PERFORMANCE OF SPECIAL MOMENT RESISTING FRAME DESIGNED ACCORDING TO SNI 03-2847-1992 AND SNI 03-2847-2002

Ima MULJATI1, Pamuda PUDJISURYADI2

ABSTRACT: The Indonesian Reinforced Concrete Code has changed from SNI 03-2847-1992 to SNI 03-2847-2002. In this study, performance of Special Moment Resisting Frame System designed using both codes are compared. A 10-storey building in Zone 2 of Indonesian seismic map (SNI 03-1726-2002) is chosen. The structural performances are analyzed by static non-linear pushover and dynamic non-linear time history analysis. The results show that both structures have similar seismic performace, even though the amount of column reinforcement differs significantly. KEYWORDS: Special Moment Resisting Frame System, Fully Ductile Structure, Static NonLinear Analysis (Pushover), Dynamic Non-Linear Time History Analysis. 1. INTRODUCTION Moment resisting frame consists of beams and columns in which bending of these members provides the resistance to lateral forces. There are two primary types of moment frame, ordinary and special. Special moment resisting frames are detailed to ensure ductile behavior of the beamto-column joints and normally used in zones of higher seismicity [1]. Indonesian reinforced concrete design standard which has been changed from SNI 1992 [2] to SNI 2002 [3], is applicable for moment resisting frame system. Both standards adopt the concept of capacity design. Comparation study to both standards shows that the design of beams is similar. However, significant changes are found in the design of columns [4]. Although both standards adopt same concept known as strong-column-weak-beam, they present it in different formulas as shown in Equation (1) and (2) for SNI 1992 and SNI 2002 respectivley. M e 6 Mg 5 (2)

u ,k

0.7d M kap ,b

(1)

Me and Mg in Equation are the total of nominal moments in columns and beams connecting to a joint. Mu,k dan Mkap,b are the total of design/ ultimate moments in column and total of nominal moments in beams multiplied by an overstrength factor, o, as large as 1.25 (for steel yield strength 400 MPa), while the value of dynamic magnification factor, d, is 1.3. In SNI 2002, the design axial forces of columns are determined by combination of factored axial forces due to load cases, but in SNI 1992 they are determined by the shear capacity of beams as
1 2

Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Petra Christian University, Indonesia. Lecturer, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Petra Christian University, Indonesia

well as the combined factored axial forces of the columns. No significant changes are found for shear design. The maximum spacing of transverse reinforcement in SNI 2002 seems to be relatively strict. 2. ANALYZED STRUCTURE A ten stories building in the zone 2 of Indonesian Seismic Map is designed as Special Moment Resisting Frame (full ductility capacity design). Plan and elevation view can be seen in Figure 1, where other technical data is presented in Table 1.
5 8. 00 m 4 8. 00 m 3 8. 00 m 2 8. 00 m 1 8.00 m A B 8.00 m C 8.00 m D 8.00 m 8.00 m E 8.00 m 8.00 m 8.00 m

Figure 1. Plan and Elevation View Tabel 1. Technical Data Number of stories Typical Storey Height Beam Dimension Column Dimension Slab Thickness Compressive Strength of Concrete (fc) Longitudinal reinforcement yield stress (fy) Transverse reinforcement yield stress (fy) 10 stories 3.50 m 400 x 700 mm2 600 x 600 mm2 120 mm 30 MPa 400 MPa 240 MPa

3. DESIGN RESULTS The number of flexural reinforcement of beams shows unsignificant difference between two standards. On the other side, the number of transverse reinforcement of beams is different where SNI 2002 produces higher reinforcement. The difference is caused by the formulation applied for shear design in both standards. In this study, it was found that the shear design forces differ as much as 25% in average [4]. Unlike beam reinforcement, SNI 1992 results higher longitudinal reinforcement in columns compared to SNI 2002 (about 41%). However, the transverse reinforcement of columns of SNI 1992 is 45% lower than SNI 2002 [4]. The use of Equation (1) results a minimum longitudinal reinforcement for most columns in this study.

