International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials

Korea Concrete Institute (한국콘크리트학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Preliminary Structural Design of Wall-Frame Systems for Optimum Torsional Response

  • Georgoussis, George K. (Department of Civil Engineering, School of Pedagogical and Technological Education (ASPETE))
  • Received : 2016.03.12
  • Accepted : 2016.11.20
  • Published : 2017.03.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Recent investigations have pointed out that current code provisions specifying that the stiffness of reinforced concrete elements is strength independent, and therefore can be estimated prior to any strength assignment, is incorrect. A strength allocation strategy, suitable for preliminary structural design of medium height wall-frame dual systems, is presented for allocating strength in such buildings and estimating the dependable rigidities. The design process may be implemented by either the approximate continuous approach or the stiffness matrix method. It is based on the concept of the inelastic equivalent single-degree-of-freedom system which, the last few years, has been used to implement the performance based seismic design. The aforesaid strategy may also be used to determine structural configurations of minimum rotation distortion. It is shown that when the location of the modal centre of rigidity, as described in author's recent papers, is within a close distance from the mass axis the torsional response is mitigated. The methodology is illustrated in ten story building configurations, whose torsional response is examined under the ground motion of Kobe 1995, component KJM000.

Keywords

References

  1. Anagnostopoulos, S. A., Kyrkos, M. T., Papalymperi, A., & Plevri, E. (2015a). Should accidental eccentricity be eliminated from Eurocode 8? Earthquakes and Structures, 8(2), 463-484. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.463
  2. Anagnostopoulos, S. A., Kyrkos, M. T., & Stathopoulos, K. G. (2015b). Earthquake induced torsion in buildings: Critical review and state of the art. Earthquakes and Structures, 8(2), 305-377. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.305
  3. Aschheim, M. (2002). Seismic design based on the yield displacement. Earthquake spectra, 18(4), 581-600. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1516754
  4. Aziminejad, A., & Moghadam, A. S. (2009). Performance of asymmetric multistory buildings with different strength distributions. Journal of Applied Sciences, 9(6), 1082-1089. https://doi.org/10.3923/jas.2009.1082.1089
  5. Aziminejad, A., Moghadam, A. S., & Tso, W. K. (2008). A new methodology for designing multi-story asymmetric buildings. In The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering. Oct 14-17, Beijing, China.
  6. Bosco, M., Ferrara, G. A. F., Ghersi, A., Marino, E. M., & Rossi, P. P. (2015). Seismic assessment of existing R.C. framed structures with in-plan irregularity by nonlinear static methods. Earthquakes and Structures, 8(2), 401-422. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.8.2.401
  7. Chandler, A. M., Duan, X. N., & Rutenberg, A. (1996). Seismic torsional response: Assumptions, controversies and research progress. European Earthquake Engineering., 1, 37-51.
  8. Chopra, A. K. (2008). Dynamics of Structures (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
  9. Chopra, A. K., & Goel, R. K. (1999). Capacity-demand-diagram methods based on inelastic design spectrum. Earthquake Spectra, 15(4), 637-657. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586065
  10. Chopra, A. K., & Goel, R. K. (2000). Evaluation of NSP to estimate seismic deformation: SDF systems. Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 126(4), 482-490. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2000)126:4(482)
  11. Clough, R. W., & Penzien, J. (1993). Dynamics of structures (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  12. De Stefano, M., & Pintucchi, B. (2008). A review of research on seismic behaviour of irregular building structures since 2002. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 6, 285-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-007-9052-3
  13. De Stefano, M., Tanganelli, M., & Viti, S. (2015). Seismic performance sensitivity to concrete strength variability: A case-study. Earthquakes and Structures, 9(2), 321-337. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2015.9.2.321
  14. EAK. (2000). Greek aseismic code. Greece: Greek Ministry of Environment, City Planning and Public Works. (in Greek).
  15. Eurocode 8 (EC8). (2004). Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. European Standard EN/1998: 2004
  16. Fajfar, P. (2000). A nonlinear analysis method for performance based seismic design. Earthquake Spectra, 16(3), 573-592. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1586128
  17. Fajfar, P., Marusic, D., & Perus, I. (2005). Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 9(6), 831-854. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460509350568
  18. Garcia, R., Sullivan, T. J., & Corte, G. D. (2010). Development of a displacement-based design method for steel-RC wall buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 14(2), 252-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460902995138
  19. Georgoussis, G. K. (2008). Optimum design of multistory uniform structures with simple eccentricity. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 17(3), 719-738. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.376
  20. Georgoussis, G. K. (2009). An alternative approach for assessing eccentricities in asymmetric multistory structures, 1: Elastic Systems. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 18(2), 181-202. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.401
  21. Georgoussis, G. K. (2010). Modal rigidity center: Its use for assessing elastic torsion asymmetric buildings. Earthquake and Structures, 1(2), 163-175. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2010.1.2.163
  22. Georgoussis, G. K. (2012). Seismic analysis of non-proportionate eccentric buildings. Advanced Material Research, 450-451, 1482-1488. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.450-451.1482
