Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings: Field Challenges and Simplified Code Formulas
Authors: Michel Soto Chalhoub
Building code-related literature provides recommendations on normalizing approaches to the calculation of the dynamic properties of structures. Most building codes make a distinction among types of structural systems, construction material, and configuration through a numerical coefficient in the expression for the fundamental period. The period is then used in normalized response spectra to compute base shear. The typical parameter used in simplified code formulas for the fundamental period is overall building height raised to a power determined from analytical and experimental results. However, reinforced concrete buildings which constitute the majority of built space in less developed countries pose additional challenges to the ones built with homogeneous material such as steel, or with concrete under stricter quality control. In the present paper, the particularities of reinforced concrete buildings are explored and related to current methods of equivalent static analysis. A comparative study is presented between the Uniform Building Code, commonly used for buildings within and outside the USA, and data from the Middle East used to model 151 reinforced concrete buildings of varying number of bays, number of floors, overall building height, and individual story height. The fundamental period was calculated using eigenvalue matrix computation. The results were also used in a separate regression analysis where the computed period serves as dependent variable, while five building properties serve as independent variables. The statistical analysis shed light on important parameters that simplified code formulas need to account for including individual story height, overall building height, floor plan, number of bays, and concrete properties. Such inclusions are important for reinforced concrete buildings of special conditions due to the level of concrete damage, aging, or materials quality control during construction. Overall results of the present analysis show that simplified code formulas for fundamental period and base shear may be applied but they require revisions to account for multiple parameters. The conclusion above is confirmed by the analytical model where fundamental periods were computed using numerical techniques and eigenvalue solutions. This recommendation is particularly relevant to code upgrades in less developed countries where it is customary to adopt, and mildly adapt international codes. We also note the necessity of further research using empirical data from buildings in Lebanon that were subjected to severe damage due to impulse loading or accelerated aging. However, we excluded this study from the present paper and left it for future research as it has its own peculiarities and requires a different type of analysis.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1092530Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 2298
 J. A. Blume, "Dynamic Characteristics of Multistory Buildings,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 94, February 1968, pp. 337-402.
 O. A. Lopez, A. K. Chopra, and J. J. Hernandez, "Evaluation of Combination Rules for Maximum Response Calculation in Multicomponent Seismic Analysis,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, vol. 30, 2001, pp. 1379-1398.
 International Code Council, International Building Code, 2009, Washington D.C., 2009.
 Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Code, The National Building Code of Canada, 2010, National Research Council, Ottawa, 2010.
 International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA, 1997.
 Structural Engineers Association of California, Seismology Committee, Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Sixth Edition, 1996.
 J. R. Pique and M. Burgos, "Effective Rigidity of Reinforced Concrete Elements in Seismic Analysis and Design,” The 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, October 12-17, 2008.
 A. S. Mirza, "Flexural Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, No. 4, vol. 87, 1990, pp. 425-435.
 M. J. N. Priestly, "Brief Comments on Elastic Flexibility of Reinforced Concrete Frames and Significance to Seismic Design,” Bulletin of New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, No. 4, vol. 31, 1998, pp. 246-258.
 V. Bertero and S. Brokken, "Infills in Seismic Resistant Buildings,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 109, No. 6, June 1983, pp. 1337-1361.
 R. D. Hanson, and T. T. Soong, "Seismic Design with Supplemental Energy Dissipation Devices,” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, 2001, Oakland, CA.
 F. A. Charney, and R. J. McNamara, "A Comparison of Methods for Computing Equivalent Viscous Damping Ratios of Structures with Added Viscous Damping,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 134, No. 1, 2008, pp. 32-44.
 C. Menun, "Strategies for Identifying Critical Response Combinations,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20, 2004, pp.1139-1165.
 M. S. Chalhoub, and J. M. Kelly, "Comparison of SEAONC Base Isolation Tentative Code to Shake Table Test Results,” ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 116, No. 4, April 1990.
 International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Uniform Building Code, Whittier, CA, 1988.
 Applied Technology Council. Tentative Regulations for the Development of Seismic Provisions for Buildings. Report ATC 3-06, 1978, San Francisco, CA.
 National Earthquake Hazard Reduction program (NEHRP). Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings. Building Seismic Safety Council (BSSC), FEMA 222A/223A, Volume 1 (provisions), and Volume 2 (Commentary), 1994.
 American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete, ACI 318-11 and Commentary, 2011. 38800 Country Club Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
 H. B. Seed, R. Murarka, J. Lysmer, and I. M. Idriss, "Relationships between Maximum Acceleration, Maximum Velocity, Distance from Source and Local Site Conditions for Moderately Strong Earthquakes,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 66, No. 6, 1976, pp. 1323-1342.
 H. B. Seed, C. Ugas, and J. Lysmer, "Site-Dependent Spectra for Earthquake-Resistant Design,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, vol. 66, No. 1, 1976, pp. 221-244.
 H. B. Seed, M. P. Romo, J. I. Sun, A. Jaime, and J. Lysmer, "The Mexico Earthquake of September 19, 1985 - Relationships between Soil Conditions and Earthquake Ground Motions,” Earthquake Spectra, vol. 4, No. 4, 1988, pp. 687-729.
 M. S. Chalhoub, "Earthquake Motion Signal Processing for Shake Table Tests and Response Spectra Analysis,” Report No. 12-1988, The Ralph M. Parsons Company Library, 1988, Pasadena, CA, pp. A6-A10.
 S. Bae, and O. Bayrak, "Stress Block Parameters for High Strength Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal, vol. 100, No. 5, Sep.-Oct. 2003, pp. 626-636.
 E. C. Bentz, F. J. Vecchio, and M. P. Collins, "Simplified Modified Compression Field Theory for Calculating Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Elements,” ACI Structural Journal, July-August 2006.
 M. Gerin, and P. Adebar, "Accounting for Shear in Seismic Analysis of Concrete Structures,” Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, August 1-6, 2004, paper No. 1747, Vancouver, B. C., Canada.
 A. H. Mattock, L. B. Kriz, and E. Hognestad, "Rectangular Concrete Stress Distribution in Ultimate Strength Design,” ACI Journal, vol. 32, No. 8, January 1961, pp. 875-928.
 American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08), 2008. Farmington Hills, Michigan, 465 pp.
 American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. ASCE 41, 2007, Reston, Virginia.
 Federal Emergency Management Agency. Prestandard and Commentary on the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEAM 356, 2000, Washington D. C., USA.
 American Concrete Institute. Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures. ACI 209-R86, 1986.