8 views

Original Title: A Modified Equivalent Frame Method for Lateral Loa

Uploaded by Udom Rith

- Concentrically Braced Frames
- Rules of Thumb Steel Design
- Precast Concrete Applications & General Overview
- Composite Slab Design
- Artista Columns Manual
- Column Flange Simple Connection
- Seismic Design of SMFs
- Modern Steel Construction 2017 05
- CSI Models Check List
- ETABS sreps
- Column Design PDF
- Defn of Str Design
- Technical Specification of midas Gen.pdf
- ETABS presentation 1.doc
- Chapter 8, Steel Support Base Plates
- Step by Step Procedure for Raft Design
- STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR RAFT DESIGN.pdf
- Pg Structure Lab Record
- L&T Ecc Handbook
- 122925733 Pad Overturning

You are on page 1of 13

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238741253

load analysis

DOI: 10.1680/macr.2008.00081

CITATIONS READS

8 1,389

3 authors, including:

Hanyang University Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

112 PUBLICATIONS 595 CITATIONS 32 PUBLICATIONS 209 CITATIONS

All content following this page was uploaded by Sang Whan Han on 06 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document

and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.

Magazine of Concrete Research

doi: 10.1680/macr.2008.00081

load analysis

Y. M. Park* S.-W. Han* S.-H. Kee

Hanyang University

The equivalent frame method (EFM) was developed for two-way slabs as a simple approximate method. Current

design codes (ACI 318-05, Eurocode 2 and BS 8110) permit the EFM for the analysis of two-way slab systems

under gravity loads, as well as lateral loads such as seismic loads. The EFM, however, was developed based on a

semi-empirical formula, derived from the behaviour of two-way slab systems under gravity loads. This study shows

that the EFM is not appropriate in accurately predicting the response of two-way slab systems under lateral loads.

To improve the EFM under lateral loads, this study proposes a modified equivalent frame method (MEFM). To

verify the MEFM, an idealised two-storey flat plate frame is considered and analysed by both the MEFM and

elastic finite-element (FE) analysis for estimating slab moments and lateral drifts. Analysis results obtained from

the conventional EFM and effective beam width method (EBWM) are also compared. The lateral stiffness, based on

the proposed MEFM, was also compared with experimental data.

L2 slab span length transverse to the loading

C torsional constant direction

c1 dimension of the column parallel to loading Tx twisting moment at portion, x, in torsional

direction element

c2 dimension of the column transverse to loading x shorter side of the rectangular cross-section of

direction a torsional element

Ec Youngs modulus of elasticity for concrete y longer side of the rectangular cross-section of a

f c9 specified compressive strength of concrete torsional element

Gc shearing modulus of elasticity for e effective beam width factor for exterior frame

concrete Ec =2(1 v) lines

H dimension of column in height i effective beam width factor for interior frame

h dimension of slab in thickness lines

Ic moment of inertia of column section about c rotation of column elements

centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement ec rotation of equivalent column elements

Is moment of inertia of slab section about es rotation angle of an equivalent slab element

centroidal axis, neglecting reinforcement s rotation angle of a slab element

Kc stiffness of the column element ( 4Ec I c = H) t:avg average rotation of torsional elements

K ec stiffness of the effective column element Poissons ratio of concrete

Kes stiffness of the effective slab element x curvature at portion, x, in torsional element

Ks stiffness of the slab element ( 4Ec I s =L1 )

Kt stiffness of the torsional element

Introduction

* Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Two-way slab systems have gained popularity in cur-

Seoul 133-791, Korea rent building construction. Among them, flat plate slab

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of

systems, which are simple structural systems composed

Texas, Austin, USA

of slabs and columns without beams, are most com-

(MACR 800081) Paper received 18 April 2008; last revised 22 monly used owing to their functional form, cost effi-

October 2008; accepted 24 October 2008 ciency in construction, and spatial flexibility. There are,

1

Park et al.

flat plate systems are vulnerable to brittle failure, L2 L1

caused by punching shear in the vicinity of slab Torsional element

column joints.13 In particular, under lateral loads such Column

as seismic loads, internal forces (e.g. unbalanced mo- c2

element

c1

ments) and lateral deformation, generated in the vici-

Slab element

nity of slabcolumn joints, render the flat plate system

more susceptible to punching shear. To avoid failures

dominated by punching shear, accurate prediction of

Equivalent column element

design forces and drifts is important in designing two-

Column element Torsional element

way slab systems.

ACI 318-05,4 Eurocode 25 and BS 81106 permit the (a)

equivalent frame method (EFM) for estimating design

forces and drifts in two-way slab systems under gravity

loads, as well as lateral loads. It is noted that ACI 318-

L2

054 permits three different analysis methods for Column

element

two-way slab systems: finite-element (FE) analysis, L1

effective beam width method (EBWM) and equivalent c2

frame method (ACI-EFM). c1

ing the behaviour of three-dimensional flat plate struc- Torsional element

tures; this method, however, requires intensive

c1

computational efforts and detailed knowledge of finite- Equivalent slab element

element analysis. In contrast, EBWM and ACI-EFM are Slab element Torsional element

simplified methods, in which three-dimensional slab

column structures are represented using planar frames.7

(b)

