universiti putra malaysia - core.ac.uk · didapati kesan penebatan kepada rmf dalam struktur keluli...

UNIVERSITI PUTRA MALAYSIA

HESHMATOLLAH ABDI

FK 2015 27

RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR FOR STEEL AND REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES WITH VISCOUS DAMPERS

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR FOR STEEL AND REINFORCED

CONCRETE STRUCTURES WITH VISCOUS DAMPERS

By

HESHMATOLLAH ABDI

Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies,

Universiti Putra Malaysia, in Fulfilment of the

Requirement for the Degree of

Master of Science

July 2015

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

All material contained within the thesis, including without limitation text, logos, icons,

photographs and all other artwork, is copyright material of Universiti Putra Malaysia

unless otherwise stated. Use may be made of any material contained within the thesis for

non-commercial purposes from the copyright holder. Commercial use of material may

only be made with the express, prior, written permission of Universiti Putra Malaysia.

Copyright © Universiti Putra Malaysia

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

i

Abstract of thesis presented to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia in fulfilment of

the requirement for the degree of Master of Science

RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR FOR STEEL AND REINFORCED

CONCRETE STRUCTURES WITH VISCOUS DAMPERS

By

HESHMATOLLAH ABDI

July 2015

Chair: Farzad Hejazi, PhD

Faculty: Engineering

The response modification (R) factor serves a main function in the seismic design of

building structures nowadays and is considered to be one of the seismic design

parameters in the process of equivalent static analysis. In the last two decades, the

application of damper systems as earthquake energy dissipation systems in structures has

increased. However, an extensive review of the related literature indicates that the effect

of the viscous damper on the response modification factor of steel and reinforced

concrete structures has not been investigated. Framed by this context, the current study

investigates the effect of implementing a viscous damper device in steel and reinforced

concrete structures on the response modification factor.

In this research, steel and reinforced concrete structures with numerous stories were

considered to evaluate the value of the response modification factor, which was

formulated based on the following three aspects: strength, ductility, and redundancy

factors. Structural frames were designed according to the UBC 1994 and IBC 2012

codes, and non-linear static analysis was conducted with the guidance of previous

studies, such as the Applied Technology Council (ATC) 19 and ATC 40.

Nonlinear static analysis was performed using a finite element software, which

considered structural models equipped with viscous damper devices in different

arrangements. The bilinear approximation of the actual push-over curve was used to

evaluate the required parameters, such as the base shear at yield point (𝑉𝑦), roof

displacement relationship at yield point (𝛥𝑦), and maximum displacement (𝑉𝑚).

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

ii

Results showed that the response modification factor of steel and reinforced concrete

structures equipped with viscous dampers is higher than that of structures without

viscous dampers.

To verify the numerical analysis and formulation, experimental tests were conducted for

the steel and reinforced concrete models, as well as the ARCS3D used for the reinforced

concrete models. According to the experimental results and comparisons for the

proposed response modification factor, using energy dissipation systems has an effective

influence on the response modification factor and leads to a response modification factor

with a higher value.

Based on the analytical results for all the different cases, the equations proposed for

determining the response modification factor of the steel and reinforced concrete

structures were furnished by viscous dampers according to the value of the damping

coefficient and number of stories.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

iii

Abstrak tesis yang dikemukakan kepada Senat Universiti Putra Malaysia

Sebagai memenuhi keperluan untuk ijazah Master Sains

BALAS FACTOR PENGUBAHSUAJAN BAGI STEEL DAN STRUKTUR

KONKRIT BERTETULANG DENGAN PEREDAM LIKAT

Oleh

HESHMATOLLAH ABDI

Julai 2015

Pengerusi: Farzad Hejazi, PhD

Fakulti: Kejuruteraan

Response modification factor adalah ciri utama dalam rekabentuk seismic struktur

bangunan masa kini dan ia adalah salah satu parameter bagi proses setara analisa static.

Walaupun telah dua(2) dekad, sistem penebat diguna sebagai system pengagihan tenaga

gempabumi dalam struktur banguhan, namun melalui semakan literature berkaitan nya ,

didapati kesan penebatan kepada rmf dalam struktur keluli dan konkrit bertetulang tidak

diberi kajian sewajarnya.Oleh itu, disini, usaha dibuat untuk melihat kesan penebatan

kepada response modification factor dalam struktur keluli dan konkrit bertetulang.

Dalam kajian ini, Struktur keluli, struktur konkrit bertetulang pelbagai aras di nilai untuk

menentu angka response modification factor yang didasarkan kepada tiga aspek iaitu

kekuatan, kemuluran , kelebihan. Rekabentuk struktur adalah menurut UBC 1994, UBC

2012 dan analisa statik tak linear dilaksana dengan panduan kajian terdahulu ATC 19 dan

ATC 40.

Analisa statik tak-linear melalui pengisian unsure terhingga di gunakan menilai model

struktur yang di pasang alat penebat. Beberapa susunan penebat pelbagai nilai di

gunakan. Penghampiran bilinear lengkok daya dorong tarik digunakan semasa menilai

parameter yang diperlukan saperti keterikan dasar pada titik alahan (Vy), sesaran atap

berkait dengan titik alahan (Δy) dan anjakan maksima (Vm).

Keputusan kajian memdedahkan response modification factor bagi struktur keluli dan

struktur konkrit bertetulang yang di pasang bersama system pengagihan tenaga adalah

lebihtinggi di bandingkanresponse modification factor di struktur tanpa penebat viscous.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

iv

Bagi pengesahan formulasi persamaan dan keputusan analisa numerical, ujikaji

dilaksanakan atas kerangka keluli dan kerangka konkrit bertetulang. Dari hasil ujian ,

response modification factor bagi system debgab agihantenaga adalah lebih tinggi dan

response modification factor dipengaruhi oleh system agihan tenaga.

Berdasar keputusan analitika kes yang pelbagai, persamaan yang di cadang untuk menilai

response modification factor bagi kerangka keluli dan kerangka viscous bergantung pada

pengkali penebat dan bilangan aras.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Praise and thanks Almighty God for giving me the wisdom, health, and strength to fulfil

this degree successfully.

I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor, Dr.

Farzad Hejazi for his Kind supervision, encouragement, immense assistance, and

valuable comments and advice throughout my research.

Also, I wish to extend my sincere gratitude to Professor Dr. Mohd.Saleh Jaafar and Dr.

Izian Binti Abd Karim for their kind supervision, invaluable guidance and suggestion,

and support to all stages of this research.

Besides, I would like to thanks Professor Dr.Azmi Ibrahim for his warm supervision and

cooperation.

My special thanks go to all my friends, colleagues, and the staff of structural laboratory

of Civil Engineering Department and Institute of Advanced Technology (Institut

Teknologi Maju, ITMA) of UPM for their assistance.

Finally, I give my heartfelt and special thanks to my family, especially my siblings for

their patience, encouragement, as well as their financial and moral supports.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

vi

I certify that a Thesis Examination Committee has met on (date of viva voce) to

conduct the final examination of (HESHMATOLLAH ABDI) on his (or her) thesis

entitled(“Response modification factor for steel and reinforced concrete structures

equipped with viscous damper”) in accordance with the Universities and University

Colleges Act 1971 and the Constitution of the Universiti Putra Malaysia [P.U.(A) 106]

15 March 1998. The Committee recommends that the student be awarded the relevant

degree.

