Article Louzai1 Publier

ALGÉRIE ÉQUIPEMENT Janvier 2020, N° 62 : 27-47
ISSN : 1111-5211 LOUZAI A., ABED A.
INFLUENCE DE LA MÉTHODE DE DIMENSIONNEMENT EN CAPACITÉ PAR

RAPPORT À LA MÉTHODE CONVENTIONNELLE SUR LA RÉPONSE SISMIQUE
DES VOILES EN BA DANS LES STRUCTURES MIXTES
INFLUENCE OF CAPACITY DESIGN METHOD IN COMPARISON WITH
CONVENTIONAL DESIGN METHOD ON THE SEISMIC RESPONSE OF RC
WALLS IN DUAL STRUCTURES
Réception : 05/07/2019 Acceptation : 03/12/2019 Publication : 09/01/2020
LOUZAI Amar1, ABED Ahmed2

1
Département de génie civil, Université Mouloud MAMMERI de Tizi-Ouzou, amar.louzai@yahoo.fr
2
Département de génie civil, Université Mouloud MAMMERI de Tizi-Ouzou, abedahm@yahoo.fr
Résumé- Le présent article vise à évaluer l’influence de la procédure de dimensionnement suivie

pour le dimensionnement des voiles des bâtiments mixtes en béton armé ﴾BA﴿ sur la performance des
voiles, ainsi que celle de la structure dans son ensemble, lorsque celle-ci est soumise à des charges
sismiques. À cette fin, des structures mixtes en BA de 4, 8 et 12 étages ont été dimensionnées selon le
code parasismique algérien, dans le cas de la méthode de dimensionnement conventionnelle, et selon
les dispositions de l'Eurocode 8, dans le cas de la méthode de dimensionnement en capacité. Des
analyses statiques non linéaires ﴾Pushover﴿ en utilisant cinq modèles de charge latérale ont été
effectuées pour représenter la distribution probable des forces d'inertie imposées aux structures et pour
identifier leurs modes de ruine dominants. Des critères de ruine tant au niveau local qu’au niveau
global ont été adoptés pour détecter les mécanismes plastiques et les états limites d’effondrement des
structures considérées. Les résultats obtenus indiquent que la méthode de dimensionnement en
capacité des voiles crée des marges de sécurité adéquates contre la rupture par cisaillement par rapport
à la méthode conventionnelle. D'autre part, les avantages de la méthode de dimensionnement en
capacité sont clairement évidents. En tenant compte des dispositions de l'EC8, il est possible d'assurer
une résistance et une ductilité adéquates. Ceci suggère des améliorations dans les dispositions de
dimensionnement du code sismique algérien.
Mots - clés : Méthode conventionnelle, Méthode en capacité, Voiles en béton armé, Codes de
dimensionnement sismique, Analyse statique non linéaire
Abstract-The present paper aims at assessing the influence of the design procedure followed in
designing the walls of RC dual frame-wall building, on the performance of the walls, as well as the
structure as a whole, when subjected to seismic loading. For this purpose, 4-, 8-, and 12 storey’s RC
dual structures were designed according to Algerian seismic design code, in case of conventional
design method, and to Eurocode 8 provisions, in case of capacity design method. Nonlinear static
pushover analyses using five different invariant lateral load patterns were carried out to represent the
likely distribution of inertia forces imposed on the structures and to identify their dominant failure
modes and failure paths. Failure criteria at both member and structural levels have been adopted to
detect plastic mechanisms and collapse limit states of structures. The results obtained indicate that
capacity design of walls results in adequate safety margins against shear failure in comparison with
conventional design of walls. On the other hand, the advantages of capacity design method are clearly
apparent. By taking into account the provisions of EC8 it is possible to ensure adequate strength and
ductility. This suggests improvements in the design provisions of the Algerian seismic code.
Keywords: Conventional design method, Capacity design method, Reinforced concrete walls,
Seismic design codes, Nonlinear static pushover analysis
www.enstp.edu.dz/revue
Editée sous licence CC BY-NC-ND http://creativecommons.fr 27
1-Introduction analyses using five different invariant lateral

load patterns (uniform lateral load pattern,
Reinforced concrete (RC) structural walls elastic first mode load pattern, code lateral
are effective for resisting lateral loads imposed load pattern, FEMA-356 lateral load pattern
by wind or earthquakes. They provide and Multi-modal lateral load pattern) were
substantial strength and stiffness as well as the carried out to represent the likely distribution of
deformation capacity needed to meet the inertia forces imposed on the structures during
demands of strong earthquake ground motions an earthquake and to identify their dominant
[1]. Their importance has long been recognized failure modes and failure paths. Failure criteria
and a higher degree of protection is sought in at both member and structural levels have been
the design of these critical structural elements adopted to detect plastic mechanisms and
[2]. Thus, the design procedure which should be collapse limit states of structures.
chosen in the structural design process is of
great importance. Generally, two possibilities 2- Conventional design and capacity
are offered for designers: conventional design design
method and capacity design method. The The concepts and the methodology of
concepts and the application of the capacity working of these two methods, as described in
design philosophy, relevant to the sismic design Hugo Bachman et al. [4], are as follows:
of structures, were developped over the past 40
years in New Zeland, mainly by Professor T. • Conventional design method:
Paulay and colleagues and collaborators [3,4], Design and detail the structure for
where, after incorporation into relevant building sectional forces derived by analyses for
codes, it has been widely accepted and used for the appropriate combination of gravity
many years. Gradually appreciation of this loads and earthquake induced forces.
approach has spread and it was incorporated in • Capacity design method:
the seismic provisions of other codes, for Design and detail the structure
example in Canada, Japan and Eurocode 8 [5]. following a strategy that addresses the
Instead of this, in Algerian seismic design code special nature of inelastic structural
[6], the design approach is still based on response to seismic excitations.
conventional design method, especially in case
Procedures for the two design methods are
of reinforced concrete (RC) structural wall
summarized in table 1. The first two steps in
element.
this table are the same in both approaches. A
The main aim of this paper is to study the
preliminary design needs to be made.
effect of capacity design method followed in
Subsequently the sectional forces for the chosen
designing the walls of RC dual frame-wall
structural model resulting from gravity loads
building according to EC8 on the seismic
and earthquake forces need to be determined.
performance of the walls, as well as the
The effects of earthquake can be derived using
structure as a whole, in comparison with the
equivalent lateral static forces or a multi-modal
conventional design approach. EC8 code has
response spectrum analyses. These techniques
been chosen as the code of reference, in this
generally imply elastic structural response. The
study, because among all current seismic design
difference between a conventional and a
codes, it is the code that makes the most
capacity design technique appears only in the
systematic and extensive use of capacity design
third step, i.e. the design of structural
to control the inelastic response mechanism.
components. In conventional design dimensions
For this purpose, 4-storey, 8-storey and 12
of components are definitely chosen and the
storey RC dual frame-wall structures were
verification and detailing is carried out to meet
designed according to RPA 99/Version 2003, in
the requirements of the design forces derived by
case of conventional design method, and to
EC8 provisions, related to the capacity design
of wall in flexure and shear, in case of capacity
design method. Nonlinear static pushover
Tableau 1 : Procédures de dimensionnement dans les méthodes conventionnelles et en capacité.