  23. Georgoussis, G. K. (2014). Modified seismic analysis of multistory asymmetric elastic buildings and suggestions for minimizing the rotational response. Earthquake and Structures, 7(1), 039-52. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.1.039
  24. Georgoussis, G. K. (2015). Minimizing the torsional response of inelastic multistory buildings with simple eccentricity. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 42(11), 966-969. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2015-0091
  25. Ghersi, A., & Rossi, pp. (2001). Influence of bi-directional ground motions on the inelastic response of one-story inplan irregular systems. Engineering Structures, 23, 579-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00088-2
  26. Heidebrecht, A. C. (1975). Dynamic analysis of asymmetric wall- frame buildings. ASCE, National structural engineering convention.
  27. Heidebrecht, A. C., & Smith, B. S. (1973). Approximate analysis of tall wall-frame structures. Journal of the Structural Division ASCE, 2, 169-183.
  28. Heo, Y. A., & Kunnath, S. K. (2013). Damage-Based seismic performance evaluation of reinforced concrete frames. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 7(3), 175-182. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40069-013-0046-z
  29. Humar, J. L., & Rahgozar, M. A. (1996). Concept of over strength in seismic design. In 11th world conference on earthquake engineering. Acapulco, Mexico, June 23-28
  30. Krawinkler, H., & Seneviratna, G. D. P. K. (1998). Pushover analysis for seismic performance evaluation. Engineering structures, 20(4-6), 452-464. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(97)00092-8
  31. Kyrkos, M. T., & Anagnostopoulos, S. A. (2011a). An assessment of code designed, torsionally stiff, asymmetric steel buildings under strong earthquake excitations. Earthquake and Structures, 2(2), 109-126. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2011.2.2.109
  32. Kyrkos, M. T., & Anagnostopoulos, S. A. (2011b). Improved earthquake resistant design of torsionally stiff asymmetric steel buildings. Earthquake and Structures, 2(2), 127-147. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2011.2.2.127
  33. Kyrkos, M. T., & Anagnostopoulos, S. A. (2013). Improved earthquake resistant design of eccentric buildings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering., 47, 144-156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.07.011
  34. Lucchini, A., Monti, D., & Kunnath, S. (2008). A simplified pushover method for evaluating the seismic demand in asymmetric-plan multi-story buildings. In The 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Oct 14-17, Beijing.
  35. Lucchini, A., Monti, D., & Kunnath, S. (2009). Seismic behavior of single-story asymmetric-plan buildings under uniaxial excitation. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 38, 1053-1070. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.881
  36. Moghadam, A. S., & Tso, W. K. (2000). 3-D pushover analysis for damage assessment of buildings. Journal of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, 2(3), 23-31.
  37. Newmark, N. M., & Rosenblueth, E. (1971). Fundamentals of earthquake engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  38. Park, R., & Paulay, T. (1975). Reinforced concrete structures. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  39. Paulay, T. (1998). A mechanism-based design strategy for the torsional seismic response of ductile buildings. European Earthquake Engineering, 2, 33-48.
  40. Paulay, T. (2001). Some design principles relevant to torsional phenomena in ductile buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 5(3), 271-308.
  41. Paulay, T. (2002). An estimation of displacement limits for ductile systems. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 31, 583-599. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.157
  42. Paulay, T. (2003). Seismic displacement capacity of ductile reinforced concrete building systems. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering., 36(1), 47-65.
  43. Paulay, T., & Priestley, M. J. N. (1992). Seismic design of reinforced and masonry buildings. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
  44. Priestley, M. J. N. (1996). Displacement-based seismic assessment of existing RC buildings. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 29(4), 256-272.
  45. Priestley, M. J. N. (1998). Brief comments on elastic flexibility of RC frames and significance to seismic design. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 31(4), 246-259.
  46. Priestley, M. J. N. (2000). Performance based seismic design. 12 WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand.
  47. Priestley, M. J. N., Calvi, G. M., & Kowalsky, M. J. (2007). Direct displacement based design of buildings. Pavia, Italy: IUSS Press.
  48. Priestley, M. J. N., & Kowalsky, M. J. (1998). Aspects of drift and ductility capacity of rectangular walls. Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, 31(2), 73-85.
  49. Rutenberg, A. (1998). EAEE Task Group (TG)8: Behaviour of irregular and complex structures- State of the art report: Seismic nonlinear response of code-designed asymmetric structures. In 11th European conference on earthquake engineering. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Balkema

Cited by

  1. Optimum Locations of Outriggers in a Concrete Tall Building to Reduce Differential Axial Shortening vol.12, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-018-0323-y
  2. A Heuristic Approach to Identify the Steel Grid Direction of R/C Slabs Using the Yield-Line Method for Analysis vol.2019, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6017146
  3. Accounting for Torsional Response in Direct Displacement-based Design of Plan-asymmetric Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings vol.23, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-019-1739-x
  4. Incorporation of Torsional & Higher-Mode Responses in Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Asymmetric RC Frame Buildings vol.9, pp.6, 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/app9061095
  5. Yield Displacements of Wall-Frame Concrete Structures and Seismic Design Based on Code Performance Objectives vol.25, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2018.1526141