See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312017274

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE TABLE TOP FRAMES

SUPPORTING COMPRESSORS AND GAS TURBINES SUBJECTED TO SEISMIC
LOADS

Thesis · December 2016

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22074.59845

CITATIONS READS

0 920

1 author:

Jawwad Khan
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
1 PUBLICATION   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessment of Response Modification Factor of Reinforced Concrete Table Top Frames Structures Subjected to Seismic Loads View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jawwad Khan on 01 January 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE TABLE TOP

FRAMES SUPPORTING COMPRESSORS AND GAS TURBINES SUBJETED

TO SEISMIC LOADS

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Science

In

Civil Engineering

By

Jawwad Khan

2016

i
 SIGNATURE PAGE

THESIS: VALNERABILITY ASSESMENT OF

REINFORCED CONCRETE TABLE TOP
FRAMES SUPPORTING
COMPRESSORS AND GAS TURBINES
SUBJECTED TO SEISMIC LOADS

AUTHOR: Jawwad Khan

DATE SUBMITTED: Fall 2016

Civil Engineering Department

Dr. Yasser S. Salem

Thesis Committee Chair
Civil Engineering Department _____________________________________

Dr. Lisa Wang

Civil Engineering Department _____________________________________

Dr. Giuseppe Lomiento

Civil Engineering Department _____________________________________

ii
 ABSTRACT

The objective of this thesis is to evaluate Response modification factor (R) for particular

type of reinforced concrete resisting frame: Table Top frames. The nonlinear analysis was

done to evaluate R factor and compared the assessment R factor with the given values

prescribed in the seismic code of practice such as ASCE/SEI. Nonlinear static pushover

analysis was carried out to calculate R factor, and also dynamic time history (Direct

Integration Analysis) tool used to predict performance level of structure during earthquake.

These systems are very different because unlike the most typical systems, it has no floors

or roof diaphragms with lumped masses. Therefore, building code design equations are not

suitable to predict their performance during earthquakes. The analysis accounts for their

unique detailing especially to elements that contribute to energy dissipation during major

seismic events. The results show that the reserve strength of structure is greater than that

prescribed by the ASCE7-10 for Special reinforced concrete moment frame.

Key words: Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis, Dynamic Time History (Direct

Integration Analysis), Response Modification Factor (R), ASCE/SEI.

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SIGNATURE PAGE ..........................................................................................................ii

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER 1 .......................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2 .......................................................................................................................3
LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 3
TABLE TOP STRUCTURE ....................................................................................... 3
Moment Curvature Analysis ....................................................................................... 4
Appendix A: (Moment Curvature Curves) ............................................................... 10
Analysis Procedure to Calculate Design Base Shear ................................................ 16
Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces:................................................................... 27
CHAPTER 3 .....................................................................................................................28
RESPONSE MODIFICATION COEFFICIENT (R) .............................................. 28
Response Modification Factor .................................................................................. 28
Definition of R-factor and its Components............................................................... 30
CHAPTER 4 .....................................................................................................................34
NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS ................................................................................ 34
Design of Model Structure ........................................................................................ 34
Material Properties:................................................................................................... 35
Detailing of cross sections ........................................................................................ 37
CHAPTER 5 .....................................................................................................................38
METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 38
Analytical procedure ................................................................................................. 38
Nonlinear Static Analysis: ........................................................................................ 38
Demand VS. Capacity Spectrum Curve (ATC-40)................................................... 40
Appendix B (Demand Capacity Curves) .................................................................. 43
Nonlinear Time History Analysis: ............................................................................ 53
Equation of Motion and Types of Solution Methods: .............................................. 54
Methods for Solving Differential Equation .............................................................. 56
Appendix C: (Dynamic Analysis Versus Pushover Curve) ...................................... 63

iv
 Result and Discussions: ............................................................................................ 69
CHAPTER 6 .....................................................................................................................74
RECOMMENDATION .............................................................................................. 74
CHAPTER 7 .....................................................................................................................75
VERIFICATION OF THE MODEL ........................................................................ 75
Fundamental Time Period ......................................................................................... 75
CHAPTER 8 .....................................................................................................................77
REFERENCES............................................................................................................ 77
APPENDIX .......................................................................................................................79
Appendix D: (Time – Acceleration of Earthquakes) ................................................ 79

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Design factors specified by ASCE 7-10 for selected concrete building structures
........................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 2: Structure Configuration ...................................................................................... 36
Table 3: Graphical presentation for parametric study....................................................... 37
Table 4: Result of Pushover analysis and Bilinear approximation for each group........... 52
Table 5: Calculated design parameter for each group ....................................................... 52
Table 6: Ground Motion Data ........................................................................................... 58
Table 7: Response Modification Calculated Values ......................................................... 73
Table 8: Time Period Calculated vurses SAP2000 .......................................................... 75

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of a Typical Structure ......................................................... 3

Figure 2: Anchor Bolt Connecting Pressure Vessel to Table Top Frames ......................... 4
Figure 3: Whitney Stress Block .......................................................................................... 4
Figure 4: General Stress Strain Block................................................................................. 5
Figure 5: Stress-strain relation for monotonic loading of confined and unconfined
concrete - Mander et al. (1988) ........................................................................................... 6
Figure 6: Effectively Confined Core for Rectangular Hoop Reinforcement ...................... 7
Figure 7 Confined Strength Determination from Lateral Confining Stresses for
Rectangular Sections........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 8: Moment Curvature Curve for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=3ksi ... 10
Figure 9: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=3ksi .. 10
Figure 10: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=4ksi 11
Figure 11: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=4ksi 11
Figure 12: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=6ksi 12
Figure 13: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=6ksi 12
Figure 14: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=3ksi ... 13
Figure 15: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=3ksi ... 13
Figure 16: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=4ksi ... 14
Figure 17: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=4ksi ... 14
Figure 18: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=6ksi ... 15
Figure 19: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=6ksi ... 15
Figure 20: Site coefficient Fa (ASCE7-10, Table 11.4-1) ................................................ 17
Figure 21: Site coefficient Fv (ASCE7-10, Table 11.4-2) ................................................ 17
Figure 22: Spectral response accelerations Vs Time Period (ASCE7-10, 11.4-5) ........... 18
Figure 23: Classified as Risk Category and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10, Table 1.5-1) 19
Figure 24: Importance Factor (ASCE 1.5-2) .................................................................... 19
Figure 25: Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Accelerations
Parameter .......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 26: Seismic Design Category Based on Short 1-S Period Response Accelerations
Parameter .......................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 27: Seismic Design Category ................................................................................ 21
Figure 28: Horizontal Structural Irregularities ................................................................. 22
Figure 29: Vertical Structural Irregularities...................................................................... 23
Figure 30: Value of Approximate Period Parameters Ct and x (ASCE7-10, Table 12.8-2)
........................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 31: Coefficient for Upper Limit on Calculated Period (ASCE7-10, Table 12.8-1)
........................................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 32: Seismic Performance Factors as illustrated by Commentary to the NEHRP
Recommended Provisions (FEMA-450)........................................................................... 31
Figure 33: Longitudinal view of the Model ...................................................................... 35
Figure 34: Side View of the Model.................................................................................. 35
Figure 35: Schematic diagram of Table- Top Reinforce Concrete Structure ................... 36
Figure 36: Sample of Pushover curve (Base shear Vs. Displacement) ............................. 39
Figure 37: ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum and Demand Curve ............................................ 40

vii
Figure 38: General Force-Displacement Relationship for a Plastic Hinge for Reinforced
Concrete Structures ........................................................................................................... 42
Figure 39: Hinge Formation.............................................................................................. 42
Figure 40: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IA (G1-3ksi-D) ..................................... 43
Figure 41: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IA (G1-4ksi-D) ..................................... 44
Figure 42: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IA (G1-6ksi-D) ..................................... 44
Figure 43: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IB (G1-3ksi-ND) ................................... 45
Figure 44: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IB (G1-4ksi-ND) ................................... 45
Figure 45: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IB (G1-6ksi-ND) ................................... 46
Figure 46: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIA (G2-3ksi-D) .................................... 46
Figure 47: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIA (G2-4ksi-D) .................................... 47
Figure 48: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIA (G2-6ksi-D) .................................... 47
Figure 49: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIB (G2-3ksi-ND) ................................. 48
Figure 50: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIB (G2-4ksi-ND) ................................. 48
Figure 51: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIB (G2-6ksi-ND) ................................. 49
Figure 52: Design and Response Spectrum ...................................................................... 60
Figure 53: Dynamic Curve Group IA (G1-3ksi-D) .......................................................... 63
Figure 54: Dynamic Curve Group IA (G1-4ksi-D) .......................................................... 63
Figure 55: Dynamic Curve Group IA (G1-6ksi-D) .......................................................... 64
Figure 56: Dynamic Curve Group IB (G1-3ksi-ND)........................................................ 64
Figure 57: Dynamic Curve Group IB (G1-4ksi-ND)........................................................ 65
Figure 58: Dynamic Curve Group IB (G1-6ksi-ND)........................................................ 65
Figure 59: Dynamic Curve Group IIA (G2-3ksi-D) ......................................................... 66
Figure 60: Dynamic Curve Group IIA (G2-4ksi-D) ......................................................... 66
Figure 61: Dynamic Curve Group IIA (G2-6ksi-D) ......................................................... 67
Figure 62: Dynamic Curve Group IIB (G2-3ksi-ND) ...................................................... 67
Figure 63: Dynamic Curve Group IIB (G2-4ksi-ND) ...................................................... 68
Figure 64: Dynamic Curve Group IIB (G2-6ksi-ND) ...................................................... 68
Figure 65: Comparison if Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification factor
(Group IA)......................................................................................................................... 70
Figure 66: Comparison if Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification factor
(Group IB)......................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 67: Comparison if Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification factor
(Group IIA) ....................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 68: Comparison if Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification factor
(Group IIB) ....................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 69: 1994 Northridge (Beverly Hills) Earthquake .................................................. 79
Figure 70: 1979 Imperial Valley (El Centro) Earthquake ................................................ 80
Figure 71: 1995 Kobe, Japan (Nishi-Akashi) Earthquake ................................................ 80
Figure 72: 1989 Loma Prieta (Gilroy) Earthquake .......................................................... 81
Figure 73: 1999 Chi-Chi Taiwan (CHY101) Earthquake ................................................ 81
Figure 74: 1999 Duzce, Turkey (Bolu) Earthquake.......................................................... 82
Figure 75: 1999 Hector Mine (Hector) Earthquake ......................................................... 82
Figure 76: 1979 Imperial Valley (Delta) Earthquake ...................................................... 83
Figure 77: 1995 Kobe, Japan (Shin-Osaka) Earthquake................................................... 83
Figure 78: 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey (Duzce) Earthquake ..................................................... 84

