Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회논문집)

Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Verification of the Torsional Amplification Factor for the Seismic Design of Torsionally Imbalanced Buildings

비틀림 비정형 건물의 내진설계를 위한 우발편심 비틀림 증폭계수 검증

  • Received : 2010.08.18
  • Accepted : 2010.11.16
  • Published : 2010.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Because of the difference between the actual and computed eccentricity of buildings, symmetrical buildings will be affected by torsion. In provisions, accidental eccentricity is intended to cover the effect of several factors, such as unfavorable distributions of dead- and live-load masses and the rotational component of ground motion about a vertical axis. The torsional amplification factor is introduced to reduce the vulnerability of torsionally imbalanced buildings. The effect of the torsional amplification factor is observed for a symmetric rectangular building with various aspect ratios, where the seismic-force-resisting elements are positioned at a variable distance from the geometrical center in each direction. For verifying the torsional amplification factor in provisions, nonlinear reinforced concrete models with various eccentricities and aspect ratios are used in rock. The difference between the maximum displacements of the flexible edge obtained between using nonlinear static and time-history analysis is very small but the difference between the maximum torsional angles is large.

건물의 실제 편심은 일반적으로 계산된 값과 상당히 다르며, 정형 건물도 비틀림의 영향을 받는다. 질량분포의 비대칭성과 수직축에 대한 지반의 회전요소와 같은 요인들의 영향을 고려하고, 비틀림 비정형 건물의 취약성을 줄이기 위하여 내진설계규준에서는 우발편심과 비틀림 증폭계수를 도입하였다. 본 연구에서는 정형건물의 다양한 형상비와 평면중심으로부터의 부재위치에 따른 비틀림 증폭계수의 영향 및 이 계수에 영향을 미치는 요인을 확인하였고 보통암 지반에 위치한 다양한 편심과 형상비를 갖는 비선형 철근콘크리트 단층모델을 이용하여 비틀림 증폭계수를 검증하였다. 비선형 정적해석과 시간이력해석을 이용하여 구한 연약단부의 최대 정적변위와 동적변위는 비교적 일치하였으나 최대 정적비틀림과 동적비틀림의 차이는 편심크기가 작을수록 크게 나타났다. 1차 설계편심에 비틀림 증폭계수 적용유.무에 따라 연약단부 부재의 밑면전단력 증가가 미비하여 최대 정적변위의 증가비가 크지 않다.

Keywords

References

  1. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures : Part 2 Commentary, Report FEMA 303, Washington D.C., 98, 1997.
  2. British Standards Institution, Eurocode 8 : Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Park 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, EN 1998-1:2004, BSI, London, 54, 2004.
  3. 대한건축학회, 건축구조설계기준 및 해설, 대한건축학회, 121, 2006.
  4. 대한건축학회, 건축구조설계기준, 대한건축학회, 106, 2009.
  5. Structural Engineers Association of California, Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary, San Francisco, 15; 38; 68-69, 1967.
  6. Newmark, N. M., "Torsion in symmetrical buildings," Proceeding of fourth world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, A3-19-A3-32, 1969.
  7. International conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code 1697 Edition, Pasadena, p124, 1967.
  8. Newmark, N. M., and Rosenblueth, E., Fundamental of earthquake engineering, Prentice-Hall, 495, 1971
  9. Duan, X. N., and Chandler, A. M., "Torsional coupling effects in the inelastic seismic response of structures in Europe," Proceedings of 9th european conference earthquake engineering, Moscow, I, 162-171, 1990.
  10. Tso, W. K., and Ying, H., "Additional seismic inelastic deformation caused by structural asymmetry," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 19, No. 2, 243-258, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290190208
  11. Chandler, A. M., and Duan, X. N., "Evaluation of factors influencing the inelastic seismic performance of torsionally asymmetric buildings," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 8, 87-95, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290200107
  12. De la Llera, J. C., and Chopra, A. K., Accidental and natural torsion in earthquake response and design of buildings, Report No. UCB/EERC-94/07, Earthquake engineering research center, University of California at Berkeley, 21; 63, 1994.
  13. De la Llera, J. C., and Chopra, A. K., "Accidental torsion in buildings due to stiffness uncertainty," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 2, 117-136, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290230202
  14. De la Llera, J. C., and Chopra, A. K., "Accidental torsion in buildings due to base rotational excitation," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 9, 1003-1021, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290230906
  15. Rosenblueth, E., and Elorduy, J., "Response of linear systems to certain transient disturbances," Proceeding of fourth world conference on earthquake engineering, Santiago, Chile, A1-185-A1-196, 1969.
  16. Tso, W. K., and Dempsey, K. M., "Seismic torsion provision for dynamic eccentricity," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 8, No. 3, 275-289, 1980. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290080307
  17. Dempsey, K. M., and Tso, W. K., "An alternative path to seismic torsional provision," Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, 3-10, 1982.
  18. Chandler, A. M., and Hutchinson, G. L., "Evaluation of code torsional provisions by a time history approach," Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 15, No. 4, 491-516, 1987. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4290150406
  19. Stefano, M. D., and Rutenberg, A., "A comparison of the present SEAOC/UBC torsional provisions with the old ones," Engineering Structures, Vol. 19, No. 8, 655-664, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(96)00142-3
  20. Structural Engineers Association of California, Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary, San Francisco, 13; 112; 121, 1999.
  21. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP recommended Seismic provisions for new buildings and other structures, Report FEMA P-750, Washington D.C., 130, 2009.
  22. ASCE/SEI 7-05, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of Civil Engineers, 214; 130, 2006.
  23. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Report FEMA 273, Washington D.C., 3-2, 1997.
  24. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Report FEMA 356, Washington D.C., 3-3, 2000.
  25. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, Report FEMA 302, Washington D.C., 66, 1997.
  26. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, Report FEMA 368, Washington D.C., 76, 2000.
  27. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures, Report FEMA 450, Washington D.C., 90, 2003.
  28. Elnashai AS, Papanikolaou, V. and Lee, D.H., ZEUS-NL User Manual, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign /Mid-America Earthquake Center, 2002.
  29. Federal Emergency Management Agency, NEHRP recommended provisions : Design examples, Report FEMA 451, Washington D.C., 3-22, 2006.