Seismic Response of Reinforced Concrete Buildings: Field Challenges and Simplified Code Formulas

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.





References:
[1] J. A. Blume, "Dynamic Characteristics of Multistory Buildings,”
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, vol. 94, February 1968, pp.
337-402.
[2] 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.
[3] International Code Council, International Building Code, 2009,
Washington D.C., 2009.
[4] Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Code, The National
Building Code of Canada, 2010, National Research Council, Ottawa,
2010.
[5] International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Uniform
Building Code, Whittier, CA, 1997.
[6] Structural Engineers Association of California, Seismology Committee,
Recommended Lateral Force Requirements and Commentary, Sixth
Edition, 1996.
[7] 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.
[8] A. S. Mirza, "Flexural Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns,” ACI
Structural Journal, No. 4, vol. 87, 1990, pp. 425-435.
[9] 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.
[10] V. Bertero and S. Brokken, "Infills in Seismic Resistant Buildings,”
ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 109, No. 6, June 1983, pp.
1337-1361.
[11] R. D. Hanson, and T. T. Soong, "Seismic Design with Supplemental
Energy Dissipation Devices,” Earthquake Engineering Research
Institute, 2001, Oakland, CA.
[12] 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.
[13] C. Menun, "Strategies for Identifying Critical Response Combinations,”
Earthquake Spectra, vol. 20, 2004, pp.1139-1165.
[14] 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.
[15] International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO), Uniform
Building Code, Whittier, CA, 1988.
[16] Applied Technology Council. Tentative Regulations for the
Development of Seismic Provisions for Buildings. Report ATC 3-06,
1978, San Francisco, CA.
[17] 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.
[18] American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete, ACI 318-11 and Commentary, 2011. 38800 Country Club
Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
[19] 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.
[20] 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.
[21] 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.
[22] 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.
[23] 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.
[24] 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.
[25] 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.
[26] 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.
[27] American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary (ACI 318R-08), 2008.
Farmington Hills, Michigan, 465 pp.
[28] American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing
Buildings. ASCE 41, 2007, Reston, Virginia.
[29] Federal Emergency Management Agency. Prestandard and
Commentary on the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings. FEAM 356,
2000, Washington D. C., USA.
[30] American Concrete Institute. Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and
Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures. ACI 209-R86, 1986.