Design of R/C Frame-System Structures in Seismic Zones Comparison between Romanian and European Codes Of Practice

Mi ai Munteanu, lecturer professor, Chair of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest Radu Pascu, conferentiary professor, Chair of Reinforced Concrete Buildings, Technical University of Civil Engineering Bucharest

!" #ntroduction In preparing to join the European Union, Romania is very interested in accommodation to the European Normalization !ne of the domains "here this tas# is very important refers to the $asis and principles of structural design In this direction some comparative studies of the actual Romanian provisions and the EN %restandards are performed The comparison refers to regular multistory frame structures Both Romanian and European Codes are $ased on the capacity design procedure and for $oth of them, for multistory fle&i$le $uildings, the interstory drift control governs the design 'o, some concluding remar#s, referring to the major differences $et"een the t"o Codes of %ractice can $e pointed out

In this paper is presented a comparison $et"een the results of the full design of a regular eight(story frame(system $uilding, designed in t"o variants, the first one in accordance to the Eurocode ) provisions *named $elo" EC8+ and the second one accordingly to the Romanian Codes of %ractice *named P100+ This comparison intends to display the major differences $et"een the t"o Codes and to prepare the production of a future Romanian National ,pplication -ocument for EC ) $" %enera& description" Main input data" In order to perform the comparison, the main input data presented $elo" in ta$le ., are the same for $oth the t"o variants of design %reliminary steps, $ase shear force design, predesign, structural analysis, and mem$ers/ design are running for each e&ample accordingly to the provisions in the corresponding Codes of %ractice 012032042052 062

'ab&e !" Main input data Type of data Input data BASE INPUT DATA 'u$soil class Importance category -uctility class SEISMIC DATA -esign ground acceleration Reduction factor MATERIALS Concrete class @le&ural reinforcement 'hear reinforcement LOADS intermediate floors flooring occupancy roof floor insulation live load sno" load

EC8 7C8 7III8 798 ag<g : = 1= >:; C 1; < 3= '4== '4== = 6= #N<m1 1 == #N<m1 . ;= #N<m1 = 6; #N<m1 . 1; #N<m1

P100 Tc:. ; sec class 7III8 ( ?s : = 1= : = 1= Bc3= %C;1 !B36 = 6= #N<m1 1 == #N<m1 . ;= #N<m1 = 6; #N<m1 . 1; #N<m1

The $ase geometry presented in fig . is in accordance to the so(called A?1.<RA section

The structure has in(plane and in(elevation regularity The story heights are 1 6; m ,

designed $y A%roiect BucurestiA -esign Institute There are thousands of flats $uilt in accordance to this plan in Bucharest The $uilding has t"o openings of ; 4= m and seven $ays of 3 5= m each The area of the current floor is 16;m1
C

e&cept the ground story "hich is 4 = m in height The sla$ thic#ness is .1= mm The perimetral "alls are masonry ones They are not affecting the free displacements of the frames during the earth>ua#es The partitioning "alls are made $y precasted light( "eight concrete units
+23.25 30x30 30x30 35x35
2.75 2.75

30x55 30x55
2.75

30x35 7 35x40 6 35x40 5 40x50 4 40x50 3 40x50 2 50x50 1 50x50 P 5.40

+20.50 +17.75 +15.00 +12.25 +9.50 +6.75 +4.00

5.40

30x55 30x55
2.75

CURRENT LONGITUDINAL FRAME

5.40

35x35 40x40

3.60
1 2

3.60
3

3.60
4

3.60
5

3.60
6

3.60
7

3.60
8

30x55
2.75

40x50

CURRENT TRANSVERSAL FRAME

30x55
2.75

40x50

30x55
2.75

i!"re 1# Current floor plan Current transversal frame *dimensions in meters and centimeters+ (" )ase s ear force computation formula seismi) )oeffi)ient importance factor design ground acceleration factor soil coefficient spectral amplification factor simplified model $ehavior factor EC) % Sd&T1'( TB T.Tc, 'd*T.+ : '0<> 1 = . : ag < g : = 1=
$

40x50
4.00

30x55

+0.00

5.40
A

%.== S % )s* T. B Tc, cs = #s =. #s : = 1= no correspondence : 1 ; for T. Tc : . ;s

' : = C *class 7C8+ 0 = 1 ;

,ei!-t of masses characteristic values load coefficients

finall.

