Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Robert E. Englekirk
Ph.D., S.E.
Chief Executive Officer
Englekirk & Nakaki, Inc.
Los Angeles, California
T
Juergen L. Plaehn, P.E.
Vice President
Dywidag Systems
International , USA, Inc.
Long Beach , Cal ifornia
46
PCI JOURNAL
I L v - - - - - -28'-0" C.C. - - - - - - 1 v
1r
J
......
I
I
I
--
L!,
,.""'
Monolithic Emulation
I
I
I
-- ---- -- -- - -
rl
e = 3'-0"
,.L
3'-0"
rJ
CURRENT PRACTICE
Unlike other model codes, the Uniform Building Code (UBC) severely
limits the opportunities for a design
engineer to develop a seismjc system
that may perform quite well wrule not
meeting the prescriptive requirements
September-October 1994
Mixed Construction
A mjxed construction solution uses
precast concrete gravity load carrying
members in combination with a castin-place or masonry seismic bracing
system. While this solution is more
than adequate from a behavior perspective, the inefficiencies caused by
mixing construction trades often result
in a total cost exceeding a single trade
solution (i.e. , a totally cast-in-pl ace
(4)
r--28'-0"~
Fig. 2. Hinge rotations : (a) hinge at interface and (b) relocated hinge.
(I)
where
= nominal strength of beam
hinge
L clear = clear span of beam
e =distance of hinge from
beam-column interface
A0 = overstrength factor, related to
the maximum possible hinge
strength that can be developed; normally, A0 = 1.25
1> = flexural reduction factor of
section; for a flexural hinge,
1> = 0.9
The required nominal moment
strength at the interface is then:
M hinge
1/> M
interface -
(2)
L clear
"M
>3_,_M
interface -
'f'
,-~,
'!'
hinge (
- 2clear -
(3)
>
M,,.terface-
1.25 M .
12.5
0.90.9 lunge (12.5-3)
~ 2.03Mhinge
48
4
FRAME
MEMBERS
rrr-----------
i ( ----------- ~
:I~------ _
__ -_
-- --- -- --- ~
! ~ ===========,'
: ,~-----------
' ========-=;!;
:::::::::::: ::::::::: ::::::::: jJi1 l
/ ( -----------
-~1:
NON-FRAME
_ ____ ___ _ %MEMBERS
/I ( ___________
111
I r -----------
____ j~-----------
111
-- ---- ---- 1 I
- - - -- -- -- - ~~~
----------~1: - -
In steel frame construction, new design methods are being proposed that
strengthen the beam at the interface,
moving the hinge region away from
September-October 1994
PROPOSED PRECAST
CONCRETE FRAME
A ductile precast concrete frame
(DPCF) system, using a ductile link
connector, has been developed by Englekirk & Nakaki, Inc., Irvine, California, and Dywidag Systems International, USA, Inc., Long Beach,
California. This connector allows the
beams and columns to be cast independently and joined at the column
face by bolting. A sample designed
building is detailed here to discuss the
design and construction of the DPCF.
Fig. 3 depicts a typical floor plan of
a six-story building. This building was
developed to study variou s Precast
Seismic Structural Systems (PRESSS)
49
SYMM.
1'
ff
FRAME BEAM
Connector Design
For the design base shear of 455 kips
(2033 kN), an elastic analysis of the
building indicates a maximum seismic
design moment of 419 kip-ft (568 kN-m)
in the second floor beam. Using the
construction procedure described
below, the dead load of the beam and
slabs themselves is resisted by a simply
supported beam. The bolts are tightened after the hollow-core slabs are in
place; thus, the only dead load moment
applied to the connector is that caused
by the topping slab , partitions, and
other miscellaneous loads. For the configuration shown, the dead and live
load moments on the connector are
49 and 26 kip-ft (66.4 and 35 .2 kN-m),
respectively.
The ultimate design moment is then:
Section
Fig. 5. Typical beam section.
=0.75[1.4(49) + 1.7(26) +
1.7
1.1(419))
d=h-5
=44-5
= 39 in. (991 mm)
l/JM,= lj)Fd
= 0.9 X 240(39/12)
= 702 kip-ft (950 kN-m)
which is greater than the required
demand.
PCI JOURNAL
SYMM .
I
I
I
I
I
r---
L--------- --
-,
TEMPORA~
CORBEL
COLUMN REINF.
NOT SHOWN
FOR CLARITY
PRECAST
BEAM
1
1 /i_ DIA. A490 BOLTS
PRETENSION TO 100' EACH
5" X5" SHIM it'S
tor plate, and Threadbars) have been designed to be stronger than the forces associated with yielding of the ductile rod
(including an overstrength factor of
1.25). The DDC satisfies the requirements for capacity design.