Members of the Thesis Examination Committee were as follows:

..........................................................., PhD

Professor

Faculty of Engineering

Universiti Putra Malaysia

(Chairman)

..........................................................., PhD

Professor



(Internal Examiner)

............................................................, PhD

Professor



(Internal Examiner)

............................................................, PhD

Professor


Universiti

(External Examiner)

__________________________________

(Insert name of current Deputy Dean)

(E.g. XXXX XXXX, PhD)

Professor andDeputy Dean

School of Graduate Studies


Date:

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

vii

This thesis was submitted to the Senate of Universiti Putra Malaysia and has been

accepted as fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science. The

members of the Supervisory Committee were as follows:

Farzad Hejazi,, PhD

Senior Lecturer



(Chairman)

Mohd.Saleh Jaafar,, PhD

Professor, Ir



(Member)

Izian Binti Abd Karim, PhD

Senior Lecturer



(Member)

Azmi Ibrahim PhD

Professor


Universiti Teknologi Mara

(Member)

_____________________________

BUJANG KIM HUAT, PhD

Professor and Dean

School of Graduate Studies


Date:

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

viii

Declaration by graduate student

I hereby confirm that:

this thesis is my original work;

quotations, illustrations and citations have been duly referenced;

this thesis has not been submitted previously or concurrently for any other degree

at any other institutions;

intellectual property from the thesis and copyright of thesis are fully-owned by

Universiti Putra Malaysia, as according to the Universiti Putra Malaysia

(Research) Rules 2012;

written permission must be obtained from supervisor and the office of Deputy

Vice-Chancellor (Research and Innovation) before thesis is published (in the form

of written, printed or in electronic form) including books, journals, modules,

proceedings, popular writings, seminar papers, manuscripts, posters, reports,

lecture notes, learning modules or any other materials as stated in the Universiti

Putra Malaysia (Research) Rules 2012;

there is no plagiarism or data falsification/fabrication in the thesis, and scholarly

integrity is upheld as according to the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Graduate

Studies) Rules 2003 (Revision 2012-2013) and the Universiti Putra Malaysia

(Research) Rules 2012. The thesis has undergone plagiarism detection software.

Signature: ________________________ Date: __________________

Name and Matric No.: _________________________________________

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

ix

Declaration by Members of Supervisory Committee

This is to confirm that:

the research conducted and the writing of this thesis was under our supervision;

supervision responsibilities as stated in the Universiti Putra Malaysia (Graduate

Studies) Rules 2003 (Revision 2012-2013) are adhered to.

Signature:

Name of Chairman of

Supervisory

Committee:

Signature:

Name of Member of

Supervisory

Committee:

Signature:

Name of Member of

Supervisory

Committee:

Signature:

Name of Member of

Supervisory

Committee:

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT i

ABSTRAK iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

APPROVAL vi

DECLARATION viii

LIST OF TABLES xvi

LIST OF FIGURES xvii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 General 1

1.2 Background and Earlier work 3

1.3 Statement of the Problem 6

1.4 Identified Gaps 6

1.5 Objectives 6

1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Work 7

1.7 Layout of the Thesis 8

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 9

2.1 Introduction 9

2.2 Response Modification Factor 10

2.2.1 Overstrength Factor 21

2.2.2 Ductility Reduction Factor 23

2.2.3 Redundancy Factor 26

2.3 Application of dampers in structures 28

2.4 Damping Factor 29 2.5 Discussion 31

3 METHODOLOGY AND MATERIAL 33

3.1 Introduction 33

3.2 Equivalent Lateral Load Analysis 34

3.2.1 Gravity Load Analysis 36

3.3 Response Modification Factor 37

3.3.1 Key Components of the R factor 38

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

xi

Miranda and Bertero’s Method 43

Krawinkler and Nassar’s Method 43

Newmark and Hall’s Method 44

3.3.2 Components of the Response Modification Factor Based on

ATC 19 46

3.3.3 Effect of the R Factor on the Design 48

3.3.4 Force-Displacement Response of Buildings 49

3.3.5 Response Modification Factor Procedure 50

3.3.6 Determination of the Approximate Fundamental Period of

Structure (second) 53

3.4 Non-linear Static Analysis 54

3.4.1 Process of Non-linear Static Analysis 56

3.4.2 Capacity Curve of the Structures 56

3.5 Sample Analysis 59

3.6 Application of the Viscous Damper Device in Structures 60

3.6.1 Damper Properties Due to Retrofitting in the Soft Story 63

3.6.2 Damper Properties for Steel and Reinforced Concrete

Structures 63

3.7 Damping Factor 64

3.8 Proposed technique 65

3.9 Structural Design 68

3.9.1 Steel Frame Design Due to Retrofitting in the Soft Story 68

3.9.2 Steel Frame and Reinforced Concrete Frame Design 72 3.10 Discussion 74 3.11 Concluding Remarks 74

4 EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR

FOR STEEL STRUCTURES RETROFITED BY VISCOUS DAMPER

DEVICE 75 4.1 Introduction 75

4.2 Structural design 75

4.3 Results of Analysis 76

4.4 Development of formulation for R factor by consider for damping

effect 83

4.5 Conclusion 85

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

xii

5 EVALUATION OF THE RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTOR

FOR STEEL AND REINFORCED CONCRETE STRUCTURES

EQUIPPED WITH DAMPER DEVICES 86

5.1 Introduction 86

5.2 Structural Models 87

5.3 Damper Model 87

5.4 Steel Structures 88

5.4.1 Pushover Curve Analysis and Description 88

5.4.2 Value of the R Factor of Steel Structures according to

Different Damping Coefficient 95

5.4.3 Development of a Proper Formula for the R Factor 97

5.5 Reinforced Concrete Structures 102

5.5.1 Pushover Curve Analysis and Description 103

5.5.2 Value of the R factor for Reinforced Concrete Structures

according to Different Damping Coefficients 110

5.5.3 Development of the Proper Formula for the R Factor 110

5.6 Discussion 116 5.7 Conclusion Remarks 116

6 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND VERIFICATION 117

6.1 Introduction 117 6.2 Steel Frame 117

6.2.1 Comparison of the Results and Verification 120

6.2.2 Location of Strain Gauges in Steel Frame Models 124

6.2.3 Strain Results from Bare Frame 125

6.2.4 Strain Results from the Frame Equipped with Damper Type 1

126


127

6.3 Verification of the Response Modification Factor for the RC Frame

128

6.3.1 Location of the Strain Gauges in the RC Frame Models 133

6.3.2 Strain Results from Bare Frame 135


136


137

6.3.5 Comparison of Strain Results 139

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

xiii

6.4 Conclusion 140

7 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 141

7.1 General Conclusion 141 7.2 Specific Conclusion 141

7.2.1 Proposed Response Modification Factor for the Steel

Structures Retrofitted with Viscous Damper Device at the Soft

Story 141 7.2.2 Proposed Response Modification Factor for the Steel and

Reinforced Concrete Structures Equipped with Viscous

Damper Device 142 7.3 Suggestion for Future Research 142

REFERENCES 143 APPENDICES 153 BIODATA OF STUDENT 180

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

xiv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2-1 𝑅 ∗ &𝑇 ∗ values proposed by Riddell et al. (1989) 12 2-2 The evaluated response modification factor based on FEMA provisions 13 2-3 Experimental and numerical R factor parameters for models unit frames 21 2-4 α &β coefficients proposed by authors Lai & Biggs 23 2-5 𝑅 ∗ &𝑇 ∗ values proposed by authors Riddell, Hidalgo and Cruz 24 2-6 α ,a & b coefficients per strain –hardening ratio 24 2-7 Various coefficients according to structures post- yield behaviour 25 2-8 Bs & B1 values derived by Ramirez 30 2-9 Comparison of proposed factors in some US codes 31 3-1 Values of site coefficient 𝐹𝑎𝑎 (IBC, 2012) 35 3-2 Values of site coefficient𝐹𝑣𝑎 (IBC, 2012) 35 3-3 Seismic Zone Factor Z (IBC, 2012) 36 3-4 Seismic coefficient 𝐶𝑎 (IBC, 2012) 36 3-5 Seismic coefficient 𝐶𝑣 (IBC, 2012) 36 3-6 Gravity Loads 36 3-7 Sample Frame Analysis Quantities 37 3-8 Values of approximate period parameters 𝐶𝑡 54 3-9 Analysis data for 4 stories steel structures 60 3-10 Fluid viscous dampers properties Taylor (2006) 64 4-1 Sample frame analysis quantities 76 4-2 Response modification factor for three-story steel buildings retrofitted at soft story

, level 77 4-3 Response modification factor for five-story steel buildings retrofitted at soft story

