Comparison On The Effective Of Controlling Failure Modes Of RC Frame Structures Under Huge Motions With Different Design Methods

Realizing the expected failure modes of the frame structure is important to ensuringseismic performance of the frame structures under huge grand motion. Different statesadopt different design measures to ensure "strengthen column" failure mode.Unfortunately, seismic code’s design measures can not ensure ductile failure modeeffectively. The frame structure is almost entirely hinge failure mode, which causedscholar to think that the design measures are effective or not. It is an urgent question tosolve that How to achieve reasonable damage model effectively.In my paper, it compares different design measures which in order to promoteframe structures to achieve " beam hinges " failure modes; drawing a representative ofthe Japanese code’s design measures which based on the expected failure mode designideas and adopting New Zealand code’s design measures. It adopt Chinese, NewZealand and equivalent linearization design method to design three ways frame ofDistrict5floors,10floors and13floors under eight degrees, comparing to its cost, andstudying the effect of ensuring the failure mode of frame structure through theelastic-plastic dynamic analysis method.The main conclusions are listed:(1) Based on the capability adjustment measures, Chinese, the United States,Europe, New Zealand and other countries seismic code’s measures to ensure the failuremodes. New Zealand design code specified the most rigorous adjustment measures;while Japan design code which based on expected failure modes approach internalforces under huge earthquake to design structure. New Zealand and Japan design codeis worth learning.(2) In my paper, though comparing the results of the response of the framestructures which adopt equivalent linearization method and nonlinear time history, itfind that the layer displacement and angular displacement between layers are in goodagreement, but the shear force is greater than the result of nonlinear time history. Itindicates that using the equivalent linearization method to complete cross-sectionaldesign is partial.(3) By comparing the amount of frame reinforcement, we found that the amount ofthe frame reinforcement of New Zealand design code method are relatively smallerwhen there are fewer floors. The amount of frame reinforcement of New Zealand design code method is about1.1times more than the Chinese design code method; equivalentlinearization design method is about1.1times more than the Chinese design codemethod when there are more floors.(4) Modes of Chinese design code achieve “beam hinge failure mode” which meetthe requirement that "frame structure does not fall"; New Zealand design code andequivalent linear design method achieve beam hinge mechanism which there are a smallamount of column hinges on the structure. Under huge earthquakes, there are a largenumber of hinge in column on modes of Chinese design code. New Zealand design codemethods and equivalent linear design methods has a lower rate of column hinge. Whenthere are more floors, there are no column hinges except the column at bottom on NewZealand design code methods. Overall, the New Zealand earthquake design methodsand equivalent linearization method have a good effective to ensuring the “beam hingefailure modes”. New Zealand design code methods is more efficient when there aremore floors. The equivalent linearization method is more effective to ensuring the“beam hinge failure modes”.Finally, the author talks about the inadequate of the equivalent linearization methodand follow-up recommendations.