=.= no correspondence = = 1= *frame system+ > : >=#-#R#D : ; >= : ; *frame system+ *#- :#R :#D :.+ )s % 0#100 Sd&T1' % 0#00+ D : E#j F EiG#i E : : E#j F nldG#i E#j : same value for $oth $uildings G#i : same value for $oth $uildings : . = for roof floor : = ; the rest of stories nld : = 4 for sno" loads 2i : = = for sno" load : = 4 for occupancy : = 3 occupancy S % 12+/#3 1N $ % 1/00 1N

*" Structura& ana&ysis 'tructural analysis is running in a similar "ay for EC) and %.== Because of H * i +in(plan and in(elevation regularity, * ii + floor diaphragms of the $ui

for $oth Codes of %ractice, the analysis can $e performed using t"o 4lanar models, one for each main direction, and the type of analysis is the sim4lified modal res4onse s4e)tr"m analysis Base shear force is distri$uted to the planar frames, accordingly to their lateral

$uilding are sufficiently rigid in their plane, * iii + the perimetral and partitioning "alls are not affecting the free displacements of the frames during the earth>ua#es, * iv + no deforma$ility of the foundation soil is considered, *v+ second order effects * % ( + need not $e considered, +" ,imitation of t e interstory drift In the Romanian Codes of %ractice no red")tions of the post(elastic horizontal displacements induced $y earth>ua#es are made, in order to ta#e into account the lo"er return period associated "ith the servicea$ility limit state *see ta$le 1+
'ab&e $" #nterstory drift &imitation EC) dr < = ==4 h, "hereH : 1 = *importance category III+ h : story height dr : design interstory drift multiplied "ith the $ehavior factor *>:;+
8 7 6

stiffness, separately for each main direction, ta#ing into account the torsional effects Because of symmetry only accidental torsional effects are considered -istri$ution of the seismic forces along the height of the $uilding is made using the simplified procedure *horizontal displacements increasing linearly along the height+ Interstory drift limitation results 13=I more severe accordingly to %.== provisions In fig 1, comparisons of the ma&imum permitted and effective horizontal displacements in the t"o variants of design are displayed

%.== r < 9e = ==3;, "hereH r : design interstory drift 9e : story height : $ehavior factor * : .<> : = 1=+

-" Cross members

sectiona&

dimensions

of

t e

Story number

5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 D effecti"e

D allowed #100 D effecti"e #100

Deflections (mm)

i!"re 5# 9orizontal displacements EC)

Because of the larger $ase shear force value and more severe interstory drift limitation the cross sectional dimensions for the structural mem$ers designed accordingly to the Romanian Codes results up to 1== I larger The result is sho"n $elo" *fig 3+
%.==
2.75

+23.25 40x40

+23.25
7

30x30 30x30 35x35 35x35 40x40 40x50

30x55 30x55 30x55 30x55 30x55 30x55 30x55 30x55

30x35
7

+20.50 40x40 +17.75 50x50 +15.00 50x50 +12.25 50x60 +9.50 60x60 +6.75 60x60 +4.00 60x60

30x60 30x60 30x60 30x60 30x60 30x60 30x60 30x70

40x50 50x50
6

+20.50 +17.75 +15.00 +12.25 +9.50 +6.75 +4.00

2.75

2.75

2.75

35x40 40x50
4

2.75

35x40

50x50
5

2.75

2.75

60x60
4

2.75

2.75

40x50 40x50
2

60x60
3

2.75

2.75 2.75

60x60
2

2.75

40x50 40x50

50x50
1

60x70
1

50x50
P

4.00

4.00

60x70
P

+0.00 5.40
C A B

+0.00
C

5.40
A B

5.40

5.40

i!"re 3# Cross sectional dimensions of the mem$ers of the t"o variants *in centimeters+

, comparison of the resulted cross sectional areas of the columns and $eams, designed accordingly to the provisions in EC) and %.== are presented in the follo"ing charts
!$%SS S !&'%()* )$ ) for +& $()* !%*,-(S
8 7 S&%$. * / * 6 5 4 3 2 1 178 178 180 180 180 188 204 204
!8 # 100

!$%SS S !&'%()* )$ ) for '(& $()* !%*,-(S

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220 0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220 0

!$%SS S !&'%()* )$ ) for 2 )-S in t3e &$)(S/ $S)* 4$)$ S& of S&%$' S
$ S& of S&%$' S

!$%SS S !&'%()* )$ ) for 2 )-S in t3e *%(6'&,D'()* 4$)-

10151 !8 # 100

10151 !8 # 100

6$%,(D S&%$.