viii
Figure 79: 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey (Arcelik) Earthquake ................................................... 84
Figure 80: 1992 Landers (Yermo Fire Station) Earthquake ............................................. 85
Figure 81: 1992 Landers (Coolwater) Earthquake............................................................ 85
Figure 82: 1989 Loma Prieta (Capitola) Earthquake ........................................................ 86
Figure 83: 1990 Manjil, Iran (Abbar) Earthquake ............................................................ 86
Figure 84: 1987 Superstition Hills (El Centro) Earthquake .............................................. 87
Figure 85: 1987 Superstition Hills (Poe Road) Earthquake .............................................. 87
Figure 86: 1992 Cape Mendocin (Rio Dell) Earthquake .................................................. 88
Figure 87: 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan (TCU045) Earthquake ................................................ 88
Figure 88: 1971 San Fernando (LA) Earthquake.............................................................. 89
Figure 89: 1976 Friuli, Italy (Tolmezzo) Earthquake ....................................................... 89

ix
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Table-top reinforced concrete frame structures are commonly found in large

refineries and power plants, where they are used to process raw or unprocessed crude oil

and generate electricity respectively. The main purpose of this research is to determine the

R factor for Table- top reinforced concrete frames and introduce them into the building

codes through numerical simulations to study the performance of these structures under

major seismic events.

Table-top structures are unique type of structures and commonly found in large

refineries where they are used to process heavy crude oil. The unit is a complex structure

that consists of massive reinforced ordinary reinforced concrete frame which supports

pressure vessels and steel towers carrying maintenance platforms. The pressure vessels are

connected to the frames using a circular pattern of relatively deep anchor bolts. To provide

sufficient embedment of the anchor bolts and the required strength for the anchor bolts to

support uplift force due to wind loads, the beams of the frames are very deep and wide in

cross section. For Frame action computability, the columns cross sections are seized based

on the sizes of the beams rather than the size that are required to resist gravity and lateral

loads. In other words, the sizes and layout of the pressure vessels is what determine the

cross section of the frame beams and columns.

The current practice is to estimate the seismic loads for these structures using parameters

of similar building-type structures. The structures are substantially different from typical

building structures where there are no diaphragms with lumped mass. Therefore, building

code design equations are not necessarily suitable to predict their performance during

1
earthquakes. Many of these structures are constructed or planned to be constructed in an

area of high seismic activities and a safe and economic design of these units is of a great

value to the society. The dilemma exists in active seismic sites which dictate all reinforced

concrete moment frames to be designed as a Special Moment Frame (SMF) with its

restricted requirements in ties spacing, lap splice, support of vertical bars, and the

continuation of ties into the beam-column connection. This requirement complicates the

construction of these frames in active seismic zones. Due the massive nature of these

frames, it is believed that these structures will most likely remain elastic during major

earthquake.

This main purpose of this research is to assess the vulnerability of these unique

structure during major seismic event by evaluating the Response Modification Factor (R

factor) for these structures through numerical simulations in order to determine the proper

classification of theses frames from the building code stand point.

This leads to the creation of the Response Modification Factor (R factor); the all-

important parameter that accounts for over-strength, energy absorption, and dissipation as

well as the structural capacity to redistribute forces from inelastic highly stressed regions

to other less stressed locations in the structure. The concept of Response Modificatio n

Factor or also commonly known as Strength Reduction Factor has emerged as a single

most important number, reflecting the capability of the structure to dissipate energy

through inelastic behavior. This factor is unique and different for different type of

structures and materials used. Hence, classification of Response Modification Factor for

various structural systems is extremely important in order to do an evaluation based on

demand (earthquake ground motion) and capacity of the structure.

2
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

TABLE TOP STRUCTURE

Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of a Coker structure. The structure is usually

composed of massive reinforced concrete frame structures (table top). The pressure vessels

are connected to the table top using large size anchor bolts Figure 2. Open frame stee l

structures are used to support maintenance platforms for the Coker drums. The structure

was designed in accordance with IBC 2000 and ACI 318-08 seismic provision of reinforced

concrete buildings. Nonlinear static pushover analysis and nonlinear dynamic analysis

were carried out to obtain such behavior factors, the ultimate goal is to implement the

results of this study into the design guidelines for Table Top structures such as ASCE7.

Maintenance Platforms
Open Steel Frames

Pressure Vessels
Connected to Ordinary Reinforced
Concrete (Table Top)

Figure 1: Schematic Diagram of a Typical Structure

3
 Figure 2: Anchor Bolt Connecting Pressure Vessel to Table Top Frames

a) Anchor Bolt Detail b) Anchor Bolt Layout

Moment Curvature Analysis

Reinforced concrete design calculation normally assumes a simple material model

for the concrete and reinforcement to determine the moment capacity of a section. The

Whitney stress block for a concrete along with an elasto-plastic reinforcing steel behavior

is the most widely used material model.

Figure 3: Whitney Stress Block

The actual material behavior is nonlinear and can be described by idealized stress-

strain models. Most of the Seismic Design Criteria such as Caltrans Seismic Design

4
Criteria uses the Park complex strain hardening model for reinforcing steel behavior and

Mander’s confined and unconfined models for concrete behavior.

Figure 4: General Stress Strain Block

Mander et al. (1988a) first tested circular, rectangular and square full scale columns

at seismic strain rates to investigate the influence of different transverse reinforce me nt

arrangements on the confinement effectiveness and overall performance. Mander et al.

(1988b) went on to model their experimental results. It was observed that if the peak strain

and stress coordinates could be found (ε cc, 𝑓′𝑐𝑐) then the performance over the entire stress-

strain range was similar, regardless of the arrangement of the confinement reinforce me nt

used. Thus they adopted a failure criteria based on a 5 parameter model of William and

Warnke (1975) along with data from Schickert and Winkler (1979) to generate a

generalized multi-axial confinement model. Then to describe the entire stress-strain curve

they adopted the 3-parameter equation proposed by Popovics (1973).

5
Figure 5: Stress-strain relation for monotonic loading of confined and unconfined

concrete - Mander et al. (1988)

6
 Figure 6: Effectively Confined Core for Rectangular Hoop Reinforcement

𝜀
𝑓′𝑐 𝑛(𝜀 𝑐 )
𝑐𝑐
=
𝑓′𝑐𝑐 (𝑛 − 1) + ( 𝜀𝑐 )𝑛
𝜀𝑐𝑐

In which,

𝐸𝑐
𝑛=
𝐸𝑐 − 𝐸𝑠𝑒𝑐

𝐸𝑐 = 5000√𝑓′𝑐 (𝑀𝑃𝑎)

𝑓′𝑐𝑐
𝐸𝑠𝑒𝑐 =
𝜀𝑐𝑐

εcc is the strain at the maximum compressive strength of confined concrete f′cc

𝑓′
𝜀𝑐𝑐 = 𝜀𝑐𝑜 [1 + 5 ( 𝑐𝑐 − 1)]
𝑓′𝑐

f′cc is the compressive strength of confined concrete is given as

7
 7.94𝑓′𝑖 𝑓′
𝑓′𝑐𝑐 = 𝑓′𝑐 (−1.254 + 2.254√1 + −2 𝑖
𝑓′𝑐 𝑓′𝑐

𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑓 ′ 𝑖 𝑖𝑠 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑦

1
𝑓′𝑖 = 𝑘 𝜌𝑓
2 𝑒 𝑠 𝑦ℎ

ρ s is the ratio of volume of transverse confining steel to volume of confined

concrete core, fyh is the yield strength of transverse reinforcement, k e is the confinement

coefficient.

𝑠′
((1 − 2𝑑 )2 )
𝑠
𝑘𝑒 =
1 − 𝜌𝑐𝑐

𝑊ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒,

𝜌𝑐𝑐 𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑜 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛,

𝑠 ′ 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑝𝑖𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑝 𝑏𝑎𝑟𝑠, 𝑑𝑠 𝑖𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟.

𝑛
(𝑤′𝑖 )2 𝑠′ 𝑠′
𝐴𝑐 = (𝑏𝑐 𝑏𝑐 − ∑ ) (1 − )(1 − )
6 2𝑏𝑐 2𝑑𝑐
𝑖=1

Where bc and dc is the core dimensions to centerlines of perimeter hoop in x and y

directions, respectively, where bc> dc.

(𝑤′𝑖 )2 𝑠′ 𝑠′
(1 − ∑𝑛𝑖=1 ) (1 − )(1 − )
𝑑𝑐 𝑏𝑐 6 2𝑏𝑐 2𝑑𝑐
𝑘𝑒 =
1 − 𝜌𝑐𝑐

It is possible for rectangular reinforced concrete members to have different quantities of

transverse confining steel in the x and y directions. These may be expressed as

𝐴𝑠𝑥
𝜌𝑥 =
𝑠𝑑𝑐

𝐴𝑠𝑦
𝜌𝑦 =
𝑠𝑏𝑐
8
Where Asx and Asy the total area of transverse bars running in the x and y directions,

respectively

The lateral confining stress on the concrete (total transverse bar force divided by vertical

area of confined concrete) is given in the x direction as

𝑓1𝑥 = 𝜌𝑥 𝑓𝑦ℎ

𝑓1𝑦 = 𝜌𝑦 𝑓𝑦ℎ

the effective lateral confining stresses in the x and y directions are

𝑓′1𝑥 = 𝑘𝑒 𝜌𝑥 𝑓𝑦ℎ

𝑓′1𝑦 = 𝑘𝑒 𝜌𝑦 𝑓𝑦ℎ

𝑓′𝑐 = 𝑘 ∗ 𝑓′𝑐𝑐

See figure 4, for finding k factor

Figure 7 Confined Strength Determination from Lateral Confining Stresses for

Rectangular Sections

9
 Appendix A: (Moment Curvature Curves)

3ksi
500000

400000
Moment
300000

200000

100000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008
Curvature

8x8ND 8x8D

Figure 8: Moment Curvature Curve for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=3ksi

3ksi
250000

200000
Moment

150000

100000

50000

0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
Curvature

6x6ND 6x6D

Figure 9: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=3ksi

10
 4ksi
500000

400000

Moment
300000

200000

100000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007
Curvature

8x8ND 8x8D

Figure 10: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=4ksi

4ksi
250000

200000
Moment

150000

100000

50000

0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
Curvature

6x6ND 6x6D

Figure 11: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=4ksi

11
 6ksi
600000

500000

400000
Moment 300000

200000

100000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007
Curvature

8x8ND 8x8D

Figure 12: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=6ksi

6ksi
250000

200000
Moment

150000

100000

50000

0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
Curvature

6x6ND 6x6D

Figure 13: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Columns - f’c=6ksi

12
 3ksi
250000

200000

Moment
150000

100000

50000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006
Curvature

6x9D 6x9ND

Figure 14: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=3ksi

3ksi
120000

100000

80000
Moment

60000

40000

20000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007 0.0008
Curvature

4x7ND 4x7D

Figure 15: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=3ksi

13
 4ksi
250000

200000

Moment
150000

100000

50000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006
Curvature

6x9ND 6x9D

Figure 16: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=4ksi

4ksi
120000

100000

80000
Moment

60000

40000

20000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007
Curvature

4x7ND 4x7D

Figure 17: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=4ksi

14
 6ksi
250000

200000

Moment
150000

100000

50000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006
Curvature

6x9ND 6x9D

Figure 18: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=6ksi

6ksi
120000

100000

80000
Moment

60000

40000

20000

0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0007
Curvature

4x7ND 4x7D

Figure 19: Moment Curvature Curves for Ductile and Non-Ductile Beams - f’c=6ksi

15
 Analysis Procedure to Calculate Design Base Shear

Seismic Loads base shear calculation which is prescribed in ASCE 7-10, steps are as

follows:

1- Determination of maximum considered earthquake and design spectral response

accelerations:

 Determine the mapped maximum considered earthquake MCE spectral response

accelerations, Ss for short period (0.2 sec.) and S 1 for long period (1.0 sec.).

Where S1 is less than or equal to 0.04 and S s is less than or equal to 0.15, the

structure is permitted to be assigned to Seismic Design Category A.

 Determine the site class based on the soil properties. The site shall be classified as

Site Class A, B, C, D, E or F in accordance with Chapter 20 of ASCE 7. Where

the soil properties are not known in sufficient detail to determine the site class,

Site Class D shall be used unless the building official or geotechnical data

determines Site Class E or F soils are present at the site.

 Determine the maximum considered earthquake spectral response accelerations

adjusted for site class effects, S MS at short period and SM1 at long period in

accordance with ASCE table 11.4-1 through 11.4-2

SMS = Fa SS

SM1 = Fv S1

Where:

Fa = Site coefficient defined in ASCE7-10, Table 11.4-1 or see figure 20.

Fv = Site coefficient defined in ASCE7-10, Table 11.4-2 or see figure 21.

16
 Figure 20: Site coefficient Fa (ASCE7-10, Table 11.4-1)

Figure 21: Site coefficient Fv (ASCE7-10, Table 11.4-2)

 Determine the 5% damped design spectral response accelerations S DS at short

period and SD1 at long period in accordance with ASCE 11.4-5 or see figure 22.

17
 Figure 22: Spectral response accelerations Vs Time Period (ASCE7-10, 11.4-5)

SDS = 2⁄3SMS

SD1 = 2⁄3SM1

Where:

SDS = Design spectral response acceleration parameter at short periods.

SD1 = Design spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-s period.

2- Determination of seismic design category and Importance factor:

Importance factors, IC, are shown in ASCE 7-10, Table 1.5-2 (See figure

24). Structures classified as Risk Category, (See Figure 23) or ASCE 7-10, Table

1.5-1 I, II or III that are located where the mapped spectral response acceleration

parameter at 1-second period, S1 , is greater than or equal to 0.75 shall be assigned

to Seismic Design Category E. Structures classified as Risk Category IV that are

located where the mapped spectral response acceleration parameter at 1-second

period, S1 , is greater than or equal to 0.75 shall be assigned to Seismic Design

18
 Category F. All other structures shall be assigned to a seismic design category based

on their risk category and the design spectral response acceleration parameters, S DS

and SD1 , determined the site-specific procedures of ASCE 7.

Figure 23: Classified as Risk Category and Other Structures (ASCE 7-10, Table 1.5-1)

Figure 24: Importance Factor (ASCE 1.5-2)

19
 Figure 25: Seismic Design Category Based on Short Period Response Accelerations

Parameter

Figure 26: Seismic Design Category Based on Short 1-S Period Response Accelerations

Parameter

3- Determination of the Seismic Base Shear:

The structural analysis shall consist of one of the types permitted in ASCE

7-10, Table 12.6-1, based on the structure’s seismic design category, structural

system, dynamic properties, and regularity, or with the approval of the authority

having jurisdiction, an alternative generally accepted procedure is permitted to be

used. The analysis procedure selected shall be completed in accordance with the

requirements of the corresponding section referenced in ASCE7-10, Table 12.6-1.

20
Figure 27: Seismic Design Category

21
Figure 28: Horizontal Structural Irregularities

22
 Figure 29: Vertical Structural Irregularities

3.1 Equivalent Lateral Force Analysis:

In Section 12.8 of ASCE 7-10 shall be used.

o The seismic base shear V in a given direction is determined in accordance

with the following equation:

𝑉𝑑 = 𝐶𝑠 ∗ 𝑊

Where:

W = Effective seismic weight

23
 CS = Seismic response coefficient.

The effective seismic weight, W, of a structure shall include the dead load above

the base and other loads above the base as listed below:

In areas used for storage, a minimum of 25 percent of the floor live load shall be

included.

Exceptions:

a. Where the inclusion of storage loads adds no more than 5% to the effective seismic

weight at that level, it need not be included in the effective seismic weight.

b. Floor live load in public garages and open parking structures need not be included.

1- Where provision for partitions is required in the floor load design, the actual

partition weight or a minimum weight of 0.48 kN/m2 of floor area, whichever is

greater.

2- Total operating weight of permanent equipment.

𝑆𝐷𝑆
𝐶𝑠 =
𝑅
𝐼𝑐

Where:

R = Response Modification Factor, given in ASCE 7-10 Table 12.2-1.

IC = Importance Factor (See figure 24), or ASCE Table 1.5-2.

The value of CS shall not exceed the following equation:

𝑆𝐷1
𝐶𝑠 =
𝑅
(𝐼 ) ∗ 𝑇
𝑐

24
If, T ≤ TL

𝑆𝐷1 ∗ 𝑇𝐿
𝐶𝑠 =
𝑅
( ) ∗ 𝑇2
𝐼𝑐

If, T > TL

The value of Cs shall not be less than:

CS = 0.044 SDS IC ≥0.01

Where:

T = fundamental period of the structure.

TL = long-period transition period, (given in ASCE 7-10 Figure 22).

An approximate value of T may be obtained from:

T = C t hn x

Where:

hn = height of the building above the base in meters.

Ct = building period coefficient given in ASCE7-10, Table 12.8-2, or see

figure 30.

x = constant given in ASCE7-10, Table 12.8-2, or see figure 30.

