9 Evaluation of The Seismic Performance of A 3story Ordinary Moment Resisting Concrete Frame

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS
Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.367)
Evaluation of the seismic performance of a three-story

ordinary moment-resisting concrete frame
Sang Whan Han1; ∗; † , Oh-Sung Kwon2 and Li-Hyung Lee1

1 Department of Architectural Engineering; Hanyang University; Seoul 133-791; Korea
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering; University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign;
Urbana; IL 61801; U.S.A.
SUMMARY
This study focuses on the seismic performance of Ordinary Moment-Resisting Concrete Frames (OM-
RCF) designed only for gravity loads. For this purpose, a 3-story OMRCF was designed in compliance
with the minimum design requirements in the American Concrete Institute Building Code ACI 318
(1999). This model frame was a regular structure with exure-dominated response. A 1=3-scale 3-story
model was constructed and tested under quasi-static reversed cyclic lateral loading. The overall behavior
of the OMRCF was quite stable without abrupt strength degradation. The measured base shear strength
was larger than the design base shear force for seismic zones 1, 2A and 2B calculated using UBC
1997. Moreover, this study used the capacity spectrum method to evaluate the seismic performance of
the frame. The capacity curve was obtained from the experimental results for the specimen and the
demand curve was established using the earthquake ground motions recorded at various stations with
dierent soil conditions. Evaluation of the test results shows that the 3-story OMRCF can resist design
seismic loads of zones 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4 with soil types SA and SB . For soil type SC , the specimen
was satisfactory in seismic zones 1, 2A, 2B and 3. For soil type SD , the OMRCF was only satisfactory
for seismic zones 1 and 2A. Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
KEY WORDS: concrete structures; performance evaluation; base shear; capacity spectrum method
1. INTRODUCTION
During the recent earthquakes, such as the 1994 Northridge earthquake in the U.S.A., the 1995
Kobe earthquake in Japan, and the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, many concrete frame
structures experienced substantial damage. Older low- to mid-rise concrete buildings were
particularly vulnerable to those earthquakes. The seismic performance of concrete buildings
during such earthquakes generally depends on reinforcement details, building shape, applied
design provisions, etc. Insucient details can cause unexpected structural failure during a
large earthquake event.
∗ Correspondenceto: Sang Whan Han, Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul
133791, Korea.
† E-mail:
swhan@hanyang.ac.kr
Received 3 December 2002
Revised 29 July 2003
Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 8 October 2003
670 S. W. HAN, O.-S. KWON AND L.-H. LEE
Most low-rise buildings in low-to-moderate seismic zones, and older buildings in high
seismic zones have been designed primarily for gravity loads. Because such buildings have
less stringent details than those required in a high seismic zone (e.g. strong column–weak
beam requirements need not be considered), the buildings may behave in a brittle manner
during a large earthquake event. In these cases story mechanisms can develop.
Current design provisions, such as ACI 318 (2002) [1], dene three types of moment
frames: Ordinary Moment Resisting Concrete Frame (OMRCF), Intermediate Moment Re-
sisting Concrete Frame (IMRCF), and Special Moment Resisting Concrete Frame (SMRCF).
OMRCF is the most popular type of moment frame in low-to-moderate seismic zones. This
study focuses on OMRCF for which the detail and design requirements are less stringent than
IMRCF and SMRCF. The details of OMRCF are dierent from those of IMRCF and SMRCF
as follows:
(1) Strong column–weak beam requirements need not be satised, which may result in
story failure mechanisms during a large earthquake event.
(2) Column splices can be placed just above slabs that are likely plastic hinge locations
during a large earthquake loading.
(3) The spacing limits for column ties and beam stirrups of OMRCF are large.
(4) No transverse shear reinforcement is required at interior beam–column joints, and min-
imal reinforcement is required at exterior joints.
(5) Discontinuous exural reinforcement can be placed in a beam.
This study investigates the seismic behavior of moment frames designed only for gravity
loads (1.4D + 1.7L), and detailed by the requirements for OMRCF in ACI 318 (1999) [1].
For this purpose, a 1=3-scale 3-story OMRCF oce building was constructed and tested.
In this study, the Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) was used to evaluate the seismic
performance of the OMRCF. This method requires both the capacity and demand curves to
nd a performance point. This point is treated as the seismic demand of a structure (ATC-40,
1996) [2]. In this study, the capacity curve was determined from the experimental result of the
OMRCF structure. The demand spectrum was determined from the ground motion acceleration
of 30 earthquakes, recorded at the SB , SC and SD soil sites. The accelerations were scaled
to conform to the design spectrum in seismic zones 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4, as classied in the
UBC [3].
EXPERIMENTAL PLAN
Design of OMRCF
In this study a 3-story oce building was considered. The building was assumed to have
3 bays in the E–W direction and 4 bays in the N–S direction. The story height was 3:5 m
and the width of each bay was 5:5 m. The total building height was 10:5 m. Figure 1 shows
the dimensions of the building. Table I shows the design loads used in the building design.
The specied compressive strength of concrete (fc ) and yield strength of reinforcement (fy )
are assumed to be 23:5 MPa (240 kgf =cm2 ) and 392 MPa (4000 kgf =cm2 ), respectively. Struc-
tural analysis for member design was carried out using the commercial software SAP2000
[4]. Only gravity loads were considered for the design in this study. As this study is aimed at
Copyright ? 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685
THREE-STORY ORDINARY MOMENT-RESISTING CONCRETE FRAME 671
550cm
550cm
Test Specimen
183cm 183cm
550cm
All Beams All Columns
25cm x 50cm 33cm x 33cm
550cm
(a) 550cm 550cm 550cm
Slab(15cm) Beam (25cm x 50cm)
350cm
Column (33cm x 33cm)
350cm
350cm
(b) 550cm 550cm 550cm
Figure 1. Plan and elevation of prototype structure: (a) plan; and (b) elevation.
Table I. Design loads.
Category Loads Value (N=m2 )
Dead load Slab and roof 3530