In the EBWM, two-way slab systems are modelled,

using column and beam elements, in which the thick- Figure 1. Equivalent frame model: (a) ACIEFM;

ness of beam elements is assigned as the thickness of (b) modified EFM

actual slabs, and the width of beam elements is esti-

mated using an equation derived by numerical analysis

and experimental verifications.812 The dimensions of

column elements are the same as those of the actual lateral loads, this study developed the modified equiva-

columns. lent frame method (MEFM). In the MEFM, the stiff-

In the ACIEFM, a two-way slab system is repre- ness of the torsional element is newly defined

sented by slab elements, and equivalent column ele- considering the realistic distribution of twisting mo-

ments consisting of column and torsional elements, as ment along the torisonal element under lateral loads.

shown in Figure 1a. According to ACI 318-05, the Moreover, the equivalent slab element is proposed for

ACI-EFM is permitted for the analysis of two-way slab the MEFM instead of proposing an equivalent column

systems under gravity loads, as well as lateral loads. In element as specified in ACI 318-05.

Eurocode 25 and BS 8110,6 the actual column element

is used for representing the equivalent column element.

However, the use of actual column elements instead of

Equivalent frame method

equivalent column elements in slabs results in exterior

negative column strip moments which are considerably In ACI 318-05,4 it is assumed that slab moments are

too large.13,14 transferred to columns by torsional elements. For the

In the ACIEFM, the stiffness of torsional elements EFM, two-way slab systems are modelled by beam and

was derived based on the mechanical behaviour of two- equivalent column elements. The beam element has the

way slab systems under gravity loads. Furthermore, the flexural stiffness of the slab members. The equivalent

equivalent column element is developed based on the column element consists of column elements and tor-

load-transfer mechanism in two-way slab systems under sional elements. The rotation of equivalent column ele-

gravity as well. The behaviour of two-way slab systems ments (ec ) is calculated by summing the rotation of

under lateral loads could be different from that under column elements (c ) and torsional elements (t:avg ), as

gravity load. Hwang and Moehle reported that the ACI- follows

EFM underestimates lateral stiffness of two-way slab ec c t:avg (1)

systems compared with the stiffness obtained from ex-

perimental tests.2,9 From the above equation, the flexibility of the equiva-

To avoid such drawbacks in the ACI-EFM under lent columns can be computed

2 Magazine of Concrete Research

A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis

X (2)

K ec Kc Kt equation

es s t:avg (5)

where K ec is the flexural stiffness of equivalent col- From Equation 5, the flexibility of the equivalent slab

umns, K c is the flexural stiffness of columns and K t is elements can be expressed as follows

the stiffness of the torsional elements 1 1 1

Stiffness of the torsional elements (K t ) is specified (6)

K es K s K t

in ACI 318-05, as follows

X 9Ec C where K es is the stiffness of the effective slab element,

Kt (3)

L2 1 c2 =L2 3 K s is the stiffness of the slab element ( 4Ec I s =L1 ), K t

X is the stiffness of the torsional element, Ec is Youngs

x x3 y

C 1 0:63 (4) modulus of elasticity of concrete, I s is the moment of

y 3 inertia of slab sections, L1 is the slab span length in the

loading direction.

where Ec is Youngs modulus of elasticity for concrete,

C is the torsional constant, L2 is the width of the slab,

c2 is the width of the column parallel to L2 and x and y

are the shorter and longer side of the rectangular cross- Stiffness of torsional element, K t

section of a torsional element respectively.

To determine the stiffness of torsional elements, the

The stiffness of torsional elements in Equation 3 is

distribution of the twisting moment per unit length

derived, assuming that the distribution of the twisting

along the torsional elements should be defined. As

moment per unit length along the torsional element is

mentioned earlier, triangular distribution is assumed for

triangular.4,13 This assumption may only be valid for

the ACIEFM. However, it seems that the stiffness of

slab systems under gravity loads.

torsional elements in two-way slab systems under lat-

eral loads is not the same as the stiffness under gravity

loads because of the difference in the load-transfer

Modified equivalent frame method mechanism.

(MEFM) To show the difference in stiffness of torsional ele-

ments according to types of loads, FE analyses are

The load-transfer mechanism under gravity loads is carried out for a two-storey building with flat plate

different from that under lateral loads. When two-way slabs, as shown in Figure 2. The commercial software

slab systems are subjected to lateral loading, columns SAP200015 was used for the FE analyses. Poissons

displace first, and the forces in columns are transferred ratio () and Youngs modulus (E) are assumed to be 0

to the torsional elements. Subsequently, the torsional and 25 300 MPa, respectively. This study assumes that

elements transfer the forces to the slabs. Thus, under columns in the first storey are clamped to the base.

lateral loads, the flexural deformation of columns is Slabs are modelled using plate element, and columns

restrained by both the stiffness of torsional elements using beam element, which are provided in the

and the flexural stiffness of the slab; it is more appro- SAP2000.15 Plate elements adjacent to the columns are

priate to use equivalent slab elements under lateral rigidly connected to the column elements as used in the

loads rather than to use equivalent column elements prior researches.5,6

(see Figures 1a and 1b). It is noted that, under gravity To estimate the rotational angle along the torsional

loads, slabs transfer the forces to the torsional elements elements, a gravity load of 7.8 kPa is applied to the

first, then the forces of the torsional elements are slabs without lateral loads. Subsequently, removing the

transferred to the columns. gravity loads, lateral loads are applied to the frame, as

This study develops the MEFM for two-way slab shown in Figure 2(b).

