BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FLEXIBLE FLOOR UNDER SEISMIC - CAIRO-MSc 1999

BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FLEXIBLE FLOOR
DIAPHRAGMS UNDER SEISMIC LOADS
By
Eng. Hesham Ahmed El Sherbeny

B.Sc. in Civil Eng. 1992
A Thesis Submitted to the

Faculty of Engineering at Cairo University
in Partial Fulfillment of
Requirements for the Degree of
MASTER OF SCEINCE
in
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

GIZA, EGYPT
January 1999
By


MASTER OF SCEINCE
in
Under the Supervision of
Prof. Dr. Mohamed El Said Issa

Prof. of Reinforced Concrete Structures
Cairo University
Dr. Akram A. Torkey Dr. Mohamed F. Mohamed

A. Prof., Structural Eng. Dept. Lecturer, Structural Eng. Dept.
GIZA, EGYPT
January 1999
By


MASTER OF SCEINCE
in
Approved by the
Examination Committee
________________________________
Prof. Dr. Mohamed El Said Issa, The Main Advisor
________________________________
Prof. Dr. Shaker El-Behairy, Member
________________________________
Prof. Dr. Mohamed Talat Mostafa, Member
________________________________
A. Prof. Akram A. Torkey, Member

GIZA, EGYPT
January 1999
To My Whole Family
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE
LIST OF TABLES viii

LIST OF FIGURES ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT xvi
ABSTRACT xvii
Chapter 1 : INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Scope and Objectives 2
1.3 Organization of Report 3
Chapter 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Literature Review 4
Chapter 3 : PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

3.1 Introduction 13
3.2 Program IDARC2 14
3.2.1 Program Organization 15
3.2.1.1 Non-Linear Static Analysis 16
3.2.1.2 Collapse Mode Analysis 16
3.2.1.3 Dynamic and Damage Analysis 20
3.2.1.4 Damage Indices Analysis 21
3.2.1.5 Fundamental Natural Period 22
3.3 Modeling of Structural Elements 24
3.3.1 Beam Elements 24
3.3.2 Column Elements 25
3.3.3 Shear Wall Elements 26
3.3.4 Edge Column Elements 27
3.3.5 Transverse Beam Elements 28
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUE)
TITLE PAGE
3.3.6 Flexible Floor Diaphragm 28

3.4 Idealization of Material 36
3.5 Envelope Curve and Fiber Model Analysis 37
3.5.1 Envelope Curve 37
3.5.2 Fiber Model Analysis 37
3.5.3 Development of Moment-Curvature Envelope 39
3.5.4 Slab Trilinear Envelope Fitting 42
3.5.4.1 Fitting for Flexural Properties 42
3.5.4.1.A Flexible Floor Model 42
3.5.4.1.B Flexible Elastic Floor Model 43
3.5.4.1.C Rigid Floor Model 43
3.5.4.2 Fitting for Shear Properties 44
3.6 Dynamic Analysis Hysteretic Parameters 45
3.6.1 General 45
3.6.2 Three Parameter Hysteric Model 45
3.6.2.A Stiffness Degradation 46
3.6.2.B Strength Deterioration 46
3.6.2.C Pinching or Bond Slip Parameters 46
Chapter 4 : DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDIED BUILDING

4.1 Properties of Materials 51
4.1.1 Concrete 51
4.1.2 Reinforcing Steel 51
4.2 Applied Loads 52
4.2.1 Dead Loads 52
4.2.2 Live Loads 52
4.2.3 Lumped Mass Loads 52
4.2.4 The Applied Waves 53
4.2.5 Seismic Design Parameters 53
4.3 The Studied Structures 53
v
TITLE PAGE
4.3.1 WC-1-5-1 Building 53

4.3.2 CW-1-5-1 Building 54
4.3.3 CC-1-5-1 Building 54
4.3.4 WW-1-5-1& WW-1-N-1 Buildings 55
4.3.5 WC-N-5-1 Buildings 55
4.3.6 WC-3-5-N Buildings 60
4.3.7 WC-2-5-1 Building 60
4.3.8 WC-2-9-3 Building 61
4.3.9 FWC-2-9-3 Building 61
Chapter 5 : ANALYTICAL STUDY

5.1 General 66
5.2 Studied Parameters 68
5.2.1 Floor Diaphragm Model 68
5.2.2 Building Geometry 83
5.2.2.1 Vertical Elements Configuration 83
5.2.2.2 Number of Stories 85
5.2.2.3 Story Height. 94
5.2.2.4 Plan Dimensions 112
5.2.2.4a Length Parallel to Wave Direction 112
5.2.2.4b Width Normal to Wave Direction 114
5.2.3 Floor Diaphragm Properties 120
5.2.3.1 Slab Parameters 120
5.2.3.1.1 Structural System (Floor Type) 120
5.2.3.1.2 Slab Thickness 126
5.2.3.1.3 Opening in Slab 136
5.2.3.1.4 Concrete Grade 144
5.2.3.1.5 Steel Grade 150
5.2.3.2 Beam Parameters 160
5.2.3.2.1 Main Beams Stiffness 160
vi
TITLE PAGE
5.2.3.2.2 Transverse Beams Stiffness 176

5.3 Rigidity Assessment 178
5.3.1 Rigidity Factor Method 178
5.3.2 Proposed Method for Rigidity Assessment 187
Chapter 6 : SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

6.1 General 192
6.2 Summary of Conducted Study 192
6.3 Analysis and Results 193
6.4 Conclusion and Recommendations 196
6.5 Recommendations Future Research Work 197
REFERENCES 198
vii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE TITLE PAGE

Table 3.1 Overall Structural Damage Definitions 23
Table 3.2 Typical Effect of the Three Parameters Values 47
Table 5.1 The Studied Cases and Variable Parameters 68
Table 5.2 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-1-5-1 Building 71
Table 5.3 Estimation of Natural Period of CC-1-5-1, CW-1-5-1,
WC-1-5-1& WW-1-5-1 Buildings 85
Table 5.4 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-3-5-N Buildings. 94
Table 5.5 Estimation of Natural Periods of WC-1-5-1&WW-1-5-1
Buildings 104
Table 5.6 Estimation of Natural Period WW-1-N-1 Buildings 114
Table 5.7 Estimation of Natural Period WC-N-5-1 Buildings 120
Table 5.8 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-2-9-3& FWC-2-9-3
Buildings 126
Table 5.9 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-2-5-1 Building 136
Table 5.10 Effect of Opening in Floor Slabs on the Structure Response 144
Table 5.11 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-2-9-3 Building with
Concrete Grade Variations 150
Steel Grade Variations 160
Table 5.13 Variations of Main Beam Parameter of WC-2-9-3 Building 168
Variable Main Beams Stiffness 168
Table 5.15 Variations of Transverse Beam Parameter of WC-2-9-3
Building 177
Transverse Beams Variations 178
Table 5.17 Factors Affecting the In-Plane Floor to Vertical Element
Stiffness (Kh/Kv) 188
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
Figure 3.1 Main Program IDARC2 Organization 17

Figure 3.2 Detailed IDARC2 Program Flow Chart 18
Figure 3.3 Distribution of Lateral Load through Building Height 19
Figure 3.4 Elements Modeling Used in IDARC2 Program 19
Figure 3.5 The Structure and Individual Elements Modeling 30
Figure 3.6 Beam Modeling 30
Figure 3.7 The Flexibility Distribution Model of Beam Elements 31
Figure 3.8 Column Modeling and Degrees of Freedom 31
Figure 3.9 Shear Wall Model and Degrees of Freedom 32
Figure 3.10 Shear Wall Fiber Formation and Distribution 32
Figure 3.11 Edge Column Modeling 33
Figure 3.12 Transverse Beam Modeling and Definition of Stiffness 33
Figure 3.13 Distribution of Seismic Force through Floor Diaphragm and
Lateral Deformation 34
Figure 3.14 Slab Modeling and Degrees of Freedom 35
Figure 3.15 Proposed Stress Strain Curve of Materials 40
Figure 3.16 Proposed Trilinear Envelope Curve of R/C Sections Subjected
to Monotonic Loads 40
Figure 3.17 Modeling for Fiber Model 41
Figure 3.18 Details of One Fiber 41
Figure 3.19 Modeling of Rigid Floor with One Control Point 48
Figure 3.20 Three Parameters Model 48
Figure 3.21 Application of Three Parameters Model on Old Models 49
Figure 3.22 Effect of Variation of Hysteretic Loop Parameters on The Loop
Shape 50
Figure 4.1 El Centro Earthquake (1940) Time Histories(N-S Component) 56
Figure 4.2 Taft Earthquake (1952) Time Histories(N-S Component) 56
Figure 4.3 Configuration and Sections Details of Buildings 57
Figure 4.4 Configuration and Sections Details of Buildings 58
ix
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUE)
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
Figure 4.5 Configuration and Sections Details of WC-N-5-1 Buildings 59

Figure 4.6 Configuration and Sections Details of WC-3-5-6 Building 62
Figure 4.9 Configuration and Sections Details of FWC-2-9-3 Building 65
Figure 5.1 Organization of Studied Cases 67
Figure 5.2 Pushover Analysis of WC-1-5-1 Building with Different Floor
Models 72
Figure 5.3 Variations of Base Shear of WC-1-5-1 Building with Floor
Models 72
Figure 5.4 Distribution of Response between Vertical Elements 73
Figure 5.5 Straining Actions of Slabs 74
Figure 5.6 Failure Pattern of WC-1-5-1 Building 75
Figure 5.7 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-1-5-1Building 76
Figure 5.8 Base Shear Time Histories for Outer Frame of WC-1-5-1
Building with Different Floor Model 77
Figure 5.9 Base Shear Time Histories for Middle Frame of WC-1-5-1
Building 78
Figure 5.10 Displacement Time Histories for Middle Frame of WC-1-5-1
Building 79
Figure 5.11 Displacement Time Histories for Intermediate Slab of
WC-1-5-1 Building 80
Figure 5.12 Hysteretic Loops of Middle Column of WC-1-5-1Building 81
Figure 5.13 Hysteretic Loops of Middle Slab WC-1-5-1 Building 82
Figure 5.14 Outer and Middle Frame Monotonic Response Characteristic 86
Figure 5.15 Effect of Vertical System on Frame Base Shear Variation 88
Figure 5.16 Effect of Vertical System on Errors of Base Shear 88
Figure 5.17 Effect of Vertical System on Frame Base Shear Errors 89
Figure 5.18 Effect of Vertical System on Top Displacement Errors 89
x
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
Figure 5.19 Shear Distribution between Frames 90

Figure 5.20 Displacement Distribution between Frames 91
Figure 5.21 Pushover Analysis of WC-3-5-N Buildings 95
Figure 5.22 Variation of Base Shear of WC-3-5-N Buildings 95
Figure 5.23 Variation of Frame Shear Errors with Number of Stories 96
Figure 5.24 Variation of Story Displacement Errors with Number of
Stories 96
Figure 5.25 Displacement Distribution of Frames Across Stories of
6 Stories Building 97
Figure 5.26 Variation of Wall Shear Ratio with Number of Stories 97
Figure 5.27 Shear Distribution Across Stories of 6 Stories Building 98
Figure 5.28 Story Shear Time Histories for Outer Frame of WC-3-5-N
Buildings 99
Figure 5.29 Displacement Time Histories for Outer Frame of WC-3-5-N
Buildings 100
Figure 5.30 Moment Time Histories for Middle Slab of WC-3-5-N
Buildings 101
Figure 5.31 Hysteretic Loops of Middle Slab WC-3-5-N Buildings with
Variable Stories 102
Figure 5.32 Effect of Story Height on the Capacity of WW-3-5-N
Buildings 105
Figure 5.33 Variations of Structural Response with Story Height of
WW-1-5-1 Building 106
Figure 5.34 Distribution of Response of WW-1-5-1 Building 107
Figure 5.35 Base Shear Time Histories of WW-1-5-1 Building 108
Figure 5.36 Shear Time Histories for Outer Frame of WW-1-5-1 Building 109
Figure 5.37 Displacement Time Histories for Middle Frame of WW-1-5-
1 Building 110
Figure 5.38 Failure Pattern of WC-1-5-1& WW-1-5-1 Buildings 111
Figure 5.39 Pushover Analysis of WW-1-N-1 Buildings 115
xi
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
Figure 5.40 Effect of Plan Dimensions on Shear of WW-1-N-1 Building 116
Figure 5.41 Effect of Plan Dimensions on Errors of Base Shear

WW-1-N-1 Buildings 116
Figure 5.42 Effect of Plan Dimensions of WW-1-N-1 Buildings on Frame
Base Shear Errors 117
Figure 5.43 Effect of Plan Dimensions of WW-1-N-1 Buildings on Wall
Shear Ratio 117
Figure 5.44 Effect of Plan Dimensions of WW-1-N-1 Buildings on Shear
Distribution 118
Figure 5.45 Effect of Plan Dimensions of WW-1-N-1 Buildings on
Displacement Errors 118
Figure 5.46 Slab Moment Curvature Characteristics WC-N-5-1 Building
(Top Middle Slab) 121
Figure 5.47 Pushover Analysis of WC-N-5-1 Building 121
Figure 5.48 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-N-5-1 Buildings 122
Figure 5.49 Variations of Base Shear with Building Width WC-N-5-1
Building) 122
Figure 5.50 Bottom Story Shear Distribution across Frames of WC-N-5-1
Buildings 123
Figure 5.51 Effect of Building Width Ratio on Base Shear Errors of WC-
N-5-1Building 123
Figure 5.52 Top Story Displacement across Frames of WC-N-5-1
Buildings 124
Figure 5.53 Effect of Building Width Ratio on Top Displacement Errors
of WC-N-5-1Building 124
Figure 5.54 Moment Curvature Characteristics of Slab of WC-2-9-3 &
FWC-2-9-3 Buildings (Top Middle Slab) 127
Figure 5.55 Pushover Analysis of WC-2-9-3 & FWC-2-9-3 Buildings 127
Figure 5.56 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 & FWC-2-9-3
xii
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
Buildings 128
Figure 5.57 Variations of Story Shear with Floor Slab Types 128
Figure 5.58 Distribution of Story Shear across Frames 129
Figure 5.59 Shear Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 & FWC-2-9-3 Buildings
at Top Story 130
Figure 5.60 Distribution of Story Displacements across Frames 131
Figure 5.61 Top Displacement Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 & FWC-2-9-3
Buildings 132
Figure 5.62 Top Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 & FWC-2-9-3
Buildings 133
Figure 5.63 Bottom Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 & FWC-2-9-3
Buildings 134
Figure 5.64 Moment Curvature Characteristics of Slabs ( WC-2-5-1
Building Top Middle Slab) 137
Figure 5.65 Pushover Analysis of WC-2-5-1 Building 137
Figure 5.66 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-2-5-1Building 138
Figure 5.67 Variations of Story Shear with Slab Thickness (WC-2-5-1
Building) 138
Figure 5.68 Distribution of Response between Frames of WC-2-5-1
Building 139
Figure 5.69 Shear Time Histories of WC-2-5-1 Building 140
Figure 5.70 Top Displacement Time Histories of WC-2-5-1 Building 141
Figure 5.71 Middle Slab Response of WC-2-5-1 Building 142
Figure 5.72 Moment Curvature Characteristics of Slabs of WC-3-5-1
Building (Top Middle Slab) 145
Figure 5.73 Pushover Analysis of WC-3-5-1 Building with Opening 146
Effect
Figure 5.74 Distribution of Structural Response between Frames of
WC-3-5-1 Building with Variable Floor Opening Position 146
Figure 5.75 Distribution of Structural Response between Frames of
WC-3-5-1’ Building with Variable Floor Opening Position
xiii
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
Figure 5.76 Failure Pattern of WC-3-5-1 Building with Different Opening

Position 148
Figure 5.77 Slab Moment Curvature Characteristics of WC-2-9-3
Figure 5.79 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 Building 152
Figure 5.80 Variations of Story Shear with Concrete Grade of WC-2-9-3
Building 152
Figure 5.81 Distribution of Story Shear across Frames of WC-2-9-3 153
Building
Figure 5.82 Shear Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 Building at Top Story 154
Figure 5.83 Distribution of Story Displacement across Frames 155
Figure 5.85 Top Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building 157
Figure 5.86 Bottom Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building 158
Figure 5.90 Variations of Story Shear with Steel Grade (WC-2-9-3
Building) 162
Figure 5.92 Distribution of Story Displacement across Frames 164
Figure 5.98 Variations of Story Shear with Beam Stiffness( WC-2-9-3
Building) 171
xiv
FIGURE TITLE PAGE
Figure 5.99 Distribution of Shear Across Frames of WC-2-9-3 Building 171

Figure 5.101 Distribution of Story Displacement across Frames of
WC-2- 9-3 Building 173
Figure 5.107 Story Shear Variations with T-Beam Stiffness (WC-2-9-3
Building) 180
Figure 5.110 Distribution of Story Displacement across Frames of 183
Figure 5.114 Definition of Rigidity Factor Parameters 189
Figure 5.115 Assessment of Diaphragm Behavior by Error Bound 189
Method
Figure 5.116 Comparison of IDARC2 and Rigidity Factor 190
Figure 5.117 Effect of Height to Length Ratio on Floor Behavior ( Floor
Behavior Chart) 191
xv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author wish to express his deep thanks to Prof. Mohamed E. Issa ,
Prof. of Reinforced Concrete, Cairo University. His supervision and
encouragement contribution in the thesis highly appreciated.
The author wish to express his deep thanks to Dr. Akram A. Torkey ,
Ass. Prof., Structural Eng. Dept., Cairo University, for providing the IDARC
software and continued support and overcoming the obstructs during the
different stage of the research.
The author wish to express his deep thanks to Dr. Mohamed Fathy,
Lecturer, Structural Eng. Dept., Cairo University, for his deep advise, critical
comments , and simplification of problems from the fist date of the research
up to date.
A special thank is due to Mr. Hossam Fouki, Mr. Yasser Fouad, Ms. Ola
and Ms. Walaa for the contribution in preparing final stage of this thesis and
computer assistants.
xvi
ABSTRACT
Most of modern buildings codes defined the contribution of slab in resisting

gravity loads by theory of elasticity and its contribution with beam poured monolithic
with it as a limited beam flange. The contribution in resisting lateral loads is assuming
rigid body concepts. In most buildings, the rigid floor assumptions are valid for
practical and common analysis but it may not be applicable for some specified
buildings in which the floor slab is very long and narrow low rise, buildings with nicked
region, buildings with U, Y, L, T, I plan shapes, dual system buildings and buildings
where floor diaphragm cracking or and yielding takes place. The research is to help
structural engineers in understanding the contribution and the behavior of floor slabs
under lateral reversed loads.
The computer program IDARC2 “Modeling of RC Structures with Flexible Floor

Diaphragms” is used in the analysis. The output includes the maximum base shear,
monotonic load capacity, maximum top displacement, shear and displacement
distribution between different elements, time histories' records for selected members
and natural period of vibration obtained from the program or codes. Sometimes the
output includes story drift, shear ratios.
The studied parameters are floor model, vertical elements configuration, number of
stories, story height, variation of plan dimensions, type of floor, variations in slab
thickness, presence of opening in slabs, variations of concrete and steel grades of floor
slab, variations in main beams and transverse beams stiffness.
The results indicate that the floor diaphragm flexibility could not be ignored for dual
system, narrow and low rise buildings under 4 stories, where the stiffness of the vertical
elements is closer or higher than floor diaphragm stiffness. The error resulting from the
in-plane rigid assumptions leads to underestimate of frames' shear. The failure of
floor slab may be flexural failure or shear failure depends on the vertical element's
locations and on floor characteristics itself. The structure response and vibration are
controlled by floor behavior. The floor behavior may be expected by the simple
relation between in-plane floor to vertical elements' stiffness and building height to
length ratio.
xvii
Chapter 1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
As a result of the modern civilization and highly people's growth around all over
the world, the structural engineers' tasks are in increasing day after day. The
responsibility of designing a safe, economic and comfortable structure which will
achieve the owner requirement using available resources of material, adequate time,
funds and quality are one of this task. This means that the structural engineer must
understand the behavior of his structure under various load conditions.
The behavior of reinforced concrete structures subjected to earthquake

excitation is greatly effected by many factors such as variability of ground motions,
soil types, dynamic characteristic of the structure, material properties, and quality
control and construction practice. Generally, the floor systems represent the majority
of the mass of a building structure where most of the seismic lateral loads are
originated in the floor systems. The main functions of floor slab are transferring
gravity loads to vertical supporting elements, distributing the horizontal loading to the
vertical elements, holding the building plan in shape and modifying load carrying
capacity.
In 1981, Pseudodynamic tests were conducted on a model of seven stories

reinforced concrete dual system building at The Research Building Institute (BRI) in
Tsukuba as a result of U.S. & Japan program. The base shear of the BRI structure was
calculated to be 60 % of the actual measured strength. The difference between the
calculated and measured strength is referred to slab contribution and other factors. This
reflects the importance of floor slab in resisting the lateral loads.
Many of modern buildings codes define the contribution of slab in resisting

gravity loads by theory of elasticity and its contribution with beam casted monolithic
1
with it as a limited beam flange. The contribution in resisting lateral loads is assuming
rigid body concept. The assumptions of rigid in-plane floor is reducing the total
degrees of freedom of the structure by neglecting in-plane bending and shear
deformations of floor. In most buildings, the rigid floor assumptions are valid for
practical and common analysis but it may not be applicable for some specified building
in which the floor slab is very long and narrow, buildings with nicked region, buildings
with U, Y, L, T, I plan shapes, dual system buildings or low rise buildings. The loss of
accuracy of rigid floor assumptions appears for a certain types of building where floor
diaphragm cracking or /and/ yielding takes place. Understanding the nature of floor
behavior under lateral reversed loads will help the structural engineer in answering the
question, when floor flexibility will affect the structure behavior and what are its
effect, in addition to understanding the contribution of floor slabs to the earthquake
resistance of buildings.
1-2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The scope of this work is to help the structural engineer to understand the
behavior of floor diaphragm by examine the in-plane floor rigidity and studding its
influence on the distribution of shear and deflection in buildings.
The main objectives considered in this study are.

