows;
(5.4)
E (5.5 )
P
where;
1 0:- _... o! i
0;
1 :-1 :
a = I,n)
~[Ek \E ]
P
0 (i (5.6 )
1.
aE
. --E \"{Q.}
[A .. ]{<p.} ),'{a<p.} (5.7)
1.J 1. 1.
1.
57
where:
n
A = L m
ij k=max(i, j) k
The above Eq. 5.7 gives a one-to-one relationship between the interstory
mode shape and the applied inters tory force distribution.
For the case of a linear mode shape, the interstory mode {¢ } may be
i
expressed as
Y
{h Y (5.8 )
i+l - h ].. }
1-n which,
By substituting Eq. 5.8 into Eq. 5.7, the interstory shear forces Q. and
1-
the lateral forces F become
i.
n
I w.h~
J J
j=i
Q.]. CBW n
(5.9)
I w.h~
J J
j=l
wh Y
i i (5.10)
F.]. cBw n
L w.h~
J J
j=l
where:
The above Eq. 5.10 gives the linear lateral force distribution
currently used in seiEmic code provisions. Therefore, the linear
lateral force distributicn is the optimal strength distribution when a
linear mode shape is prescribed. In order to achieve the linear mode
shape near the elastic range as well, the story stiffness should be
proportional to the story shear force; i.e., the same distribution
should be adopted for story strength and story stiffness.
IM. 1
= h
e CBW
(5.11)
h (5.12)
e
where:
Q.
e l l
< 0.5 Q. ( 5.13)
and
(5 .. 14)
in which;
Q.
l.
= applied shear force at the i-th story;
Q.
c l.
= sum of strength of weak-column-type frames; and
Equation 5.13 indicates that at least 50% of the applied shear force
1S resisted by the weak-beam-type frames, whereas Eq. 5.14 requires that
the stress in the columns of the weak-column-type frames are within 50%
of their strength .. The restriction of Eq. 5.14 is based on the
observation of laboratory data of reinforced concrete columns, which
generally show that inelastic deformation becomes prominent when the
applied load exceeds 50% of the yield strength (e.g., Short Column
Committee, 1973-77).
When the above restrictions are satisfied, the overall strength
requirement may be expressed as,
I ell
Q. h. + LM.l (5 .. 15)
60
()w.h~)2
1 1
L,
W (5.16)
e Iw.h~2
1 1
Qe cW ( 5.17)
B
h R (5 .. 18)
e
T = iu/3.68
p
(5.20)
(5.21)
I
c
= 0.1 - 0.2 ;
T = 0.2 - 5 .. 0 (sec .. );
T
G
= 0.4 - 1 .. 0 (sec.);
C = 0 .. 1 - 0 .. 6 ; and
e
l;G = 0 .. 9.
40 I T1 . 5
c (5.22)
u (inch)
e 0.67-0.42 In(T/T )
G
C
e
40 I TI . 5
c (5.23)
0.67-0.42 In(T/T G)
h C
e e
The value R of
may be called the "required ductility index. " The
d
constituent components are required to have enough duct i I ity Ito sustain
the above rotational deformation. Since the target is to achieve a
uniform damage distribution at a limiting damage level of D = 0.4, the
relevant potential damage of the constituent components should also
satisfy this limit of D = 0.4. By eliminating the hysteretic energy
term (under equivalent short duration excitation), the damage index for
each component should be
D 0.4 (5 .. 24)
0.40
u
R.1. (5.25)
l.n which, ~ = the shear span length. Therefore, the potential ductility
of the constituent member is expressed by the value of R •
i
The study on the inelastic behavior of reinforced concrete
components in Chapter 2 has shown that the ductility is a function of
the following structural parameters;
64
Larger values of i/d, p , and f' will increase ductility, whereas higher
w c
values of p and n will decrease ductility.
o
A parametric study was conducted using the results of about 45,000
different combination of parameter values for reinforced concrete
components. A mUltiple regression analysis of the results yielded the
following;
1n which,
Comparison with experimental data is shown in Figure 5.3 for 261 cyclic
test specimens. In evaluating the values of R for these specimens,
1
the ultimate deformation under static loading was calculated using the
definition of the damage index. The relevant scatter gives a c.o.v. of
0.54 (assuming a lognormal distribution), which is almost the same as
the CeO.V. of the damage index.
65
LQ.R.
1 1
(5.27)
LQ.1
Accordingly, the requirement for ductility of a building is
R >R
T - d
where:
(5.28)
2.06+0.1f'-3.7n -(2.2-4.2n )p
R. (%) O.4(£./d) coo (5 .. 29)
1
5 .. 5 .. 3 Structural Analysis.
T = 11.69/3.68 = 0 .. 35 sec.
Yield moments, M , were calculated for the columns using the method
described in App~ndix-A, yielding the following:
Story 1 Story 2
The results are summarized in Table 5.2. The next step is to calculate
the natural peoriod T. The top lateral deformation, u , of the building
under a uniform lateral load of Ig is calculated as follows:
R
T
= (2234.5x12x4.13+1308.x6x6.45+3422.x2x3.80+4756.x2x1.52)/51018.
= 3.95 > 3.53 -~ O.K.
R = (2886x24x3.36+1776x6x5.11+6458x2x3.61+9033.2x2xl.29
T
= 3.22 > 3.03 -~ O.K.
observed for the weak-column-type frames (i.e., Frames A and B). The
calculated overall damage' indices D are shown in Table 5.11.