, level 78 4-4 Response modification factor for ten-story steel buildings retrofitted at soft story

. level 80 4-5 Response modification factor in percentage for three, five and ten story steel

....... buildings retrofitted at soft story l 81 4-6 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 84 5-1 Sample Frame Analysis Quantities 87 5-2 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 97 5-3 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 99 5-4 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 100 5-5 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 100 5-6 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 101 5-7 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 101 5-8 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 102 5-9 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 102 5-10 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 111 5-11 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 112 5-12 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with Damper 113 5-13 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 114 5-14 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 114 5-15 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 115

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

xv

5-16 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 115 5-17 Value of N based on the percentage of bay equipped with damper 115 6-1 Experimental Steel Member properties 118 6-2 Dampers properties . 118 6-3 Response modification factor for experimental test 121 6-4 Response modification factor for numerical analysis 121 6-5 R factor calculation for steel frames 123 6-6 Increasing trend of damped frames compared with bare frame 123 6-7 location & details of strain gauges 124 6-8 Reinforcement specification for RC elements 128 6-9 Response modification factor obtained from SAP2000 RC frames 129 6-10 R factor calculation for RC frames 129 6-11 Response modification obtained from ARCS3D for RC frames 130 6-12 Response modification factor for experimental RC frames 132 6-13 Increasing trend of damped frames compared with bare frame 133 9-1 Response Modification Factors proposed in NEHRP (2003) 153 9-2 Response Modification Factors proposed in NEHRP (2003) 154 9-3 Response Modification Factors proposed in 156 9-4 Importance factor (UBC, 1997) 159 9-5 Numerical Coefficient (UBC, 1997) 160 9-6 R and Ω0 factors for nonbuilding structures (UBC, 1997) 161 9-7 Soil profile types (IBC, 2012) 161 9-8 Near source factor 𝑁𝑎1 (IBC, 2012) 162 9-9 Near source factor 𝑁𝑣1 (IBC, 2012) 162 9-10 Seismic design category based on short period (0.2 second) response accelerations

, (IBC, 2012) 162 9-11 Seismic design category based on 1- second period response acceleration (IBC,

....... 2012) 162 10-1 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 163 10-2 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 163 10-3 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 164 10-4 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 164 10-5 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 165 10-6 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 165 10-7 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 166 10-8 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 166 10-9 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 167 10-10 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 167 10-11 Proposed response modification factor when C = 8.4060888 168 10-12 Proposed response modification factor when C = 8.4060888 168 10-13 Proposed response modification factor for C = 8.4060888 169 10-14 Proposed response modification factor when C = 8.4060888 169 10-15 Proposed response modification factor when C = 8.4060888 170 10-16 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 171 10-17 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 171 10-18 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 172 10-19 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 172 10-20 Proposed response modification factor when C = 0.2568533 173

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

xvi

10-21 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 173 10-22 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 174 10-23 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 174 10-24 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 175 10-25 Proposed response modification factor when C = 2.0598211 175 10-26 Proposed response modification factor when C = 8.4060888 176 10-27 Proposed response modification factor when C = 8.4060888 176 10-28 Proposed response modification factor when C = 8.4060888 177 10-29 Proposed response modification factor when C = 8.4060888 177 10-30 Proposed response modification factor when C = 8.4060888 178

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1-1 𝑅µ − 𝑇 − µ Curves (Newmark & Hall, 1982) 4 2-1 Pushover Curves according to Mondal et al. (2013) study 15 2-2 Experimental and numerical pushover response curve for the unbraced and

, braced model unit frames 16 2-3 The effect of number of storey on the R value of X-braced frames 16 2-4 Pushover curve for SCBF and OCBF frames 17 2-5 Comparison of incremental dynamic and static pushover roof displacement base ,

, Shear curve, 5 story T-SMRFs 17 2-6 Dynamic multimodal pushover curves compared with a standard pushover curve

, for a bridge where higher modes are significant 18 2-7 Dynamic multimodal pushover curves compared with a standard pushover curve

, for a bridge where the first mode is dominant 18 2-8 Response spectrum of selected ground motions 19 2-9 Horizontal capacity curve of MSB-braced frames (brace-induced column actions

, by SRSS accumulation approach) 20 2-10 Plots of Proposed Ductility Reduction Factors 26 2-11 Redundancy in Moment Resisting Frames 27 3-1 Overall schematic view of the method of the study 34 3-2 MDOF modification factors 44 3-3 Redundancy factor 46 3-4 Single degree of freedom system 48 3-5 Sample elastic pseudo-acceleration spectra for 5% damping 48 3-6 Use of R factors to reduce elastic spectral demands to the design force level

, Republished courtesy of the ATC; originally published in ATC-19 49 3-7 Sample base shear force versus roof displacement relationship 50 3-8 Response Modification Factor procedure based on ATC 19 51 3-9 Response Modification Factor procedure based on ATC 19 52 3-10 Pushover analysis strategy 54 3-11 lateral load patterns 55 3-1 General Structure Response 57 3-13 General Structure Response in compare With Damper 58 3-14 Demand Curve (ATC-40) 58 3-15 Pushover analysis for 4 stories steel structures 59 3-16 Taylor Fluid Damper (Taylor 2006) 61 3-17 Viscous Damper Installation 61 3-18 Los Angeles City Hall Damper Installation 62 3-19 Hsien Dien Hospital Damper Installation 62 3-20 San Francisco Civic Centre Damper Installation 62 3-21 Hotel Woodland-Installation of Damper 63 3-22 Flow chart of proposed technique 67 3-23 Structural arrangement of buildings in plan 68 3-24 (a) Example of structure (b) Example of parking 69 3-25 Frame Types 70 3-26 Various considered structures with different damper assignments 71

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

xviii

3-27 Story & % of bay equipped with damper device 73 4-1 Pushover curve for three-story steel buildings retrofitted at soft story level 76 4-2 Response modification factor of three-story steel buildings retrofitted at soft story

, level 77 4-3 Pushover curve for five-story steel buildings retrofitted at soft story level 78 4-4 Response modification factor of five-story steel buildings retrofitted at soft story

, level 79 4-5 Pushover curve for ten-story steel buildings retrofitted at soft story level 79 4-6 Response modification factor of 10-story steel buildings retrofitted at soft story

, level 80 4-7 Pushover curve analysis 82 4-8 Compression response modification factor for all models 82 4-9 Percentage of damper effect on R in comparison to structures 83 4-10 Effect of damper device on R in percentage 83 4-11 𝑅𝑑 based on the percentage of bays equipped with damper device 84 5-1 Pushover analysis for 4 stories steel structures (C = 0.2568533) 90 5-2 Pushover analysis for 8 stories steel structures (C = 0.2568533) 90 5-3 Pushover analysis for 12 stories steel structures (C = 0.2568533) 90 5-4 Pushover analysis for 16 stories steel structures (C = 0.2568533) 91 5-5 Pushover analysis for 20 stories steel structures (C = 0.2568533) 91 5-6 Pushover analysis for 4 stories steel structures (C = 2.0598211) 92 5-7 Pushover analysis for 8 stories steel structures (C = 2.0598211) 92 5-8 Pushover analysis for 12 stories steel structures (C = 2.0598211) 92 5-9 Pushover analysis for 16 stories steel structures (C = 2.0598211) 93 5-10 Pushover analysis for 20 stories steel structures (C = 2.0598211) 93 5-11 Pushover analysis for 4 stories steel structures (C = 8.4060888) 94 5-12 Pushover analysis for 8 stories steel structures (C = 8.4060888) 94 5-13 Pushover analysis for 12 stories steel structures (C = 8.4060888) 94 5-14 Pushover analysis for 16 stories steel structures (C = 8.4060888) 95 5-15 Pushover analysis for 20 stories steel structures (C = 8.4060888) 95 5-16 Pushover analysis for 4 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 104 5-17 Pushover analysis for 8 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 104 5-18 Pushover analysis for 12 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 105 5-19 Pushover analysis for 16 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 105 5-20 Pushover analysis for 20 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 105 5-21 Pushover analysis for 4 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 106 5-22 Pushover analysis for 8 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 106 5-23 Pushover analysis for 12 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 107 5-24 Pushover analysis for 16 stories s Reinforced Concrete tructures 107 5-25 Pushover analysis for 20 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 107 5-26 Pushover analysis for 4 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 108 5-27 Pushover analysis for 8 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 108 5-28 Pushover analysis for 12 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 109 5-29 Pushover analysis for 16 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 109 5-30 Pushover analysis for 20 stories Reinforced Concrete structures 109 6-1 Assembly of experimental test 119 6-2 Steel frame without damper 119 6-3 Steel frame with damper type 1 119