Ceiling 441
Interior partition 981
Electric and water 245
Total slab dead load 5200
Live load 1st, 2nd, and roof 2450
1:4D + 1:7L 11400
517cm
210cm 54cm 254cm
CL
A B C C
2 -D19 3 -D19
2 -D19
A B C C
11-D10 @200mm 13-D10 @200mm 13-D10 @200mm

35cm 15cm
2-D19 3-D19
50cm
D10 D10
2-D19 2-D19 2-D19
25cm
A-A B-B C-C

Figure 2. Rebar layout for beams of prototype structure.
existing structures that were built based on the previous code, ACI 318 (1999) [1], the load
combination of 1.4D + 1.7L was used to design the frame.
The slab was designed using the direct design method according to Section 13.6 of ACI
318 (1999) [1]. Cross-sections of the columns and beams were assumed to be 33 × 33 (cm2 )
and 25 × 50 (cm2 ), respectively. Beam and column details followed the design procedure for
the ordinary moment frame in ACI 318 (1999) [1]. The design result of the beams in the
prototype 3-story frame is given in Figure 2. Columns of the prototype structure are shown
in Figure 3.
Experimental model layout

The prototype frame was reduced to a 1=3-scale model due to experimental space constraints.
The test specimen represented an inner column strip along the E–W direction of the prototype
structure (see Figure 1(a)). The material size used in the 1=3-scale model specimen, such as
maximum size of aggregates and reinforcement, were also reduced. This study attempted to
make the material properties of the reduced-scale model identical to those of the prototype
model. As materials used in a 1=3-scale model specimen are almost similar in strengths and
modulus of elasticity as those of the prototype building, the similitude law of true replica was
applied to reduce the prototype model.
3-D10 @150mm 50cm 3-D10 @150mm
8-D10 @300mm 8-D10 @300mm

300cm
3-D10 @150mm 3-D10 @150mm

3-D10 @150mm 50cm 3-D10 @150mm
8-D10 @300mm 8-D10 @300mm

300cm
3-D10 @150mm 3-D10 @150mm

3-D10 @150mm 50cm 3-D10 @150mm
Y Y Y Y
9-D10 @300mm 9-D10 @300mm
300cm
4-D10 @150mm 18.5cm 4-D10 @150mm
4-D19
D10
33cm
33cm
Figure 3. Rebar layout for columns of prototype structure.
Material properties
For concrete, based on trial mixes from various recipes, a design mix was established for a
28-day target strength of 24 MPa, with a slump of 18 cm, and maximum aggregate size
of 13 mm. Cylinder specimens with a diameter of 10 cm and a height of 20 cm were
cured near the model specimen in the laboratory. The measured strength was 29 MPa at
28 days.
The reinforcing bars used in the prototype building were D10 (10 mm diameter) and D19
(19 mm diameter), with yield strengths (fy ) of 294 MPa and 392 MPa and cross-sectional
rebar areas (Ab ) of 0:713 cm2 and 2:87 cm2 , respectively.
In order to satisfy the similitude law for both yield and ultimate strength of rebar, D19,
which was used for longitudinal reinforcement in the prototype building, was replaced by D6
with a cross-sectional area of 0:316 cm2 and a diameter of 6:35 mm in the 1=3-scale model
specimen. A H3:3 mm wire with a cross-sectional area of 0:086 cm2 and a yield strength of
345 MPa was used in the model specimen for replacing D10 bars for lateral reinforcement in
the prototype frame. Reinforcement for slabs in the model specimen was a 5 cm square wire
mesh composed of H3:2 mm wire with yield strength of 461 MPa.
Mass similitude
For proper modeling of gravity loads, mass similitude must be satised. Given the scale factor
for geometric length as , the scaling factor for material volume becomes 3 . Required and
provided masses of the model are:
1
m = mp ·
mreq
2
1
m = mp ·
mprov
3
where
mreq
m = required mass of the test model
mprov
m = provided mass of the test model
mp = mass of the prototype structure
= scale factor = 3
The provided mass is less than required. To correct this dierence, an additional mass is
required as much as m shown below:

