Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Figure 2: frame labeling numbers
Figure 3: Steel reinforcement percentages in design under combination U1
SEISMIC-RESISTANT DESIGN
Earthquake-induced inertia forces depend on the response characteristics of the structure and
the intensity of ground motion at the site. The latter depends primarily on three factors: the
distance between the source and the site, the magnitude of the earthquake, and the type of soil
at the site. Different individual structures shaken by the same earthquake respond differently.
One important characteristic is the fundamental period of vibration of the structure. Shape or
configuration is another important characteristic that affects structure response.
It is generally uneconomical and unnecessary to design a structure to respond in the elastic
range to the maximum earthquake-induced inertia forces. Thus, the design seismic horizontal
forces prescribed in the seismic codes (UBC 97[13], IBC 2003[14], ASCE-7[15], SBC
301[16]), are generally less than the elastic response inertia forces induced by the design
earthquake. Acceptable performance can be achieved by structures elastically designed for
reduced forces, if suitable structural systems are selected, and structures are detailed with
appropriate levels of ductility, regularity, and continuity. Accordingly, structural systems are
expected to undergo fairly large deformations, allowing inelastic energy dissipation, when
subjected to a major earthquake. Some structural and nonstructural damage can be expected
due to large deformations. Therefore, seismic provisions regulate both strength and lateral
drift.
In this paper, base shear was computed and distributed vertically in accordance with UBC97
seismic provisions, assuming Ca =Cv =0.2 (Zone 2B soil S
B
). The total base shear computed
was modified slightly (V =428.1 kN) in order to permit comparison with one of the critical
pushover cases.
Table 1: Summary of un-factored loads on the frame
LoadCase Global
FX,kN
Global
FY,kN
Global
FZ,kN
DEAD 0 0 5218.848
Live 0 0 850.56
Ex 428.1 0 0
Following the same provisions, there are a number of load combinations that need to be
considered. However, for the sake of this study, the frame was designed under one load
combination only (termed seismic 1), namely: U2 =1.1( 1.2 D +1 L+1 E).
Based on the above load combination, the RC frame was designed where the longitudinal
reinforcement ratios are presented in Figure 4. The reinforcement from U1 and U2
combinations are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 for columns and beams, respectively. The
positive percentage of change indicates the deficiency in a member if subjected to seismic
loading under U2 combination. The findings from this procedure can be summarized as:
1. Twelve columns out of the sixteen columns require additional reinforcement. Six of
them need more than one-hundred percent increase, indicating their deficiency under
U2. Column 26 exhibits the highest increase, where the original reinforcement under
gravity amounts to only 1500 mm
2
, and becomes 6060 mm
2
, under U2 and thus would
require strengthening if the frame is part of an existing building. It should be pointed
out that negative percentage of change should not be interpreted as a need for
decreasing reinforcement.
2. Four beams out of the sixteen beams require additional top reinforcement exceeding
one-hundred percent, at their right end. Other beams show modest increase. Beam 21
exhibits the highest increase, where the original top reinforcement under gravity
amounts to only 351 mm
2
, and becomes 998 mm
2
, under U2 and thus would require
strengthening if the frame is part of an existing building.
3. Overall, columns in this case study need more strengthening than beams.
Figure 4: code design under seismic 1 (U2) only
l
o
a
d
,
k
N
ColumnMoment,kNm
P_hinge P_a
l
o
a
d
,
k
N
ColumnMoment,kNm
P_hinge P_n P_a