25
Figure 30: Value of Approximate Period Parameters Ct and x (ASCE7-10, Table 12.8-2)

The calculated fundamental period, T cannot exceed the product of the coefficient, C U, in

ASCE7-10, Table 12.8-1 or see figure 31 times the approximate fundamental period, T.

Figure 31: Coefficient for Upper Limit on Calculated Period (ASCE7-10, Table 12.8-1)

26
 Vertical Distribution of Seismic Forces:

The lateral seismic force (Fx) (kip or kN) induced at any level shall be determined from

the following equations:

𝐹𝑥 = 𝑐𝑣𝑥 ∗ 𝑉

𝑊𝑥 ℎ𝑥 𝑘
𝐶𝑣𝑥 =
∑ 𝑊𝑥 ℎ𝑥 𝑘

Where:

𝐹𝑥 = The lateral seismic force

V = Total design lateral force or shear at the base of the structure

𝐶𝑣𝑥 = Vertical distribution factor

𝑊𝑥 = The portion of the total effective seismic weight of the structure (W) located

or assigned to Level i or x

ℎ𝑥 = The height (ft or m) from the base to Level x.

k = an exponent related to the structure period as follows: for structures having a

period of 0.5 second or less, k = 1 for structures having a period of 2.5 second or

more, k = 2, for structures having a period between 0.5 and 2.5 second, k shall be

2 or shall be determined by linear interpolation between 1 and 2.

27
 CHAPTER 3

RESPONSE MODIFICATION COEFFICIENT (R)

Response Modification Factor

Conventional seismic design in most modal codes is force-based, with a final check

on structural displacements. The force-based design is suited to design for actions that are

permanently applied. The seismic design follows the same procedure, except for the fact

that inelastic deformations may be utilized to absorb certain levels of energy leading to a

reduction in the forces for which structures are designed. This leads to the creation of the

Response Modification Factor (R factor); the all-important parameter that accounts for

over-strength, energy absorption, and dissipation as well as the structural capacity to

redistribute forces from inelastic highly stressed regions to other less stressed locations in

the structure. This factor is unique and different for different type of structures and

materials used. Hence, classification of Response Modification Factor for various

structural systems is extremely important in order to do an evaluation based on demand

and capacity of the structure.

The Response Modification Factor (R factor) reduces the seismic force to a design

level as it is assumed that structures contain reserve strength, an extra energy dissipating

capability as observed from previous earthquakes (ATC-19). This extra capability is based

on a structure’s ductility, an ability to absorb energy by deforming. This relationship is

illustrated by an inelastic force-deformation curve as seen in figure 32. The diagonally

rising line represents the linearly increasing deformation as the force increases. The linear ly

elastic response goes up until the point of Ve, elastic seismic force - which is the base shear

if the structure were to maintain an elastic behavior. In reality, structures lose their ability

28
to deform proportionally to the applied force. After point Vd, design base shear, the

structure may have larger deformations yet dissipate lesser force. At this given stage,

plastic hinges begin to form, which identify the points where the energy dissipating ability

of the structure drops step by step until the structure’s maximum seismic force, Vy, is

reached (ATC-19).

An elastic design would assume the structure to have a linear force-deformatio n

relationship, and thus be able to deform less and dissipate less energy. On the other hand,

inelastic design acknowledges the ability to continuously deform and keep on dissipating

energy. The use of right ductility and response modification factors can result in a safer

and more cost effective structure than one designed using the elastic design force, which

does not acknowledge the inelastic energy dissipating ability.

ATC-19 was introduced to calculate the response modification factors, in which the

response modification factor, R, is calculated as the product of the three parameters that

influence the structure response during earthquakes:

R  R0 R Rr

Where:

R0 = Over strength factor

R = Ductility factor

Rr = Redundancy

29
 Table 1: Design factors specified by ASCE 7-10 for selected concrete building structures

Seismic Force Resisting Response Overstrength Deflection

Systems Modification Factor, Ω Og Amplification Factor,

Coefficient, R Cd b

Ordinary reinforced concrete 3 3 212

moment frames

Special reinforced concrete 8 3 512

moment frames

For Table Top frames the longitudinal and transverse direction, is typically constructed

from special reinforced concrete moment frame.

Definition of R-factor and its Components

The response modification factor is determined as the product of the overstrength factor

and the ductility factor and redundancy factor, these factors can be idealized by Base shear

verses Displacement, it can be seen in figure 32, which can be developed by a nonlinear

static pushover analysis.

30
 Figure 32: Seismic Performance Factors as illustrated by Commentary to the NEHRP

Recommended Provisions (FEMA-450)

Over-Strength Factor ( R0 ):

The maximum lateral strength, Vy, generally exceeds the design lateral strength,

Vd. This extra strength depends on many parameters that are not easily quantified. For

instance, possible sources of this strength may result from the material strength if it is

actually larger than the calculated design capacity. Other sources may be from

nonstructural elements providing extra strength or from redistribution of internal forces in

R0
the inelastic range (ATC-19; Balendra T & Huang). The strength factor, is period

dependant and is the ratio of the lateral strength at the maximum considered drift, Vy, to

the required strength, Vd or design base shear. Design Base shear equation so it was used

to determine the design base shear corresponding to first plastic hinge (Vd).

Vy
R0 
Vd

31
Where:

Ro = Over-Strength factor.

Vy = available yielding strength.

Vd = design base shear determined from ASCE 7-10.

Ductility Factor ( R ):

Structures lose their elastic behavior once a major yielding point occurs. The relationship

between the system’s elastic response and actual inelastic response can be seen in figure

32. The ductility reduction factor (Rµ) is a factor which reduces the elastic force demand

to the level of idealized yield strength of the structure and, hence, it may be represented

as the following equation:

Ve
R 
Vy

Where:

Ve = Linear elastic force.

Vy = available yielding strength.

Redundancy Factor ( Rr ):

The Redundancy factor, Rr, measures the reliability of multiple vertical lines to transfer

seismic- induced inertial force to the foundation (ATC-19). The following limitations apply

to Table Top structures, the value of Rr is permitted to equal 1.0 for the following

conditions:

 Seismic Design Category B or C.

 There are four or more columns and three or more bays at each level.

32
Otherwise redundancy factor shall equal to 1.3.

For this study, the redundancy factor is equal to 1.0 due to many moment frames.

33
 CHAPTER 4

NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS

Design of Model Structure

Table top frames usually consists of two parts; first the bottom part, the structure is

usually composed of reinforce concrete frame i.e. it is usually a Moment frame therefore

in this thesis the bottom part of the frame is special reinforced concrete moment frame

(SMRF’s). Which is used to support maintenance platforms and secondly, it is consisting

of steel cage system at the top of the reinforced concrete frame to support the crude oil

distillation unit. The ordinary braced frames used to resist lateral force. It is a

conventionally reinforced concrete table- top vessel support structure, massive concrete

frame that is pile supported.

In order to represent the table top reinforced concrete frame, two existing prototype

table top reinforced concrete moment frames. The structure has 4x1 bays and three story

see Figure 34 below for longitudinal and side view of model. The structure configura tio n

of the two prototype table top reinforced concrete frame is shown in Table 3. One of them

represent a frame with cross sections that meet the ductility requirement of special moment

(D-frame) and the other prototype represent a frame with cross sections that does not meet

the ductility requirements and commonly found in frames to carry gravity load (ND-

Frames). Table 3. Shows the cross section geometry and reinforcement configuration for

the beams and columns for all the cases that was considered in this study. A parametric

study for different cross sections as shown in Table 2. was also carried out to envelope to

study the effect of the frames geometry in the R-factor.

34
 The base of the structure is fixed, and the loading applied into the structure is; Dead

load 100k/ft at the top and 10 k/ft at the bottom stories and Live load 50psf.

Material Properties:

The mixed design of concrete used for this thesis is aimed at design cylinder

strength is 3ksi, 4ksi, 6ksi. Typically design for this strength has a slump test is about 1-2

inch, the maximum size of course aggregate is ¾ inch. The mix proportion is about 1:3:5

as refer to cement, sand and course aggregate.

The steel reinforcement used in reinforced concrete frames is grade 60 (yield ing

strength is fy = 60 ksi).

Figure 33: Longitudinal view of the Model

Figure 34: Side View of the Model

35
 Coker (Crude oil distillation
tower)

Lateral resisting system (K-

Bracing)
Maintenance
Platform/stairs.