1 1 2
m = mp · − = mp = 2mprovm
2 3 27
Therefore, the additional required mass is twice the mass of the model. To compensate for the
dierence in required and provided gravity loads additional weight was placed on the model
using concrete blocks. These blocks were mounted at the one-sixth point of the span length
of the beam to simulate the shear forces and moments at ends of the beam induced by gravity
loads. Figure 4 shows the test specimen with concrete block arrangements on slabs.
Loading and test set-up

The experimental set-up of the test specimen is shown in Figure 4. A guide frame was placed
on each side of the test specimen to prevent out-of-plane movement and instability of the
specimen. The specimen was subjected to a quasi-static reversed cyclic loading controlled by
drift given in Figure 5. In this gure, the roof drift ratio, Dr , denotes the ratio of the roof
displacement (D3 ) to the height of a structure (H ). Drift loads were applied at the roof by a
hydraulic actuator xed on the reaction wall, and the force induced by this drift at the roof
(F3 ) was measured. Forces F1 and F2 to be applied at the 1st and 2nd oors, respectively,
were calculated from F3 , the measured force, as 1=3 and 2=3 of F3 . The ratios for F1 =F3 and
F2 =F3 were kept constant, (i.e. 1=3 and 2=3, respectively) throughout the test.
Horizontal displacements of the specimen were measured with linear potentiometers placed
at each level. In addition, 12 pairs of potentiometers were installed to measure the average
curvatures at beam and column sections. Potentiometers were located at 1=2 of the beam depth
from the face of the column, and instrumented column sections were located at 1=2 of the
column depth from the face of a beam.
Figure 4. Test set-up of 1=3-scale model specimen.
6%
4%
Roof Drift, Dr
2%
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-2%
-4%
-6%
Number of Cycles
Figure 5. Loading history.
TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS
Cracks and failure mode

The test specimen was observed after each cycle to assess safety concerns. During the obser-
vation after the rst cycle with roof drift ratio of 0.5%, the rst crack was found. Cracks were
found at both ends of all columns and beams in the rst and second story. In the third story,
cracks were observed at the lower ends of all columns and interior beam ends. At a roof drift
ratio of 2.5%, shear cracks were observed at the exterior joint of the rst oor, where the
transverse beam meets the longitudinal beam. At a roof drift ratio of 3.0%, the crack widths
at the upper ends of the rst-story columns became wider, while slight concrete crushing was
observed at the lower ends of the columns in the same story. The test was terminated at a
roof drift ratio of 5.5% where lateral strength deteriorated to 67% of the maximum strength.
Figure 6. Damage patterns in the model.
0.20
Hu =0.157
0.15
0. 8 Hu
0. 75 Hu
Base shear coefficient (V/W)
0.10
0.05
0.00
∆ max
6
-0.05
∆ y ∆ u =0.015
-0.10
-0.15
-0.20
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06
Roof drift ratio(∆/H)
Figure 7. Roof drift ratio and base shear coecient relation.
After testing, the columns in the rst and second story were damaged. Cover concrete was
lost and reinforcements were exposed at the column ends in the rst-story (see Figure 6).
Hysteretic performance
The hysteretic loops (measured base shear force coecient (V=W ) versus roof drift ratio
(=H )) are shown in Figure 7. The hysteresis loops shown in the gure were quite stable.
+ -
Loading Direction
0.2 0.2
-0. 0002 -0 .0002