 Defining the theories of dynamic behavior of the reinforced concrete structure.
 Selecting of computer program and mathematical model applicable to solve the
problem.
 Highlighting some types of building where floor flexibility could not be ignored
 Evaluation of the effect of the following parameters on the response of structure.
1. Floor diaphragm model effect.
2. Plan configuration and structural system.
3. Number of stories.
4. Story height.
5. Variations of plan dimensions in direction and normal to seismic waves.
6. Floor slab structural system (slab type).
7. Variations in floor slab thickness.
2
8. Presence of opening in floor slabs.
9. Variations of concrete grade of floor slab.
10. Variations of steel grade of floor slab.
11. Variations in main beam stiffness.
12. Variations in transverse beam stiffness.
 Assessment of floor behavior using simple method.
1-3 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS

0
Chapter 1. Introduction.
Chapter 2. Literature reviews of nonlinear-dynamic analysis theories of floor
diaphragm and background of floor models and column-beam-slab
connection.
Chapter 3. Presents nonlinear dynamic analysis of building and description of the
computer program IDARC2 including program organization, discrete element
system and mathematical models.
Chapter 4. Description of design parameters and investigated buildings are reported
with description of applied seismic waves.
Chapter 5. The studied parameters, discussion of parameters affect the structure
behavior and study of a simple formula used to determine the floor behavior
as a function of slab to vertical elements stiffness and building dimensions are
present in this chapter.
Chapter 6. Summaries of the research, conclusions and recommendations for future
researches works are present in this chapter.
3
Chapter 2
Chapter 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The building response to loading was govern by the element that were stressed as
the building undergoes deflects. The main structural components were modeled to solve
the problem. For large and multi-stories building it may be essential to reduce the size
of the analysis problem by some conservative assumptions. These assumptions will lead
to rapid analysis without loss of accuracy of the results. The rigid floor assumption
causes the horizontal degrees of freedom of the whole building to be defined by the
horizontal plane rigid body rotations and translations of the floor slab. As a result, the
total degrees of freedom of the structure and the size of problem were reduced.
Studding the dynamics of the multi-story building with flexible floor slabs by
finite element method increases the problem size and limits its use in the design offices.
Therefore a simple and economic methods include treating the floors as bending beam,
columns and walls as springs (Ostram & Hart1974), modeling floor as bending beams
and end walls as shear beams (Jain & Jenning 1985), replacing the floor as distributed
bending beams of infinitesimal thickness and walls as bending and / or / shear beams
(Jain1984) and modeling a long narrow rectangular building as equivalent vertically
oriented plate (Jain1983, Jain & Mandual 1992) [19].
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Bulme, 1961,[19] questioned about the floor flexibility at earlier stage. Goldberg
1965 [19] studied the floor slab as a wide beam by slope deflection equations. Coull
1967 [6] studied coupled shear walls coupled with lintel beams and floor slabs. He
noted that the web of walls did not act as independent cantilevers owing to the coupled
bending action of the slab. The composite action of a lintel beam and slab coupling a
pair of plan shear walls had been investigated by space finite element method. The
4
studied parameters included the effect of structure parameters on the stiffness and
effective slab width. Qadeer, 1969, [26] evaluated the effective width of coupling slab
of planar shear walls coupled by floor slabs by using a finite difference technique. Coull
and Adams, 1973,[19] studied the effect of floor slab under binding and torsion
supported by beams and ribbed slabs.
Muto, 1974,[23] considered the case of a deflecting floor and the shear force
distribution factors of individual frames. Coull, 1975, [5] studied shear walls connected
only by floor slabs. The contribution of slabs, as coupling elements, may greatly affect
the rigidity of the whole structure system response. The study enabled to estimate the
effective width of coupling slabs for a variety of shear wall plan configurations by using
experimental studies. Murasher et al [22] developed the basic relation between the shear
wall and slab interaction for the case of two ends and one intermediate shear wall. Wai,
1977, [33] suggested an equivalent model for floor slab assuming a series of connected
beams of equivalent flexural stiffness and thickness of slabs.
Atimtay, 1979, [3] studied the slab behavior supported by shear walls or dual
building system. He considered the relative deflection between outer and inner slab
edges and applied the theory of beam on elastic foundation on the slab. The research
indicated that increasing floor slab aspect ratio leads to error in shear distribution and
increasing floor stiffness yields to reduce the error results from rigid floor assumption.
The importance of floor flexibility reduced with increasing structure height and the
rigid floor assumption becomes more accurate with increasing height of structure. As an
approximation, ten stories height was a limit for which the effect of floor flexibility was
minimized, a simplified formulas used to distribute the lateral load between end and
intermediate shear walls were drived based on structure stiffness and floor parameters.
Another simplified equation was investigated to determine if the floor should be
analyzed as rigid or as flexible floor.
Wong, 1979, [34] studied the effective stiffness of a floor slab connecting shear
walls in laterally loaded tall buildings using finite element method. The influences of
the plan shapes, dimensions and walls spacing on the effective width were examined.
5
The equivalent width of slab that acts effectively as a wide coupling beam was defined.
The force displacement relation was evaluated from a two-dimensional plate bending
element analysis using rectangular element with three DOF per each node. The coupling
of cross wall by the floor slabs results in a more efficient structural system for resisting
lateral loads. The effective width of edge slabs about half of intermediate one. The
influence of a slab overhang behind the outer edge of walls was negligible. The
effective width of slab increases with increasing opening ratio of shear walls, reducing
bay width, increasing wall thickness and the presence of lintel beams.
Karadogam, 1980, [19] studied floor slab effect assuming a simple model
Rutenberg, 1980, [19] used the plane frame procedures to study the in-plane behavior.
Unemori, 1980, [19] verified that the floor flexibility takes place for building under five
stories.
Nakashima, 1981, [24] extended a finite element procedure used in particular for
beams and studies the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete beam supported floor
slabs as diaphragm in building structures. A scaled model of a portion of the floor
system was tested using three variables, type of loading, (monotonic versus cyclic
loading) shear span length and intensity of gravity loads. The tested specimens were
square panels 2.33 m floor slab supported by tow middle shear walls and four outer
columns near corners. The examinations of the tested specimens were leaded to that the
in-plane strength and deformation of the slab panel was found to be controlled by
opening and closing of the major cracks developed parallel to the applied load and
along the boundaries between the column and the middle stirrups where many
reinforcing bars of either Positive or negative out-of-plane bending of the slab was
terminated at this location. The fracture of reinforcing bars at the intersection with
major cracks caused slab failure. The application of cyclic loading reduces the ultimate
strength by 20 to 25 percent compared with monotonic loading. The application of
static gravity loads in combination with lateral loads caused a reduction of lateral load
carrying capacity by 15 percent. The ultimate load of tested panel was controlled by the
flexural capacity at sections of major cracks regards the shear resistance. The stiffness
degraded as the applied loads increase due to cracks' development and the
6
reinforcement breaking. The correlation between stiffness test and the elastic finite
element analysis were reasonable
The ACI committee 442[1] stated that the infinite stiff diaphragm was not valid for
all configurations and geometry of floor systems, the plane flexibility can resulting a
very different distribution of horizontal forces among the elastic lateral resisting
elements that would be obtained using rigid floor models. The diaphragm rigidity
depends on the spans' depth ratio of the plan, dimensions of the slab, relative to the
location of the lateral load resisting elements, the slab thickness, the locations of
openings, and discontinuities in the slab, and on the type of floor system used. The
committee stated that “ the flexural stiffness of the floor system might also significantly
affect the lateral stiffness of the structure".
Cruz, 1986, [7] demonstrated that, the earthquake forces were especially affected
by two overall building parameters, the fundamental period and column-beam stiffness
ratio. Melkumian, 1992, [21] developed new hysteretic model describing the shear
behavior of RC structure on the basis of experimental results obtained from the
horizontal load reversal. A 1.5 scaled model structure tested and the principle and rules
for the formation of the hysteretic model were formulated. The suggested hysteretic
model was applieto 9-story RC frames building with shear walls. Shear walls with and
without opening were studied in longitudinal and transverse directions. The investigated
hysteretic model of shear deformation diaphragms was symmetric about its origin. The
model was similar to degrading trilinear envelope models assuming the floor slab as
absolute rigid. The influence of dynamic effect also was taken into account on the basis
of experimental data using coefficient1.2 for increasing of the horizontal initial stiffness
of structural element. The calculation results of the period of vibration of the absolute
rigid slab lead to 89 percent reduction of period in average. Although this difference
was high, the error in predicting the natural period of the actual structure using rigid
floor assumption was reduced because of the presence of non-structural elements which
would reduce the period by 30 to 40 percent when taken into consideration.
The building of irregular plan shapes suffered from significantly larger deformations
and damage than regular plan shapes. Most of the modern researches refer this
7
distortion to the torsion effect due to irregular shape. This phenomena was studied by
Guevara, 1989, [14]. She studied the influence of floor plan shape on the response of
earthquake under lateral seismic loads. The analysis was performed using “SET
”Structural Engineering Tools program. The displacement-stiffness method that takes
into consideration floor rotation and displacement was applied to the studied structures.
The building model was idealized by a system of independent frame elements
interconnected by floor diaphragm that were rigid in their plane. The bending
deformations in the beam and floor slabs were included. Three controls DOF at each
story level were considered x, y translations and rotation about z per floor. Six DOF per
each node of the structural element except floor were considered. The results indicate
that the rigid floor assumption for H-building plan was not corresponding to the actual
behavior observed during the last earthquakes. The H shape floor plans induced torsion
in the building subjected to ground motion in addition to flexibility of floor. In the L
shape floor plan buildings, torsion moments were generated due to the difference
between the center of mass and the center of rigidity of the structure. The assumption
of flexible floor diaphragm should be used for such type of structure where the sides of
L were very different.
Smith, 1991, [29] suggested the solution of 3-D structure assuming rigid floor
diaphragm and used equivalent horizontal frame of rigid beams joining the vertical
elements. This beam was of equivalent flexural stiffness of slab. The model corrects the
horizontal deflections and forces in the vertical elements but it gives only the
concentrated moments and shears applied to slabs.The simple form of planner modeling
technique was applied to structure consists of orthogonal system of connected frames.
Mahmoud, [20] studied the behavior of reinforced concrete one fourth scale, one story
RC flat plate building frame under combined vertical and lateral loads the studied
structure was flat plate supported by four edge columns. The research indicated that the
lateral load causing first shear crack in the slab was about 63 percent of peak load and
1.08 times load causing first flexural crack in column. Continuos reduction in building
stiffness due to cracking and yielding of reinforcement was occur. The ratio of lateral
displacement at peak load to allowable displacement of height was 9.5 times. This
indicating the ductility of frames. The ratio of lateral displacement at working load to
8
the allowable lateral displacement was about 0.425 indicating a stiff frame response
with adequate safety factor against cracking of infilled walls. The ductility ratio was
function of geometry, dimensions, slab-column relative stiffness, column steel ratio,
column-slab connection and material properties used in the construction operations.
Proper choice of floor thickness and detailing of reinforcement can improve the
deformation ability of slab -column connection and consequently the load resistance
and overall ductility of the structure. Proper selection of slab thickness and adequate
details of reinforcement prevented punching shear at slab-column connection. The shear
crack pattern developed in column strip results from the experimental investigation
indicated that the diaphragm was not infinitely rigid.
French, 1991, [13] studied experimentally the slab action in beam-column-slab

system subjected to lateral loads. The slab contribution to beam resistance depends
mainly on connection type, transverse beams' stiffness, lateral deformation level and
lateral load history. The simple practical investigation was considered the effective
width of slab acts as a flange to the beam in compression and as additional
reinforcement when beam was subjected to negative moment. An analysis was
performed with different slab width. The simple interior beam-column -slab element
subjected to lateral loads indicated that the slab tension tends to be larger near the
longitudinal beam and decreased with increasing distance from the longitudinal beam.
The slab tensile strain increased with increasing deformation of connection. Also
flexural cracks were developed in the upper portion of the beam and spread transversely
in the slab. The results indicated that ignore the floor slab contribution may be
conservative as the structural base shear will be underestimated. The other non-
desirable effect was increasing acceleration and inertia forces. A change in the failure
mechanism may occur as the ratio of strength between column and wall was changed.
The slab action in a continuos structure is different from that in an isolated test
connection. The difference was obviously apparent by comparison of crack patterns.
The transverse slab strain was maximum at the column and decreased towards the
longitudinal beam mid-span whereas the opposite trend was observed in isolated
connection. The restraint action of slab in continuos structure would increase the
contribution larger than isolated connection. The effects of slab contribution on
structure improve the lateral load behavior of the frame. For shorter period structure
9
the enhanced strength might result in reduction in the overall deformation and the
ductility demands of the structure. The base shear was increased, which might result in
high acceleration and forces in the structure. It may create undesirable damage patterns
in the system by generating more forces than expected.
Saffarini, 1992, [28] carried out an analysis that token into consideration in-plane
floor deformation, elaborate models have been derived- Finite element approach of
medium size building were unjustifiable for practical analysis & design to overcome
the problems of finite element size the effect of diaphragm was studied & error level
was determined. This will help designer to overcome rigid floor assumption error by
understanding the problem and try to overcome it. The influence of in plane
deformation on the distribution of stresses in a building structure was dependent mainly
on the stiffness of the lateral load resisting system relative to that of floor A members of
building analysis using both flex & rigid floors using earthquake equivalent loads. The
parameters in the analysis include number of story, story height Slab type, plan aspect
ratio plan regularity, slab opening & size, spacing of column & shear walls' analysis
was carried out using the computer program ASAS 1887 the analysis was performed 2
time. One for exact flexible diaphragm & one for rigid diaphragm with 3 master DOF.
The slab model composed of 8-node shell element with 3 translations DOF per corner
node and 3 Translation plus two rotations per side nodes. This model able to deal with
in-plane deformations and materials isotropy. And neglect the influence of
reinforcement on the stiffness. The beam model was one-dimensional 3-node element.
The column and shear wall models were 2-node element to incorporate shear
defamation. Tslab nodes on the wall slab connection were constrained in out of plane
rotation to the rotational DOF at wall element end in the plane of the wall. The error
resulting from later solution (rigid body) was assessed as the given parameters were
varied. The comparison criteria were lateral deformations (deflections), columns and
walls shear interstory shears. A simple empirical error expressed in terms of an in plane
rigidity factor (in plane stiffness of stab /vertical element stiffness) bounded on the
shear.
The UBC, 1994, [31] contains provisions for the seismic design of newly
constructed building system that consider flexible diaphragm behavior. Section 1628.5
10
stated that “story shear force shall be distributed to various elements in proportion to
their relative rigidities". Diaphragms were considered flexible when the diaphragm
defection exceeds twice the story drift. Section 1628.6 took into consideration the
torsion effect only for the case when diaphragms were not flexible. Section 1631.9
defined the diaphragm deflections permissible limits. The concept that building
structures with flexible diaphragms behave differently from systems with rigid
diaphragm was a fundamental. However, the flexible diaphragm systems were still
analyzed with criteria and recommendation developed for structures with rigid
diaphragms. Structures with flexible diaphragms can experience higher accelerations
and displacement than structures with rigid diaphragms and their fundamental period of
vibration can be longer. Diaphragms were molded with linear elements because
diaphragm damage was not observed. The conclusions drown from Tena study were
applicable only to elastic diaphragms. The seismic response was examined with
maximum lateral accelerations, maximum lateral displacements, torsion effect and
natural periods.
Sudhim, 1995,[30] studied the dynamic characteristic of Y-shaped plan considering

the in-plane flexibility of the floor slab. The studied structures were symmetrical wings
about one axis and uniform spaced frames and stories' height. The structures were
analyzed in two orthogonal directions. The wings had been modeled as a shear beam for
motion in longitudinal direction and as a vertical oriented bending shear anisotropy
plate for transverse direction motion. The transverse direction the floor was modeled
as horizontal strip with bending flexibility and frames and shear walls modeled as
vertical strip with shear flexibility. For unequal transverse and longitudinal stiffness of
each wing, all modes involve plain floor deformation. If the longitudinal and transverse
stiffness of the wings was the same, both rigid and flexible floor modes presented. The
stress concentration at the junction can be avoided by designing the building with equal
wings' stiffness. Also, the presence of shear walls at junction area of wings altered the
behavior of structure. The floor flexibility does not affect the natural period or the
overall base shear of the building. When the transverse wing stiffness was more than
longitudinal wing stiffness, the wing undergoes more deflection in transverse direction
at the junction than at the free end. Thus, the transverse frames near the junction resist
11
more shears. The opposite was also observed. When the longitudinal wing stiffness
was more than transverse wing stiffness.
Polak, 1996, [25] studied the in-plane deflections of reinforced concrete slabs using
finite element program, the program base on the degenerate plate bending finite element
and on effective stiffness formulation for modeling material behavior. The finite
element model used (the Serendipity plate-bending element suggested by Hilton and
Owen in 1997), was isoparameteric, quadratic and degenerate element based on the
assumption of Mindlin theory for plate bending. The material is assumed to be isotropic
linear for uncracked concrete.
Hassan, 1997, [15] formulated an empirical method to help in selecting the building
with higher seismic vulnerability in an inventory of low-rise reinforced concrete
building. The method was easy, non-time consuming with a very low level of
sophistication procedure. The method required only the dimensions of the structure and
vertical elements' areas. The method used wall and column indices. Wall indices are the
ratio of the effective wall area at the base of the building to the lateral floor area above
the base The relation between the column indices and wall was plot on two dimensional
charts. The closer was the point located by the two indices to the origin, the more
vulnerable was the building.
12
Chapter 3
Chapter 3
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND MATHMATICAL

MODEL
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The software package IDARC (Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced

Concrete) performs non-linear analysis of structure systems subjected to seismic loads.
The package is under developing in National Center of Earthquake Engineering
Research (NCEER), State University of New York at Buffalo since 1987. A series of
computer programs under the same titles is developed from that date as follows.
Program IDARC (Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete) was

developed at 1987. It is program of two-dimensional analysis of three-dimension
structure in which a series of plane frames parallel to direction of load are linked
together by transverse elements. This version assumes rigid floor diaphragm to
simplify the problem by reducing the total number of degrees of freedom.
Program IDARC 2 (Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Flexible

Floor Diaphragms) was developed at 1988. It is taken the floor flexibility into
consideration as an optional model as will be discussed later.
Program IDARC-3D (Inelastic Three Dimensional Damage Analysis of

Reinforced Concrete Building Structures Modeling) was developed at 1989.The
structure is molded in the three dimensions.
Program IDARC version 3.0 (Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete

Structures) was developed at 1992. This is a new modified version of IDARC. It is
supplied with new powerful analytical tools such as modeling of perfect hinge
connection, modeling of non-linear flexible connection elastic discrete springs,
13
modeling of circular and non-symmetric cross-section columns, P-Delta effect and
finally new damage indices.
Program IDARC Bridge analysis and design version was in its final phase in 1993.
It is extended for the analysis of bridge systems. The predictions of the global damage
states of bridge piers and other single component were more reliable in this version.
Program IDARC-2D version 4.0 and 4.01 are being updated in 1996 and
improved to include the following features and additions.
 Viscoelastic, friction and hysteretic damper macro elements.
 Macro model for infilled panel elements.
 Spread plasticity with yield penetration.
 New hysteretic models damage indicators and push over options.
 Response snapshots during analysis.
 Reprogramming for improved efficiency.
 New case studies for program validation.
3.2 PROGRAM IDARC2
The software program IDARC2 (Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Building

Structures with Flexible Floor Diaphragms) is an analytical tool has the capability of
analyzing inelastic building systems to include the effect of in-plane floor flexibility. It
is a modified phase of the original program IDARC. The main program organization is
shown in Figure 3.1.
Some highlight features of IDARC2 over the other inelastic programs are using
the distributed flexibility model in constructing the element stiffness matrix will
include the effect of spread plasticity.
 Using a non-symmetric trilinear envelope with the ability to model all hysteretic
characteristics.
 Modeling of flexure and shear independently will lead to observing the shear failure
of walls and slabs.
14
 Calculating and building moment curvature envelops from element cross-section
directly.
 The damage indices will be helpful in design of various structural elements.
IDARC2 is program for two-dimensional analysis of three-dimensional building in

which a set of plane frames parallel to the direction of applied load are linked together
by transverse elements and floors. The response analysis is carried out on the
assembled element stiffness matrices in conjunction with force deformation hysteretic
model. The main structural modeling as shown in Figure 3.4 is
 Floor diaphragm elements
 Column elements
 Beam elements
 Shear wall elements
 Edge column elements
 Transverse beam elements.
The actual characteristics of each element are used in the analysis and variations of
elements' properties during different load stages are incorporated. The structure is
modeled using end node degrees of freedom. All elements, except, transverse beam are
modeled as fully inelastic element.
3.2.1 Program Organization
Program IDARC2 composes mainly two main subroutines.

1- Subroutine ‘DSYID ’, which performs the identification of the reinforced concrete
frame-wall structure in four steps. Beginning with a static analysis under specified
loading to setup the initial stress state.
 Determination of component properties.
 Estimation of fundamental natural period.
 Determination of ultimate failure mode under lateral monotonic loads.
15
2- Optionally subroutine ‘IDDYNA’, carries out a complete dynamic and damage
analysis. The sequence of analysis is shown in the flow chart in Figure 3.2. Three
phases of analysis are carried out by IDARC2
1. Non-linear static analysis
2. Collapse mode analysis
3. Dynamic load analysis
The details of each type will discuss in the following sections.
3.2.1.1 Non-Linear Static Analysis

The analysis begins with the evaluation of the initial stress state of members under
structural dead and live loads. By knowing material, elements' properties and element's
conductivity, the global stiffness matrix [K] can be established. The external forces on
beams and nodes are established to form applied load vector. The system is expressed
to the equilibrium equation.
[K]{U}={F} (3.1)
Where the unknown nodal displacements (U) could be solved. The inelastic end
moments at the ends of each element are computed from the recovered nodal
displacement of such element and end moments are calculated at the face of rigid zone.
3.2.1.2 Collapse Mode Analysis
The collapse mode sometimes called pushover or monotonic, analysis is a simple

technique to predict seismic response behavior prior to a full dynamic analysis. The
structure is loaded laterally under inverted triangular load expressed as an incremental
ratio of building weight. The contribution at each floor level is assumed to be linear
distribution as shown in Figure 3.3.
F (i )  Wb
 W (i , j ) W (i , j )
 W (i , j ). h(i ) (3.2)
Where
16
SYSTEM INPUT DATA
IDENTIFICATION
ESTABLISH
COMPNENT
PROPERTIES
STRCTURAL
MODELING &
ANALYSIS
EQUATIONS OF
DYNAMIC
MOTION
ANALYSIS
RESPONSE ANALYSIS
INCLUDING
HYSTERETIC BEHAVIOR
OF COMPONENTS
APPLICATIONS DAMAGE ANALYSIS
Fig. 3.1 Main Program IDARC2 Organization
17
Fig. 3.2 Detailed IDARC2 Program Flow Chart
18
Fi
i Floor
hi
Fig. 3.3 Distribution of Lateral Load Through Building Height.
Fig. 3.4 Element Modeling Used in IDARC2.
19
W, H, Wb is the weight, height and factored base shear respectively.
i,j is story and frame level respectively.
The lateral load distribution is computed and then applied to the structure in small
increments. The analyses proceed till the deflection at the top of the structure exceeds
2 % of the total building height that express the case of failure. This force distribution
is similar to that assumed in Egyptian Code of Loads (ECL93 Eq. 8-3).
3.2.1.3 Dynamic And Damage Analysis

.
The next step after performing static and pushover analysis is the incremental load
analysis. The equation of motion of the system is
[ M ]{u }  [C ]{u}  {R ( ut )}  {F (t )} (3.3)
Where
[M] is lumped mass matrix.
[C] is viscous damping matrix.
{R(Ut)} is restoring force vector at the start of time step.
{F(t)} is effective incremental load vector.
U is the relative displacement.
The solution of the above equation is accomplished by a direct step by step integration
procedure using Newmark’s Beta method.
{u}t  t  {u}t  t [(1   ){ut }   {u}t  t ] (3.4)
 1  (3.5)
u t  t 2 (   ){}
{u}t  t  {u}t  t {} u t   {}
u t  t 
 2 
Assume constant average acceleration where  =1/2 and =1/4 in equation it is

possible to solve for incremental displacement at the current time step as
20
t 2 (3.6)
{u}t  t  u t  {u}t  t  2{}
{} u t  t {}
u t
2 t
4 4 (3.7)
{u}t  t  2 {u}t  t  {u}t  2{u}t
( t ) t
{u}t  t  [ K *]{F *}t  t (3.8)
where
K*,F* are equivalent dynamic stiffness and load vector calculated from the
equation.
4 2 (3.9)
[ K *]  [ M ]  [C ]  [ K ]
t 2
t
4
{F *}  {F }t  t  ( [ M ]  2[C ]){}
u t  2[ M ]{}
u t
t (3.10)
The acceleration, velocity could be computed as a function of displacement at time

step t. As a result of changing the structure properties from time steps to anthers, a
corrected unbalance force R must be made due to the stiffness change from time step
t to t+ t as in equation.
{R}  {R} t 1  {R} t (3.11)

where
{R}t+1 is force vector assume new stiffness
{R}t is force vector assume current stiffness
This correctiforce is then applied at the next time step of analysis. Although this
technique is conservative but it satisfied specially for large structure.
3.2.1.4 Damage Indices Analysis
Damage is expressed as damage index, which is a useful indicator in interpreting

the overall damage sustained by the structure. It is expressed as linear combination of
the damage caused by peak deformation and that contributed by hysteretic energy
dissipation due to repeated cyclic loading.
21
m  (3.12)
u pu u 
D  dE
where
m is maximum deformation under earthquake load
u is ultimate deformation capacity under monotonic load
 is strength deterioration parameters
Pu is ultimate strength
E is incremental absorbed energy
One of the most useful indices to recognize type of component failure is story level
damage index (Di). It can trace and distinguish weak column-strong beam from strong
column-weak beam failure mechanisms.
D    i Di (3.13)
Ei (3.14)
i 
 Ei
where
 is energy weighting factor
Ei is total energy absorbed by component
The damage index will yield normalized value between 0 and 1.The relation
between damage index value and structure damage is summarized in Table 3.1.The
importance of slab yielding in formulating damage index does not implement.
3.2.1.5 Fundamental Natural Period
The fundamental natural frequency of the structure system is established using

Raleigh quotients, which is expressed as
22
{ t }[ K ]{ }
2 
{ t }[ M ]{ } (3.15)
where
[K],[M] are stiffness and mass matrix of the system respectively.
 is fundamental frequency
is shape vector of fundamental mode of vibration
Assume first mode shape of multistory building yields to the following equation.
n m
 K ij .Uij 2
i 1 j 1 (3.16)
2  n
M U
i 1
i ij
2
where
n, m is number of story and frames respectively
U is deflection
U is relative story drift
This simple form is corresponding to the UBC 1994 equation 28.5 as the actual
system properties are used to determine its natural period.
Table 3.1 Overall Structural Damage Definitions.