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

xix

6-4 Steel frame with damper type 2 120 6-5 Pushover analysis for experimental steel frames 120 6-6 Pushover analysis for numerical steel frames 121 6-7 Pushover analysis for numerical and experiment analysis 122 6-8 Position of attached strain gauges 124 6-9 Strain results for steel bare frame 125 6-10 Experimental test for steel bare frame 125 6-11 Strain result for damper type 1 126 6-12 Experimental test for steel frame with damper type 1 126 6-13 Strain result for frame with damper type 2 127 6-14 Experimental test for steel frame with damper type 2 127 6-15 Reinforced concrete sections 128 6-16 Pushover analysis for numerical RC frames with SAP2000 129 6-17 Pushover analysis obtained from ARCS3D software for RC frames 130 6-18 Plastic hinge formation for RC frame in ARCS3D 130 6-19 RC frame without damper 131 6-20 RC frame with damper type 1 131 6-21 RC frame with damper type 2 132 6-22 Pushover analysis for experimental RC frames 132 6-23 Position of attached strain gauges for RC frames (Concrete) 134 6-24 Position of attached strain gauges for RC frames (Steel bar) 134 6-25 Strain results for RC bare frame (Steel bars) 135 6-26 Strain results for RC bare frame (Concrete surface) 135 6-27 Experimental test for RC bare frame 136 6-28 Strain results for RC frame with damper type 1 (Steel bars) 136 6-29 Strain results for RC frame with damper type 1 (Concrete surface) 137 6-30 Experimental test for RC frame with damper type 1 137 6-31 Strain results for RC frame with damper type 2 (Steel bars) 138 6-32 Strain results for RC frame with damper type 2 (Concrete surface) 138 6-33 Experimental test for RC frame with damper type 2 138 6-34 RC Strain results for G1 (Concrete surface) 139 6-35 Strain results for G8 (Concrete surface) 139 6-36 Strain results for G10 (Concrete surface) 139 6-37 Strain results for G1 (Steel bars) 140 6-38 Strain results for G3 (Steel bars) 140 9-1 Example of frame member label 158

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

There are numerous natural hazards in the world but earthquake is a most destructive

natural hazards that can result in severe social and economic impact. Earthquake

engineering is a branch of engineering that is concerned with the estimation of

earthquake impacts. It has become a group involving seismologists, structural

engineer, architects, information technologists, geotechnical engineers, social scientists

and urban planners. The earthquake engineering society has been reassessing their

procedures since the past few years, in the wake of destructive earthquakes which

caused wide-ranging damages such as loss of life and property. These procedures

involve assessment of seismic force demands on the structure and then developing

design procedures for the structure to withstand the applied actions.

Due to economic and architectural constraints, engineers are compelled to design

structural systems which are cost effective and good-looking while adequately safe and

strong to satisfy inhabitants who will live and work in there. Scarce resources of

materials, man & machine power and time, especially in active seismicity areas;

mandate the basic objective of structural design as to design buildings with capability

to withstand due to strong ground shaking without collapse, but potentially with some

significant structural damage. At the present time structural design philosophy residing

in codes, emphasizes that complete safety and without damage, even in an earthquake

with a reasonable possibility of occurrence, not possible to be achieved. However,

letting some structural and non-structural damage, a high level of life safety can be

economically achieve in structural design by applying inelastic energy dissipation

system.

According to seismic codes, usually the design lateral strength is lower than the lateral

strength that structures required to stay in the elastic range. Maintaining the structure

inelastic range means that all structural and nonstructural members, subjected to lateral

motion, are assured to return to the initial state with no permanent deformations and

damages. In many cases preserving this state is far from being feasible and rational. On

the other hand, going beyond the elastic frontier in an earthquake event may lead to

yielding and cracking in members which can bring catastrophic results unless these

inelastic actions are limited to a certain degree. At this point utilizing inelastic behavior

definitely lowers the overall construction costs by reducing member sizes thus reducing

material amounts and construction time also providing ease of operability and erection.

Finding the balance in between is the major concern of a designer who is searching for

the optimum design by means of seizing the members and making use of different

structural systems.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

2

To utilize inelastic behavior in design, first of all, effects of earthquake induced motion

of the structure must be examined. Current engineering practice is capable of making

close approximations of the structural properties and properly put them into operation

of computer aided finite element analysis (formulation of the problem into a set of

mathematical equations). Such as the mass, stiffness and damping properties moreover

gravity loading conditions may be modelled. On the contrary the earthquake

characteristics are unique. The ground motion is unpredictable and irregular in

direction, magnitude and duration. Therefore past ground motion records serve as a

starting point to form a basic understanding of the characteristics of the excitation such

as the displacements, velocities, and accelerations. Structural engineering took

advantage of these records by various schemes. Subjecting a model directly to a given

motion record as known as Time History Analysis, may provide an insight to what will

actually happen during an excitation. In the process of structural design an iterative

progression takes place; this kind of simulation may be carried on for linear and non-

linear models with different records but such an approach needs huge computational

effort and time.

Consequently the Response Spectrum Method is preferred in routine application. The

most simplified and striped method for seismic design is the Equivalent Lateral (Static)

Load analysis which is easy to employ and the variables (relatively less in number) are

defined in the codes.

Plastic design for steel and ultimate strength design for reinforced concrete members

are based on inelastic performance of materials. For both design methodologies

statistical studies played an important role in defining load factors since members shall

not be designed for the working loads. However the overall inelastic behavior is

another matter which is also studied by numerous researchers up to present date.

Equivalent Lateral Load and Response Spectrum Analysis methods are the most used

methods to evaluate earthquake resistance and design of structures since they are

actually based on elastic static analysis. However, these are not universal analytical

tools to allow for the perfect consideration of very complicated building behavior

subjected to earthquake ground motions. A new procedure which called Performance

Based Design is rising now, which implementing the inelastic static analysis

(pushover) natively in design process, stepping ahead of above mentioned elastic

procedures which are most of the time leading to poor approximations of overall

behavior. The main approximation lies in the concept of Response Modification

Factors. This value approach to assign discrete modification factors for structural

systems may be very practical when it comes down to routine practice in engineering

but simplicity brings higher uncertainty.

To judge the nonlinear performance of building structures when earthquake happen,

Response modification factor will be used as seismic design parameters and since

seismic design codes try to reduce loads. Damages due to earthquake are a worry to

professionals, government officials, and the public. Nevertheless, we can neither

predict the incidence of an earthquake nor accurately, estimate its amplitude,

frequency contents, and duration. Also the structural capacity such as material

strength always cannot be exactly determined. Brittleness data are necessary for

seismic risk assessment studies to estimate earthquake-induced loss of life and

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

3

property damage, also to estimate economic and to develop an emergency plan

that can be helpful. On the other hand, to design the new building structures,

nonlinear structural response should be obtained more or less by using Response

Modification Factor (Seya et al. 1992).

The structures should be designed in a way that they have resistant enough against

severe earthquakes. In other words, a structure not only should dissipate a behavior, but

also it should be able to control the deformation and transfer the force to foundation

through enough lateral stiffness in ground motions.

Earthquake loads that loaded to structural buildings are normally more than that they

are designed for. This kind of reduction in design load by seismic codes is throughout

the application of response modification factor (R-factor). During earthquakes,

structural building typically behaves elastically and then inelastic analysis is essential

for design. Inelastic dynamic analysis is slow and construal of its results need high

level of experience. Recently Pushover analysis has being used to estimate inelastic

response of structures.

