Download 3.0 Earthquake Resistant Structural Systems

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Transcript
CivE 490
Final Report
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN
Prepared for:
Dr. R. Donahue
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
University of Alberta
Prepared by:
Joanna Chau
ID# 294228
April 9, 2003
Executive Summary
Many experimental studies have been carried out to examine different
types of structural systems under the impact of earthquakes. These studies were
all aimed toward the same goal, that is, to minimize the damages caused by the
destructive power of earthquakes. The results from these studies demonstrated
that for an earthquake resistant structure, it must have the following essential
requirements: vertical bracing elements; horizontal elements, or diaphragm; and
a continuous load path for the transmission of lateral forces to the ground. Some
of the most common earthquake resistant structural systems include: shear wall
dominant buildings, composite steel and concrete structural systems, masonry
buildings, and steel buildings. The properties of earthquakes and the design of
various types of earthquake resistant structural systems will be presented, along
with recommendations to insure earthquake resistant performance of the
structures.
ii
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... II
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................... IV
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................... V
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROPERTIES OF EARTHQUAKES .............................................................. 1
2.1 Characteristics of Earthquake Ground Motion ...................................... 1
2.2 Behaviours of Building Structures During Earthquakes ........................ 2
3.0 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT STRUCTURAL SYSTEMS.................................... 4
3.1 Shear Wall Dominant Buildings ............................................................ 4
3.2 Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Systems .............................. 7
3.2.1 Concrete-Filled Steel Tubes .................................................................. 8
3.2.2 Steel Reinforced Concrete .................................................................... 9
3.2.3 Composite Wall Systems..................................................................... 10
3.3 Masonry Buildings ............................................................................. 10
3.3.1 Confined Masonry ............................................................................... 11
3.3.2 Reinforced Masonry ............................................................................ 12
3.4 Steel Buildings ................................................................................... 15
3.4.1 Concentrically Braced Frames ............................................................ 15
3.4.2 Moment Resisting Frames .................................................................. 16
3.4.3 Eccentrically Braced Frames ............................................................... 17
4.0 CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................... 18
5.0 LIST OF REFERENCES .......................................................................... 19
iii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1.
Seismic excitation of a building. ............................................................. 4
Figure 3.1.
Tunnel form technique and construction system.................................... 5
Figure 3.2.
Typical three-dimensional mesh modelling for tunnel form building
structure. ................................................................................................. 6
Figure 3.3.
Slab-wall interaction due to tension and compression (T/C) coupling. .. 7
Figure 3.4.
Typical split-tee concrete-filled steel tube connection specimen. .......... 8
Figure 3.5.
Construction of earthquake resistant traditional stone-masonry wall. . 11
Figure 3.6.1. Reinforced hollow unit masonry. .......................................................... 13
Figure 3.6.2. Reinforced grouted cavity masonry construction system..................... 13
Figure 3.6.3. Reinforced pocket type walls.. .............................................................. 13
Figure 3.7.
Typical concentrically braced frame configurations. ............................ 16
iv
List of Tables
Table 2.1. Wave propagation velocities in various types of soil. ................................ 2
Table 3.1. Recommended maximum building height, H, and number of stories, n. . 14
v
1.0 Introduction
Due to the destructive power of earthquakes, the safety and stability of
buildings located in areas that are faced with extensive earthquake risks should
be verified for seismic loads. Such verification is dependent on the results of
geological and seismological studies, which provide data on the seismic activity
of the location and recommend the values of parameters to be used in the
evaluation of the expected seismic actions. However, verification is also based
on the analysis of earthquake damage and mechanisms of collapse, as well as
subsequent experimental investigations in the seismic behaviour, which give the
starting point for the development of methods for structural verification of newly
designed buildings (Tomaževič, 1999). In this report, the damages of structures
due to earthquakes, and the design of earthquake resistant buildings will be
analyzed.
To get a better understanding of earthquake resistant design, the
properties of earthquakes and some of the different types of earthquake resistant
structural systems will be examined in detail.
2.0 Properties of Earthquakes
2.1 Characteristics of Earthquake Ground Motion
The ground motion that is generated by sudden displacements within the
earth’s crust is called an earthquake. Earthquakes are caused by various natural
phenomena, such as volcanic eruption and fault rupture, which leads to seismic
waves to propagate away from the causative fault and through the geological
layers, and this wave propagation leads to oscillation of the ground (Tomaževič,
1999). The two types of seismic waves are called the longitudinal and transverse
1
waves. The longitudinal waves propagate in the same direction as the vibration
and the transverse waves propagate in the direction that is perpendicular to the
vibration. Since the propagation velocity of longitudinal waves is faster than that
of transverse waves, therefore longitudinal waves are often called the primary
waves (P-waves) and transverse waves are called the secondary waves (Swaves). Some typical values of the wave propagation velocities are shown in
Table 2.1 (Tomaževič, 1999). The effects of earthquake ground motions on the
behaviour and integrity of structures are dependent on the strength, frequency
content, and duration of the ground oscillation (Gosh, 1991).
Table 2.1. Wave propagation velocities in various types of soil.
Taken from Tomaževič, 1999.
2.2 Behaviours of Building Structures During Earthquakes
Selecting the appropriate load carrying system is an important parameter
that will determine the performance of building structures under any loading.
Especially in earthquake resistant design, since the intensity and orientation of
loading are highly uncertain, therefore more emphasis must be placed upon
selecting the proper type of structural systems. Buildings with simple, regular,
and compact layouts that incorporate a continuous and redundant lateral force
resisting system tend to perform fairly well and thus are desirable. Complex
structural systems that may contain uncertainties in the analysis and detailing or
that rely on non-redundant load paths can often cause unexpected and
2
potentially undesirable structural behaviour (Gosh, 1991).
There are certain
essential requirements for all earthquake resistant building structures.
It is
crucial for the structure to have adequate vertical bracing elements, either frames
or shear walls, which provide stability to the structure by transferring all the
earthquake forces to the ground. There must also be horizontal elements, or
diaphragms, that tie the structure together and distribute all lateral forces to the
vertical bracing elements.
A continuous load path is necessary for the
transmission of the lateral forces, from its point of origin to the ground (Green,
1987). Failing to provide adequate strength and toughness to each individual
element in the system, or failing to tie all the individual elements together can
cause distress or complete collapse of the system.
During a seismic excitation, the deformation of a structure is due to the
forced motion of its foundations, which will then produce oscillation of the
structure (as illustrated in Figure 2.1). In this process, a certain amount of kinetic
energy will be imparted to the structure in the form of elastic deformation. This
energy, during the consecutive phases of structure oscillation, will alternate
continuously from kinetic to potential energy and vice versa, until it is dissipated
in the form of the heat through the process of viscous and hysteretic damping
(Penelis and Kappos, 1997). As a result, the main concern for the structural
engineers when designing an earthquake resistant structure is to construct a
structural system that is able to dissipate this kinetic energy through successive
deformation cycles, without exceeding certain damage limits, defined for
characteristic excitation levels (Penelis and Kappos, 1997).
3
Figure 2.1. Seismic excitation of a building.
Taken from Penelis and Kappos, 1997.
3.0 Earthquake Resistant Structural Systems
3.1 Shear Wall Dominant Buildings
Shear
wall
dominant
multi-storey reinforced
concrete
structures,
constructed using tunnel form techniques are often used in countries that
encounter extensive seismic risk such as Japan, Turkey and Chile (Balkaya and
Kalkan, 2003).
Shear wall dominant buildings are composed of vertical and
horizontal panels set at right angles and are supported by struts and props.
Figure 3.1 is a typical illustration for this type of unique structure. There are no
beams or columns used and these structures generally use all wall elements as
the primary load carrying members. With this type of construction technique, the
use of precast load carrying members is avoided (Balkaya and Kalkan, 2003).
The shear walls will act as vertical cantilever beams, which transfer lateral forces
from the superstructure to the foundation.
Most of the shear wall dominant
structures contain a number of walls which resist lateral load in two orthogonal
directions. (Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute, 1996).
The walls and
slabs, having almost the same thickness are cast-in-place in one single
operation. Thus, it reduces the number of joints required for the members and
4
allows the casting of walls and slabs to be completed at a very rapid speed. This
simultaneous casting of walls, slabs and cross-walls results in monolithic
structures, which provides high seismic performance and, as a result, allowing
them to meet the seismic code requirements of many countries that are located
in regions facing great earthquake risks.
In addition to their considerable
earthquake resistance, the simplicity and speed of building make them preferable
as the multi-unit construction of public and residential buildings (Balkaya and
Kalkan, 2003).
Figure 3.1. Tunnel form technique and construction system.
Taken from Balkaya and Kalkan, 2003.
In 1999, two severe urban earthquakes struck the Kocaeli and Düzce
provinces in Turkey with magnitudes (Mw) of 7.4 and 7.1.