Degree of Physical Appearance Damage Status
Damage Index
Collapse Partial or total collapse >1 Loss of
building
Severe extensive crashing of concrete, 0.4-1.0 Beyond
disclosure of reinforcement repair
moderate extensively large cracks spilling <0.4 repairable
of concrete in weaker elements
Minor Minor cracks throughout building
partial crushing of concrete in
column
Slight sporadic occurrence of cracking
3.3 MODELING OF STRUCTURAL ELMENTS

23
The program IDARC2 idealizes the building as a series of plane frames linked
together by inelastic flexible floor diaphragm and transverse beam. The main elements
of structure modeling, as shown in Figure 3.4, are floor slab elements, column
elements, beam elements, shear wall elements, edge column elements and transverse
beam elements. The structure is modeled using end node degrees of freedom (DOF) to
simplify the problem within acceptable accuracy. Slab element is modeled as a deep
beam with two DOF, assuming floor diaphragms in XY plane, in plane lateral
displacement in Y direction, in plane rotation in Z direction. All elements are assumed
to move with the same lateral displacement within the same frame to reduce the total
DOF of the structure. All elements, except transverse beam, are modeled as inelastic
elements with concentrated plasticity at the member ends. The distributed flexibility
rue was used to account the spread of plasticity at member ends. The brief elements
DOF are shown in Figure 3.5.
3.3.1 Beam Element
Beam is modeled as flexural springs coupled in series with equivalent shear

springs. Beam elements are parallel to direction of load in horizontal plan. A typical
beam element is shown in Figure 3.6a with its degree of freedom. The effect of rigid
zone is taken into consideration considering rigid zone ratio shown in Figure 3.6b
using the following matrices.
a  T a 
b 
 
   L  
b  (3.17)
where
1 1  b a 
L 
1  a  b b 1  a  (3.18)
The stiffness equation relating to the moment and rotation only is

 M a  a  (3.19)
  
  Ks  
 M b  b 
where
24
 K    L  k  L 
s
T
(3.20)
 k  is the inverted flexibility matrix.

As shown in Figure 3.6a,the stiffness matrix definition [Kb], the stiffness equation of
beam elements is
Ya  Va 
M   
 a  a
   Kb  
(3.21)

Yb  Vb 
 M b   b 
where
 Kb    RB  K s  RB T (3.22)
 1 1
 L

L
 
 RB   
1 0
(3.23)
1 1
  
 L L
0 1 
The distribution of flexibility is assumed to be linear as shown in Figure 3.7 to

simplify the moment-rotation relation. The details of formulation are mentioned in
IDARC manuals.
3.3.2 Column Elements
Column elements are molded in the same behavior similar to beam element in
addition to one-dimensional spring is included to account for the effect of axial
deformation. Columns with beams forming a vertical plane parallel to load direction.
The element DOF and model are shown in Figure 3.8. The stiffness equation of
column in the form of moment and shear is
Xa  U a 
M   
 a  a (3.24)
    Kc 
Xb  U b 
 M b   b 
where
25
 KC    RC  Ks  RC T (3.25)
 K    L  k  L 
s
T
(3.26)
 1 1
 L

L
 
 RC   
1 0
(3.27)
1 1
  
 L L
0 1 
The interaction between bending moment and axial load is not considered in
equation. The axial force deformation relation for the resulting elastic spring is
Ya  EA  1  1 Va 
   
Yb  L  1  1 Vb  (2.28)
The details of formation of element properties are mentioned in IDARC1 manual

assuming axial and symmetric cross section properties. The effect of rigid zone on
flexibility matrix as mentioned before in beam model.
3.3.3 Shear Wall
Shear wall elements are modeled with or without edge columns. The modeling of
shear wall composed of two springs connected in series, shear spring and flexural
spring as shown in Figures 3.4 and 3.9. The flexibility matrix [k] is the summation of
both flexibilities.
 f 11 f 12  1 1 1
k  L    
 f 21 f 22  GAL 1 1 (3.29)
where the values of fij are depends on position of contraflexure point. In similar
manner applied to column and beam elements, the stiffness matrix [Kw] of shear wall
can be obtained.
26
Xa  U a 
M   
 a  a 
   K 
w  
(3.30)
Xb  U b 
 M b  b 
where
 Kw    Rw  Ks  Rw T (3.31)
 K    L  k  L 
s
T
(3.32)
 1 1
 L
 
L
 
 Rw   
1 0
(3.33)
1 1
  
 L L
 0 1 
and the axial deformation is considered in the same way of column element. The
properties of shear wall are calculated using fiber model. The fibers at the ends of wall
cross-section are chosen at closer mesh than inner fiber as inelastic strains are
expected to be significant as shown in Figure 3.10.
3.3.4 Edge Column
Edge column element is that element connects to shear wall or acts in tension or
compression behavior. The behavior is depends on shear wall deformation. It molded
as one-dimensional axial spring as shown in Figures 3.4 and 3.11. The stiffness of such
element composed of summation of stiffness of its components
Ya   1  1    1  1  
M   2  
 a  EAL    2    EAR    2  2 (3.34)
   
Yb  h  1   1   h  1   1  
   
 M b     
2
  
2
   
2
  2 
where
AL is cross section area of lift edge column elements.
A R is cross section area of right edge column elements.
3.3.5 Transverse Beam Elements
27
Transverse beam element is modeled as elastic linear and rotational springs. One
vertical and one torsion degree of freedom is considered. The model of transverse
beam takes into account the end boundary condition of member ends as follows.
Transverse beam connected to main beam or transverse beam is connected to shear
wall where transverse beam is connected to shear wall, additional resistance  k   is
included. Figure 3.12 shows the torsion stiffness of transverse beam restrains the
rotation of the main beams for beam to beam connection.
Ya    1  Lv 1 0 0 0 0 0
M   L  L  Lv  0 1 0  1
 a 0 (3.35)
  Kv    K  
v v

Y
 b    1  Lv 1 0 0 0 0 0
 M b     
0 0 0 0 0  1 0 1
The modeling of transverse beam in resisting axial moment of vertical elements and
flexural-torsion coupling of main elements is considered. The vertical stiffness of
beam depends on flexibility of connection with main beam or shear wall. The
connection should be treated as flexible or deteriorate connection.
3.3.6 Flexible Floor Diaphragm
The modeling of floor slab is exactly the same as shear wall and assumes a
horizontal plan wall. The effect of out-of-plane loading is taken into account base
on experimental data and the application of seismic forces on the floor is distributed
uniformly through the floor plane as an inertia force as shown in Figure 3.13. For each
slab element, two DOF per node are considered as shown in Figure3.14, an in-plane
rotation and lateral translation. The flexibility of floor slab is composed of flexural
flexibility and torsion flexibility. The linear variation of flexibility was used to drive
the flexibility matrix of the floor diaphragm. The integration of M/EI diagram shown
in Figure 3.15 yields to establish the moment rotation relation in the following form
a   M a 
b 
 
   kf  
 M b  (3.36)
Where
[kf] is the floor slab flexibility matrix which consists of flexural and shear flexibility.
28
 1
   f 11 f 12  1  1 (3.37)
k f  L   
 f 21 f 22 G A * L   1 1
The values of the flexural flexibility coefficient are depends on the position of
contraflexural point. The general form of floor stiffness [Kf] equation is
X a  Va 
M   


a
X b 
 
 a
  Kf 
Vb 

(3.38)
M b  b 
where
 K    R  K  R 
f s s s
T
(3.39)
 K    L  k  L 
s
T
(3.40)
 1 1
 L
 
L
 
 Rs   
1 0
(3.41)
1 1
  
 L L
 0 1 
The properties of slab are calculated using fiber model. As in Figure 3.14b, the
floor element is considered as the slab between two consecutive frame centerlines. The
effect of torsion produced by vertical movement of frames is computed as a function of
unit rotation of slab edges in its horizontal plane (Figure 3.14c). The torsion moment
Mf developed in frame about its center due to unit rotation is.
29
Fig. 3.5 The Structure and Individual Elements Modeling.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 3.6 Beam Modeling: 1) Degrees of Freedom; b) Rigid Zone
effect.
30
Fig. 3.7 The Flexibility Distribution Model of Beam Elements
Fig. 3.8 Column Modeling and Degrees of Freedom.
31
Fig. 3.9 Shear Wall Model and Degree of Freedom.
Fig. 3.10 Shear Wall Finer Formation and Distrbution.
32
Fig. 3.11 Edge Column Modeling.
Fig. 3.12 Transverse Beam Modeling and Definition of Stiffness.
33
Fig. 3.13 Distribution of Seismic Force through Floor Diaphragm
and Lateral Deformation.
34
Fig. 3.14 Slab Modeling and Degrees of Freedom: a) Typical Floor
Slab; b) Slab Distortion and Deformation ; c) Torsion Modeling
35
M f  k f f (3.42)
where
k f   pi li (3.43)
EI (3.44)
pi  3( )l
h3 i
3.4 IDEALIZATION OF MATERIAL
The stress strain curve of concrete is a second order polynomial shown in Figure
3.15a. The concrete compressive stress () at any stain level () is expressed as a
function of such strain and the initial strain modulus at elastic uncracked concrete (0)
and the characteristic cylinder strength ( f c )
 
  f c [2  ( )2 ]
0 0 (3.45)
f c
0 
Ec (3.46)
It is realized by experimental data that concrete is not elastic-plastic material but

introducing softening through plasticity which is incorporated into equation 3.47.The
initial strain modulus is proposed to be 15000( f c )0.5 and the tensile cracking strain
cr at which concrete cracks begin to developed is -0.08 f c / Ec.
Figure 3.15b shows the stress strain curve of steel reinforcement. It is modeled by
idealized curve identical in tension and compression and the strain hardening modulus
is incorporated.
The above two idealized curves are used in analyzing reinforced concrete section
properties with the following simplifying assumptions.
 Plane section remains plane after bending.
 Ignore tensile strength in concrete beyond the tensile cracking capacity.
 Ignore the effect of bond slip between steel reinforcement and concrete.
 Ignore the difference between confined concrete inside cover and concrete outside
cover.
36
3.5 ENVELOPE CURVE AND FIBER MODEL ANALYSIS
3.5.1 Envelope Curve
The load deformation curve of reinforced concrete sections is one of the most
important parameters in evaluating the response of reinforced concrete sections under
monotonic loading. This curve is of bi-linear type rather than simple linear one as
shown in Figure 3.16. The break points of this curve reflect the flexural crack of
concrete in tension, development of shear cracks, yielding of tensile longitudinal
reinforcement and the compression failure of concrete. The failure pattern of moderate
reinforced concrete section passes through the following three stages. The first stage is
cracking of concrete at a low level of bending moment as compared to the yielding of
reinforcements. The second stage is yielding of section followed by light increase in
moment-bearing capacity up to ultimate failure at the end of the third stage. The
post-yield stage may be fully plastic, the ductility deterioration is a result of crushing
and spilling of concrete.
3.5.2 Fiber Model Analysis
The moment curvature analysis is carried out on the reinforced concrete section
by fiber analysis approach The concrete cross-section, specially walls and slabs, is
sub-divided into a number of parts. The number of parts depends upon the variation
materials and dimensions of the cross-section as shown in Figures 3.10 and 3.17.
The fiber model approach is an analysis approach where that parts is sub-divided up
through the depth into a number of layers perpendicular to analysis direction.
The proposed material models are applied to each layer individually. Concrete
layers are assumed to be in the state of a plane stress and the actual stress
distributions of concrete sections are modeled by a piece wise constant approximation.
The approach is independent of specific type of material and allows for material
variation through the depth of the section without needing 3-D analysis. The stress
and the strain at any fiber j are dj, dj is given by the basic relations.
37
dj=E.dj
(3.47)
dj= d0+Z.d
(3.48)
Where
E is elastic modulus of the corresponding concrete.
d0 is the centroidal strain at mid-depth of the as shown in Figure 3.17b.
d is curvature of the cross section.
Z is the distance from the reference axis which is taken to be the mid depth of
section and the center of the j th layer.
The resultant normal forces () and moment (M) for the jth layer are
N =  E.dj.dA (3.49)
M =  E.dj.Z.dA (3.50)
The steel reinforcements are identified into equivalent layers as shown in Figure
3.18 similar to concrete by using steel properties. All transverse shear stresses are
applied to concrete sections would not affect the in-plane flexural behavior of the
concrete layers. Applying the same procedure to steel reinforcement and substituting
into the overall part
NCC NSS NCC NSS

(3.51)
N  (  fci. Aci   fsj. Asj )d  (  fci. Aci. Zi   fsj. Asj. Zj ) d
i 1 J 1 i 1 J 1
where
NCC,NSS are the number of concrete strip and steel areas considered in the section.
fci, fsi are the stress in concrete and steel sections respectively.
Aci, Asi are the areas of the concrete and steel respectively [1]
3.5.3 Development of Moment-Curvature Envelope
The organization of the moment-curvature envelope is adopted from Mander 1984

[2] in the following steps.
38
 Applying incremental curvature to the previous value.
dI+1=di+ (3.52)
 The change in the centroidal strain is calculated from the equation.

0= (N-Ex.)/Ea (3.53)
where
NCC NSS
(3.54)
E a  (  fci. Aci   fsj. Asj )
i 1 J 1
NCC NSS
(3.55)
E x  (  fci. Aci. Zi   fsj. Asj. Zj )
i 1 J 1
 The incremental centeroidal strain is added to the previous value of cenroidal strain
and the fiber stain is calculated by.
dj= d0+Z.d (3.56)
 The new resulting axial load and moment is calculated from the equations
N =  E.dj.dA (3.57)
M =  E.dj.Z.dA (3.58)
 The computed axial load and moment is compared with the applied axial load, if the
difference is higher than a specified tolerance return to step 2 assuming =0.
 Apply new increment of curvature.
 The incremental curvature that is applied to the section in step 1 is continued until
one of the following ultimate conditions are reached to specify the ultimate curvature.
the ultimate the extreme concrete fiber compressive strain ( u) is reached; or
the ultimate strength of one of the reinforcement bars( fy ) is attained
39
Fig. 3.15 Proposed Stress Strain Curve of Materials; a) Concrete
b) Steel.
Fig. 3.16 Proposed Trilinear Envelope Curve of R/C Sections Subjected

to Monotonic Loads.
40
Fig. 3.17 Modeling for Fiber Model : a) Slab sub- Division ;
b) Strain Distribution .
Fig. 3.18 Details of One Fiber : a) Cross Section ; b) Strain

Distribution ; c) Stress Distribution.
41
After determine the strain at the center of the fiber, One of the following cases
will be applied to the section depends of strain at fibers.
Zone 1 Strain in fiber more than strain at maximum strength
Mi  ( f c E c .(ci  0 )) Ai . Zi (3.59)
Zone 2 Fiber in compression and strain of concrete below strain at maximum

strength.
ci  (3.60)
M i  f c.[( 2 )  ( ci ) 2 ] Ai . Zi
0 0
Zone 3 Fiber in tension and strain in concrete less than tensile cracking strain
M i  E c . ci . Ai . Zi (3.61)
Zone 4 Fiber in tension and steel strain below yield strain

M i  E s . si . Asi . Zi (3.62)
Zone 5 Fiber in tension and steel strain above yield s

M i  f s . Asi . Zi (3.63)
Zone 6 Fiber in tension and steel strain a bore strain at start of hardening
M i  ( f si  E s ( si   sh )) Asi . Zi (3.64)
3.5.4 Slab Trilinear Envelope Fitting
3.5.4.1 Fitting For Flexural Properties

3.5.4.1.a Flexible Floor Model
The trilinear envelope curve of the flexible floor model has been established
through the interpretation of experimental data. The experimental testes indicate
that the presence of the vertical load on the floor slab reduces the in plane load
capacity and changing the shape of the force- deformation curve. The trilinear
curve of the flexible floor slab gets the following approximations in establishing
the trilinear envelope curve of reinforced concrete floors under in-plane loads.
42
 The yield capacity of the nominal reinforced flexible floor slab is assumed to be
equal to the cracking strength predicted by the monatomic analysis under in plane
loading. A higher value is used for heavily reinforced slabs.
 The yield strength is 3 times the strength at the point of initial slope deviation in
case of considering vertical loads.
 The yield curvature is fixed to the smaller value of point at which the slope of
moment curvature envelope is equal to 0.05 the initial elastic slope or 6 times the
cracking curvature.
After the determination of the moment characteristic at each fiber the above
empirical assumption has been used to fit the trainer curve and determine the yield
and cracking moments.
3.5.4.1.b Flexible elastic Floor Model

The Elastic Floor model treated in the same way as inelastic model except that the
following values are being higher to new ones.
M c  10000. M c (3.65)
M y  100. M y (3.66)
This means that the floor slab envelope curve should not show any cracking and
the yield moment should not be reached under service loads.
3.5.4.1.c Rigid Floor Model
The rigid Floor model treated in the same way as inelastic model except that the
following values are modified to new ones. The initial floor stiffness is being higher
to an infinite value to reflect the rigidity of floor diaphragm into its plane. Although
this is not the correct way to treat with the rigid floor assumption instead of control
point principle as shown in Figure 3.19, the result obtained is satisfied.
M c  1000. M c (3.67)
M y  10. M y (3.68)
3.5.4.2 Fitting For Shear Properties
43
The shear strength of the floor slab and shear walls under in plane loads are
developed based on the experimental data and the following equations are derived
for yield (Qy) and cracking (Qc) shear forces.
 0.0679 t 0.23 ( fc   180) 
Qy    2.684 f y . w  01
. AN  A 
 lr  012 .  (3.69)
Ag
t 
B ( D  d / 2) (3.70)
7 (3.71)
A  B.( D  d / 2 )
8
. ( fc   500) A 
0128 (3.72)
Qc   0.8Q y
D  4.14
Where
B  is equivalent web thickness (cm).

d is equivalent edge column depth (D/4 for walls and D/6 for slabs).
Ag is equivalent edge beam / column reinforcement(cm2).
lr is member height/ member length ratio(H/D).

AN = 0.0 for floor.
The yield shear deformation y
1016
. Qy (3.73)
y 
l s .(0.4. E c . Ac )
Where Ls is the shear span ratio given by the equation.
Mt . H l Mt . H  (3.74)
ls    [ ]
( M t  Mb ). D  D ( M t  Mb ). D 
where
Mt,Mb is the moment at top and bottom of member of height H.

3.6 DYMAMIC ANALYSIS HYSTERETIC PARAMETERS
3.6.1 GENERAL
44
The parameters describing the inelastic and hysteretic behavior of RC elements
are given in the form of empirical equations based or laboratory experiments. The
mathematical modeling of inelastic and hysteretic characteristics obtained directly
from simple condition of loading. This is done using skeleton curve properties for
monatomic loading and hysteretic properties for cycle loading which will be valid for
general reversal dynamic loads. These should include the relation between end
moment and end rotation for flexural members and between shear force and shear
deformation for shear- failure members.
The ultimate states of RC members are differently characterized by the phases of

flexural yielding, shear failure, and slip, crushing and spilling of concrete steel
buckling.
3.6.2 Three Parameter Hysteric Model
The hysteretic model that was developed for the analysis uses three parameters in
conjunction with a non- symmetric trilinear curve to establish the rules under which
inelastic loading reversals take place. These parameters are stiffness degradation,
strength deterioration and pond-slip. The purpose of this model was the salient feature
of the experimental force-deformation loops could be reduced. The proper selection
of hysteretic models is one of the critical factors in successfully predicting the
dynamic response under earthquake motions.
The determination of hysteretic parameters could be obtained using

experimental test results of similar component having steel reinforcement ratio
and axial stress. The three parameter models offer a wide range of options in
modeling the inelastic behavior of RC component by setting the parameters'
values as shown in Figures 3.21 and 3.22. The detailed formations of hysteretic
loops are mentioned in earlier version of IDARC user manual. A short brief of each
parameter will be defined in the next pages.
3.6.2.a Stiffness Degradation
45
Stiffness degradation parameters () defines the amount of stiffness decay as in
indirect function of the attained ductility. The study of moment curvature
diagrams of the most of RC sections indicates that a restoring force curve tends to
absolute maximum point in the opposite direction of loading as showing Figure
3.20a. This point is expressed as a function of yield load of RC section.
3.6.2.b Strength Deterioration
Stiffness deterioration parameters () defines the loss in strength as a function of

dissipated energy. This parameter gives the ratio of the incremental damage caused by
the increase of the maximum response to the normalized incremental hysteretic
energy the incremental increase of the maximum deformation (m) due to the
dissipated energy (dE) expressed as
dE (3.75)
dm   .
Py
Where the value of  is determined in-core using an empirical relation reported in

earlier version of IDARC user manual and the loop shapes are presented in Figure
3.20b.
3.6.2.C Pinching Or Pond Slip Parameters
Pinching parameter () defined the bold slip in RC sections due to the crack
opening and closing. The physical meaning of this parameter is derived by the
crossing of unloading paths the zero moment axis, aim a lower target point
specified by .py and retain this smaller stiffness until the path crosses the cracking
deformation. After the balding paths aim the previous maximum point, unless
strength deterioration is also specified, a typical value of 0.5 could be used to
simulate typical effect of crack opening and closing the lop shape affected by pond
slip parameters is shown in Figure 3.20c.
46
The effects of the three parameters' values on the shape of hysteretic loops are
shown in Figures 3.21 and 3.22. The significant values and its effect on the
component are tabulated in Table 3.2.
Table3.2 Typical Effect of the Three Parameters Values.

