Microsoft Word - numero_61_art_26_3434.docx A.Y. Rahmani et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 61 (2022) 394-409; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.61.26 394 Effect of beam-column joints flexibility on the seismic response of setback RC buildings designed according to the Algerian seismic code Abdallah Yacine Rahmani Seismic Engineering and Structural Dynamics Laboratory, National Polytechnic School, Algiers, Algeria. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Msila, M’sila, Algeria. abdallahyacine.rahmani@univ-msila.dz , http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5095-2814 Said Hicham Boukhalkhal Built Environment Research Laboratory - Faculty of Civil Engineering. University of Sciences & Technology Houari Boumediene of Algiers (USTHB) BP.32 El-Alia, Bab Ezzouar 16111 Algiers, Algeria sboukhalkhal@usthb.dz, http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1593-591X Mohamed Badaoui Laboratory of Mechanics and Materials Development, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Djelfa, Djelfa 17000, P.O.B. 3117 – Algeria. badaoui.mohamed@yahoo.fr ABSTRACT. The Algerian seismic code assumes that the beam-column joints in monolithic reinforced concrete (RC) buildings are fully rigid. However, many experiments have proven the existence of relative rotations in these connections, and then the presence of relative transfer of bending moment. The present work aims to investigate the effect of beam-column joints modelling on the global seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete (RC) moment-resisting frame buildings, designed according to the Algerian seismic code recommendations. To consider the nonlinear deformation of the connections, an analytical model developed recently is used. This model includes two important deformation mechanisms; the first one covers the slippage of the continuous reinforcement within the column, whereas the second involves slippage caused by the creation of bending cracks at the extremities of the beams. Three multi-storey RC frames with different setback geometry, including a reference frame, are studied considering the connections as rigid/deformable. The nonlinear static procedure or pushover analysis is used to perform a nonlinear analysis of the studied structures and the results in terms of capacity curve, target displacement, storey drift, storey stiffness and the response reduction factor are presented. The results show Citation: Rahmani, A.Y., Boukhalkhal, S. H., Badaoui, M., Effect of beam-column joints flexibility on the seismic response of setback RC buildings designed according to the Algerian seismic code, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 61 (2022) 394-409. Received: 28.01.2022 Accepted: 15.06.2022 Online first: 16.06.2022 Published: 01.07.2022 Copyright: © 2022 This is an open access article under the terms of the CC-BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. https://youtu.be/BzQXb75_UJQ A.Y. Rahmani et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 61 (2022) 394-409; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.61.26 395 the necessity of considering the beam-column connection flexibility when modelling this type of buildings. KEYWORDS. Beam-column joints; pushover analysis; RC buildings; setback buildings; seismic behaviour. INTRODUCTION uilding construction in Algeria has witnessed a remarkable development in recent years, and Reinforced Concrete (RC) [1–4] has become the most widely used material in modern construction. The northern part of the country is considered as a high seismicity area, which prompted engineers to choose stiff systems in order to reduce the impact of earthquakes on buildings. The most commonly used seismic system is the RC shear wall system, which is considered as an expensive solution. Moment resisting frame (MRF) system is not preferred according to the Algerian seismic code RPA [5]. In effect, the use of MRF systems is limited to certain conditions. However, a set of seismic codes [6–8] allows the use of this system due to its ability to dissipate seismic energy without losing its resistance. In conventional design, beam-column connections are considered rigid in MRF systems. However, there is limited relative rotation between beam and column produced by the effect of beam reinforcement bars’ slippage [9–13]. This flexibility is not taken into account when modelling these types of structures and, therefore, their responses are underestimated. Several studies have been conducted on this topic. In an experimental cyclic test, Geradin and Negro [14] observed that the response of the structure (a 4-storey building designed according to EC8 [6]) was in fact controlled by their beam-column joints deformations rather than the awaited destruction mechanism related to the development of flexural plastic hinges at beams and columns ends. Furthermore, Ferreira [15] and Alva [16] in their studies confirmed the presence of relative rotations between beams and columns. Several investigations were carried out to numerically