Earthquakes and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Seismic deformation demands on rectangular structural walls in frame-wall systems

  • Kazaz, Ilker (Department of Civil Engineering, Erzurum Technical University)
  • Received : 2014.08.11
  • Accepted : 2015.10.13
  • Published : 2016.02.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A parametric study was conducted to investigate the seismic deformation demands in terms of drift ratio, plastic base rotation and compression strain on rectangular wall members in frame-wall systems. The wall index defined as ratio of total wall area to the floor plan area was kept as variable in frame-wall models and its relation with the seismic demand at the base of the wall was investigated. The wall indexes of analyzed models are in the range of 0.2-2%. 4, 8 and 12-story frame-wall models were created. The seismic behavior of frame-wall models were calculated using nonlinear time-history analysis and design spectrum matched ground motion set. Analyses results revealed that the increased wall index led to significant reduction in the top and inter-story displacement demands especially for 4-story models. The calculated average inter-story drift decreased from 1.5% to 0.5% for 4-story models. The average drift ratio in 8- and 12-story models has changed from approximately 1.5% to 0.75%. As the wall index increases, the dispersion in the calculated drifts due to ground motion variability decreased considerably. This is mainly due to increase in the lateral stiffness of models that leads their fundamental period of vibration to fall into zone of the response spectra that has smaller dispersion for scaled ground motion data set. When walls were assessed according to plastic rotation limits defined in ASCE/SEI 41, it was seen that the walls in frame-wall systems with low wall index in the range of 0.2-0.6% could seldom survive the design earthquake without major damage. Concrete compressive strains calculated in all frame-wall structures were much higher than the limit allowed for design, ${\varepsilon}_c$=0.0035, so confinement is required at the boundaries. For rectangular walls above the wall index value of 1.0% nearly all walls assure at least life safety (LS) performance criteria. It is proposed that in the design of dual systems where frames and walls are connected by link and transverse beams, the minimum value of wall index should be greater than 0.6%, in order to prevent excessive damage to wall members.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : Turkish National Science Foundation, TUBITAK

References

  1. Aschheim, M.A. (2002), "Seismic design based on the yield displacement", Earthq. Spectra, 18(4), 581-600. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1516754
  2. Akiyama, H. (1987), Earthquake-Resistant Limit-State Design for Buildings, Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.
  3. ASCE 41-06 (2006), Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
  4. CEN/EN1998-1 (2004), Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
  5. Charney, F.A. and Bertero V.V. (1982) An evaluation of the design and analytical seismic response of a seven-story reinforced concrete frame-wall structure, UCB/EERC-82/08, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
  6. Dashti, F., Dhakal R.P. and Pampanin S. (2014), "Comparative in-plane pushover response of a typical RC rectangular wall designed by different standards", Earthq. Struct., 7(5), 667-689. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2014.7.5.667
  7. Emori, K. and Schnobrich, W.C. (1981), "Inelastic behavior of concrete frame-wall structures", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 107(1), 145-164.
  8. Heidebrecht, A.C. and Stafford Smith, B. (1973), "Approximate analyses of tall wall-frame structures", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 99(2), 199-221.
  9. Inel, M., Bilgin, H. and Ozmen, H.B. (2008), "Seismic capacity evaluation of school buildings in Turkey", Proc. ICE-Struct. Build., 161(3), 147-159. https://doi.org/10.1680/stbu.2008.161.3.147
  10. Kayal, S. (1986), "Nonlinear interaction of RC frame-wall structure", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 112(5), 1021-1035. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1986)112:5(1021)
  11. Kazaz, I. (2010), "Dynamic characteristics and performance assessment of reinforced concrete structural walls", Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
  12. Kazaz, I., Gulkan, P. and Yakut, A. (2012), "Performance limits for structural walls: An analytical perspective", Eng. Struct., 43, 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.05.011
  13. Kazaz, I. and Gulkan, P. (2012a), "An improved frame-shear wall model: continuum approach", Struct. Des. Tall Spec. Build., 21(7), 524-542. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.626
  14. Kazaz, I. and Gulkan, P. (2012b), "Damage limits for ductile reinforced concrete shear walls", IMO Teknik Dergi, 23(4), 6113-6140. (in Turkish)
  15. Kazaz, I. and Yakut, A. (2010), "Evaluation of period formula for shear wall buildings", 9th US National and 10th Canadian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Toronto, Canada.
  16. Khan, F.R., and Sbarounis, J.A. (1964), "Interaction of shear walls and frames", Proc. ASCE, 90(3), 285-335.
  17. Lalaj, O., Yardim, Y. and Yilmaz, S. (2015), "Recent perspectives for ferrocement", Res. Eng Struct. Mat., 1(1), 11-23.
  18. Lazzali, F. (2013), "Seismic vulnerability of Algerian reinforced concrete houses", Earthq. Struct., 5(5), 571-588. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2013.5.5.571
  19. Lu, Y. (2002), "Seismic behavior of multistorey RC wall-frame system versus bare ductile frame system", Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn., 31(1), 79-97. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.99
  20. Massone, L.M. (2013), "Fundamental principles of the reinforced concrete design code changes in Chile following the Mw 8.8 earthquake in 2010", Eng. Struct., 56, 1335-1345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.013
  21. Miranda, E. and Reyes, C.J. (2002), "Approximate lateral drift demands in multi-story buildings with nonuniform stiffness", J. Struct. Eng., 128(7), 840-849. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2002)128:7(840)
  22. Ozdemir, G. and Bayhan, B. (2015), "Response of an isolated structure with deteriorating hysteretic isolator model", Res. Eng. Struct. Mat., 1(1), 1-9.
  23. Ozmen, H.B., Inel, M. and Cayci, B.T. (2013), "Engineering implications of the RC building damages after 2011 Van Earthquakes", Earthq. Struct., 5(3), 297-319. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2013.5.3.297
  24. Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi, G.M. and Kowalsky, M.J. (2007), Displacement-based seismic design of structures, Pavia, Italy, IUSS Press.
  25. SeismoSoft (2007), SeismoStruct: A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures, (online): Available from URL: www.seismosoft.com
  26. Sozen, M.A. (1989), "Earthquake response of buildings with robust walls", Fifth Chilean Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Santiago, Chile.
  27. Takabatake, H. (2010), "Two-dimensional rod theory for approximate analysis of building structures", Earthq. Struct., 1(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2010.1.1.001
  28. TSC (2007), Turkish Seismic Design Code for Buildings, Ministry of Public Works and Resettlement, Ankara, Turkey.
  29. Vallenas, M.V., Bertero, V.V. and Popov, E.P. (1979), "Hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete structural walls", UCB/EERC Report 79/20, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
  30. Wallace J.W. and Moehle, J.P. (1992), "Ductility and detailing requirements of bearing wall buildings", J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 118(6), 1625-1644. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1992)118:6(1625)

Cited by

  1. Inelastic deformation ratio for seismic demands assessment of structures vol.199, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.09.168
  2. Simplified procedure for seismic demands assessment of structures vol.59, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2016.59.3.455
  3. Seismic Load Capacity of Historical Masonry Mosques by Rigid Body Kinetics pp.1558-3066, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2019.1570389
  4. Seismic structural demands and inelastic deformation ratios: a theoretical approach vol.12, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.12.4.397
  5. Seismic structural demands and inelastic deformation ratios: Sensitivity analysis and simplified models vol.13, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.1.059
  6. Application of Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics to Structural Cable Analysis vol.10, pp.24, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10248983