Parameter Meaning Value Effect
0.1 Severe degradation

 Stiffness Degradation 2.0 Nominal ( default )
10.0 Negligible
0.0 No deterioration
 Deterioration Coefficient 0.1 Nominal
0.4 Severe
0.1 Extremely pinched loops

 Pond slip coefficient 0.5 Nominal
1.0 No pinching ( default )
47
Fig. 3.19 Modeling of Rigid Floor with One Control Point.
Fig. 3.20 Three Parameters Model: a) Stiffness Degradation ;

b) Strength Deterioration ; Pond Slip.
48
Fig. 3. 21 Application of Three Parameters Model on Old Models.
49
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 3. 22 Effect of Variation of Hysteretic Loop Parameters on The

Loop Shape : a) Stifness Degradation : b) Strength
Deterioration : c) Pond Slip.
50
Chapter 4
Chapter 4
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDIED BUILDINGS
4.1 PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS

4.1.1 Concrete
The properties of concrete followed the default values of IDARC2 program. The
characteristics concrete cube strength ranged among 200 and 500 kg/cm2. The most
common concrete strength used in the analysis was 250 kg/cm2. The stress strain
curve for the material used follow the following equations:
E c  13578 f cu
 cr  .08
f cu
Ec
 o .002
f bu  8.4 kg / cm 2
Where
fcu is characteristic cube strength (kg/cm2)
Ec is Young’s modulus (kg/cm2)
cr is tensile cracking strain
o is strain in at maximum strength
fbu is pond strength (kg/cm2)
4.1.2 Reinforcing Steel
The properties of steel used were follows the default values of the program except
otherwise mentioned. In most cases the steel grade used was 24/35 for slab rebars
and 36/52 for columns, beams and walls. The most common steel properties used are.
Es=2x106
Esh=0.35x105 or 0.0
so=3 %
51
where
Es is steel modulus of elasticity (kg/cm2)
Esh is modulus at strain hardening (kg/cm2)
so is strain in at start of hardening (%)
4.2 APPLIED LOADS
4.2.1 Dead Loads
The dead loads applied was the summation of concrete elements own weight floor
covers, superimposed dead loads, walls and partition loads. The following values
were used
Concrete unit weight = 2.5 t/m3
Floor cover loads =0.15 t/m2
Equivalent masonry walls distributed unit weight =0.2 t/m2
4.2.2 Live Loads
The applied live load considered was taken from ECL93 chapter 4 for ordinary
housing building to be 200 t/m2. No reduction had been carried out for live loads at the
roof.
4.2.3 Lumped Mass Loads
The lumped mass loads for each frame were taken as the total weight applied to
each frame at each story this mass was lumped at the centerline of each frame. The
live load (< 0.5 t/m2) was totally ignored in dynamic analysis as recommended by
ECL93 item 8-2-1.
4.2.4 The Applied Waves
52
The ground motion used was the first ten seconds of EL CENTRO earthquake
(May.1940) and the first 8 second of TAFT earthquake(Jul.1952). The peak horizontal
component of the acceleration of the seismic waves was scaled to different percentage
of the gravity acceleration (G) depends on the studied case. The vertical components
of the waves were ignored. The time histories records are shown in Figures 4.1 and
4.2
4.2.5 Seismic Design Parameters
The design was base on the requirement of the ECL93 chapter 8. The following
parameters were used seismic zone #3,height of building < 12.0 m (except WC-3-5-6
building),height per width of building less than 2.5, importance factor is1, soil factor
is 1 and where the dual system was used the shear walls resist all the lateral loads.
4.3 THE STUDIED STRUCTURES
The identification rules used to identify the structure is as follows.for a structure

WC-N1-N2-N3 the notations description are
WC is the structure system identification (i.e. walls or columns)
N1 is the number of bays parallel to loading direction
N2 is the number of bays normal to loading direction
N3 is the number of stories of the structure.
4.3.1 WC-1-5-1 Building
The building was a dual system structure where the structure elements were
designed to resist out all the lateral loads by shear walls. The building was one story
and the story height was 3.0 m. The buildings were 1 by 5 bays with plan aspect ratio
of 5. and square bays 5.0 by 5.0 m.
The distributions of vertical elements supporting system were two stiff end walls
with width 0.2m and depth 5.25 m and 8 intermediate square columns 0.3 by 0.3 m
53
section. The beam was 0.25m width by 0.6 m depth. The details of structure
configuration and component were shown in Figure 4.3a and4.3b
The characteristic design concrete strength after 28 days was 250 kg/cm2. The
steel grade was 24/35 for all structural elements.
4.3.2 CW-1-5-1 Building
The building was a dual system type structure. The building was one story and the
story height was 3.0 m. The buildings were 1 by 5 bays with plan aspect ratio of 5 and
square bays 5.0 by 5.0 m.
The distribution of vertical elements supporting system was two stiff intermediate
walls with width 0.2m and depth 5.25 m and 4 outer square columns 0.3 by 0.3 m
section per each side. The beam was 0.25m width by 0.6 m depth. The details of
structure configuration and components were shown in Figure 4.3
The characteristic design concrete strength after 28 days was 250 kg/cm2.The steel
grade was 24/35 for all structural elements.
4.3.3 CC-1-5-1 Building
The building was a moment resisting frame system type structures

where the structure elements were designed to carry out only the gravity loads in
according with ECL93 precautions. The building was one story and the story height
was 3.0 m. The buildings were 1 by 5 bays with plan aspect ratio of 5 and square bays
5.0 by 5.0 m .
The distribution of vertical elements supporting system was 12 columns spaced at

two columns per frame parallel to direction of analysis. The columns were square 0.3
by 0.3 m cross section. The beam was 0.25m width by 0.6 m depth. The details of
structure configuration and components were shown in Figure 4.4a and 4.4b.
54
4.3.4 WW-1-5-1 & WW-1-N-1 Buildings
The building was a shear walls' system structure. The building were one story
and the story height was 3.0 m. The building was 1 by 5 bays with plan aspect ratio of
5 and square bays 5.0 by 5.0 m.
The distribution of vertical elements supporting system was 6 Shear walls spaced
at one wall per frame parallel to direction of analysis. The wall dimensions were 0.15
by 5.25 m in cross section. The beam was 0.25m width by 0.6 m depth. The details
of structure configuration and component were shown in Figure 4.4
The characteristic design concrete strength after 28 days was 250 kg/cm2. The
steel grade was 24/35 for all structural elements.
The WW-1-N-1 Buildings were the same as WW-1-5-1 building except that the
number of bays normal to load direction was variable among 1 and 9.
4.3.5 WC-N-5-1 Buildings
The building was a dual system type structure where the structure elements were
designed to carry out all the lateral loads by shear walls. The building was one story
and the story height was 3.0 m. The buildings were 1,2 or 3 by 5 bays with plan aspect
ratio varies among 5 to 1.67 and square bays 4.0 by 4.0 m .
The distribution of vertical elements supporting system was two stiff end walls
with or without columns at the outer frame with width 0.25 m and depth 4.0 m and
variable number of intermediate square columns 0.3 by 0.3 m section. The beam was
0.25m width by 0.7 m depth. The details of structure configuration and component
were shown in Figure 4.5
55
0.4
0.3
0.2
Acceleration (g)
0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Time (sec)
Fig. 4.1 El-Centro Earthquake (1940) Time History(N-S Component,

First Ten Seconds).
0.2
0.1
Acceleration (g)
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time (sec)
Fig.4.2 Taft Earthquake (1952) Time History(N-S Component,

First Eight Seconds).
56
The plane configurations were designed to keep the vertical element stiffness as
close as possible for all plans
4.3.6 WC-3-5-N Buildings
designed to carry out all the lateral loads by shear walls. The building height was
variable among 1 to 6 stories and the story height was 3.0 m. The buildings were 3
by 5 bays with plan aspect ratio 3. All bays were 4.0 by 6.0 m for perimeter
panels and 2.0 by 6.0 m for the corridors.
The distribution of vertical elements supporting system was four stiff distributed
walls with columns at the perimeter. The wall dimension was 0.25 m width and depth
4.0 m depth. Sixteen distributed columns were used with width.25 m and variable
depth. The beam was 0.25m width by 0.7 m depth. The details of structure
configuration and components were shown in Figure 4.6
The characteristic design concrete strength after 28 days was 250 kg/cm2.Two types
of steel were used, steel grade 24/35 for slab reinforcement and grade 36/52 for
beams, columns and walls. The shear wall dimensions were constant through the
structure height
designed to carry out all the lateral loads by shear walls. The building height was one
story and the story height was 3.0 m. The building was 2 by 5 bays with plan aspect
ratio 2.5. All bays were square 5.0 by 5.0 m and stair pier was located at the middle
panel the building
The distribution of vertical elements supporting system was four stiff end walls.
The walls' dimensions were 0.15 m width and 4.0 m depth and were connected
60
together with stiff beams. Twelve intermediate square columns 0.35 by 0.35 m were
used. The beam was 0.25m width by 0.6 m depth. The details of structure
configuration and components were shown in Figure 4.7.
of steel were used, steel grade 24/35 for slab reinforcement and grade 36/52 for
beams, columns and walls.
designed to carry out all the lateral loads by shear walls. The building height was 3
stories and the story height was 3.0 m. The building was 2 by 9 bays with plan aspect
ratio 4.5. All bays were square one 5.0 by 5.0 m and stair pier was located at the
middle panel the building
The distribution of vertical elements supporting system was four stiff end walls.
The wall dimension was 0.2 m width and 4.0 m depth The at the same frame was
connected together with stiff beams. Twenty-four intermediate square columns 0.35
by 0.35 m were used. The beam was 0.25m width by 0.6 m depth. The details of
structure configuration and component were shown in Figure 4.8
of steel were used, steel grade 24/35 for slab reinforcement and grade36/52 for beams,
columns and walls. The shear wall dimensions were constant through the structure
height
4.3.9 FWC-2-9-3 Building
The building was as the same as The WC-2-9-3 building except that the floor slab
was replaced by flat slab with thickness 0.16 m. The details of structure configuration
and components were shown in Figure 4.9
61
Chapter 5
Chapter 5
ANALYTICAL STUDY
5.1 GENERAL
Sometimes, the structural designer may select the following parameters to satisfy
the structural design requirement, building configuration, structure layout, structural
materials and detailing of the structural members. The selection of the above
parameters will control the building response i.e. yield strength, deformeability and
stability, energy dissipation characteristics, toughness and endurance(ability to sustain
this characteristics during and after shocks) of the structure in order to attain the
desired performance criteria.
Various types of buildings were studied to highlight the behavior of RC building

with different floor models. The studied buildings had different structural system (that
is, beam-columns, dual system, shear walls). The studied parameters' organization is
shown in Figure 5.1 and the range of each parameter is mentioned in Table 5.1. The
details of studied structures plan, sections and materials were mentioned in the
previous chapter.
The output includes the maximum base shear, monotonic lateral load capacity,
maximum top displacement, shear and displacement distribution between different
elements, time histories' records for selected members and natural period of vibration
obtained from the program or codes. Sometimes the output includes story drift, shear
ratio and other results as will be indicated later.
66
Studied Cases
Floor Diaphragm Building Geometeries Floor Diaphragm Properties Rigidity asessement

Models
Flexible Inelatic Slab Parameters Beam Parameters Rigidity Factor

Vertical Elements
Flexible Elastic Configuration
Rigid
Number of Stories Structural System Main
Beams& Slabs Beams Stiffness
Flat Slabs
Story Height
Thickness Transverse
Beams Stiffness
67
Floor Plan Dimensions
Opening in Slab
Parrallel to
Wave Direction
Concrete Grade
Normal to
Wave Direction
Steel Grade
Fig. 5.1 Organization of Studied Cases.

Table 5.1 The Studied Cases and Variable Parameters.
Case Symbol. unit parameter range
Floor Model --- --- Inelastic Elastic Rigid

Vertical Elements --- --- WC CW WW CC
Number of Stories N --- 1 2 3 4 5 6
Story Height h --- 3 4 5 6 7 ---
Floor Plan Dimensions
 Length normal to wave L/H --- 1.67 3.33 5 6.67 8.3 >11
 Width parallel to wave B/H --- 1.3 2.7 4.0 --- --- ---
Type of Floor --- --- Beams & Slabs Flat Slabs
Floor Thickness T m .08 0.1 .12 .14 .16 .18
Opening in Slab --- --- Without With openings
Concrete Grade Fcu kg/cm2 200 250 300 350 400
Steel Grade Fy kg/cm2 2400 2800 3600 4000
Main Beam Ib/Ic --- 1.0 2.1 3.6 5.7 8.5 ---
Transverse Beam It/Ib --- 0.30 1.0 1.6 2.4 3.4 ---
5.2 STUDIED PARAMETERS
5.2.1 Floor Diaphragm Models
Most of the structural mass is concentrated on the floor slab itself and the
function of the floor slab to distribute lateral loads and to transmit the gravity loads
in addition too safe the plan configuration will affect by the model used. The selection
of the appropriate floor model depends on many factors especially the in-plane to
vertical element stiffness ratio.
The studied structure is WC-1-5-1 building subjected to El-Centro earthquake with

maximum peak acceleration of 0.5 g. The floor models are varied between the
flexible inelastic (referred later as flexible or inelastic model), flexible elastic (referred
later as elastic model) or rigid floor models. The details of applying different floor
models on the WC-1-5-1 building are discussed in the next pages.
The fundamental period of the structure was calculated by six different methods.
Three methods were based on codes' evaluation and three values obtained from
68
different models' output. The natural period of the rigid floor was about 43 % of the
flexible elastic or inelastic model as shown in Table 5.2. The low value reflected the
effect of the floor model on the rigidity of the total structure. The results of the
calculated fundamental period by ECL93 and UBC94 equation 28.3 indicated that
both periods are closer. All values obtained by IDARC2 models were less than codes'
value. The most closed code's value to the program values was UBC94 equation
28.3&4.
The building capacity is greatly affected by the floor model. The base shear
coefficient of inelastic, elastic, rigid models were 1.62,4.0, 4.15% respectively as
shown in Figure 5.2. The high value of rigid floor model shear was a result of the
high deformation happened in the outer shear wall. In the normal cases the
deformation of rigid floor is controlled by the stiffness of shear walls. The most
ductile structure is the structure of elastic floor model where the lateral deformation
was 1.3 % of building height.
The total maximum base shear influenced by the floor model. The perfect
elasticity and the straining action developed in the structure assuming elastic floor
model was greater than other models by about 36 %. Figure 5.3 indicated that the
inelastic and rigid models' base shears were close. In most cases, the base shear
developed in the rigid floor model structure were higher than the inelastic model. The
studied structure is an especial case where the shear failure occurred at the slab panel
adjacent to shear wall as seen later.
The distribution in the plane deformations, shears, rotations and moments

between the structural elements and through the floor diaphragm itself were affected
by the type of the floor model used. The inelastic and the elastic mode yielded to
large deformation of the intermediate elements than of the outer vertical supporting
elements. The total deformations of the intermediate frame were about 28 and 15.7
times of outer shear wall respectively using inelastic and elastic models. This
value was limited to 2.5 for rigid floor model instead of unit value due to
approximation in rigid model as shown in Figure 5.4a. The intermediate frame lateral
deformations predicted by inelastic model were about 1.07 and 8 times that of
elastic and rigid floor model. The error in predicting intermediate frame
deformations increased away from shear walls. The higher values of the middle
69
frame's deformation were due to cracking and flexural yielding of middle slabs. The
variation of wall deformation of different floor models was small compared with
middle frame deformation because the moment developed in shear wall was small
compared with its ultimate capacity especially for low rise buildings. The inter-story
drift shape of the building was similar to simple beam deformation shape. Figure 5.4b
showed that the shear distributions between vertical load supporting system depend on
floor model. The base shear of the structure mainly attained from shears of stiffer
elements that have the major shear area. The base shears of the outer shear walls were
79, 81 and 95.4 % of the total base shear of the structure for inelastic, elastic and rigid
floor models, respectively. The area of the shear walls were about 73 % of the total
vertical elements' area. The greater carrying capacities of end walls were due to crack
or yield of column at the earlier stage of the earthquake loading. The rigid floor
assumptions leaded to underestimation of base shear carried by frames and
overestimation of outer wall shear. The intermediate frame shear of rigid model frame
was about 19% of the inelastic model shear. The percentage of middle frame shear of
elastic and inelastic floor model was about 6.4% of the total base shear and its
shear area is about 6.6% which are nearly identical.
The slab models modified the distribution of straining actions inside the slab itself.
The maximum slab shear happened at the outer panels adjacent to the end walls. The
outer slab shears were 25, 23 and 35% of the total base shear for inelastic, elastic and
rigid floor models respectively as shown in Figure 5.5a. This means that the rigid floor
assumption leaded to increase the outer panels (adjacent to shear walls) shear and
reduced away from the center as mentioned before with vertical elements. The values
of slab moments obtained from IDARC2 and Figure 5.5b using rigid floor model is
conservative due to the approximation of model in predicting ultimate moment and
slab stiffness.
The floor models did not only control the response of the structural elements but
also modify the crack pattern of the structure. In the same structure, the variation of
crack patterns and the failure progress of different floor models are shown in Figure
5.6. For the flexible inelastic model, the failure initiated at the middle slab as flexural
yielding pattern then started at columns and beams. All shear walls were elastic at the
end of the analysis. In the case of elastic floor model, yielding initiated at columns,
70
walls, beams and then the outer two slabs failed under shear failure. In the rigid floor
assumption, the flexural yield initiated at outer shear walls then started at columns and
beams. Finally, the outer slabs failed in shear failure. The failure of shear walls in the
case of elastic and rigid floor models attributed to the large deformations happened at
walls as shown in Figure 5.4a. The failure pattern in conjunction with lateral
deformation of the floor diaphragm was similar to the failure pattern of simple beam
supported by springs for the case of flexible model. The failure mechanism was similar
to deep beam shear failure in rigid floor model case.
A group of time histories and hysteretic loops for different elements are presented
in Figures 5.7 to 5.13.
Table 5.2 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-1-5-1 Building.
Estimation Method Period (Sec.)

Egyptian Code of Loads ECL93 Eq. 8.4 0.12
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3 0.11
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model 0.062
IDARC2 Elastic Floor Model 0.062
IDARC2 Rigid Floor Model 0.027
71
5.0
4.5
4.0
Base Shear (%W)
3.5
3.0
2.5 Inelastic
2.0
Elastic
1.5
1.0 Rigid
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
Top Displacement ( % Height)
(a)
5.0
4.5
4.0
Base Shear (%W)
3.5
3.0
2.5 Inelastic
2.0
1.5 Elastic
1.0 Rigid
0.5
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
(b)
Fig.5.2 Pushover Analysis of WC-1-5-1 Building with Different Floor
Models: a) Exterior Frame; b) Middle Frame.
180.0
160.0
140.0
Base Shear (ton)
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
Inelastic Elastic Rigid
Floor Model
Fig.5.3 Variation of Base Shear of WC-1-5-1Building with Floor Models
72
4
Flexible
Elastic
Displacement
3
Rigid
0
Shear Wall
Shear Wall
Frame 1
Frame 2
Frame 3
Frame 4
(a)
30
Flexible
25 Elastic
Rigid
Base Shear (ton)
20
15
10
0
Shear Wall
Shear Wall
Frame 1
Frame 2
Frame 3
Frame 4
(b)
Fig. 5.4 Distribution of Response between Vertical Elements:

a) Displacement; b) Shear.
73
30
Flexible
20 Elastic
Rigid
10
Shear (ton)
-10
-20
-30
Shear Wall
Shear Wall
Frame 1
Frame 2
Frame 3
Frame 4
(a)
25
Flexible
20 Elastic
Rigid
Moment
15
10
0
Frame 1
Frame 2
Frame 3
Frame 4
Shear Wall
Shear Wall
(b)
Fig. 5.5 Straining Actions of Slabs: a)Shear Distribution;

b) Moment Distribution.
74
80
Base Shear (ton) 60 Flexible Inelastic
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
80
60 Flexible Elastic
Base Shear (ton)
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
80
60 Rigid
Base Shear (ton)
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
Fig. 5.7 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-1-5-1 Building.
76
30.0
Flexible Inelastic
20.0
Frame Shear (ton)
10.0
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
30.0
Frame Shear (ton)
20.0 Flexible Elastic
10.0
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
30.0
Rigid
Frame Shear (ton)
20.0
10.0
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
Fig. 5.8 Base Shear Time Histories for Outer Frame of Wc-1-5-1
Building with Different Floor Models.
77
5.0
Frame Shear Flexible Inelastic
3.0
1.0
-1.0
-3.0
-5.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
5.0
Flexible Elastic
3.0
Frame Shear (ton)
1.0
-1.0
-3.0
-5.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
5.0
Rigid
3.0
Frame Shear (ton)
1.0
-1.0
-3.0
-5.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
Fig.5.9 Base Shear Time Histories for Middle Frame of WC-1-5-1Building.
78
2.5
Flexible Inelastic
1.5
Displacement (mm)
0.5
-0.5
-1.5
-2.5
-3.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
2.5
Flexible Elastic
Displacement (mm)
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1.5
-2.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
2.5
Rigid
Displacement (mm)
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1.5
-2.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
Fig 5.10 Displacement Time Histories for Middle Frame of WC-1-5-1

Building.
79
2.E+01
Moment (m.ton)
2.E+01 Flexible Inelastic
1.E+01
5.E+00
0.E+00
-5.E+00
-1.E+01
-2.E+01
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
2.E+01
2.E+01 Flexible Elastic
Moment (m.ton)
1.E+01
5.E+00
0.E+00
-5.E+00
-1.E+01
-2.E+01
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
2.E+01
Rigid
1.E+01
Moment (m.ton)
5.E+00
0.E+00
-5.E+00
-1.E+01
-2.E+01
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
Fig. 5.11 Moment Time Histories for Intermediate Slab of WC-1-5-1

Building.
80
0.8
0.6
Moment
Flexible Inelastic
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Rotation( Phi/Phiy)
0.8
0.6 Flexible Elastic
Moment (M/My)
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Rotation (Phi/phiy)
0.8
0.6 Rigid
Moment (M/My)
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-0.30 -0.20 -0.10 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Rotation (phi/Phiy)
Fig. 5.12 Hysteretic Loops of Middle Column of WC-1-5-1 Building.
81
1.0
0.8 Inelastic
Moment (M/My) 0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Curvature (Phi/Phiy)
1.0
0.8 Elastic
0.6
Moment (M/My)
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
curvature (Phi/Phiy)
1.0
0.8 Rigid
0.6
Moment (M/My)
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
Fig. 5.13 Hysteretic Loops of Middle Slab of WC-1-5-1 Building.
82
5.2.2 Building Geometry
5.2.2.1 Vertical Elements Configurations
The selection of the structure system depends on the designer sense and common
practice more than code provisions.
Most design codes defined the natural period or base shear of the structure in terms
of structure system. For example, ECL93 defines the base shear of the structure in
accordance with its vertical elements using the structural system types. Herein, the
structural system is defined to be one of the following systems, ductile frame's
structure, shear wall structure, dual system structure. The details of each system
mentioned in UBC94 chapter 16.
Four different plans named CC-1-5-1, WC-1-5-1, CW-1-5-1 and WW-1-5-1

buildings. The structures were subjected to El-Centro earthquake with peak
acceleration of 0.3 g.
The natural periods calculated by the program were 0.16, 0.05, 0.06, and 0.02
seconds respectively for CC, CW, WC and WW buildings as in Table 5.3. The
fundamental period is inversely proportioned to the vertical element stiffness. The
presence of shear walls reduced natural periods greatly.
The relation between the structural ability to resist lateral loads without failure are
presented in Figure5.14 for both flexible inelastic and rigid floor models. The ability of
CC-1-5-1 building to resist lateral load was very weak and failed at a very low level of
base shear coefficient 0.5 % and lateral deformation of 1.2 % of story height for both
outer and middle frames. The second system was WC-1-5-1 building in which, the
failure happened at base shear coefficient of 1.5 % and lateral deformation of 0.27 %
for middle frames and 0.008% for outer walls. The behavior of CW-1-5-1 building
was stronger where the base shear coefficient was 2.31% and maximum deformation
of 1.24 %. The WW-1-5-1 building base shear coefficient was 11.2% and maximum
lateral deformation was 1.66% at middle wall as shown in Figure 5.14c.
The base shears developed in the structures during the wave time interval were
19.7, 22.2, 23.8, and 18.6 ton respectively of CC, CW, WC and WW buildings as
shown in Figure 5.15 for inelastic floor model. The total dynamic base shears of CW-
83
1.0
0.8
Inelastic
Moment (M/My)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
1.0
0.8 Elastic
0.6
Moment (M/My)
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
1.0
0.8
Rigid
0.6
Moment (M/My)
0.4
0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1.0
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
82
2.5
Flexible Inelastic
1.5
Displacement (mm)
0.5
-0.5
-1.5
-2.5
-3.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
2.5
Flexible Elastic
Displacement (mm)
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1.5
-2.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
2.5
Rigid
Displacement (mm)
1.5
0.5
-0.5
-1.5
-2.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
Fig 5.10 Displacement Time Histories for Middle Frame of WC-1-5-1

Building.
79
1-5-1 and WC-1-5-1 buildings were higher than the WW-1-5-1 building. Figure
5.16 indicated that the errors in shear were 0.0, 25.6, 22.0, 0.0 for CC,CW, WC
and WW buildings respectively. This means that the floor model of CC-1-5-1 building
could be assumed as rigid floor without loss of any accuracy and the floor flexibility
might be taken in CW- 1-5-1 and WC-1-5-1 buildings.
The percentage of error (flexible to rigid response) due to rigid floor assumption
leaded to errors 13 and 540% in wall outer frame and middle wall shears of CW-1-5-
1 building. These ratios were about 5 and 620 % respectively in WC-1-5-1 building
as in Figure 5.17. The errors in frames were high and leaded to lake of frames'
ductility far away from shear walls' locations.
Figure 5.18 shows the distribution of displacement between vertical elements. The
lateral deformation of CC-1-5-1 building was the same for all columns and the shear
ratio of outer to middle frames was about 1.05 This value was very closed to the unit
value. Considering the assumption of rigid floor, the distribution of shear is
proportional to the element's stiffness or inertia. Due to the high stiffness of floor in its
plane compared with columns' stiffness, the ductile frames will take their lateral
deformations from slab deflections without significant restriction. The high error
levels shown in Figure 5.18 indicated that the floor flexibility should be taken into
consideration for dual system buildings of similar parameters. For the WW-1-5-1
building, the shear ratio of middle to outer walls was about 1.73, as shown in Figure
5.19, which is somewhat closed to tributary area concept. The assumption of rigid
floor is out of accuracy for such buildings. The designer might take into consideration
the floor flexibility of the buildings with very stiff vertical elements. Figure5.20
showed that for CW-1-5-1 and WC-1-5-1 buildings, the lateral deflections of the
middle frames were about 0.15 and 20.0 times the outer frame deflections. The drift
between outer and middle frames of dual system buildings was much greater than
the other types of structures and were about 6 and 12 times for CW-1-5-1 and WC-1-5-
1 buildings respectively considering floor flexibility shown in Figure 5.20.
The deformation shapes which shown in Figure 5.20 may be simplified to an
equivalent simple system. The CC-1-5-1 building deflection shape is similar to deep
beam on elastic springs while the WW-1-5-1 building deflection shape was similar to
continuos beam deflection. The deflection shape of dual systems is equivalent to beam
supported on hinges at wall positions and rested on elastic springs at ductile frame.
84
The above results enable the author to conclude that, Moment resistant frames'
posses low lateral stiffness where diaphragm actions do not appear and behave as
rigid diaphragm. The shear wall buildings where the vertical elements lateral stiffness
is the same or greater than in-plane floor stiffness lead to flexible floor behavior.
The dual system building response depends on shear wall stiffness and positions or
by other words' wall to frame interaction.
Table 5.3 Estimation of Natural Period of CC-1-5-1, CW-1-5-1, WC-1-
5-1& WW-1-5-1 Buildings.