T
5.7 Limitation
CHAPTER 6
where:
P. = model parameter;
1
n
Q
= 10 .2 2+0 .. 122 = 0.23 ..
6.2.2 Damping
-The uncertainty in the hysteretic energy per cycle has already been
examJned in Chapter 2; a c.o.v. of 0 .. 25 was obtained through the
analysis of about 800 hys~eresis loops.
6.2 .. 5 Mass
The above results are sUmmarized in Table 6.1. For estimating the
overall variabil ity of the damage index D due to mode 1 ing error as well
as the contribution of each model parameter, three SDF systems were
79
1 aD I -=-
Qi
(6 .. 2)
I dp. l.l x D
1
q (6.3a)
or
(PF) q (6.3b)
in which:
CHAPTER 7
TABLES
85
t = 5 sec. t = 15 sec.
0 0
SA
D 0.266 ' 0.540 0.870 1.250 0.266 0.489 0.874 1.050
max
SB 0.827
D 0.366 0.626 0.961 0.326 0.576
max
SC 0.423 0.814
D 0.316 0.594 0.937
max
.. _- .
Building A B C* D E F G H I
Number of Stories 6 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 3
Natural Period (sec.) 0.56 0.23 0.34 0.15 0.20 0.30 0.15 0 .. 13 0.18
00
(j\
Strength (g) 0.22 0.48 0,.33 0.59 0.50 0.46 0.67 0.71 0.63
llu 4.0 5.5 5.5 9.7 4.7 7.5 1.7 7.9 7.4
Characteristic Intensity 0.31 0.23 0.12 0.19 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.12 0.23
Overall Damage Index 1.47 1 .. 05 0.48 0.22 0.39 0.85 ·1.25 0.02· 0.27 .
Story A.l D.
l
A.l D.
l
D.
Story Strength (g) A.l l
Entire Bldg. Old Part New Part
1 0.71 7 .. 92 0.67 0 .. 03
D.
Story Strength (g) ~u A.1 1
(Story) (Member)
Story Q..1
3 189 189
1 63 378
Cl 0.9 44.0
Story 3 17"x17 H
3.45 0.183 190 .. 0
C2 0.18 51.0
C1 0.14 71.4
Story 2 19"x19" 3 .06 0.192 315.8
C2 0.29 86.5
C1 0.19 84.0
Story 1 20 x20
iii ii
2.89 0.167 378 .. 0
C2 0.39 105.0
Component P (%)
w
.*
Ri . (%) Check Rr > Rd
..
C1 1.04
Story 3 0.20 0.883 > 0 .. 77 -~ O.K ..
C2 0" 7 5
C1 0 .. 985
Story 2 0.80 0" 7 80 > 0 .. 77 -~ O.. K.
C2 0.606
C1 1.057
Story 1 1.46 O. ii 8 >O . ii -~ O.K.
C2 0.559
Story F.1 .
Q.1
5 280 280
4 224 504
2 112 784
1 56 840
93
C1 0.09 65.9
Story 5 17 "x17 " 3.47 0.308 280.8
C2 0.18 74.5
C1 0.14 118.7
Story 4 19"x19" 3.06 0 .. 366 505.4
C2 0.29 134.0
C1 0 .. 19 154.8 .
Story 3 20 .. 5"x20.5" 2.81 0.362 672.4
C2 0.37 181.4
C1 0.22 181.4
. Story 2 21.5"x21.5" 2.67 0.342 785.8
C2 ·0.44 211.5
C1 0.26 193.4
Story 1 22"x22" 2 .. 60 0.325 842.8
C2 0.53 228.0
94
Component P (%)
w
R. (%)
l
Check Rr > Rd
Cl 0.869
Story 5 0.20 0·.760 > 0.572 -;> O.. K.
C2 0 .. 664
C1 .0.685
Story 4 0.41 0.574 > 0.572 -;> O.K.
C2 0.476
C1 0.693
Story 3 1.00 0.573 > 0.572 -;> O.K.
C2 0.463
C1 0.731
Story 2 1.47 0.578 > 0 . 57 2 -;> 0 .. K.
C2 0.448
C1 0.762
Story 1 1.93 0.576 > 0.572 -;> O.K.
C2 0 .. 417
*M.
l
is the yield moment in kips in
Component p (%)
w
R.1 * (%)
Bl 0.38 4.13
B2 0.53 6.45
Cl 1.50 3.80
C2 2.00 1.52
B1 0.38 3.36
B2 0.53 5.11
C1 1.50 3.61
C2 2.00 1.29
Stiffness, K 0.31
. Strength, Q 0.23
Damping, h 0.52
Predominant Frequency, wG 0.44
Hysteretic Energy per Cycle, E 0.25
Mass, M 0.12
98
FIGURES
99
€e
o
~
ae
0 0 0
de CTS
0[ CTs
d z
h c· f~
at
~ CTy CTy
0 0 0
dt
I. b
~I
Cross-Section Strain Stress Equivalent Stress
O"/f~
1.0
0" ~ ~ 2
- . ::: 2 ( - ) - ( - )
fc EO EO
1.0
Concrete Steel
U)
~
U)
Infinite <V
boo
+-
(f)
'M
. "C
.......... 0"0 c:
0
OJ ::: (...§... )iJ3
So
....
So
S, Slippage
50 .......