6$%,(D 6$% S&%$.

12753

10151

20

40

60

80

100

120

140 0

20

40

60

80

100

120 0

i!"re 6 Comparison charts for the cross sectional areas of the mem$ers

." Design of t e beams le7"ral reinfor)ement Jarger fle&ural reinforcement ratios, ranging .= 1;I more, result for the %.== $eams in comparison to the $eams designed accordingly to EC) In fig ; a resulting e&ample for a transverse frame $eam is displayed , comparative chart for the t"o variants of design is presented in fig 5 The comparison is performed $y ta#ing into account mechanical reinforcement ratios
!8
4* +,$)*

S-ear reinfor)ement -esign shear forces are computed in a similar "ay in the t"o codes of practice In fig 6 a comparison chart of the resulting shear reinforcing ratios is presented

1
218 + 216

2
216 + 118

3
216 + 314 218 + 216 216 + 118

( S400 )
S7 )$

( S400)

6/9

6/15

6/8

6/8

6/15

6/9

4
#100
225 + 216
4* +,$)*

6
225 + 216 225 + 216 220 + 125

( #!52 )
S7 )$

220 + 125

( %237)

8/10

8/25

8/10

8/10

8/25

8/10

i!"re /# @le&ural and shear reinforcements comparison for the $eam in the 4(th story

4* +,$)* $ '(4%$!'(6 S&

* !%-#)$'S%(
126

S7 )$ $ '(4%$!'(6 S&

* !%-#)$'S%(
88

S !&'%( (,-2 $

S !&'%( (,-2 $

121

#100 !8
111

61

#100 !8
100

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20

40

60

80

100

120

i!"re 0# @le&ural reinforcement comparison

i!"re 2# 'hear reinforcement comparison

/" Design of t e co&umns le7"ral reinfor)ement -esign $ending moments evaluation procedure is >uite the same in magnitude for the t"o Codes of %ractice (:. 3; in EC) instead of ?K:. 4= in %.==+ , rela&ation of the capacity design procedure is not included in the Romanian Codes Both minimum and ma&imum allo"ed fle&ural reinforcement ratio/s values are larger in EC) than in %.== In fig ) are presented the design reinforcing details for the ground(story column of the structure
320 225

The chart in fig C is performed for the mechanical reinforcement ratios 1=(4=I more larger fle&ural reinforcing ratios for the EC)( designed columns results S-ear reinfor)ement Both, EC) and %.== are providing e&plicitly multiple hoops patterns for -C 798 type structures @or $oth Codes, the minimum allo"ed value for the shear reinforcement ratio is similar @or the presented e&ample, 3==I larger values for the shear reinforcing ratios are provided for EC)(designed column *fig .=+
220 225

222

222

220

220

320

225 7oo8s 10 / 100 mm

220

225 7oo8s 8 / 100 mm

EC 8 i!"re 8# @le&ural and shear reinforcement details for the internal ground(story column
4* +,$)* S& * $)&'% !%-#)$'S%(

S7 )$ S&

* $)&'% !%-#)$'S%(

#100 6451 !8

#100 100 !8 30254

20

40

60

80

100

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

i!"re + @le&ural reinforcement comparison

i!"re 10# 'hear reinforcement comparison

0" Conc&uding remar1s * i +The $ase shear force value results 508 lar!er accordingly to the provisions in the Romanian Codes of %ractice than the correspondent value in Eurocodes * ii + Interstory drift limit is 5308 more

* v + .=(3=I more larger shear reinforcing ratios for the European Codes ( designed $eams results $ecause EC ) is not ta#ing into account t-e )on)rete )ontri$"tion in )arr.in! s-ear force in the potential plastic zones * vi + The larger fle&ural reinforcing ratios

restri)ti9e for the %.==(designed frames in comparison to the EC) ones * iii + Because of the larger $ase shear force value and the more severe interstory drift limitation the cross sectional area of the mem$ers of the structure designed accordingly to the Romanian Codes res"lts "4 to 5008 lar!er * iv + Jarger fle&ural reinforcing ratios, situated in a range of .=(1;I more, results for the %.==(designed $eams This is the result of t-e 508 more $ase s-ear for)e 9al"e for the Romanian frame

for the European(designed columns, situated in a range of 1=(4=I more, are reflecting t-e smaller le9er arm of t-e internal for)es, due $ecause of the smaller cross sectional dimensions in comparison to the %.== ones * vii + Lery large differences *up to 3==I more+ results for the EC) shear reinforcement ratios of the columns This reflects $y one hand the lar!er minim"m allo,ed diameter of the hoops in the European Codes and $y the other hand the larger )on)rete:s )a4a)it. to $ear s-ear for)e in the Romanian e&ample *$ecause of the larger cross sectional dimensions of the columns+