Reinforce Concrete Frame

(Table- Top)

Figure 35: Schematic diagram of Table- Top Reinforce Concrete Structure

Table 2: Structure Configuration

Group Structure model Compressive Size of column (ft) Size of beam

Strength of (ft)
concrete (fc’)
G1-3ksi-D 3ksi 8’x8’ 6’x9’
Group IA
G1-4ksi-D 4ksi 8’x8’ 6’x9’
Group I G1-6ksi-D 6ksi 8’x8’ 6’x9’
G1-3ksi-ND 3ksi 8’x8’ 6’x9’
Group IB G1-4ksi-ND 4ksi 8’x8’ 6’x9’
G1-6ksi-ND 6ksi 8’x8’ 6’x9’
G2-3ksi-D 3ksi 6’x6’ 4’x7’

Group IIA G2-4ksi-D 4ksi 6’x6’ 4’x7’

Group II G2-6ksi-D 6ksi 6’x6’ 4’x7’
G2-3ksi-ND 3ksi 6’x6’ 4’x7’
Group IIB
G2-4ksi-ND 4ksi 6’x6’ 4’x7’
G2-6ksi-ND 6ksi 6’x6’ 4’x7’

36
 Detailing of cross sections

Table 3: Graphical presentation for parametric study

Group Column (ft) Beam (ft) Detailing

69#14 @ 4.11’’c/c,
Stirrups #5, Cover
3’’c/c. (Column)
Group I Group IA 28#11 @ 6.13’’c/c
& 18#8 @
8.5’’c/c,Stirrups #5,
Cover 4’’ c/c.
(Beam)
8x8D 6x9D
69#14 @ 4.11’’c/c,
Stirrups #5, Cover
3’’c/c. (Column)
Group IB 28#11 @ 6.13’’c/c
& 18#8 @
8.5’’c/c,Stirrups #5,
Cover 4’’ c/c.
(Beam)
8x8ND 6x9ND
69#10 @ 2.9inch
c/c, Stirrups #5,
Cover 3inch c/c.
Group II Group IIA (Column)
16#11 @ 9.3’’c/c,
8#10 @ 11’’c/c,
6x6D Stirrups #5, Cover
4x7D
4’’c/c (Beam)
69#10 @ 2.9inch
c/c, Stirrups #5,
Cover 3inch c/c.
Group IIB (Column)
16#11 @ 9.3’’c/c,
8#10 @ 11’’c/c,
6x6ND
Stirrups #5, Cover
4x7ND
4’’c/c (Beam)

37
 CHAPTER 5

METHODOLOGY

Analytical procedure

The two common procedure of nonlinear analysis are nonlinear static analysis and

nonlinear time history analysis.

Nonlinear Static Analysis:

Nonlinear static push-over analysis is conducted to determine the ultimate lateral

load resistance as well as the sequence of yielding/buckling events. Eigen value analysis

was conducted first to determine the elastic natural periods and mode shapes of the

structure. Then pushover analysis were carried out to evaluate the global yield limit state

and the structural capacity by progressively increasing the lateral story forces proportional

to the fundamental mode shape.

Non-linear pushover analysis serves the basis for determining the capacity of the

structure in terms of base shear and roof displacement (Δ), is a method for determining the

ultimate load and deflection capability of a structure. In SAP2000, moment curvature

curves with post yield behavior are predetermined and can be used to determine hinge

properties. The hinges are placed to predict possible hinge formation locations, which are

usually near the joints between members. Incremental lateral load applied, the model is

then run to view the conceptual force capacity. Local nonlinear effect, such as flexura l

hinges at the member joints, are modelled and the structure is deformed until it reaches to

enough hinges form to develop a collapse mechanism or until it reaches to the plastic

deformation limit of a hinges is reached.

38
 The numerical parameters of the hinges are obtained from moment curvature

analysis that were carried out for the different cross sections used in this study. Appendix

A; shows the moment curvature relationship for the different cross sections used in the

study.

According to the Computer and Structural Inc. (CSI) nonlinear analysis is a

“procedure in which a structural system is subjected to a monotonic load which increases

iteratively, through an ultimate condition, to indicate a range of elastic and inelastic

performance.”

It is important to recognize that the purpose of pushover analysis is not to predict

the actual response of a structure to an earthquake. It is unlikely that nonlinear dynamic

analysis can predict the response, which is discuss in detail later. The purpose of N onlinear

static pushover analysis is to provide information which may use to assess the adequacy of

a design of a new or existing building. Sample of pushover curve shown in figure 36.

0.7

0.6

0.5
Base Shear

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement

Pushover Curve Idealize Curve

Figure 36: Sample of Pushover curve (Base shear Vs. Displacement)

39
Demand VS. Capacity Spectrum Curve (ATC-40)

The Capacity Spectrum Method is one of those method to estimate the demand of

the structure. The Capacity Spectrum Method is a nonlinear static analysis method, which

compares the global force-displacement capacity curve of a structure with a demand

(earthquake response) spectrum in a graphical shape. For this, both the capacity curve and

the demand have to be converted into a spectral acceleration (S a) spectral displacement (Sd)

graph, called as acceleration deformation response spectrum (ADRS) curve. Due to this

transformation, the global building will be reduced to an equivalent single degree of

freedom-structure. So, after getting both the curves, on overlapping them, we get the

performance point where the two curves intersect. At the performance point, we check the

condition of building by assessing the hinges under consideration.

The curves obtained for uniform push in X-direction are as in the graph below and

they been superimposed to get the performance point. See figure 37 below for demand and

capacity spectrum.

0.8
0.7
Spectral acceleration Sa

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Spectral displacement Sd

Demand Curve Capacity (Pushover) Curve

Figure 37: ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum and Demand Curve

40
Step by Step Procedure

An overview of the procedure for pushover analysis is given as follows:

The nonlinear static pushover analysis of the reinforced concrete Table-top frame was done

by using Computer and Structure Inc. (CSI) product called SAP2000.

 First computational the model and define gravity loads.

 Assigning of non-linear hinges to the frame objects. Hinges can be introduced into

frame objects (column and beam). SAP2000 software provides the features of

default plastic hinges based on FEMA-356 guidelines. According to FEMA-356,

the relationship between Curvature and Moment can be shown in figure 38. This

figure includes, five points labeled A, B, C, D, and E are used to define the moment

curvature behavior of the hinge and three points labeled IO, LS and CP (IO, LS and

CP stand for Immediate Occupancy, Life Safety and Collapse Prevention

respectively.)

 In the end define load cases.

Several types of output can be obtained from the nonlinear static pushover analysis:

1- Base shear versus displacement plotted. As shown in figure 36.

2- The sequence of hinge formation and the color-coded state of each hinge can be

viewed, on a step-by-step basis, for each step of the pushover. As shown in figure

39.

3- Base shear versus displacement at a specified control joint can be plotted in the

ADRS (Acceleration-Displacement Response Spectrum) format both the structural

capacity (pushover) curve and the demand spectra are plotted in spectral-

acceleration versus spectral-displacement (ATC-40) See figure 37.

41
Figure 38: General Force-Displacement Relationship for a Plastic Hinge for Reinforced

Concrete Structures

Figure 39: Hinge Formation

42
 Appendix B (Demand Capacity Curves)

G1-3ksi-D
0.8
Spectral acceleration Sa

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40

Figure 40: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IA (G1-3ksi-D)

43
 G1-4ksi-D
0.8

Spectral acceleration Sa
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40

Figure 41: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IA (G1-4ksi-D)

G1-6ksi-D
0.9
Spectral acceleration Sa

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40

Figure 42: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IA (G1-6ksi-D)

44
 G1-3ksi-ND
0.8

Spectral acceleration Sa
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40

Figure 43: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IB (G1-3ksi-ND)

G1-4ksi-ND
0.8
Spectral acceleration Sa

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40

Figure 44: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IB (G1-4ksi-ND)

45
 G1-6ksi-ND
0.9

Spectral acceleration Sa
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum

Figure 45: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IB (G1-6ksi-ND)

G2-3ksi-D
0.6
Spectral acceleration Sa

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum

Figure 46: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIA (G2-3ksi-D)

46
 G2-4ksi-D
0.6

Spectral acceleration Sa
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum

Figure 47: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIA (G2-4ksi-D)

G2-6ksi-D
0.7
Spectral acceleration Sa

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum

Figure 48: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIA (G2-6ksi-D)

47
 G2-3ksi-ND
0.6

Spectral acceleration Sa
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum

Figure 49: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIB (G2-3ksi-ND)

G2-4ksi-ND
0.7
Spectral acceleration Sa

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum

Figure 50: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIB (G2-4ksi-ND)

48
 G2-6ksi-ND
0.7

Spectral acceleration Sa
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Spectral displacement Sd

Pushover Curve ATC-40 Capacity Spectrum

Figure 51: Demand and Capacity Curve Group IIB (G2-6ksi-ND)

Calculation for R-Factor:

Most push-over methods use a bilinear approximation of the actual push-over

curve, a bilinear approximation was utilized to locate an idealized yield point. As

recommended by FEMA-356, the idealized curve is drawn to cover the same area as the

original pushover curve. The elastic base shear was calculated based on the straight slope

of the elastic range for each of the pushover curve and the base shear limit based on

design spectra.

The design base shear is shown on table for group “I” and “II”, respectively. It was

calculated per ASCE 7-10 section 12.8.1, seismic base shear equation given as:

V= Cs *W

Where, the seismic response coefficient was calculated using SDS=0.50g, I= 1.25,

49
Base shear at yield, at elastic limit, and design base shear with the corresponding

displacement of all the analysis are presented.

For Example: Here is the example of response modification factor for G1-3ksi-D.

G1-3ksi-D
18000
16000
14000
Base Shear (kips)

12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Displacement (in)

pushover

Yielding point base on when the structure has significant yielding in this case the

yielding value is about 11935 kips and displacement is 4.37 inches, design base shear is

calculated as per ASCE specification using formula as previous define in chapter 2. Vd is

about 2244 kips. Now, for elastic base shear is elastic when it is continuing the linear

elastic slope up till elastic limit hits.

Yielding displacement is 4.37 inches and the point when structutre is lineasr

before structure start to yield is 10233 kips and 2.07 displacement. Now we have three

data point to find the elastic base shear by using similar triangle.

