Seismic evaluation of deficient reinforced concrete weak beam-column joint frames

• Autorzy: Rizwan Muhammad , Ahmad Naveed , Khan Akhtar Naeem , Fahad Muhammad

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/ace.2020.135230

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The use of old building design codes and improper execution of recent seismic design practices have caused large amount of substandard and vulnerable reinforced concrete RC building stock majority of which are built with weak beam-column joint connections defect (i.e. joint panel having no transverse reinforcement and built in low strength concrete). In order to understand the seismic response and damage behaviour of recent special moment resisting frame SMRF structures with the defect of weak beam-column joints, shake table tests have been performed on two 1:3 reduced scaled, two story RC frame models. The representative reference code design and weak beam-column joint frame models were subjected to uni-directional dynamic excitations of increasing intensities using the natural record of 1994 Northridge Earthquake. The input scaled excitations were applied from 5% to 130% of the maximum input peak ground acceleration record, to deformed the test models from elastic to inelastic stage and then to fully plastic incipient collapse stage. The weak beam-column frame experienced column flexure cracking, longitudinal bar-slip in beam members and observed with cover concrete spalling and severe damageability of the joint panels upon subjected to multiple dynamic excitations. The deficient frame was only able to resist 40% of the maximum acceleration input as compared to the code design frame which was able to resist about 130%. The seismic performance of considered RC frames was evaluated in terms of seismic response parameters (seismic response modification, overstrength and displacement ductility factors), for critical comparison.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

reinforced concrete; frame structure; special moment; resisting frame; response modification factor; beam-column joint; seismic response

PL

rama żelbetowa; moment wyjątkowy; rama odporna; współczynnik modyfikacji odpowiedzi; połączenie belka-słup; odpowiedź sejsmiczna

• Wydawca: Komitet Inżynierii Lądowej i Wodnej PAN ; Politechnika Warszawska, Wydział Inżynierii Lądowej
• Czasopismo: Archives of Civil Engineering
• Rocznik: 2020
• Tom: Vol. 66, nr 4
• Strony: 429--451
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 36 poz., il., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Rizwan Muhammad

• University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Department of Civil Engineering, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

autor

Ahmad Naveed

• University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Department of Civil Engineering, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

autor

Khan Akhtar Naeem

• University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Department of Civil Engineering, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

autor

Fahad Muhammad

• University of Engineering and Technology Peshawar, Department of Civil Engineering, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan

Bibliografia

• 1. Badrashi, Y. I., Ali, Q., Ashraf, M. “Reinforced Concrete Buildings in Pakistan – Housing Report” Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA, pp. 1-16, 2010.
• 2. Ahmad, N., Shahzad, A., Rizwan, M., Khan, A. N., Ali, S. M., Ashraf, M., Naseer, A., Ali, Q., Alam, B. “Seismic Performance Assessment of Non-Compliant SMRF Reinforced Concrete Frame: Shake Table Test Study. Journal of Earthquake Engineering” V. 21, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2017.1326426.
• 3. Badrashi, Y.I., Ali, Q., Ashraf, M., Rashid, M. “Seismic design characterization of RC special moment resisting frames in Pakistan—field survey to laboratory experiments” Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences. 35(2), 25-32, 2016.
• 4. Bilham R. “Earthquakes in India and in the Himalaya tectonic. Geodesy, and history”. Ann Geophysics, 47(2/3):839-858, 2004. https://doi.org/10.4401/ag-3338.
• 5. Naseer, A., Khan, A. N., Hussain, Z., Ali, Q. “Observed Seismic Behavior of Buildings in Northern Pakistan during the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake” Earthquake Spectra, V. 26, No. 2, pp. 425-449, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.3383119.
• 6. Arslan, M. H., Korkmaz, H. H. “What is to be Learned from Damage and Failure of Reinforced Concrete Structures during Recent Earthquakes in Turkey”. Engineering Failure Analysis, V. 14: No. 1. pp. 1-22, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2006.01.003.
• 7. Erdil, B. “Why RC Buildings Failed in the 2011 Van, Turkey, Earthquakes: Construction versus Design Practices". Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, V. 31, No. 3, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE) CF.1943-5509.0000980.
• 8. Ruiz-Pinilla, J. G., Adam, J. M., Perez-Carcel, R., Yuste, J., Moragues, J. J. “Learning from RC Building Structures Damaged by the Earthquake in Lorca, Spain, in 2011”. Engineering Failure Analysis. V. 68, 2016, pp. 76-86, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2016.05.013.
• 9. Ates, S., Kahya, V., Yurdakul, M., Adanur, S. “Damages on Reinforced Concrete Buildings due to Consecutive Earthquakes in Van” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, V. 53: pp. 109-118, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.06.006.
• 10. Quintana-Gallo, P., Pampanin, S., Carr, A. J., Bonelli, P. “Shake Table Tests of Under Designed RC Frames for the Seismic Retrofit of Buildings - Design and Similitude Requirements of the Benchmark Specimen” Proceedings of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering. 2010. Paper No. 39, 12 pp.
• 11. Stavridis, A., Koutromanos, I., Shing, P. S. “Shake-Table Tests of a Three-Storey Reinforced Concrete Frame with Masonry Infill Walls” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 41, No. 6, pp. 1089-1108. 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.1174.
• 12. Yavari, S., Elwood, K. J., Wu, C. L., Lin, S. H., Hwang, S. J., Moehle, J. P. “Shaking Table Tests on Reinforced Concrete Frames without Seismic Detailing” ACI Structural Journal, V. 110, No. 6, pp. 1000-1012, 2013. https://www.concrete.org/publications/internationalconcreteabstractsportal/m/details/id/51686155.
• 13. Sharma, A., Reddy, G. R., and Vaze, K. K. “Shake Table Tests on a Non-Seismically Detailed RC Frame Structure” Structural Engineering and Mechanics. V. 41, No. 1, pp. 1-24, 2012. https://doi.org/10.12989/sem.2012.41.1.001.
• 14. Elwood, K. J., and Moehle, J. P. “Shake Table Tests and Analytical Studies on the Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames”. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER Report 2003/01, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, 364 pp. 2003.
• 15. Calvi, G. M., Magenes, G., Pampanin, S. “Experimental Test on a Three-Story R.C Frame Designed for Gravity Only” Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2002. London, UK.
• 16. Hashemi, A., Mosalam, K. M. “Shake-Table Experiment on Reinforced Concrete Structure Containing Masonry Infill Wall” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 35, No. 14, pp. 1827-1852, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.612.
• 17. Pinto, A., Varum, H., Molina, J. “Experimental Assessment and Retrofit of Full-Scale Models of Existing RC Frames” Proceedings of the 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 2002. London, UK.
• 18. Hakuto, S., Park, R., Tanaka, H. “Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details” ACI Structural Journal, V. 97, No. 1, Jan.-Feb, pp. 11-25, 2002.https://www.concrete.org/publications/internationalconcreteabstractsportal/m/details/id/829
• 19. Zarnic, R., Gostic, S., Crewe, A. J., Taylor, C. A. “Shaking Table Tests of 1:4 Reduced-Scale Models of Masonry Infilled Reinforced Concrete Frame Buildings” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 30, No. 6, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.39
• 20. El-Attar, A. G., White, R. N., Gergely, P. “Shake Table Test of a 1/6 Scale Two Story Lightly Reinforced Concrete Building” Technical Report NCEER-91 0017I, National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research (NCEER). Buffalo, NY, 118 pp. 1991.
• 21. Benavent-Climent, A., Morillas, L., Escolano-Margarit, D. “Seismic Performance and Damage Evaluation of a Reinforced Concrete Frame with Hysteretic Dampers through Shake-Table Test” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. V. 43, No. 15, pp. 2399-2417, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2459.
• 22. Magliulo, G., Petrone, C., Capozzi, V., Maddaloni, G., Lopez, P., Manfredi, G. “Seismic Performance Evaluation of Plasterboard Partitions via Shake Table Test” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, V. 12, No. 4, pp. 1657-1677, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-013-9567.
• 23. Garcia, R., Hajirasouliha, I., Pilakoutas, K. “Seismic Behaviour of Deficient RC Frames Strengthened with CFRP Composites” Engineering Structures, V. 32, No. 10, pp. 3075-3085, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.05.026.
• 24. Dolce, M., Cardone, D., Ponzo, F. “Shaking-Table Tests on Reinforced Concrete Frames with Different Isolation Systems” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, V. 36, No. 5, pp. 573-596, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.642.
• 25. BCP (Building Code of Pakistan: Seismic Provisions), Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad, Pakistan. 302 pp. 2007.
• 26. UBC (Uniform Building Code), International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier, CA, 1997.
• 27. ACI (American Concrete Institute). Building code requirements for structural concrete, ACI 318, Farmington Hills, MI: ACI, 2014.
• 28. Morcarz, P., and Krawinkler, H. Theory and Application of Experimental Model Analysis in Earthquake Engineering, Technical Report Report No. 50, CA, 1981, 272 pp. 1981.
• 29. Rizwan M, Ahmad N, Naeem Khan A, Qazi S, Akbar J, Fahad M. Shake table investigations on code noncompliant reinforced concrete frames. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 59:349-67. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2019.12.047.
• 30. Applied Technology Council (ATC), “Structural Response Modification Factors” (ATC-19), Redwood City, California, 1995.
• 31. Mondal A, Ghosh S & Reddy GR. “Performance-based evaluation of the response reduction factor for ductile RC frames” Engineering Structures, 56: 1808 - 1819, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2013.07.038.
• 32. Miranda E, Bertero V. “Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake resistant design” Earthquake Spectra, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585778.
• 33. ASCE SEI/ASCE 7-05. Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. Reston (USA): American Society of Civil Engineers; 2005.
• 34. Nishanth M., Visuvasam J., Simon J., Packiaraj J.S. “Assessment of seismic response reduction factor for moment resisting RC frames” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 2017 263 (3), art. no. 032034,. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/263/3/032034.
• 35. Whittaker A., Hart G., Rojahn C. “Seismic response modification factors” Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 125(4):438 - 44, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1999)125:4(438).
• 36. Newmark N., Hall W. Earthquake spectra and design. Engineering monograph; Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Berkeley, California; 1982.