systems under lateral loads, which consist of equivalent Figure 3 shows rotational angle along the torsional

slab elements and column elements, shown in Figure elements under gravity loads and lateral loads, and

1b, instead of the equivalent column elements and slab which denotes the rotation angle normalised by the

elements used in the ACIEFM, shown in Figure 1a. maximum rotation angle max . As expected, the distri-

bution pattern of the rotational angles shown in Figure

3a and 3b are different. In the slab under gravity loads,

the rotation angle decreases on approaching the column

Stiffness of equivalent slab element

face (Figure 3a), whereas, under lateral loads, the rota-

The rotation angle (es ) of an equivalent slab element tion angle increases on approaching the column face

can be estimated by summing the rotation angle of slab (Figure 3b). Thus, it is necessary to derive the stiffness

elements (s ) and the average rotation angle of the of the torsional elements under lateral loads which

Magazine of Concrete Research 3

Park et al.

10

L1 L2 6 m

08

35 m

06 L1

35 m CL Panel

04

Slab thickness 02 m L2

1

Columns 05 m 05 m

2

(a) 02 CL Panel

1 2

00

(a)

10

L1

08 CL Panel

(b) L2

1

06 2

105 kN

CL Panel

Rigid joint 1 2

Column 35 m

Slabbeam 04

210 kN

35 m

02

6m 6m 6m

00

(c) 00 05 10 15 20 25 30

Distance from the column face: m

Figure 2. Model frame for verification: (a) dimensions; (b)

(b) FEM modelling; (c) EFM modelling

Figure 3. Distribution of rotation angle along the torsional

element: (a) under gravity loads; (b) under lateral loads

reflect the distribution of rotation angle shown in Fig-

x x x

ure 3b. Tx 1 1

The derivation of the stiffness of the torsional ele- x x dx dx xdx x2

0 0 CG 0 L2 CG 2CGL2

ments under lateral loads is summarised in Figure 4. (8)

For comparison, the torsional stiffness under gravity

loads is also depicted in Figure 4. A unit twisting According to the above equation, the maximum rotation

moment (T 1) is applied to the torsional elements, as angle (max ) is obtained at the column face

shown in Figure 4a. Under gravity loads, the moment [x L2 (1 c2 =L2 )]

per unit length of the torsional element may be as-

sumed triangular since the moment in the slab tends to L2 (1 c2 =L2 )2

max (9)

be attracted towards the column (see Figure 4b). How- 8CG

ever, under lateral loads, the moment in the slab is

As shown in Figure 4e, the distribution of rotation

distributed more uniformly along the torsional element;

angle is parabolic. Thus, the average rotation angle

thus, in this study the uniform distribution of the twist-

(t,avg ) is taken as 1/3 of max , which is

ing moment per unit length is assumed, as shown in

Figure 4b. 1 L2 (1 c2 =L2 )2

t:avg (10)

Under lateral loads, the magnitude of a twisting mo- 3 8CG

ment per unit length is 1=L2 . As shown in Figure 4c,

twisting moment T x at x can be calculated by integrat- When Poissons ratio () for concrete is assumed to be

ing the twisting moment per unit length from 0 to x, as zero, the shearing modulus of elasticity for concrete

follows (G) is one-half of Youngs modulus (E): finally, Equa-

x tion 10 can be rewritten as follows

1 1

Tx dx x (7) L2 (1 c2 =L2 )2

0 L2 L2 t:avg (11)

12CE

Twisting moment T x at x produces curvature at x

( x T x =CG). Thus, rotation angle at x is computed Torsional stiffness is calculated by K t T =t. As

by integrating curvature from 0 to x, using the follow- Equation 11 is derived for one-half of the torsional

ing equation element (T 1/2), the torsional stiffness of half of the

4 Magazine of Concrete Research

A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis

Under gravity loads Under lateral loads

T1 T1

L2 c2 L2 c2 L2 c2 L2 c2

1 1 1 1

2 L2 c2 2 L2 2 L2 c2 2 L2

(a)

2

4 x L2

L22 1

L2

x x

(b)

1 1

T T

2 2

2 x2 1 x

Tx Tx

L22 L2

x x

(c)

(1 c2/L2)2 L2(1 c2/L2)3 (1 c2/L2) L2(1 c2/L2)2

max max

2CG 12CG 2CG 8CG

2 x2 1 x

x x

CGL22 LCG

x x

(d)

2 x3 2 max

x 12CG

2 8CG

3CGL2 1 L2(1 c2/L2)2

x x2 max

2L2CG 8CG

x

(e)

Figure 4. Derivation of torsional stiffness Kt : (a) column and torsional element; (b) distribution of twisting moment per unit

length; (c) twisting moment diagram; (d) unit rotation angle; (e) rotation angle

torsional elements can be represented by the following Note that Equation 13 is not the same as Equation 3,

equation derived using two-way slab systems under gravity

loads.