0.0002 0.0002
0.2 0.2 0.2
2nd story 2nd story
-0.2 Col. Bot. -0 .2 Col. Bot.
0.2 -0. 0002 0.0002 -0 .0002 0.0002 0.2 -0. 0002 0.0002
Beam Beam Beam

lef t- end -0. 2 right - end -0. 2 0.0002 left-end -0. 2
-0. 0002 0.0002 -0.0002
1st story 1st story
Col. Top -0.2 Col. Top -0.2
0.2 0.2
-0. 0002
0.0002 -0 .0002 0.0002
1st story 1st story
-0.2 Col. Bot. -0.2 Col. Bot.
Note that the abscissa is curvature of members (rad/mm) and the ordinate is base shear coefficient.
Figure 8. Base shear force versus curvature measured at discrete locations.
The model behaved almost elastically until ±0:5% roof drift level. As the drift level increased,
the stiness degradation in the loading curves became larger. At the 2nd cycle of a large drift
amplitude (¿1:8%), signicant stiness degradation was observed while strength degradation
was relatively small. Even though the structural damage was severe at the roof-drift ratio
of 5.5%, hysteretic loops were still stable without abrupt degradation of strength or energy-
dissipation capacity.
Figure 8 shows the hysteretic curves (base shear vs curvature) of the beams and columns
at the exterior and interior joints at the 1st oor. In Figure 8, the axis scales are set equal to
facilitate comparisons.
In the exterior joints, damage was distributed to the exterior beam and column. Exterior
columns did not experience as severe inelastic excursion as interior columns, whereas the
exterior beam experienced large inelastic excursion. Considerable cracks were found at the
exterior beam, while the exural cracks at the exterior columns were minor compared with
the interior columns.
Owing to the slab eect, the hysteretic curves at the exterior joints were not symmetric
(see Figure 8). In the negative loading the reinforcement in the slab acted as tensile rein-
forcement, so that the beam moment capacity became larger. The slab contribution to the
beam moment capacity, however, was minor in the positive loading direction. For the pos-
itive loading direction the damage is therefore concentrated in the beams, whereas exterior
columns behaved almost in the elastic range. In the negative loading direction the damage
was distributed among the beams and columns. For the interior joint, the hysteretic curves
of the beams and columns were symmetric. Columns behaved in the inelastic range whereas
beams almost remained in the elastic range.
This phenomenon can be explained by calculating the strength (moment capacity) ratio
between the beams and columns at a joint. At the interior joint, the summation of nominal
moment capacities of the columns was 2 × 2:4 kN · m = 4:8 kN · m, while the summation of
those of the beams was 2 × 3:4 kN · m = 6:8 kN · m, where the slab is disregarded and the
positive moment capacity is used in the calculation for brief explanation. The ratio of the
moment capacities of beams to columns is 1.44, which means the columns are weaker than
the beams (strong beam–weak column). Therefore, when a large earthquake occurs, columns
are more vulnerable than beams at interior joints. At the exterior joint, however, the ratio is
0.72 (3:41=4:73), which is treated as strong column–weak beam.
Maximum base shear force and energy dissipation

The maximum base shear force from the quasi-static test was 0:16W , where W was the total
weight of the model. This shear force was attained at a roof drift ratio (u ) of 0.015 (see
Figure 7). The design base shear for a similar structural layout in seismic zone 2A can be
calculated as the following according to the UBC [3].
Cv I (0:15) · (1:0)
V= W= = 0:10W
RT (3:5) · (0:43)
where Cv is the seismic coecient. For soil type SB and seismic zone 2A, Cv is 0.15. I is
the seismic importance factor; for a standard occupancy structure I is 1.0. R is the response
modication factor; for an OMRCF building R is 3.5. T is the natural period of the building;
for the prototype building T was 0:43 sec based on the UBC [3].
Using the above equation the design base shears for other seismic zones (1, 2B, 3 and 4)
was determined to be 0:05W , 0:13W , 0:20W and 0:27W , respectively. The 3-story OMRCF
designed only for gravity load, therefore, had a base shear strength larger than the design base
shear required for seismic zones 1, 2A and 2B. The prototype structure was designed using
the ACI 318 (1999) code [1] in which the load combination for gravity force is 1.4D + 1.7L.
In the recent revision of ACI 318 (2002) [1], the load combination has changed to 1.2D +
1.6L which results in smaller section dimensions than those of a structure designed with the
previous code. Thus the lateral resistant capacity of those structures could be smaller than
the structures designed with the previous code. As some other provisions, such as maximum
and minimum reinforcement ratio, have also changed in ACI 318 (2002), it requires more
thorough study to conclude the eect of code change on the lateral resistance capacity of
OMRCF.
Yield drift was obtained from a bilinear representation of base shear coecient vs roof drift
ratio curve (Figure 7), where the secant line is drawn from origin to the 0:75Hu point in the
gure. From Figure 7, a yield drift ratio of 0.005 was determined. The maximum drift ratio
(max ) was approximated as the drift ratio corresponding to the strength deteriorated by 20%
of the maximum strength (0:8Hu ). From Figure 7, the maximum drift ratio was determined
to be 0.04.
100
6%
3rd story
Dissipated energy (%) 80 2nd story
40%
1st story
60
40
54%
20
0
1 6 11 16 21
Number of cycles
Figure 9. Cumulative dissipated energy in each cycle.
The energy dissipation is known to be the most eective index for indicating the seismic
energy absorption capacity of a structure. Figure 9 shows the cumulated dissipated energy that
is calculated based on the applied external forces and story displacements. From Figure 9 it is
shown that 54% of the total energy was dissipated at the rst story and 40% was dissipated
at the second story. According to Figure 9 most of the inelastic deformations occurred at the
rst and second stories, while the third story behaved mainly in the elastic range.
Seismic performance evaluation

