0 Suka0 Tidak suka

36 tayangan11 halamanTom Paulay
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.

Apr 20, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT atau baca online dari Scribd

Tom Paulay
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.

© All Rights Reserved

36 tayangan

Tom Paulay
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.

© All Rights Reserved

- A Tale for the Time Being
- Fault Lines
- Soul Harvest: The World Takes Sides
- The Sea Glass Sisters: Prelude to The Prayer Box
- Krakatoa: The Day the World Exploded: August 27, 1883
- Krakatoa
- The Trembling Hills
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- Pacific: Silicon Chips and Surfboards, Coral Reefs and Atom Bombs, Brutal Dictators, Fading Empires, and the Coming Collision of the World's Superpowers
- The Gifted: A New Edition of Terri Blackstock's Classic Tale
- 1177 B.C.: The Year Civilization Collapsed
- Aftershock
- Rogue Wave
- Judgment of Paris: California vs. France and the Historic 1976 Paris Tasting That Revolutionized Wine
- Earthquake-Resistant Structures: Design, Build, and Retrofit
- Industrial Power Engineering Handbook
- In My Sister's House: A Novel
- The Hatching: A Novel
- Ghosts of the Tsunami: Death and Life in Japan's Disaster Zone
- Cataclysm

Anda di halaman 1dari 11

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Tom Paulay

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand

Received 20 December 2001; received in revised form 8 January 2002; accepted 8 April 2002

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

E-mail address: t.paulay@civil.canterbury.ac.nz (T. Paulay).

on the hierarchy of the displacement ductility capacities

of constituent components.

The procedure is claimed to be rational, realistic and

simple. It is design oriented. Redefined properties of

components, as constructed, may then be used, to analyze, if necessary, a structural system comprising

components with different characteristics but known

strengths.

In this presentation abstract definitions of quantities

are, in general, immediately followed by their numerical

evaluations relevant to a particular example structure.

2. The traditional treatment of coupled walls

Some 50 years ago the analysis of elastic coupled

walls structures was a challenging topic for researchers

in several countries. With the arrival of computer technology this pioneering work, based on innovative modeling [16], has become also accessible to the structural

design profession. Even though during significant seismic events, reinforced concrete structures are expected

to perform in the inelastic domain, the assignment to

components of lateral design strength is still widely

based on elastic structural response. However, in recognition of ductile behaviour, within specified limits, a

redistribution between components of internal design

actions, so derived, has been considered acceptable [7].

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

area of diagonal reinforcement in one direction

aspect ratio of a wall in terms of he

aspect ratio of a wall in terms of hm

aspect ratio of a wall based on its full height

diameter of a bar

overall depth of a beam

length (overall depth) of a wall

modulus of elasticity of concrete

yield strength of reinforcing steel

total height of structure

height where maximum storey drift occurs

height above base of center of accelerated mass

second moment of effective area of cracked reinforced concrete section

second moment of an area of gross concrete section

internal lever arm of coupling system

length of equivalent plastic hinge

stiffness of component

overturning moment at a level

nominal flexural strength of a section

overturning moment at the base of the structure

flexural yield strength of a section

moments assigned to components (1) and (2)

clear span of coupling beam

lateral force-induced axial load on coupled walls

total base shear for the structure

nominal shear capacity of coupling beam

nominal strength of a wall component in terms of its base shear

inclination of diagonal reinforcement

a moment ratio

post-yield storey drift

maximum acceptable storey drift

storey drift at the nominal yield displacement of a wall

yield strain of reinforcing steel

coefficient relevant to nominal yield curvature

beam chord rotation

chord rotation of beam associated with nominal yield curvature

wall slope (storey drift)

wall slope associate with nominal yield curvature

displacement ductility imposed on a beam

displacement ductility relevant to a wall

system displacement ductility

coefficient defining the position of the neutral axis relative to the tension edge

nominal yield curvature in a beam

nominal yield curvature at the critical section

nominal yield curvature of a wall section

anchorage deformation

nominal yield displacement of coupling beam

diagonal shortening of coupling beam

lateral displacement of elastic elements

elongation of diagonal bars in tension

post-yield displacement

maximum limit displacement

nominal yield displacement of a ductile system

nominal yield displacement of a wall component

1167

simply cantilever structures, is often overlooked. As Fig.