6EC

Kt (12)

L2 (1 c2 =L2 )2

The torsional stiffness of torsional elements is then Verification of proposed MEFM

calculated by summing the stiffness of each torsional To verify the accuracy of the proposed MEFM, this

element as follows study considers an idealised, two-storey, flat plate frame

(Figure 2). Analytical results from the MEFM and

X 6EC

Kt (13) FEM are compared. The results of the ACI-EFM and

L2 (1 c2 =L2 )2 EBWM are also compared. The FEM results are treated

Magazine of Concrete Research 5

Park et al.

as exact results. To model the frame using the ACI- result of approximate methods is greater than that of

EFM and the MEFM, rigid joints are placed at the the FEM analysis.

connections between slabs and columns, as shown in Moment ratio, MR of the EFM, EBWM and MEFM

Figure 2c. The length of the rigid joints is equal to the are 126185%, 110114% and 105111%, respectively.

column depth. One example to calculate slab moments The MEFM most accurately predicts the slab moment

in the flat plate systems using the proposed MEFM is of the FEM whereas the ACIEFM overestimates slab

presented in the appendix. moments significantly. The greatest overestimation

For EBWM, the effective beam width factor in Equa- (185%) occurs at the exterior joints in the frame. This

tions 14 and 15 proposed by Banchik8 is used. Hwang could be attributed to the stiffness of the equivalent

and Moehle2,9 reported that the effective beam width column elements used in the ACIEFM. The stiffness

factor in Equations 14 and 15 is appropriate to use for of the equivalent columns is calculated by combining

simulating experimental results the stiffness of column elements and torsional elements

(Equation 2). As column elements and torsional ele-

c1 1 L1 1

i 5 (for interior frame lines) ments are connected as serial springs, the stiffness of

L2 4 L2 1 2

the equivalent column elements is smaller than the

(14) stiffness of the column element; thus, in the ACI

c1 1 L1 1 EFM, the moment at the slabcolumn joint tends to

e 3 (for exterior frame lines)

L2 8 L2 1 2 concentrated on slabs, compared with moment calcu-

(15) lated by the other methods. This phenomenon is more

significant at the exterior joints since there is only one

slab element connected at the joint.

where c1 is the column dimension in the loading direc-

Drift ratio, DR, of the ACI-EFM, MEFM and

tion, L1 is the slab span length in the loading direction,

EWBM is 282%, 122% and 118%, respectively. MEFM

L2 is the slab span length perpendicular to the loading

and EBWM provide lateral drift ratios close to the

direction and is Poissons ratio.

FEM analysis. However, owing to the smallest stiffness

Moreover, this study compares the analytical results

of the equivalent columns in the ACI-EFM, the largest

of two-way slab systems with different dimensions

lateral drift is produced using this method.

of columns (c1 =c2 0:51:5) and slabs (L1 =L2

0:51:5) obtained from the four different analyses:

finite-element method (FEM), EFM, MEFM and

EBWM. Effect of different dimensions of slabs and

columns

To investigate the influence of different column and

Analytical results of the two-storey flat slab dimensions on analytical results, a two-storey, flat

plate frame (Figure 2) is used. The slab thickness and

plate frame

storey height are assumed to be 0.2 m and 3.5 m,

Table 1 summarises slab moments at the column respectively. Four different types of slab panels (e.g.

faces obtained from different analysis methods. In this 4 m 3 8 m, 4 m 3 6 m, 6 m 3 6 m and 6 m 3 4 m)

table, moment ratio, MR(%), and drift ratio, DR(%), are tested with a fixed column section (0.5 m 3 0.5 m).

denote the ratios of slab moment and drift obtained Furthermore, this study considers slab systems with

from the approximate methods (ACIEFM, EBWM, four different column sections (e.g. 0.4 m 3 0.8 m,

MEFM) to those obtained from FEM, respectively. A 0.4 m 3 0.6 m, 0.5 m 3 0.5 m and 0.6 m 3 0.4 m)

positive ratio value of MR and DR indicates that the with a fixed slab dimension (6 m 3 6 m). Slab

FEM 7000 (100) 6504 (100) 5987 (100) 5987 (100) 0.37 (100)

EBWM 7693 (110) 7220 (111) 6833 (114) 6833 (114) 0.43 (118)

ACI-EFM 12964 (185) 10358 (159) 7534 (126) 7534 (126) 1.03 (282)

Proposed MEFM 7357 (105) 7015 (107) 6650 (111) 6650 (111) 0.45 (122)

EBWM: effective beam width method

ACIFEM: equivalent frame method in the ACI 318-05 4

Proposed MEFM: modified EFM proposed by this study

( ) denotes the ratio of slab moment or drift ratio obtained using each method to that obtained using FEM

A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis

220

moments at column faces and lateral drift are calcu-

lated, using the four different analysis methods: ACI 200

EFM, MEFM, EWBM and FEM. 180

Figure 5 shows moment ratio, MR, with respect to

slab aspect ratio (L1 =L2 ). Slab aspect ratio is the ratio 160

MR: %

of span length in the loading direction (L1 ) to the 140

perpendicular direction (L2 ). It is assumed that column

120

section is constant (0.5 m 3 0.5 m) in this calculation.

The fluctuation in MR obtained using the ACI-EFM 100

is very large. The effective beam width method

80

(EWBM) and the proposed MEFM produce slab mo-

ments close to those of the FEM analysis, irrespective (a)

220

of slab aspect ratios (L1 =L2 ). The difference between

FEM

slab moments, obtained from these two methods (pro- 200 MEFM

posed MEFM and the EBWM) and FEM, is less than EBWM

180 ACIEFM

15%.

Figure 6 shows the moment ratio, MR with respect 160

MR: %

to column aspect ratios (c1 =c2 ). Column aspect ratio is 140

the ratio of column depth (c1 ) to column width

(c2 ). The slab dimension is set to 6 m 3 6 m in this 120

calculation. 100

The EWBM and MEFM produce slab moments close

80

to those of the FEM analysis, irrespective of column

aspect ratios. The difference between slab moments 04 06 08 10 12 14 16

obtained from these two methods (MEFM and the Column aspect ratio: c1 /c2

(b)

EBWM) is less than 20%.

