The Inelastic Response Differences of Two Buildings Designed without and with Steel Braces

Jorge A. Avila; Alejandro Angeles

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.348-349.277

Paper Titles

Fatigue Crack Propagation in Friction Stir Welded Joints of Particulate Metal-Matrix Composite
p.261

A Numerical Investigation about the Effects of the Riveting Operation on the Strength of Joints
p.265

Investigation of the Dynamic Damage of the Rocks Subjected to Short Pulse Laser
p.269

Effect of Preformed Angle in Lap Zone on the Failure Procedure of Adhesively Bonded Aluminium Joint
p.273

The Inelastic Response Differences of Two Buildings Designed without and with Steel Braces
p.277

Microstructure and Mechanical Properties and Corrosion Behavior of Ti-Mo-Sn Alloys
p.281

An Evaluation of the Use of Fracture Mechanics Techniques for the Design of Orthotropic Decks
p.285

Study on Crack Propagation Behavior of Asphalt Concrete under Uniaxial Compression Load by Using CT
p.289

On the Study of Fatigue Crack Propagation in the Time Domain
p.293

HomeKey Engineering MaterialsKey Engineering Materials Vols. 348-349The Inelastic Response Differences of Two...

The Inelastic Response Differences of Two Buildings Designed without and with Steel Braces

Abstract:

The inelastic behavior of a 17 level reinforced concrete building, for two structural models, is studied: reinforced concrete frames only (A case), and reinforced concrete frames, and K-type steel braces (B case). The building is designed to avoid that the drifts exceed 0.012 for the same seismic behavior factor level (Q= 3), in agreement with the Mexico City Code. The building is type B (offices). The soil is considered as soft and the foundation is a rigid box with point piles. With the design, A and B cases, the comparisons of the transversal sections, maximum lateral displacements, drifts, story shears, design mechanical elements and resultant reinforcement steel are made. With the step-by-step analysis, A and B cases, with representative accelerations records of the soft soil, the inelastic responses of the local and global ductility demands are determined and also are compared with the permissible levels of the Code. We pretend to observe the inelastic behavior (displacements, maxima demands of global and local ductility), for both types structural models, to decide which it is more convenient.