1 shows, only the mode of the resistance to lateral forcegenerated overturning moments is different in coupled

walls. The well established equilibrium requirement is

Mo M1 M2 lT

(1)

in Fig. 1(c). The axial force at any level, T, results from

the summation of the shear forces transferred by coupling beams above that level. The distance between the

centroidal axes of the two walls is usually taken as the

lever arm, l, on which the axial forces, T, operate. These

3 moment contributions are traditionally assigned proportionally to component stiffness. The latter are based

on flexural rigidities, EcIe, of prismatic components,

where Ec is the modulus of elasticity of the concrete and

Ie is the second moment of effective area of the cracked

reinforced concrete section. This is usually expressed in

terms of a fraction of the second moment of the gross

concrete sectional area, Ig. Values of Ie/Ig, recommended

in some codes or used in publications [7,8] or design

practice, vary in a wide range of 0.2 to 1.0. While the

allocation of design strength to various components is

not sensitive to such assumptions, predicted displacements of elastic coupled walls may involve errors of the

order of several hundred percent. A particular disadvantage of the use in seismic design of crudely estimated

values of Ie, is the inability to predict realistic values of

yield deformations of both components and the system.

Fig. 2(a), showing 3 interconnected rectangular cantilever walls, is used to summarize the force-displacement

relationship based on traditional bi-linear modeling. The

relative lengths, Dwi, of the rectangular walls with identical thickness are 1.00, 1.59 and 2.00, respectively.

Consequently the relative flexural rigidities of the wall

sections, EcIe, being proportional to D3wi, are 1, 4 and 8.

assigned in the same proportions. These stiffness-proportional strengths, associated with a given displacement, e, are shown in Fig. 2(b). It is then commonly

assumed that, having developed these strengths, components will simultaneously enter the inelastic domain of

response. This fallacy [9], relevant to ductile behaviour

shown in Fig. 2(b), is discussed in the next section.

Assumptions with respect to the stiffness of coupling

beams were considered [1,8,10,11] to affect both the

intensity and the variation with building height of the

shear forces generated in coupling beams. With minor

modifications [7,10,11] stiffness-dependent strengths

have been routinely adopted in conventional seismic

design. The ratio

lT / Mo b

walls.

(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

the use of squat coupling beams, if possible, was advocated in New Zealand design practice [7,11]. It was perceived that for ductile systems, a high degree of coupling

could be an efficient and in many cases the major source

of energy dissipation and hence hysteretic damping. For

example a relevant code [10] specifies system displacement ductility capacities, m , in the range of 6m5

for values of 2 / 3b1 / 3. A value of m 5 was considered [10] applicable to appropriately detailed ductile

cantilever walls.

wall systems

Bi-linear modeling of force displacement relationships

for reinforced concrete components or systems, is generally accepted as being adequate for purposes of seismic

design. Implications of a more realistic use of this simple

technique, studied recently [9,1315], are briefly summarized here. Fig. 2 is used to complement this review.

3.1. Nominal yield curvature

Using first principles, it has been shown [13] that the

nominal yield curvature at the critical section of a

reinforced concrete wall component i, associated with its

nominal flexural strength, Mni, can be very satisfactorily

approximated by

fyi hey / Dwi

(3)

steel used and the length (depth) of the wall, respectively. The coefficient h quantifies the combined effects

of the ratio of the nominal to yield flexural strength,

Mni/Myi, and the distance, xDwi, of the neutral axis of the

section from the extreme tension fiber, thus

h (Mni / Myi) / x

(4)

3. It has been found [15,16] that the ratio of flexural

reinforcement and the intensity of axial compression

loads, usually encountered to act on walls of multistorey

buildings, are responsible for only negligible variations

in eq. (4). When axial forces are significantly larger or

smaller than those anticipated to act on cantilever walls,

as in the case of coupled walls, acceptable estimates of

the corresponding changes of the relevant parameters,

listed in Fig. 3, can be readily made. Important features

of nominal yield curvature to be noted are, that it is

inversely proportional to wall length, Dwi, and that, contrary to traditional usage, for design purposes, it is independent of strength.

Fig. 3.

With the assumption that neutral axes at all levels of

a wall are located approximately as at the critical base

section, for a given pattern of moments, the displacement

at any level can be readily obtained. The assumption

implies that the extent of cracking over the height of the

walls is similar and that shear and anchorage deformations are neglected. When warranted, these additional

sources of displacements may, however, be included.

Under repeated reversing lateral displacements, effects

of tension stiffening may also be considered negligible.