Figures 7 and 8 show the drift ratios, DR, with Figure 6. Moment ration (MR) with respect to column aspect

respect to slab aspect ratios and column aspect ratios, ration (c1 /c2 ) (slab dimension: 6 m 3 6 m): (a) exterior

connection; (b) interior connection

220

200

400

180 FEM

350 MEFM

160 EBWM

MR: %

ACIEFM

300

140

250

DR: %

120

200

100

80 150

(a) 100

220

FEM 50

200 MEFM 04 06 08 10 12 14 16

EBWM Slab aspect ratio: L1 /L2

180 ACI-EFM

160 Figure 7. Drift ratio (DR) with respect to slab aspect ratio

(L1 /L2 ) (column dimension 0.5 m 3 0.5 m)

MR: %

140

100 significantly with respect to the slab aspect ratio. The

drift ratio of the ACIEFM reaches 220368%, and the

80

largest drift ratio (368%) is obtained when the slab

04 06 08 10 12 14 16 aspect ratio, L1 =L2 , is 0.5 (see Figure 7). The EBWM

Slab aspect ratio: L1 /L2

and the proposed MEFM produce lateral drifts close to

(b)

those obtained from the FEM, throughout the range of

Figure 5. Moment ration (MR) with respect to slab aspect slab aspect ratios.

ration (L1 /L2 ) (column dimension: 0.5 m 30.5 m): Similarly, the ACI-EFM produces lateral drifts much

(a) exterior connection; (b) interior connection different from those of the FEM, irrespective of c1 =c2 .

Magazine of Concrete Research 7

Park et al.

400 N

A B C D

FEM 274

350 MEFM

EBWM 1

ACIEFM

300

183

250

DR: %

2

200 Line of symmetry

150

3

100 163 163 244 244 325 163 244 122

50

04 06 08 10 12 14 16 163 163 163 163 244 122 244 122

4

Slab aspect ratio: c1 /c2

(a)

Figure 8. Drift ration (DR) with respect to column aspect

ratio (c1 /c2 ) (column dimension 6 m 3 6 m)

1219 305

81

drifts close to those of the FEM.

Pinned

support

(b)

Verification of the MEFM using

Figure 9. Layout of UCB test slab specimen: (a) plan;

experimental results (b) section. Unit: cm

For verifying the accuracy of the MEFM, this study

compared actual lateral stiffness of flat plate frames actual properties and conditions of the UCB test speci-

obtained from experiments (University of California at men were used in modelling the frame such as material

Berkeley (UCB)2 test and National Research Council properties, dimensions, boundary conditions and load-

(NRC) test20,21 with that of corresponding frames mod- ing conditions and so on.

elled by the MEFM. Figure 10 shows the lateral stiffness obtained from

the analysis methods. Initial lateral stiffness was ob-

tained during loading stage LAT1, which was the stage

for estimating the initial stiffness under low lateral

Verification using UCB test

loads causing a drift ratio of 1/800 ( 0.125%). It was

The model frame used in the UCB test2 is shown in reported that no visual crack was observed during this

Figure 9. The specimen was designed according to ACI loading stage. The lateral stiffness obtained, based on

318. It is noted that the test results were used by several proposed MEFM, FEM and EBWM, is comparable

researches9,1619 for proposing an effective beam width with the value obtained from test LAT1. In contrast, the

method for flat plate frames. lateral stiffness of the ACIEFM is 55% of the stiff-

The lateral stiffness of the frame from the UCB test ness obtained from test LAT1. It is noted that the initial

is summarised in Table 2. In this table, the lateral lateral stiffness is calculated without considering stiff-

stiffness of the specimen calculated using the approx- ness reduction factor.

imate methods (MEFM, EBWM and ACI-EFM) is also During loading stage NS400, lateral loads were

included. For predicting the lateral stiffness using the applied to the specimen to create a drift ratio of 1/400

approximate methods as close as actual lateral stiffness, ( 0.25%). Lateral stiffness estimated from the test

Table 2. Comparison between the values of lateral stiffness obtained from UCB test and MEFM

kN/mm

/

FEM EBWM ACIEFM MEFM

31.89 1.52

NS400 40.48 3.05 12.25 11.73(95) 9.96(81) 11.55(94)

34.25 3.05

( ) denotes the lateral stiffness ratio obtained using each method to that obtained using test / 20, 21

A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis

110 110

column shear force and column height (from the col-

umn hinge to the slab mid-depth). Connection rotation

100 100

is determined by dividing the displacement (relative

displacement between the column hinge and the slab

90 90

Lateral stiffness ratio: %

the rotational stiffness of each connection is accurately

80 80

estimated by the MEFM at stage LAT1 as well as

NS400.

70 70

60 60

Verification using NRC slab test

ACIEFM

ACIEFM

50 50

EBWM

EBWM

MEFM

MEFM

FEM

40 40

(a) (b) The frames are shown in Figure 12. A lateral load of

444.8 N for the frame was applied at the 8th floor.

Figure 10. Comparison of lateral stiffness between MEFM

and UCB tests: (a) test LAT1; (b) test NS400

8

7

during this loading stage is compared with that calcu-

lated using the analysis methods considering a stiffness 6 L /L 157 (Unit: mm) L1/L2 064

1 2

Floor level

5

duce lateral stiffness close to the actual lateral stiffness

2300

obtained at a drift ratio of 0.125%, which is 94% and 4

Slab thk: 286

Measured

95% of the actual lateral stiffness, respectively. In con- 3

MEFM

trast, the lateral stiffness of the ACIEFM is 81% of

2 1820 EBWM

the stiffness obtained from test NS400. NRC slab ACIEFM

Figure 11 shows the relationship between measured 1

00 01 02 03 04 00 01 02 03 04 05

moment and rotation at each connection of the speci-

Deflection: mm

men. The stiffness of each connection is also calculated

using the proposed MEFM and plotted in Figure 11. Figure 12. Comparison of lateral stiffness between MEFM

The connection moment is calculated as the product of and NRC slab tests

10

08

A 1 B 1 C 1 D 1

06

04

02

00

02

Normalised moment: Mu /Mmax

04 UCB test

06 (LAT1)

08 MEFM

10

10

08

A 2 B 2 C 2 D 2

06

04

02

00

02

04

06

08

10

0008 0 0008 0008 0 0008 0008 0 0008 0008 0 0008

0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004 0004

Rotation: radian

Figure 11. Comparison of connection stiffness between MEFM and UCB tests

Magazine of Concrete Research 9

Park et al.

Using the approximate methods (MEFM, EBWM, cording to the slab aspect and column aspect ra-

ACIEFM), lateral deflection was also estimated. In tios.

this estimation, stiffness reduction owing to cracks was (d ) Compared with UCB test results in the elastic

not considered since no visual crack was reported in range, the proposed MEFM, FEM and EBWM

the frames during the test.20 provide lateral stiffness values close to those

Figure 12 shows the lateral deflections at each floor obtained from the UCB test at a lateral drift

level obtained from the test as well as the approximate ratio of 1/800 ( 0.125%) which was the load-

methods. The EBWM and the proposed MEFM pro- ing stage LAT1. Moreover, the proposed MEFM

duce lateral deflections close to the measured deflec- with stiffness reduction factor of 1/3 predicts the

tions of the frame having two bays (slab aspect ratio, actual lateral stiffness at a drift ratio of

L1 =L2 1.57). The lateral defections estimated using 1/400 ( 0.25%) which was the loading stage

the ACIEFM overestimate lateral deflection by 15%. NS400.

In the case of the frame having four bays (e) Compared with NRC test results, the proposed

(L1 =L2 0.64), the MEFM and the EBWM accurately MEFM and EBWM provide lateral deflections

predict lateral deflection: the ratio of deflections esti- close to the measured deflections. However, ACI-

mated using the MEFM and the EFM to the actual EFM overestimates deflection by 40%.

deflection is 0.9 and 1.1, respectively. The ACIEFM

overestimates lateral deflection by 40%.

APPENDIX

Conclusion This appendix illustrates an example to calculate slab

This study developed the MEFM, using column moments in the flat plate systems using the MEFM

elements and equivalent slab elements for two-way proposed by this study. For this purpose, a two-storey

slab systems under lateral loads. Equivalent slab ele- frame is considered, which is shown in Figure 2. The

ments consist of slab elements and torsional elements. floor plan and design strip of the building are presented

The stiffness of the torsional elements is derived in Figure 13.

according to the realistic behaviour of torsional ele- Given that H 3.5 m, h 0.2 m, L1 L2 6.0 m,

c1 c2 0p.5 m, f c9 30 MPa (for all members) and

ments under lateral loads. The following conclusions

are made. Ec 4700 f c9 25743 (MPa).

systems under lateral loads is different from that Numerical models for the analysis using computers

under gravity loads. This study derives an equation Figure 14 shows a numerical model for the flat plate

for estimating the stiffness of torsional elements, system shown in Figure 13. Stiffness for equivalent-

which can account for realistic distribution of rota- slab, K es , and columns, K c , are calculated according to

tion along the torsional elements under lateral steps (1)(4).

loads

X 6EC (1) Flexural stiffness of slabbeams at both ends, K s

Kt

L2 (1 c2 =L2 )2 4Ec I s

Ks

L1

(b) The proposed MEFM method uses equivalent slab

elements instead of equivalent column elements. 4 3 25 743 (MPa) 3 4:0 3 103 (m4 ) 6 (m)

Equivalent slab elements consist of slab elements

and torisonal elements. The stiffness of equivalent 6:86 3 107 N m

slab elements is proposed as follows 6 3 (0:2)3

where I s 4:0 3 103 (m4 )

1 1 1 12

K es (2) Flexural stiffness of column members, K c

Ks Kt

4Ec I c

(c) The proposed MEFM and EBWM produce slab Kc

Lc

moments, lateral drifts and lateral stiffness compar-

able to those obtained from the elastic FEM analy- 4 3 25 743 (MPa) 3 5:2 3 103 (m4 ) 3:5 (m)

sis. The difference between the analytical results

obtained from the proposed MEFM and FEM does 1:53 3 108 N m

not vary with respect to slab aspect ratios or col- 0:5 3 (0:5)3

where I c 5:2 3 103 (m4 )

umn aspect ratios. However, the analytical results 12

of the ACIEFM are quite different from those of (3) Torsional stiffness of torsional members at both