Table 1: Procedures in conventional and capacity design methods
Procedures
Conventional design method Capacity design method
• preliminary design of the structure • preliminary design of the structure
• derivation of the sectional forces using a structural model and • derivation of the sectional forces using a structural model
appropriate and appropriate
- gravity loads - gravity loads
- earthquake forces - earthquake forces
• design of structural components • design of structural components
- dimensions - choose a suitable mechanism
- verifications - determine critical sections after inelastic redistribution
- detailing - proportion and detail plastic hinge regions
- proportion and detail parts of the structure intended to
remain elastic considering the overstrength of plastic
hinge regions
the analyses. The approach is the same as that height to length ratio greater than 2.0. The
used when designing for the combination of envelope is assumed to be linear since there are
gravity and wind induced actions. no discontinuities over the height of the
In capacity design a different approach is building. It takes into account potential
used in the third step. Firstly, a complete and development of moments due to higher mode
admissible plastic mechanism must be chosen. inelastic response after the formation of plastic
Some engineering judgment is required to hinge at the base of the wall, thus the region
choose rational, advantageous and practical above this critical height is designed to remain
locations for the plastic hinges. By recognizing elastic.
predominantly inelastic seismic response and to The wall critical region height, hcr, is
achieve optimum solutions, an inelastic estimated using the following relationship:
redistribution of design actions, within certain
 2 lw
limits, may be carried out. Subsequently, by  h  
considering the critical actions in members hcr = max lw , w   hs for : n  6 storeys (1)
 6 
selected for the eventual development of plastic 2 hs for : n  7 storeys
hinges, adequate member dimensions are
derived and the potential plastic hinge regions
are appropriately detailed. Finally other where n is the number of storeys, hw, is the wall
members or regions of members are designed to height, hs, is the clear storey height, and lw is the
resist within the elastic domain actions length of the cross section of the wall.
generated at overstrength in adjacent potential
plastic hinges. 3.2- Capacity design shear of RC walls
The design envelope of shear forces – in Fig.
3-Capacity design of RC walls according
2 – takes into account the uncertainties of
to EC8 approach
higher modes. The flexural capacity at the base
The design of walls in flexure and shear are of the wall MRd exceeds the seismic design
according to the capacity design principles and bending moment derived from the analysis,
their calculation is explained below according MSd. Thus the design shear found from the
to EC8. analysis, 𝑉′Sd, is magnified by the magnification
factor ε; i.e. the ratio of MRd/MSd. The
3.1- Capacity design of RC walls in flexure magnification factor depends on the ductility
The design bending moment diagram along class of the structure. The design base shear is
the height of slender walls should be given by thus computed by:
an envelope of the bending moment diagram
from analysis, with a tension drift (Fig. 1).
Slender walls are defined as walls having a
4-Description of structures
M sd - EC8 design envelope with
allowance for tension drift 4.1- Geometry and structural configuration
M sd/
from In this study 4-storey, 8-storey and 12-storey
analysis RC frame-wall dual building structures are
considered. These are typical number of storeys
Critical height hcr used by some other investigators to cover low-
to medium-rise framed dual buildings. The
buildings are regular in plan and in elevation
having storey height of Hst=3.0m, where all
4
storeys are of the same height. The buildings
m
consist of five bays along the two horizontal
directions with the central bays braced by R/C
walls over the whole building height as shown
Figure 1 : Diagramme typique des moments in Fig. 3.
dans les voiles en BA des structures mixtes a
partir de l’analyse et de l’enveloppe linéaire Vwall ,top  Vwall ,base / 2
pour leur dimensionnement selon l EC8
Figure 1 : Typical bending moment diagram in
RC walls of dual systems from the analysis and EC8 design
linear envelope for its design according to EC8 envelope
2
hw
VSd =  VSd/ (2) 3
Vs magnified Vs from
where,
by ε analysis
• For walls in Ductility Class High 1
hw
buildings the magnification factor, ε, is 3
taken as:
Vwall ,base
 Se (TC ) 
2 2
  Rd M Rd 
 =q   + 0.1   q (3)
 q M Sd   Se (T1 )  Figure 2 : Enveloppe de dimensionnement en
cisaillement des voiles en BA des structures
• For walls in Ductility Class Medium mixtes selon l EC8
buildings the magnification factor, ε, is
taken as: Figure 2: Design envelope of shear in RC walls
of dual systems according to Eurocode 8
 Se (TC ) 
2 2
  Rd M Rd  1+ q
 =q   + 0.1   (4)
 q M Sd  S (
 e 1 T ) 2 4.2- Data assumed for the studied structures
where q is the seismic behavior factor, γRd is the The total dead and live loads on the floor
steel overstrength factor, Se (T1) is the value of slabs are assumed to be 5.1 and 2.5 kN/m2,
the elastic spectral acceleration at the period of respectively and for roof slab, they are assumed
the fundamental mode, and Se (TC) is the to be 5.8 and 1.0 kN/m2. The beam, column and
spectral acceleration at the corner period, TC, of wall elements of structure were designed
the elastic spectrum. according to reinforced concrete code BAEL 91
[7] and seismic code RPA 99/version2003 with
the following parameters: zone of high
seismicity, zone III, importance class groupe 2,
soil type S3 (soft soil), quality factor Q=1
(value which denotes that all the criteria related
to the table 4.4 of the code are observed) and based on the assumption of an inflexion point at
viscous damping ration ξ = 10%. The analysis the midpoint of the element [9]. For beams, the
will be performed for the zone acceleration plastic hinge was used for major axis bending.
factor A= 0.25. A seismic behavior factor of R
= 5 was taken into account for dual system F
5m
composed by walls and frames. At this purpose,
E
in the design process of studied structures, an
5m
attempt was made for moment members to D
tolerate 25% of earthquake forces in addition to
lw
bearing gravity load in order to fulfill the C
5m
requirement of RPA 99/version2003 which
B
stipulates «the walls carry less than 20% of
5m
vertical loads. The horizontal loads are jointly A
carried by the walls and the frames in 5m 5m lw 5m 5m
accordance to their relative rigidities. The 1 2 3 4 5 6
frames shall have the capacity to resist no less
than 25% of the storey shear force in addition
3m
40x40
to the forces due to the vertical loads».
As the main purpose of the study was to
3m
40x40
evaluate the effect of wall design procedure, the
flexural and shear design of walls was also
3m
45x45
carried out using capacity design procedure
m
according to EC8 approach, as described in 45x45
3
paragraph 3.Concrete characteristics cubic
strength equal to 25 N/mm2 and steel 5m 5m 3m 5m 5m
characteristics yielding strength equal to 500
1 2 3 4 5 6
N/mm2 are adopted.
4 storey RC dual building
5-Modeling approach for inelastic
analyses
3m
40x40
Analyses have been performed using 3m
SAP2000 [8], which is a general-purpose 40x40
structural analysis program for static and
dynamic analyses of structures. In this study,
3m
45x45
SAP2000 Nonlinear Version 14 has been used.
A two-dimensional representation is selected in
3m
45x45
the light of the symmetry of buildings and the
limited significance of torsional effects. Thus,
3m
50x50
the model of each structure is created in
SAP2000 to carry out nonlinear static pushover
3m
50x50
analysis. A description of structural members
modeling is provided in the following.
3m
55x55
5.1-Modeling of frames
3m
55x55
Beam and column flexural behavior was
modeled by one-component lumped plasticity 5m 5m 4m 5m 5m
elements, composed of an elastic beam and two
1 2 3 4 5 6
plastic hinges (defined by a moment-rotation
relationship) located at both ends of the beams
and columns. The element formulation was 8 storey RC dual building
hinge section and the length of the plastic

hinge. The moment-curvature
3m
40x40
(M −  ) characteristics of various RC sections
3m
40x40 are developed using Mander model for
unconfined and confined concrete [11] and Park
3m
45x45
model for steel [12], which are implemented in
moment-curvature analysis. For this study, the
3m
45x45 moment-curvature analysis is obtained from
SAP2000 (SD-Section). The M −  curve is
3m
50x50
converted into equivalent bilinear elastic-
perfectly-plastic curve using Caltrans Idealized
50x50 3m Model [13], as shown in Fig. 5. The plastic
portion of the idealized curve should pass
3m
55x55 through the point marking the first reinforcing

bar yield. The idealized plastic moment
3m
55x55 capacity, Mp, is obtained by balancing the areas

between the actual and the
idealized M −  curves beyond the first
3m
60x60
reinforcing bar yield point. The yield rotation θy

3m
60x60
is determined using the following expression:
L
3m
65x65
 y = Y (5)
6
3m
where Y is the yield curvature and L is the

65x65
5m 5m 5m 5m 5m element length.
1 2 3 4 5 6
12 storey RC dual building

Mp
M-Moment
Figure 3 : Vues en plan et en élévation des

bâtiments étudiés
Figure 3 : Plan and elevation views of studied
buildings
For columns, the plastic hinge for bending
about the principal axis perpendicular to the y p u
direction of the seismic loading was used. The
interaction between axial force and bending  - Rotation
moment was not considered, as in [10].
For plastic hinges, the moment-rotation Figure 4: Relation Moment – Rotation
relationship shown in Fig. 4 was used. It was Figure 4: Moment – Rotation relationship
assumed an elastic-perfectly-plastic nonlinear
flexural response, where θy and θu are The plastic rotation capacity (θp) in
respectively the yield and ultimate rotations, θp reinforced concrete member depends on the
is the plastic rotation capacity and Mp is the ultimate curvature ( u ) and the yield curvature
plastic moment capacity of concrete members. ( Y ) of the section and the length of the plastic
The calculation of these parameters requires
moment-curvature characteristics of the plastic hinge region (Lp):
 p = (u − Y ) Lp (6) Ash f yh d

Vs = (10)
s
Yield Actual curve
point Bilinear curve
where b is the section width, d is the effective
depth, fc is the unconfined concrete compressive
strength, N is the axial load on the section, Ac is
Mp
M-Moment
Failure of cross-section point

the concrete area, and Ash , fyh , and s are the
My defined as fracture of the steel rebar area, yield strength, and spacing of transverse
when reaching the ultimate strain or reinforcement, respectively.
the crushing of confined concrete.
Point where the first rebar in the 5.2- Modeling of structural walls
cross-section starts to yield.
In this paper, the numerical modeling of

 y Y  p = u − Y u structural walls is carried out with macro
element model, consisting of an equivalent
 - Curvature beam-column element (lumped plasticity) at the
wall centroidal axis with rigid links on beam
Figure 5: Relation Moment – Courbure girders, as seen in Fig. 6 [17]. This model
consists of an elastic flexural element with a
Figure 5: Moment –Curvature relationship nonlinear rotational spring at each end to
account for the inelastic flexural behavior of
ATC-40 [14] suggests that the length of the critical regions and with a nonlinear horizontal
plastic hinge equals to half of the section depth spring at the mid-height of the wall to account
in the direction of loading is an acceptable for the inelastic shear behavior.
value which generally gives conservative Wall flexural behavior was modeled as per
results. This suggestion was adapted to column member modeling described in
calculate plastic hinge length in this study. Paragpraph5.1. However, the yield rotation θy is
Thus, defined using Equation (11), taken from
Lp = 0.5 h (7) FEMA-356 [18], instead of Equation (5).
Where h is the section depth of the member.  Mp 

y =  Lp (11)
Shear hinges are introduced for beams and  Ec I 
columns. Because of the brittle failure of
concrete in shear, no ductility is considered for
where Mp is the plastic moment capacity of the
this type of hinge. Shear hinge properties are
RC wall, Ec is the concrete modulus, I is the
defined such that, when the shear force in the
member moment of inertia, and Lp is the plastic
member reaches its strength, the member fails
hinge length.
immediately. The shear strength of each
Wall shear behavior was modeled by using a
member Vr is calculated according to UBC 97
uniaxial shear spring with a prescribed shear
[15], also found in [16], as follows:
force-deformation behavior. For this study, the
shear force-deformation relationship provided
Vr =Vc + Vs (8)
in FEMA 356 was utilized, as depicted in Fig.
7.
where Vc and Vs are shear strength provided by
concrete and shear reinforcement in accordance
with Equations (8) and (9), respectively:
 N
Vc = 0.182bd f c 1 + 0.07  (9)
 Ac 
compressive strength of concrete, ρt is