These disasters
caused substantial structural damage and casualties. In the outcome of these
disastrous earthquakes, no damages or demolished shear wall dominant
buildings constructed using the tunnel form techniques were reported.
The
nearly non-damaged conditions of these unique structures drew people’s
attention to focus on their dynamic properties (Balkaya and Kalkan, 2003).
5
Another major requirement of an earthquake resistant structure is the
ability to respond to strong motion by progressively mobilizing the energy
dissipative capacities of an ascending hierarchy of elements making up the
structure. In these shear wall dominant multi-storey structures, when the shear
walls are designed properly, it can become economical and effective lateral
stiffening elements, which can be used to minimize potentially damaging interstorey drifts in multi-storey structures during earthquake excitations (Balkaya and
Kalkan, 2003). As mentioned before, for these structures, the shear walls and
slabs have almost the same thickness, less than those of standard building
slabs. Therefore, diaphragm flexibility can greatly reduce the dynamic behaviour.
The transverse walls, which are perpendicular to the main walls and the loading
direction, provide additional resistance and increase the predicated load capacity
considerably due to the tension/compression (T/C) coupling effect (Figure 3.3)
produced by the in-plane or membrane forces in the walls (Balkaya and Kalkan,
2003).
Figure 3.2. Typical three-dimensional mesh modelling for tunnel form building structure.
Taken from Balkaya and Kalkan, 2003.
6
Figure 3.3. Slab-wall interaction due to tension and compression (T/C) coupling.
Taken from Balkaya and Kalkan, 2003.
However, one observed drawback of this type of building structure is their
torsional behaviour, it is an exceptionally important criteria in the dynamic mode
of those structures that should be taken into account for the design. Since part of
the outside walls should be opened in order to take the formwork back after the
casting process, therefore, the buildings may behave like thin-wall-tubular
structures where the torsional rigidity is low. In addition, rectangular plans tend
to have weaker bending capacity along their short sides than that of square plans
due to their architectural and constructional limitations (Balkaya and Kalkan,
2003). As a result, the designer should pay special attention to these details.
3.2 Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Systems
The use of composite steel and concrete structural systems as the
primary lateral resistance systems in building structures subjected to seismic
loading can provide significant advantages. While composite construction has
been common for over half a century through the use of composite beam and
joist floor systems, over the past decade, a substantial amount of research has
been conducted worldwide on a wide range of composite lateral resistance
systems. These systems include unbraced moment frames consisting of steel
girders with concrete-filled steel tube (CFT) or steel reinforced concrete (SRC)
7
beam-columns; braced frames having concrete-filled steel tube columns; and a
variety of composite wall systems (Hajjar, 2001).
3.2.1 Concrete-Filled Steel Tubes
Concrete-filled steel tube columns are commonly used in building
construction as the super-columns in high-rise structures, where they form the
primary load bearing members in the building’s gravity and lateral resistance
systems (Hajjar, 2001). But recently, many building contractors and researchers
have started to realize the potential economic benefits of using composite
concrete-filled steel tube frames, consisting of steel I-girders framing into circular,
square, or rectangular concrete-filled steel tubes using fully-restrained or partially
restrained connections for unbraced frames, or using pin connections for braced
frames. Concrete-filled steel tube structural members have a number of distinct
advantages when comparing to the steel, reinforced concrete, or steel-reinforced
concrete members. The steel that lies at the outer perimeter can efficiently resist
flexure, axial tension, and compression, while the concrete in the inside forms an
excellent core to facilitate the resistance of compressive loading.
Therefore,
longitudinal reinforcing bars are not necessary along the length of the concretefilled steel tube (Hajjar, 2001).
Figure 3.4. Typical split-tee concrete-filled steel tube connection specimen.
Taken from Hajjar, 2002.
8
In construction, the tube itself can act as the formwork, and their erection
can precede the concrete by several stories, which can reduce both the labour
and material costs. When using composite concrete-filled steel tube frames, the
concrete-filled steel tubes give excellent monotonic and seismic resistance in two
orthogonal directions and can withstand biaxial bending and axial compression.
In lateral system design, the use of concrete-filled steel tubes as part of the
moment resisting frames can yield a high strength-to-weight ratio due to
confinement of the concrete and continuous bracing of the steel tube to delay
local buckling, improved damping behaviour in comparison to the traditional steel
frames, and enhanced ductility and toughness.