FEM. Furthermore, the difference fluctuates ac- ends, K t

10 Magazine of Concrete Research

A modified equivalent frame method for lateral load analysis

S N

105 kN

210 kN

(a)

Design strip

6m 05 m

02 m

6m

6m

N

6m

(c)

A A

6m 6m

(b)

Figure 13. Prototype building: (a) elevation; (b) floor plan; (c) section AA

Kt

L2 (1 c2 =L2 )2 1

1 1 1 1 1

K es

6 3 25 743 (MPa) 3 9:97 3 104 (m4 ) Ks Kt 6:86 3 107 6:10 3 107

23

6 (m) 3 [1 0:5 (m)=6 (m)]2

3:23 3 107 N m

7

6:10 3 10 N m

where

X Frame moments

C (1 0:63 x= y)(x 3 y=3)

Under lateral loads shown in Figure 13a, the slab

moment in the frame was estimated based on calculated

(1 0:63 3 0:2=0:5) (0:23 3 0:5=3) stiffness of equivalent slabs and columns using the

numerical model shown in Figure 14. Positive and

9:97 3 104 (m4 ) negative slab moments are plotted in Figure 15.

Magazine of Concrete Research 11

Park et al.

c1/2

Kes Kes Kes 5. British Standards Institution. Eurocode 2: Design of Con-

crete Structures. Part 1-1 General Rules and Rules for Building.

Rigid joint BSI, London, 2004, BS EN 1992-1-1.

Kc Kc Kc Kc

H 6. British Standards Institution. The Structural Use of Con-

crete. Part 1: Code of Practice for Design and Construction.

Kes Kes Kes BSI, London, 1997, BS 8110-1.

7. Gamble W. L. Plane-frame Analysis Applied to Slabs. American

Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 1999, ACI SP-

Kc Kc Kc Kc

H 183, pp. 119129.

8. Banchik C. A. Effective Beam Width Coefficients for Equiva-

lent Frame Analysis of Flat-plate Structures. ME thesis, Univer-

L1 L1 L1

sity of California at Berkeley, 1987.

9. Hwang S. J. and Moehle J. P. Models for laterally loaded

slabcolumn frames. ACI Structural Journal, 2000, 97, No. 2,

Figure 14. Numerical model for MEFM

345352.

10. Grossman J. S. Verification of proposed design methodologies

for effective width of slab in slabcolumn frame. ACI Structural

4306 3759 4061 Journal, 1997, 94, No. 2, 18196.

11. Luo Y. H. and Duranni A. J. Equivalent beam model for flat-

slab buildings. Part I: interior connection. ACI Structural Jour-

nal, 1995, 92, No. 1, 11524.

12. Luo Y. H. and Duranni A. J. Equivalent beam model for flat-

4031 3762 4353

7357 6650 6995 slab buildings. Part II: exterior connection. ACI Structural Jour-

nal, 1995, 92, No. 2, 250257.

13. Murray K. A., Cleland D. J., Gilbert S. G. and Scott R. H.

Improved equivalent frame analysis method for flat plate struc-

ture in vicinity of edge columns. ACI Structural Journal, 2003,

7015 6650 7327 100, No. 4, 454464.

14. Gamble W. L. Discussion of Proposed revisions of ACI 318-

63; building code requirements for reinforced concrete. ACI

Journal, Proceedings, 1970, 67, No. 2, 700.

15. Computers & Structures. SAP2000 Integrated Finite Element

Analysis and Design of Structures. Computers & Structures Inc.,

Figure 15. Moments occurred in flat plate owing to lateral

Berkeley, CA, USA, 1996.

loads 16. Grossman J. S. Verification of proposed design methodologies

for effective width of slabs in slabcolumn frames. ACI Struc-

tural Journal, 1997, 94, No. 2, 181196.

Acknowledgement 17. Aslani H. and Mirand E. Fragility assessment of slabcolumn

The authors appreciate the support of the research connections in existing non-ductile reinforced concrete build-

ings. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2005, 9, No. 66, 777

fund of Hanyang University (HY-2007-g). 804.

18. Park H. and Choi K. Improved strength model for interior flat

platecolumn connections subject to unbalanced moment. Jour-

References nal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 2006, 132, No. 5, 694

704.

1. Melo G. S. S. A. and Regan P. E. Post-punching resistance of

19. Hueste M. B. D., Browning J. A., Lepage A. and Wallace

connections between flat slabs and interior columns. Magazine

J. W. Seismic design criteria for slab-column connections. ACI

of Concrete Research, 1998, 50, No. 4, 319327.

Structural Journal, 2007, 104, No. 4, 448458.

2. Hwang S. J. and Moehle J. P. An Experimental Study of Flat-

20. Vanderbilt M. D. Equivalent frame analysis for lateral loads.

plate Structures under Vertical and Lateral Loads. Earthquake

Proceedings, Journal of the Structural Division ASCE, 1979,

Engineering Research Center, University of California at Berke-

105, No. 10, 19811998.

ley, 1993, Report No. UCB/EERC-93/03.

21. Zelman M. I., Heidebrecht A. C., Tso W. K. and Johnson

3. Papanikolaou K. V., Tegos I. A. and Kappos A. J. Punching

W. A. Practical problems and costs of fabricating multi-storey

shear testing of reinforced concrete slabs, and design implica-

models. In Models for Concrete Structures. American Concrete

tions. Magazine of Concrete Research, 2005, 57, No. 3, 167

Institute. Detroit, MI, USA, 1970, SP-24, pp. 159186.

