Seismic Performance of Structural D-region of Existing RC ... · the reinforced concrete structure....

of 18

Comparison of Seismic Performance of D-region of Existing RC Structures Designed with Different Recommendations

Balthasar Novák1, K.Ramanjaneyulu

2, Constanze Roehm

3 and Saptarshi Sasmal

4

1Professor, ILEK, Universitaet Stuttgart, Germany;

2Deputy Director, Structural Engineering Research

Centre, Chennai, India; 3PhD scholar, ILEK, Universitaet Stuttgart, Germany;

4Scientist, Structural

Engineering Research Centre, Chennai, India and PhD Scholar, ILEK, Universitaet Stuttgart, Germany

Email: [email protected];

[email protected]

Synopsis: Gravity load designed (GLD) structures are vulnerable to any major earthquake

and it demands for immediate assessment of their seismic performance to avoid any

undesirable collapse. Nevertheless, there is no such information on comparative

performance of existing structures designed based on prevailing practicing standards in

different stages of their development. Further, stipulated provisions for seismic design of

structures differ from one standard to another. In the present study, these issues are covered

by considering different stages of Eurocode and Indian Standards provisions for designing

the reinforced concrete structure. Further, an exterior beam column joint (D-region) of a

building frame has been selected as the target sub-assemblage to be studied under reversed

cyclic load. The study is aimed at evaluating seismic performance of the structural

component designed according to the prevailing guidelines and has brought out the

implications of the differences in the guidelines on seismic performance. It is found that the

GLD structure is severely vulnerable to even medium earthquake. Among the seismically

designed specimens without ductile detailing, Indian Standard exhibits better performance

over the Eurocode (10% more energy dissipation) under large drift ratio, and among the

seismically designed and properly detailed specimens, Eurocode design with medium

ductility could not perform as good as Indian Standard design (25% less energy dissipation).

Therefore, earthquake design and ductile detailing provisions of different standards and their

progressive improvements have a considerable influence on seismic performance of

reinforced concrete structures.

Key words: beam-column joint, D-region study, drift ratio, ductile detailing, energy dissipation, seismic performance

of 18

Comparison of Seismic Performance of D-region of Existing RC Structures Designed with Different Recommendations

Balthasar Novák, K.Ramanjaneyulu, Constanze Roehm and Saptarshi Sasmal

Synopsis: Gravity load designed (GLD) structures are vulnerable to any major earthquake

and it demands for immediate assessment of their seismic performance to avoid any undesirable collapse. Nevertheless, there is no such information on comparative performance of existing structures designed based on prevailing practicing standards in different stages of their development. Further, stipulated provisions for seismic design of structures differ from one standard to another. In the present study, these issues are covered by considering different stages of Eurocode and Indian Standards provisions for designing the reinforced concrete structure. Further, an exterior beam column joint (D-region) of a building frame has been selected as the target sub-assemblage to be studied under reversed cyclic load. The study is aimed at evaluating seismic performance of the structural component designed according to the prevailing guidelines and has brought out the implications of the differences in the guidelines on seismic performance. It is found that the GLD structure is severely vulnerable to even medium earthquake. Among the seismically designed specimens without ductile detailing, Indian Standard exhibits better performance over the Eurocode (10% more energy dissipation) under large drift ratio, and among the seismically designed and properly detailed specimens, Eurocode design with medium ductility could not perform as good as Indian Standard design (25% less energy dissipation). Therefore, earthquake design and ductile detailing provisions of different standards and their progressive improvements have a considerable influence on seismic performance of reinforced concrete structures.

Introduction: In various parts of the world, reinforced concrete structures even in seismic

zones have been designed only for gravity load. Such structures though performing well

under conventional gravity load case, could lead to questionable structural performance

under earthquake. In most cases, those structures are vulnerable to any major earthquake

and so these structures need immediate assessment to avoid a collapse which brings a huge

loss of human lives and economy that the world has witnessed for several times. Moreover,

for new structures, the specifications and detailing provisions, though available to a certain

extent, have to be considered in such a way that the structure would be able to resist seismic

actions. Generally, a three phase approach is followed to describe a structure under

earthquake loading, i.e. (i) the structure must have adequate lateral stiffness to control the

inter-story drifts such that no damage would occur to non-structural elements during minor

but frequently occurring earthquakes, (ii) during moderate earthquakes, some damage to

of 18

non-structural elements is permitted, but the structural element must have adequate strength

to remain elastic so that no damage would occur, and (iii) during rare and strong

earthquakes, the structure must be ductile enough to prevent collapse by aiming for

repairable damage which would ascertain economic feasibility.