~
c o
.......
m :IF (Bar No.) - (Anchorage Length)
't-
0
40
o u::: 225.5 X 1.5 112 X Sn 2/3
en
en
Q) u ::: 225.5 X 0.91J2 x $n 2 / 3
~
+-
30
(f)
...
b 20
10
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 . 0.04
Sn \I Normalized Slippage
80
70
-
fI)
Koike
D16-25
Ma (Member Test)
#6-3A
-....
~
0
60
Koike
co 59
I\+-
~
0
o
fI) N
fI)
w
40
....
0+-
en
Ferguson
30 (Average of Top Bars)
b
20
10
11.0 ~------~l--------~I---------'-I-------'I---------'-l-------'
9.0 I- -
7.0 t- . -
e
'+-
to
'u, 5.0 I-m -
to . !
@
e
3.0 - e -
e
$
1.0- -
o
o
-1.0 L -______~____~__~________~______~_________~I_ _ _ _ _ _~
......... , III #!
Concrete
L
Fig. 2.9 Shear Cracking Model
105
11.0 ~--~--~I--------~I~------~I--------~I~-------~I------~
9.0 f- -
7.0 - -
o
Cot-
<0
"- 5.0 f- 00 -
U)
o o o
<0 o o
o
3.0 f-
o -
o
o 0
1.0 f- -
2.0 ~---------------------------.-------------------------~
o
N=244 o
COV=16.5% .
+- 1.0
·c
(J.)
E
L
(J.) o
0..
X
W
Q Buckling
Compression
Flexural
Failure ~fJ
r ~
8
of Bar
Tension
Flexural
Failure V~ t~.
Fracture of
Tension Bar
..... I-'
b
0"1
Compress ion
Shear· ~~Gradual
Failure
Failure
~.
L __ j
Tension
Shear
Failure
1--- 4 V ~
fL 0° SJ S o§
......
a
5t- s OS /) - -...,J
<',{\ ~ S
v~r (' 3 S
S.:> &0
t.':t-*)
~, ':'c,s
',-I S
~J S
s S
T .:.D (:~ .', C' S
2t- s. S c·, J....~~.J ).'r)
'( . . v S T
-
T S
ST
w'-)"
S
TT
. oS
c:
Sf
J .. T T
1.01- o S
1
S -
S T
T
ST.
0.51- -
I J I 1 I
0.2 0.5 1.0 2 5
Ep lEo
2 a1 I - 0.5 1.0
501- 8'V
20 21 2 21 4
o 1
~ t
~
10~ 22
00 41 3 3e
5~
J.L
~
t-'
0
<D 12 J co
121-
3 21 2 2 4
2~
2J: ~ 12 i j 4
!~
0
12 0 1 1 2 2 4
o1 1 0(J· 1 3 2~
1.0~ 0° 3 0 0 4
o0 0 2 2
20
0.5r-
I I I I I
0.2 0.5 1.0 2 5
Ep lEo
Xo
1) 00 ()
Co d) o x
~
~o 0
10~
o~
fLEXP I-'
o
5 \D
~y.s v~ 0
D'B
's'
~§ § s
S
r
~..;~ Sf ~ r
I.O~~) . S
T 0
0.5r-- ff
I -~
to 5 10 50
a
f:f~ ~e: fLCAL
t:r 0 -4. ~
~a:> ~N
~ Z m t.:e Fig. 2.15 Prediction Error in Ultimate Ductility Factor
- \:):j)-l- III
{-lc+H..
H~ 0<:.4 ('0
\--100) \;
{-l\3 o('()
j-I'j-I- ZHltj
tj t::1 (') 0
t""' ';j
bj-I. a> t:1 r-
(v
m(/) r-a::x
c+ \-', 0
\; ';j (
Q)
1.-1 ('()
_ 0 ,.
110
1.5
N=261 e
1.0
COV=60% (j)
0
f!Jb0
0
co.. e
+-
C
<D
E 0.5
L
<D
n..
X
W
0.0
-.5
0.0 0.5 1.0
Ca I cu loted f3
0.6
fifo
0El <:) ~
0.4 0
$ 0
co.. 0
0 0
@ @
+- €I 0
c:
a:>
r
., 0
00
@
t: 0.2 0@ @
0
L 0
a:> ~
0.. El
X El
W
0.0
00
€I 0
El N=261
COV=55%
0
0
-.2
0.0 0.2 0.4
Calculated f3
Fig. 2.17 Prediction Error in S for Eq. 2.2
111
o
no<O.05 e. • •
1.5
o
o
o
;...1.5 I'
j
>-
~ ~0 ~
>-
;...
~ 1.0 0 0 ° 0 $ 0 CJ 1.0
'-..
o o
U
;.uU % 0 00 ° W o
o
0.5
§ 1IIJ 0
0
0
0 0~ ~ I 0.5
~ 0~0'
o
0 o
00 &e ° 0 ~0 0$ 0
0.0 '--____--<-0_._ _ L. _ _ _ _ ~
O.O~ ____~______~_ _ ---~'--------~I ,
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Ductility Fa :tor Ductility Factor
(a) (d)
~
_::: f=.05'<no<o.~-;- ~~.-~
2.0r--------r-~--.,__----_.-~--,
e ii o
1.5 O.45<n o
o
~ 0
0
i >- 00 o
1 ~ o 0
;... 0 <l!> &> I >- o o
?...... 1. 0 0 ~ 00 0
0 0
.. 'i 01.0
o
o
W
u
Gl
@'iJ1S ~
0000, ~Jk
@ <:)
01D 0
;
i
"
w
(..) o
o
0 0
00
0
o ~ '1 . fl00 ~
"til
~GIi:>~ -
0.5
o ~
o~ 0Cl.0
00
0 ]
0.5
o ~ ~", 0
o 0 0 ~~';Ji;
0.0
0 0
L--_ __ __i:>eL.._ 0_ _ _- - - ! _ - - - ' ,_ _ _ ._~~. o. 0 l.---.:-~~_~_.
