www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
Abstract
With the identification of criteria of performance-based seismic design, the need to focus on estimations of displacement capacities
of ductile system emerges. This involves redefinitions of some properties of reinforced concrete structures. A system comprising
components with very different characteristics, a coupled wall structure, is used to demonstrate how displacement and ductility
capacities, satisfying specific performance criteria, can be predicted simply, even before the required seismic strength of the system
is established. An attractive feature of this approach is that the strengths of components, which contribute to the required seismic
strength of the system, may be freely chosen. The astute designer may advantageously exploit this freedom. 2002 Elsevier Science
Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Displacements; Coupling beams; Ductility; Stiffness; Strength
1. Introduction
The prediction of displacement demands imposed on
structures by earthquake motions has been one of the
important issues, challenging the earthquake engineering
research community. Relatively few studies addressed
explicitly the displacement capacity of reinforced concrete ductile structures. A rational evaluation of displacement capacities, associated with both elastic and postelastic response, satisfying specific performance criteria,
should enable acceptable seismic displacement demands,
relevant to local seismic scenarios, to be more convincingly established.
To allow displacement capacities to be realistically
estimated, some traditional definitions of structural
properties, particularly those applicable to homogeneous
materials, need to be redefined. Relevant principles are
presented first. Subsequently applications are illustrated
using a coupled wall example structure. It is postulated
that the displacement capacity of such a system should
be controlled by that of its component with the smallest
displacement capacity. Therefore, instead of commonly
specified or judgement-based global displacement ductility factors, the deliberate evaluation of these for each
0141-0296/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 4 1 - 0 2 9 6 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 5 0 - 0
1166
Nomenclature
Ae
Asd
Awe
Awm
Awi
db
Db
Dwi
Ec
fy
h
he
hm
Ie
Ig
l
lp
ki
M
Mni
Mo
Myi
M1,M2
s
T
Vb
Vnb
Vni
a
b
dp
du
dy
ey
h
qb
qby
qw
qwy
mb
mw
m
x
fby
fyi
fwyi
a
by
c
e
T
p
u
y
yi
1167
(1)
(2)
quantifies the degree of coupling. Figs 1(b) and (c) illustrate examples of relatively high and low degrees of
coupling. This ratio has been the subject of differing
views in the relevant literature [8]. Some studies suggested [12] that there is an optimal value for , which
promises favourable dynamic seismic response. Others
held the view that large lateral force-induced axial
forces, T, would be difficult for the foundations to
absorb. However, it is not likely that separate foundations for each coupled wall, i.e., a foundation structure
different from that required for a cantilever wall, shown
1168
(3)
(4)
Fig. 3.
proportional to curvatures, the relative value of the nominal yield displacement of a wall is
yifyih2meyAwmhm
(5)
(6)
1169
(7)
1170
(8)
(9)
1171
(12)
0.189 / h
The corresponding transverse beam displacement is
by fbys2 / 6 (0.189 / h)(0.045h)2 / 6
(13a)
0.064 103h
However, due to steel strain penetrations at the beam bar
anchorages, particularly after a few elastic displacement
reversals, additional beam displacements must be
expected. It is assumed that this anchorage deformation,
a, is in the order of yield strain over 8 times the diameter, db, of bars in tension [7].
In the example structure db0.55 103h, and
hence a
8 0.002 0.55 103h 9 106h. The corresponding beam deflection is
by (s / Db) a
(0.045 / 0.018)9 106h
(13b)
(10)
The slope of the walls, i.e. the drift in the 8th storey, is
qwy fwyihe / 2 (0.023 / h)(0.57h) / 2
(11)
0.0066 rad
These are two important quantities which enable dis-
1172
0.023 103h
Therefore, the nominal yield chord rotation of a conventionally reinforced coupling beam will be of the order of
qby by / s
(14)
qby
(15)
(16a)
(16b)
0.112 103h
The shortening of the diagonal compression chord,
C, depends on the ratio of diagonal reinforcement used.
An approximation, acceptable for seismic design purposes and in agreement with observed magnitudes [18],
results in C 0.3T.