10 @ 3. 50 m

4. SEISMIC PERFORMANCE Based on available reinforcement, moment-curvature relation of every beams and columns sections are analyzed by ESDAP [5], a program developed at Petra Christian University. The static non-linear pushover analysis [6] was conducted to examine the performance of designed structures when subjected to lateral forces. A load pattern based on the static equivalent forces according to SNI-03-1726-2002 [7] is used to push the structures. The capacity curve produced is plotted against the Demand Response Spectrums. Four demand spectrums equivalent to earthquakes with 100, 200, 500 and 1000 years return period are used to determine the performance points [1]. In order to check the structural performance produced by the static non-linear pushover analysis, a non-linear time history analysis (using RUAUMOKO 3D [8]) was performed in this study. The earthquake acceleration used is the El Centro 1940 N-S component. This record is modified so that it will give response spectrum consistent to earthquake with 500 years return period in zone 2 of Indonesian seismic map (using RESMAT [9], a program developed at Petra Christian University). The acceleration of original and modified El Centro N-S Component can be seen in Figure 2, while the consistent response spectrum is shown in Figure 3. For earthquakes other than 500 years return period, the response spectrums are scaled from 500 years return period response spectrum by using peak ground acceleration (PGA) ratio factors [10].
-

Original Ground Acceleration

0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10
0.30 0.25 0.20

Modified Ground Acceleration

a (g)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 -0.05 -0.10 -0.15 -0.20

The total base shear and the corresponding roof displacements from the pushover analysis can be seen in Table 2. The interstory drift and plastic hinges locations are presented in Figures 4, and 5.

a (g)

a ( g)
0.00 -0.10 -0.20 -0.30

-0.25 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

t (second)

t (second)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Figure 2. Acceleration record of El Centro 1940 N-S Component

Response Spectrum of El Centro 18th May 1940 (N-S)
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

Original Respons Spectrum Modified Respons Spectrum SNI-Respons Spectrum (500-years)

Tn (s)

Figure 3. Respone Spectrum of El Centro 1940 N-S Component

Tabel 2. Total base shear (V) and roof displacements (D) Return Period (years) 100 200 500 1000 SNI 03-2847-2002 V (kN) D (m) 5405.435 0.089 5623.382 0.115 5837.155 0.167 6004.745 0.235 SNI 03-2847-1992 V (kN) D (m) 3847.456 0.093 4111.905 0.130 4328.581 0.206 4492.534 0.293

Return Period (years)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00 0.50

Pushover
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00

Time History

Story Tingkat

100

Story Tingkat

1.00 Simpangan (m) Drift (%)

1.50

2.00

0.50

1.00 (m) DriftSimpangan (%)

1.50

2.00

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Simpangan antar lantai (%) Simpangan (m) Drift (%) 2.00

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Simpangan antar lantai (%) 2.00

Story Tingkat

200

Story Tingkat

Simpangan (m) Drift (%)

10 9 8 7 Tingkat Story 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 Simpangan (m) Drift (%) 1.50 2.00
Tingkat Story

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

500

DriftSimpangan (%) (m)

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

10 9 8 7 Tingkat Story 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00

1000

Story Tingkat

DriftSimpangan (%) (m)

DriftSimpangan (%) (m)

Remark : SNI 03-2847-2002 SNI 03-2847-1992

Figure4. Interstory drift

Return Period (years)

Time History Exterior Frame SNI 03-2847-2002 SNI 03-2847-1992 Interior Frame SNI 03-2847-2002 SNI 03-2847-1992

100

200

500

1000

Figure 5. Plastic Hinges locations

4. STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE LEVEL It can be seen that the result from pushover analysis is in accordance to that of time history analysis. In general, from the pushover analysis, the displacements of structure designed by SNI 2002 are smaller than SNI 1992. Beside, the time history analysis produces the same condition, except the results for 500-, and 1000-years return period due to plastic response of the structure. Furthermore, the plastic hinges formations from both structures are relatively the same. Performance of both structures is shown in matrix form (ACMC [11]) in Table 3 and 4 using interstory drift and damage index as parameters.