---1-_~' _ _ _- ' - -_ _ _- ' - -_ _- - '
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Ducti!lty Factor Duct~:ity Factor
(b) (e)
2.0
1.5
>-
~
;...
CJ 1.0
'-..
U
W
0.5
j
2.0
(c)
5.0,------.------.------.------.------. 20.0r---r---r---r---.---.---r---.---.-~
4.0 o
15.0 o
>-
to
(:t10 . 0 o
(;)
o
'u 1Il§>~~(;) 0 0
5.0 f 4)1
!
'20.0 r
4.0 ~
o 4) 15.0
>- I >.
to 3.0
>-
o
<:>
<:>
0
'" o ~
I
to
>-
<:::1
'-. <? 0 I OJ 10.0
....... ~ ~ 0 $
~
(;) <it>
WJUZ.O
<ll.!>~
o
Jl00 0 0 (;) ..., o w
C,)
o
o J. ~l!J0
9
0
0
@ (;) I
~(;) 0
®:8 5.0 <:>:0A~0
~
0 0 0
1.0 ~~0 ~<1b
~ ° O.2<Of /O y<O.3 i I~i'
o.olL______L'______~'______~'______~'L_ ____ ~! o.o~~__~__~__~__~__~__~__~
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 B.O 9.0 10.0
Ductility Factor Ductility Factor
(b) (e)
20.0 [
i
15.0
to
>-.
>-.
CJJ 10.0
'-.
o 00
<l>
o
j
C,)
0<l>0 '"
W o o
5.0 <i.:£J 0~G
.L{)!J%<:>
~~0
.r.:>!A<II!_'e.~%0
0.0 I I ! I
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0
Ductility Factor
(c)
Normalized Hysteretic
Energy per Cycle
Ductility Factor 1 p.
2.4 1.0
2.2 0.8
2.0 0.6
1.8 0.4
1.6 0.2
fI f2
1.4 0
1.2 -0.2
fI = 0.5 + 2.34 !!.
1.0 8y -0.4
0.8 -0.6
0.6 -0.8
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Sf/Sy
o at = + Q~8u f dE o
00
2.0 n =403
x fLo = 1.008
(l)
"'0
C
(j = 0.535
(l)
1.0
Cl
o
E
8 0.5
o QOO
10 50 99
Pro ba b iii t Y (CVa )
Fig. 2.22 Damage Index of Eq. 2.1 Plotted on Lognormal Probability Paper
8·
D=-+f--J aJ dE 8 ) 0.6
(-
, 8u Ec(8) 8u
n =403
2.0 fLo =1.008
0-=0.501
Cl)
1.0
0'
o
E
o
£::) 0.5
115
Normalized Hysteretic
Energy Per Cycle
(a) (b)
Deformation
8M
1.5 ~--------------------------'-------------------------0--~
o
0 9
0~
N=261 o
o 0
COV=21%
+-
c
<l) .
E
L
~0.5
X
W
0.0 ~--------------------------~----------------~--------~
0.0 0.5 1.0
Calculated Oy/Oy
2.0 ~----~--~--------~--------~----------~--------~--------~
N=261
COV=12%
o
.-l o
« o
i
*
u 0
o o
a~1.0 ~~--~~~~~--~~--~~~------------~@~------------------~
.
x o
w
a o
i
10 '-Test ,/ 10 1.0
5 5
I-'
I-'
1...-------l~1i""" 8 (in.) .....8 .. 80n,) '-l
Pt =1.11 ~o P t = 1.68~o
c:
m
a.n
g Fe = 2.75 ksi
Pw= 0.51 ~o
.~
o
V
g Fe = 3.2 ksi
Pw= 0.33 ~o.
1_l I)Oin~r N = 36kps
IZ9in./
N =88 kps
o -- 8M .
3.93 + 0.00202
It dE
0
8M ,t
0= 0.651 +0.0216)0 dE
Column-A Column-B
1.0
0.1
00
Time
Maximum Displacement
~~~fdE(~S-in.~ 1~~fdE(kiPS-in.) .~
q)
t ~T. at. ~T/To
5 10 15 20 0 0 5 10 15 T'.me 20
Absorbed Hysteretic Energy
o
1.0 0
0,5
Damage Index, D
(Column - A) (Column - B)
D =1.0 15 =1.0
0.6 0.20
0.5 0.75 0.75
Column-A Column-B
0.15
t:n
0.50
en ... 0.10
E en
... E
...
c
c 0.05
0
4 9 16. 25 36 4 9 16 25 36
to (sec) to (sec)
P =90OJo P =90OJo
0.6 0.20
5CYlo
0.5 Coiumn-A Column-B
0.15
t:n
0'1
en
E en
... E
...
c
c
0 0
4 9 16 25 36 4 9 16 25 36
to (sec) to(sec)
I ~/
, at!
~COlumn-B
1.0 D
ytf
x
Q)
"0
c:
j
II cOlu7m-A
/~
JJ.(:i • - '0 = I sec.
Q)
0"
o
0.5 ~ ~ II - '0 =4sec.