model the beam-column connections. Rotational springs were employed by Filippou et al. [17,18] and Mergos et Kappos [19] to model the slippage of reinforcing bars. Other research, on the other hand, employed extra springs to reflect the influence of joint distortion [9,20]. Even though these models are more attractive because of their simplicity and low computation complexity, they still present difficulties in terms of parameters calibration. Paultre et al. [21] used a tri-linear model to depict the reinforcement slippage moment-rotation relationship inside the joint. A simplified bond stress distribution was employed by the authors in order to determine the fixed end rotations for both elastic and yielding phases. Using the same simplification, Sezen and Setzler [22] devised a new model, which takes into account the slippage of reinforcement bars for both column-foundation and beam-column joints. In their research, the authors also considered the axial strain of the bars in the joint. Another analytical model was developed by Kwak and Kim [23]. The model reduces the flexural stiffness in the plastic hinges at the beam-ends. Here, besides to the rotations produced by the slippage of reinforcement bars, the flexural cracks at the beam-column interface were also considered. In 2012, Birely et al. [9] proposed a nonlinear model to reflect the nonlinear behaviour of RC buildings. Two springs were used to consider the beam yielding and the beam-column connection. Later, Alva and El Debs [10] developed a promising model to expect the moment-rotation relationship of RC beam-column joints. The new model considers the relative slip of the flexural reinforcement and the slip introduced by flexural cracking of the beam-ends. Good agreements were obtained when comparing the moment-rotation curves given by the developed model to the experimental curves. Recently, Santos et al. [12] used the analytical model developed by Alva and El Debs [10] to measure the influence of beam- column joint stiffness on the structural analysis of RC buildings. They found that the joints’ flexibility causes a redistribution of internal forces in the structure, which alters the second-order effects. Also, Alva [24] has confirmed these results and proved that the consideration of the bending deformability of the connections leads to significantly better results than the fully rigid consideration. Most of the above-mentioned studies have examined the behaviour of tall, regular RC buildings. The influence of beam- column connections on the seismic behaviour of RC irregular buildings [25] still gets little attention. One of the most popular irregular buildings is setback buildings, when an abrupt discontinuity in the vertical geometry of the building exists [26]. These discontinuities affect considerably the seismic performance of this type of building. B A.Y. Rahmani et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 61 (2022) 394-409; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.61.26 396 In the present work, the influence of the beam-column connections in RC buildings is studied. Three RC buildings (regular and irregular) designed according to the Seismic Algerian code, RPA99 v2003 [5] are selected. Alva and El Debs [10] analytical model is used herein to construct the moment-rotation relationship of the beam-column connections. The conventional pushover analysis [27–29] is performed in this work to assess the seismic nonlinear behaviour of these buildings. The results in terms of total drift, storey drift, and shear storey are calculated and compared to the seismic code limits. A secondary aim was to test the validity of the response reduction factor (R) value recommended in RPA99 v2003 [5] and other codes [6,8]for RC MRFs. BEAM-COLUMN CONNECTION MODELLING he modelling of RC buildings is a difficult step in the design process. To make this task easier, the engineers set several hypotheses that reduce the number of parameters to be considered. Among the simplifications, the RC beam-column connections in the construction are considered rigid. The experiences of previous earthquakes have shown the flexibility of these joints and then their impact in determining the structural damage. As a result, to address the seismic performance of new or existing RC frames correctly, engineers must use models that can estimate the behaviour of the beam-column connections with acceptable accuracy. The analytical model proposed by Alva and El Debs [10] assumes that the rotations between the beam and the column are produced by two mechanisms (Fig. 1). Mechanism A, represents the relative rotations created by the slippage of the beam reinforcement inside the joint, and Mechanism B, which is the relative rotations produced by the cumulative effect of local slips caused by the cracks opening at the beam ends. Figure 1: The two mechanisms A and B in beam-column connections [10]. The relative rotation in terms of bending moment and curvature at the beam*column joint can obtained by [10]: 2 1 2 y 2 1 y 2 y u 1 θ=C M +C                  for M M r   1 θ=C M +C           for M 0.5 s      (3) In which, µ is the global ductility factor (Fig. 16), and T is the fundamental (first) period of the structure. Ω Is the overstrength factor defined as the greater strength delivered to the building in comparison to the required strength, it is given by: y d V Ω=   V (4) Vy is the lateral (yielding limit) capacity of the structure, and Vd is the lateral force considered in the design process. Villani et al. [37] and Peres et al. [38] recommended that the response reduction factor value should be defined by supposing that the design base shear, dV , is equal to the base shear that would result in the creation of the structure's first plastic hinge, V1y. As a result, Ω is defined as: y 1y V Ω= V (5) RR is the redundancy factor, which is considered to be 1 (Tab. 2, ATC-19 [35]). Tab. 4 presents the values of the three parameters: Ru, Ω and RR of the studied cases and the final value of R. Figure 16: Ductility and overstrength components of the behaviour factor. A.Y. Rahmani et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 61 (2022) 394-409; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.61.26 407 Fig. 17 shows the influence of the joint flexibility as well as the irregularity in elevation on the value of the response reduction factor. It is clear that the joint flexibility affects the behaviour and decreases the R-value in all the studied buildings. The setback irregularity affects considerably the response reduction factor when the beam-column joints are flexible, and the F661 gives the lowest value (R = 1.74). In effect, the ductility factor Ru (Tab. 4) for this frame is very small. For these kinds of structures, the RPA99v2003 [1] recommends a reduction factor of 3.5 (in EC8 and ASCE 7-16, this value is 4 and 5, respectively). When the beam-column joints are assumed fully rigid, the three seismic codes are conservative according to the calculated values (Fig. 17), except for the F666 case, when ASCE 7-16 gives a very close value of R. However, when the joints’ flexibility is considered, RPA99v2003, EC8 and ASCE 7-16 overestimate the R factor, resulting in an underestimating of the design base shear. Building Joints μR Ω RR R (calculated) R RPA99 v2003 R Eurocode 8 R ASCE 7- 16 F666 Fully rigid 3.01 1.63 1.00 4.91 3.5 4 5 Flexible 1.94 1.59 1.00 3.08 3.5 4 5 F663 Fully rigid 3.77 1.62 1.00 6.11 3.5 3.2 5 Flexible 1.83 1.60 1.00 3.09 3.5 3.2 5 F661 Fully rigid 4.09 1.53 1.00 6.26 3.5 3.2 5 Flexible 1.16 1.50 1.00 1.74 3.5 3.2 5 Table 4: The R factor values of the buildings under study. Figure 17: The response reduction factor of the studied buildings. CONCLUSION he present paper assesses the seismic performance of RC buildings considering the flexibility of the beam-column connections. A system of two springs is employed to model the nonlinear behaviour of beams. One spring represents the hinges at the extremity of the beam, and the other one represents the nonlinear relationship between the bending moment and the relative rotation at the joints. Three 6-storey building frames designed according to the Seismic Algerian code are studied to measure the influence of the connection flexibility in their seismic responses. A conventional pushover analysis is performed herein to capture the nonlinear behaviour of the studied frames. After comparing the results of the frames with rigid and flexible connections, the main outcomes are summarised as follows: - The flexibility of the beam-column connections can affect the modal properties of the buildings under study and gives large values of periods. Moreover, it increases the higher mode effects. - Based on the results of pushover analysis, the deformable connections always decrease the strength of the structure. Also, they increase the displacement of the storeys. T A.Y. Rahmani et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 61 (2022) 394-409; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.61.26 408 - The inter-storey drift ratios when the connections are flexible exceed the RPA99 v2003 and EC8 limit (1%) for all the studied structures, and in this case, the design is unsafe. However, for the ASCE 7-16 (storey drift limit equal to 2%), the design has a large margin of safety. - The setback irregularity in this study does not make any major difference, and the regular structure seems to be the most affected by the flexibility of the joints. This is because the cross-sections and the reinforcement of the structural elements (beams and columns) in setback buildings are overestimated. - When the beam-column joints are considered fully rigid, the Algerian seismic code is conservative in terms of response reduction factor R. However, when the joints flexibility is taken into account, RPA99v2003 overestimates the R factor, resulting in an underestimating of the design base shear. This conclusion can be generalised for the EC8 and ASCE 7-16 seismic codes. It is worth noting that the suggested model does not account for shear distortion of the joint panel, shear forces at the beam end and the presence of slabs. Accounting for these factors may increase the effectiveness of the model, making the numerical results relatively close to the experimental responses. Also, the conclusions of the present research were gained for a limited number of frames with different configurations. However, to generalise the outcomes of this work, other analyses should be done for various types of structures. REFERENCES [1] Mindess, S. (2019). Developments in the Formulation and Reinforcement of Concrete, Canada, Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/C2017-0-03347-5 [2] Lin, X., Zhang, Y.X., Pathak, P. (2020). Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis of Composite and Reinforced Concrete Beams, Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/C2018-0-01615-1. [3] Konstandakopoulou, F., Tsimirika, M., Pnevmatikos, N., Hatzigeorgiou, G.D. (2020). Optimization of Reinforced Concrete Retaining Walls Designed According to European Provisions, Infrastructures, 5(6), pp. 46, DOI: 10.3390/INFRASTRUCTURES5060046. [4] Demakos, C.B., Kyriazopoulos, A., Pnevmatikos, N., Drivas, D. (2018). Experimental investigation and numerical simulation of curved frame structures, Procedia Struct. Integr., 10, pp. 148–154, DOI: 10.1016/J.PROSTR.2018.09.022. [5] CGS. (2003). Seismic Code for Building Design and Construction, Algiers, Algeria, National Earthquake Engineering Research centre. [6] EN 1998-1. (2004). EN 1998-1: Eurocode 8 - Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, CEN, 1, pp. 1–229. [7] Standard No. 2800. (2012). Iranian code of practice for seismic resistant design of buildings, Building and Housing Research Centre, 1st draft, Iran. [8] ASCE 7-16. (2016). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures ASCE7-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston. [9] Birely, A.C., Lowes, L.N., Lehman, D.E. (2012). A model for the practical nonlinear analysis of reinforced-concrete frames including joint flexibility, Eng. Struct., 34, pp. 455–465, DOI: 10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2011.09.003. [10] Alva, G.M.S., El Debs, A.L.H. de C. (2013). Moment–rotation relationship of RC beam-column connections: Experimental tests and analytical model, Eng. Struct., 56, pp. 1427–1438, DOI: 10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2013.07.016. [11] Costa, R.J.T., Providência, P., Gomes, F. (2015). On the need for classification criteria for cast in situ RC beam–column joints according to their stiffness, Mater. Struct. 494, 49(4), pp. 1299–1317, DOI: 10.1617/S11527-015-0577-7. [12] Santos, J.B., Silva, T.J. DA., Alva, G.M.S. (2018). Influence of the stiffness of beam-column connections on the structural analysis of reinforced concrete buildings, Rev. IBRACON Estruturas e Mater., 11(4), pp. 834–855, DOI: 10.1590/S1983-41952018000400010. [13] Xia, Z., Duan, X. (2022). Analysis of the bond-slip performance of steel bars and steel fiber recycled concrete based on the constitutive relationship model, Frat. Ed Integrità Strutt., 16(59), pp. 49–61, DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.59.04. [14] Geradin, M., Negro, P. (2000).The European Laboratory for Structural Assessment (ELSA) and its role for the validation of European seismic codes. Second Euro Conference on global change and catastrophe risk management: earthquake risks in Europe, Luxenburg. [15] Ferreira, M. de A. (1999).Deformabilidade de ligações viga-pilar de concreto pré-moldado. Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos. [16] Alva, G.M.S. (2006).Estudo teórico-experimental do comportamento de nós de pórtico de concreto armado submetidos a ações cíclicas. Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos. A.Y. Rahmani et alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 61 (2022) 394-409; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.61.26 409 [17] Filippou, F.C., Issa, A. (1988). Nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete frames under cyclic load reversals, Report No. UCB/EERC-88/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. [18] Filippou, F.C., D’ambrisi A., Issa, A. (1992). Nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete subassemblages, Report No. UCB/EERC-92/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center. [19] Mergos, P.E., Kappos, A.J. (2012). A gradual spread inelasticity model for R/C beam–columns, accounting for flexure, shear and anchorage slip, Eng. Struct., 44, pp. 94–106, DOI: 10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2012.05.035. [20] Ghobarah, A., Biddah, A. (1999). Dynamic analysis of reinforced concrete frames including joint shear deformation, Eng. Struct., 21(11), pp. 971–987, DOI: 10.1016/S0141-0296(98)00052-2. [21] Paultre, P., Castele, D., Rattray, S., Mitchell, D. (1989). Seismic response of reinforced concrete frame subassemblages — a Canadian code perspective, Can. J. Civ. Eng., 16(5), pp. 627–649, DOI: 10.1139/L89-097. [22] Sezen, H., Setzler, E.J. (2008). Reinforcement Slip in Reinforced Concrete Columns, ACI Struct. J., 105(3), pp. 280– 289. [23] Kwak, H.G., Kim, S.P. (2010). Simplified monotonic moment–curvature relation considering fixed-end rotation and axial force effect, Eng. Struct., 32(1), pp. 69–79, DOI: 10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2009.08.017. [24] Alva, G., Tsutake, A. (2020). Nonlinear analysis of monolithic beam-column connections for reinforced concrete frames, Rev. IBRACON Estruturas e Mater., 13(5), pp. 1–21, DOI: 10.1590/S1983-41952020000500015. [25] Alecci, V., De Stefano, M. (2019). Building irregularity issues and architectural design in seismic areas, Frat. Ed Integrità Strutt., 13(47), pp. 161–168, DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.47.13. [26] Athanassiadou, C.J. (2008). Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular in elevation, Eng. Struct., 30(5), pp. 1250–1261, DOI: 10.1016/J.ENGSTRUCT.2007.07.015. [27] Fajfar, P., Gašperšič, P. (1996). The N2 method for the seismic damage analysis of rc buildings, Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 25(1), pp. 31–46, DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199601)25:1<31::AID-EQE534>3.0.CO;2-V. [28] Freeman, S.A. (1998). Development and use of capacity spectrum method, Proc. 6th US NCEE Conf. Earthq. Eng., Seattle, Washington, U.S.A, pp. 12. [29] ATC-40. (1996). Seismic Evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings, Appl. Technol. Counc. Calif., 1 and 2. [30] European committee for standardization. (2004). EUROCODE 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Building, Brussels. [31] Hamdani, N. (2015). Comportement sismique de structures en portique en béton armé irrégulières en élévation. Rencontres Universitaires de Génie Civil, Bayonne, France. [32] CSI. (2016). ETABS Software Version 2016, Computers ans structures, inc. [33] FEMA. (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Washington (DC). [34] FEMA 440. (2005). Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures, Redwood City, California. [35] ATC-19. (1995). Structural response modification factors, Redwood City, California, Applied Technology Council. [36] Newmark, N.M., Hall, W.J. (1982). Earthquake spectra and design, Berkeley Calif., Earthquake Engineering Research Institute. [37] Villani, A., Castro, J., Elghazouli, A. (2009).Improved seismic design procedure for steel moment frames. Behaviour of Steel Structures in Seismic Areas, Philadelphia, PA, CRC Press. [38] Peres, R., Castro, J.M., Bento, R. (2016). An extension of an improved forced based design procedure for 3D steel structures, Steel Compos. Struct., 22(5), pp. 1140, DOI: 10.12989/SCS.2016.22.5.1115. << /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20%) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.4 /CompressObjects /Tags /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /DetectCurves 0.0000 /ColorConversionStrategy /CMYK /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedOpenType false /ParseICCProfilesInComments true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams false /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveDICMYKValues true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveFlatness true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments true /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /CropColorImages true /ColorImageMinResolution 300 /ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages true /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False /CreateJDFFile false /Description << /ARA /BGR /CHS /CHT /CZE /DAN /DEU /ESP /ETI /FRA /GRE /HEB /HRV (Za stvaranje Adobe PDF dokumenata najpogodnijih za visokokvalitetni ispis prije tiskanja koristite ove postavke. Stvoreni PDF dokumenti mogu se otvoriti Acrobat i Adobe Reader 5.0 i kasnijim verzijama.) /HUN /ITA /JPN /KOR /LTH /LVI /NLD (Gebruik deze instellingen om Adobe PDF-documenten te maken die zijn geoptimaliseerd voor prepress-afdrukken van hoge kwaliteit. De gemaakte PDF-documenten kunnen worden geopend met Acrobat en Adobe Reader 5.0 en hoger.) /NOR /POL /PTB /RUM /RUS /SKY /SLV /SUO /SVE /TUR /UKR /ENU (Use these settings to create Adobe PDF documents best suited for high-quality prepress printing. Created PDF documents can be opened with Acrobat and Adobe Reader 5.0 and later.) >> /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ << /AsReaderSpreads false /CropImagesToFrames true /ErrorControl /WarnAndContinue /FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false /IncludeGuidesGrids false /IncludeNonPrinting false /IncludeSlug false /Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (4.0) ] /OmitPlacedBitmaps false /OmitPlacedEPS false /OmitPlacedPDF false /SimulateOverprint /Legacy >> << /AddBleedMarks false /AddColorBars false /AddCropMarks false /AddPageInfo false /AddRegMarks false /ConvertColors /ConvertToCMYK /DestinationProfileName () /DestinationProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /Downsample16BitImages true /FlattenerPreset << /PresetSelector /MediumResolution >> /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ] >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [612.000 792.000] >> setpagedevice