Nowadays most of seismic design codes consist of the nonlinear response of a structure

implicitly through a ‘response reduction modification factor’ (R). R factor helps

designers to apply linear elastic force according to design while counting for nonlinear

behavior and deformation limits.

The purpose of this research is to evaluate the Response Modification Factors of

structures equipped with and without damper device and finalize the final formulation

for evaluation of Response Modification Factor for structures equipped with viscous

damper devices. In this study past observations and studies are reviewed. The response

modification factor(R) simply represents the ratio of the maximum lateral force. Since,

the response modification factor depends on overstrength, ductility and redundancy

factor.

According to this research value of ductility, overstrength and finally response

modification factor have been evaluated for steel structures and reinforced concrete

structures. Results illustrate that the value of response modification factor for structures

equipped with damper device is higher in compare when there is no damper device in

structures. It establish that the factors such as number of damper (percentage of bay

equipped with damper device), damping coefficient and even height of structure has

effect on value of R factor and finally formulation finalized.

1.2 Background and Earlier work

To design earthquake loads resisting element, force reduction factor will be needed.

Response Modification Factor proposed for the first time in ATC 3-06 (1978) that were

selected according to observed performance of buildings during past earthquakes also

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

4

on the estimation of overstrength and damping, etc. (ATC-19, 1995). Response

Modification Factor consider as factors such as: overstrength, ductility and redundancy

factor base on ATC-19 (1995) and ATC-34 (1995).

In the procedure to estimate the seismic force of structural building, R factor acts as an

important part. As mentioned, Response Modification Factor consider base on ductility

(µ), over-strength (Ω) and redundancy (ρ), since the dynamic response of structural

activates these factors to reduce elastic force into inelastic loads beyond the elastic

range.

To consider the overly behavior of any structural building when it is subjected to a

particular one direction lateral loads, load Vs displacement curve will be used. When

parameters such as ductility (µ), over-strength (Ω) and redundancy (ρ) evaluated during

the loading procedures then the R factor can be developed and estimated. The response

modification factor will be estimated as:

𝑅 = 𝑅µ . 𝑅Ω . 𝑅𝜌 (1.1)

The ductility factor (𝑅µ) can be intended from the evaluation of the translation ductility

ratio. The relationship between the maximum elastic load (𝑉𝑢𝑒) and maximum inelastic

load (𝑉𝑢) can define the 𝑅µ factor, in same structural building under inelastic behavior.

The essential studies about Response Modification Factor due to ductility have been

done by Newmark and Hall (1982). Based on their study, ductility (𝑅µ) is sensitive to

the natural period (T) of the structure and even there are five period of different range

which𝑅µ can be found according to different value. 𝑅µ-µ-T for numerous ductility

ratios and periods illustrates in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1. 𝑹µ − 𝑻 − µ Curves (Newmark & Hall, 1982)

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

5

According to International Building Code (IBC, 2000), to evaluate the design seismic

forces of structures which have been reduced, to evaluate the deflection amplification

factor (𝐶𝑑), to convert elastic lateral displacements to total lateral displacements,

Response Modification Coefficient (R) will be applied even including effect of

inelastic deformations. The values of R and 𝐶𝑑 arranged in the IBC (IBC, 2000) are

based on technical justification, observations of the performance of different structural

systems in previous strong earthquakes and on tradition (NEHRP, 2000). The

coefficient R is proposed to explanation for energy dissipation through the soil-

foundation system, over-strength and ductility (NEHRP, 2000).

Numerous researches have been performed on the selection of Response Modification

Factors (R) for the seismic design of structures. For example, Miranda presents a

review of different investigations on the coefficient R, which is described as a strength

reduction factor (Rµ). The study of Miranda suggests that the factor (Rµ) is mostly a

function of the displacement ductility (µ), the natural period of the structure (T) and the

soil conditions.

The structures should be designed in a way that they have resistant enough against

server earthquakes and they should also provide comfort and peace of mind of residents

who live there against weaker earthquakes. In other words, a structure not only should

dissipate a considerable amount of imported energy by ductile behavior, also it should

be able to control the deformations and transfer the force to foundation through enough

lateral stiffness in ground motions. The final capacity of dissipated energy in every

structure depends upon various factors such as: structures seismic parameters,

characteristic of earthquake records, the environment condition of construction and

place of structural building. Response modification factor is reflection of energy

dissipation within the boundary of plastic with respect to the lake of overturning and

big deformation in structure. Height of structure is a one of various parameters which is

effective on the response modification factor (Abdollahzadeh et al, 2011).

Design a structural building to stay elastic is uneconomical and not easy to legitimatize

for a rare earthquake type loading. Instead, it is an ordinary design principle to accept

some seismic damage in a building which it does not guide to the fall down of the

structure. The collapse will be avoided if the structural components are designed in a

ductile manner which is expected to resist the excessive forces.

Damping in structural building is provided by inherent damping which is comes from

structures and by supplementary damping that is by adding energy dissipation devices

to structures. In building codes to consider for the effect of supplemental damping on

the force and displacement response of buildings the damping reduction factor has been

accepted. Researcher such as; Newmark and Hall (1982), Wu and Hanson (1989),

Hanson et al. (1993) have done research on this effect.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

6

1.3 Statement of the Problem

The equivalent lateral force method is a well-known approach in structural engineering

because of the simplicity and reliability of calculating the lateral forces induced by an

earthquake. In the mentioned scheme, the response modification factor (R) is one of the

controversial issues to choose for a different structural system. Furthermore, the

application of a supplementary energy dissipation system, such as the viscous damper,

attracts much interest among engineers, experts, and researchers. A review of the

literature indicates that the effect of the viscous damper on overstrength, ductility, and

response modification factor is not available and that no information exists on the

evaluation of the R factor of steel and reinforced concrete structure equipped with a

viscous damper device. In addition, no report exists on the effect of the damping

coefficient and height of the structure on the R factor when a structure is equipped with

viscous dampers. Therefore, developing a new formula for evaluating the R factor is

vital for structures equipped with a viscous damper device, given the effect of the

number of dampers and damping coefficient in formulation.

1.4 Identified Gaps

i. No investigation exists on the procedure of performing the equivalent static

analysis of steel and reinforced concrete structures equipped with a viscous

damper device.

ii. No study exists on the evaluation of the R factor of steel and reinforced

concrete structures equipped with a viscous damper device.

iii. No procedure exists for the evaluation of the R factor for structures equipped

with a viscous damper device.

iv. No information exists on the effect of different parameters on the response

modification factors of steel and RC structures equipped with a viscous

damper device.

v. No investigation exists on the effect of the number of dampers, different

damping coefficients, and height of structures on the R factor.

1.5 Objectives

The general objective of this study is to evaluate the R factor of steel and reinforced

concrete structures equipped with viscous damper device.

Therefore specific objectives of this study are defined as:

i. To propose a computation algorithm for performing equivalent static analysis

on steel and reinforced concrete structures equipped with a viscous damper

device.

ii. To develop a new process of evaluating the ductility (µ), overstrength (Ω), and

response modification factor of steel and reinforced concrete structures

equipped with a damper device.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

7

iii. To evaluate the effect of the number of dampers, damping coefficient, and

height of structures of steel and reinforced concrete-framed buildings on the R

factor.

1.6 Scope and Limitations of the Work

To achieve the said objectives, the following steps have been conducted in the present

study:

The main aim of this study is to investigate the performance of steel structures and

reinforced concrete structures designed according to the UBC 1994 and IBC 2012

codes, with non-linear static analysis conducted to evaluate their lateral load carrying

capacity. Another aim is to assess the pertinent response modification factors based on

the literal definition given by past studies and to finalize their formulation.

A 5-bay structural system is created in both directions for the 4-, 8-, 12-, 16-, and 20-

story configurations of 5 different framing systems according to the number of the

damper device in each floor and 3 different values of the damping coefficient (C). A

total of 150 different structural models are analyzed to evaluate the R factors.