Of particular interest are displacements of walls at

specific levels, such as that of the center of horizontally

accelerated mass, hm, associated with the nominal yield

curvature at the base of a wall. This, when combined

with the nominal strength of a wall, expressed in terms

of the base shear or moment sustained, enables component stiffness to be defined. Because displacements are

proportional to curvatures, the relative value of the nominal yield displacement of a wall is

yifyih2meyAwmhm

(5)

wall. Eq. (5) emphasizes the 3 important parameters to

be considered when attempting to estimate wall displacements.

3.3. Assignment of lateral strength

Because, as eq. (5) demonstrates, the nominal yield

displacement is independent of strength, in contrast with

traditional usage, the latter can be assigned arbitrarily to

interacting components of a wall system. This freedom

in the choice of component contributions to total

required strength can be advantageously exploited by the

astute designer. Of course equilibrium requirements

must not be violated. With the knowledge of the nominal

strength of a component, Vni, its stiffness is uniquely

defined as

ki Vni / yi

(6)

1169

may occur.

Fig. 2(d) illustrates similar relationships when component strengths were chosen arbitrarily. In this example

wall strengths were made proportional to D2wi rather than

D3wi, used in the previous examples. The appeal of this

choice is that it results in approximately identical

reinforcement ratios in all walls. A slight reduction of

system stiffness leads to a correspondingly small

increase of the nominal yield displacement of the system. The examples used demonstrate also the relationship between the displacement ductility capacities of the

components and that of the system [9,13,15]. In this

example it was assumed that adequately detailed walls

have a displacement ductility capacity of 4. Wall (3)

being critical (y3 0.5), the seismic displacement

demand on the ductile system must be limited to

max 4 0.5 2.0 displacement units. This corresponds to system displacement ductility capacities of

m 2.0 / 0.5573.6 or m 2.0 / 0.5783.5, respectively. In existing strength-based seismic design procedures these values will control the required design

strength of the system.

4. A 12 storey service core

The application of the above principles, controlling

the compatibility of the yield displacements of different

wall components, is illustrated here with the aid of a

simple example. The walls shown in Fig. 2(a) will be

considered again. As eq. (3) stated, nominal curvatures

at the base of these walls are inversely proportional to

their length, Dwi. Hence the relative yield curvatures of

walls (1), (2) and (3) are 1.00, 1/1.59=0.63 and 1/2=0.50,

respectively. If, as one of the possibilities, the strength

allocation recorded in Fig. 2(b) is adopted, the bi-linear

force-displacement simulations, presented in Fig. 2(c),

are established. Therefore, the relative stiffness of all 3

components are determined. For example k2

(4 / 13) / 0.63 0.488.

As Fig. 2(c) shows, nominal strengths of components

are attained at different displacements. The superposition

of the idealized component responses describes the nonlinear system response. However, in seismic design this

can also be modeled using a bi-linear relationship. The

equivalent nominal yield displacement of the system is

then

y Vni / ki

(7)

The linear elastic response of components is an idealisation, which again is considered to be acceptable in

the design for systems for ductile response. After the

attainment of the nominal yield displacement of the critical element, such as component (3) in Fig. 2, some

of the principles outlined in the previous sections, a specific example was chosen. While different aspects of displacement estimates are considered, as stated earlier, the

evaluation of relevant quantities will not only be given

in abstract terms, but will also be simultaneously

expressed in terms of the selected structural dimensions.

This should assist in the appreciation, particularly by

design practitioners, of the simplicity of the approach

employed.

The principal dimensions of a 12 storey service core,

comprising 2 channel shaped reinforced concrete

coupled walls, and its relevant details are shown in Figs

4(a) and (b). All dimensions are expressed in terms of

the total height, h, of the building. Because reference

displacements are strength-independent, only the pattern

of the lateral design forces need to be known. In terms

of a unit base shear, chosen for convenience, these are

given in Fig. 5(b).

Therefore, the overturning moments and shear forces

at each level of the cantilever structure with fully

restrained base, are readily determined. They are

presented in Figs 4(c) and 5.

4.1. Wall properties

The aspect ratio of the individual walls with respect

to the full height, h, is Awi 1 / 0.1357.4. As Wall (1),

shown in Figs 4(a) and (b), is expected to be subjected to

1170

a coupled wall structure.

coupled wall structure.

measured from the tension edge, is estimated as suggested in Section 3.1, with the aid of the information

provided in row 9 of Fig. 3, i.e. with the parameter

x 0.83 0.70. Considerations of Wall (2), subjected

to gravity and lateral force-induced compression (row 8

in Fig. 3), lead to a similar value of x 0.83 0.94.

With the assumption that the yield strain relevant to this

example structure is ey 0.002, we find from eq. (4)

that the yield curvature factor is h1 h2 1.55.

The important property of the walls, the nominal yield

curvature at the base, is thus from eq. (3)

fwy1 fwy2 1.55ey / 0.135h 0.023 / h

(8)

subjected very different axial loads, are, in this rather

exceptional case, about the same.

strengths to components of the coupled wall structure

should be the designers experience-based choice. For

the purpose of estimating wall actions, satisfying equilibrium criteria, the axes of the walls are assumed to

coincide with the centroidal axes of the gross concrete

sections. As Fig. 4(b) shows, the distance between these

axes is l 0.233h. In this example it has been decided

that b 0.56 (eq. (2)), i.e. lT 0.56Mo at the base.

Hence the lateral force-induced axial force in the walls

is Tmax (0.56 0.711hVb) / 0.233h 1.709Vb. Contrary to traditional procedures [7,8,11], identical

strengths are assigned to coupling beams at all levels,

i.e. 1.709Vb / 12 0.142Vb. The moment increment

introduced by the coupling beams at each level is

M 0.233h 0.142Vb 0.033hVb (Figs 4

and 5(a)).

As the lateral force-induced axial load on the walls,

T, increases (stepwise) linearly to its maximum at the

base, the corresponding (stepped) wall moments

(M1 M2), are derived. These are shown by the

shaded area in Fig. 4(c). With Vb 1.00, the sum of

the base wall moments is thus

M1 M2 (0.711 0.233 1.709)h 0.313h

(9)

presentation in Fig. 4(c) of these moments is informative

because it shows clearly the effects of the chosen beam

strengths on the wall moment patterns. It is evident that

moments became negligibly small. This enables critical

wall deformations to be readily estimated. The same wall

moments are presented in the more conventional form

in Fig. 5(a).

The final stage of strength assignment, not affecting

deformation estimates for the walls, involves the distribution of the required wall flexural strength, M1

M2, between components (1) and (2). This too can be

done arbitrarily. As wall (2) will be subjected to significant axial compression, it will be able to develop significant flexural strength with only a modest quantity of

tension reinforcement in the vicinity of the door openings. For example the designer may choose a strength

ratio of M2 / M1 7 / 3. Therefore, the total shear force

to be assigned to the walls should be V1 0.3Vb and

V20.7Vb, respectively. This is shown in Fig. 5(b). To

inhibit the interference of possible shear mechanisms

with the intended ductile response of walls, the nominal

shear strength of the walls, as constructed, needs to be

well in excess of that satisfying static equilibrium [7].

Fig. 5(b) also shows the chosen distribution over the

height of lateral static forces. In this case 92% of the

unit base shear was distributed in the traditional pattern

of an inverted triangle, while 8% of the base shear was

added to the lateral force at level 13. Modal shapes will

affect lateral force patterns relevant to elastic systems,

the displacements of which, as in the cases studied here,

are controlled by full height walls. Once walls entered

the inelastic domain of response, higher modes of

vibrations will have negligible effect on overall system

displacements, such a shown in Fig. 8. Therefore, any

type of commonly used lateral design force pattern, leading to displacements consistent with elastic first mode

response, should be considered to be adequate for the

purpose of displacement estimates.

1171

be established.

4.4. Beam deformations

4.4.1. Conventionally reinforced coupling beams

A convenient form of expressing beam deformations

is by defining the chord rotation at the development of

nominal yield curvatures, shown in Fig. 6(a) as qby

by / s, where by is the relative vertical displacement

of the ends of the beam with clear span s. The nominal

yield curvature for such a beam, with depth Db

0.018h, is estimated as

fby hey / Db 1.7 0.002 / (0.018h)

(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)

The typical moment pattern, applicable to the walls

and shown in Figs 4(c) and 5(a), suggests that for the

purpose of displacement estimates, linear variation over

the height he 0.57h may be considered. This is

shown by the dashed line in Fig. 5(a). Hence the nominal

yield deflection of the walls (eq. (5)) at that height may

be estimated by

y1 y2 fwyi h2e / 3

(10)

2

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-

coupling beams.