E
o- to =9 sec.
o
o-
o
.ir
'
/~ b. -
to = 16 sec.
to = 25sec.
"V -to =36sec.
"Characteristic IntenSity, Ie
. 1.5
=erG 411
0.5
to
Elast ic
Columns
p.I
(Hinged
Column)
Rotation ~ 8j Uj
.s:::.
at Hinge 1-), 1-2), (I-).L- ).u~ h .:<.
.s:::. -i-
l!') .s:::.
Effective 3EI GEI 12EI o :< 8i
Stiffness (1_).)3£ (1- 2).)3 h ( 1-).L- Au)3h 3 I
l!') .1-2),
o
I
(Half -Hinged Column)
82 84 84
82 83 J 83 I
12' 82
'......1
83 I 83 I I I
81 I
I
81 I
J
(Frame - A)
>Ill
20' 9-i
I
(Frame- 8)
odII
20' 9-i
(Frame-C)
16xl6
..
~..
72x6
.
0 8
...
..
... .
15x30
D IOx42
o ..
12x20
[J.. ..
12xl6
Reinforcement 8-#8 - 3-#8 2-#\0 2-#8 2-#6
Web-Rein. #3-at8::(For F-A) #3-at65/1 #3-atld'#3-at51i #3-at4
11
#3-at 4 (For F-8,C) .
L-
a
QJ
..c
(f)
QJ
fI)
0.2
------
Frame - C
,,,----- Frame - B
~ 0.1
I--'
N
LV
'--
0.4 0.8 12
Top Floor Defor'mation (~o)
('Failure Mode)
a b c d e f g h
to (sec.) 5 5 5 5 15 15 15 15
CTG(g) 0079 0.126 0.165 Q20 0.055 0.087 0.115 0.126
3 3 3
2 2 2
d d b gc d
I ---4 I I
5 2000 1.0
Story Drift Hysteretic Energy Damage Index
(inch) (kips-in.)
a b c d e f
to (sec.) 5 5 5 15 15 15
CTG(g) 0.109 0.172 0.226 0.075 0.120 0.157
'r 1 )
\ , I
\
,, ,, ,
, I
\
2
I , ,
• I ,
I Ie If
dab c c
I I
5 1500 1.0
Story Dr i ft Hysteret ic Energy Damage Index
(inch) (kips- in.)
a b c d e
to (sec.) 5 5 5 15 15
'(TG (g) 0.122 0.193 0.253 0.111 0.176
:lil
3 3
~~~--+-~~I
a b c e
d
I I
2
~«\
a d b e c
5 4000'
Story Drift Hysteretic Energy Damage Index
(inch) , (kips-in.)
2 , ,,
I
\
\
2
I
I
I
I
2
.........
ld
I
iI e .........
........... e
a I b I c c ........
I I I
0.02 6000 1.0
Rotation of Hysteret ic Energy Damage Index
Joints (k ips-in.)
\'0
b.-SA 11/
O-SB /
)(
o o-SC ·0 / / 0
E
~COlumns
10
(1)
0\
o 0.5
E
o
c Beams
E
:3
E
-;c
o
:E .-t o =5 sec.
0- t .
o
= 15 sec.
.... 0.7
10
..
b.-SA ,;/
O-SB
)(
(1)
"C
c 0,5
o-SC /
"
Q)
0\
0
A'
, b.
E
0
0
0.3 /
0
0
'-
(1)
>
0,1
/ .-to =5 sec.
O-to = 15 sec.
0.6
0.4
•
;> -5A
b. . - tg =5sec.
o
o -58 o -to = 15sec.
u 0.2
o -5C
Mean of 0
~.
128
Direction of Analysis
I· 68 M +1----4
a
.. I
11 a,b - - -
Direction of Photo, a (or b)
m
II--'- - 2 5 M - - - I 1...-
.. - - 5 4 M - - - - t
(D)
~--------~~------~~~----~
. T. T.
II e, e
J------.--:'T-\b - - - - 9 9 . 5 M --=-~------=4
'0
(F)
0\ -
(E)
1-0>---71.8 M-----I
·· ~/' ffi
~36.4M---I
b
(H)
' - - 4 5 M - - - - - ...jI
II-
t 0
0\
(A-a) (A-b)
(B-a) (B-b)
(C-a)
(C-b)
CD-a)
(D-b)
(E-b)
(E-a)
(F-b)
(F-a)
Fig. 4.2 (continued)
131
(G-a) (G-b)
(H-a)
(H-b)
(I-a)
(I-b)
0.12---....-,.---....,----...,....---,.......-0--,
u
H
>. 0.09 o
en
c:: o 00
-
Q.)
c::
0.06
o
o
-
u
en
~
Q.)
8 0
o
uc o
~
0.03
C
.t:
U
0.5
Pea k Aeee leration (G)
10°
(,)
H
...
~
+-
(/)
c 10- 1
QJ f'f"\\/-f"\A,)
+- \".v. V. - v."'Tc..
C
.~
+-
(/)
),..,
QJ
+-
U
C
),..,
c
.s:::.
U
10-3~-""""-""""~-""""""""'-""""'--r---r--..,........"'---
o 20 40 60 80 100
Epicentral Distance (km)
E ~ '-Maximum D.L
~
Extensive Large Cracks. ..c I ......
MODERATE Spoiling of Concrete in c 0-0 0-0 LV
"- Overall D. I. , LV
of Concrete in Columns.
Sporadic Occurrence
SLIGHT oH
of Cracking.
