Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
TECHNICAL PAPER
INTRODUCTION
A range of analytical procedures exists for modeling slab-column frames subjected to lateral loads.1 Such models are important to designers of multistory buildings in that they enable
lateral drifts to be calculated. In high-rise construction where
the slab-column frame is braced by structural walls, analytical
models gain additional importance in that they determine design
interactions between the frame and wall, and hence, the required
strengths of the two subsystems. As described by Vanderbilt
and Corley,1 available analytical models do not produce the
same result; rather, the stiffness obtained from one type of analytical model can vary widely from that of another, and both
may be far from actual behavior.
The present study is concerned with two analytical models
that are commonly used in design-office practice. These are the
effective beam width model, in which the slab action is represented by a flexural slab-beam framing directly between columns (Fig. 1), and the equivalent frame model, in which the slab
action is represented by a combination of flexural and torsional
beams (Fig. 2). Characteristics of both models are discussed, and
recommendations on proper application are made. The recommendations are based on a detailed experimental and analytical
evaluation presented elsewhere.2,3 The recommended analytical
models are tested by comparison with results obtained on lateral
load experiments of a multipanel test slab. 2,3
ACI StructuralJournal/March-April2000
345
346
in Fig. 5. Test results have demonstrated that the rigid joint assumption better represents an elastic slab-column joint.5,11
Even if the rigid joint assumption is selected as the preferred
solution for an elastic slab, it is apparent (Fig. 5) that a range of
solutions has been obtained by various researchers. This range
arises from differences in modeling techniques relative to the
slab, the rigid joint, and the boundary around the rigid joint.2,14
In the interest of establishing effective widths that accurately
represent the elastic behavior of a slab-column connection having
a rigid joint, an independent solution has been pursued.2 The solution employs the infinite plate theory of Westergaard15 to model
an infinite plate having columns with circular cross sections on a
regular layout. Rigid joint behavior is strictly enforced. Results of
the solution were checked using the finite element method. (Details of both solutions are in the Appendix.*)
Two important conclusions result from the solutions presented in the Appendix. First, the new solutions indicate effective
widths that are somewhat less than values presented elsewhere.5,10 Darvall and Allen obtained a similar finding in an independent study. 14 The second conclusion is that the finite
element technique employed in the analysis produced solutions
nearly equal to those of the theoretical solution. This latter conclusion is important because the finite element method can be
used to determine effective widths for connection and panel geometries for which the theoretical solution does not apply. Results of the finite element analyses of typical slab-column floor
connections are described in the following section.
ACIStructuralJournal/March-April2000
l
b = 2 c1 + ----1
3
(1)
As demonstrated in the Appendix,* Eq. (1) can be justified using Westergaards infinite plate theory. 15 The effective beam
widths for an exterior frame, which includes corner connections
and edge connections with bending parallel to the edge, can be
approximated as
l
b = c1 + ---16
(2)
ACIStructuralJournal/March-April2000
347
6.4 x 6.4
4.8 x 9.6
9.6 x 9.6
6.4 x 12.8
120
75
420
240
in. 4
120
320
420
1000
NS dir., in.
EW dir.,
348
dependently, and then the widths for the two columns of a given
span were averaged to obtain the effective width for the span.
Results of the analyses (Fig. 10) illustrate that the effective
beam width solution is indeed artificially stiff. A similar stiffening effect is likely to occur whenever the effective beam width
solution is applied to irregular framing. In this context, irregular
framing includes variation in span and variation in column cross
section along the frame line.
Based on findings of the preceding analysis, Eq. (1) and (2)
are recommended to represent the elastic effective beam widths
of flat-plate connections having column aspect ratio c2/c1 between 1/2 to 2,10 and slab aspect ratio l2/l1 greater than 2/316
(Fig. 6). The previously-mentioned range of geometries is not
exhaustive, but includes most of the slab configurations in practice. The recommended solution will produce an accurate estimate of the elastic stiffness for regular frames. The solution will
be artificially stiff for irregular frames.
ACIStructuralJournal/March-April2000
c
1
= 5 - 0.1 L
-------L 1 --40
3
l
(3)
c 1
= 4 - --l 3
(4)
The lower bound value given by Eq. (3) and (4) (that is, = 1/3)
matches that recommended by Vanderbilt and Corley.1
ACIStructuralJournal/March-April2000
349
MODELS
Experimental program
ACIStructuralJournal/March-April2000
those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the organizations previously mentioned.
NOTATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Funding for the research was provided mainly by the Reinforced Concrete Research Institute (Task 51) and the University of California at Berkeley. Additional funding was obtained through generous donations from the
following firms: Robert Rosenwasser Associates, New York; Rose Associates, New York; S & A Concrete Co., Inc., New York; Timko Contracting
Corp., New York; and Harry Macklowe Real Estate Co., Inc., New York.
Opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this paper are
ACIStructuralJournal/March-April2000
b
c
c1
c2
d
E
f c
fy
H
h
LL
l
l1
l2
M
r
x
y
z
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
REFERENCES
1. Vanderbilt, M. D., and Corley, W. G., Frame Analysis of Concrete
Building, Concrete International, V. 5, No. 12, Dec. 1983, pp. 33-43.
2. Hwang, S. J., and Moehle, J. P., An Experimental Study of Flat-Plate
Structures under Vertical and Lateral Loads, Report No. UCB/EERC-93/
03, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Feb. 1993, 278 pp.
3. Hwang, S. J., and Moehle, J. P., Vertical and Lateral Load Tests of a
Nine-Panel Flat-Plate Frame, ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.Feb. 2000, pp. 193-203.
4. Aalami, B., Moment-Rotation Relation between Column and Slab,
ACI J OURNAL , Proceedings V. 69, No. 5, May 1972, pp. 263-269. Also, discussion by J. Carpenter, V. 69, No. 11, Nov. 1972, pp. 706-707.
5. Allen, F. H., and Darvall, P., Lateral Load Equivalent Frame, ACI
J OURNAL, Proceedings V. 74, No. 7, July 1977, pp. 294-299.
6. Brotchie, J. F., and Russell, J. J., Flat Plate Structures, ACI J OURNAL,
Proceedings V. 61, No. 8, Aug. 1964, pp. 959-996. Also, Part 2 containing
development of A, B Factors, American Concrete Institute, 16 pp.
7. Carpenter, J. E., Flexural Characteristics of Flat Plate Floors in Buildings Subjected to Lateral Loads, PhD thesis, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Ind., June 1965, 203 pp.
8. Khan, F. R., and Sbarounis, J. A., Interaction of Shear Walls and
Frames, Proceedings, ASCE, V. 90, ST3, Part 1, June 1964, pp. 285-335.
Also, discussion by Y. Yamamoto, Feb. 1965, p. 317, and closure, Apr.
1966, p. 389.
9. Mehrain, M., and Aalami, B., Rotational Stiffness of Concrete Slabs,
ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings V. 71, No. 9, Sept. 1974, pp. 429-435.
10. Pecknold, D. A., Slab Effective Width for Equivalent Frame Analysis, ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings V. 72, No. 4, Apr. 1975, pp. 135-137. Also,
discussion by F. H. Allen and P. Darvall, R. Glover, and author, Proceedings V. 72, No. 10, Oct. 1975, pp. 583-586.
11. Tsuboi, Y., and Kawaguchi, M., On Earthquake Resistant Design of
Flat Slabs and Concrete Shell Structures, Proceedings, Second World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Science Council of Japan, Tokyo,
1960, V. 3, pp. 1693-1708.
12. Wong, Y. C., and Coull, A., Effective Slab Stiffness in Flat Plate
Structures, Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers, London, Part 2, V.
69, Sept. 1980, pp. 721-735.
13. Vanderbilt, D., Equivalent Frame Analysis of Unbraced Reinforced
Concrete Buildings for Static Lateral LoadsEFRAME, Structural Research Report No. 36, Colorado State University, July 1981.
14. Darvall, P., and Allen, F. H., Lateral Load Effective Width of Flat
Plates with Drop Panels, ACI J OURNAL , Proceedings V. 81, No. 6, Nov.Dec. 1984, pp. 613-617.
15. Westergaard, H. M., and Slater, W. A., Moments and Stresses in
Slabs, ACI J OURNAL, Proceedings V. 17, 1921, pp. 415-538.
16. Banchik, C. A., Effective Beam Width Coefficients for Equivalent
Frame Analysis of Flat-Plate Structures, ME thesis, University of California at Berkeley, Calif., May 1987, 56 pp.
17. Allen, F. H., Lateral Load Characteristics of Flat Plate Structures,
MSc thesis, Monash University, Australia, June 1976, 167 pp.
351
352
No. UCB/EERC-88/16, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Oct. 1988.
24. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced
Concrete (ACI 318-83) and Commentary (318R-83), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1983, 266 pp.
25. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (318R-95), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich., 1995, 369 pp.
26. Corley, W. G., Equivalent Frame Analysis for Reinforced Concrete
Slabs, PhD thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1961, 166
pp. Also issued as Civil Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series
No. 218, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana,
Ill.
27. Corley, W. G., and Jirsa, J. O., Equivalent Frame Analysis for Slab
Design, ACI JOURNAL , Proceedings V. 67, No. 11, Nov. 1970, pp. 875884. Also, discussion by Eberhardt and Hoffman, Huang, Jofriet and Handa,
and authors closure, May 1971, pp. 397-401.
ACIStructuralJournal/March-April2000
353