In this study, the capacity spectrum method (CSM) was used to evaluate the seismic perfor-
mance of the 3-story OMRCF. The capacity spectrum method is a non-linear static procedure
that provides a graphical representation of the global force–displacement capacity curve of
the structure (i.e. pushover) and compares it to the response representations of the earthquake
demands. It is a useful tool in the evaluation and retrot design of existing concrete buildings.
The capacity spectrum method uses the intersection of the capacity (pushover) curve and
a reduced response spectrum to estimate the maximum displacement. Thus, the method needs
to determine the capacity of the structure and the seismic demands. The performance of the
structure is evaluated in view of global response and component response. The response limit
for the given performance goal is specied in ATC-40(1996) [2] and FEMA 273(1997) [5].
The capacity of a structure can be determined from either non-linear analysis or experiment.
As there exist many uncertainties and assumptions in modeling concrete structures for analyt-
ical study, the analysis result could result in signicant error. In this study, the capacity of the
structure was determined from the experimental result of the 3-story OMRCF structure. The
demand spectrum was determined from the ground motion accelerations of 30 earthquakes in
Table II, recorded at the SB , SC and SD soil sites. Ground accelerations having a response
spectrum similar to the design response spectrum were selected. The accelerations were scaled
to conform to the design response spectrum in each seismic zone (1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4) as
classied in the UBC [3].
Table II. Earthquake catalog.

No. Event name Station name Date Comp PGA
(a) Soil Type SB

1 Michoacan Calete De Campo 21=08=85 N90W 0.083
2 Helena Federal Bldg, Helena 31=10=35 EW 0.145
3 Kern County Taft 21=07=52 N21E 0.156
4 Mammoth Lakes Long Valley Dam, Bed Rock 25=05=80 90 0.137
5 Borrego Min SCE Power Plant, San Onofre 08=04=68 N33E 0.041
6 Mammoth Lakes Long Valley Dam 25=05=80 90 0.474
7 San Fernando Cal. Tech. Seism. Lab. 09=02=71 EW 0.192
8 Imperial Valley El Centro 18=05=40 NS 0.318
9 San Fernando Santa Felicia Dam(Outlet) 09=02=71 S08E 0.217
10 Whittier Pacoima-Kagel Canyon 01=10=87 90 0.158
(b) Soil type SC

1 Whittier Narrows Mt. Gleason Ave. 01=10=87 S90W 0.098
2 Whittier Narrows Kagel Canyon Ave. 01=10=87 N45E 0.12
3 Landers N. Figueroa St. 28=06=92 N58E 0.028
4 Landers Mel Canyon Rd 28=06=92 N90E 0.030
5 Landers Willoughby Ave. 28=01=92 S00E 0.024
6 San Fernando Water and Power Building 09=02=71 S40W 0.172
7 San Fernando South Olive Ave. 09=02=71 S37W 0.196
8 Northridge Mel Canyon Rd 17=01=94 S00E 0.026
9 Northridge S. Alta Dr. 17=01=94 N00E 0.074
10 Northridge N. Figueroa St. 17=01=94 N32W 0.158
(c) Soil type SD