In the event of earthquake
excitation, the cyclic response of concrete-filled steel tubes and their connections
provides full hysteresis loops with substantial energy dissipation (Hajjar, 2001).
3.2.2 Steel Reinforced Concrete
Steel reinforced concrete beam-columns have the ability to yield high
strength and ductility relative to the reinforced concrete members. Above the
concrete pour, the encased steel section is often erected for several stories, thus,
allowing the steel girders to be framed into the steel columns, which will then
facilitates ongoing construction of the remainder of the steel structure. Similar to
concrete-filled steel tubes, longitudinal reinforcement in the columns is not
necessary (Hajjar, 2001). Comparing the steel reinforced concrete to reinforced
concrete, when these two types of concrete beam-columns are subjected to axial
force plus cyclic shear, placing the member into double curvature, as would be
exhibited by a beam-column in a moment resisting frame structure, the steel
reinforced concrete beam-columns show very good response, with improved
ductility over the corresponding reinforced concrete member (Hajjar, 2001).
9
3.2.3 Composite Wall Systems
The composite wall systems can act as great lateral resistance systems
in areas ranging from lowto high seismicity. The advantages of using composite
wall systems include:

Ease of construction through the use of ductile wall system details, which
can prevent the overcrowding of reinforcing bars than in reinforced
concrete, together with gravity steel framing throughout the rest of the
building;

Ability to use the walls as architectural partitions in a variety of
configurations compared to the conventional steel braced frames for
example;

High initial stiffness to help eliminate drift;

Good damping characteristics; and

Easier to repair after moderate damage by using epoxy on the cracked
walls (Hajjar, 2001).
3.3 Masonry Buildings
Masonry buildings are box-type structural systems composed of vertical
and horizontal structural elements, walls and floors, connected in every direction.
Horizontal connecting elements, steel ties or reinforced-concrete bond-beams
(tie-beams) are provided at floor levels to connect the walls. During earthquakes,
floors should act as rigid horizontal diaphragm, which allows the seismic inertia
forces be distributed among the structural walls in proportion to their stiffnesses.
Any type of floors may be used, given that the general requirements of continuity
and effective diaphragm action are satisfied.
Masonry exists in the form of
10
confined, un-confined, reinforced, un-reinforced masonry (Tomaževič, 1999.).
Confined, reinforced masonry will be discussed in more details.
Figure 3.5. Construction of earthquake resistant traditional stone-masonry wall.
Taken from Tomaževič, 1999.
3.3.1 Confined Masonry
Confined masonry is a construction system where masonry structural
walls are confined on all four sides with reinforced concrete or reinforced
masonry vertical and horizontal confining elements, which are not intended to
carry vertical and/or horizontal loads, as a result, it is not designed to perform as
a moment-resisting frames (Tomaževič, 1999.). But for confined masonry walls,
they are intended to carry all vertical and seismic loading.
As shown by
experimental results and past experiences obtained after earthquakes, confining
the masonry walls with bond-systems and tie-columns can provide the following:

Improvement in the connection between structural walls;

Improvement in the stability of slender structural walls;

Improvement in strength and ductility of masonry panels; and

Reduction in the risk of disintegration of masonry panels damaged by the
earthquake.
11
In order to ensure structural integrity, vertical confining elements should
be situated at all corners and recesses of the building, also at all joints and wall
intersections (Tomaževič, 1999.).
The results obtained from experimental investigations of subjecting single
storey masonry houses to dynamically imposed sinusoidal displacements with
increasing amplitudes, it demonstrated that vertical tie-columns can improve the
ductility of masonry buildings significantly, while only causing small impact on the
lateral resistance. Similar results have been demonstrated by the static cyclic
tests. By conducting correlation studies that compare the behaviour of plain
masonry wall panels, which often shows relatively poor masonry quality, to
confined masonry, the results obtained clearly suggests that the confined
masonry elements can improve the seismic behaviour (Tomaževič, 1999.).
Recently, energy dissipation capacity and ductility of masonry wall assemblages,
confined and reinforced in different ways, as well as the influence of horizontal
reinforcement on the seismic behaviour, have been experimentally investigated.
These conclusions all suggests that confinement can improve the lateral
resistance and energy dissipation capacity of a masonry wall (Tomaževič, 1999.).
3.3.2 Reinforced Masonry
Reinforced masonry is a construction system, where steel reinforcement
in the form of reinforcing bars or mesh is embedded in the mortar or placed in the
holes and filled with concrete or gout (Tomaževič, 1999.). By reinforcing the
masonry with steel reinforcement, the resistance to seismic loads and energy
dissipation capacity may be improved considerably.
To achieve this, the
reinforcement should be integrated with masonry so that all materials of the
reinforced masonry system act monolithically when resisting gravity and seismic
12
loading (Tomaževič, 1999.). There are many ways in which steel reinforcement
can be used in a reinforced masonry structural system. The three basic types of
reinforced masonry systems are: reinforced hollow unit masonry (Figure 3.6.1),
reinforced grouted cavity masonry (Figure 3.6.2), and reinforced pocket type
walls (Figure 3.6.3).
Figure 3.6.1. Reinforced hollow unit masonry.
Taken from Tomaževič, 1999.
Figure 3.6.2. Reinforced grouted cavity masonry construction system.
Taken from Tomaževič, 1999.
Figure 3.6.3. Reinforced pocket type walls.
Taken from Tomaževič, 1999.
During shear failure, plain masonry walls behave as brittle structural
elements with limited energy dissipation capacity, especially when subjected to
high compression stresses. To improve lateral resistance and ductility of the
13
masonry walls, the walls can be reinforced with steel reinforcement, which is
placed either in the joints between the units and embedded in the mortar, or in
specially provided holes and channels within the units and grouted with concrete
or grout.
If a masonry wall is reinforced horizontally, the reinforcement will
prevent the separation of the cracked part of the wall at shear failure, thus
improving the resistance and energy dissipation capacity of the wall when
subjected to repeated lateral load reversals (Tomaževič, 1999.).
But for un-
reinforced masonry walls, even a single diagonal crack may cause severe
deterioration in strength and followed by brittle collapse. Conversely, if the walls
are reinforced horizontally, many cracks, evenly distributed over the entire
surface of the walls, may develop before causing the wall to collapse. At ultimate
state, crushing of masonry units due to bending plus shear is often observed,
indicating that the load bearing capacity of masonry units is fully utilized
(Tomaževič, 1999.).
Even though the seismic resistance of all masonry buildings should be
verified by calculation, it is recommended that, knowing the available quality of
masonry materials and technology, the height and number of stories of masonry
buildings constructed in one of the construction systems may not exceed the
recommended values (Tomaževič, 1999.) specified in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Recommended maximum building height, H, and number of stories, n.
Taken from Tomaževič, 1999.
14
3.4 Steel Buildings
All buildings must have a structural system that is capable of resisting
lateral loads due to earthquakes. Some of the common vertical lateral vertical
load resisting systems in steel framed buildings include concentrically braced
frames, moment resisting frames, and eccentrically braced frames. Alternatively,
steel plate shear walls, base isolation techniques, and energy absorbing
elements in braced frames are also used (Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997).
3.4.1 Concentrically Braced Frames
Concentrically braced frames are vertical cantilever trusses that are
commonly used in low-rise buildings.
Typical configurations of these
concentrically braced frames are shown in Figure 3.7. They are appropriate in
situations with low to moderate ductility demand (Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997).
Concentrically braced frames have simple beam-to-column connections. Lateral
stiffness and strength are provided by the diagonal braces, which are attached
concentrically to the beam-to-column connection using gusset plates. Energy
dissipation is imparted by the ability of the braces to yield in tension. The braces
may also be designed to buckle in-elastically in compression (Medhekar and
Kennedy, 1997).
Concentrically braced frames are economical due to the
relative ease in design, detailing, and construction. They are also very efficient
since the members are primarily subjected to axial loads. Concentrically braced
frames are stiff systems that provide good control of lateral drift, thus minimizing
damages to the non-structural components. Damaged brace members can be
replaced relatively easily as well (Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997). However, due
to its low redundancy, this system is not preferred in areas that are subjected to
high earthquake risks. The absence of alternative load paths may cause severe
15
consequences when the components fail.
The ability to resist compressive
forces of the diagonal braces tends to degrade under cyclic loading; as a result,
the frames may deteriorate in strength and stiffness considerably. Frames that
rely only on the tension diagonal to resist lateral force may have components
subjected to impact loads due to the slackness developed in the diagonals
(Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997).
Figure 3.7. Typical concentrically braced frame configurations.
Taken from Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997.
3.4.2 Moment Resisting Frames
Moment resisting frames have beam-to-column connections that are
capable of transferring moment. The moment resisting frames are also more
ductile than concentrically braced frames (Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997).
Energy dissipation takes place by flexural yielding in the plastic hinges, which are
formed at the ends of the members. This system creates no obstruction between
the columns and thus provides maximum freedom in the interior planning and
fenestration (Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997).
It is also highly redundant.
Consequently, it is preferred in areas that are faced with high earthquake risks.
However, since it is a rather flexible system, adequate drift control may not be
16
provided.
Subsequently, non-structural components of the system may be
damaged in moderate events (Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997). In addition, the
frame design is usually governed by stiffness considerations rather than by the
strength of the individual members. This leads to the evolution of dual systems
comprising both the concentrically braced frames and moment resisting frames.
The former can provide drift control in moderate but frequent events, while the
latter provides the ductility required to survive in case of an extreme event
(Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997).
Engineers usually design these moment
resisting frames with either full-strength rigid joints or simple pinned joints, but
recent experimental investigations show that some alternative connection types,
such as flush end-plate connection joints and improved welded moment
connections, may be used to enhance the ductility of these connections. The
flush end-plate connection joints allow plastic deformation of the frames to be in
control by determining the ductility capacity of the connection joints in advance.
Thus, allowing the frames to behave in a satisfactory predetermined manner
(Thomson and Broderick, 2002).
3.4.3 Eccentrically Braced Frames
Eccentrically braced frames consist the advantages of both the
concentrically braced frames and moment resisting frames. They have beam-tocolumn connections that are capable of transferring moments. In addition, the
braces provided have at least one eccentric connection. In these braces, the
force is transferred through a “link” element to the beam-to-column connection.
For eccentrically braced frames, energy dissipation takes place in the “link”
element by shear or flexural yielding. The braces are also designed to remain
elastic and not to buckle (Medhekar and Kennedy, 1997).
17
4.0 Conclusions
During a seismic excitation, the deformation and oscillation of structures
are due to the forced motion of its foundation. A certain amount of kinetic will be
imparted to the structure during this process, therefore, for any earthquake
resistant building, it must be able to dissipate this kinetic energy. Moreover, the
earthquake resistant building must have adequate vertical bracing elements,
horizontal elements, and a continuous load path for the transmission of lateral
forces to the ground.
Some of the commonly found earthquake resistant structural systems
include: shear wall dominant buildings, composite steel and concrete structural
systems, masonry buildings and steel buildings. Shear wall dominant buildings
are constructed using the tunnel form techniques, which are often used in
countries that encounter substantial seismic risk. Composite steel and concrete
structural systems are used quite extensively as the primary lateral resistance
system in buildings. These systems include unbraced moment frames consisting
of steel girders with concrete-filled steel tube or steel reinforced concrete beamcolumns, braced frames having concrete-filled tube columns, and a variety of
composite wall systems. Masonry may take the form of confined, un-confined,
reinforced, and un-reinforced masonry.
Typical vertical lateral load resisting
systems in steel framed buildings include concentrically braced frames, moment
resisting frames, and eccentrically braced frames.
18
5.0 List of References
Balkaya, C., and Kalkan, E. 2003. Estimation of Fundamental Periods of ShearWall Dominant Building Structures. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, 32:985-998.
Canadian Prestressed Concrete Institute. 1996. Precast and Prestressed
Concrete Design Manual, 3rd Ed. Ottawa, ON.
Ghosh, S.K. 1991 Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures Inelastic
Response and Design. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan.
Green, N.B. 1987. Earthquake Resistant Building Design and Construction, 3rd
Ed. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., New York.
Hajjar, J.F. 2002. Composite Steel and Concrete Structural Systems for Seismic
Engineering. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58:703-723.
Medhekar, M.S., and Kennedy, D.L. 1997. Seismic Evaluation of Steel Buildings
with Concentrically Braced Frames. Structural Engineering Report 219,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Penelis, G.G., and Kappos, A.J. 1997. Earthquake-Resistant Concrete
Structures. E & FN Spon, London.
19
Ricles, J.M., Fisher, J.W., Lu, L., and Kaufmann, E.J. 2001. Development of
Improved Welded Moment Connections for Earthquake-Resistant Design.
Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 58:565-604.
Thomson, A.W., and Broderick, B.M. 2002. Earthquake Resistance of Flush
End-Plate Steel Joints for Moment Frames. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Trinity College, Dublin.
Tomaževič, M. 1999. Earthquake-Resistant Design of Masonry Buildings.
Imperial College Press, London.
20
Similar
FrontPage #7 Chapter 11
FrontPage #7 Chapter 11