. D
.
o 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(Damage Inspection) (Simulated Damage Index)'
>-
<1>
(,) ~
"0<1>
o"- W c:
1..1.. NW
/ - U
0._
En;
"- "-
Ow
Zu:;
>-
:x:
By fLc
Deformation Ductility Factor, fL
(Envelope Curve) (Hysteretic Energy)
i I j I I I
lOa:: n :: 180
t: C.O.V. =0.19
L
,
t
i
.c 1
i-
(,)
c: i
1
!
~
ClJ
10~
"0
-
W
0
::J
~
;-
f-
E !
en f-
;
1.0:
1.0 10 100 ! I
Approximated Ue (inch)
n =261
C.O. v. =0.54
10.0-
10'70 Limit
-
c
Q)
o
E
'1.0 10.0
Calculated R i ('Vo)
~~~---A-r-c-h-i-t-e-c--tu--r-a-l--~
/ Requirements
. - - - - - - 2. Strength Des ign ------V\.--------------I
o Lateral Seismic Load
. ...
.n.". o Determine Strength and Stiffness
~..-------......
o Dimension and Axial Rein.
. ~ Size of Building
\11 I / (m i , hi)
3. S t ruc tu r al Analy sis --------V'--------------l
o Load Combination
o Natural Period, T
Non-Structural
\/ Components
~--------4. Ductility Check--------~
-'--.L.-...I-----L.'_,t ~
~
R (OJo) o 5
sec.
~
,I• . . R(~o
I_ .... p eo- 0
o 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 o 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 0.2 0.4
(Story Drift) (Damage) (Story Drift) (Damage)
Frame A Frame AI
Story
5
I-'
4 W
00
2
to:: 5 sec.
R(~o)
--+-- o R(~o) o
o ~
1.0 o 0.2 0.4 o 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 0.2 0.4
(Story Drift) (Damage) (Story Drift) (Damage)
Frome 8 Frame 8
1
(Stiffness, K) (Correlation)
2.0 ~--~----~--~----~----~--~--~
0~ ~0
0
0 00 0
~Q~
I
0
...-l 0,
<{ 8
o0 . :.
u 0
~ 0 ~ 0 :B$
0",
0
0 .§l0.
"1.0 ~--~~~~~~~~----------------4
0... 0
0
x 0
W
~ a 0 0 0
~
\:I
e e 0
0
0
0 0
~
0.5 ~__ ____ __ ____ ____ __ __
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
""0
" 6.0
o ~0
0 5 .0
'n = 260 +-
o
c.o.v. of K = 0.39 cr: 4.0
c.o.v. of Q 0.12 c
Coefficient Correlation = 0.42 03.0
0..
(J)
L 2.0
o
<D
..c 1 0
(J)'
1.0 2.0
QEXp/QCAL
(Strength, Q)
o C.O.V. =0.52
.s:::. 0
.....
C
QJ 0.1
.......
c
o
..- 0.6 - 0.6
o
I-
o
>
~~O.4
'+-
o
~
c
Q)
I-'
u +:---
'+- I-'
'+-
Q)
o
U 0.2 0.2 jKy A .....
A At
E
~4=!
W
~
h E
L_..L_..J...",,_:Lt:;:;:;;;-.~_
J)
1.0
<)=:-:=Q="'::9
1.0
a'0 Damage Index. D
1.0
Damage Index. 5 Damage Index. D
A (T= 0.4 sec.) B (T =0.8 sec.) C (T= 1.2 sec.)
d d
~ N t:S k fig. 6.3 Variability in Response Due to Modeling Error
~
o ~<I>
0) ('Oc:-4
~ liN
:e e '-1 m
V-'\-htr
I-Ipjl--lc+ CD
...... 0 0<:..::1 H
...... 13 0'l CD
\jr':~O~
o~oH>t:'
...,.. ~ H Q
.m (f.lt:4l--1<D
C":. ~
f-i \-h ~
m (J t::i 0
t-A ~l> 0 Co
m~ ~Il
§ CD
142
-q 10- 1
1\1
C
a..
...
-
~
..c
0
..c
0.....
a..
Q)
en
c.