Estimation Method Building Type
CC-1-5-1 CW-1-5-1 WC-1-5-1 WW-1-5-1
Egyptian Code of Loads ECL93 Eq. 8.4 0.3 0.12 0.12 0.12
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3& 4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model 0.16 0.05 0.06 0.02
IDARC2 Rigid Floor Model 0.16 0.035 0.03 0.02
5.2.2.2 Number of Stories
The number of stories and consequently the height of the structure is an important
factor that affect the base shear and response of the structure. The building codes
assume the natural period T to be proportion to structure height. An example of the
codes formulas UBC94 equation 28.3 and ECL93 equation 8.4 as listed below
T = Cc.( H)0.75 (5.1)
85
12
10
8
Lateral Load (%W)
4 CC-1-5-1
CW-1-5-1
WC-1-5-1
2
WW-1-5-1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Frame Drift(%H)
(a)
12
10
8
Lateral Load (%W)
4 CC-1-5-1
CW-1-5-1
WC-1-5-1
2
WW-1-5-1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Frame Drift(%H)
(b)
Fig. 5.14 Outer Frame Monotonic Response Characteristics: a) Flexible

Model; b) Rigid Model.
86
12
10
8
Lateral Load (%W)
4
CC-1-5-1
CW-1-5-1
2 WC-1-5-1
WW-1-5-1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Frame Drift(%H)
(c)
12
10
8
Lateral Load (%W)
CC-1-5-1
2 CW-1-5-1
WC-1-5-1
WW-1-5-1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Frame Drift(%H)
(d)
Fig. 5.14 Continue, Middle Frame Monotonic Response Characteristics:

c) Flexible Model; d) Rigid Model
87
30
Inelatic Rigid
25
20
Base Shear (ton)
15
10
0
CC-1-5-1 CW-1-5-1 WC-1-5-1 WW-1-5-1
Vertical System
Fig. 5.15 Effect of Vertical System on Frame Base Shear Variation.
30.0
Inelatic
25.0
20.0
% Error Base Shear
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
CC-1-5-1 CW-1-5-1 WC-1-5-1 WW-1-5-1
Vertical System
Fig.5.16 Effect of Vertical System on Errors of Base Shear.
88
800
Outer Frame
700
Frame2
600 Middle Frame
% error in Frame Shear
500
400
300
200
100
0
CC-1-5-1 CW-1-5-1 WC-1-5-1 WW-1-5-1
Vertical System Type
Fig. 5.17 Effect of Vertical System on Frame Base Shear Errors.
800
Outer Frame
700
Frame2
600 Middle Frame

% error in Displacement
500
400
300
200
100
0
CC-1-5-1 CW-1-5-1 WC-1-5-1 WW-1-5-1
Vertical System Type
Fig. 5.18 Effect of Vertical System on Top Displacement Errors.
89
6
5 Flexible Rigid
4
Shear (ton)
3
2
1
0
Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6
Frame No.
(a)
15
Flexible Rigid
10
Shear (ton)
0
Frame 1 Frame 2 Wall 1 Wall 1 Frame 5 Frame 6
Frame No.
(b)
15
Flexible Rigid
10
Shear (ton)
0
Wall 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Wall 6
Frame No.
(c )
6
5 Flexible Rigid
4
Shear (ton)
3
2
1
0
Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Wall 4 Wall 5 Wall 6
Frame No.
(d)
Fig. 5.19 Shears Distribution between Frames: a) CC-1-5-1 Building;
b) CW-1-5-1 Building; c) WC-1-5-1 Building; d) WW-1-5-1 Building.
90
9.0
8.8
Displacement (mm)
Flexible
8.6
8.4 Rigid
8.2
8.0
7.8
7.6
7.4
7.2
7.0
Frame 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Frame 6
Frame No.
(a)
2.0
1.8
Displacement (mm)
Flexible
1.6
1.4 Rigid
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Frame 1 Frame 2 Wall 1 Wall 1 Frame 5 Frame 6
Frame No.
(b)
2.0
Displacement (mm)
1.8
1.6 Flexible
1.4 Rigid
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Wall 1 Frame 2 Frame 3 Frame 4 Frame 5 Wall 6
Frame No.
(c)
2.0
1.8 Flexible
Displacement (mm)
1.6
Rigid
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Wall 1 Wall 2 Wall 3 Wall 4 Wall 5 Wall 6
Frame No.
(d)
Fig. 5.20 Displacements Distribution between Frames : a) CC-1-5-1 Building;

b) CW-1-5-1 Building; c) WC-1-5-1 Building; d) WW-1-5-1 Building.
91
T = 0.09 H /(B)0.5 (5.2)
The studied structures were WC-3-5-N buildings where the number of stories
varied from 1 to 6 stories. The buildings were subjected to El-Centro earthquake of a
maximum peak acceleration of 0.5g. The height of each floor story was taken to be
constant 3.0 m. In normal cases, increasing the number of stories lead to increase the
vertical element supporting system stiffness. Herein the vertical elements' stiffness was
nearly constant due to constant walls’ cross sections.
The results obtained from IDARC 2 indicated that both rigid and flexible inelastic
models were very closed in natural period with different stories as shown in Table 5.4.
The codes formulas gave close values. Although UBC94 Eq.28.3 & 28-4 values were
the closest to the program periods, especially at higher number of stories, but the errors
in estimating the natural period were ranged among 2 to 1.38 using UBC94 equations
28.3& 4. The increasing in the building period was observed with increasing building
height.
The base shear coefficient was reduced from 1.75 to 0.5 % of the building
weight as the number of stories increased from 1 to 6 stories. The low rise building
was capable of resist more lateral forces without failure or lateral deformation. In all
cases, the middle and outer frame displacements and shears' capacity were nearly
identical. The significant variations were noticed in two stories building but these
variations were eliminated near the failure stages directly after yielding of the
building as shown in Figure 5.21.
The total base shear as a percentage of the structure weight was reduced with
increasing the building stories from 43 to 23 % as in Figure 5.22. The errors in
predicting the maximum dynamic base shears (errors resulting from rigid floor
assumptions) ranged among 2 to 7% as shown in Figure 5.23. In most cases, the error
reduced as the number of stories increased [15]. The errors in predicting the frame
shears were reduced in middle frames as the number of stories increased both at top
and bottom stories. The errors were reduced from 13 to 2% for the case of outer frame
at the bottom story and remained nearly constant at the upper story then the errors
started to increase as the number of stories increased. The maximum error in shear
prediction was 15% for the case of 4 and 6 stories which may be an acceptable error
level. Regardless to say, the error was independent of the total number of stories and
the error could be neglected as the total number of stories is 4 ore more.
92
The error in top middle frame deformation due to the rigid floor assumptions was
also reduced with increasing the number of stories as shown in Figure 5.24. This error
was reduced from 25 to 4% at the bottom story and from 25 to 0.03% at the top story
as the number of floors increased from 1 to 6 stories. The errors in bottom story's
deformations were higher than the upper stories. The tall building expressed the same
lateral deformations at the top stories as shown in Figures 5.24 and 5.25.
The values of shear forces developed in middle frames to that of outer frames are
expressed as wall shear ratios. The wall shear ratio was within the range 1.25 to 1.1 as
the number of stories varied among 2 to 6 stories. Figure 5.26 showed that most of
wall shear ratios were closer to rigid floor model than to the flexible floor model for
number of stories 2 or higher. The suggested envelope in Figure 5.26 supported the
concept of increasing the outer frame resistance as the number of stories increased.
The results of the 6 stories' structure studied indicated that the rigid floor
assumptions increased the total base shear of the structure. Figure 5.27 indicated
that the increase in the base shear due to rigid floor assumption was destroyed at the
second floor and higher stories. The same thing happened with the distribution of
shear between frames. In all cases, the rigid floor model gave high shears at the
first level and reduced at higher levels as shown in Figures 5.26 and 5.27. The
record of time histories is shown in Figures 5.28 and 5.29.
As a result increasing the number of stories above 4 floors, the possibility of

flexible yielding or failure of vertical supporting elements was increased and its
stiffness reduced. The rigid floor diagram behavior was more suitable for such for
such structure without significance loss of accuracy. For walls and frames that
connected horizontally by floor slab and beams, the linked members constraining the
different vertical component to deflect similarly. The connected members are
subjected to horizontal interactive forces that redistribute the horizontal
loading between the vertical components. For this reason, in the tall dual system
structures, the wall tends to restrain the frames near the base and the floor rigidity is
clearly observed.
The error in slab was neglected in the earlier time as the ground acceleration
reached its peak the error increased up to 38 % and nearly remained constant up to
the end of time of analysis as shown in Figure 5.30. The maximum moment
93
developed in the slab and energy dissipation of the middle top slab was increased
with increasing the stories numbers as shown in Figure 5.31.
Table 5.4 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-3-5-N Buildings.
Estimation Method Number of Stories

1 2 3 4 5 6
Egyptian Code of Loads ECL 93 Eq. 8.4 0.09 0.17 0.26 0.34 0.43 0.51
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3 0.11 0.18 0.25 0.31 0.37 0.43
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3&4 .068 0.12 0.21 0.31 0.37 0.45
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model .035 .077 --- .194 --- .328
IDARC2 Rigid Floor Model .034 .076 --- .193 --- .327
5.2.2.3 Story Height
The vertical elements' stiffness is a direct relation of the story height. Increasing the
story height leads to a reduction in the vertical elements’ stiffness and increase the
effect of buckling and P- effects of the thin members. Unfortunately, increasing the
story height without increasing the vertical stiffness may be a source of instability of
the vertical elements. Many codes restrain the height to width of member to limited
values to avoid such previous effect. In this section, two structures with one story
studied to take into consideration the story height effect on the response of the
structures with different floor models. The first structure was a dual system building
with floor aspect ratio five and the inertia of the vertical element to the slab inertia
was 2.5 that named WC-1-5-1 building. The second was WW-1-5-1 building with the
same aspect ratio of WC-1-5-1 structure and relative inertia of 7.5. In order to define
only the effect of story height on the structure response, the vertical element
dimensions and reinforcement remain constant during the analysis. The studied range
of the story height ranged from 3.0 and 7.0 m.
94
2.0
1.8
1.6
Base Shear (%W)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8 2 Stories
0.6 4 Stories
0.4 6 Stories
0.2
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
(a)
2.0
1.8
1.6
Base Shear (%W)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8 2 Stories
0.6 4 Stories
0.4 6 Stories
0.2
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
(b)
Fig. 5.21 Pushover Analysis of WC-3-5-N Buildings.
45
40
Base Shear (% W)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 4 6
No. of Story
Fig.5.22 Variation of Base Shear of WC-3-5-N Buildings.
95
30
Outer Frame, Bot.Story.
Outer Frame, Top Story.
25
Middle Frame, Bot.Story.
Middle Frame, Top Story.
20
Error in Shear (%)
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
No. Of Story
Fig. 5.23 Variations of Frame Shear Errors with Number of Stories.
30
Bottom Story.
25 Top Story
Error in Deflection (%)
20
15
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
No. Of Story
Fig. 5.24 Variations of Story Displacement Errors with Number of Stories.
96
7
Flexible F#1
6 Rigid F#1
Flexible F#2
Rigid F#2
5
Flexible F#3
Rigid F#3
4
Story No.
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Frame Disp. (%H)
Fig. 5.25 Displcement Distribution of Frames Acrross Stories of

6 Stories Building.
2.00
Flexible Floor model & Elastic Members Flex. 6 St. Flex. 4 St.
1.80 Flex. 2 St. Flex. 1 St.
Rig. 6 St. Rig. 4 St.
Wall Shear Ratio (Vi/Ve)
1.60 Rig. 2 St. Rig. 1 St.
1.40
Upper & Lower Limits
1.20
1.00
Rigid Floor model & Elastic Members

0.80
0.60
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Story No.
Fig. 5.26 Variations of Wall Shear Ratio with Number of Stories.
97
6
Flexible
5
Rigid
4
Story No.
0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0
Story Shear (%W)
(a)
6
Flexible, Outer Frame
Rigid, Outer Frame
5
Flexible, Middle Frame
Rigid, Middle Frame
4
Story No.
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
Frame Shear (%W)
(b)
Fig. 5.27 Shear Distribution Acrross Stories of 6 Stories Building:

a)Story Shear; b) Frame Shear.
98
200
First Story (6 St.)
150
Top Story (6 St.)
100 First Story (1 St.)
50
Shear (ton)
-50
-100
-150
-200
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
200
First Story (6 St.)
150
Top Story (6 St.)
50
Shear (ton)
-50
-100
-150
-200
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.28 Shear Time Histories for Outer Frame of WC3-5-N Buildings:
a) Flexible Floor Model; b) Rigid Floor Model .
99
100
Top Story (6 St.)
60
First Story (1 St.)
Displacement (mm)
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
100
60 Top Story (6 St.)

First Story (1 St.)
Displacement (mm)
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
-100
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig.5.29 Displacement Time Histories for Outer Frame of WC-3-5-N Buildings

100
150000
100000
50000
Moment (ton.m)
-50000
First Story (6 St.)
-100000 Top Story (6 St.)
First Story (1 St.)
-150000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
150000
100000
Moment(ton.m)
50000
-50000
First Story (6 St.)
-100000 Top Story (6 St.)
First Story (1 St.)
-150000
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.30 Moment Time Histories for Middle Slab of WC-3-5-N Buildings.
101
0.10
0.08
Moment (M/My) 0.06 1 Story
0.04
0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
-0.06
-0.08
-0.10
-0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
(a)
0.60
0.40 4 Story
Moment (M/My)
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
(b)
0.60
0.40 6 Story
Moment (M/My)
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
(c)
Fig.5.31 Hysteretic Loops of Middle Slab of WC-3-5-N Buildings with

Variable Stories : a) One Story; b) Four Story; c) Six Story
102
Increasing the story height leaded to increase the natural period of the structure.
Table 5.5 indicates that all codes and program periods followed the above mentioned
rule but all codes' values were still higher than the program values in both studied
structures. The rigid floor assumption gave the lowest value of natural period. The
difference between flexible and rigid floor models' periods may be neglected in case of
WW-1-5-1 building. The high wall stiffness controlled the structure vibration
regardless the floor model.
The monotonic base shear coefficient of WW-1-5-1 building reduced from 11.0 to
4.3 as the story height increased from 3.0 to 7.0 m. The WW-1-5-1 building was
sensitive to story height variations as shown in Figures 5.32.
Increasing the story height raised the lumped mass of the building to higher level
above the foundation. For WW-1-5-1 building behavior was different, the increase in
story height from 3 to 7.0 m increased the base shear from 17.5 to 21 % of building
weight for the flexible inelastic floor models as shown in Figure 5.33a. The shear ratio
obtained from IDARC 2 program was ranged from1.9 and 1.5 as story height varies
from 3.0 to 7.0 m respectively. The shear ratio was closer to flexible floor model than
rigid model as shown in Figure 5.33b. The tendency of the floor slab to behave as
flexible model increased as the story became low. The wall shear ratio reduced with
increasing story height, the distribution of shear between outer and middle element
became uniform. Figure 5.34a indicated that, the outer walls shear increased
from11to 13% and the middle wall's shear is reduced from 21.5 to 20.0% of the base
shear. The inelastic floor model gave base shear and frame shear values higher than the
rigid floor model (Figures 5.35 and 5.36). The base shear of the structure increased
from 19 to 20.5 of building weight for flexible and rigid floor models respectively as
the height raised from 3.0 to 7.0 m as shown in Figure 5.35. Figure 5.36 indicated that,
the capability of outer walls to resist lateral loads increased from 2.4 to 2.8 ton as the
story height increased.
The maximum displacement at middle frame increased from 0.0013 to 0.0055 and
from 0.0009 to 0.0037 % of height for middle and outer walls as mentioned in Figure
103
5.34a.The variations referred mainly to ductility of middle columns and floor flexibility
action of WC-1-5-1 building as shown in Figure 5.34b. The WW-1-5-1 building
expressed slight difference time histories of different floor models at different story
height as in Figure 5.37.
The failure pattern shown in Figure 5.38 showed the formation of soft column and
strong slab-beam failure mechanism of both low rise and high rise stories of WC-1-5-1
buildings. Increasing floor height caused flexural yield in outer walls but the failure of
other elements remained unchanged. On the other hand, slab flexural yield was
observed in shorter stories of WW-1-5-1 building.
Table5.5 Estimation of Natural Periods of WC-1-5-1& WW-1-5-1

Buildings.
Estimation Method Story Height

3 4 5 6 7
Egyptian Code of Loads ECL 93 Eq. 8.4 0.12 0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.19 0.21
WC-1-5-1 Building.
Uniform Building Code UBC 94 Eq. 28.3& 4 0.1 0.13 0.15 0.19 0.24
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08
IDARC2 Rigid Floor Model 0.03 --- --- --- 0.06
WW-1-5-1 Building.
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3& 4 0.08 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.18
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
IDARC2 Rigid Floor Model 0.02 --- --- --- 0.04
104
12.00
10.00
8.00
Base Shear (%W)
6.00
4.00
2.00 H=3.0 m H=7.0 m
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
(a)
12.00
10.00
8.00
Base Shear (%W)
6.00
4.00
2.00 H=3.0 m H=7.0 m
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
(b)
Fig. 5.32 Effect of Story Height on Capacity of WW-1-5-1 Building:

a) Outer Wall; b)Middle Wall.
105
26.0
24.0
22.0
Shear (%W)
20.0
18.0
16.0
14.0
12.0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Story Height (m)
(a)
3.0
2.8
2.6
Wall Shear Ratio (Vm/Vo)
2.4
Flexible Elastic Floor &
2.2
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
Rigid Floor & Elastic
1.2
1.0
2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
Story Height (m)
(b)
Fig. 5.33 Variations of Structure Response with Story Height of WW-1-5-1

Building: a) Base Shear; b) Wall Shear Ratio.
106
30.00
28.00 H=3 m H=3 m 'Rigid' H=4m H=5 m
H=6 m H=7 m H=7 m 'Rigid'

26.00
24.00 Rigid Floor & Elastic

Shear( % Base shear)
22.00
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Frame No.
(a)
0.008
H=3 m H=3 m 'Rigid' H=4m
0.007 H=5 m H=6 m H=7 m
H=7 m 'Rigid'
0.006
Displacement (% Height)
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Frame No.
(b)
Fig. 5.34 Distribution of Response of WW-1-5-1Building: a) Frame Shear;

b) Displacement.
107
40
Flexible
30
Rigid
20
10
Shear(ton)
-10
-20
-30
-40
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
40
30 Flexible Rigid
20
10
Shear (ton)
-10
-20
-30
-40
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.35 Base Shear Time Histories of WW-1-5-1 Buildings:

a) Story Height= 3.0 m ; b)Story Height= 7.0 m.
108
5
4
Flexible Rigid
3
2
Shear(ton)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
5
4
Flexible Rigid
3
2
Shear (ton)
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.36 Shear Time Histories for Outer wall of WW-1-5-1 Buildings:
a) Story Height= 3.0 m ; b) Story Height= 7.0 m.
109
0.002
Flexible Rigid
0.001
Displacement (% H)
0.000
-0.001
-0.002
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
0.010
0.008 Flexible Rigid
0.006
Displacement (% H)
0.004
0.002
0.000
-0.002
-0.004
-0.006
-0.008
-0.010
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig.5.37 Displacement Time Histories for Middle Wall of WW-1-5-1

Buildings: a) Story Height= 3.0 m; b) Story Height= 7.0 m.
110
5.2.2.4 Plan Dimensions
Many building codes established the relations of the fundamental period as

a function of the plan dimensions and building height. ECL93 established the relation
of the fundamental period as a function of building height (H) and the square root of
width parallel to loading direction (B) as mentioned earlier in equation 5.1. UBC94 has
given this relation a function of story height and type of vertical elements as seen in
equation 5.2. The direct effect of increasing the plan length normal to loading direction
did not mentioned in codes. The changes happened due to increasing the number of
bays or building length normal to loading direction is increasing the vertical elements
numbers and consequently its stiffness or reduce the width to length ratio. On the other
hand, increasing the floor width parallel to loading direction leads to increase in-plane
floor stiffness and width to height ratio. Herein, two cases were studied, the effect of
increasing the building length in direction normal to direction of wave and the structure
width parallel to wave direction.
5.2.2.4a Length Normal to Wave Direction
The studied structures were WW-1-N-1 buildings. The increase in-plane length
combined with increasing the number of shear walls as vertical elements. The buildings
were subjected to EL-Centro earthquake with maximum peak ground acceleration of
0.5g. The studied parameter expressed as length per height ratio (L/H) which varied
from 1.67 to 15.
The natural period of the structure was increased from 0.037 to 0.047 as the length
per height ratio (L/H) increases from 1.67 to 15 (Table 5.6). This means that the
building became more flexible with increasing building length normal to direction of
wave or increasing vertical elements' stiffness.
The capability of the building to sustain lateral load without failure was reduced as
the structure became narrow. The base shear coefficient reduced from 3.4 to 2.8 as
112
The total base shears of the buildings are increased from 7.6 to 76.0 ton with
increasing the L/H ratio as shown in Figure 5.40. The percentage of base shear to the
structure weight increased from 57 to 68%.The increase in base shear may be
considered in design of such structures. Figure 5.41 shows that, the error in base shear
is increased as plan length increased. The error is 15 % at L/H ratio 15.
When the slab is considered to be perfect in-plane rigid then only one DOF is
required for floor slab and shear forces developed in outer walls are the same as in the
middle walls. The shear ratio which defined the shear force in middle walls expressed
as a ratio of outer wall shear (Vi\Vo) is used in comparison. Figure 5.42 proved that,
the errors in wall shear as a percentage of the rigid floor shear was increased with
increasing length per height ratio (L/H). The errors in outer and middle walls are 65,
18 % at L/B ratio 15. For perfect rigid floor diaphragm and elastic elements, the shear
ratio equal unity. When the floor is considered to be flexible elastic then the middle
walls resisted more loads than the outer walls. The shear ratios were increased away
from outer walls towards the center of buildings and equaled to two for intermediate
walls of elastic building and followed the tributary area concept as shown Figure 5.43.
The shear ratios (Vi\Vo) increased with increasing L/B ratio. As the L/B ratios were
changed from 1.67 to 15, the shear ratios were increased from 1 to approximately 2.
The floor slab was relatively flexible for such higher L/B ratio. The rigid floor
assumptions leaded to overestimation of base shear of outer shear walls and
underestimation of middle walls base shear. This overestimation or underestimation of
walls shears of 5% maximum of building base shears as obviously cleared in Figure
5.44. As a result of increasing plan length, the total weight of the structure is increased
and the total base shears were also increased and the middle wall shears were increased
due to increasing deflection ratio of middle walls.
The maximum floor deformation was increased at the middle slab from 0.4 to 0.76
mm and the outer wall deformation was increased from 0.26 to 0.3 mm. also the floor
drift was increased. The error in predicting the frames' deflections were increased to 65
and 20 % for middle and outer walls respectively as in Figure 5.45.
113
Table 5.6 Estimation of Natural Period WW-1-N-1 Buildings.
Estimation Method L/B