10233 𝑋
=
2.07 4.37

𝑋 = 21560 𝑘𝑖𝑝𝑠

Overstrength factor can be calculated by the ratio between yielding base shear and design base

shear:

50
 Vy
R0 
Vd

11935
𝑅𝑜 =
2244

𝑅𝑜 = 5

Ductility factor can be calculated by the ratio between elastic base shear and yielding base

shear:

Ve
R 
Vy

21560
𝑅 =
11935

𝑅 =2

Redundancy factor (𝑅𝑟) is equal to 1.

Now, for response modification factor is a product Overstrength factor, Ductility factor,

Redundancy factor.

𝑅 = 𝑅𝑜 ∗ 𝑅µ ∗ 𝑅𝑟

𝑅 = 5∗2 ∗1

𝑅 = 10

51
Table 4: Result of Pushover analysis and Bilinear approximation for each group

Structure ID Vd Vy Ve
G1-3ksi-D 2244 11935 21560
G1-4ksi-D 2409 12177 26028
G1-6ksi-D 2672 12390 28697

Structure ID Vd Vy Ve
G1-3ksi-ND 2244 11697 24420
G1-4ksi-ND 2409 11926 25336
G1-6ksi-ND 2627 12338 27610

Structure ID Vd Vy Ve
G2-3ksi-D 1792 5236 14046
G2-4ksi-D 1934 5330 14867
G2-6ksi-D 2130 5606 18223

Structure ID Vd Vy Ve
G2-3ksi-D 1792 5003 13410
G2-4ksi-D 1934 5130 12888
G2-6ksi-D 2130 5179 12415
Using values from table 4, the response modification, overstrength, and ductility factors

were computed, which is define in previous chapter and presented in table 5.

Table 5: Calculated design parameter for each group

Structure ID Ru Ro Rr R
G1-3ksi-D 2 5 1 10
G1-4ksi-D 2 5 1 11
G1-6ksi-D 2 5 1 11

Structure ID Ru Ro Rr R
G1-3ksi-ND 2 5 1 11
G1-4ksi-ND 2 5 1 11
G1-6ksi-ND 2 5 1 10

Structure ID Ru Ro Rr R
G2-3ksi-D 3 3 1 8
G2-4ksi-D 3 3 1 8

52
 G2-6ksi-D 3 3 1 9

Structure ID Ru Ro Rr R
G2-3ksi-D 3 3 1 7
G2-4ksi-D 3 3 1 7
G2-6ksi-D 2 2 1 6

Nonlinear Time History Analysis:

Earthquake can be caused by several reasons including movement of magma within

volcanoes, underground explosions, and impact of large objects within the ground.

Earthquakes can originate anywhere. However, most of the earthquake occurs along weak

zones in the earth crust.

Response history analysis, which is sometimes called time history analysis, is a

method to evaluate the response of structure to a ground motion. In this thesis a time history

was carried out to analyse the response of structure based off 22 far field and as well as

near field ground motion which is selected from (PEER) ground motion database.

Direct-integration time-history analysis is a nonlinear, dynamic analysis method in

which the equilibrium equations of motion are fully integrated as a structure is subjected

to dynamic loading. Analysis involves the integration of structural properties and behaviors

at a series of time steps which are small relative to loading duration. The equation of motion

under evaluation is given as follows:

The basic Newmark Constant acceleration method can be extended to nonlinear dynamic

analysis. This requires that iteration must be performed at each time step in order to satisfy

equilibrium. Also, the incremental stiffness matrix must be formed and triangularized at

each iteration or at selective points in time. Many different numerical tricks, includ ing

53
element by element methods, have been developed in order to minimize the computatio na l

requirements. Also, the triangularization of the effective incremental stiffness matrix may

be avoided by the introduction of iterative solution methods.

This study will focus on the far field data that engineers use to analyse structures.

There are twenty-two far-field earthquake record sets specified in this database because it

is a good representation of the strongest ground motion records which were selected from

each event to permit statistical evaluation of record- to- record variability (FEMA P695),

refer to Table 5 below for the ground motions used in practice. These earthquakes occurred

between the timeframe 1971 through 1999 and were taken from fourteen of the largest

events, eight of which occurred in California and six were from five different foreign

countries.

Equation of Motion and Types of Solution Methods:

1- Newton’s Second Law of Motion:

The external force 𝑝(𝑡) is taken to be positive in the direction of the x-axis.

The elastic and damping forces are shown acting in the opposite direction because

they are internal forces that resist the deformation and velocity, respectively. The

resultant force along the x-axis is 𝑝(𝑡) − 𝑓𝑠 − 𝑓𝐷 , the Newton’s second law of

54
 motion gives

𝑝(𝑡) − 𝑓𝑠 − 𝑓𝐷 = 𝑚ü

2- Dynamic Equilibrium:

According to D’Alembert’s principle of dynamic equilibrium, the equation

of motion can be written as:

𝑚ü + 𝑓𝑠 + 𝑓𝐷 = 𝑝(𝑡)

which means the system is in equilibrium at time (t).

In this equation, 𝑚ü represents the term of inertia force, 𝑓𝐷 represent the term of

damping force, 𝑓𝑠 represents the term of spring force. External forces can be in the

form of earthquake excitation exerting to the base of the structure. At each instant

of time, the relationship of three displacements, which are ground motion 𝑢𝑔 ,

displacement of mass, 𝑢′ , the relative displacement between the mass and ground

𝑢, is

𝑢′ (𝑡) = 𝑢𝑔 (𝑡) + 𝑢(𝑡)

The equation of dynamic equilibrium is 𝑓𝑙 + 𝑓𝐷 + 𝑓𝑠 = 0, and 𝑓𝑙 = 𝑚ü =

𝑚(ü + ü𝑔 ), which gives:

𝑚ü + 𝑓𝐷 + 𝑓𝑠 = −𝑚ü𝑔 (𝑡)

𝑚ü(𝑡) + 𝐶𝑢′(𝑡) + 𝑘𝑢 (𝑡) = −𝑝(𝑡)

It is assumed that, 𝑝(𝑡) = −𝑚ü𝑔 (𝑡)

55
Methods for Solving Differential Equation

There are three different ways to solve differential equations are as follows.

a- Classical Solution

The complete solution of the linear differential equation of motion consists

of the sum of the complementary solution 𝑢 𝑐(𝑡), and the particular solution 𝑢 𝑝 (𝑡).

𝑢(𝑡) = 𝑢 𝑐 (𝑡) + 𝑢 𝑝 (𝑡)

The two constants of integration are involved. They appear in the complementar y

solution and are evaluated from a knowledge of the initial conditions.

b- Duhamel’s Integral

Another well-known approach to the solution of linear differentia l

equations is based on “representing the applied force as a sequence of

infinitesimally short impulses”.

𝑡
1
𝑢(𝑡) = ∫ 𝑝(𝜏)sin[𝜔𝑛 (𝑡 − 𝜏)𝑑𝜏
𝑚𝜔𝑛 0

Where, 𝜔𝑛 = √𝑘⁄𝑚

“If the applied force 𝑝(𝑡) is defined analytically by a simple function that permits

analytical evaluation of the integral”.

c- Frequency-Domain Method

56
 The Fourier transform, which leads to the frequency-domain method of

dynamic analysis Fourier transform of the excitation function 𝑝(𝑡) is given as,

𝛼
𝑝 (𝜔) = ℱ[𝑝(𝑡)] = ∫ 𝑝(𝑡)𝑒 −𝑖𝜔𝑡 𝑑𝑡
−𝛼

𝑢 (𝜔) 𝑖𝑠 𝑔𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑛 𝑏𝑦 𝑈(𝜔) = 𝐻(𝜔)𝑃(𝜔), and the solution for 𝑢(𝑡) is given by

inverse Fourier transform:

1 𝛼
𝑢 (𝑡) = ∫ 𝐻(𝜔)𝑃(𝜔)𝑒 𝑖𝜔𝑡 𝑑𝜔
2𝜋 𝛼

In order to perform response history analysis, it is necessary to have a digitized

ground motion acceleration record. Since each earthquake record has differe nt

characteristics, the results obtained from response history analysis are valid only for the

particular earthquake record. Nonlinear response history analysis is increasingly used in

design projects. It is an essential part of the design of structures using seismic design or

energy dissipation technologies, and it can be quite useful in performance-based design

approaches.

57
 Table 6: Ground Motion Data

Event EQ Index Sa(T=1sec) Time step [sec]: Peak Acceleration [g]

Northridge 120111 1.02 0.01 0.42

Northridge 120121 0.38 0.01 0.41

Duzce, Turkey 120621 0.24 0.005 0.36

Hector Mine 120711 0.31 0.01 0.51

Imperial Valley 121021 0.27 0.005 0.56

Imperial Valley 121411 0.49 0.005 0.35

Kobe, Japan 120411 0.72 0.01 0.73

Kobe, Japan 120521 0.35 0.01 0.27

Kocaeli, Turkey 120611 0.26 0.01 0.24

Kocaeli, Turkey 120721 0.33 0.01 0.24

Landers 120811 0.43 0.005 0.31

Landers 120821 0.11 0.005 0.22

Loma Prieta 120911 0.50 0.02 0.24

Loma Prieta 120921 0.20 0.0025 0.28

Manjil, Iran 121011 0.46 0.005 0.53

Superstition Hills 121111 0.35 0.02 0.51

Superstition Hills 121211 0.31 0.005 0.36

Cape Mendocino 121221 0.33 0.01 0.45

Chi- Chi, Taiwan 121321 0.54 0.02 0.39

Chi- Chi, Taiwan 121421 0.30 0.005 0.47

San Fernando 121511 0.25 0.01 0.21

58
 Friuli, Italy 121711 0.25 0.005 0.35

Step by Step Procedure:

An overview of the procedure for Nonlinear Dynamic analysis (Direct Integratio n

Mathod) is used to predict the performance of the structure during earthquake. Following

are the step by step procedure:

- Compute the model, define loads, assign non-linear hinges as previously defined in

pushover analysis.