Elastic column at transverse reinforcement ratio, and fy is the
wall centroid yield strength of transverse reinforcement.
The effective shear stiffness is typically
taken as:
Rigid End
Ec
Zone Gc A = Acv = 0.4 Ec Acv (13)
Beams
2 (1 + )
Shear hinge
(Spring)
where ν is Poisson’s ratio, and Acv is the cross-
sectional area of the web. Based on the
assumption that Poisson’s ratio for uncracked
Flexural concrete is approximately 0.2, the effective
hinges shear stiffness defined in [20] is GcA = 0.4 Ec
Aw.
Figure 6: Représentation équivalente de l’
6- Nonlinear static pushover analyses
élément poutre –poteau du voile en BA
Nonlinear static pushover analyses of the
Figure 6: Equivalent beam-column element
three studied RC dual structures are performed
representation of RC wall
to identify their dominant failure modes and
failure paths. The analysis consist of applying
FEMA- 356 Table 6-
19
gradually increasing the lateral loads
d e-d
appropriately distributed over the storeys, to
obtain the relationship between the base shear
1.0
and the top storey displacement, which is
V generally called pushover curve or capacity
curve. There can be many alternatives for the
Vn 0.4 Ec
distribution pattern of the lateral loads, and it
0.2
may be expected that different patterns of
c
lateral loads result in pushover curves with
∆y / h different characteristics and different sequence
∆/ h
of plastic hinge formation [21]. That is to say,
Figure 7: Courbe effort tranchant-déformation different failure modes will occur in different
selon FEMA-356 load patterns [22]. Thus, multiple lateral load
patterns should be used to improve the accuracy
Figure 7: Shear force-deformation curve based of identification of failure modes and failure
on FEMA-356 paths. Five lateral load patterns are used in this
study and are described as follows [23]:
The nominal shear strength Vn of walls is
typically defined using Equation (12), taken • ‘Uniform’ lateral load pattern
from ACI 318-08 [19]:
( )
The lateral force at any storey is proportional to
Vn = Acv c  f + t f y c
'
(12) the mass at that storey, i.e.,
Fi = mi / ∑mi (14)
where αc = 3.0 for a height-to-length ratio, hw/lw
≤ 1.5, αc = 2.0 for hw/lw ≥ 2.0, and varies where Fi is the lateral force at i-th storey, and mi
linearly for 1.5 ≤ hw/lw ≤ 2.0. In this equation, λ is the mass of i-th storey.
is 0.75 for lightweight concrete and 1.0 for
normal weight concrete, Acv represents the
cross-sectional web area of the wall, fc’ is the
• ‘Elastic First Mode’ lateral load pattern load distributions obtained from the modal
analyses of the structures as follows:
The lateral force at any storey is proportional to
1. Calculate the lateral force at i-th storey for n-
the product of the amplitude of the elastic first
th mode from Equation (18).
mode and the mass at that storey, i.e.,
Fin = ΓnmiØinAn (18)
Fi = miØi / ∑ miØi (15)
where Γn is the modal participation factor for
where Øi is the amplitude of the elastic first the n-th mode, Øin is the amplitude of n-th mode
mode at i-th storey. at i-th storey, and An is the pseudo-acceleration
of the n-th mode of the SDOF elastic system.
• ‘Code’ lateral load pattern N
2. Calculate the storey shears, Vin = F
j i
jn
The lateral load pattern is defined in Algerian
seismic design code (RPA 99/Version 2003) where N is the total number of storeys.
and the lateral force at any storey is calculated
3. Combine the modal storey shears using
from the following formula:
 (V )
2
SRSS rule, Vi = n in .
mi hi
Fi = (Vb − Ft ) (16)
(m h )
N 4. Back calculate the lateral storey forces, Fi, at
j j storey levels from the combined storey shears,
j =1
Vi starting from the top storey.
where Vb is the base shear, h is the height of i-th 5. Normalize the lateral storey forces by base
storey above the base, N is the total number of shear for convenience such that Fi’ = Fi / ∑ Fi.
storeys, and Ft is the additional earthquake load
The contribution of first three elastic modes of
added at the N-th storey when T > 0.7sec (For T
vibration was considered to calculate the
≤ 0.7s, Ft = 0 otherwise; Ft = 0.07TVb ≤ 0.25Vb
‘Multi-Modal (or SRSS)’ lateral load pattern in
where T is the fundamental period of the
this study, as in [23].
structure).
• ‘FEMA-356’ lateral load pattern 7- Performance criteria
The lateral load pattern defined in FEMA-356 Performance criteria must be defined for
is given by the following formula that is used to structures or structural member elements to
calculate the internal force at any storey: monitor response during analysis. These criteria
also help to detect plastic mechanisms and
Fi = mihki / ∑ mihki (17) collapse limit states of structures. In this
research, the following performance levels were
where h is height of i-th storey above the base,
used to identify the limiting conditions.
and k is the factor to account for the higher
mode effects (k = 1 for T ≤ 0.5 sec and k = 2 for a) Th
T ≥ 2.5 sec and varies linearly in between). e inter-story drift ratio is limited to 3% in
nonlinear static pushover analysis. This is
• ‘Multi-Modal (or SRSS)’ lateral load consistent with the limit specified in [24,25]
pattern and close to the limits adopted by seismic
design codes EC 8 and UBC 97 which vary
between 2% and 3%.
The lateral load pattern considers the effects of b) Str
elastic higher modes of vibration for long uctural instability is based either on plastic
period and irregular structures and the lateral hinge formation or conversion of
force at any storey is calculated as Square Root
of Sum of Squares (SRSS) combinations of the
c) Str 8.1- Capacity curves

ucture to a mechanism (i.e. storey
mechanisms). The capacity curves of conventional and
d) Th capacity designed structures in the five lateral
e stability index is limited to 0.2, as per the load patterns are shown in Figs. 8, 9 and 10,
RPA99/version2003 seismic design code. respectively for 4-, 8-, and 12- storey RC dual
e) Ro frame-wall buildings. These figures show also
tation is limited to the ultimate rotation of
the mean ultimate base shear, Vu, mean, and the
structural member elements.
f) Sh mean top storey displacement, du, mean, in
ear is limited to the shear strength of relation to the collapse limit states observed in
structural member elements. each building.
The structure is assumed to have failed when It can be seen that the capacity designed
the structure meets one or more of the above structures can sustain greater lateral load and
criteria. Table 2 provides a summary of the displacement. Strength (plastic reserve forces)
limiting performance criteria outlined above. and ductility (plastic reserve displacements) are
obviously improved through capacity design
method, particularly for 4-storey building.
Tableau 2 : Critères de réponse des structures. Thus, mean ultimate base shear, Vu, mean, of the
Table 2 : Response criteria for structures. capacity designed 4-storey structure equals
6803.74 kN, increasing by 32.97% compared
with that of conventional designed 4-storey
Parameter Description Limitation
∆ Inter-story drift ratio = 3%
structure that is 5116.48 kN, and the mean
- Stability Mechanism ultimate top storey displacement, du, mean, of the
θp-∆ Stability Index = 0.2
θ/θu Rotation control =1
capacity designed 4-storey structure equals
V/Vn Shear control =1 32.91 cm, which increases by 208.78%
compared with that of conventional designed 4-
storey structure. This demonstrates the excellent
behavior of the capacity designed structures. As
mentioned in James Fox et al. [26], the capacity
8- Pushover analysis results design method aims to ensure controlled ductile
response of structures when subjected to
Inelastic static pushover analyses up to earthquake.
collapse are carried out on the three RC dual
8.2- Collapse mechanisms and distribution of
frame-wall structures investigated here. The
plastic hinges at collapse limit state
performances of the conventional and capacity
designed structures, in other words the causes
The collapse mechanisms and the
of structural failure, are examined in the light of
distribution of plastic hinges at collapse limit
collapse parameters explained earlier.
states of conventional and capacity designed
The main results obtained from nonlinear
structures in the five lateral load patterns are
static analyses were: (a) capacity curves (base
shown in Fig. 11. It should be mentioned that
shear force vs top storey displacement), (b)
for the sake of brevity only collapse
plastic hinge mechanisms corresponding to the
mechanisms of frames containing wall elements
collapse limit state, (c) maximum inter-storey
of the 4-storey RC dual frame-wall building are
drift (∆max), and the corresponding maximum
reported in this figure. Plastic hinge patterns
stability index (θp-∆, max) in relation to the
permit to provide information about local and
collapse limit states observed in each structure,
global failure mechanisms in the structure (i.e.
(d) maximum storey shear (Vmax) of structural
rotation and shear of plastic hinges, and storey
wall elements, (e) maximum storey rotation
mechanisms).
(θmax) of structural wall elements.
Mean ultimate base shear,
Vu, mean = 8837 kN
UNIFORM ELASTIC FIRST MODE
RPA FEMA-356 SRSS
Failure point
Mean ultimate base shear, Mean ultimate top storey