1 Landers Colima Rd 01=10=87 S90W 0.046
2 Landers Palma Ave. 01=10=87 N40W 0.045
3 Landers Del Amo Blvd 28=06=92 N58E 0.054
4 Northridge Manhattan Beach Blvd 28=06=92 N90E 0.158
5 Northridge Willoughby Ave. 28=01=92 N90W 0.250
6 Northridge S. Orange Ave. 09=02=71 S40W 0.065
7 Whittier Water St. 09=02=71 N38E 0.111
8 Whittier Colima Rd 17=01=94 S00E 0.197
9 Whittier Sunset Blvd 17=01=94 N00E 0.036
10 San Fernando Via Tejon 17=01=94 N32W 0.025
Capacity spectrum
As the experiment was conducted using a 1=3-scale model, the roof drift–base shear relation-
ship of a full-scale structure should be scaled from the test results shown in Figure 7. FEMA
273 [5] recommends that a smooth ‘backbone’ curve can be drawn through the intersection of
the rst cycle curve for the i-th deformation step with the second cycle curve of the (i − 1)-th
deformation step, for all i steps. In this study, however, note that the capacity curve from the
scaled load–deformation relationship was taken by connecting the plateaus of each cycle, as
shown in Figure 7.
The measured capacity curve needed to be converted into a spectral displacement and
spectral acceleration. This conversion required the dynamic properties of the structure. To
Table III. Modal participation factor and modal mass factor of prototype structure.
W=g (t) 1 (W=g) × 1 (W=g) × 21
Roof 58.3 1.000 58.3 58.3

2nd Story 60.1 0.747 44.9 33.6
1st Story 60.1 0.335 20.1 6.8
178.5 – 123.3 98.7
PFRF 1.25
am 0.86
Where W=g = mass of structure, 1 = 1st mode shape, PFRF = modal participation factor at
roof, and am = eective mass coecient
identify the dynamic properties of the structure, modal analysis was conducted using the
commercial software SAP2000 [4]. Because micro-cracking is present in reinforced concrete
members, the stiness of the members was reduced as specied in the ATC-40 document.
For columns and beams, reduction factors of 0.7 and 0.5 were used, respectively. Also, the
natural period of the specimen was measured using a snap-back test. The 1st modal natural
period of the specimen (1=3-scale model) was measured as 0:32 sec. Since the scale of the
structure is 1=3, the stiness reduces to 1=3. Also, as additional mass was placed√to adjust
the mass to be 1=9 of the original structure, the structural period was reduced to 1= 3 of the
original structure. To convert the period√of the test specimen to that of the prototype model,
the measured period was multiplied by 3, resulting in 0:55 sec, which is 4.3% less than the
period from eigenvalue analysis using SAP2000 [4]. Thus, it was assumed that the analytical
model represented the dynamic property of the test specimen. The modal analysis results, the
corresponding modal participation factors, and the modal mass factors are given in Table III.
The capacity curve was converted using modal analysis and is shown in Figure 10.
Demand spectrum
In this study, the seismic performance of a given structure was evaluated using the design
level and maximum earthquakes of zones 1, 2A, 2B, 3 and 4, as dened in the UBC [3]. The
structure is assumed to be located on soil sites SB , SC and SD . The earthquake accelerations
recorded at each soil site were scaled to make their eective peak acceleration (EPA) close to
the design earthquake (DE) and the maximum considered earthquakes (MCE). The selected
ground acceleration data are given in Table II.
Calculation procedure of performance point

This study adopted the procedure developed by Chopra and Goel [6]. The steps for calculating
the performance point in this study are briey summarized below.
(1) Assume that the performance point is on the capacity curve. Then make bilinear rep-
resentation of the capacity curve, which has the same initial stiness and energy dissi-
pation as that of the original capacity curve (Figure 10(a)).
(2) Generate a response spectra for single-degree-of-freedom system using either eective
damping (ATC-40 [2]) or constant ductility (Chopra and Goel [6]). Calculate the me-
dian and standard deviation values of spectral acceleration and spectral displacement for
0.50
Bilinear representation
Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.40 of capacity curve
α =0.0975, µ =3.367
0.30 Capacity curve measured

from the experiment
0.20
0.10 Assumed performance point

Equal area Sd = 10 cm
0.00 dpi
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(a) SD (cm)
0.50
Seismic demand on SDOF system

0.40 with α =0.0975, µ =3.367
0.30
Calculated performance point
0.20 Sd=7.538 (Err= 24.6%)

Sd = 10 cm
di dpi
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(b) SD (cm)
0.50
Seismic demand on SDOF system

0.40 with α =0.15, µ =3.08
0.30
Calculated performance point
0.20 Sd=8.79 (Err = -3 .38 %)

Sd = 8.5 cm
Bilinear representation α=0.15 ,
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
(c) SD (cm)
Figure 10. Procedures for nding performance point: (a) bilinear representation of capacity spec-
trum and assumed performance point; (b) demand spectrum and calculated performance point; and
(c) nal performance point after iteration.
each period. Then superimpose the capacity curve and demand curve. The intersection
point of the two curves is the calculated performance point (Figure 10(b)).
(3) The performance point lies between the assumed performance point and the tentative
performance point. Follow steps (1) and (2) again.
(4) Repeat steps (1) and (2) until the error between the assumed performance point (dpi )
and tentative performance point (di ) is less than 5%, as shown in Figure 10(c) (i.e.
0:95dpi 6di 61:05dpi ). For each consecutive iteration, take a new assumed performance
point between the last assumed performance point and the calculated performance point.
Table IV. Maximum story drift at performance points (%).

