×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Concrete Moment Frame Question

Concrete Moment Frame Question

Concrete Moment Frame Question

(OP)
If I have a multi-story concrete building with shearwalls as the primary LFRS, this will be considered a non-sway (i.e., braced structure).  Therefore, I assume all of the columns in the structure (which don't contribute to the LFRS) would be designed with a k-factor of 1.

Now, if I have a multi-story concrete building with moment frames as the primary LFRS, this will be considered a sway (i.e., unbraced structure).  For the concrete columns of the moment frame, I'd use the alignment charts in ACI 318 to determine k (using Ieff values.)  However, what about the concrete columns that are not part of the moment frame?  What value of k would you use?  Doesn't every concrete column integral with the slab contribute in someway to the LFRS even if it technically isn't part of the moment frame?

Just wondering if others have dealt with this situation.  Thanks.

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

I'm surprised no one has responded to this.

At first I thought columns not part of the moment frame would have k=1.  However you propose a good point about columns integral with the slab.
As you can tell I have not done many errrr, any full concrete building designs.

EIT

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

Quote:

Doesn't every concrete column integral with the slab contribute in someway to the LFRS even if it technically isn't part of the moment frame?

Yes.  Force will follow stiffness and the columns will receive bending and shear forces from lateral loads despite you classifying them as not part of the moment frame.

 

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

Depending on your current code...
ACI 318-05: 21.11
ACI 318-08: 21.13
These sections deal with members not designated as part of the SLRS. As for the actual rigidity of the gravity columns, recommend the commentary to these sections as to the assumptions of flexural yielding and appropriate confinement ties to allow this in gravity columns.
Is your project in SDC D or higher is a question to ask also.   

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

JAE has got it right.  With traditional, monolithic concrete construction with no shear walls, every frame is effectively acting as a moment frame.   

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

Hi dc,

JAE is on the right track.  Force will follow stiffness on the basis that deformations are compatible.
Now, from this you can control which elements will respond by either increasing or releasing it's stiffness.

In your case, when you want a column to be part of the moment frame you would detail the steel at the slab/column interface such that it can carry the tension due to the flexure (moment) in its entirety.

Where you want the column to act only in the vertical direction, you would only put nominal steel in the slab/column interface.  Granted there would still be some moment transfer, but it would only be as much as the nominal steel can develop, in terms of the tension.

One thing you might want to be careful of is that when you have a sway structure and a column exists in there as a pin-pin, it is essentially an instability (free to translate horizontally).  Therefore, you must control your sway deflections such that the 'vertical-only' columns don't develop P-delta moments which are too big in the mid-height zone.

Hope this helps a bit.
 

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

Late to this thread, but I think the last post by StructSEZ is misleading.  You should not try to selectively reduce the stiffness of columns by decreasing the reinforcement in the column to slab connections.  The stiffness is what it is, and the connections need to be designed accordingly.  If not, local overstress in the horizontal elements can result.

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

Haven't had anything fail yet, mate!

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

That's a contractor's answer to a legitimate issue brought up by a valued contributor to this forum. Try again.

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

I agree with StructSEZ.  If you limit the amount of reinforcing between the top of the column and the underside of the beam, it will yield, and the column will only see a small amount of sway moment.  Loads always follow the stiffest path.

DaveAtkins

RE: Concrete Moment Frame Question

The approach depends on the reason for the analysis. If it is for wind then this could have a large number of repetitions so reducing the reinforcement may lead to significant durability and serviceability issues.

If it is purely fo life safety during a design seismic event then allowing for yield of reinforcement would be a reasonable assumption (in my opinion).

It is also important to note that if the analysis has used these columns to resist some of the lateral loads then these loads need to be redistributed to the lateral force resisting system.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources