Title:
Seismic Performance of Tall Moment Frames with High-Strength Reinforcement
Author(s):
Duy V. To, Drit Sokoli, Wassim M. Ghannoum, and Jack P. Moehle
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
118
Issue:
1
Appears on pages(s):
113-124
Keywords:
Grade 100 reinforcement; high-strength reinforcement; low-cycle fatigue; seismic performance; special moment frame
DOI:
10.14359/51728180
Date:
1/1/2021
Abstract:
Seismic performance of tall, reinforced concrete special moment resisting frames with high-strength reinforcement is investigated through laboratory tests and nonlinear dynamic analysis. The tests demonstrate that members with higher-grade reinforcement tend to have reduced stiffness because of reduced amounts of reinforcement and increased strain penetration into adjacent connections. In addition, Grade 100 reinforcement may have tensile-to-yield strength ratio that is either lower or higher than typical Grade 60 reinforcement. Changes in tensile-to-yield strength ratio affect strain localization and overall force-deformation hardening response. To study the effects of using different grades of reinforcement, a 20-story reinforced concrete moment frame building was designed in accordance with ASCE 7-16 and an extension of ACI 318-19 at a hypothetical site in San Francisco, CA. Two different designs were done, one with Grade 60 reinforcement and another with Grade 100 reinforcement. The frames had the same gross dimensions and concrete properties, resulting in identical design strength requirements and design lateral drifts. To maintain the same nominal strengths, the frame with Grade 100 reinforcement had a reduced amount of longitudinal reinforcement compared with the frame having Grade 60 reinforcement. Numerical simulations of the nonlinear dynamic response of the frames were carried out to identify effects of the different reinforcement grades on response to strong earthquake ground motion. It was observed that frames with higher-grade reinforcement sustain modestly larger drifts than frames with lower-grade reinforcement. The analysis results also indicated that fracture of longitudinal reinforcement due to low-cycle fatigue in frame models is unlikely under maximum considered earthquake response (MCER)-level earthquakes.
Related References:
ACI Committee 318, 2019, “Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary,” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 624 pp.
ASCE 7, 2016, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
ASTM A1035/A1035M-16b, 2016, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain, Low-Carbon, Chromium, Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 8 pp.
ASTM E1049-85, 2005, “Standard Practices for Cycle Counting in Fatigue Analysis,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 10 pp.
ASTM A706/A706M-16, 2016, “Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Low-Alloy Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 7 pp.
Birely, A. C.; Lowes, L. N.; and Lehman, D. E., 2012, “Linear Analysis of Concrete Frames Considering Joint Flexibility,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 3, May-June, pp. 381-391.
Boore, D. M., 2010, “Orientation-Independent, Nongeometric-Mean Measures of Seismic Intensity from Two Horizontal Components of Motion,” Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, V. 100, No. 4, pp. 1830-1835. doi: 10.1785/0120090400
Charney, F. A., 2008, “Unintended Consequences of Modeling Damping in Structures,” Journal of Structural Engineering, V. 134, No. 4, pp. 581-592. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2008)134:4(581)
Chopra, A. K., and McKenna, F., 2016, “Modeling Viscous Damping in Nonlinear Response History Analysis of Buildings for Earthquake Excitation,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 45, No. 2, pp. 193-211. doi: 10.1002/eqe.2622
Computers and Structures, Inc.. 2016, http://www.csiamerica.com.
Ghannoum, W. M., and Slavin, C. M., 2016, “Low-Cycle Fatigue Performance of High-Strength Steel Reinforcing Bars,” ACI Materials Journal, V. 113, No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 803-814. doi: 10.14359/51689116
Haselton, C. B.; Goulet, C. A.; Mitrani-Reiser, J.; Beck, J. L.; Deierlein, G. G.; Porter, K. A.; Stewart, J. P.; and Taciroglu, E., 2008, “An Assessment to Benchmark the Seismic Performance of a Code-Conforming Reinforced-Concrete Moment-Frame Building,” Technical Report Peer 2007/2012, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Berkeley, CA.
Jayaram, N.; Lin, T.; and Baker, J. W., 2011, “A Computationally Efficient Ground-Motion Selection Algorithm for Matching a Target Response Spectrum Mean and Variance,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 27, No. 3, pp. 797-815. doi: 10.1193/1.3608002
LATBSDC, 2017, “An Alternative Procedure for Seismic Analysis and Design of Tall Buildings Located in the Los Angeles Region,” Los Angeles Tall Building Structural Design Council, Los Angeles, CA.
Laughery, L. A., and Pujol, S., 2019, “Drift Demands on Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Strong Ground Motions,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 116, No. 1, Jan., pp. 103-115. doi: 10.14359/51710872
Lu, Y., and Morris, G. R., 2017, “Assessment of Three Viscous Damping Methods for Nonlinear History Analysis: Rayleigh with Initial Stiffness, Rayleigh with Tangent Stiffness, and Modal,” Proceedings, Sixteenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, No. 1170, Santiago, Chile.
McKenna, F.; Fenves, G. L.; Scott, M. H.; and Jeremic, B., 2007, “Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees) [Software],” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA, http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
Miner, M. A., 1945, “Cumulative Damage in Fatigue,” Journal of Applied Mechanics, V. 12, pp. A159-A164.
Moehle, J. P., and Hooper, J. D., 2016, “Seismic Design of Reinforced Concrete Special Moment Frames: A Guide for Practicing Engineers,” second edition, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 1, NIST GCR 16-917-40, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Nieslony, A., 2010, “Rainflow Counting Algorithm,” Retrieved from MathWorks File Exchange, https://mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/3026-rainflow-counting-algorithm.
NIST, 2014, “Use of High-Strength Reinforcement in Earthquake-Resistant Concrete Structures,” NIST GCR 14-917-30, NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a Partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD, 231 pp.
Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation (OpenSees). 2016, http://opensees.berkeley.edu/.
Shahi, S. K., and Baker, J. W., 2014, “NGA-West2 Models for Ground Motion Directionality,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 30, No. 3, pp. 1285-1300. doi: 10.1193/040913EQS097M
Sokoli, D.; Limantono, A.; and Ghannoum, W. M., 2020, “Special Moment Frames with High-Strength Reinforcement—Part 2: Columns,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 2, Mar., pp. 253-265. doi: 10.14359/51721319
Sozen, M., 1980, “Review of Earthquake Response of R.C. Buildings with a View to Drift Control,” Proceedings, State-of-the-Art Panel Reports Prepared for the Occasion of the Seventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, pp. 383-418.
TBI, 2016, “Guidelines for Performance-Based Seismic Design of Tall Buildings,” Report No. 2016/09, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 140 pp.
To, D. V., 2018, “Seismic Performance Characterization of Beams with High-Strength Reinforcement,” doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA.
To, D. V., and Moehle, J. P., 2020, “Special Moment Frames with High-Strength Reinforcement—Part 1: Beams,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 117, No. 2, Mar., pp. 239-252.
Visnjic, T.; Panagiotou, C. M.; and Moehle, J. P., 2015, “Seismic Response of 20-Story-Tall Reinforced-Concrete Special Moment-Resisting Frames Designed with Current Code Provisions,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 31, No. 2, pp. 869-893. doi: 10.1193/082112EQS26