• Journal of the Korea institute for structural maintenance and inspection
• /
• v.26 no.2
• /
• pp.43-50
• /
• 2022

Even though the structural safety is confirmed in the design stage, the structural safety is not guaranteed in the construction stage because the structural system is not completed. In addition, since the construction period is shorter than the period of use of the building after completion, it is excessive to apply the same seismic load to the construction stage as in the design stage. ASCE 37-14 presents the concept of seismic load reduction factor during construction, but does not provide a clear application method. Therefore, in this study, the seismic load reduced according to the return period was applied to the example model of a residential middle-rise RC building. The construction stage of the example model was divided into five-story units, and seismic load with the change of the return period was applied to the construction stage models to analyze the change of seismic load during construction and to check the sectional performances of structural members. By comparing the design strength ratio of the shear wall at the design stage and the construction stage, the range of seismic load magnitudes that can assure the safety during construction of a residential middle-rise RC building was analyzed in terms of the return period.

• Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea
• /
• v.12 no.4
• /
• pp.19-33
• /
• 2008

Dynamic response measurements from natural excitation were carried out for 25- and 42-story buildings to evaluate their inherent properties, such as natural frequencies, mode shapes and damping ratios. Both are reinforced concrete buildings adopting a core wall, or with shear walls as the major lateral force resisting system, but frames are added in the plan or elevation. In particular, shear walls in a 25-story building are converted to frames from the 4th floor level downwards while maintaining a core wall throughout, resulting in a fairly complex structure. Due to this, along with similar stiffness characteristics in the principal directions, significantly coupled and closely spaced modes of motion are expected in this building, making identification rather difficult. By using various state-of-the-art system identification methods, the modal parameters are extracted, and the results are then compared. Three frequency-domain and four time-domain based operational modal identification methods are considered. Overall, all natural frequencies and damping ratios estimated from the different identification methods showed a greater consistency for both buildings, while mode shapes exhibited some degree of discrepancy, varying from method to method. On the other hand, in comparison with analysis results obtained using the initial finite element(FE) models, test results exhibited a significant difference of about doubled frequencies, at least for the three lower modes in both buildings. To improve the correlation between test and analysis, a few manual schemes of FE model updating based on plausible reasons have been applied, and acceptable results are obtained. The advantages and disadvantages of each identification method used are addressed, and some difficulties that might arise from the updating of FE models, including automatic procedures, for such large structures are carefully discussed.