1172

0.023 103h

shown in Fig. 6(b), is thus

Therefore, the nominal yield chord rotation of a conventionally reinforced coupling beam will be of the order of

qby by / s

(14)

qby

Early studies [17,18] indicated that to avoid sliding

shear failures in the inelastic regions of conventionally

reinforced coupling beams, which are subjected to high

shear demands, diagonal reinforcement could be used.

Typical details are shown in Fig. 6(b). Such beams have

been first used in New Zealand and subsequently in

many other countries. Their design and behaviour has

been extensively reported [7,11].

Occasionally claims are made [8] that, because of the

reduced inclination of the diagonal reinforcement in

slender beams, shear resistance becomes inefficient.

Such claims fail to recognize the simple equilibrium-dictated fact that, irrespective of the inclination, a, (Fig.

6(b)) diagonal steel forces can resist simultaneously the

total moment and shear generated by earthquakeimposed chord rotations. Test beams with bar inclinations as small as a 6, exhibited [19], as expected,

Ramberg-Osgood type of hysteretic response with moderate stiffness degradation and displacement ductility

capacities in the order of 14.

The properties of such beams [7,15,17] are:The nominal strength, in terms of the shear force sustained by

diagonal bars with area Asd, as shown in Fig. 6(b), is

Vbn 2Asdfysina

(15)

The elongation of the diagonal bars in tension is

T (s / cosa 16db)ey

(16a)

anchorage deformations. For the beams of the structure

shown in Fig. 4(a), a 18 and db0.55 103h.

Therefore,

T (0.045 / cos18

16 0.55 103)0.002h

(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

after cracking walls expand vertically. Therefore, a more

realistic estimate of the differential axial deformations

of walls can be made if rotations are related to positions

of the neutral axes of the cracked elastic walls. In the

determination of these, the simultaneous actions of

moment and axial force need be taken into account. With

this simulation, shown in Fig. 7(b) the ratio of the beam

chord rotation, qb, and the wall rotation, qw, at a given

level is

qb / qw (Dw c1 c2) / s w

(18)

This magnification factor, w, affects dramatically displacement demands on coupling beams. For the channel

shaped walls of the example structure it was estimated

that c1 c2 0.023. In this case the rotation magnification relevant to the beams is simply

w Dw / s 0.135 / 0.045 3

Fig. 7.

displacements of the walls, based on the traditional

definition of axial stiffness [7,11], EcAe, allowance is

also made for axial deformations of the walls, shown as

1 and 2 in Fig. 7(a). The simulation implies that, under

the lateral force-induced axial compression load wall (2)

(19)

walls, given by eq. (11), the beam chord rotation at level

8 is estimated as

qb wqwy 3 0.0066 0.02 rad

(20)

rotation of conventionally reinforced coupling beams,

given by eq. (14). The displacement ductility imposed

on the critical coupling beam at this elastic limit stage

of the walls is, therefore, of the order of

mb qb / qby 0.02 / 0.00191 10.5

(21)

significant loss of beam strength.

However, if diagonally reinforced beams are used,

from eq. (17c) it is found that

mb 0.02 / 0.00524 3.8

(22)

nominal yield curvatures at the wall bases, all diagonally

reinforced coupling beams would have yielded. Therefore, the development at this stage of all strength components, M1, M2 and lT, shown in Fig. 1(c), can be

expected.

4.5.2. At the attainment of the limiting storey drift

It is assumed that the adopted performance criterion

restricted the maximum storey drift to du 1.5%. Eq.

(11) established that at the nominal yield of the walls

the critical drifts was qwy dy 0.66%. The

additional drift, requires plastic hinge rotations at the

wall base. The recommended [7] effective length of a

plastic hinge of the wall is

lp 0.2Dw 0.044he (0.2 0.135

Fig. 8.

(23)

1174

post-yield displacement at the level of maximum drift

needs to be

p (he 0.5lp)dp

(0.57 0.5 0.052)0.0084h 0.0046h

(24)

u y1 p (2.5 4.6)103h

(25)

0.0071h

implying a displacement ductility demand on the walls

of

mw u / y1 7.1 / 2.5 2.8

(26)

reinforced coupling beams at level 8 will be of the order

of qbm wdu 3 0.015 0.045 rad. From eq.