Site Seismic zone
Earthquake condition Zone 1 Zone 2A Zone 2B Zone 3 Zone 4
Design earthquake SB 0.41 0.81 0.95 1.56 1.96

SC 0.50 0.78 1.35 1.76 2.16
SD 0.86 1.56 2.16 3.36 *
Maximum earthquake SB 0.67 1.08 1.56 2.16 2.36

SC 0.66 1.35 1.96 3.96 4.16
SD 1.08 3.16 4.56 * *
Note that the shaded area does not meet the performance criteria in ATC-40.
When the iterations for the performance point converge, the maximum structural dis-
placement expected for the demand earthquake ground motion is thus identied.
Performance evaluation
From the structural capacity and seismic demand, roof drift was calculated using CSM. The
displacements of each story at the performance points were found using the experimental
result. The maximum story drift ratios for each performance point are given in Table IV and
Figure 11.
The ATC-40 document [2] species that the structural displacement should satisfy both
the life-safety limit for design earthquakes, and the structural stability limit for maximum
considered earthquakes. The response limits are dened in view of both global responses and
component responses. The component response criteria are not checked in this study, as the
member forces could not be measured from this experiment. In ATC-40, the global response
limit, the inter-story drift is 0.02 for the life-safety level and 0:33V=P for the structural stability
limit, which is approximately 0.04.
Table IV shows that the OMRCF designed only for gravity loads can sustain the seismic
load of every seismic zone with soil condition SB , of zones 1, 2A, 2B and 3 with soil condition
SC , and of zones 1 and 2A with soil condition SD . As the seismic demand of soil condition
SA is smaller than that of soil condition SB , it can be inferred that the OMRCF designed for
gravity loads also sustain the seismic load of every seismic zone with soil condition SA . The
UBC [3] species that only structures in seismic zone 1 can be designed with OMRCF detail.
CONCLUSIONS
This study investigated the seismic performance of the 3-story OMRCF designed only for
gravity loads and specied by the requirements for OMRCF. The test for this study was
conducted using a 1=3-scale model specimen for the quasi-static cyclic loading. This study
adopted the capacity spectrum method to carry out seismic performance evaluation of this
3-story OMRCF. Because the results of this study were obtained for the case of a 3-story
OMRCF structure that had a regular shape with a response dominated by exural behavior,
Story Drift (DE, Site SB) Story Drift (MCE, Site SB)
3 3
Life safety limit Structural stability limits
2 2
Story
Story
Zone 1 Zone 1
Zone 2A Zone 2A
1 1 Zone 2B
Zone 2B
Zone 3 Zone 3
Zone 4 Zone 4
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
(a) Story drift Story drift
Story Drift (DE, Site SD) Story Drift (MCE, Site SC)
3 3
Life safety limit
Structural stability limits
2 2
Story
Story
Zone 1
Zone 1
Zone 2A
1 1 Zone 2A
Zone 2B
Zone 2B
Zone 3
Zone 3
Zone 4
Zone 4
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
(b) Story drift Story drift
Story Drift (DE, Site SC) Story Drift (MCE, Site SD)
3 3
Life safety limits Structural stability limits
2 2
Story
Story
Zone 1
1 1 Zone 1
Zone 2A
Zone 2B Zone 2A
Zone 3 Zone 2B
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
(c) Story drift Story drift
Figure 11. Global structural responses at performance point against design earthquake (DE)
and maximum credible earthquake (MCE): (a) site condition, SB ; (b) site condition, SC ; and
(c) site condition, SD .
care must be taken when extrapolating the results of this study to other OMRCFs as many
such structures have experienced shear failures during recent earthquakes. The ndings from
this study are as follows.
(1) The OMRCF structure showed a stable energy dissipation capacity without abrupt
strength deterioration, even though the structure was designed for gravity loads only
and specied for the requirements of OMRCF.
(2) At the nal loading stage, interior columns in the 1st story were severely damaged,
while beams had not experienced any apparent damage. At the exterior joints of the 1st
story, damage was distributed to exterior columns and beams. This shows that interior
joints have the mechanisms of a weak column–strong beam, whereas exterior joints
have that of a strong column–weak beam in the investigated OMRCF. This could be
referred to as a hybrid failure mechanism.
(3) The maximum lateral strength of the frame was 0:16W , which occurred at a roof drift
ratio of 0.015. The expected base shears of the building designed with the UBC [3]
and ACI 318(1999) [1] for seismic zones 1, 2A and 2B for soil type SB were 0:05W ,
0:10W and 0:13W , respectively. Thus the OMRCF designed only for gravity loads had
a base shear strength larger than the unfactored base shear strength required in seismic
zones 1, 2A and 2B.
(4) The yield roof drift ratio of the test model was 0.005. The maximum roof drift ratio
was 0.04, which was obtained at a strength deteriorated up to 80% of the maximum
lateral strength.
(5) From the results of the capacity spectrum method, it was shown that the OMRCF
designed only for gravity loads could therefore sustain the seismic load of every seismic
zone with soil condition SA and SB , zones 1, 2A, 2B and 3 with soil condition SC ,
and zones 1 and 2A with soil condition SD . Note that the results were obtained using
a 3-story regular OMRCF structure that was governed mainly by exure. Thus, caution
is needed when trying to extrapolate the results to other OMRCF structures.
REFERENCES
1. American Concrete Institute. Building code requirements for reinforced concrete, ACI 318-99,02, Detroit,
Michigan, 1999 and 2002.
2. Applied Technology Council. ATC-40: Seismic Evaluation and Retrot of Concrete Buildings, vols. 1 and 2,
California Seismic Safety Commission, No. SSC 96-01, Nov. 1996.
3. International Conference on Building Ocials, Uniform Building Code (UBC), Whittier, California, 1997.
4. Computers and Structures Inc., SAP2000, Berkeley, California, 1997.
5. Building Seismic Safety Council, NEHRP Guidelines for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings (FEMA
Publication 273), 1997 Edition, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
6. Chopra AK, Goel RK. Capacity-Demand-Diagram Methods for Estimating Seismic Deformation of Inelastic
Structures: SDF Systems, Report No. PEER-1999=02, Pacic Earthquake Engineering Research Center,
University of California, Berkeley, 1999.