1.67 3.33 5 6.67 8.33 11.7 15
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3& 4 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model .037 .041 .044 .045 .046 .047 .047
IDARC2 Rigid Floor Model .037 .041 .044 .045 .046 .047 .047
5.2.2.4b Width Parallel to Loading Direction
The change of transverse width (b) reflects the change plan dimensions, width per
length ratio (B/L) and width to height ratio (B/H).
The studied structures were WC-N-5-1which was subjected to EL-Centro

earthquake with maximum peak acceleration of 0.5g. The main idea during the
configuration stage of such buildings was that the shear wall stiffness remains constant
and the variation referred to intermediate columns only. The variable parameters are
the width of the building parallel to loading direction which expressed the width of
structure or number of bays in load direction. The range studied are one to three bays
which gave a variation of the width ratio 1.33 to 4.0. The structure response due to
width variation is as following:
The natural period was effected by the change of building width. The codes' values
indicated that the natural period is inversely proportioned to the square root of width as
in ECL93 and inversely proportioned to the increase in shear wall's area as in UBC94
equation 28.3&4 (Table 5.7). The increase of width three times resulted in reduction of
natural period by 1.75 and 1.2 times as in ECL93 and UBC94 respectively. The values
obtained from the program followed the above concept for flexible inelastic floor
model. The unlogeic values obtained from the program using rigid floor model may
refer to the increase of building mass without an increase in vertical element stiffness.
The natural periods calculate by the codes were higher than the program periods. The
114
4.0
3.5
3.0
Base Shear (%W)
2.5
2.0
1.5
L/H=1.67
1.0
L/H=8.3
0.5
L/H=15
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
(a)
4.0
3.5
3.0
Base Shear (%W)
2.5
2.0
1.5
L/H=1.67
1.0
L/H=8.3
0.5
L/H=15
0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80
(b)
Fig. 5.39 Pushover Analysis of WW-1-N-1 Buildings: a) Outer Wall;

b) Middle Wall.
115
90
80 Inelastic
70 Rigid
60
Base Shear (ton)
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Floor Plan Dimensions (L/H)
Fig. 5.40 Effect of Plan Dimension on Frame Base Shear of

WW-1-N-1 Buildings.
25
20
Error in Base Shear (%)
15
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Fig. 5.41 Effect of Plan Dimensions on Errors of Base Shear of

WW-1-N-1 Buildings.
118
70
Outer Wall
60
Inner Wall
% Error in Frame Shear
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Fig. 5.42 Effect of Plan Dimensions of WW-1-N-1 Buildings on Frame

Base Shear Errors.
3.0
2.5 Flexible Floor, Elatic Elements

Wall Shear Ratio (Vi/Ve)
2.0
1.5
1.0
Rigid Floor, Elatic Elements
0.5
0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Fig. 5.43 Effect of Plan Dimensions of WW-1-N-1 Buildings on Wall

Shear Ratio.
118
60
Inelastic Outer Wall
Inelastic Middle Wall
50 Rigid
Wall Shear ( % Total Shear)
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Fig. 5.44 Effect of Plan Dimensions of WW-1-N-1 Buildings on Shear

Distribution.
70
Middle Wall
60
Outer Wall
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0
Fig. 5.45 Effect of Plan Dimensions of WW-1-N-1 Buildings on

Displacment Errors.
118
deviations were reduced as the width ratio increased from 1.33 times to 4.0 compared
with flexible floor model concept. As the building width ratio increased or number of
bays increased in the direction of earthquake, the structure became more rigid and the
rigid floor assumptions were valid.
The increase of in-plane floor stiffness is proportions to the building width. The
power of increasing the floor stiffness is in the third order. Figure 5.46 indicated that,
increasing the floor width ratio from 1.33 to 4.0 m resulted in an increase in the in-
plane yield moment by 5.6 times. The in-plane yield rotation was reduced to0.36 times.
The initial stiffness was increased by 14.5 times.
The capacity curve of the structure was reduced with increasing the floor width
ratio. The base shear coefficient was reduced from 9.3 to 4.2%. The middle lateral
deformation of the structure was increased from 1.3 to 1.9 % of the building height as
shown in Figure 5.47. The increase in structure width leaded to more stiff building
when the vertical elements stiffness kept unchanged. The equivalent static base shear
under monotonic loads reduced as the number of bays increased. In all cases, the base
shear calculated by ECL93 equations were constant because the structure was stiff
(code natural period less than 0.31 second).
The total base shear increased from 36.9 to 96.3 ton as in Figure 5.48. The
base shear of the structure was decreased from 62 to 57 % of the building weight. The
results shown in Figure 5.49 indicated the convergence of both models as the width of
structure was increased.
The outer frame shear was increased from 43 to 46 % of the story shear and the
middle middle frame shear is reduced from 4.5 to 2 % of the story shear as shown in
Figure 5.50. The less contribution of the middle frames reflected the tendency to rigid
floor behavior. Figure 5.51 indicated that the error in frame shear was inversely
proportioned to the width. The percentage of error was about 20 % for middle frames at
width ratio of 4.0.
The story drift and the maximum lateral displacement reduced as the width ratio
increased. The middle frame lateral displacement reduced from 0.73 to 0.38 mm as
119
shown in Figure 5.52 and increased at outer frame. The error in displacement was
reduced to 30% at width ratio 4.0 (Figure 5.53).
Table 5.7 Estimation of Natural Period WC-N-5-1 Buildings.
Estimation Method Width Ratio (B/H)

1.33 2.67 4.0
Egyptian Code of Loads ECL 93 Eq. 8.4 0.14 0.10 0.08
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3 0.11 0.11 0.11
Uniform Building Code UBC 94 Eq. 28.3&4 0.12 0.11 0.10
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model 0.04 0.04 0.04
IDARC2 Rigid Floor Model 0.02 0.02 0.03
5.2.3 Floor Diaphragm Properties
5.2.3.1 Slab Parameters
5.2.3.1.1 Structural System(Floor Type)
The structure system of the floor slab some times are an architectural requirement.
Where the architectural designer needs the full clear height or no drop beams. The
designer must think about flat slabs or hallow blocks' systems. The replacement of the
beam-slab type to flat slab system will increase the in–plane and out of plane stiffness
due to the thickness increase and the following parameters increased consequently, the
slab thickness, and reinforcement ratio.
The studied structures were WC-2-9-3 and FWC-2-9-3 buildings. The structures
examined under Taft earthquake with maximum peak acceleration of 0.375g. The
structure response variation due to slab system changed as following:
The natural period of the structure was increased by about 10 % (Table 5.8). This
increase reflected the flexibility of the structure in conjunction with the pushover
analysis results.
120
12000
B/H=1.33
B/H=2.67
10000
B/H=4.0
8000
Moment (ton.m)
6000
4000
2000
0
0.0E+00 5.0E-06 1.0E-05 1.5E-05 2.0E-05 2.5E-05
Curvature (rad.)
Fig. 5.46 Slab Moment Curvature Characteristics WC-N-5-1 Buildings .

( Top Middle Slab.)
10.00
B/H=1.33 Outer Frame
9.00 B/H=1.33 Middle Frame
B/H=2.67 Outer Frame
8.00 B/H=2.67 Middle Frame
B/H=4.0 Outer Frame
7.00
B/H=4.0 Middle Frame
Base Shear (%W)
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Fig. 5.47 Pushover Analysis of WC-N-5-1 Buildings.
121
100
WC-1-5-1
75
WC-3-5-1
50
25
Shear (ton)
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
Fig.5.48 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-N-5-1 Buildings .
80
Rigid
75
Flexible
70
65
Shear (% W )
60
55
50
45
40
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Width Ratio(B/H)
Fig. 5.49 Variations of Base Shear with Building Width (WC-N-5-1 Buildings)
121
80.0
Outer Frame
70.0
Middle Frame
60.0
Frame Shear (%V)
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Width Ratio (B/H)
Fig. 5.50 Bottom Story Shear Distribution Acrosss Frames of WC-N-5-1

Buildings.
450
outer Frame
400
Frame #2
350
Middle Frame
% Error in Frame Shear
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Width Ratio (B/H)
Fig. 5.51 Effect of Building Width Ratio on Base Shear Errors of

WC-N-5-1 Buildings.
123
0.8
B/H = 1.3
0.7
B/H = 2.7
0.6
Max. Displacement (mm)
B/H = 4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
outer Frame Frame #2 Middle Frame
Frame No.
Fig.5.52 Top Story Displacement Distribution acrosss Frames of WC-N-5-1

Buildings.
450
400 outer Frame
Frame #2
350
Middle Frame
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Width Ratio (B/H)
Fig.5.53 Effect of Building Width Ratio on Top Displacement Errors

of WC-N-5-1 Buildings.
124
The yield moment was increase from 320 to 380 m.ton and slight change was
happened to the yield curvature and initial stiffness due to the increase in slab thickness
and the percentage of reinforcement of the flat slab than the beam-slab type as shown in
Figure 5.54. The slab-beam type with the thickness of 0.l6 m got more moment
capacity due to the presence of outer beams which increased the inertia and
consequently the section stiffness by great amount as seen in effect of thickness case.
The use of flat slab floor instead of beam slab system reduced the building
monotonic capacity to resist lateral loads from 0.53 to 0.38 % of the building weight.
Although the structure capacity was reduced, the structure ability to deform laterally
was increased as seen in Figure 5.55. The outer frame deformation remains unchanged
but the capacity was reduced.
The total base shear of the structure was reduced from 274.4 to 257.2 ton as shown
in Figure 5.56. The reduction in base shear followed by a reduction in stories shears of
the first and the second floor from 28, 22 to 26, 19 %of the building weight
respectively. Also, the capability of the middle frames to sustain more load was
reduced from 15 to 10 % of the total story shear at the top story as shown in
Figure5.57. The shear developed in the outer frames increased with using the flat slab
and the contribution of the middle frames reduced from 8.9 to 6.9%. Figure 5.58. The
tendency of the outer frame to resist more loads reflected the behavior of the floor to
become more rigid. The shear forces at the top story of the flat slab system were higher
than that of slab-beam type as seen in Figure 5.59 for outer frames and the difference is
neglected in the middle frames.
The deformations of outer walls were increased as a result of using flat slab
systems. This value was increased with height. All the middle frames' displacements
were reduced at the first and second story and increased at the third story as shown in
Figure 5.60. The slab drift between outer frame and middle frame was reduced with flat
slab system for the first two floors. The lateral deformation shape of the floor slab at
the first story may be assumed to be rigid behavior.
125
Figure5.61 showed variations of each top story displacement. Figure 5.62 indicated
that the energy dissipation of the flat slab system was less than that of beam-slab type
at the top stories during the first stages of loading. The opposite was valid at the lower
stories as shown in Figure 5.63. The maximum moment developed in slab was
increased from 691 to 711.9 m.ton as the system changed from beam-slab to flat slab
system.
Table 5.8 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-2-9-3& FWC-2--9-3

Buildings.
Egyptian Code of Loads ECL 93 Eq. 8.4 0.26
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3 &4 0.20
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model-Flat Slab Type 0.22
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model-Beam-Slab Type 0.20
5.2.3.1.2 Slab Thickness
The variation of floor slab thickness directly changed the ratio between vertical
element and horizontal element stiffness. The increase in slab thickness reduces the
ratio (Kv\Kh). The dual system building WC-2-5-1 was used in evaluating the structure
response with variable floor slab thickness. Taft earthquake with maximum peak
acceleration 0.375 g was used in the analysis. The first 8 seconds were studied.
Variations in floor diaphragm thickness changed consequently the lumped mass of
structure and reinforcement of floor slab. The response change were as following:
The natural period variations could be neglected as the percentage of error was
about 4% (Table 5.9). The structure became stiff with thickness increase.
The changes in slab characteristics due to increase the slab thickness reduced the
cracking moment and yield moment by 36%, increasing flexural rigidity of slab by 53%
126
450
400
350
300
Moment( ton.m)
250
200
150
WC-2-9-3
100
FWC-2-9-3
50
0
0.E+00 2.E-06 4.E-06 6.E-06 8.E-06 1.E-05
Curvature (rad.)
Fig. 5.54 Moment Curvature Characteristics of Slab of WC-2-9-3 &

FWC-2-9-3 Buildings ( Top Middle Slab).
0.70
0.60
0.50
Base Shear (%W)
0.40
0.30
WC-2-9-3 Frame #1
0.20
WC-2-9-3 Frame #1
FWC-2-9-3 Frame #5
0.10
FWC-2-9-3 Frame #5
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
Fig. 5.55 Pushover Analysis of WC-2-9-3 & FWC-2-9-3 Buildings .
127
300
WC-2-9-3
200 FWC-2-9-3
100
Shear (ton)
-100
-200
-300
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0
Time (sec.)
Fig.5.56 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-2-9-3& FWC-2-9-3 Buildings
40
35
Story 1 Story 2 Story 3
30
25
Shear (% W )
20
15
10
0
WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
Floor Slab Type
Fig. 5.57 Variations of Story Shear with Floor Slab Types.
128
50
Shear (%Story Shear)

45
40 WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
50
45
40 WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
50
45
40 WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(c)
Fig.5.58 Distribution of Story Shear Across Frames :

a) First Story; b) Second Story; c) Third Story.
129
60
WC-2-9-3
40 FWC-2-9-3
20
Shear (ton)
-20
-40
-60
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
30.0
WC-2-9-3
20.0 FWC-2-9-3
10.0
Shear (ton)
0.0
-10.0
-20.0
-30.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.59 Shear Time Histories of WC-2-9-3& FWC-2-9-3 Buildings

at Top Story: a) Outer Frame; b) Middle Frame.
130
0.30
Displacement (% H ) 0.25
WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
0.30
0.25
Displacement (% H )
WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
0.30
0.25
Displacement (% H )
WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(c)
Fig. 5.60 Destribution of Story Displacements Across Frames :

131
0.07
0.05 WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
0.03
Displacement (% H)
0.01
-0.01
-0.03
-0.05
-0.07
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
0.40
0.30 WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
0.20
Displacement (% H)
0.10
0.00
-0.10
-0.20
-0.30
-0.40
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.61 Top Displacement Time Histories of WC-2-9-3& FWC-2-9-3

Buildings: a)Outer Frame; b) Middle Frame.
132
1.5
WC-2-9-3
1.0 FWC-2-9-3
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
WC-2-9-3
1.0 FWC-2-9-3
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-5.0 -3.0 -1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0
Curvature( Phi/Phiy)
(b)
Fig.5.62 Top Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3& FWC-2-9-3

Buildings: a) Time Histories; b)Hysteretic Loops .
133
1.5
WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
1.0
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
WC-2-9-3 FWC-2-9-3
1.0
Moment (M/My)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(b)
Fig. 5.63 Bottom Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3& FWC-2-9-3

Buildings: a) Time Histories ; b)Hysteretic Loops .
134
and increasing the yield curvature by 2%. The moment curvature curves of slab
thickness of 0.08, 0.1 m were closer than the other curves as shown in Figure 5.64.
The increase of slab thickness increased the mass of structure and reduced the
structure ability to sustain lateral load with constant vertical element inertia as seen in
Figure 5.65. The ability of the building to sustain horizontal static load was reduced
from 3 to 1.8 % as the floor thickness increase from 0.8 to 0.18 m.
The base shear developed in the structure was also reduced by about from 98 to 90
ton due to increasing floor slab thickness. The precautions necessary to increase the
vertical element stiffness could be neglected as the total base shear is approximately
constant (Figure 5.66). The base shear as a percentage of the building weight was
reduced from 85 to 17% as shown in Figure 5.67.
The distribution of story shears between different element was slightly better as the
slab thickness increased. The contributions of middle frames to resist more loads were
about 6% and the outer frame shear was about 40%. This ratio remained constant with
variation of floor thickness as shown in Figures 5.68a and 5.69. The increase of floor
thickness reduced the lateral displacement of the middle frames and unchanged the
outer shear wall displacement. The reduction of middle frame displacement was about
17% as shown in Figure 5.70.
The in-plane moment time history of the middle slab indicated that the maximum
moments as percentages of the in-plane yield moment were about 29 and 37% for slab
thickness 0.8 and 0.18 m respectively. The hysteretic loops of the middle floor
indicate a symmetrical behavior of the thin slab as shown in Figure 5.71.
135
Table 5.9 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-2-5-1 Building.
Estimation Method Natural Period (Sec.)
Uniform Building Code UBC 94 Eq. 28.3& 4 0.10
IDARC2 Inelastic Floor Model
Thickness=0.08 m 0.051
5.2.3.1.3 Opening in Slab-Beam Systems
The presence of openings in floor slabs modifies the floor characteristics itself.
The moment capacities of the floor slab are reduced. The reduction values depend on
the location of openings and opening size. Some of building codes defined the
maximum in-effective opening size as a function of floor slab spans and the location (in
column strips or field strips). Here-in the effect of opening location was studied and
compared with floor slab without opening.
The studied structure WC-3-5-1 building subjected to EL-Centro earthquake with

maximum normalized peak acceleration of 0.5g. The opening position moved from
outside towards the middle of the structure.
The presence of floor opening was unsignifically affected the natural period of the
structure (Table 5.10).
The presence of floor opening reduced the in-plane floor capacities from 910 to 400
m.ton at opening locations. The yield curvature reduced by about 2.5 times (Figure
5.72).
136
1200
1000
800
Moment (ton.m)
600
T=0.08 m
400
T=0.10 m
T=0.12 m
200 T=0.14 m
T=0.16 m
T=0.18 m
0
0.0E+00 1.0E-06 2.0E-06 3.0E-06 4.0E-06 5.0E-06 6.0E-06 7.0E-06
Curvature (rad.)
Fig. 5.64 Moment Curvature Characteristics of Slab (WC-2-5-1 Building

Top Middle Slab).
3.50
3.00
2.50
Base Shear (%W)
2.00
1.50
1.00 T=0.08m Ext. Frame

T=0.08m Int.Frame
0.50 T=0.18m Ext. Frame
T=0.18m Int.Frame
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60
Fig. 5.65 Pushover Analysis of WC-2-5-1Building.
137
125
100 T=0.08 m T=0.18 m
75
50
25
Shear (ton)
-25
-50
-75
-100
-125
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
120.0
100.0 Flexible Floor Model
80.0
Shear (% W )
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Slab Thickness (m)
Fig. 5.67 Variations of Story Shear with Slab Thickness (WC-2-5-1 Building).
138
60.00
T=0.08 m T=0.10 m T=0.12 m
50.00 T=0.14 m T=0.16 m T=0.18 m

Shear (% Base shear)
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Frame No.
(a)
0.07
T=0.08 m T=0.10 m T=0.12 m
0.06
T=0.14 m T=0.16 m T=0.18 m
Displacement (% Height)
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Frame No.
(b)
Fig. 5.68 Distribution of Response between Frames of CW-2-5-1Building

a) Frames Shears; b) Displacements.
139
50
40
T=0.08 T=0.18
30
20
Shear (ton)
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
8.0
6.0 T=0.08 T=0.18
4.0
2.0
Shear (ton)
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.69 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-2-5-1 Building: a) Outer frame;
b) Middle Frame.
140
0.009
0.007 T=0.08 T=0.18
0.005
Displacement (% H)
0.003
0.001
-0.001
-0.003
-0.005
-0.007
-0.009
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
0.060
T=0.08 T=0.18
0.040
Displacement (% H)
0.020
0.000
-0.020
-0.040
-0.060
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.70 Top Displacement Time Histories of WC-2-5-1 Building:

a)Outer Frame; b) Middle Frame.
141
50
40
T=0.08 T=0.18
30
20
Moment (% My)
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time( Sec.)
(a)
50
40
T=0.08 T=0.18
30
20
Moment (% My)
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Curvature( % Phy)
(b)
Fig. 5.71 Middle Slab Response of WC-2-5-1 Building: a) Time Histories;

b)Hysteretic Loops .
142
The monotonic shear coefficient shown in Figure 5.73 indicated that the capacity of
rigid floor to sustain lateral loads were higher than flexible floor and this capacity
reduced for flexible floor models. The presence of floor opening reduces the rang of
base shear factor from 4.13 % to 3.5 % of building weight as the floor open existed
between axis 2-3/A-B. The outer frame displacement reduced from 0.96 to 0.2% of
building height.
The base shear developed in the structure due to the applied waves is altered from
59.9 to 64.2, 63.6 and 58.9% of building weight as the floor opening shifted towards
the middle of the structure as shown in Table 5.10.
The presence of floor opening increased the frame shear in the direction of opening and
reduces it away in the other parts of the building. For example the base shears carried
out by outer frame increased from 11 to 12 % of building weight as the opening existed
between axis 2 and 3. The outer frame shear away from opening reduced to 9 %. The
distributions of shear between outer and middle frames are shown in Figure 5.74a. The
presence of opening between axis 1 and2 increased the frame shear of frame number 3
from 14 to 23%.
The symmetry of the structure is distributed due to the presence of floor opening.
Figure 5.74 indicated that the presence of opening increased the displacement of frames
around opening. The presence of opening between frame 2 and 3 increases from 0.34 to
0.59 mm. The increase in frame displacement away from opening position was
negligible. The structure behavior in case of opening between axis 3,3’ is the same as
floor slab with-out opening. This reflected the facts that the effect of opening may be
reduced by bounding it by shear walls as shown in fig 5.74b. The above observation
had been settled after removing the middle walls of the building and examined the
building response. The presence of opening between axis 3,3’ increases the middle
frames' displacements from 2.3 to 5.9 mm (Figure 5.75b). The comparison between
structure response of WC-3-5-1 building with and without opening could be done
through Figures 5.74 and 5.75.
143
The opening position altered the failure pattern of the floor slab itself due to the
change happened in M- diagram of the floor slab. A local crack or yield happened at
the location of floor opening was shown in Figure 5.76.
Table 5.10 Effect of Opening in Floor Slabs on the Structure

Response.
Opening Position Floor Fundamental Period Max. Dynamic Base
Model (Sec.) Shear (%W)
No. Opening Inelastic .035 59.9
Rigid .035 62.6
Between Axis Inelastic .036 64.2
1-2/A-B rigid .036 62.6
2-3/A-B Rigid .035 54.5
3-4/A-B Rigid .035 54.9
5.2.3.1.4 Concrete Grade
The concrete grade is an important item in reinforced concrete inelastic analysis.

The importance comes directly from the following facts, the concrete grades control the
cross section properties in both elastic and inelastic phases. The stress distribution is
linear during the first stage of earthquake as the load is small and the stress in concrete
elements below cracking level. Increasing the load intensity causes cracks in concrete,
more loads increase causes yield in reinforced concrete sections and sometimes failure.
The concrete grade has little effect in the capacity of reinforced concrete section at the
low levels of loads.
In heavy reinforced concrete sections, the concrete grade plays an important rule to
increase the section capacity. For example at reinforcement ratio 1.5% and steel grade
24/35 the section capacity is increased by 7% if concrete grade changed from 200 to
144
1000
900
800
700
Moment (ton.m)
600
500
400
300
Without Opening
200
100 With Opening
0
0.E+00 2.E-06 4.E-06 6.E-06 8.E-06 1.E-05 1.E-05 1.E-05 2.E-05
Curvature (rad.)
Fig. 5.72 Moment Curvature Characteristics of Slab of WC-3-5-1 Building

(Top Middle Slab).
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
Base Shear (%W)
2.50
2.00
1.50
Outer Frame, Without Opening
1.00 Middle Frame, Without Opening
Outer frame,Opening bet. Axis2,3
0.50
Middle frame,Opening bet. Axis2,3
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Fig. 5.73 Pushover Analysis of WC-3-5-1 Building with Opening Effect.
145
25
Open 0 Rigid
Open 0 Inelatic
20 Open 1 Inelatic
Open2 Inelatic
Open 3 Inelatic
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
(a)
0.7
Open 0 Rigid
0.6 Open 0 Inelatic
Open 1 Inelatic
Open2 Inelatic
0.5
Open 3 Inelatic
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
(b)
Fig. 5.74 Distribution of Structural Response between Frames of WC-3-5-1 Buildings

with Variable Floor Opening Positions: a) Shear; b) Displacement.
146
25
Without Opening
Opening bet. Axix 1,2
20 Opening bet. Axix 3,3'
Frame Shear (%V)
15
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Frame No.
(a)
8
Without Opening
7 Opening bet. Axix 1,2
Opening bet. Axix 3,3'
6
Frame Displacement (mm)
0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Frame No.
(b)
Fig. 5.75 Distribution of Structural Response between Frames of WC-3-5-1' Buildings

with Variable Floor Opening Positions: a) Shear; b) Displacement.
147
300 kg/cm2. All the section properties are controlled by the strength of concrete and its
modulus of elasticity during the all stages of loading.
The studied structure was WC-2-9-3 building subjected to Taft earthquake with
peak ground acceleration 0.375 g and with different slab concrete grade among 200 to
500 kg/cm2. The reinforcement ratio remained unchanged during the analysis. The
increase in concrete strength from 200 to 500 yielded to the following changes in
building response.
The reduction in natural period was negligible (about 11%) as seen in Table 5.11.
This means that the concrete grade will not change the mode of vibration of the
building.
The increase of floor diaphragm concrete grades leaded to increase the in-plane
yield moment of the diaphragm by about 64% and increase the yield curvature by about
10 %. The initial stiffness of the section is raised by 1.93. Such modification in cross
section properties increases the stab capacity (Figure5.77).
The ability of the building to resist static lateral loads without failure were raised
from 0.525 to 0.6% of building weight as shown in Figure 5.78. The capacities of outer
walls were slightly altered and the middle frame displacement was highly reduced by
about 20%. The increase in building capacity was not proportioned with the
improvement of materials.
The base shear is increased from 270.8 to 334.3 tons as shown in Figure 5.79.
Maximum stories' shears are increased by about 10 to 4 % of the building weight for
the second and third story respectively(Figure 5.80). The drop occurred suddenly as
concrete grade changed from 300 to 400 kg/cm2 as shown in Figure 5.80. The shear
distribution between elements is slightly changed to better situation. The middle frame
shear was changed from 9.6 to 5.0% of the total base shear and the outer wall
contributions increased from 39.8 to 41 % of the total base shear as shown in
Figure5.81. Figure 5.82 showed the maximum shear of middle and outer frame's time
histories at the third story. The higher grade of concrete increased the maximum outer
frame shear and the middle frame contribution was reduced
149
The upper floor displacement change was about 23 % and this change decreased in
first and second story displacement. Although, the story drift between middle and outer
frames was reduced due to increasing the floor concrete grade, the result's variation is
negligible as shown in Figure 5.83. The displacement of the outer frames was slightly
increased with increasing floor concrete grade but at the higher earthquake time the
structure with higher concrete grade was much stable as shown in Figure 5.84.
The maximum of middle slab moment increased from 691 to 771 m.ton and the
hysteretic loop behaviors of weak concrete contain energy dissipation more than the
strong one as shown in Figures 5.85 and 5.86.
Table 5.11 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-2-9-3 Buildings with

Concrete Grade Variations.