3 In computing the design shear force in accordance "ith the capacity design criterion, in 032, only the end cross(sections of the $eams are ta#en into account The reality is that, for large tri$utary areas and large loads, for fle&i$le $eams, mainly in the lo"er part of the $uildings, $ending moment envelopes as in figure II . (1C$ occurs The plastic hinges are placed to a certain distance from the end of the $eam In 0;2, this situations are e&plicitly ta#en into account for the design shear forces computations 5 The design $ending moments computation for columns is not very clear 'o, assuming that the necessary fle&ural reinforcement content of the $eams "as computed in accordance to the rules in 012 ( 1 ; 3 4 1 (*6+ and 1 ; 3 3 (*;+, this means using the $ending moments values for the columnMs faces, $ending moment induced $y the seismic action at columnMs ends must $e computed in the same manner * for the jointMs e>uili$rium +, although the coefficients "ill result smaller than . = N The Romanian procedure of computation of the design $ending moments 0;2 seems to $e more concise N By the other hand, a rela&ation of the capacity design procedure *see coefficients in 032, part .(3, 1 ) . . .(*4++ is not included in 0;2 6 @or the shear reinforcement of the columns in the critical regions, the minimum hoops

@ig 1 1C Bending moment envelopes ( capacity design procedure Im4ortant note ; @le&ural reinforcement design for $eams "as made for the $ending moments reduced to the columnsM margins The same principle must $e applied for columns, although no moment e>uili$rium is reached in the node and the coefficient "ill result in a value less than the $ase value, Rd N *see concluding remar#s +

( sum of the moments ratio computation+

diameter is defined in 1 ) . 3 %*5+ and 1 ) 1 3 ( *4+ , reduction of the interior hoopMs diameter *for multiple hoop patterns+ li#e in 0;2 is not provided 0;2 provides e&plicitly minimum hoops diameter for the perimetral hoop and for the interior ones ) The Romanian Codes of %ractice is not permitting an increasing of the hoops spacing s used in columns "ithin the $eam column joints *see 032 ( 1 .= 1 1 %*.++

CD <1 =

M ARd 1 + M BRd 1 M CSd 1 + M DSd 1

Rd

moment reversal factor computation as sho"n in the ne&t figure H

. =

M ASd . M BSd . pt directia . *direction M ARd . + M BRd . M ASd 1 M BSd 1 pt directia 1 *direction M ARd 1 + M BRd 1

.+
1 =

1+ References
. ENL .CC1(.(. *.CC.+ E"ro)ode 5; Desi!n of Con)rete Str")t"res=Part 1; *eneral R"les and R"les for B"ildin!s European %restandard 1 ENL .CC)(.(. *.CC4+ E"ro)ode 8; Desi!n 4ro9isions for eart->"a1e resistan)e of str")t"res = Part 1=1; *eneral r"les = Seismi) a)tions and !eneral re>"irements for str")t"res# European %restandard 3 ENL .CC)(.(1 *.CC4+ E"ro)ode 8; Desi!n 4ro9isions for eart->"a1e resistan)e of str")t"res = Part 1=5; *eneral r"les = *eneral r"les for $"ildin!s# European %restandard 4 ENL .CC)(.(3 *.CC4+ E"ro)ode 8; Desi!n 4ro9isions for eart->"a1e resistan)e of str")t"res = Part 1=3; *eneral r"les = S4e)ifi) r"les for 9ario"s materials and elements# European %restandard ; 'T,' .=.=6<=(C= *.CC=+ Desi!n of Con)rete Str")t"res Romanian 'tandard *in Romanian+ 5 % .==(C1 *.CC1+ Aseismi) Desi!n of B"ildin!s Romanian 'tandard *in Romanian+ 6 N% ==6<C6 Desi!n of RC Str")t"ral rame Str")t"res *.CC6+ Romanian 'tandard *in Romanian+ ) Kunteanu, K , %ascu, R *.CC6+ 'pecific Rules for Concrete Buildings, in - Jungu and @ Kazzolani and ' 'avidis*eds +, Desi!n of Str")t"res in Seismi) ?ones E"ro)ode 8 = (or1ed E7am4les , Bridgeman Jtd , Timisoara, Romania, pp 5.(.;6