Vu, mean = 5116.48 kN displacement, du, mean = 61.27 cm
(b)
Mean ultimate top storey
displacement, du, mean = 10.66 cm
Figure 9 : Courbes de capacité du bâtiment mixte en BA
de 8 étages dans les cinq modèles de charge pour: (a)
(a) méthode conventionnelle, (b) méthode en capacité
Figure 9: Capacity curves of the 8-storey RC dual

Mean ultimate base shear, building in the five lateral load patterns for: (a)
Vu, mean = 6803.74 kN conventional design method, (b) capacity design method
Mean ultimate base shear,
Vu, mean = 10075.94 kN

displacement, du, mean = 32.91 cm Mean ultimate top storey
displacement, du, mean = 72.85 cm
Failure point
(b) (a)
Figure 8 : Courbes de capacité du bâtiment mixte en BA Mean ultimate base shear,

de 4 étages dans les cinq modèles de charge pour: (a) Vu, mean = 10577.71 kN
méthode conventionnelle, (b) méthode en capacité
Figure 8 : Capacity curves of the 4-storey RC dual

building in the five lateral load patterns for: (a)
conventional design method, (b) capacity design method
Mean ultimate base shear, displacement, du, mean = 80.42 cm
Vu, mean = 8298.94 kN
(b)

displacement, du, mean = 35.84 cm Figure 10 : Courbes de capacité du bâtiment mixte en BA
(a)
Figure 10 : Courbes de capacité du bâtiment mixte en BA
No shear failures of RC beam and column modes are prevented by the application of the
members were observed in any case of capacity design principles, full flexural plastic
pushover analyses. Even in the case of rotation of the wall is developed at its fixed
conventional designed structures, the shear base. The behavior of 8-storey structure is quite
strength of members was sufficient to carry the similar to what it was observed in the case of 4-
shear forces that developed. Thus, the behavior storey structure, since the shear failure of RC
of these members is dominated by flexure. Note structural walls is also observed when utilizing
that the shear strength of beam and column the conventional design method. Nevertheless,
members is identical in the two methods of flexural hinges are developed at almost floor
dimensioning since the capacity design method beams with rotation level higher than the 4-
affects only the wall members. Also, the local storey structure, the maximum values exceeding
criterion which consists on the limitation of 25 mrad. Furthermore, flexural hinges in RC
plastic hinge rotation of different member walls are depicted in the first and second storey
elements, beams and columns, to the ultimate even if the level of rotation is only at the
rotation, θu, has not been observed both in the beginning of yielding in comparison with what
conventional and capacity design methods. is observed in the case of capacity design
Moreover, as shown in the hinging pattern of method.
conventional and capacity designed structures The above mentioned observations,
in the five lateral load patterns, no storey especially those related to the RC walls, are not
mechanism is detected. This is mainly due to pointed out in the case of the 12- storey
the presence of wall members which prevent structure. In fact, no shear failure is observed in
the formation of a column sidesway mechanism walls up to collapse limit state even using the
that gives rise to storey mechanism. conventional design method. However, it is
Comparison between the two methods of found that the maximum shear forces (shear
dimensioning of wall members in seismic demand) appear to be closer to the shear
failure modes of walls and the level of plastic strength (shear capacity) of walls in the second
rotations in beam and column elements shows to the fifth storey, particularly in the case of the
clearly the deficiency of conventional design uniform lateral load pattern, as it will be seen in
method, particularly in the case of 4-storey and the paragraph 8.4 of this present paper. This
8-storey structures; and the former, i.e. 4-storey denotes that even in this case, the conventional
structure, appears to be the one which is design method do not ensure a high safety
strongly affected by design procedure followed margin against shear failure of walls.
in designing the walls. In fact, in the Fig. 11, The results indicate that shear failure is the
shear failure of RC structural walls, detected controlling member failure criterion for the 4-,
using conventional design method, are observed and 8-storey structures designed according to
at plastic rotation levels in beam and column the conventional method, contrary to the 12-
elements notably smaller than what is obtained storey structure that presents nevertheless near
using the capacity design method, the shear failure of walls, as mentioned above.
maximum values not exceeding 14 mrad. It can The results clearly show that the capacity
be seen in several cases of lateral load design provisions of Eurocode 8 have
distribution that the flexural hinges occur only succeeded in protecting the walls from the
in few second and third floor beams. No undesirable shear failure mode and ensure in
flexural hinges are observed in columns even at the same time a favourable global plastic
their fixed base. Also, the Fig. 11 reveals that mechanism, where most of the beams yield, as
the shear failure inhibits the development of the well as the columns and walls at their fixed
plastic rotation at the wall base. Whereas base. In the light of the observations mentioned
flexural hinges, utilizing the capacity design above, it is clear that in the case of the
method, are observed in all floor beams at high conventional design method the shear failure
rotation level and at the fixed base of columns, criterion is practically the controlling local
the maximum values exceeding 40 mrad. collapse parameter. Whereas in the case of the
Moreover, since the undesirable shear failure capacity design method the shear failure
criterion will not be a controlling parameter. index obtained from the capacity design method
Thus, hereinafter, other failure criteria in are higher than those obtained from the
combination with the one observed in the conventional design method. Except in the case
former case will be detected, if they exist; and of the 12-storey structure where the values are
failure criteria governing the collapse state in near (Fig. 14). Also, it can be found that the
the later case will be found. stability index increases as the number of storey
increases; this highlighted the sensitivity of the
8.3- Inter-storey drifts high-rise structure to the P-∆ effects.
The distribution of the maximum observed 8.4- Storey shear in RC walls
inter-storey drift (∆max) at the collapse limit
The distribution of the maximum storey
state for the three studied structures from each
shear (Vmax) at the collapse limit state in RC
method of design when subjected to five lateral
wall members for the three studied structures
load patterns are presented in Figs. 12, 13 and
from each method of design when subjected to
14. The recorded maximum stability indexes
five lateral load patterns are presented in Figs.
(θp-∆, max) at the same limit state are also shown.
15, 16 and 17. The calculated nominal shear
It can be seen that in the case of the
strengths (Vn) of walls are also shown.
conventional design method, the average values
As shown in these figures, in the case of the
of the maximum inter-storey drift, ∆max, of the
conventional design method, shear failure of
4- and 8-storey structures are well below the
RC walls is observed in the 4-, and 8-storey
collapse inter-storey drift (∆ = 3%), especially
structures. For the 12-storey structure, as
in the 4-storey structure, which value is only
mentioned above (Paragraph. 8.2), even if there
equal to 1.12% (Figure 12.a). For the 12-storey
is no shear failure of RC wall, the maximum
structure, its value is equal to 3% (Figure 14.a),
storey shear forces (Vmax) appear to be closer to
which is the upper limit considered in this study
the storey shear strengths (Vn) of walls in the
(∆ = 3%).
second to the fifth storey, particularly in the
In the case of the capacity design method, it
case of the uniform lateral load pattern (Fig.
can be observed that the average values of the
17.a). This implies that the conventional design
maximum inter-storey drift, ∆max, of the 4- and
method do not ensure a high safety margin
12-storey structure are equal to 3% (Figures
against shear failure of walls. In the case of the
12.b and 14.b). For the 8-storey structure, the
capacity design method, it can be seen that the
evaluated value is below the limiting value
storey shear strengths (Vn) of walls are much
adopted here (∆max, average = 2.32%, Fig. 13.b).
greater than the observed maximum storey
The observed values of the stability index
shear forces (Vmax), which leads to high safety
(θp-∆, max), which place a further limitation on
margin against shear failure.
P-∆ effects, up to collapse limit state are bellow
the limiting value adopted here (0.2). This 8.5- Flexural rotation in RC walls
forgoing observation is noted in all structures
designed with the two methods of dimensioning The distribution of the maximum flexural
and under all lateral load patterns employed rotation (θmax) at the collapse limit state in RC
(Figs. 12, 13 and 14). This implies that second wall members for the three studied structures
order effects are not significant. However, the from each method of design when subjected to
values of the stability index obtained from the
capacity design method are higher than those
obtained from the conventional design method.
Except in the case of the 12-storey structure
where the values are near (Fig. 14). Also, it can
be found that the stability index increases as the
number of storey increases; this highlighted the
sensitivity of the high-rise structure to the P-∆
effects. However, the values of the stability
(a) with conventional design method
ISSN : 1111-5211
ALGÉRIE ÉQUIPEMENT
a) ‘Uniform’ b) ‘Elastic First Mode’ c) ‘RPA’ d) ‘FEMA-356’ e) ‘Multi-Modal (SRSS)’
(b) with capacity design method
Editée sous licence CC BY-NC-ND http://creativecommons.fr

