Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Some Critical Problems in Seismic Design of High-Rise RC Building frame Systems
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Some Critical Problems in Seismic Design of High-Rise RC Building frame Systems
Lee Han-Seon; Jeong Seong-Wook; Ko Dong-Woo;
  PDF(new window)
High-rise residential buildings these days tend to adopt a building frame system as primary earthquake resisting structural system for some architectural reasons. But there exist several ambiguities in designing such building frame systems according to current codes with regards to : the effective stiffness property of RC cracked section in static and dynamic analyses, analytical model to evaluate story drift ratio, and deformation compatibility requirements of frames. The comparative study for these issues by appling KBC 2005 to a typical building frame system shows that demands of member strength and story drift ratio can be different significantly depending on engineer's Interpretation and application of code requirements. And a building frame system can be noneconomical, compared with the dual system, because of higher demands on strength or ductility in both frames and shear walls.
building frame system;high-rise;concrete;seismic design;effective stiffness;deformation compatibility;
 Cited by
대한건축학회, Korean Building Code, 2005

대한건축학회, 건축물 하중기준 및 해설

J. F. Hall, Preliminary Reconnaissance ReportNorthridge Earthquake January 17, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute(EERI), 1994

American Concrete Institute(ACI), Building Code Requirements for Stuctural Concrete (ACI 318-02), ACI, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2002

Canadian Standards Association(CSA), Design of concrete structures for buildings( CSA A23.3-94), Rexdale, Canada, 1994

New Zealand Standards Association(NZS), NZS 31011995, Concrete Structural Standard, 1995

International Code Council, International Building Code 2000, 2000, 139pp

S. K. Ghosh and David A. Fenella, Seismic and Wind Design of concrete Buildings, Portland Cement Association, 2003, pp.3-46-3-69