Advertisement

A seismic design method for reinforced concrete moment resisting frames using modal strength reduction factors

  • Edmond V. Muho
  • George A. Papagiannopoulos
  • Dimitri E. Beskos
Original Research
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

A performance-based seismic design method for plane reinforced concrete (R/C) moment-resisting frames (MRF) is proposed. The method is a force-based seismic design one, utilizing not a single strength reduction factor as all modern codes do, but different such factors for each of the first significant modes of the frame. These modal strength reduction factors incorporate dynamic characteristics of the structure, different performance targets, and different soil types. Thus, the proposed method can automatically satisfy deformation demands at all performance levels without requiring deformation checks at the end of the design process, as it is the case with code-based design methods. Empirical expressions for those modal strength reduction factors as functions of the period, deformation/damage and soil types, which can be used directly in conjunction with the conventional elastic pseudo-acceleration design spectra with 5% damping for seismic design of R/C MRFs, are provided. These expressions have been obtained through extensive parametric studies involving non-linear dynamic analyses of 38 frames under 100 seismic motions. The method is illustrated by numerical examples which demonstrate its advantages over code-based seismic design methods.

Keywords

Seismic design Reinforced concrete structures Force based design Performance-based design Modal strength reduction factors Equivalent modal damping ratios Inter-storey drift ratios Damage Non-linear dynamic analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first author (E. V. Muho) acknowledges with thanks the support provided for him by the National Key Research and Development of China (Grand No. 2017YFC1500701) and the State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering (Grand No. SLDRCE15-B-06)