Ductile Rod
High
Strength
Bolt
Ductile rod
A706 reinforcing
50 ksi
60 ksi
---
1.30~
35 percent in 2 in.
I0 percent in 8 in.
--
Elongation
1.36F,.
---
1.50F,
Tensi le strength
-
--
I. IOF,.
---~
Construction Sequence
TrF==~-=--=.:r=~==-==41T
II I'lt-------J-----~-+II I
1
Ii~
; --l---------t!l
j! ~
r"l
l!t
1~,~~~111
=+4?i<m!Ar~
..__ _-_
.....-....
~ ~~-
,~=til
I
!l------" . I
!!
1
'"=~~--~-~---
I'
---------r
II I
+-
IIi-~--=---
'
1 '
iII
---------==--t ! I
ii!I
----tl
IL
I ----- I' -----~. -~i!J
iI
~~~----.. . I --- -- ;I I
:Po .
1------- :F
~-~
t--..------..------
--~
~-~------r----~-r
II t:=-:.=~~=~.:--r---------=t
Fig. 8. Joint load path.
52
. -=1 I
ui 1~-----t-----~ I
I II
'
' .
----1~1~
Capacity design of the DDC components eliminates the possibility that the
longitudinal reinforcement in the
beam will yield. Since inelastic behavior is prevented in the beam, the contribution of aggregate interlock, fric tion and dowel actio n (~) can be
relied on to resist both seism ic and
grav ity load shear within the beam.
The required beam ties are sig nificantly reduced from those required for
aSMRSF.
Column design , however, follows
the current philosophy contained in
the code for SMRSFs. Confinement
reinforcing steel is required in the column unless a true capacity design is
performed for the frame . The only difference is that the capacity of the connector, not the girder, is used to determine the req uired strength of the
column.
'
1.
COMPRESSIVE
STRUTS
(/)
<ll
"0
iD
3
r:::r
<ll
6
~
0
r:::r
r--
#4 STIRRUPS
6@6" BALANCE
4"
1"
----~--4---_1_2"_0_.c_.______.---~on~-h~:~-~~-~-:t.J-~~
( ~======~====~t===~==t=~========~~~;--c=Jvr--#6TIES ~
f--- _
r ~~~ -=-'-~ ,;:.:_~1-----1- f
1 ----+ --- _ -- a,- - - - 1------------1-- c -j \<J-- ~~A~O~EECTION
---F -- ~ff-/'/-'- ~=- i+:---:____ _
r
f---
--- - - - - - - - -
--ft,
i ~ ~.-l7/f7f/ ~
I !
/ - v
~I
ll'i !
-'
-~-----
FIBER REINFORCED
GROUT (fc'=6000psi)
ELEVATION
~
[ ~-
/ I-.
rL
::..
~
-
c
~
- --
)/
,_
r-
hl--t----#6 TIES
\.....,..
~====~==~======~====~
1
OPPOSITE SIDE
E3,
2 1/2"
r-=-1
' . r=
2'-4"
t-
1-----r----t-1
1
WASHER ~
1 3/4"0 HOLE -
--+---------+-----------~-~
.-
114"0A-490BOUS-~
-,-- ;
- A
-A
~(~
\\
\
.. _ _ _ _ _ -+-1--
~ ~-
--
' - -- . -
I 1
11 --
'
i"-_-.
. -
~vh'-+;:tL_=====l
Ill
/ /fl
ij-
- --
IY
~~ -- ~~=
Ll=~-=~
r - - - -- - j f
i
r-
~~
r-k
==
3"
c....
:D
~
#4 TIES TYP.
I ALTERNATE
'\1 ENDS
PLAN
"U
=;=r====-\
:Qr-
we
v ~v-[2=_ ==~
=-= :s:-:z':_==Sb~l =::r:=~.--,:Z:::L.
........
_: ..
!=..=..= ~=-==#i===i:=q~~~~~;;~~"H--
(; '
_
_ ~: ~-
~I t:lr-
1----rr---- - -
f-J
v~ ' ,~
--rt-----
__ ll:t=~~
~ ~f== ~~ ~-~./.
1=--=-"--"--=----'ttilli-tr---h I : --
.. _
.*5 (6-TOTAL>
\
~TIES
~ FORSIZES
~ TYP.U.N.O.
PRECAST CONCRETE
FRAME BEHAVIOR
The UBC specifies elastic-based design loads known to be significantly
below those that are expected to occur
during the design level earthquake .