The resultant base shear is normalized by the equivalent lateral load proposed by the

code. The design sections are chosen from a European section list and dampers from

Taylor Devices are used in this research.

Pushover analysis is performed according to the Applied Technology Council (ATC)

19 (1995) prescriptions. Ultimate capacity pushover analysis is performed until the

system becomes an unstable mechanism. Brief information and modeling property data

are presented in every section to explain the benefits.

Some of the design conditions for the framing systems are predetermined, such as

seismic zone, soil group, building importance, and gravity loading. These values are

kept constant for all design cases.

The method of analysis for the response modification factor is implemented by

considering the effect of a viscous damper on the R factor.

Equivalent static analysis is selected for steel and reinforced concrete frame buildings

equipped with earthquake an energy dissipation system (viscous damper). Pushover

analysis is conducted to determined the overstrength and ductility reduction factors.

The response modification factors are evaluated in accordance to the different damping

coefficients, number of dampers, and height of structures.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

8

To conduct this research, a new formulation for the response modification factors is

proposed in the range of different damping coefficients.

1.7 Layout of the Thesis

The thesis has been divided into 7 chapters and the brief description about each chapter

is described as below:

Chapter 1 highlighted the importance and the definition for the present investigation

along with the objective and scope of the study.

The review of works related to response modification factor, application of R factor,

nonlinear static analysis covered in Chapter 2.

Chapter 3 present the methodology of the thesis. The modelling of structural frames,

different viscous dampers, pushover analysis and method of analysis for response

modification factor illustrated.

The effect of viscous damper on response modification factor base on proposes value

of R factor presented in Chapter 4 and 5. The final formulation for steel structures and

reinforced concrete structures equipped with viscous damper illustrated in this chapter.

Chapter 6 present the verification of response modification factor for steel and

reinforced concrete frames.

Major conclusion observed from the study carried out in this thesis presented in

Chapter 7.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

143

8 REFERENCES

Ashour S.A.,(1987).“Elastic Seismic Response of Buildings with Supplemental

Damping” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), (1978). “Tentative Provisions for the

Development of Seismic Regulations for Buildings” (ATC-3-06),

RedwoodCity, California.

Applied Technology Council (ATC), (1978:45–53). Tentative provisions for the

development of seismic regulations for buildings. ATC-3-06, Applied

Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 1978:45–53.

ATC, 1982b, An Investigation of the Correlation Between Earthquake Ground Motion

and Building Performance, ATC-10 Report, Applied Technology Council,

Redwood City, California.

Applied Technology Council (ATC),(1995). “Structural Response Modification

Factors” (ATC-19), Redwood City, California.

Applied Technology Council (ATC),(1995:5-32). Structural response modification

factors. ATC-19, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California,

1995:5–32.

Applied Technology Council (ATC),(1995:31–6). A critical review of current

approaches to earthquakeresistant design. ATC-34, Applied Technology

Council, Redwood City, California, 1995:31–6.

Applied Technology Council (ATC),(1996).“Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of

Concrete Buildings” (ATC-40), Redwood City, California.

Atkinson, T. G., & Kiland, P. J. (2004). The evolution and history of SEAOC, a

celebration of 75 years of history, 1929 to 2004.Retrieved January 18, 2010,

from Structural Engineers Association of Southern California.

Alexander M. Remennikov and Warren R. (1997). Walpole ,Department of Civil

Engineering, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch,

New Zealand.

Apurba Mondal , Siddhartha Ghosh , G.R. Reddy; (2013). Performance-based

evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames; Engineering

Structures 56 (2013) 1808–1819.

Andreas J. Kappos; Themelina S. Paraskeva; and Ioannis F. Moschonas; (2013).

Response Modification Factors for Concrete Bridges in Europe; Vol. 18, No.

12, December 1, 2013. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2013/12-1328–1335.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

144

Andrew Whittaker, Gary Hart, and Christopher Rojahn, Members, ASCE; (1999).

SEISMIC RESPONSE MODIFICATION FACTORS; 1999; Journal of

Structural Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 4, April, 1999. qASCE, ISSN 0733-

9445/99/0004-0438–0444/ $8.00 1 $.50 per page. Paper No. 15932.

Ali Habibi, Ricky W.K. Chan, Faris Albermani (2013), Energy-based design method

for seismic retrofitting with passive energy dissipation systems, Engineering

Structures 46 (2013) 77–86.

Apurba Mondal, Siddhartha Ghosh, G.R. Reddy (2013), Performance-based evaluation

of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames, Engineering Structures

56 (2013) 1808–1819.

Amin Mohebkhah, Behrouz Chegeni (2014), Overstrength and rotation capacity for

EBF links made of European IPE sections, hin-Walled Structures 74 (2014)

255–260.

Bruneau M, Uang CM, Whittaker A,(1998). Ductile design of steel structures.

NewYork (USA): McGraw-Hill; 1998.

Bartera F, Giacchetti R, (2004).Steel dissipating braces for upgrading existing

buildingframes. Journal of Constructional Steel Research 2004;60:751_69.

Balendra, T. and Huang, X,(2003). “Overstrength and Ductility Factors for Steel

Frames Designed According to BS 5950” Journal of Structural

Engineering,ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 8, 2003.

Bonowitz, D., Youssef N. and Gross. J.L.(1995). “A Survey of Steel Moment-

Resisting Frames Buildings Affected by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake”Rep.

No. NISTIR 5625, National Institute of Standards and

Technology,Gaithersburg, 1995.

Bayındırlık ve İskân Bakanlığı,(1998). “Afet Bölgelerinde Yapılacak Yapılar Hakkında

Yönetmelik (1998 değişiklikleri ile birlikte)” Ankara,1998.

Beavers, J. E. (2002). A review of seismic hazard description in U.S. design codes and

procedures. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials , 4(1), 46-63.

Balendra T, Huang X, (2003). Overstrength and ductility factors for steel frames

designed according to BS 5950. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE

2003;129(8):1019–35.

BALKAYA and Erol KALKAN,(2004).World Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Vancouver, B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 3153.

Barbat A.H., Vielma J.C., Oller S., (2007). Confinamiento y ductilidad de los edificios

de hormigonarmado. Edit. GráficosAlmudena S.L., Madrid, Espana, 2007.

Bayındırlık ve İskân Bakanlığı, (1998). “Afet Bölgelerinde Yapılacak Yapılar

Hakkında Yönetmelik (1998 değişiklikleri ile birlikte)” Ankara,1998.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

145

Borzi, B. and Elnashai, A.S., (2000). “Refined Force Reduction Factors for Seismic

Design” Engineering Structures, 22.

Bojórquez, E., Sonia E. Ruiz, Alfredo Reyes-Salazar and Bojórquez, J.(2014), Ductility

and Strength Reduction Factors for Degrading Structures Considering

Cumulative Damage, Hindawi Publishing Corporation the Scientific World

Journal Volume 2014, Article ID 575816, 7.

Benjin Zhu and Dan M. Frangopol (2014), Effects of post-failure material behaviour on

redundancy factor for design of structural components in nondeterministic

systems, Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 2014.

BSSC, 1988, NEHRP Recommended Provisions for the Development of Seismic

Regulations for New Buildings, Building Seismic Safety Council,

Washington, D.C.

C. D. Annan, M. A. Youssef, and M. H. EL Naggar, (2009). Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering, The University of Western Ontario, London,

Ontario, Canada, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 13:1–21, 2009

Copyright A.S. Elnashai & N.N. Ambraseys ISSN: 1363-2469 print

Constantinou, M.C. and Symans, M.D. (1992). “Experimental and Analytical

Investigation of Seismic Response of Structures with Supplemental Fluid

Viscous Dampers,” Technical Report NCEER-92-0032, National Center for

Earthquake Engineering Research, State University of New York at Buffalo.

C. D. ANNAN, M. A. YOUSSEF, and M. H. EL NAGGAR;(2009). Seismic

Overstrength in Braced Frames of Modular Steel Buildings; 13:1–21, 2009

Copyright _ A.S. Elnashai & N.N. Ambraseys ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-

808X online DOI: 10.1080/13632460802212576.

Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI), (2013). “SAP2000 Integrated Software for

Structural Analysis and Design v16” Berkeley, California, 2013.

Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI),(2004).“SAP2000 Analysis Reference Manual”

Berkeley, California, 2004.

Clough, R.W. and J. Penzien, (1993) Dynamic of Structures, McGraw Hill, New York.

European Committee for Standardization (CEN), (1994). “Design of Structures for

Earthquake Resistance” (Eurocode 8), Brussels.

Esra Mete Güneyisi, Mario D'Aniello, Raffaele Landolfo, KasımMermerdaş (2013), A

novel formulation of the flexural overstrength factor for steel beams, Journal

of Constructional Steel Research 90 (2013) 60–71.

Freeman, S.A., (1990). “On the Correlation of Code Forces to Earthquake Demands”

Proc., 4th U.S.-Japan Workshop On Improvement of Build.Struct. Des. And

Constr. Practices, Applied Technology Council, RedwoodCity, California,

1990.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

146

Furuta, H., Shinozuka, M. and Chen, Y.N., (1985). “Probabilistic And Fuzzy

Representation of Redundancy In Structural Systems” Proc., 1st Int.

FuzzySystems Associated Congr., Palma De Mallorca, Spain, 1985.

Frangopol, D.M. and Curley, J.P., (1987). “Damage States, Redundancy, and System

Strength” Proc., Effects of Damage and Redundancy on Struct.Performance,

ASCE, 1987.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (1994). “NEHRP Recommended

Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings 1994

Edition”(FEMA222A), Washington, DC, July 1995.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),(1997). “NEHRP Guidelines for the

Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings” (FEMA 273), Washington, DC,October

1997.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (1997)“NEHRP Recommended

Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other Structures -

Commentary” (FEMA 303a), Washington, DC, February 1997.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (2000). “NEHRP Recommended

Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings 2000 Edition”

(FEMA368), Washington, DC, March 2001.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (2000). “Prestandard and

Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings” (FEMA 356),

Washington, DC, November 2000.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),(2003). “NEHRP Recommended

Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings 2003 Edition”

(FEMA450), Washington, DC.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), (2005). “Improvement of

Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures - Draft Camera Ready”(FEMA

440), Washington, DC, June 2005.

F.Hejazi, I.Toloue and M.S.Jaafar, (2013). Optimization of earthquake energy

dissipation system by genetic algorithm. Computer-Aided Civil and

Infrastructure Engineering 28 (2013) 796-810.

F.Hejazi, J.Noorzaei, M.S.Jaafar and A.A.Abang Abdullah, (2009). Earthquake

analysis of reinforce concrete framed structures with added viscous damper.

International journal of applied science, Engineering and Technology 5:4.

F.Hejazi, S.J.Kojouri, J.Noorzaei, M.S.Jaafar,W.A.Thanoon,A.A.Abang Abdullah.

(2011). Inelastic seismic response of RC building with control system. Key

Engineering Material Vols.462-463 (2011) pp 241-246.

Gholamreza Abdollahzadeh and Amirhosein Maleki Kambakhsh , (2011), Faculty of

Civil Engineering, Babol Noushirvani University of Technology, Babol, Iran

Department of Civil Engineering Amol University, Iran.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

147

Gakuho Watanabe and Kazuhiko Kawashima (2002) ; An Evaluation of the Force

Reduction Factor in the Force-Based Seismic Design;Tokyo Institute of

Technology, O-Okayama, Meguro, Tokyo, Japan, 152-8552.

Galasso, C., Maddaloni, G.and Cosenza, E. (2014), Uncertainly Analysis of Flexural

Overstrength for Capacity Design of RC Beams, DOI:

10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001024.

Hitoshi Seya ,Margaret E. Talbott and Howard H.M. Hwang;(1992). Probabilistic

seismic analysis of a steel frame structure.

Hanson, R. D., Aiken, I. D., Nims, D. K., Richter, P. J., and Bachman, R.E.

(1993).‘‘State-of-the art and state-of-the-practice in seismic energy

dissipation.’’ Proc., Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Passive Energy Dissipation,

and Active Control, ATC-17-1 Rep. No. 449–471, Applied Technology

Council, Redwood City, Calif.

IBC 2000: International Building Code, (2000) Edition, International Code Council,

Falls Church,VA, 2000.

International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO),(1997). “Uniform Building

Code” (UBC 1997), Whittier, California, 1997.

IBC (2012) , The International Building Code, (2012). section 05.02.01.02.

Jinkoo Kim , Hyunhoon Choi; (2005). Response modification factors of chevron-

braced frames; Department of Architectural Engineering, Sungkyunkwan

University, Suwon, Republic of Korea ELSEVIER Engineering Structures 27

(2005) 285–300.

Jinkoo Kim,Hyunhoon Choi, (2004), Response modification factors of chevron-braced

frames, Department of Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon,

Republic of Korea 16 October 2004.

Kappos, A.J., (1999). “Evaluation of Behavior Factors on the Basis of Ductility and

Overstrength Studies” Engineering Structures, 21, 823–835.

Kim, J., and Choi, H.,(2005). “Response Modification Factors of Chevron-Braced

Frames” Engineering Structures, 27.

Line, P. (2006). Benchmarking seismic base shear to historical practice. American

Wood Council, 5.

L.G. Daza;(2010). “Correlation between minimum building strength and the response

modification factor” ;University of Puerto Rico, Río Piedras Campus, Río

Piedras, Puerto Rico; Challenges, Opportunities and Solutions in Structural

Engineering and Construction – Ghafoori (ed.) © 2010 Taylor & Francis

Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-56809-8.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

148

Lai, S.-P. and Biggs, J.M.,(1980).“Inelastic Response Spectra for Aseismic Building

Design” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. ST6.

Lin Y.Y. and Chang K.C., (2003).“A Study on Damping Reduction Factor for

Buildings Under Earthquake Ground Motions” Journal of

StructuralEngineering, ASCE, Vol. 129, No. 2.

Lee, D.G., Cho, S.H., and Ko H., (2005). “Response Modification Factors for Seismic

Design of Building Structures in Low Seismicity Regions” KoreaEarthquake

Engineering Research Center.

Miranda E., and Bertero V.V.,(1994).“Evaluation of Strength Reduction Factors for

Earthquake-Resistant Design” Earthquake Spectra, Vol. 10, No 2.

Moses, F., (1974). “Reliability of Structural Systems” Journal of the Structural

Division, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. 9.

Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS,(2001). Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of

RC buildings. Engineering Structures 2001;23(5):407–24.

Mahmoud R. Maheri, R. Akbari (2003), Seismic behavior factor, R, for steel X-braced

and knee-braced RC buildings, Department of Civil Engineering, Shiraz

University, Shiraz, Iran, Engineering Structures 25 (2003) 1505–1513.

Mussa Mahmoudi, Mahdi Zaree, (2010). Evaluating response modification factors of

concentrically braced steel frames. Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid

Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal

of Constructional Steel Research 66 (2010) 1196_1204.

Mohssen Izadinia , Mohammad Ali Rahgozar, Omid Mohammadrezaei;(2012).

Response modification factor for steel moment-resisting frames by different

pushover analysis methods; Journal of Constructional Steel Research 79

(2012) 83–90.

Mahmoud R. Maheri , R. Akbari; (2003). Seismic behaviour factor, R, for steel X-

braced and knee-braced RC buildings; Department of Civil Engineering,

Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran Received 18 November 2002; received in

revised form 13 May 2003; accepted 14 May 2003; Engineering Structures 25

(2003) 1505–1513.

Mahmoudi , Abdi; (2012). Evaluating response modification factors of TADAS

frames; Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training

University, Tehran, Iran; ELSEVIER; Journal of Constructional Steel

Research 71 (2012) 162–170.

Mahmoudi,Mirzaei and Vosough; (2013). Evaluating Equivalent Damping and

Response Modification Factors of Frames Equipped by Pall Friction Dampers;

Journal of Rehabilitation in Civil Engineering 1-1 (2013) 78-92.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

149

Mehran Zeynalian,H.R.Ronagh, (2012). An investigation on the lateral behavior of

knee-braced cold-formed steel shear walls, School of Civil Engineering, The

University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, Thin-Walled Structures 51

(2012) 64–75.