177.

4. American Concrete Institute (ACI). Building Code Require-

ments for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary

(318R-05). ACI, Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2005. Discussion contributions on this paper are welcomed by the editor

- Concentrically Braced FramesUploaded byAkshay Reddy
- Rules of Thumb Steel DesignUploaded byv
- Precast Concrete Applications & General OverviewUploaded bycrabbysya
- Composite Slab DesignUploaded by_jesseca
- Artista Columns ManualUploaded bysotiris
- Column Flange Simple ConnectionUploaded bya.b.a.c.u.s
- Seismic Design of SMFsUploaded bysbayegan8
- Modern Steel Construction 2017 05Uploaded byser_mayk
- CSI Models Check ListUploaded byhakim2020
- ETABS srepsUploaded byAnonymous nwByj9L
- Column Design PDFUploaded byRobin
- Defn of Str DesignUploaded byRamanathan Senthil
- Technical Specification of midas Gen.pdfUploaded bybryamdv23
- ETABS presentation 1.docUploaded byV.m. Rajan
- Chapter 8, Steel Support Base PlatesUploaded byBoopathi Yoganathan
- Step by Step Procedure for Raft DesignUploaded byV.m. Rajan
- STEP BY STEP PROCEDURE FOR RAFT DESIGN.pdfUploaded byV.m. Rajan
- Pg Structure Lab RecordUploaded byMuhammad Hasan
- L&T Ecc HandbookUploaded byRaghul Shangarthiyan
- 122925733 Pad OverturningUploaded byAadelaadel Fd
- Lecture 22Uploaded byFady Abdel Aziz
- Beam1Uploaded byGandhi Hammoud
- Slabs Beam DetailingUploaded byŞäŧřïą Ţøėë
- CWE_Vol10_Spl(1)_p_852-861Uploaded byVishal Patel
- Hidden Corbel SystemUploaded byFalah Barid
- AssnffUploaded byPja Shantha
- CopyUploaded byMoulay MB
- 1re Pds Staad Advconcrdesign Ltr en HrUploaded bylalan balakal
- Cub Brid Lesson02 Activity1 PierworksheetasUploaded byPruthvi Chowdary
- Copy of flatslab~design (SSP)_modifiedUploaded byGan Chin Phang

- Cces - FoundationUploaded byUdom Rith
- Slope TestUploaded byUdom Rith
- Equivalence Between Si Mks Metric_aci318m 11Uploaded byUdom Rith
- Common Construction PT issues ArticleUploaded byUdom Rith
- Technical Note 16Uploaded byUdom Rith
- technote5Uploaded byJose Carril
- Monitoring Strains in a Post-Tensioned Parking DeckUploaded byUdom Rith
- VERTICAL POST TENSIONING the River House Project.pdfUploaded byUdom Rith
- h_slabsUploaded byalvin_tan
- Lecture 12equivalentframemethod 111101015704 Phpapp01Uploaded byMicheline Cousin
- ACI Post Tension DesignUploaded byDuaa Makki

- Introduction to Perturbation Theory for Beginners1Uploaded byBrian Smith
- Chapter 11 - Fluid MechanicsUploaded byWaw
- 2. Unit Dan DimensiUploaded bynathalineo
- Kinetics of Alkaline Hydrolysis of Ethyl Acetate by Conductometric Measurement Approach Over Temperature Ranges (298.15-343.15K)Uploaded byMohammad Kh
- unit3part1-091211052414-phpapp01Uploaded byfitwi halefom
- Polymer SolubilityUploaded byRajani Chowdary
- 116186184-Jacobian-matrix-and-determinant.pdfUploaded byTapas Maji
- item_0_20181223050211203Uploaded byDeep
- Mechanics - James NearingUploaded byJose Prado
- Petroleum Production, Viscosity FormulasUploaded byTudose Adrian-Ionuț
- Alioscia Hamma,Paolo Zanardi and Xiao-Gang Wen- String and Membrane condensation on 3D latticesUploaded byMopadDeluxe
- EE 368 Lecture Notes-2011Uploaded byfrimponge
- G4methodUploaded bySujala Bhattarai
- capter5Uploaded byKrisna Wahyu Wijaya
- A new MIMO sine testing technique.pdfUploaded bysbshiki
- Mousa the Soil Ionization Gradient Tr PWRD IEEE 1994Uploaded byShostak Ira
- Reviewer Ee002Uploaded byMark Dasigan
- New Energy Technologies Issue 14Uploaded byblameitontherain9877
- Week 1b Appled Thermo DynamicsUploaded byAdnan Alam Khan
- 2000-ST-14Uploaded byAlroman
- BOOK - Weathering Testing Guidebook - ATLASUploaded byMarister Oliveira
- A Course In Mechanical Measurements And Instrumentation_A. K. Sawhney And P. Sawhney.pdfUploaded byVasam Satya Raj
- chapter1(1)Uploaded bymanikandan_murugaiah
- 12759903819830Uploaded bybadybady
- TasksUploaded byTony Walle
- 169335567-Weight-Estimation-of-Vessels-Apps-xls.xlsUploaded bymacwan23
- Parallel Driving of Synchronous GeneratorUploaded byMKIBETU
- 41084(364)94Uploaded byHenrique Towata Sato
- PDC - Advance Control Strategy MethodUploaded byFaiz Idzwan
- Displacement Method of AnalysisUploaded byahmad nabil