a) ‘Uniform’ b) ‘Elastic First Mode’ c) ‘RPA’ d) ‘FEMA-356’ e) ‘Multi-Modal (SRSS)’
Beam and column elements Wall elements
Flexural hinge: < 10 mrad 11 mrad~ 20 mrad 21 mrad~ 30 mrad 31 mrad~ 40 mrad > 40 mrad
Flexural hinge: < 10 mrad 11 mrad~ 20 mrad > 20 mrad
Shear hinge: no shear failure in frame elements
Shear hinge:
Figure 11 : Mécanismes de ruine du système mixte portique –voile de 4étages pour (a) méthode conventionnelle et (b) méthode en capacité
Figure 11: Collapse mechanisms of the 4-storey dual frame-wall for (a) conventional design method and (b) capacity design method
40
LOUZAI A., ABED A.
Janvier 2020, N° 62 : 27-47
[1] UNIFORM [2] ELASTIC FIRST MODE
[3] RPA [4] FEMA-356 [5] SRSS
Storey (a)
Storey (a)
Upper limit ∆ = 3% he
∆max, average = 1.12%
θP-∆, max [1] = 0.032 ∆max, average = 1.98%
θP-∆, max [2] = 0.031 θP-∆, max [1] = 0.068
θP-∆, max [3] = 0.031 θP-∆, max [2] = 0.079
θP-∆, max [4] = 0.031 θP-∆, max [3] = 0.075
θP-∆, max [5] = 0.032 θP-∆, max [4] = 0.081
θP-∆, max [5] = 0.086
∆ (%) ∆ (%)
Storey
(b)
Storey (b)
∆max, average = 3%
θP-∆, max [1] = 0.074 ∆max, average = 2.32%
θP-∆, max [2] = 0.070
θP-∆, max [1] = 0.098
θP-∆, max [3] = 0.071
θP-∆, max [2] = 0.112
θP-∆, max [4] = 0.071
θP-∆, max [3] = 0.108
θP-∆, max [5] = 0.072
θP-∆, max [4] = 0.111
θP-∆, max [5] = 0.113
∆ (%)
∆ (%)
Figure 12: Déplacement inter-étages et

coefficient de stabilité du bâtiment mixte de 4 Figure 13: Déplacement inter-étages et
étages pour (a) méthode conventionnelle et (b) coefficient de stabilité du bâtiment mixte de 8
méthode en capacité étages pour (a) méthode conventionnelle et (b)
Figure 12: Inter-storey drift and stability index méthode en capacité
for the 4-storey RC dual frame-wall for (a) Figure 13: Inter-storey drift and stability index
conventional design method and (b) capacity for the 8-storey RC dual frame-wall for (a)
design method conventional design method and (b) capacity
design method
five lateral load patterns are presented in Figs. (θmax). In the case of the capacity design
18, 19 and 20. The calculated of the method, it can be noted that the walls can
corresponding ultimate rotation capacities (θu) develop a full flexural rotation at their fixed
of walls are also shown. It can be observed that base, since no shear failure is occurred. Also,
in the case of the conventional design method, local flexural failure of wall is detected in the 8-
the flexural rotation at the fixed base of the wall storey structure (Fig. 19.b), and near local
is inhibited by the premature shear failure. This flexural failure of wall in uniform load case is
phenomenon is accentuated in the 4-storey found in the 12-storey structure.
structure, as shown in Figure 18.a, where the
ultimate rotation capacity (θu) is much greater
than the maximum demand flexural rotation
[1] UNIFORM [2] ELASTIC FIRST MODE (a)

[3] RPA [4] FEMA-356 [5] SRSS Storey Nominal shear strength Vn
[1] UNIFORM
Storey (a)
[2] ELASTIC FIRST MODE
[3] RPA
[4] FEMA-356
[5] SRSS
θP-∆, max [1] = 0.163
θP-∆, max [2] = 0.147
θP-∆, max [3] = 0.156
θP-∆, max [4] = 0.147 Shear failure of wall
θP-∆, max [5] = 0.149 V (kN)
Figure 15 (a) Effort tranchant d’étage (Vmax) et

∆ (%) résistance en cisaillement d’étage (Vn) dans les
éléments voiles en BA du bâtiment mixte de 4
étages pour la méthode conventionnelle
Figure 15 (a) Maximum storey shear (Vmax)
(b) and nominal storey shear strength (Vn) in RC
Storey wall members for the 4-storey RC dual frame-
wall for conventional design method
Storey (b)
θP-∆, max [1] = 0.154