Concrete Grade Fcu = 200 (kg/cm2) 0.208
5.2.3.1.5 Steel Grade
The steel grade is one of the parameters appears in the inelastic analysis only. The
increase in the steel grade leads to increase the moment resistance of concrete elements
with constant reinforcement ratio (). In reinforced concrete sections subject to pure
bending, increase steel grade from 24/35 to 36/ 52 will raise the ultimate capacity of the
section by 40 % at reinforcement ratio 0.6% and by 45 % at reinforcement ratio 1.2 %.
150
600
500
400
Moment (ton.m)
300
200
Fcu =200
Fcu =300
100
Fcu =400
Fcu =500
0
0.E+00 1.E-06 2.E-06 3.E-06 4.E-06 5.E-06 6.E-06 7.E-06 8.E-06 9.E-06
Curvature (rad.)
Fig. 5.77 Slab Moment Curvature Characteristics of WC-2-9-3 Building .

( Top Middle Slab).
0.70
0.60
0.50
Base Shear (%W)
0.40
0.30
0.20 Fcu=200 Outer Framee

Fcu=200 Middle Framee
0.10 Fcu=500 Outer Frame

Fcu=500 Middle Frame
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Fig. 5.78 Pushover Analysis of WC-2-9-3 Building.
151
400
Fcu=200 Fcu=500
300
200
100
Shear (ton)
-100
-200
-300
-400
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
50
First Story
45 Second Story
Third Story
40 Top Middle Frame
35
30
Shear (% W )
25
20
15
10
0
100.0 150.0 200.0 250.0 300.0 350.0 400.0 450.0 500.0
Concrete Compressive Strength (kg/cm2)
Fig. 5.80 Variations of Story Shear with Slab Concrete Grade of WC-2-9-3
Building.
152
45
40

35 Fcu= 200 Fcu= 300 Fcu= 400 Fcu= 500
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
45
40 Fcu= 200 Fcu= 300
35
Fcu= 400 Fcu= 500
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
45
40 Fcu= 200 Fcu= 300
35
Fcu= 400 Fcu= 500
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 2 3 4 5
(Frame
c ) No.
Fig. 5.81 Distribution of Story Shear Across Frames:

a) First Story ; b) Second Story ; c) Third Story.
153
60
45 Fcu=200 Fcu=500
30
15
Shear (ton)
-15
-30
-45
-60
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
20.0
15.0 Fcu=200 Fcu=500
10.0
5.0
Shear (ton)
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.82 Shear Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 Building at Top Story:

154
0.25
Fcu= 200 Fcu= 300
0.20 Fcu= 400 Fcu= 500
Displacement (% H)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
0.25
Fcu= 200 Fcu= 300
0.20 Fcu= 400 Fcu= 500
Displacement (% H)
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
0.25
Fcu= 200 Fcu= 300
0.20
Displacement (% H)
Fcu= 400 Fcu= 500
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(c)
Fig.5.83 Distribution of Story Displacements Across Frames:

155
0.050
0.040 Fcu=200
0.030 Fcu=500
Displacement (% H)
0.020
0.010
0.000
-0.010
-0.020
-0.030
-0.040
-0.050
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
0.300
Fcu=200
0.200 Fcu=500
Displacement (% H)
0.100
0.000
-0.100
-0.200
-0.300
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.84 Top Displacement Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 Building

a) Outer Frame; b) Middle Frame.
156
1.5
Fcu=200 Fcu= 500

1.0
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
Fcu=200 Fcu= 500

1.0
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(b)
Fig. 5.85 Top Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building

a) Time Histories; b)Hysteretic Loops.
157
1.5
Fcu=200 Fcu= 500

1.0
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
Fcu=200 Fcu= 500

1.0
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(b)
Fig.5.86 Bottom Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building

a) Time Histories; b)Hysteretic Loops .
158
The improvement of section capacity is approximately linearly proportions to
difference between grades.
The studied structure was WC-2-9-3 building subjected to Taft Earthquake of a

maximum normalized peak acceleration of 0.375g. The steel grade studied were 24/35,
28/45, 36/52 and 40/60. Although the improvements of increasing steel grade lead to
reduce the reinforcement ratio to keep a constant out-of- plane capacity. The studied
parameters included only the change in steel grade with constant reinforcement ratio.
Only floor slab reinforcement grade had been changed. The effects of variations of
reinforcement grade were studied in the following pages.
Table 5.12 indicated that the effect of steel grade on the building period might be
neglected.
Increasing reinforcement grade from 24/35 to 40/60 leaded to raise the cracking,
yield moments of the floor by about 63%. This increase had no effect on initial stiffness
of the section or the yield curvature of that section as shown in Figure 5.87.
The capability of the structure to resist lateral force without failure or excessive
lateral deformation increased as the steel grade increased. The base shear coefficient
increased from 0.525 to 0.6% of the structure weight with increasing the steel grade.
The ductility of the structure was increased. The outer frame behavior was enhanced as
the floor steel grade increased and a definite point of yield of the outer shear wall
appeared. Although. The capacity of the shear wall was not significally altered, the
ductility of the outer shear walls increased as shown in Figure 5.88.
The total base shear of the structure was increased from 240 to 290 ton as in Figure
5.89. The maximum shear developed in each story is also increased (for example, risen
from 16 to 20 % of the total base shear of the structure at first story Figure 5.90. On the
other hand, the contribution of the middle frames to sustain more load is reduced from
8 to 5% as shown in Figure 5.91. The tendency of the middle frame to sustain less
lateral loads referred directly to increasing the diaphragm stiffness. The outer wall
shear is increased at the top of the building and the middle frame share was reduced as
shown in Figure 5.91. This in conjunction with reduction of story drift reflects the
159
tendency of floor to be acted in rigid behavior with increasing steel grade. The
moments developed in middle slabs are due to increasing steel grade is being rise.
The deformation of the outer shear was increased by 33 %while the middle frame
deformation was reduced by about 13 % at first story. The maximum top story drifts
between middle and outer frames are reduced from 0.33 to 0.28% of story height as
The middle floor slab at the bottom of the structure reaches the yield in case of
lower reinforcement grade and both top and middle slabs are yielded even with
increasing steel grade as shown in Figures 5.93 and 5.94. The energy dissipation of
lower grade slab is higher than that of higher grade for both slabs at top and at the
bottom.
Table 5.12 Estimation of Natural Period of WC-2-9-3 Building

with Steel Grade Variations.

Egyptian Code of Loads (ECL 93) Eq. 8-4 0.26
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28-3 0.25
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28-4 0.20
Steel Grade 24/35 0.19
5.2.3.2 Beam parameters

5.2.3.2.1 Main Beam Stiffness
The main beam works with a dual function to transmit the vertical loads from the
floor to the vertical supporting system and work with columns or walls as a frame in
resisting vertical and lateral loads. Main beams as a flexural member is important for
160
600
500
400
Moment( ton.m)
300
200
Fy=2400
Fy=2800
100
Fy=3600
Fy=4000
0
0.E+00 2.E-06 4.E-06 6.E-06 8.E-06 1.E-05
Curvature (rad.)
Fig. 5.87 Moment Curvature Characteristics of Slab of WC-2-9-3 Building .

(Top Middle Slab).
0.70
0.60
0.50
Base Shear (%W)
0.40
0.30
0.20 Fy=2400, Outer Frame

Fy=2400, Middle Frame
0.10 Fy=4000, Outer Frame
Fy=4000, Middle Frame
0.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90
161
400
Fy=2400
300
Fy=4000
200
100
Shear (ton)
-100
-200
-300
-400
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
Fig 5.89 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 Building.
50
First Story
45
Second Story
40 Third Story
35
Shear (% W )
30
25
20
15
10
0
2000.0 2200.0 2400.0 2600.0 2800.0 3000.0 3200.0 3400.0 3600.0 3800.0 4000.0
Steel Strength (kg/cm2)
Fig. 5.90 Variations of Story Shear with Steel Grade (WC-2-9-3 Building)
162
50
Shear (%Story Shear) Fy=2400 Fy=2800 Fy=3600 Fy=4000
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
50
40 Fy=2400 Fy=2800 Fy=3600 Fy=4000
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
50
Fy=2400 Fy=2800 Fy=3600 Fy=4000
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(c)
Fig. 5.91 Distribution of Story Shear Across Frames :

163
0.30
0.25 Fy=2400 Fy=2800 Fy=3600 Fy=4000

Displacement (% H)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
0.30
Fy=2400 Fy=2800 Fy=3600 Fy=4000
0.25
Displacement (% H)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
0.30
Fy=2400 Fy=2800 Fy=3600 Fy=4000
0.25
Displacement (% H)
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(C)
Fig. 5.92 Distribution of Story Displacements Across Frames:

164
1.5
Fy=2400
1.0
Fy=4000
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
Fy=2400
1.0 Fy=4000
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(b)
Fig. 5.93 Top Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building

165
1.5
Fy=2400
1.0 Fy=4000
Moment (M/My)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0 2 4 6 8
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
Fy=2400
1.0
Fy=4000
Moment (M/My)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(b)
Fig. 5.94 Bottom Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building

166
the floor slab because the behavior of load transfer depends mainly on the location of
beams and their distribution across plane.
The studied building was WC-2-9-3 building with Taft earthquake and maximum
peak ground acceleration of 0.375G. The studied parameter expressed as beam to
column inertia. The studied parameters vary among 1.0 up to 8.5.In fact, the author
thinks this range covers the possible ratio for the most of low rise building. In most
cases the beam inertia is higher than column inertia. Details of beam dimension and
variations shown in Table 5.13. The main beam effects were as following:
The variation of natural period was small and varied among 0.21 to 0.19 second as
mentioned in Table5.14.
The effect of main beam on the slab characteristic was null, this due to main
beams' directions were parallel to loading direction and its contributions to resist lateral
loads came directly with columns. Figure 5.95 showed the trilinear envelope curve of
the floor slab estimated for analysis.
The capacity and ductility of the structure to support lateral loads increased with
increasing the beam stiffness the increase in ductility was higher in middle frames than
outer walls as seen in Figure 5.96. The increase of base shear coefficient is from 0.45 to
0.6 % of the building weight.
The total base shear was increased from 276 to 293 ton as shown in Figure 5.97.
The variations of first and second stories' shears were increased while the third story
shear was decreased. In all cases the variations were within the range of 5% of the total
shear which could be neglected. At the first two stories, the outer wall shear was
decreased with increasing beam stiffness from 38to 25% and from 45 to 33%. The
middle frame shear was also increased from 5 to 8% at bottom story(Figure 5.99). The
percentage of contribution of middle frame with respect to story shear changed from
5.3 to 5.8% and the variations in shear distribution were negligible. The top outer frame
shear was reduced from 48 to 41 tons and the top middle frame shear was increased
from 11.0 to 14.0 ton as shown in Figure 5.100.
167
The increase in beam stiffness reduced the top story displacement from 0.27 to 0.19
at the middle frame. As a result of increasing the beam stiffness, the floor
displacements at different floor levels were lightly changed, the effect was much
smaller at bottom floors as seen in Figure 5.101.
Figures 5.102 and 5.103 indicated that the maximum slab moment developed at the
top middle slab moment was nearly the same and the energy dissipation of weak beam
building was much higher than stronger beam buildings. The failure was happened at
the bottom slab during the last time stages .
Table 5.13 Variations of Main Beam Parameters of WC-2-9-3
Building.
Beam Dimensions (m) Reinforcement Ib/Ic
Width Depth Top Bottom
0.25 0.4 416 416 1.0
0.25 0.5 316 316 2.1
0.25 0.6 316 316 3.6
0.25 0.7 313 313 5.7
0.25 0.8 313 313 8.5

Variable Main Beams Stiffness.
Egyptian Code of Loads ECL-93 Eq. 8.4 0.26
Uniform Building Code UBC-94 Eq. 283 0.25
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3& 4 0.20
Beam Inertia (Ib/Ic)=1.0 0.21
168
400
350 Kb/Kc=1, 8.5
300
250
Moment (ton.m)
200
150
100
50
0
0.E+00 1.E-06 2.E-06 3.E-06 4.E-06 5.E-06 6.E-06 7.E-06 8.E-06
Curvature (rad.)

(Top Middle Slab).
0.70
0.60
0.50
Base Shear (%W)
0.40
0.30
0.20 Kb/Kc=1 Outer Frame

Kb/Kc=1 Outer Frame
0.10 Kb/Kc=8.5 Middle Frame

Kb/Kc=8.5 Middle Frame
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
Fig. 5.96 Pushover Analysis of WC-2-9-3 Building .
169
300
Kb/Kc=1 Kb/Kc=8.5
200
100
Shear(ton)
-100
-200
-300
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
Fig. 5.97 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-A872-9-3 Building
50
45 First Story
40 Second Story
35 Third Story
Shear (% W )
30
25
20
15
10
0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Beam Stifness(Kb/Kc)
Fig. 5.98 Variations of Story Shear with Beam Stiffness (WC-2-9-3 Building).
170
50
Shear (%Story Shear) Kb/Kc=1 Kb/Kc=2.1 Kb/Kc=3.6
40
Kb/Kc=5.7 Kb/Kc=8.5
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
50
40 Kb/Kc=1 Kb/Kc=2.1 Kb/Kc=3.6

Kb/Kc=5.7 Kb/Kc=8.5
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
50
Kb/Kc=1 Kb/Kc=2.1 Kb/Kc=3.6
40
Kb/Kc=5.7 Kb/Kc=8.5
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(c)
Fig. 5.99 Distribution of Story Shear Across Frames of WC-2-9-3

Building: a) First Story ; b) Second Story ; c) Third Story.
171
60
Kb/Kc=1 Kb/Kc=8.5
40
20
Shear (ton)
-20
-40
-60
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(a)
20.0
15.0 Kb/Kc=1 Kb/Kc=8.5
10.0
5.0
Shear (ton)
0.0
-5.0
-10.0
-15.0
-20.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
(b)

172
0.30
Kb/Kc=1 Kb/Kc=2.1
0.25 Kb/Kc=3.6 Kb/Kc=5.7
Displacement (% H)
Kb/Kc=8.5
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
0.30
Kb/Kc=1 Kb/Kc=2.1
0.25 Kb/Kc=3.6 Kb/Kc=5.7
Displacement (% H)
Kb/Kc=8.5
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
0.30
Kb/Kc=1 Kb/Kc=2.1
0.25 Kb/Kc=3.6 Kb/Kc=5.7
Displacement (% H)
Kb/Kc=8.5
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(C)
Fig. 5.101 Distribution of Story Displacements Across Frames of

WC-2-9-3: Building a) First Story; b)Second Story; c)Third Story.
173
1.5
Kb/Kc= 1
1.0 Kb/Kc= 8.5
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
Kb/Kc= 1
1.0 Kb/Kc= 8.5
0.5
Moment (M/My)
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-5.0 -3.0 -1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0
(b)
Fig. 5.102 Top Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building:

174
1.5
Kb/Kc= 1
1.0 Kb/Kc= 8.5
Moment (M/My)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
Kb/Kc= 1
1.0 Kb/Kc= 8.5
Moment (M/My)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-5.0 -3.0 -1.0 1.0 3.0 5.0
(b)
Fig. 5.103 Bottom Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building

a) Time Histories ; b)Hysteretic Loops.
175
5.2.3.2.2. Transverse Beam Stiffness
The effect transverse beam comes directly from two points. The transverse beam
as a torsion resisting member is capable of reducing torsion rotation developed in the
floor slab. This leads to, reduction in the lateral deflection of the floor under lateral
loads and increasing the floor flexural stiffness.
The studied structure was WC-2-9-3 building subjected to Taft earthquake with
maximum peak acceleration of 0.3 75g. The studied parameter was expressed and the
ratio of transverse to main beams' stiffness. Different values of transverse beam
stiffness were studied. The range of transverse beam to main beam inertia ranged from
0.3 to 3.4 as mentioned in Table 5.15. The effects of increasing the transverse beam
stiffness on the building response with flexible floor model were as following:
The variation of period was slightly changed from 0.206 to 0.192 seconds as
tabulated in Table 5.16.
The in-plane yield moment was increased from 275 to 410 m.ton and the initial
stiffness of the cross section was increased by about 40% as in Figure 5.104. The effect
of increasing the transverse beam stiffness in increasing the yield curvature was
negelectable. The main reasons for section capacity improvements were the increase of
outer fibers inertia (transverse beam parts).
The increase in transverse beam stiffness leaded to increase lateral capacity as the
ability of the structure to sustain lateral load without failure was altered. The base shear
coefficient was increased from 0.53 to 0.6% of the total building loads. The
deformation of the middle frame was reduced by 57%. The capability to sustain a more
base shear was increased. The outer frame deformation was increased by 4 times. The
increase in transverse beam stiffness leaded to improve the structure behavior and
reduced the overall deformation of the structure as shown in Figure5.105.
The overall dynamic base shear due to the seismic loads was increased from 271.3 to
340. ton as mentioned in Figure 5.106. The time of maximum base shear occurrence
shifted towards a later stage. The increase in base shear followed by an increase in
176
story shear of the first and second stories. The reduction in the base shear of the third
story. The increases were from 27 to 31 and from 20 to 28 % of the building weight
for the first and second stories. The reduction is from 20 to 18 % of the building weight
for the third story as shown in Figure5.107. The outer frame shear at bottom story was
nearly constant. The decrease in the top middle frame shear reflected the tendency of
floor to distribute the forces in a rigid behavior with increasing floor stiffness or
transverse beam stiffness. The middle frame shear at top story increased from 14.0 to
15.0 ton as shown in Figure 5.109.
Increasing the transverse beam stiffness leaded to an increase in outer wall lateral
deformation and reduced in middle frames lateral deformation. The reduction in the top
story floor drift was about 40% and the reduction in top middle frame from0.25 to
0.2%of building weight. The lateral deformation of the structure was reduced as shown
in Figures 5.110. Figure 5.111 shows the variation of top floor displacement with time.
The maximum moment developed in floor diaphragm was increased from 591 to
718 m.ton which is about 20%. The increase in the in-plane yield moment is about
55%. The top middle slab moment was behind the section capacity moment (Figure
5.112a. The energy dissipation in case of weak transverse beam is much higher than
strong transverse beam as in Figures 5.112b and 5.113b. The same situation was
happened in the bottom middle slab except this slab did not reach the yield at the case
of strong transverse beam Figure 5.113.
Table 5.15 Variations of Transverse Beam Parameters of WC-2-9-3

Building.
Beam Dimensions (m) Transverse Beam Stiffness
(ton.m) It/Ib
Width Depth Vertical Torsion *10^5
0.25 0.4 64 104.5 0.3
0.25 0.6 1216 154.6 1.0
0.25 0.7 343 179.5 1.6
0.25 0.8 512 204.6 2.4
0.25 0.9 729 229.6 3.4
177
Transverse Beam Variations.
Uniform Building Code UBC94 Eq. 28.3& 4 0.20
Beam Inertia (It/Ib)=0.3 0.21
5..3 STRUCTURE RIGIDITY ASSESSMENT
The error in shear distribution due to the rigid floor assumptions is critical for a
certain type of structures as mentioned in the previous section. The factors affecting
greatly the in-plan floor behavior is the dimension factors more than the other
factors as tabulated in Table 5.17
5.3.1 Rigidity Factor Method
The resulting shear error depends on the in-plane to vertical elements stiffness.
The in-plane rigidity factor (Ri) was suggested [28] to indicate the error in shear
prediction as a function of both stiffness. The basic assumptions used in evaluating the
rigidity factor are:
 Uncracked, elastic section.
 The same modulus of elasticity for vertical and horizontal elements.
 Symmetrical building.
 Cantilever failure mechanism of the whole building.

The above assumptions lead to establish the following formula.
178
500
450
400
350
Moment( ton.m)
300
250
200
150 kt/kb=0.3
kt/kb=1.0
100 kt/kb=1.6
kt/kb=2.4
50
kt/kb=3.4
0
0.E+00 1.E-06 2.E-06 3.E-06 4.E-06 5.E-06 6.E-06 7.E-06 8.E-06
Curvature (rad.)