The relative vertical displacement at the ends of the
this beam is
by 1.3T / (2sin a)
(17b)
(17a)
(17c)
0.00524 rad
If there is any effective horizontal reinforcement present,
for example in a flange formed by a floor slab (Fig. 6(a)),
the flexural resistance of the coupling beam will correspondingly increase at one end only. The contribution
of such reinforcement, subjected to tension only, can be
readily determined [7]. Strength enhancement will however, diminish during hysteretic response of the beam.
Such horizontal reinforcement will increase beam
strength only when the imposed ductility demand is
larger than any previously imposed one. The participation in strength development of such bars is similar to
those placed in tension flanges of beams in frames.
In some experimental studies [20] it has been found
that, when the elongation of coupling beam test specimens is prevented during cyclic and reversing loading
by artificial restrainers, other forms of diagonal
reinforcement are likely to result in better ductile
response. In real structures full restraint of beam elongations does not exist. Moreover, in axially restrained
beams, the contribution of shear forces by means of a
diagonal concrete compression field is significant. Under
reversing inelastic displacements the deterioration of the
compressed concrete eventually leads to drastic loss of
beam resistance. As the model in Fig. 6(b) suggests, in
the elastic range of response, diagonal forces associated
with shear transfer can be sustained predominantly, and
in many cases entirely, by the reinforcement without any
reliance on concrete compression strength.
4.5. Relationships between beam and wall
deformations
In this section the estimated displacements of the
walls and the critical pair of coupling beams, associated
with 3 distinct limit states, are compared. These states
refer to (i) the elastic limit of wall response, (ii) acceptable maximum storey drift and (iii) the displacement
ductility capacity of the walls.
4.5.1. At the attainment of the nominal yield
displacement of walls
Eq. (11) estimated the maximum wall rotation, i.e. storey drift, associated with the nominal yield curvature at
the wall base. The relationship between traditionally
evaluated [7] rotations of two identical rectangular walls,
based on EcIe, and the coupling beam chord rotations
1173
(18)
(19)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
1174
(24)
(25)
0.0071h
implying a displacement ductility demand on the walls
of
mw u / y1 7.1 / 2.5 2.8
(26)
(27)
realistic displacement estimates, for a single mass system, may well replace popular pushover analyses techniques.
As the data in Fig. 3 suggest, displacements during
the first elastic response of the structure can be predicted
by bilinear modeling only if strength demands on the
walls do not exceed approximately 80% of their nominal
strength. Under the same circumstances the onset of
yielding in some coupling beams can be expected at less
than 50% of the nominal strength of the structure.
The choice of the contribution to the total flexural
strength of the system by the coupling beams, that is,
the lT component seen in Fig. 1(c), determines the height
at which the maximum storey drift can be expected. If
the lT / Mo ratio would have been chosen 0.75, instead of
0.56, the maximum drift should have been expected in
the 5 storey, i.e., at he 0.38h. The corresponding
moments to be resisted by the walls are shown in Fig. 4
by the dashed stepped lines. This choice, requiring 34%
increase of beam strengths, would have led to 33%
reduction of the critical nominal yield drift. The inelastic
contribution of the walls at the 1.5% drift limit,
expressed in terms of their displacement ductility, mw,
would have increased from 2.8 to 4.3. This alternative
illustrates how more efficient utilization of energy dissipation and hysteretic damping could be achieved by
deliberate increase of the contribution of the coupling
system to the resistance of overturning moments.
It is re-emphasized that, as eq. (5) has shown, displacement limitations are strongly influenced by the
yield strength of the reinforcement used. For example if
steel with 25% larger strength, i.e. ey 0.0025, was
to be used, nominal yield displacements would correspondingly increase. At a drift limit of 1.5% the ductility
demand on the walls would reduce from 2.8 to 2.2. In
current force-based seismic design methods [21], the
corresponding design base shear for the system would
be increased, negating partly the economic advantages
which the use of higher strength steel would offer.
1175
5. Concluding remarks
References
Acknowledgements
The contribution of Rolando Castillo to some of the
data presented, using moment-curvature analyses, is
gratefully acknowledged.