θP-∆, max [2] = 0.141
θP-∆, max [3] = 0.145
θP-∆, max [4] = 0.142
θP-∆, max [5] = 0.150
∆ (%)
V (kN)
Figure 14: Déplacement inter-étages et

coefficient de stabilité du bâtiment mixte de 12
étages pour (a) méthode conventionnelle et (b) Figure 15 (b) Effort tranchant d’étage (Vmax) et
méthode en capacité résistance en cisaillement d’étage (Vn) dans les
Figure 14: Inter-storey drift and stability index étages pour la méthode en capacité
for the 12-storey RC dual frame-wall for (a)
conventional design method and (b) capacity Figure 15 (b) Maximum storey shear (Vmax)
design method and nominal storey shear strength (Vn) in RC
wall members for the 4-storey RC dual frame-
wall for capacity design method
Storey
(a)
(a)
Storey
Nominal shear strength Vn
[1] UNIFORM
[2] ELASTIC FIRST MODE

Near shear failure of walls
[3] RPA
[4] FEMA-356
[5] SRSS
Shear failure of wall

V (kN)
V (kN)
résistance en cisaillement d’étage (Vn) dans les
étages pour la méthode conventionnelle
résistance en cisaillement d’étage (Vn) dans les
éléments voiles en BA du bâtiment mixte de 8 Figure 17 (a) Maximum storey shear (Vmax)
étages pour la méthode conventionnelle and nominal storey shear strength (Vn) in RC
wall members for the 12-storey RC dual frame-
Figure 16 (a) Maximum storey shear (Vmax)
and nominal storey shear strength (Vn) in RC
wall members for the 8-storey RC dual frame- Storey (b)
[1] UNIFORM
Storey (b)
[2] ELASTIC FIRST
MODE
[3] RPA
[4] FEMA-356
[5] SRSS
V (kN) V (kN)
Figure 16 (b) Effort tranchant d’étage (Vmax) et Figure 17 (b) Effort tranchant d’étage (Vmax) et
résistance en cisaillement d’étage (Vn) dans les résistance en cisaillement d’étage (Vn) dans les
éléments voiles en BA du bâtiment mixte de 8 éléments voiles en BA du bâtiment mixte de 12
étages pour la méthode en capacité étages pour la méthode en capacité
Figure 16 (b) Maximum storey shear (Vmax) Figure 17 (b) Maximum storey shear (Vmax)
and nominal storey shear strength (Vn) in RC and nominal storey shear strength (Vn) in RC
wall members for the 8-storey RC dual frame- wall members for the 12-storey RC dual frame-
wall for capacity design method wall for capacity design method
In view of the aforementioned observations [1] UNIFORM [2] ELASTIC FIRST MODE
presented in paragraphs 8.2 to 8.5 of the present
[3] RPA [4] FEMA-356 [5] SRSS
paper, it is clearly shown that in the case of the
conventional design method, the shear failure Ultimate rotation capacity θu
criterion is the controlling local collapse for the Storey
(b)
4-, and 8-storey structures; the collapse of the
12- storey structure is controlled by the inter-
storey drift global failure criterion. In the case
of the capacity design method, the inter-storey
drift criterion is the controlling global collapse
for the 4-, and 12-storey structures; the collapse
of the 8- storey structure is controlled by the θ (x10-3 rad)
flexural local failure criterion.
Storey
Ultimate rotation capacity θu
Figure 18 (b) Rotation maximale (θmax) et
rotation ultime (θu) dans les éléments voiles en
(a) BA du bâtiment de 4 étages pour la méthode en
capacité
Figure 18 (b) Maximum flexural rotation (θmax)
and ultimate rotation (θu) in RC wall members
θ (x10-3 rad) for the 4-storey RC dual frame-wall for
capacity design method
Storey
Figure 18 (a) Rotation maximale (θmax) et
(a)
BA du bâtiment de 4 étages pour la méthode
conventionnelle
Figure 18 (a) Maximum flexural rotation (θmax)
for the 4-storey RC dual frame-wall for θ(x10-3 rad)
conventional design method
9- Conclusions
Figure 19 (a) Rotation maximale (θmax) et
In this study the influence of capacity design rotation ultime (θu) dans les éléments voiles en
method in comparison with conventional design BA du bâtiment de 8 étages pour la méthode
method on the seismic performance of the conventionnelle
walls, as well as the structure as a whole, when
subjected to seismic loading, has been Figure 19 (a) Maximum flexural rotation (θmax)
investigated. and ultimate rotation (θu) in RC wall members
For this purpose, 4-storey, 8-storey and 12 for the 8-storey RC dual frame-wall for
storey RC dual frame-wall structures were conventional design method
designed according to Algerian seismic design
Nonlinear static pushover analyses using
code RPA 99/Version 2003, in case of
five different invariant lateral load patterns
conventional design method, and to EC8
were carried out to represent the likely
provisions, related to the capacity design of
distribution of inertia forces imposed on the
wall in flexure and shear, in case of capacity
structures during an earthquake and to identify
design method.
their dominant failure modes and failure paths.
[1] UNIFORM [2] ELASTIC FIRST MODE

Storey
(b) [3] RPA [4] FEMA-356 [5] SRSS
Storey
(b)
Flexural failure of wall
θ(x10-3 rad) Near flexural failure of wall only

in “UNFORM” load case
θ (x10-3 rad)

BA du bâtiment de 8 étages pour la méthode en
capacité
Figure 19 (b) Maximum flexural rotation (θmax) BA du bâtiment de 12 étages pour la méthode
and ultimate rotation (θu) in RC wall members en capacité
for the 8-storey RC dual frame-wall for
Figure 20 (b) Maximum flexural rotation (θmax)
Ultimate rotation capacity θu for the 12-storey RC dual frame-wall for
Storey
(a) All of the comparisons lead to the expected
conclusions that the structures designed
according to the capacity design method are
much safer than buildings belonging to the
conventional design method, particularly in
low-rise structures represented in this study by
θ (x10-3 rad) 4-, and 8-storey buildings. Due to larger seismic
forces they have a higher lateral load-carrying
capacity, and due to better design provisions
and the ensuring of a suitable plastic
Figure 20 (a) Rotation maximale (θmax) et mechanism they demonstrate much greater
rotation ultime (θu) dans les éléments voiles en displacement ductility.
BA du bâtiment de 12 étages pour la méthode The study confirmed that the capacity design
conventionnelle procedure can be revealed as an appreciate tool
Figure 20 (a) Maximum flexural rotation (θmax) to improve seismic performance of the
and ultimate rotation (θu) in RC wall members structures and to avoid any undesirable seismic
for the 12-storey RC dual frame-wall for failure mode, such as shear failure in RC
conventional design method structural walls. This type of failure leads to
substantial loss of strength and ductility, and is
Failure criteria at both member and structural primarily responsible for the collapse of
levels have been also adopted to detect plastic buildings. This suggests improvements in the
mechanisms and collapse limit states of design provisions of the Algerian seismic
structures. design code, particularly for low-rise structures
represented here by 4-, and 8-storey RC dual
buildings.
References [11] Mander, J.B. and Priestley, M.J.N.,