Tabel 3. Performance Matrix based on Interstory Drift Return Period 100 years Standar d Serviceability Limit State Performance Level Damage Control Limit State Safety Limit State

SNI 0.46 2002 (0.40) SNI 0.49 1992 (0.47) SNI 0.66 2002 (0.66) 200 years SNI 0.73 1992 (0.73) SNI 0.95 2002 (0.99) 500 years SNI (0.90) 1.14 1992 SNI (1.15) 1.32 2002 1000 years SNI (1.06) 1992 Maximum interstory drift <0.1 0.1-0.3 0.3-0.5 0.5-0.6 0.6-0.8 0.8-1 1-1.3 1.3-1.6 (%) Remark : the unbracket values are from pushover analysis, and ( ) are from time history analysis Tabel 4. Performance Matrix based on Damage Index Return Period 100 years Standar d Serviceability Limit State Performance Level Damage Control Limit State

1.65 1.6-2

Safety Limit State

SNI 0.281 2002 SNI 0.324 1992 SNI 0.404 2002 200 years SNI 0.475 1992 SNI 0.556 2002 500 years SNI 0.568 1992 SNI 0.649* 2002 1000 years SNI 0.694 1992 Maximum 0.000.050.150.250.300.350.400.60Damage Index (%) 0.05 0.15 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.60 0.80 Remark : all maximum damage index is developed at story 3 * the maximum damage index is developed at the base column of the 1st story

0.801.00

6. CONCLUSIONS From this study, some points can be concluded as follow:

1. Significant differences of reinforcements are shown in columns. Longitudinal steel at columns designed using SNI 2002 is about 41% less than the other structure. However, number of shear reinforcement in columns designed using SNI 2002 is approximately 45% larger than the other structure. 2. In this study, structure designed by SNI 2002 has better performance in terms of displacements and damage index. 7. REFERENCES. 1. ATC-40. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings. California, Applied Technology Council, 1997. 2. Badan Standarisasi Nasional. Tata Cara Perencanaan Struktur Beton untuk Bangunan Gedung. SNI 03-2847-199. 3. Badan Standarisasi Nasional. Tata Cara Perencanaan Struktur Beton untuk Bangunan Gedung. SNI 03-2847-2002. 4. Kristanto, J. and Ongkowidjojo, J. Studi Perbandingan Perencanaan Sistem Rangka Pemikul Momen Khusus (SRPMK) yang Didesain Menurut SNI 03-2847-2002 dan SNI 03-2847-1992. Undergraduate Thesis. Faculty of Civil Engineering and Planning. Petra Christian University, Surabaya, 2005. 5. Lidyawati and Pono, G.B.W.R. Penyempurnaan Program Komputer untuk Desian Beban Lentur dan Aksial serta Analisa Momen-Kurvatur Penampang Beton Bertulang. Undergraduate Thesis. Faculty of Civil Engineering and Planning. Petra Christian University, Surabaya, 2003. 6. CSI. CSI Analysis Reference Manual for ETABS. Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California, 2005. 7. Badan Standarisasi Nasional. Tata Cara Perencanaan Ketahanan Gempa untuk bangunan Gedung, SNI 03-1726-2002. 8. Carr, Anthol, J. Ruaumoko, 3-Dimensional Version. University of Canterbury, 2001. 9. Lukito, M.A. Program untuk Membuat Accelerogram Gempa yang Disesuaikan dengan Respons Spektrum Tertentu. Tugas Akhir. Fakultas Teknik Sipil dan Perencanaan, Universitas Kristen Petra, Surabaya, 1995. 10. Susila, I.G.M. Seismic Microzonation and Site Specific Respons Analysis for Denpasar. Thesis. Geotechnical Engineering of Graduate Program. Bandung Institute of Technology, Bandung, 2000. 11. International Committee on Concrete Model Code. Asian Concrete Model Code, Level 1 & 2 Documents, Second Draft. Japan, 1999.