(17c) the displacement ductility demand on this pair of

beams is thus

mb qbm / qby 0.045 / 0.005248.6

(27)

ductility of the order of m 8.6 / 1.3 6.6. The

maximum steel tensile strain is thus esmax 1.3%.

4.5.3. At the attainment of the displacement ductility

capacity of the walls

Assuming that the displacement ductility capacity of

adequately detailed walls [7] is 5, the additional inelastic

displacement of (5-2.8)y1 2.2 0.0025h

0.0055h of the walls would be acceptable. However,

the associated lateral displacement near level 8 of

max 5 0.0025h 0.0125h (Fig. 8) would

increase the maximum storey drift to dmax 2.5%. The

displacement ductility on the critical coupling beam and

the maximum steel strain would increase to mb

14.3 and esmax 2.2%, respectively.

4.6. System response

The deformed shapes of the walls and lateral displacements just below level 8 and associated with the previously defined 3 limit states, are shown in Fig. 8.

For the purposes of seismic design, the bi-linear

modeling of the ductile response of this example structure, as shown in Fig. 9, was claimed to be entirely

adequate. Lateral displacements of the walls shown

relate to the level of accelerated mass at hm 0.71h

above the base. These displacements can be readily

extrapolated from those previously evaluated at a lower

level, i.e. at he,. Strength increase with post-yield deformations, having negligible influence on the response of

the system, have not been considered. Displacement ductilities, associated with the 3 selected limit states, are

also recorded in Fig. 9. This simple modeling, based on

wall system.

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

structural design, the importance of more realistic predictions of target displacement capacities should be more

widely recognized. For reinforced concrete structures,

addressed here, such displacement limits can be readily

and realistically predicted in a rather simple way without

the knowledge of the eventual seismic strength required.

Therefore, displacement estimates made during the preliminary stage of the design, can immediately expose

undesirable features of the contemplated structural system.

The use of a number of simple principles, often overlooked or ignored in seismic design, was demonstrated.

These include: (a) The stiffness of a reinforced concrete

component depends on the strength eventually assigned

to it. Therefore, element or system stiffness cannot be a

priory assumed. (b) The nominal yield curvature of a

reinforced concrete section, and all displacements of a

component associated with it, are insensitive to the

flexural strength of the section. (c) Because deformation

limits, applicable to components of ductile system, are

independent of the strength, the latter can be arbitrarily

assigned to them. This enables the astute designer to distribute the required seismic strength among components

so that more economical and practical solutions are

obtained.

The estimation of displacement capacities of components of a system, such as a coupled wall structure,

enables the critical component to be identified. Hence,

instead of assuming global ductility factors for structural

systems, their displacement and hence ductility capacity

should be made dependent on that of the critical component. Such relationships can be established before

strengths are assigned to components.

The approach, illustrated with the aid of an example

coupled wall structure, can be readily incorporated into

existing strength-based seismic design methods. Its

major appeal relates, however, to displacement-based

design strategies.

Coupled wall structures offer distinct advantages such

as: (i) very good displacement control, (ii) a strong coupling system allows the use of slender walls without jeopardizing drift limits, (iii) displacement limits during ductile response are not affected by higher mode dynamic

effects, (iv) with appropriate detailing of the reinforcement, they can be expected to deliver larger hysteretic

damping than any other conventionally constructed

reinforced concrete system.

beams interconnected by cross bars. The London, Edinburgh and

Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science

1947;38:68599.

[2] Beck H. Ein neues Berechnungsverfahren fu r gegliederter

Scheiben dargestellt am Beispiel der Vierendeltra gers. Der Bauingenieur 1956;31(12):43643.

[3] Albiges M, Goulet J. Contreventment des batiments. Annales de

lInstitute Technique du Batimants et des Travaux Public

1960;13(149):473500.

[4] Rosman R. Beitrag zur statischen Berechnung waagrecht belasteter Querwa nde bei Hochbauten. Der Bauingenieur

1960;35(4):133136,1962;37(1) :2426,(8);303308.

[5] Beck H. Contribution to the analysis of coupled shear walls. Proceedings ACI Journal 1962;59(8):105570.

[6] Coull A, Choudhury JR. Analysis of coupled shear walls. Proceedings ACI Journal 1967;64(9):58793.

[7] Paulay T, Priestley MJN. Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete

and Masonry Buildings, p. 767, Wiley.

[8] Harries AK. Ductility and deformability of coupling beams in

reinforced concrete coupled walls. Earthquake Spectra

2001;17(3):45778.