Observed stress-strain behavior of confined
[1] Orackaln K., Wallace, J.W. and Conte, J.P., concrete., Journal of structural engineering
Flexural modeling of reinforced concrete walls- (ASCE), 114(8), 1827-1849, 1988.
model attributes., ACI Structural journal, 5,
688-698, 2004. [12] Park, R. and Paulay, T., Reinforced
concrete structures., New York: John Wiley &
[2] Kappos, A.J. and Tsakas, A., Influence of Sons, 1975.
capacity design method on the seismic response
of R/C columns., The 11th world conference on [13] Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria.,
earthquake engineering, 1996. Section3- Capacities of structure components,
Version 1.4., 2006.
[3] Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N., Seismic
design of reinforced concrete and masonry [14] Applied Technology Council, ATC-40,
structure., New York: John Wiley & Sons, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete
1992. buildings., Vol 1. Redwood City, California,
1996.
[4] Bachmann, H., Linde, P. and Wenk, T.,
Capacity design and nonlinear analysis of [15] UBC 97., International conference of
earthquake-resistant structures., The 10th building officials, Whittier, California, 1997.
European conference on earthquake [16] Inel, M. and Ozmen, H.B., Effects of
engineering, 1994. plastic hinge properties in nonlinear analysis of
[5] Eurocode 8, Conception et dimensionnement reinforced concrete building., Engineering
des structures pour la résistance aux séismes et structures, 28, 1494-1502, 2006.
document d’application nationale. [17] Applied Technology Council, ATC-72-1,
normalisation française, XP ENV 1998-1-3, Modelling and acceptance criteria for seismic
2003. design and analysis of tall buildings., Redwood
[6] Algerian seismic design code City, California, 2010.
(RPA99/Version 2003)., National Center of [18] Federal Emergency Management Agency
Applicated Research in Earthquake FEMA356, NEHRP provisions for the seismic
Engineering, Algeria, 2003. rehabilitation of buildings., Washington, DC,
[7] BAEL 91., Règles Techniques de 2000.
Conception et de Calcul des Ouvrages et [19] Building code requirements for structural
Constructions en Béton Armé suivant la concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary (ACI
Méthode des Etats Limites, Edition Eyrolles, 318R-08), American Concrete Institute,
1992. Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2008.
[8] SAP2000, Three dimensional static and [20] ASCE Standard ASCE/SEI 41-06, Seismic
dynamic finite element analysis and design of rehabilitation of existing buildings., American
structures V14., Computers and Structures Inc, Society of Civil Engineering, Reston Virginia,
Berkeley, California, 2009. (2007a).
[9] Saiidi, M. and Sozen, M.A., Simple [21] Louzai, A. and Abed, A., Evaluation of the
Nonlinear Seismic Response of R/C Structures., seismic behavior factor of reinforced concrete
Journal of structural division (ASCE), 107937- frame structures based on comparative analysis
952, 1981. between non-linear static pushover and
[10] Rozman, M. and Fajfar, P., Seismic incremental dynamic analysis., Bulletin of
response of a RC frame building designed earthquake engineering, 13, 1773-1793. DOI
according to old and modern practices., 10.1007/s10518-014-9689-7, 2015.
Bulletin of earthquake engineering, 7, 779-799,
2009.
[22] Bai, J.L. and Ou, J.P., Seismic failure

improvement of RC frames structures based on
multiple lateral load patterns of pushover
analyses., SCIENCE CHINA, Technological
sciences, 54 (11), 2825-2833. DOI:
10.1007/s11431-011-4469-y, 2011.
[23] Oğuz, S., Evaluation of pushover analysis
procedures for frame structures., Msc thesis,
Middle East technical university, Turkey, 2005.
[24] Mwafy, A.M. and Elnashai, A.S.,
Calibration of force reduction factors of RC
buildings., Journal of earthquake engineering, 6
(2), 239-273, 2002.
[25] Massumi, A., Tasnimi, A.A. and
Saatcioglu, M., Prediction of seismic
overstrength in concrete moment resisting
frames using incremental static and dynamic
Analysis., 13th World conference on earthquake
engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, 2004.
[26] James Foxe, M., John Sullivan, T. and
Beyer, K., Capacity design of coupled RC
walls., Journal of earthquake engineering,
DOI:10.1080/13632469.204.904225 , 2014.

Article Louzai1 Publier

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article Louzai1 Publier

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article Louzai1 Publier

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALGÉRIE ÉQUIPEMENT Janvier 2020, N° 62 : 27-47

ISSN : 1111-5211 LOUZAI A., ABED A.

INFLUENCE DE LA MÉTHODE DE DIMENSIONNEMENT EN CAPACITÉ PAR

LOUZAI Amar1, ABED Ahmed2

Résumé- Le présent article vise à évaluer l’influence de la procédure de dimensionnement suivie

1-Introduction analyses using five different invariant lateral

Tableau 1 : Procédures de dimensionnement dans les méthodes conventionnelles et en capacité.

hinge section and the length of the plastic

55x55 through the point marking the first reinforcing

55x55 capacity, Mp, is obtained by balancing the areas

reinforcing bar yield point. The yield rotation θy

where Y is the yield curvature and L is the

12 storey RC dual building

Figure 3 : Vues en plan et en élévation des

 p = (u − Y ) Lp (6) Ash f yh d

Failure of cross-section point

In this paper, the numerical modeling of

Where h is the section depth of the member.  Mp 

compressive strength of concrete, ρt is

c) Str 8.1- Capacity curves

UNIFORM ELASTIC FIRST MODE

RPA FEMA-356 SRSS

Mean ultimate base shear, Mean ultimate top storey

Figure 9: Capacity curves of the 8-storey RC dual

Mean ultimate top storey

Figure 8 : Courbes de capacité du bâtiment mixte en BA Mean ultimate base shear,

Figure 8 : Capacity curves of the 4-storey RC dual

Mean ultimate top storey

(b) with capacity design method

Editée sous licence CC BY-NC-ND http://creativecommons.fr

[3] RPA [4] FEMA-356 [5] SRSS

Figure 12: Déplacement inter-étages et

[1] UNIFORM [2] ELASTIC FIRST MODE (a)

Figure 15 (a) Effort tranchant d’étage (Vmax) et

θP-∆, max [1] = 0.154

Figure 14: Déplacement inter-étages et

[2] ELASTIC FIRST MODE

Shear failure of wall

[1] UNIFORM [2] ELASTIC FIRST MODE

θ(x10-3 rad) Near flexural failure of wall only

Figure 19 (b) Rotation maximale (θmax) et

References [11] Mander, J.B. and Priestley, M.J.N.,

[22] Bai, J.L. and Ou, J.P., Seismic failure

You might also like