0
"0
u
APPENDIX A
¢ . = C4l' (A. I )
Y Y
Figure A.I shows the resul t of flexural analy~:is of beams with various
steel ratios. Based on this result, the followlng was obtained for C;
p (1.9 .- p')
C' forp' :;2! 0 (A.2)
9.4p' + 0.Z3
ii
For columns, the value of C tends to increase with the increase of the
normalized axial stress, n , as shown in Figure A.2. When the axial
o
stress is not excessively high, e.g., n < 0.4, the rate of increase of
o
C with n may be regarded as being constant. The calculated values of
o
C of columns with a normalized axial stress n = 0.3 and various steel
o
ratios are shown in Figure A.3. Based on these results, the following
144
is obtained for the value of C for columns with the axial stress of
n = 0 .. 3;
o
0.45
C 1 + 0.84 + 2p' - p (A.5)
n
{C 1 + (C 2 - Cl)0~3} ¢~ (A.6)
where:
1 + 1. 9p 2. 4 for p' o
C
2
= 1 + 0.45/(0.84 + 2p' - p)
2Ec 1 - ~/4)
)ct = ~/4)d
2
a = ~(l = -( + E~ ~<1.0
~/3 3 ~ IE ~/3
y y 0
E
= ~(~ - 1/2) ~~1.0
(A .. 7)
¢ ~ - 1/3
Y
in which,
EC IE 0
E
a = n.d ( 0.75 )(~)O. 7 d (A.8)
1 + E IE E
Y 0 0
145
Therefore, the yield moment, M, and the axial force, N, are (see
Y
Figure 2.2),
N cf'ab + a Q cr - a cr (A.9b)
c c c Y t Y
where:
s
c :s; 1.0);
ex. s /s (1 - 8 ) - - 8 (a
c s y c s c c
y
Sc d /d d' (1 - 8 ) d/ 2
c c
2
M 0.5 f 1 bd {(1 + 8 n)n + (2- n)p + (n - 28 )a p'} (A.10)
Y c c o c c
1.SE
o (A.II)
¢ = ---
y xh
1.S(1/S' - x)
c
E a s -----:...--- S (A .. 12)
S c y a x . y
y
in which,
146
s'c h/d
1.5
N = bhf' 1x S f0 fCy)dy + ybdf'p'- a f'bdp (A.13)
c . C C C
where:
2
fCy) 2y - y, y ~ 1.0
y 1 - f Y /a
C y
2 ( no - yp , 1 .5) 1.5
o
0.778 S'x
c
- --;- p x - as' p (A.14)
y y C
In the case that the tension bar is also yielding (i.e., a = 1.0), x is
c
obtained simply as follows;
x = 1.286(n + p - yp')/S'
o C
M
Y
2
bh f~ 1~5 l 1.5
f(Y)Cl~S Y + 0.5 - x)dy
(A.16)
+ (O.Sh - d )ya a + (O.Sh - d )a a a
esc . - t cst
2 2
M f'bd {6,2(0.389x - 0.3l5x ) + (1.0 - 0.56')a p
y c c c c
c C
1.6
o---op=pl
pi 1.5 P =0.3
p'=0.3
·0.1
1.4 1.4
I. Il~:e!!~~~~~~~:~0.~5:0.6
0.7
1.1
\.00 0 .I 02
. 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 \.00 0.1 0.2 0.3
p no
c pi =0.1 c
pl=constant
2.2 2.2
2p I_p = constant
2.0 2.0
C=I+ 0.45
0.84+(2p'-p}
1.4 1.4
. \'2~~--~~--~~--~~~~
1,20 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
p (2pl_p)
APPENDIX B
2
x
2xU(x) exp (--2) (B.1)
20"1
in wnich, U(x) = the unit step function. The numerical error 1n the
above approximation is negligibly small especially for large values of
x. Therefore, Eq. 3.16 is reduced to the following;
x 2: 0
x < 0 (B.2)
APPENDIX C
The matrices in Eqs. 3 .. 32 and 3.33 are shown below for the case of a
3-story building.
1 1
- C - cC 2 0
c 1 IDI IDl
0 C ~ - C (~+~)
c 2 ID2 c 3 m2 ID3
12EIl
- C'L ~ k
c 1 c 1 IDl 2
ih1e1ID1
12EIl
[K] cal ck 1 ~+
1lJ. 2
lh1elm1
(C.2)
151
I
-(1- a ) k
C 3 c 3 m
(~+~JI
m3
I
2 .
I
6EI I I
1 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[A] I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o I -
I
I
I
I
6EI,.,
.:>
(C.4)
152
I I I
4EI I 2EIl I I
I I I
0 I
bal bkl + -2- I I I
I I I
[ hI I [2h I I
I 1 I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2EI2
,,
I
I
2EII I
I
4EIl 4EI21 I
I b 0. 2 k +--+--1 1
b 2 [2h 1
[2h I [2h [2h21 1
I 1 l 2 r
[F]
I
1
I
I
1
1
,
1
I
1 2EI2 1 4EI2 4EI3 1
,
1 1
a k+--+-- I I
Ib 3 b 3 [2h2 [ 2h 3 I
0 I
I [2h I I
I 2 I I
I I I
I I I
I 1 I
I I 2EI3 I
I
I I
0 I 0 I I
I I [2h I
I I I
I I 3 I
o
(C.S)
153
[D] = (C.6)
6EI
I
0 0
2
£. hIe l
6EI ,6EI2
I O·
2
£. hIe l £.2h 2e 2
[E] ,= (C.7)
6EI . 6EI
2 . 3
0 1-
2 I 2
£. h 2 e 2 I £. h3 e 3
I
I
I
I
I
1
6EI3
0 0 1-
1 2
1
1
£. h3 e 3
e.1 w.lf..
1
(C .. 8)
154
APPENDIX D
u. h~R (D.l)
1 1
where:
The equation of motion for a MDF building (neglecting the damping term)
is
where:
1 -1 0- - - .. 0
'.
\.
, ,,
I
\.
,
I
I
I;
[A] '. . ',I I
I ~. _. ___ ~~~<: j
f = i-th story restoring force; and
.. 1
X = base shear ..
G
155
(D.3)
or
o (D.4)
The equation of motion for the equivalent SDF system may be expressed
as,
M (u
e e
.. )
+ xG + fe o (D.S)
where:
M
e
= equivalent mass;
u
e
= equivalent response; and
f
e
= equivalent restoring force.