- Define time history function. For this thesis, used 22 ground motion mention in

appendix D.

- Define Time History Load Case.

NOTE- The non-linear time history analysis is a time consuming analysis and depending

upon the size of the problem it takes large amount of time as well as space for completio n

of the analysis.

59
Acceleration Response Spectrum:

An acceleration response spectrum is a plot of the maximum acceleration x(T) that

SDOF structures having different periods, T, would experience when subjected to a specific

earthquake ground motion. This plot is constructed by performing response history

analyses for a series of structures, each having a different period, T, obtaining the

maximum acceleration of each structure from the analysis, and plotting this as a functio n

of T. Linear acceleration response spectra are most common, and are obtained by

performing linear response history analysis. See figure 52 illustrates the design and

response spectra of all twenty-two ground motions obtained from 22 far field ground

motion. See appendix D below for ground motion.

Response Spectrum
3.5

2.5
Response Acceliration

1.5

0.5

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Time period

Figure 52: Design and Response Spectrum

60
Following are the hysteresis curve I obtained from the nonlinear dynamic time history

analysis. As you can see in appendix C. These dots represent the response of the structure

due to ground motion in dynamic analysis based on the hysteresis curve that is maximum

base shear versus corresponding displacement. Dynamic curves overlay on to the top of

the Pushover curve.

Following are the hysteresis curves from dynamic time history analysis.

Hysteresis Curve
15000

10000

5000
Base Shear (Kips)

0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
-5000

-10000

-15000

-20000
Displacement (inches)

Hysteresis Curve
4

2
Base Shear (Kips)

0
-15000 -10000 -5000 0 5000 10000 15000
-1

-2

-3

-4
Displacement (inches)

61
 Hysteresis Curve
15000

10000

Base Shear (kios) 5000

0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-5000

-10000

-15000
Displacement (inches)

Hysteresis Curve
15000

10000
Base Shear (Kips)

5000

0
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
-5000

-10000

-15000
Displacement (inches)

62
 Appendix C: (Dynamic Analysis Versus Pushover Curve)

G1-3ksi-D
18000
16000
14000
12000
Base Shear

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement

pushover Dynamic Poly. (Dynamic)

Figure 53: Dynamic Curve Group IA (G1-3ksi-D)

G1-4ksi-D
18000
16000
14000
12000
Base Shear

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement

Dynamic Pushover Poly. (Dynamic)

Figure 54: Dynamic Curve Group IA (G1-4ksi-D)

63
 G1-6ksi-D
18000
16000
14000
12000
Base Shear
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement

dynamic pushover Poly. (dynamic)

Figure 55: Dynamic Curve Group IA (G1-6ksi-D)

G1-3ksi-ND
16000
14000
12000
BASE SHEAR

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
DISPLACEMENT

dynamic pushover Poly. (dynamic)

Figure 56: Dynamic Curve Group IB (G1-3ksi-ND)

64
 G1-4ksi-ND
16000
14000
12000

Base Shear
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement

Dynamic Pushover Poly. (Dynamic)

Figure 57: Dynamic Curve Group IB (G1-4ksi-ND)

G1-6ksi-ND
16000
14000
12000
Base Shear

10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement

dynamic Pushover Poly. (dynamic)

Figure 58: Dynamic Curve Group IB (G1-6ksi-ND)

65
 G2-3ksi-D
8000
7000
6000

Base Shear
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displaement

Pushover Dynamic Poly. (Dynamic)

Figure 59: Dynamic Curve Group IIA (G2-3ksi-D)

G2-4ksi-D
8000
7000
6000
Base Shear

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement

Pushover Dynamic Poly. (Dynamic)

Figure 60: Dynamic Curve Group IIA (G2-4ksi-D)

66
 G2-6ksi-D
8000
7000
6000

Base Shear
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Displacement

Pushover Dynamic Poly. (Dynamic)

Figure 61: Dynamic Curve Group IIA (G2-6ksi-D)

G2-3ksi-ND
7000
6000
5000
Base Shear

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement

Dynamic Pushover Poly. (Dynamic)

Figure 62: Dynamic Curve Group IIB (G2-3ksi-ND)

67
 G2-4ksi-ND
7000
6000
5000

Base Shear
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Displacement

Pushover Dynamic Poly. (Dynamic)

Figure 63: Dynamic Curve Group IIB (G2-4ksi-ND)

G2-6ksi-ND
7000
6000
5000
Base Shear

4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Displacement

Pushover Dynamic Poly. (Dynamic)

Figure 64: Dynamic Curve Group IIB (G2-6ksi-ND)

68
Result and Discussions:

The pushover analysis and the dynamic analysis are conducted in the transverse

direction, which is along the moment frame direction (X-axis). The base shear versus roof

displacement capacities for (Group IA through Group IIB) were obtained from pushover

analysis and represent capacity of the structure under incremental lateral loading, presented

in appendix B, as result shown that:

 If compressive strength (f’c) increases the capacity of the structure also increases

and it is also reaches to the demand of the structure (ATC-40). From these figures,

the design base shear, yielding shear and the maximum seismic demand for the

elastic response could be calculated for each case; resulting in the calculated R

factors for this study.

 As the size of the cross section increase the capacity of the structure also increases.

In appendix C, contain maximum base shear versus roof displacement demands from

dynamic analysis. The dynamic analysis utilized 22 strong ground motions. Thus, the

figures show that the pushover envelopes form an upper bound to the dynamic results. As

results indicates that,

 The maximum base shear does not reach to the maximum base shear from

pushover curve,

 It is roughly coincide to the yielding range of the pushover, which indicate that

the structure itself a huge capacity to reach the failure mechanism of the structure

during earthquake,

 These 22 earthquakes does not reach to the pushover and these structure remain

elastic and did not reach to plastic b/c of the massive size of beams and columns.

69
  And it is also indicating that SMRF’s behaved elastically when subjected to the

earthquake obtained from the dynamic analysis.

There is no added value for the special ductiling requirement and ductility that

usually exhibit in the special reinforced concrete moment frames. Therefore, based on

this study the ordinary moment frame was a non-ductile cross-section are suitable for this

types of structure in high seismic zone thus the structure does not require the additional

ductility. Furthermore, the R-factor equal to 9 (based on average), for these types of

frames.

Group IA
12
R-Factor
10
ASCE7-10

8 Ductility Factor

6 Overstrength Factor

4 Response Modification
Factor
2

0
3ksi
1 4ksi
2 6ksi
3

Figure 65: Comparison if Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification factor

(Group IA)

70
 Group IIB
12 R-Factor
ASCE7-10
10

8 Ductility Factor

6 Overstrength Factor

4 Response Modification
Factor
2

0
1 2 3

Figure 66: Comparison if Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification factor

(Group IB)

Group IIA
R-Factor
10 ASCE7-10
9
8
7 Ductility Factor
6
5 Overstrength Factor
4
3 Response Modification
Factor
2
1
0
3ksi
1 4ksi2 6ksi
3

Figure 67: Comparison if Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification factor

(Group IIA)

71
 Group IIB
8
R-Factor
7
ASCE7-10
6
Ductility Factor
5

4 Overstrength Factor

3
Response Modification
2 Factor

0
3ksi
1 4ksi
2 6ksi
3

Figure 68: Comparison if Overstrength, Ductility, and Response Modification factor

(Group IIB)

The above histograms discuss a detailed comparison of the Overstrength,

Ductility, and Response Modification factor of Group I and Group II.

In this case study, the over strength factor for the Table-top Reinforced Concrete

Moment Frames had calculated value is 4, which is above the current code value of 3 in

ASCE 7-10.

The ductility factor for Table-top Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames was

almost equal in all cases of Group I, while it is increased as the cross section sizes

decreased of Group II.

In typical Table- Top reinforced concrete frames, in group II the Response

Modification Factor was very close to the code value of 7, while the value prescribed in

ASCE 7-10 is 8 seem to greatly underestimate it. See table 5 for an illustration of the

different R factors due to the various parameters applied in the different cases. The ASCE

7-10 value show with Black Doted line.

72
 As you can see that in Group IB and IIB (6ksi) the response modification factor is

decreases as compared to the 3ksi and 4ksi. It is because of the less ductility into the system

as you can see the Pushover curve the strength is increases as compressive strength

increases but the displacement also decreases that is why the response modification factor

in Group IB and IIB (6ksi) decreases. So, I can say that the increase in compressive strength

is not beneficial and it seem that the structure is fail in concrete.