(Top Middle Slab).
0.70
0.60
0.50
Base Shear (%W)
0.40
0.30
kt/kb=0.3 Frame #1
0.20
kt/kb=0.3 Frame #1
kt/kb=8.5 Frame #5
0.10
kt/kb=8.5 Frame #5
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
179
400
kt/kb=0.3
300
kt/kb=8.5
200
100
Shear (ton)
-100
-200
-300
-400
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0
Time (sec.)
Fig. 5.106 Base Shear Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 Building .
40
First Story
Second Story
35
Third Story
30
Shear (% W )
25
20
15
10
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Steel Strength (kg/cm2)
Fig. 5.107 Story Shear Variations with T-Beam Stiffness (WC-2-9-3 Building)
180
50
Shear (%Story Shear) Kt/Kb=0.3 Kt/Kb=1.0 Kt/Kb=1.6
40
Kt/Kb=2.4 Kt/Kb=3.4
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
50
Kt/Kb=0.3 Kt/Kb=1.0 Kt/Kb=1.6

40
Kt/Kb=2.4 Kt/Kb=3.4
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
50
40
Kt/Kb=2.4 Kt/Kb=3.4
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5
(c)
Frame No.
(c)
Fig. 5.108 Distribution of Story Shear Across Frames :

181
60
Kt/Kb=.3
40 Kt/Kb=3.4
20
Shear (ton)
-20
-40
-60
0 2 4 6 8
Time (sec.)
(a)
20
Kt/Kb=.3
15
Kt/Kb=3.4
10
5
Shear(ton)
-5
-10
-15
-20
0 2 4 6 8
Time (sec.)
(b)

182
0.30
Kt/Kb=0.3 Kt/Kb=1.0
0.25 Kt/Kb=1.6 Kt/Kb=2.4
Displacement (% H)
Kt/Kb=3.4
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(a)
0.30
0.25
Displacement (% H)
Kt/Kb=2.4 Kt/Kb=3.4
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(b)
0.30
0.25
Displacement (% H)
Kt/Kb=2.4 Kt/Kb=3.4
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Frame No.
(c)
Fig. 5.110 Distribution of Story Displacements Across Frames:

183
0.05
0.04 Kt/Kb=0.3
0.03 Kt/Kb=3.4
Displacement (% H)
0.02
0.01
0.00
-0.01
-0.02
-0.03
-0.04
-0.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (sec.)
(a)
0.25
0.20 Kt/Kb=0.3
0.15 Kt/Kb=3.4
Displacement (% H)
0.10
0.05
0.00
-0.05
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Time (sec.)
(b)
Fig. 5.111Top Displacement Time Histories of WC-2-9-3 Building:

184
2.0
Kt/Kb= 0.3
1.5
Kt/Kb= 8.5
1.0
Moment (M/My)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
Kt/Kb= 0.3
1.0 Kt/Kb= 8.5
Moment (M/My)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(b)
Fig. 5.112 Top Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building:

185
2.0
Kt/Kb= 0.3
1.5
Kt/Kb= 8.5
1.0
Moment (M/My)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0
Time( Sec.)
(a)
1.5
Kt/Kb= 0.3
1.0 Kt/Kb= 8.5
Moment (M/My)
0.5
0.0
-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
(b)
Fig 5.113 Bottom Middle Slab Response of WC-2-9-3 Building

186
Is H 2 (5.3)
Ri  ( )
Ip L
tB (5.4)
Is    Ab . xi
12
where
Is , Ip is the in plane and ,vertical moments of inertia.
H is the building height.
L, B is building length and width facing the applied load.
Ab, Xi is Beam area and distance from the natural axis as shown in Figure 5.114.
The results of applying the rigidity factors on a number of the selected structures
lead to establish the shown relations in Figure 5.115. The comparison between
IDARC2 shear error results and the rigidity factor indicated that the rigidity factor is
a powerful and a valid simple index for the rigidity of the floor diaphragm for the
studied structures as shown in Figure 5.116. The rigidity factor may also valid for the
determination of percentage of errors in floor drift but this requires studying a wide
range of structures with different rigidity factors.
5.3.2 Proposed Method for Rigidity Assessment
A new formulation of the structure behavior as a function of structure height, plan

length, rigidity factor and relative stiffness of floor diaphragm to vertical element
stiffness is shown in Figure 5.117. At rigidity factor less than 0.1,the error level is so
high and can not be accepted. The designer should take into consideration the
diaphragm flexibility. The rigidity factor increased as the vertical elements stiffness are
reduced and the error are also reduced. Error level are ranged between 30 to 5 % as the
rigidity factor are between 0.1 to o.7. The designer can interpolate the error in
predicting the base shear . the error was less than 5% as the rigidity factor was 0.7 or
more. As the rigidity factor is 0.7 or more the designer can considered the rigid floor
diaphragm without loss of accuracy. The formation of Figure 5.117 is based on the
acceptance of the upper bound level suggested by Hassan [28]. The new proposed
bounds are obtained directly from the relation
187
H Ip
( )  ( Ri . ) 0.5
L IS (5.5)
The two bounds of the curve are bounded by rigidity factor of 0.1 and 0.7
respectively. The diaphragm actions are flexible below the 0.1 curve and rigid above
0.7 curve. A transition behavior zone are bounded by the two lines where the error in
predicting the base shear is ranged between 30 to 5%. The floor behavior chart may be
the benefit of this research work. Now, the designer can expect the behavior of the
floor according to the relation between the relative stiffness and height to length ratio.
Table 5.17 Factors Affecting The In-Plane Floor to Vertical Element

Stiffness (Kh/Kv).
Factor Proportion Direct Effect
Kv Kh
Vertical Elements Stiffness Direct Yes ---
No. of Stories Direct Yes ---
Story Height Inverse Yes ---
Width of Structure Direct Yes Yes
Length of Structure Direct Yes ---
Floor Thickness Direct --- Yes
Transverse Beam Stiffness Direct --- Yes
188
Fig.5.114 Definition of Rigidity Factor Parameters.
50
Flexible Diaphragm
40
Transition Zone
% Error In Shear
30
20
Rigid Diaphragm
10
Upper Bound
0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
In-Plane Rigidity Factor(Ri)
Fig.5.115 Assesment of diaphragm Behavior by Error Bound Method.
189
50.0
45.0 IDARC2 Base Shear
40.0 Hassan Bound
35.0
30.0
% Error
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Rigidity Factor(Ri)
(a)
50.0
IDARC2 Wall Shear
45.0
IDARC2 Frame Shear
40.0
Hassan Bound
35.0
30.0
% Error
25.0
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
Rigidity Factor(Ri)
(b)
Fig.5.116 Comparison of IDARC2 and Rigidity Factor:

a) Base Shear Error; b) Frame Shear Error.
190
2.0
Ri=0.10
1.8 Ri=0.700
Rigid Floor Behavior
1.6
1.4 Transition Zone
1.2
(Ip/Is)-1
Flexible Floor
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
H/L
Fig.5.117 Effect of Height to Length Ratio on Floor Behavior.

(Floor Behavior Chart)
191
Chapter 6
Chapter 6
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 GENERAL
The behavior of reinforced concrete structures subjected to earthquake excitation is

greatly affected by many factors. Generally, the floor system represents the majority of
the mass of a building structure where most of the seismic lateral loads are originated in
the floor systems. The main functions of floor slab are transferring gravity loads to
vertical supporting elements, distributing the horizontal loading to the vertical elements,
holding the building plan in shape and modifying load carrying capacity. The
assumption of rigid in-plane floor is reducing the total degrees of freedom of the
structure by neglecting in-plane bending and shear deformations of floor. In most
building, the rigid floor assumptions are valid for practical and common analysis but it
may not be applicable for some specified building in which the floor slab is very long
and narrow, buildings with nicked region, buildings with U, Y, L, T, I shapes, dual
system buildings or low rise buildings. Understanding the floor behavior and estimating
a simple tool to predict the floor behavior will help the structural engineer in design.
7.2 SUMMARY OF CONDUCTED STUDY
The enhanced computer program IDARC2 “Modeling of Reinforced Concrete

Buildings with Flexible Floor Diaphragms” is used for the analysis of this research. The
program is idealizes the building as a series of plane frames linked together by inelastic
flexible floor slab and transverse beams. The main structural modeling elements are,
floor slab elements, column elements, beam elements, shear wall elements, edge column
elements and transverse beam elements. The structure is modeled using end node
degrees of freedoms to simplify the problem within the acceptable accuracy. The slab
element is modeled as deep beam with two degrees of freedom, in-plane lateral
displacement in Y-direction, in-plane rotation in Z-direction. All elements are assumed
to move with the same lateral displacement within The same frame to reduce the total
192
DOF of the structure. The in-plane rotations of slab elements are further constrained by
the torsion stiffness of individual frames. All elements except for transverse beam are
modeled as fully inelastic elements with concentrated plasticity at the member ends. The
incremental moment rotation relationship is established from the integration of M/EI
diagram depending on the location of the point of contraflexure.
Diaphragm action combined with out-of-plane bending due to gravity loads causes
the problem to be difficult. A modeling approach is used to solve slab element. Slab is
considered as deep beam in the in-plane direction with empirical experimental approach
to include out of plane bending effects. The in-plane shear is modeled separately using
an elastic spring connected in series to flexural spring that will lead to modification of
flexibility matrix. The hysteretic models that were used for the analysis use three
parameters in conjunction with nonsymmetric trilinear curve to establish rules under
which inelastic loading reversals take place. The three main parameters represented in
the model are stiffness degradation (), strength deterioration () and pinching () that
could be combined in various ways to achieve a wide range of hysteretic behavior
patterns.
6.3 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Ten reinforced concrete buildings were studied to examine the floor diaphragm
behavior. Most of the studied structures are dual system, narrow and low rise
buildings. The selection of the structures' plans is to cover the floor diaphragm
flexibility behavior. The studied parameters were floor diaphragm model effect, plan
configuration and structural system, number of stories, story height, variations of
plan dimensions in direction and normal to seismic waves, floor slab structural
system (slab type), variations in floor slab thickness, presence of opening in floor
slabs, variations of concrete grade of floor slab, variations of steel grade of floor
slab, variations in main beam and transverse beam stiffness'. Assessment of floor
behavior using simple method was expedited at the end of this research.
193
The output includes the maximum base shear, monotonic lateral load capacity,
maximum top displacement, shear and displacement distribution between different
elements, time histories' records for selected members and natural period of vibration
obtained from the program or codes. Sometimes the output includes story drift, shear
ratio and other results as will be indicated later. The following results are highlighted
from the analytical study.
The inelastic and the elastic models of the floor yield to large deformations of the
intermediate elements than of the outer vertical supporting elements. The errors in
predicting intermediate frames' deformations increase away from shear walls. The
higher values of the middle frames' deformations are due to cracking and flexural
yielding of middle slabs. The variations of wall deformations of different floor models
are small compared with middle frames' deformations. The moments developed in shear
walls are small compared with its ultimate capacity especially in low rise buildings.
The assumption of rigid floor depends on the relative stiffness between vertical and
horizontal structural elements and consequently the types of vertical elements. The
deflections' shapes of frame buildings are similar to deep beam on elastic springs. The
deflection shapes of shear wall buildings are like continues beam. The deflections'
shapes dual systems are similar to beam supported by hinges at walls' positions and free
at ductile frames' locations. Diaphragm action does not appear in moment resistance
frames, passes low lateral stiffness. The slabs of this building behave as rigid slabs. The
shear wall structures where the vertical element lateral stiffness is as the same or greater
than in-plane floor stiffness lead to flexible floor behavior. The dual system building
response is depended on shear wall's stiffness and positions.
The increase in the number of stories leads to reduction in errors in predicting

shears or deflections. The error values are independent on the number of stories. The
error may be neglected if the numbers of stories are four or more. The taller buildings
express the same lateral deformation at top and outer frames resist a large portion of
loads at top stories. The shear ratio is reduce towards the bottom. Increasing the story
height reduces the vertical elements carrying capacity stiffness and increases the
tendency of structure to undergo rigid behavior. The variation of base shear of wall
194
structures is higher than dual system structures and the error in predicting structure
response is reduced as the floor story level is increased. The floor slabs act as a beam
supported on the shear walls in low rise dual system buildings. The floor drift of high
raised stories express fewer values than low rise stories.
The effect of story height on changing should be considered in wall buildings as

walls may fail under shear failures for low values of story height. The code concepts
related to the effect of story height on natural period are valid but a new formulation of
period equations may be re-discussed. The errors in base shears are increased as plan
aspect ratios increased. The error was 15 % at floor aspect ratio 9. When the floor is
considered to be flexible elastic then the inner vertical elements carry more loads than
the outer elements. The shear ratio (Ve/Vi) is increased away from outer walls towards
the center of the structure. The shear ratio is equal to two for intermediate walls in case
of perfect elastic structure and follows the tributary area concept. The rigid floor
assumptions lead to overestimate of base shear of outer shear wall and under estimate of
inner base shear compared with flexible floor model concept. The structure becomes
more rigid and the rigid floor assumption is valid as the structure width increases or
number of bays parallel to wave direction increases in the direction of earthquake.
The opening in the floor slab will reduce the in-plane capacity. The lateral
deformation of the floor slab increased at opening location. The symmetrical shape of
the building is affected by opening position. Bounding the opening by stiff elements
will reduce the undesirable effect of floor opening.
The increase in floor slab thickness does not affect the base shear value but the total
base shear as a function of building weight is greatly reduced. The distribution of force
between vertical supporting elements is not affected greatly. The maximum lateral
deformations are reduced as the floor slab thickness increases. The slab yield and
cracking moments are reduced due to reducing reinforcement to achieve constant out of
plane capacity.
The story drifts between middle and outer frames are reduced due to the increase in
the floor concrete grade. The shears' distributions among elements are slightly changed
195
to better situation. The effect of increasing the steel grade is increasing both in-plane
and out of plane floor capacities. The capability of the structure to sustain more lateral
load and to introduce a uniform lateral deformation is slightly increased. The inner
frames' shears are reduced by about 50%.
The increase in transverse beam stiffness improves the shear distribution between
frames, reduces the floor drift, increases the in-plane capacity of the floor diaphragm
and reduces the slab torsion. The improvements come directly from increasing the floor
stiffness and the torsion resistance stiffness.
The use of flat slab instead of beam-slab system reduces the building capacity to
resist lateral loads. The deformation of outer wall is increased as a result of using the
flat slab this values are increased with height. The shear developed in the outer frames
are increased. The increase of the outer frame shear reflects the tendency of the floor to
behave in rigid behavior become more rigid. The research results indicated that the
structural geometric parameters is greatly affected the in-plane floor flexibility other
than the other parameters
6.4 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following conclusions were drawn from the results of analytical investigations
 The floor diaphragm flexibility should be taken for narrow low rise buildings under
four stories.
 The selection of vertical elements' system should be selected carefully. The variation
of vertical elements' stiffness may be as minimum as possible
 Increasing the relative stiffness of vertical supporting elements to floor system
stiffness lead to increase the possibility of flexible diaphragm behavior.
 The rigid floor assumption leads to underestimate ductile frame shear and the amount
of reduction increased as moving away from the shear walls of dual system.
 Bounding the floor opening with very stiff members reduces the undesirable effects
of opening.
 The structural engineer may take into consideration the uniform and symmetrical
distributions of vertical elements especially shear walls to minimize the effect of
196
torsion. Although walls should be located close to the periphery of the structure to
resist torsion effect and provide torsional resistance to the structure, the uniform
distribution of walls should be considered to minimize diaphragm flexibility.
 The UBC94 and ECL93 stated that 'The shear wall frame shall resist the total
required seismic forces 'and this may results in conservative shear design and lake of
ductility at the frames. The designer should supply the structure with the required
ductile frames' elements as the flexible floor behavior may be expected. The most
appropriate way to provide the frames with the required ductility is using the codes
condition which stated that “the moment resisting frames shall be designed to
independently resist the design base shear in proportion to their relative rigidity
considering the interaction of the dual system at all levels or at least 25 percent of
the design base shear”
 The designer should take into consideration the possible in-plane deformations due to
floor flexibility in the design of structural elements.
 The designer may be able to determine the floor diaphragm behavior by using the
proposed method and the floor behavior chart. The parameters needed to evaluate the
floor behavior is the relative stiffness between the in-plane to vertical elements
stiffness' and building height to length ratio
6.5 RECOMMONDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHES
Further analytical investigations are recommended to study:

 New definitions of rigid model in the computer program IDARC2 based on master
deflection point.
 Effect of shear walls configurations on the floor behavior.
 Formulation of new equations for rigidity indices.
 Study the presence of both flexible and rigid models within the same structure at the
same time.
 Study the P- effect of columns with the flexible diaphragm.
 Study out-of-plane buckling of slab
197
References
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 442 & ACI 422R-88, “Response of Concrete Buildings to

Lateral Forces (422-88)“, American Concrete Institute , Detroit Michigan ,1988,
pp. 1-35
2. Aktan, A. E., and Bertero, V. V., “Conceptual Seismic Design of Frame-Wall
Structures” , J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE ,Vol. 110 ,No.11 ,Nov. 1984,pp. 2778-2797.
3. Atimtay, E., “Design of Concrete Slabs for Infinite In-plane Stiffness” ,
Advanced in Concrete Slabs Technology , Pergamon Press, 1979,pp. 277-287.
4. Clough, R.W., and Penzien, J., “ Dynamics of Structures ”, McGraw- Hill Inc.
(1975)
5. Coull, A., and Hag, A., ”Effective Coupling of Shear Wall by Floor Slabs”, ACI
Structural Journal, Vol.72, No.8, Aug. 1975, pp. 429-431.
6. Coull, A.., and Choudhury, J. R., “Stress and Deflections in Coupled Shear
Walls”, ACI Structural Journal, Vol.64, No.2, Feb. 1967,pp. 65-72.
7. Cruz, E. F., and Chopra, A. K., “ improved Code Type Earthquake Analysis
Procedures for Building”, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, Vol.116, No. 3, Mar. 1990,
pp.679-700.
8. Egyptian Concrete Committee 1995, “Egyptian Code for Design and
Construction of RC Structures “, Housing Research and Building Center ,2nd
Press, Egypt,1997 .
9. Egyptian Load Committee 1993, “Egyptian Code for Loads and Forces of
Structural and Buildings Works“, Housing Research and Building Center ,
Egypt,1997 .
10.El Behairy S., “ Application to the New Egyptian Code for Design and
Construction of RC Structures“, Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook , Fourth
Edition , Cairo, Egypt,1990
11.El Bokl, M., and Ragab, A., ” The Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Coupled
Shear Wall Including the Effective Width of Slab”, M. Sc. Thesis , Struct. Civil
Eng. Dept., Cairo University , 1994.
198
12.El Sherbeny, H., Turkey, A., Fathy, M., and Issa, M., “Effect of Floor Diaphragm
Characteristics on the Response of RC Buildings”, Egyptian Engineers Society
Magazine, Vol. 37, No. 2 ,1998, pp. 3-11.
13.French, C. W., and Moehle, J. P., “Effect of Floor Slab Behavior of Slab- Beam-
Column Connections“, Design of Beam-Column Joints for Seismic Resistance,
ACI Publications, SP-123, 1991, pp. 225-257
14.Guevara, L. T., Alonso, J. L, and Fortout, E., ” Floor Plan Shape Influence on the
Response to Earthquake” , Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering ,Madrid Spain, vol. 7, Jul 1992, pp. 3945 - 3950.
15.Hassan, A. F., and Sozen, M. A., “ Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Low-
Rise Buildings in Regions with Infrequent Earthquakes”, ACI Structural
journal, Vol.94 No.1, Jan-Feb. 1997, pp.31-39.
16.Hu, H.T., and Schnobrich, W. C., “ Non Linear Finite Element Analysis of RC
Plates and Shells Under Monotonic Loading”, Computer & structures, Vol.38
,No. 5/6, 1991, pp. 637-651.
17.Key, D., “ Earthquake Design Practice for Buildings” , Tomas Telford, London ,
1988.
18.Kunnath, S. K., Reinhorn A. M., and Lobo, R.F., “ IDARC Version 3.0, a
Program for the Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete
Structures”, Technical Report No. NCEER-92-0022, National Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, N. Y.,
1988.
19.Kunnath, S. K., Panahshahi, N., and Reinhorn, A. M., “ Seismic Response of
Reinforced Concrete Buildings with Inelastic Floor Diaphragms”, J. Struct.
Engrg. , ASEC, Vol.117, No.4, 1989, pp. 1218-1237
20.Mahmoud, A. A., and Ghali, K. N., “Experimental Investigation of the Behavior
of 1/4 Scale One Story RC Flat Plate Building Frame Under Combined
Vertical and Lateral Loads”, Fifth International Colloquium on Concrete in
Developing Countries ,pp. 317-329.
21.Melkumian, M.G., “Hysteretic Model for the Shear Behavior of RC Structure
and Its Application in the Nonlinear Response Analysis of the 9-Story Frame
Building with Diaphragms Heavily Damage in the 1988 Spitak Earthquake“,
199
Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering ,Madrid ,
Spain, vol. 7, Jul. 1992, pp. 4083-4088.
22.Murasher et al, Murashev, E. S., and Baikov, V., “Design of Reinforced Concrete
Strucures “ , Mir pub. Moscow, 1976, pp. 577-579.
23.Muto, K., “A Seismic Design Analysis of Buildings “ , Marusem Co. Ltd., Tokyo
1974 ,pp. 241-260 .
24.Nakashima, M., Huang, T., and Lu, L. W., “Experimental Study of Beam-
Supported Slabs Under In-Plane Loading “, ACI Structural Journal, Jan.- Feb.
1982, pp. 59-65.
25.Polak, M. A., “Effective Stiffness Model for Reinforced Concrete Slabs" , J.
Struct. Engrg., ASCE , Vol.122, No. 9, Sep.1996, pp. 1025 - 1030.
26.Qadeer, A., and Smith, B. S., “ The Bending Stiffness of Slab Connecting Shear
walls”, ACI Structural Journal ,Vol. 66 , No. 6, Jun. 1969 .pp. 464-473.
27.Reinhorn, A. M. , Kunnath, S. K., and Panahshahi, N., “ Modeling of RC
Structure with Flexible Floor Diaphragm (IDARC2) ”, Technical Report No.
NCEER-87-0035, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, State
University of New York at Buffalo, N. Y., 1988.
28.Saffarini, H. S., and Qudaimat, M. M., “In- Plane Floor Deformations in RC
Structures”, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE Vol. 118 No 11 , Nov. 1992, pp. 3089-3102.
29.Smith B. S., and Coull, A., “Tall Building Structures Analysis and Design“ ,
John Wiley &Sons Inc. ,New York ,1991, pp. 65-95.
30.Sudhir, K., and Mandal, U. K., “Dynamics of Building with Y- Shaped Plan and
Flexible Floor Diaphragms”, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE, Vol. 121,No.6 , Jan. 1995,
pp. 1004-1012.
31.Tena A. C., and Abrams, D. P., “ Seismic Behavior of Structures with Flexible
Diaphragms”, J. Struct. Engrg., ASCE Vol. 122, No. 4, April 1996, pp.439-445
32.Torkey, A., Nassef, M., El Zanaty, A., and Anis. H., “ Inelastic Behavior of Multi -
Story RC Frames Under Seismic Loads”, Ph.D. Thesis. Struct. Civil Eng. Dept.,
Cairo University, 1992.
33.Umemura, H. , and Takizawa, H., “ Dynamic Response of RC Buildings” ,
International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Switzerland, 1982,
pp.3-13.
200
34.Wai, k., and Mohmoud, A. A., “Effective Width of Coupling Slabs in Shear Wall
Buildings “, J. Struct. Engrg ,ASCE ,Vol.103,No. ST3, Mar.1977 , pp.573-586.
35.Wong, Y. C., and Coull, A., “Structure Behavior of Floor Slabs in Shear Wall
Buildings”, Advances in concrete Slab Technology, Pergamon Press, 1979, pp.301-
312.
201

BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FLEXIBLE FLOOR UNDER SEISMIC - CAIRO-MSc 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FLEXIBLE FLOOR UNDER SEISMIC - CAIRO-MSc 1999

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

BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FLEXIBLE FLOOR UNDER SEISMIC - CAIRO-MSc 1999

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE FLEXIBLE FLOOR

DIAPHRAGMS UNDER SEISMIC LOADS

Eng. Hesham Ahmed El Sherbeny

A Thesis Submitted to the

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

Eng. Hesham Ahmed El Sherbeny

A Thesis Submitted to the

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Dr. Mohamed El Said Issa

Dr. Akram A. Torkey Dr. Mohamed F. Mohamed

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

Eng. Hesham Ahmed El Sherbeny

A Thesis Submitted to the

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING, CAIRO UNIVERSITY

LIST OF TABLES viii

Chapter 2 : LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter 3 : PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

3.3.6 Flexible Floor Diaphragm 28

Chapter 4 : DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDIED BUILDING

4.3.1 WC-1-5-1 Building 53

Chapter 5 : ANALYTICAL STUDY

5.2.3.2.2 Transverse Beams Stiffness 176

Chapter 6 : SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

TABLE TITLE PAGE

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

Figure 3.1 Main Program IDARC2 Organization 17

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

Figure 4.5 Configuration and Sections Details of WC-N-5-1 Buildings 59

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

Figure 5.19 Shear Distribution between Frames 90

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

Figure 5.40 Effect of Plan Dimensions on Shear of WW-1-N-1 Building 116

Figure 5.41 Effect of Plan Dimensions on Errors of Base Shear

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

Figure 5.76 Failure Pattern of WC-3-5-1 Building with Different Opening

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

Figure 5.99 Distribution of Shear Across Frames of WC-2-9-3 Building 171

Most of modern buildings codes defined the contribution of slab in resisting

The computer program IDARC2 “Modeling of RC Structures with Flexible Floor

The behavior of reinforced concrete structures subjected to earthquake

In 1981, Pseudodynamic tests were conducted on a model of seven stories

Many of modern buildings codes define the contribution of slab in resisting

1-2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The main objectives considered in this study are.

1-3 ORGANIZATION OF THESIS

2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

affect the lateral stiffness of the structure".

”Structural Engineering Tools program. The displacement-stiffness method that takes

French, 1991, [13] studied experimentally the slab action in beam-column-slab

Sudhim, 1995,[30] studied the dynamic characteristic of Y-shaped plan considering

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND MATHMATICAL

The software package IDARC (Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced

Program IDARC (Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete) was

Program IDARC 2 (Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Structures with Flexible

Program IDARC-3D (Inelastic Three Dimensional Damage Analysis of

Program IDARC version 3.0 (Inelastic Damage Analysis of Reinforced Concrete

3.2 PROGRAM IDARC2