{h~}T[M]{h~} >rn.h~2
1 1 '-'
1 1
u
e
R=-·--R (D.6)
{h~ }T[M]{l} Im.h~
1 1 1
The kinetic energy for the MDF and SDF systems may be written as,
(D.7)
By substituting Eq. D.6 into Eq. D.7, the equivalent mass is obtained
as,
156
M (D.S)
e
x o (D .. 9)
Lrn.h~
~ ~
f (D.lO)
e
By substituting the design story shear forces Q given in Eq. 5.9 into
i
the above relationship, the equivalent strength, Q , is obtained as
e
(D.ll)
where:
LIST OF REFERENCES
17. Banon, H., Biggs, J. Mo, and Irvine, H. M., "Prediction of Seismic
Damage in Reinforced Concrete Frames," Seismic Behavior and Design
of Buildings, Report No.3, MIT, May 1980.
21. Brown, R. H.. and Jirsa, J. D., "Reinforced Concrete Beams under
Load Reversals," ACI Journal, Vol .. 68, pp. 380-390, May 1971.
26.. Culver, C. G.. , Lew, H. S., Hart, G.. C., and Pinkham, C. W.,
"Natural Hazard Evaluation of Existing Buildings," U.. S. Department
of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards Building, Science Series,
61, Washington, D.C., 1975.
28. Ferguson, P. M., Breen, J. E., and Thompson, J. No, '~ullout Test
on High Strength Reinforcing Bars," ACI Journal, Vol. 62, pp.
933-950, August 1965.
30. Gaston, J. R., Siess, C.. P., and Newmark, N. M., "An Investigation
of the Load-Deformation Characteristics of Reinforced Concrete
,Beams Up to the Point of Failure, fU Civil Engineering Studies, SRS
No. 40, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, December 1952.
31. Gosain, N. K., Brown, R. H., and Jirsa, J. 0", "Shear Requirements
for Load Reversals on RC Members," Journal of the Structural,
Division, ASCE, Vol. 103, ST7, pp. 1461-1476, July 1977.
32. Goto, Y., "Cracks Found in Concrete Around Deformed Bars," ACI
Journal, Vol. 68, pp. 224-251, April 1971.
37. Hirosawa, M., Goto, T., Fujiki, Y., '''Past Experimental Results on
Reinforced Concrete Columns ,." Building Research Institute, Ministry
of Construction of"Japan, February 1973.
42. Jirsa, J. 0 .. and Marques, J.L.G .. , "A Study of Hooked Bar Anchorage
in Beam-Column Joints," Report to Reinforced Concrete Research
Council (Project 33), University of Texas at Austin, July 1972.
43 .. Kanai, K. and Yoshizawa, S., nOn the Period and the Damping of
Vibration in Actual Buildings," Bulletin of the Earthquake Research
Institute, University of Tokyo, Vol. 39, pp. 477-489, 1961.
44. Kani, G.N.J., "The Riddle of Shear Failure and Its Solution," ACI
Journal, Vol. 61, pp. 441-467, April 1964
46. Kobori, T., Minai, R., and Suzuki, Y., V~quivalent Linearization
Method for Nonlinear System Considering the Plastic Drift Effect,"
Annual Conference of Alj 1n Tohoku, Japan, pp. 777-778, 1973.
47. Koike, K., Takeda, J., Yoshioka, K., and Nakayama, T .. , nOn the
Yield Deformation of Reinforced Concrete Columns," Annual
Conference of AIJ, Japan, pp. 1297-1298, October 1974.
.:; .:....
161
51. Lybas, J. and Sozen, M. A., "Effect of Beam Strength and Stiffness
on Dynamic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Coupled Walls," Civil
Engineering Studies, SRS No. 444, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Illinois, July 1977.
52. Ma, S-Y. M., Bertero, V. V., and Popov, E. P., "Experimental and
Analytical Studies on the Hysteretic Behavior of Reinforced
Concrete Rectangular and T-Beams," University of Cali~ornia,
Berkeley, EERC, Report No. 76-2, May 1976.
57.. Morita, Se and Tomita, K., "Basic Study on Bond Between Steel and
Concrete,iI Transactions. AIJ, Japan, March 1967---September 1967.
63. Park, R. and Paulay, T., Reinforced Concrete Structures, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc . , New York, NY, 1975.
64. Pires, J .. E.A., Wen, Yo K., and Ang, A. H-S., "Stochastic Analysis
of Liquefaction under Earthquake Loadings," Civil Engineering
Studies, SRS No. 504, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois,
April 1983.
68. Sues, R. He, Wen, Yo K., and Ang, A. H-S., "Stochastic Seismic
Performance Evaluation of Buildings," Civil Engineering Studies,
SRS No. 506, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, May 1983.
70. Takeda, T., Sozen, M. AD, and Nielsen, N. N., '~einforced Concrete
Response to Simulated Earthquakes," Journal of the Structural
Division, ASCE, Vol. 96, ST12, pp. 2557-2573, December 1970.
71. Takizawa, He, '~onlinear Model for Simulating the Dynamic Damaging
Process of Lowrise Reinforced Concrete Buildings during Severe
Earthquakes," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol.
4, pp. 73-94, 1975.
72. Tanaka, T e Yoshizawa, S., Osawa, Y., and Morishita, To, "Period
,
79. Whitman, R. V., Cornell, C. A., Vanmarcke, E. H., and Reed, J. W.,
''Methodology and Initial Damage Statistics," Department of Civil
Engineering, MIT, Research Report R73-57, No. ST380, 1972.
80. Whitman, R. V., Hong, J. T., and Reed, J. W., '~amage Statistics
for High Rise Buildings in the Vicinity of, the San Fernando
Earthquake," ,Seismic Design Analysis Report No.7, Department of
Civil Engineering, MIT, Research Report R73-24, 1973.