References

  1. ATC72-1 (2010) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  2. Biskinis DE, Fardis MN (2008) Cycling deformation capacity, resistance and effective stiffness of R/C members with or without retrofitting. In: Proceedings of 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV (eds) (2004) Earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performance–based engineering, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  4. Carr AJ (2006) Theory and user guide to associated programs. Ruaumoko Manual. Department of Engineering, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  5. Chopra AK (2011) Dynamics of structures, 4th edn. Pearson, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  6. Chryssanthopoulos MK, Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ (2000) Probabilistic evaluation of behaviour factors in EC8-designed R/C frames. Eng Struct 22:1028–1041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EC2 (2004) Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures. In: Brussels: Part 1.1: general rules for buildings, European standard EN 1992-1-1, European Committee for Standardization (CEN)Google Scholar
  8. EC8 (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. In: European Standard EN 1998-3, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  9. EC8 (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Standard EN 1998-1, Stage 51 Draft, European Committee for Standardization (CEN), BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  10. Elwood KJ, Matamoros AB, Wallace JW, Lehman DE, Heintz JA, Mitchell AD, Moore MA, Valley MT, Lowes LN, Comartin CD, Moehle JP (2007) Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions. Earthq Spectra 23(3):493–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for performance–based seismic design. Earthq Spectra 16(3):573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fardis MN (2009) Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fardis MN, Carvalho E, Elnashai A, Faccioli E, Pinto P (2005) Designers’ guide to EN 1998–1 and EN 1998–5 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Thomas Telford, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. FEMA-356 (2000) Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, prepared for the SAC Joint Venture, published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  15. Ghobarah A (2004) On drift limits associated with different damage levels. In: Fajfar P, Krawinkler H (eds) Proceeding of the international workshop on performance-based seismic design : concepts and implementation, Bled, Slovenia, PEER Report 2004/05, University of California, Berkley, pp 321–332Google Scholar
  16. Ghobarah A, Safar M (2010) A damage spectrum for performance-based design. In: Fardis MN (ed) Advances in performance-based earthquake engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 193–201 no. 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ghobarah A, Abou-Elfath H, Biddah A (1999) Response-based damage assessment of structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28(1):79–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Taylor Lange S, Deierlein GG (2008) Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response loading to global collapse of R/C frame buildings. PEER Report2007/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkley, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2007) Direct damage-controlled design of concrete structures. J Struct Eng ASCE 133(2):205–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamaris GS, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2014) Direct damage controlled seismic design of plane steel degrading frames. Bull Earthq Eng 13(2):587–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kappos AJ, Manafpour A (2001) Seismic design of R/C buildings with the aid of advanced analytical techniques. Eng Struct 23:319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G (2004) Performance-based seismic design of 3-D R/C buildings using inelastic static and dynamic analysis procedures. ISET J Earthq Technol 41:141–158Google Scholar
  23. Kappos AJ, Stefanidou S (2009) A deformation-based seismic design method for 3-D R/C irregular buildings using inelastic dynamic analysis. Bull Earthq Eng 8(4):875–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karavasilis TL, Bazeos N, Beskos DE (2007) Behavior factor for performance-based seismic design of plane steel moment resisting frames. J Earthq Eng 11(4):531–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin YY, Chang KC (2003) Study on damping reduction factor for buildings under earthquake ground motions. J Struct Eng ASCE 129:206–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loeding S, Kowalsky MJ, Priestley M (1998) Direct displacement-based design of reinforced concrete building frames. University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  27. MATLAB (2009) The language of technical computing, version 2009a, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  28. Mazzolani F, Piluso V (1996) Theory and design of seismic resistant steel frames. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miranda E, Bertero VV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake resistant design. Earthq Spectra 10:357–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mondal A, Ghosh S, Reddy GR (2013) Performance-based evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile R/C frames. Eng Struct 56:1808–1819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Muho EV (2017) Seismic design of planar concrete frames using modal strength reduction factors. University of Patras, Patras, Greece, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering (in Greek)Google Scholar
  32. Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2002) Calibration of force reduction factors of R/C buildings. J Earthq Eng 6:239–273Google Scholar
  33. New Zealand Standard NZS 3101: Part 1. Code of practice for the design of concrete structures, Wellington, NZ (1995)Google Scholar
  34. Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (1999) Deformation-controlled earthquake-resistant design of R/C buildings. J Earthq Eng 3(4):495–518Google Scholar
  35. Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) A displacement-based seismic design procedure for R/C buildings and comparison with EC8. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30(10):1439–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Papagiannopoulos GA, Beskos DE (2010) Towards a seismic design method for plane steel frames using equivalent modal damping ratios. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1106–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Papagiannopoulos GA, Beskos DE (2011) Modal strength reduction factors for seismic design of plane steel frames. Earthq Struct 2:65–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Papagiannopoulos GA, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2013) Recovery of spectral absolute acceleration and spectral relative velocity from their pseudo-spectral counterparts. Earthq Struct 4:489–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. PEER (2013) Pacific earthquake engineering research centre, strong ground motion databaseGoogle Scholar
  40. Priestley MJN (2003) Myths and fallacies in earthquake engineering, revised. The 9th Mallet Milne LectureGoogle Scholar
  41. Priestley MJN (1997) Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 1(1):157–192Google Scholar
  42. Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement based seismic design of structures, 1st edn. IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  43. Rivera JA, Petrini L (2011) On the design and seismic response of R/C frame buildings designed with Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1593–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. SAP2000 (2016) Structural Analysis Program, Computers and Structures, Inc., California, USA. https://www.csiamerica.com/products/sap2000
  45. SEAOC (1999) Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. Structural Engineers Association of California, Sacramento, CAGoogle Scholar
  46. Seismosoft (2016) SeismoMatch–a computer program for spectrum matching of earthquake recordsGoogle Scholar
  47. Skalomenos KA, Hatzigeorgiou GD, Beskos DE (2015) Seismic behavior of composite steel/concrete MRFs: deformation assessment and behavior factors. Bull Earthq Eng 13:3871–3896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Vasilopoulos AA, Beskos DE (2006) Seismic design of plane steel frames using advanced methods of analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:1077–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vasilopoulos AA, Beskos DE (2009) Seismic design of space steel frames using advanced methods of analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:194–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Xue Q, Chen C-C (2003) Performance-based seismic design of structures: a direct displacement-based approach. Eng Struct 25:1803–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edmond V. Muho
    • 1
    • 2
  • George A. Papagiannopoulos
    • 2
  • Dimitri E. Beskos
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute of Structural Engineering and Disaster Reduction, College of Civil EngineeringTongji UniversityShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of PatrasPatrasGreece

Personalised recommendations