Investigating the behavior factor of the intermediate and special RC moment resisting frame with considering the effect of variable axial load and shear

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
M. Asadi kiadehi
H. Bengar
J. hayanfar
University of Mazandaran
Abstract
Today, most seismic design codes reduce the lateral elastic force by the behavior factor to design structures, so that by designing a structure based on elastic analysis, the effects of non-elastic behavior of the structure are applied. To obtain a behavior factor of structures, a nonlinear analysis is necessary. Research has shown that the nonlinear behavior of RC members depends on factors such as the effect of varying axial load, the effect of shear failure of the members and the effect of the buckling of the longitudinal bars. It is now generally accepted that axial load plays a dominant role in evaluating the seismic behavior of reinforced concrete columns. However columns, especially the exterior ones, can be subjected to varying axial loads depending on the lateral loads. Also the effects of shear on beams and columns are usually neglected in nonlinear analysis, which is carried out based on the flexural behavior of each element. In this research, the behavior factor of 2, 4, and 8 story reinforced concrete frames with intermediate and special ductility based on the proposed nonlinear analysis is considered. Initially, for verification, the proposed nonlinear analysis model was compared with existing experimental models. The verification results show that the proposed model has a very high accuracy. Designing and detailing of the 2, 4 and 8 story reinforced concrete structures are on the basis of the regulation of the Standard 2800 and the National building regulation chapter 9. In order to obtain the behavior of the 2, 4, and 8 story reinforced concrete frames, the effect of varying axial load, shear failure of the members and the buckling of the longitudinal bars are considered in nonlinear analysis. The behavior factor is mostly effected by ductility factor and over strength factor. The ductility factor has dependence with ductility of the reinforced concrete frames. To obtain ductility of reinforced concrete frames, ultimate deformation is needed. To calculate the frames' behavior factor, various criteria are used to calculate the ultimate deformation of frames. One of the criteria is the deformation correspond to the 0.75 percent of ultimate rotation in critical structure member. The other criteria is the deformation correspond to ultimate rotation of critical structure member. The results of the study and comparison of the obtained behavior factor with the proposed behavior factor of the reinforced concrete structures of Standard 2800 with intermediate and special ductility have shown that the calculated behavior factor for 2, 4 and 8 story reinforced concrete frames is bigger than the behavior factor in Standard 2800. Also the results indicate that the calculated behavior factor with the ultimate deformation correspond to the 75 percent of ultimate rotation in critical structure member is close to the proposed value of Standard 2800. In intermediate reinforced concrete frames, the amount of ductility factor and over strength factor decreased when the height of the reinforced concrete frames raised, which is not seen in concrete frames with special ductility.

Keywords

Subjects

1- ACI Committee 318. (1995). Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318). American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.
2- CSA. (2004). Design of concrete structures. CSA standard A23.3. Canadian Standards Association, Mississauga, Ont.
3- The national building regulation chapter 9, design and implementation of reinforced concrete buildings, edition 4, ministry of road and city planning, deputing of house and building, 1392 (in Persian).
4- Building and housing center, regulations for designing buildings against earthquake (Standard 2800), edition 4, publication number z-253, Tehran, 1392 (in Persian).
5- N.M. Newmark, W.J. Hall. (1982). Earthquake spectra and design. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California, USA.
6- A.A. Nassar, H. Krawinkler. (1991). Seismic demands for SDOF and MDOF systems. John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Department of Civil Engineering, Stanford University, California, USA.
7- T. Vidic, P. Fajfar, M. Fischinger. (1994). Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthq Eng Struct D 23(5) 507-521.
8- P. Fajfar. (2002). Structural analysis in earthquake engineering-a breakthrough of simplified non-linear methods, 12th European conference on earthquake engineering, London, England.
9- Kreger ME, Linbeck L. (1986). Behaviour of RC columns subjected to lateral and axial load reversals. In: Proceedings of the third national conference on earthquake engineering, Charleston, South Carolina, USA, vol 2, pp 1475–1486
10- Abrams DP. (1987). Influence of axial force variations of flexural behavior of reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct J 84(3):246–254
11- Li KN, Aoyama H, Otani S. (1988). Reinforced concrete columns under varying axial load and bi-directional lateral load reversals. In: Proceedings of ninth world conference on earthquake engineering, TokyoKyoto, Japan, vol 8, pp 537–542
12- Ousalem H, Kabeyasawa T, Tasai A, Ohsugi Y. (2002). Experimental study on seismic behavior of reinforced concrete columns under constant and variable axial loadings. In: Proceedings of the annual conference of Japan concrete institute, Tsukuba, Japan, vol 24, no 2, pp 229–234
13- Sezen H. (2002). Seismic behavior and modeling of reinforced concrete building columns. Ph.D., dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, Berkley, CA
14- J. Shayanfar, H. Akbarzadeh Bengar. (2016). Nonlinear analysis of RC frames considering shear behaviour of members under varying axial load. Bull Erthquake Eng. DOI 10.1007/s10518-016-0060-z
15- Aschheim M, Moehle JP. (1992). Shear Strength and Deformability of RC Bridge Columns Subjected to Inelastic Cyclic Displacements. Rep. No. UCB/EERC-92/ 04, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA
16- Wong YL, Paulay T, Priestley MJN. (1993). Response of circular reinforced concrete beams to multi-directional seismic attack. ACI Struct J 90(2):180–191
17- Ho JCM, Pam HJ. (2003). Inelastic design of low-axially loaded high-strength reinforced concrete columns. Eng Struct 25(8):1083–1096
18- Lee J-Y, Watanabe F. (2003). Predicting the longitudinal axial strain in the plastic hinge regions of reinforced concrete beams subjected to reversed cyclic loading. Eng Struct 25(7):927–939
19- Moretti M, Tassios TP. (2007). Behaviour of short columns subjected to cyclic shear displacements: experimental results. Eng Struct 29(8):2018–2029
20- Applied Technology Council (ATC 32). (1996). Improved seismic design criteria for California bridges: provisional recommendations. Redwood City, CA
21- Park H, Choi K, Wight JK. (2006). Strain-based shear strength model for slender beams without web reinforcement. ACI Struct J 103(6):783–793
22- Berry MP, Eberhard MO. (2005). Practical performance model for bar buckling. J Struct Eng 131(7):1060–1070
23- Mondal A, Ghosh S, Reddy G.R. (2013). Performance-based evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames. Engineering Structure, 56(2013):1808–1819.
24- Whittaker A, Hart G, Rojahn C. (1999). Seismic response modification factors. J Struct Eng, ASCE; 125(4):438–44.
25- Borzi B, Elnashai AS. (2000). Refined force reduction factors for seismic design. Eng Struct ;22(10):1244–60.
26- Krawinkler H, Nassar A. (1992). Seismic design based on ductility and cumulative damage demands and capacities. In: Nonlinear seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, New York, USA; p. 27–47.
27- Vidic T, Fajfar P, Fischinger M. (1992). A procedure for determining consistent inelastic design spectra. In: Nonlinear seismic analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, New York, USA.
28- Riddell R, Newmark N. (1979). Statistical analysis of the response of nonlinear systems subjected to earthquakes. Structural research series no. 468; Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois; Urbana, USA.
29- CEN Eurocode 8. (2004). Design Provisions for earthquake resistance of structures. Brussels (Belgium): Comité Européen de Normalisation.
30- ASCE SEI/ASCE 7-05. (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston (USA): American Society of Civil Engineers.
31- Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R. (1998). Observed stress–strain behavior of confined concrete. J Struct Div ASCE, 114(8):1827–49.
32- Priestley MJN, Seible F, Calvi GMS. (1996). Seismic design and retrofit of bridges. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
33- Paulay T, Priestley MJN. (1998). Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. New York: John Willy publications; 1992.
34- Park H, Choi K, Wight JK. (2006). Strain-based shear strength model for slender beams without web reinforcement. ACI Struct J 103(6):783–793
35- Chen WF. (1982). Plasticity in reinforced concrete. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 474
36- MacGregor JG, Sozen MA, Siess CP. (1960). Strength and behavior of prestressed concrete beams with web reinforcement. University of Illinois Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series 210, Urbana
37- Germano, F., Plizzari, G. A., & Tiberti, G. (2013, March). Experimental study on the behavior of SFRC columns under seismic loads. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on fracture mechanics of concrete and concrete structures (pp. 1-12).
38- Duong, K. V., Sheikh, S. A, Vecchio, F. J. (2007). Seismic Behaviour of Shear-Critical Reinforced Concrete Frame: Experimental Investigation. ACI Structural Journal, V.104, No.3, May-June, pp 304-313.
39- Vecchio, F. J. and Emara, M.B. (1992). Shear Deformations in Reinforced Concrete Frames. ACI Structural Journal, V.89, No.1, pp 46-56.
40- FEMA. (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA-356). Washington (USA): Federal Emergency Management Agency..
41- Park R (1988). Ductility Evaluation from Laboratory and Analytical Testing. Proceedings of
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 19, Issue 1
May and June 2019
Pages 15-25