Table 7: Response Modification Calculated Values

Group Structure Ductility Over Response

model strength Modification
Factor Coefficient
R
G1-3ksi-D 2 5 10
Group
G1-4ksi-D 2 5 11
IA
Group G1-6ksi-D 2 5 11
I
G1-3ksi-ND 2 5 11
Group G1-4ksi-ND 2 5 11
IB
G1-6ksi-ND 2 5 10
G2-3ksi-D 3 3 8
Group
IIA G2-4ksi-D 3 3 8
Group G2-6ksi-D 3 3 9
II
G2-3ksi-ND 3 3 7
Group
G2-4ksi-ND 3 3 7
IIB
G2-6ksi-ND 2 2 6

Average 3 4 9

73
 CHAPTER 6

RECOMMENDATION

As the SMF’s were designed based on preliminary response modification factor and their

tentative values were evaluated. According to the mentioned procedure all models were

analyzed and their final seismic response modification factors were calculated.

The Special Moment Frame were evaluated using nonlinear static pushover analysis

and (time history) analysis. The response modification factor was discussed in previous

chapters. However, the response modification factor turns out to be 9 for table top

reinforced concrete frames, which is larger value as prescribed in ASCE i.e. 8 for Special

reinforced concrete moment frame.

- In (Group I) the R factor is greater than Group II, which means that larger the cross

section higher the R factor.

- The system has a considerably high overstrength value which is around (3-5),

- Response modification factor is between (7-10), see table 6 below for response

modification factor calculated for prototypes frames compared to that value which

is prescribed in ASCE 7-10 values i.e 8,

- And ductility factor comes out to be (2-3), for these types of frames.

- As we noticed that the increase in the cross section increased the overstrength and

response modification factors.

We can see, there is no added value imposes this ductile requirement. to the structures and

it is not beneficial the structure remain elastic so, easy reinforced configuration will

probably suffice the requirement and make these structure easy to build and more cost

effective.

74
 CHAPTER 7

VERIFICATION OF THE MODEL

Fundamental Time Period

In chapter 15, section 15.4.4 (ASCE 7-10), use to calculate the fundamental time

period of the Table- Top reinforced concrete frame as follows.

As per ASCE 7-10 the fundamental period of the non-building structure shall be

determined using the structural properties and deformation characteristics of the resisting

elements in a properly substantiated analysis as indicated in Section 12.8.2. Alternative ly,

the fundamental period T is permitted to be computed from the following equation:

∑𝑛 𝑓𝑖 δ2𝑖
𝑇 = 2ᴨ√ 𝑖 =1
𝑔 ∑𝑛𝑖=1 𝑓𝑖 δ𝑖

Table 8: Time Period Calculated vurses SAP2000

The values of 𝑓𝑖 represent any lateral force distribution in accordance with the

principles of structural mechanics which is described in chapter 3. The elastic deflections,

δ𝑖 , shall be calculated using the applied lateral forces, 𝑓𝑖.

Model Time Period (Sec) Time Period (Sec)

(Calculated) (SAP2000)

Group IA 0.63 0.65

Group IB 0.63 0.65

Group IIA 0.77 0.8

Group IIB 0.77 0.8

75
 Wx Fx Deflection
Level (kips) hx (ft) hx^k Wx*hx^k (kips) (inch)
Level 3 2990.625 100 123.03 367927.25 5704.01 1.13
Level 2 3710.625 80 97.44 361556.4409 5605.25 0.88
Level 1 5630.625 50 59.62 335722.3534 5204.74 0.92
Total 12331.88 1065206.05 16514.00

Time Period (ASCE 7-10) 0.63 Sec

T (SAP2000) x-axis 0.65 Sec

76
 CHAPTER 8

REFERENCES

1. ASCE [2005] ‘‘ASCE/SEI 7-05: Minimum design loads for buildings and other

structures,’’Standard Committee, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,

Virginia.

2. ATC. Structural response modification factors. ATC-19, Applied Technology Council,

Redwood City, California, 1995:5–32.

3. Kessler, Samantha, A Study of the seismic response modification factor for log shear

walls. 2010. Manhattan, Kansas, Kansas State University.

4. ATC-3-06 report, Tentative Provisions for the Development of Seismic Regulatio ns

for Buildings (ATC, 1978).

5. ATC, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings. Report No. ATC-40,

Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, 1996.

6. AISC, Facts for Steel Buildings “Earthquakes and Seismic Design” #3, Simpson

Gumpertz & Heger, Inc. 2009

7. SEAOC Seismology Committee. (2008, September). A Brief Guide to Seismic Design

Factors. Structure Magazine.

8. SEAOC Seismology Committee. (2009, January). Seismic Force-Resisting Systems

Part 1: Seismic Design Factors. Structure Magazine.

9. ATC. Structural response modification factors. ATC-19, Applied Technology Council,

Redwood City, California, 1995:5–32.

10. Zafar, Adeel, response modification factors of reinforced concrete moment resisting

frames in developing countries. 2009. Urbana, Illinois, University of Illinois.

77
11. APPLIED TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL, comp. FEMA P695: Quantification of

Building Seismic Performance Factors.N.p.: FEMA, 2009.

12. ASCE [2005] ‘‘ASCE/SEI 7-10: Minimum design loads for buildings and other

structures,’’Standard Committee,American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston,

Virginia.

13. National Institute of Building Sciences Building Seismic Safety Council, comp. FEMA

P751: 2009 NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions: Design Examples. N.p.: n.p.,

2012.

14. static Pushover Analysis, SAP2000, Computer Structure, Inc

https://www.csiamerica.com/products/sap2000/watch-and-learn

15. Y.S. Salem, M.A.M. Nasr, “Evaluating Response Modification Factors of Open

Frames Steel Platforms”. Tenth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineer ing.

16. Wilson, Edward L. Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures. 3rd

ed., Berkeley, Computers and Structures, Inc., 2002.

17. Chopra, Anil K., and Rakesh K. Goel. A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure to

Estimate Seismic Demands for Buildings: Theory and Preliminary Evaluatio n.

Berkeley, U.S.-Japan Cooperative Research in Urban Earthquake Disaster Mitigatio n,

2001.

78
 APPENDIX

Appendix D: (Time – Acceleration of Earthquakes)

120111
0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
Time

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Acceleration

Figure 69: 1994 Northridge (Beverly Hills) Earthquake

120121
0.42

0.32

0.22

0.12
Time

0.02
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
-0.08

-0.18

-0.28
Acceleration

Figure 70: 1994 Northridge (Canyon Country) Earthquake

79
 120621
0.46

0.36

0.26

0.16
Time

0.06

-0.04 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.14

-0.24

-0.34
Acceleration

Figure 70: 1979 Imperial Valley (El Centro) Earthquake

120711
0.59

0.39

0.19
Time

-0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-0.21

-0.41

-0.61
Acceleration

Figure 71: 1995 Kobe, Japan (Nishi-Akashi) Earthquake

80
 121021
0.6

0.4

0.2
Time

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Acceleration

Figure 72: 1989 Loma Prieta (Gilroy) Earthquake

121411
0.34

0.24

0.14

0.04
Time

-0.06 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

-0.16

-0.26

-0.36
Acceleration

Figure 73: 1999 Chi-Chi Taiwan (CHY101) Earthquake

81
 120411
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
Time

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Acceleration

Figure 74: 1999 Duzce, Turkey (Bolu) Earthquake

120521
0.3

0.2

0.1
Time

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Acceleration

Figure 75: 1999 Hector Mine (Hector) Earthquake

82
 120611
0.3

0.2

0.1
Time

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Acceleration

Figure 76: 1979 Imperial Valley (Delta) Earthquake

120721
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Time

0
-0.05 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Acceleration

Figure 77: 1995 Kobe, Japan (Shin-Osaka) Earthquake

83
 120811
0.25

0.15

0.05
Time

-0.05 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0.15

-0.25

-0.35
Acceleration

Figure 78: 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey (Duzce) Earthquake

120821
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Time

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Acceleration

Figure 79: 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey (Arcelik) Earthquake

84
 120911
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Time

-0.05 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
Acceleration

Figure 80: 1992 Landers (Yermo Fire Station) Earthquake

120921
0.3

0.2

0.1
Time

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Acceleration

Figure 81: 1992 Landers (Coolwater) Earthquake

85
 121011
0.65

0.45

0.25
Time

0.05

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.15

-0.35

-0.55
Acceleration

Figure 82: 1989 Loma Prieta (Capitola) Earthquake

121111
0.6

0.4

0.2
Time

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.2

-0.4

-0.6
Acceleration

Figure 83: 1990 Manjil, Iran (Abbar) Earthquake

86
 121211
0.39

0.29

0.19

0.09
Time

-0.01
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.11

-0.21

-0.31
Acceleration

Figure 84: 1987 Superstition Hills (El Centro) Earthquake

121221
0.46

0.36

0.26

0.16
Time

0.06

-0.04 0 5 10 15 20 25
-0.14

-0.24

-0.34
Acceleration

Figure 85: 1987 Superstition Hills (Poe Road) Earthquake

87
 121321
0.3

0.2

0.1

0
Time

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

-0.4
Acceleration

Figure 86: 1992 Cape Mendocin (Rio Dell) Earthquake

121421
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Time

0
-0.1 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
Acceleration

Figure 87: 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan (TCU045) Earthquake

88
 121511
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
Time

0
-0.05 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
Acceleration

Figure 88: 1971 San Fernando (LA) Earthquake

121711
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
Time

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.1

-0.2

-0.3
Acceleration

Figure 89: 1976 Friuli, Italy (Tolmezzo) Earthquake

89

View publication stats