9 Evaluation of The Seismic Performance of A 3story Ordinary Moment Resisting Concrete Frame

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

9 Evaluation of The Seismic Performance of A 3story Ordinary Moment Resisting Concrete Frame

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS

Earthquake Engng Struct. Dyn. 2004; 33:669–685 (DOI: 10.1002/eqe.367)

Evaluation of the seismic performance of a three-story

Sang Whan Han1; ∗; † , Oh-Sung Kwon2 and Li-Hyung Lee1

Slab(15cm) Beam (25cm x 50cm)

(b) 550cm 550cm 550cm

Table I. Design loads.

Category Loads Value (N=m2 )

Dead load Slab and roof 3530

11-D10 @200mm 13-D10 @200mm 13-D10 @200mm

A-A B-B C-C

Experimental model layout

3-D10 @150mm 50cm 3-D10 @150mm

8-D10 @300mm 8-D10 @300mm

3-D10 @150mm 3-D10 @150mm

8-D10 @300mm 8-D10 @300mm

3-D10 @150mm 3-D10 @150mm

4-D10 @150mm 18.5cm 4-D10 @150mm

Figure 3. Rebar layout for columns of prototype structure.

mp = mass of the prototype structure

Loading and test set-up

Figure 4. Test set-up of 1=3-scale model specimen.

Figure 5. Loading history.

TEST RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

Cracks and failure mode

Figure 6. Damage patterns in the model.

Figure 7. Roof drift ratio and base shear coecient relation.

-0. 0002 -0 .0002

Beam Beam Beam

Figure 8. Base shear force versus curvature measured at discrete locations.

Maximum base shear force and energy dissipation

Figure 9. Cumulative dissipated energy in each cycle.

Seismic performance evaluation

Table II. Earthquake catalog.

(a) Soil Type SB

(b) Soil type SC

(c) Soil type SD

W=g (t) 1 (W=g) × 1 (W=g) × 21

Roof 58.3 1.000 58.3 58.3

Calculation procedure of performance point

Spectral Acceleration (g)

0.30 Capacity curve measured

0.10 Assumed performance point

Seismic demand on SDOF system

0.10 Assumed performance point

Seismic demand on SDOF system

0.10 Assumed performance point

Table IV. Maximum story drift at performance points (%).

Design earthquake SB 0.41 0.81 0.95 1.56 1.96

Maximum earthquake SB 0.67 1.08 1.56 2.16 2.36

S-ar putea să vă placă și

W=g (t) 1 (W=g) × 1 (W=g) × 21