[9] Paulay T. A simple displacement compatibility-based design

strategy for reinforced concrete buildings. Proceedings of the

12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland,

New Zealand, 2000. Paper No.0062

[10] NZS 3101:1995, Standards New Zealand. Concrete Structures

Standard Part 1 The design of concrete structures, p. 256, Part

2 Commentary on the design of concrete structures, p. 264

[11] Park R, Paulay T. Reinforced Concrete Structures, p. 786.

Wiley, 1975.

[12] Saatcioglu M, Derecho AT, Corley WG. Parametric study of

earthquake-resistant coupled walls. ASCE Journal of the Structural Division 1987;113(1):14157.

[13] Paulay T. A re-definition of of stiffness of reinforced concrete

elements and its implications in seismic design. Structural Engineering International 2001;11(1):3641.

[14] Paulay T. Some seismic design principles relevant to torsional

phenomena in ductile buildings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 2001;5(3):273308.

[15] Paulay T. Seismic response of structural walls: recent developments. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 2002;28:in.

[16] Priestley MJN, Kowalsky MJ. Aspects of drift and ductility

capacity of rectangular walls. Bulletin of the New Zealand

Society for Earthquake Engineering 1998;31(2):7385.

[17] Paulay T. Diagonally reinforced coupling beams of shear walls.

ACI Special Publication SP-42 1972;1:57998.

[18] Paulay T, Santhakumar AR. Ductile behaviour of coupled shear

walls. Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE 1976;102:ST1.

[19] Paulay T, Spurr DD. Simulated seismic loading on reinforced

concrete frame-shear wall structures. Sixth World Conference on

Earthquake Engineering, New Delhi 1977;3:2216.

[20] Galano L, Vignoli A. Seismic behaviour of short coupling beams

with different reinforcement layouts. ACI Structural Journal

2000;97(6):87685.

[21] Priestley MJN. Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering

Conflicts between design and reality. American Concrete Institute, (SP-157) Recent developments in lateral force transfer in

buildings, 231-257

Acknowledgements

The contribution of Rolando Castillo to some of the

data presented, using moment-curvature analyses, is

gratefully acknowledged.

- Advanced strength of materials paper modelDiunggah olehdurgaraokamireddy
- BS EN 10293 InformationDiunggah olehchief_of_stuff
- Effect of sag rods on purlins.PDFDiunggah olehyogesh
- WCEE2012_0634Experimental Falla Junta Viga ColumnaDiunggah olehJesus Frank
- Sample Report Write UpDiunggah olehJanardhan Charyulu
- Design Construction and Perfromance of Stone Column - 07 DawsonDiunggah olehJpver1000
- 2005__Hysteretic Models That Incorporate StrengthDiunggah olehhamed_kouhestani
- Hysteretic Models That Incorporate StrengthDiunggah olehBenhja
- Asme Case 2125-3Diunggah olehDinh Nguyen Gia
- ReviewDiunggah olehTsiNat Natha
- The Limitations and Performances of Different Displacement Based Design MethodsDiunggah olehLekhraj Meena
- ce591intro_F10Diunggah olehcart_thick
- importance of induction hardening case depth.pdfDiunggah olehKundan Kumar Mishra
- The Development of a New Design Procedure for Conventional Single-Plate Shear ConnectionsDiunggah olehMiguel
- UNIT IVDiunggah olehSaumya Ranjan
- UNIT%20IV.pdfDiunggah oleheph
- Ficha Tecnica Ultramid B3WG5Diunggah olehmanaswin404
- Constitutive Equations in Concrete Gravity DamDiunggah olehJesús Egor Espinoza Ramírez
- 2ff99a05ac82b1822b1f0c65978b64ed5926.pdfDiunggah olehAshokkumar Bhaskaran
- peer. breakelay.pdfDiunggah olehSauhardra Ojha
- Slender WallDiunggah olehGermar Porquerino
- pipe stressDiunggah olehFemi Richard Fakoya
- MR21Diunggah olehCarmine Tranfa
- Gauged Reactive ConfinementDiunggah olehIsabelly Canêjo
- Uniaxial Deformation and Orientation OfDiunggah olehBabic Ugljesa
- Report_VTT-R-08651-12.pdfDiunggah olehOtso Cronvall
- C393C393M-11e1 Standard Test Method for Core ShearDiunggah olehJuan Frausto
- 15-0005Diunggah olehsaul
- ASTM D695-02aDiunggah olehgabrieldsa
- Week 1 - Beam Analysis tool › Lab1_Winter2012Diunggah olehkrayzieka6727