Marwan T. Shedid; Wael W. El-Dakhakhni, M.ASCE; and Robert G. (2011). Drysdale;

Seismic Response Modification Factors for Reinforced Masonry Structural

Walls;, Vol. 25, No. 2, April 1, 2011. ©ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828/2011/2-74–

86/$25.00.

Miranda, E., (1993).“Site-Dependent Strength Reduction Factors” Journal of Structural

Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 119, No. 12, 1993.

Mollaioli, F., Liberatore, L., Lucchini, A., (2014), Displacement damping modification

factors for pulse-like and ordinary records, Department of Structural

Engineering and Geotechnics, ‘‘Sapienza’’ University of Rome, Via Gramsci,

53, 00197 Rome, Italy.

Mahmoudi .M, and Zareea .M (2013), Determination the Response Modification

Factors of Buckling Restrained Braced Frames, Department of Civil

Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran,

Procedia Engineering 54 ( 2013 ) 222 – 231.

M. Bosc, A. Ghersi, E.M. Marino and P.P. Rossi (2013), Prediction of the Seismic

Response of Steel Frames with Concentric Diagonal Bracings, The Open

Construction and Building Technology Journal, 2013, 7, 118-128.

Mohd Zulham Affandi Mohd Zahid, Debbie Robert, Fatehah Shahrin (2013), Procedia

Engineering 53 48 – 51.

NEHRP 2000: Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings

and OtherStructures, (2000). Edition, Part 2: Commentary, Building Seismic

Safety Council, Washington, D.C.

Newmark, N.M. and Hall, W.J., (1973).“Seismic Design Criteria for Nuclear Reactor

Facilities” Rep. No. 46, Building Practices for Disaster Mitigation,National

Bureau of Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1973.

Nassar, A.A. and Krawinkler, H., (1991). “Seismic Demands for SDOF and MDOF

Systems” Rep. No. 95, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering

Center,Stanford University, California, 1991.

Newmark N.M. and Hall W.J., (1982). “EERI Monograph Series” Earthquake Spectra

and Design.” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, California,

1982.

Nazzal S. Armouti (2011), Effect of Dampers on Seismic Demand of Short Period

Structures in Rock Sites, University of Jordan, Jordan Journal of Civil

Engineering, Volume 5, No. 2, 2011.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

150

NBCC (2005) ‘‘National building code of canada,’’Institute for Research in

Construction, NationalResearch Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Osteraas, J.D. and Krawinkler, H.,(1990). “Strength and Ductility Considerations in

Seismic Design” Rep.No. 90, John A. Blume Earthquake Engineering.Center,

Stanford University, California, 1990.

Osteraas JD. (1990). Strength and ductility considerations in seismic design. Ph.D.

dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, California; 1990.

Pacific Coast Bulding Officials Conference (PCBO), (1949). Uniform building code,

1949 edition(1 ed.). Los Angeles, CA, CA: Author.

Paulay T., Bachmann H., Moser K., (1997). Proiectareastructurilor de betonarmat la

acţiuniseismice (transl. from German). Edit. Tehnică, Bucureşti, 1997.

Panos Tsopelas, A.M.ASCE,and Mohamed Husain;(2004). Measures of Structural

Redundancy in Reinforced Concrete Buildings. II: Redundancy Response

Modification FactorRr; the Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 130, No.

11, November 1, 2004. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2004/11-1659–

1666/$18.00.

Renzi E, Perno S, Pantanella S, Ciampi V. (2007). Design, test and analysis of a light-

weight dissipative bracing system for seismic protection of structures.

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics 2007;36:519_39.

Rahgozar, M.A. and Humar, J.L., (1998). “Accounting for Overstrength In Seismic

Design of Steel Structures” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 25, 1–

5,1998.

Riddell, R., Hidalgo, P. and Cruz, E., (1989). “Response Modification Factors for

Earthquake Resistant Design of Short Period Structures” EarthquakeSpectra,

Vol. 5, No. 3, 1989.

Ramirez O.M., Constantinou M.C., Kircher C.A., Whittaker A.S., Johnson M.W.,

Gomez J.D., Chrysostomou C.Z., (2000). “Development And Evaluation

of Simplified Procedures for Analysis And Design of Buildings With

PassiveEnergy Dissipation Systems” Rep. No: MCEER-00-0010,

Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (MCEER),

New York, 2000.

Ramirez O.M., Constantinou M.C., Whittaker A.S., Kircher C.A., Chrysostomou

C.Z.,(2002). “Elastic And Inelastic Seismic Response of Buildings With

Damping Systems” Earthquake Spectra Vol. 18, No. 3, 2002.

Riddell, R. and Newrnark, N.M., (1979). “Statistical Analysis of the Response of

Nonlinear Systems Subjected to Earthquakes” Structural Research Series No.

468, University of Illinois, Urbana, 1979.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

151

Sarno LD. (2006). Bracing systems for seismic retrofitting of steel frames.

In:Proceedings of the fifth international conference on behaviour of steel

structures in seismic areas. 2006. p. 821_6.

Taylor, D.P. (2006). “History, Design, and Applications of Fluid Dampers in Structural

Engineering,”

Tang, J.P., and Yao, T.P. (1987). “Evaluation of Structural Damage and Redundancy”

Proc., Effects of Damage And Redundancy On Struct.Performance, ASCE,

1987.

Uang, C.-M. and Bertero, V.V., (1986). “Earthquake Simulation Tests And Associated

Studies of A 0.3-Scale Model of A Six-Story Concentrically Braced Steel

Structure” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-86/10, University ofCalifornia, Berkeley,

California, 1986.

Uniform Building Code (UBC), (1994) ‘‘Uniform building code.’’ Int. Conf. Building

Officials, Whittier, Calif.

Vu Hiep Dang, Raoul François (2014), Prediction of ductility factor of corroded

reinforced concrete beams exposed to long term aging in chloride

environment, Cement & Concrete Composites 53 136–147.

Wilson, E.L., (2002). “Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures:

A Physical Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering” Computers

And Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California.

Whittaker, A.S., Uang, C.-M., and Bertero, V.V., (1987). “Earthquake Simulation Tests

And Associated Studies of A 0.3-Scale Model of A Six Story Eccentrically

Braced Steel Structure” Rep. No. UCB/EERC-87/02,University of California,

Berkeley, California, 1987.

Wilson, E.L., (2002). “Three-Dimensional Static and Dynamic Analysis of Structures:

A Physical Approach with Emphasis on Earthquake Engineering” Computers

And Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California, 2002.

Wu J.P. and Hanson R.D., (1989). “Inelastic Response Spectra with High Damping”

Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 115, No. 6, 1989.

Wood, S.L., (1991). “Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings During the 1985

Chile Earthquake” EERI Spectra, November, 1991.

Xie Q.(2005). State of the art of buckling-restrained braces in Asia. Journal of

Constructional Steel Research 2005;61:727_48.

Y. Y. Lin1 and K. C. Chang2 (2003), Study on Damping Reduction Factor for

Buildings under Earthquake Ground Motions, 10.1061/~ASCE!0733-

9445~2003!129:2~206.

© COPYRIG

HT UPM

152

Y.Y.Lin and K.C.Chang, (2003). “Damping Reduction Factor for Buildings under

Earthquake Ground Motions”, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 129,

No. 2, February 1, 2003. ©ASCE, ISSN 0733-9445/2003/2-206–

214/$18.00,DOI: 10.1061/~ASCE!0733 9445~2003!129:2~206.

Zahra Andalib, Mohammad Ali Kafi, Ali Kheyroddin, Mohammad Bazzaz (2014),

Experimental investigation of the ductility and performance of steel rings

constructed from plates, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 103 (2014)

77–88.

universiti putra malaysia - core.ac.uk · didapati kesan penebatan kepada rmf dalam struktur keluli...

Documents