The safety of this under-strength approach relies on system ductility that is
attained through the use of prescriptive
detailing requirements, none of which
apply to precast concrete. The code
does allow other concrete systems to
...., I
Dloplacemenl
Transducer
Teal Specimen
-End Ttedown
'End Ttedown
Vertical Load l a c k -
Stron1 Floor
1.50
5.0%
-5.0%
-1.50
55
1.50
-5.0%
5.0%
-4.0%
-1.50
Fig. 12. Monolithic frarne (SMRSF) load-9isplacement history. (Data courtesy NIST}
-4. 0
2.0
3.0
4 .0
0 .20
..-...
.::
'-'
0.16
t::
.8
..... 0 .12
tel
s
1-.
.....0(I) 0 .08
0
'ia
.....
t::
0.04
'::
0
::X::
0.00
-0.04
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
2
0
1
Displacement (in)
1.50
F/Fy
l.OO
I
/
/
0.50
...
--
/
~
_____ ,. "' ,
-4.0"/o
.1'
II
.1'
4.0"/o
3.0%
-0.50
5.0%
DRIFT
~
~
-1.00
-1.50
Overstrength
The maximum horizontal force developed during testing was 210 kips
(936 k:N). This force translates into a
beam moment as follows:
V, =
b
V: Lc
c L
(6)
and
where
57
M =(210.5)_2_ (16-2.67)
b
16
2
= 789 kip- ft (1070 kN- m)
This moment is 35 percent higher
than the nominal beam moment of
585 kip-ft (793 kN-m), and was
caused by excessive overstrength of
the rods. It is important to note, however, that at the design drift limit of 2
percent story drift, the horizontal force
was only 175 kips (778 kN), resulting
in a beam moment equal to 656 kip-ft
(890 kN-m) with an overstrength of
1.12. Therefore, for a design drift limit
of 2 percent, the overstrength factor of
1.25 is appropriate, even for the original rod material. Since the test, however, the quality of the rod material
has been improved so that the yield
strength is more controlled (see description of rod material, previously).
Joint Behavior
did not occur until a drift of 3.5 percent was reached. At this drift level,
the beam slipped vertically as the load
changed from positive to negative.
This was caused by the spalling of the
concrete, below the bell of the ductile
rod, that required the rod to bend before sufficient bearing surface came in
contact with the column.
Even though the drift level where
this occurred is much higher than the
anticipated demand drift level, the bell
of the rod has been increased, reducing the bearing stress on the concrete
below the bell to mitigate this failure
mechanism in future designs.
Beam Behavior
789 12
X
=175 ki s (778 kN)
(32-5)2
p
175
= 140 ksi (965 MPa)
1.25
CONCLUSION
The most effective use of precast
concrete in any seismic region requires the exploitation of the inherent
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The prototype test was performed by
SEQAD Consulting Engineers, Inc., San
Diego, California. The research performed at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by Ms.
Geraldine Cheok and Dr. H. S. Lew was
indispensible in allowing us to perform
the code required comparison to cast-inplace concrete. The use of the NIST data
and photos does not imply a recommendation or endorsement by NIST nor does
it imply that the product is necessarily
the best available for the purpose.
REFERENCES
1. International Conference of Building
Officials, Uniform Building Code,
Whittier, CA: ICBO, 1994.
2. Ochs, Jay E., and Ehsani, Mohammad
R., "Moment Resistant Connections
in Precast Concrete Frames for
Seismic Regions," PCI JOURNAL,
V. 38, No. 5, September-October
1993, pp. 64-75.
3. French, C. W., Hafner, M., and
Jayashankar, V., "Connections Between Precast Elements - Failure
Within Connection Region," Journal
of Structural Engineering, American
Society of Civil Engineers, V. 115,
No. 12, December 1989, pp. 3171-3192.
4. Englekirk, Robert E., "Seismic Design
Considerations for Precast Concrete
Multistory Buildings," PCI JOURNAL, V. 35, No. 3, May-June 1990,
pp. 40-51.
5. Martin, Leslie D., and Korkosz, W. J.,
"Connections for Precast Prestressed
Concrete Buildings - Including
Earthquake Resistance," Technical Report No. 2, Precast/Prestressed ConPCI JOURNAL
APPENDIX- NOTATION
d = beam depth
e = distance of hinge from
beam-column interface
!= stress in Threadbar
F = force in Threadbar
f~
= specified compressive
strength of concrete
rnls 2)
hc = column width in direction
of loading
Lb = beam span between end
tiedown pins
September-October 1994
S= site factor
ML =
Mn =
Mu =
Rw =