- 100 Storey John Hancock Center, Chicago: A case study of the design processDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- Vapor Pressure of WaterDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- Civil EngDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- More practiceDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- ANSYS CFX STUDENT USER MANUALDiunggah olehvdnsit
- El Reino de los Incas del PeruDiunggah olehMark Holt
- mid-term pratice-units 5 to 7.pdfDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- More Practice TensesDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- A History of Earthquake EngineeringDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- ULTIMATE STRENGTH OF REINFORCED CONCRETE IN AMERICAN DESIGN PRACTICEDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- Irregular verbsDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- pictures_1552645958360-W0V1+-+The+energy+demand,+approach+from+the+society_s+point+of+view.pdfDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- Connections Robert Park Tom PaulayDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- River patterns and their meaningDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- BerteroDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- Report BernoulliDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- Hudson Response SpectrumDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- Deterministic seismic design procedures tbr reintorced concrete buildingsDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- Ansys Student BrochureDiunggah olehNumur17
- CFD Training ManualDiunggah olehgajendra2010
- The Mosconw PuzzlesDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- From Earth to MoonDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- Cw-Formulas Salmon y JohnsonDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- A FEDS Structural BoltsDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- 245893main MeteorologyTeacherRes Ch2.r4Diunggah olehIrum Iftikhar
- Inspiron 14 3421 Owner's Manual en UsDiunggah olehMilton Joel Calcina Yucra
- SDMHS75P-95PDiunggah olehCrimsonPosh
- akai_lct2060_lcd_sm.pdfDiunggah olehDavid Rosales
- Topic -Connections -Typical JointsDiunggah olehAnonymous 48jYxR1C

- Laser Processing of Materials MANNADiunggah olehfuratnajjar
- Sn-5Sb-0.5Cu and effect of nano-sized zinc oxideMSE_A1-s2.0-S0921509315001987-mainDiunggah olehEidelsayed
- npDiunggah olehKelvin Tan
- CE 45-Hydraulics SyllabusDiunggah olehpicefeati
- Quantum Computing Conferences in 2018Diunggah olehTerry Poe
- Statics and Strength of MaterialsDiunggah olehsaket
- Transverse ReinforcementDiunggah olehJohn John
- lee2015.pdfDiunggah olehpkrn
- Asme Section II a Sa-311 Sa-311mDiunggah olehAnonymous GhPzn1x
- Modelling the Environmental Degradation of Adhesively Bonded Aluminium and Composite Joints UsingDiunggah olehmehrdad_5233
- FLAC3D Plastic Hardening Model _ Itasca Consulting GroupDiunggah olehLuca Brandi
- TR2 FIJ Aycardo, Bandonil, HaroDiunggah olehChino Bandonil
- Chap 1 Introduction to Basdic ConceptsDiunggah olehRahmat Hashim
- Dissertation Rjm Pijpers September 2011Diunggah olehMarko
- Displacement LR 1Diunggah olehSarif Nazar
- Superheater and Reheater Outlet Header Inspections FailuresDiunggah olehkaruna346
- Neodymium-Iron-Boron Magnet Grades.pdfDiunggah olehzcrack
- Casting CasesDiunggah olehEddy Fazwan
- 55234 ABSDiunggah olehDruraj
- DISIPADORDiunggah olehchucch
- 1 3 3 a thermodynamics (1)Diunggah olehapi-260799820
- AluminiumDiunggah olehKin Fatt Wong
- Ag2HgI4Diunggah olehqabusalem
- lec23Diunggah olehdrp
- Kluebersynth GEM 4 460N-EnDiunggah olehsobhan61
- Hypersonic Glide Vehicle Design ConsderationsDiunggah olehIan M Mair
- Engineering Rock Mass Classifications - Z T Bieniawski.pdfDiunggah olehJorge Hernán Flórez Gálvez
- Rockwell Hardness TestDiunggah olehChinmay Deo
- e_sbrDiunggah olehGaneshperumal Varadharajan
- LectureNo_15Diunggah olehDarshit D Raj

## Lebih dari sekadar dokumen.

Temukan segala yang ditawarkan Scribd, termasuk buku dan buku audio dari penerbit-penerbit terkemuka.

Batalkan kapan saja.