In last few decades, a number of research works have been carried out to understand the

behaviour of existing buildings and possible improvements in structural design under

earthquake loading. Beaufait and Williams1 presented a study on behaviour of reinforced

concrete portal frames under sway loading to investigate the role of joint reinforcement steel

on ultimate load capacity of the structure. Two types of sway loading (cyclic and uni-

directional) were considered for a number of portal frames where the cyclic sway loading was

used to represent the simplified seismic loading. Durrani and Wight2 and Ehsani and Wight3

discussed the seismic behaviour of interior and exterior beam-column joints, respectively,

under seismic loading where the specimens were designed according to the

recommendations of ACI-ASCE Committee 3524. The findings were compared with the

ductile beam-column joints of moment resisting frames to identify the role of joint hoop

reinforcement. Ahmed and Shah5 discussed the behaviour of hoop confined concrete under

high strain rates. Based on the results obtained from the study, empirical equations were

proposed to predict the effect of strain rate on material property of concrete. It was observed

that for both plain and hoop confined concrete, there was an increase in elasticity, maximum

stress with corresponding strain, but it was difficult to obtain the post peak behaviour of plain

concrete.

Aycardi et al.6 studied the performance of gravity load designed (GLD) sub-assemblages

(according to ACI 318-897) under seismic loading. Parameters like axial load level, with and

without lap splice were studied. It was also attempted to analytically model the seismic

behaviour and to identify the parameters which play the key role under seismic loading.

Bracci et al.8 conducted a series of tests to evaluate the seismic resistance of GLD structural

frames (according to ACI 318-897). A 3 storied reinforced concrete scaled model was

of 18

experimented under various level of earthquake. Both global and local performance of the

structure and its components were studied to determine the strength and deformation

capacity under seismic loading. The major observation was that the GLD structures mainly

suffered from strong beam-weak column behaviour with poor reinforcement detailing. El-Attar

et al.9 brought out a study on behaviour of GLD reinforced concrete buildings (according to

ACI 3187) under seismic loading. It was found that GLD reinforced concrete buildings without

walls would experience very large deformations associated with considerable stiffness

degradation during a moderate earthquake.

Simulated seismic load tests on reinforced concrete interior and exterior beam-column joints

with substandard reinforcement details (pre-1970s) were described by Hakuto et al.10, by

considering an existing reinforced concrete building designed in late 1950s (based on New

Zealand code which does not conform to present NZS 3101:199511). It was pointed out that

moment resisting frames with such detailing would show extremely poor performance under

severe earthquake. A gravity load collapse mechanism of reinforced concrete frames was

investigated by Elwood and Moehle12 using a shake table to observe the process of dynamic

shear and axial load failures. The reinforced concrete frame was characterised by low ductile

columns with a predominant shear failure mode which accelerates the lateral strength

degradation procedure. It was concluded that axial stress on the column influences the

behaviour of the column during shaking, particularly after shear failure. Dhakal et al.13 carried

out an experimental study on dynamic response of GLD (according to British standard

BS811014) reinforced concrete connections. It was observed that, though the connection

zones are most important parts in dissipating energy during earthquake, most of the GLD

connections are weaker than the adjoining structure and failed in shear.

A comparative study on seismic behaviour of columns in ordinary and intermediate moment

resisting frames (according to ACI 318-0215) was carried out by Han and Jee16. It was

pointed out that all the ordinary and intermediate moment resisting frames have strength

of 18

larger than specified by ACI 318 and show a considerably high drift capacity. Seismic

performance of scaled exterior beam-column joints designed according to modern building

codes were investigated by Tsonos17. Scaled beam-column joints were designed according

to Eurocode 218 & Eurocode 819; ACI 318-0215 & ACI 352R-0220 and new Greek Earthquake

Resistant Code21 and tested under cyclic loading. It was observed that the joint designed

according to ACI 352R-0220 and one of the joints based on Eurocode 218 and Eurocode 819

performed satisfactorily under cyclic loading whereas the other joints could not meet the

desired performance stipulated by Eurocode and Greek code.

From the review of existing literature on seismic performance of existing reinforced concrete

structures, it is found that though a considerable number of research works have been

carried out in this field, there is no adequate information on (i) comparative performance of

existing structures designed according to the available knowledge and prevailing guidelines

at different times spanning from gravity load design concept to fully earthquake resistant

design, and (ii) seismic performance of existing structures analysed for same expected

seismic load but designed and detailed according to different guidelines/standards. These

two issues are covered in the present study which would lead to a better understanding on

performance of existing reinforced concrete structures under seismic loading.

Present study: Since most of the research works on seismic performance of reinforced

concrete structures have considered American standard (ACI-318), New Zealand standard

(NZS 3101) or British standard (BS 8110) for designing the existing structure, in this study

European Codes (Eurocode 218 and Eurocode 819) and Indian Standards of practice (IS 456-

200022 and IS 13920-199323) for seismic design have been considered for analysis, design

and detailing the beam-column joints of a most regular and conventional RC structure. Both

codes have an extensive use in Europe and South-East Asia which are prominently seismic

prone zones. Moreover, previous earthquakes have demonstrated that due to sudden

discontinuity of the geometry, exterior joints are more vulnerable to seismic loading than the

of 18

interior one because it demands to explore additional parameters such as bond slip of

reinforcement. Hence, in this study the exterior beam-column joint has been chosen to study

the performance under seismic loading.

Response spectrum analysis of the selected RC building (shown in Fig. 1) has been carried

out and the exterior joint (selected sub-assemblage) has been designed and detailed based

on different types of existing design considerations as (i) only gravity load design, (ii) seismic

design as per the codal provisions but without any special ductile detailing and (iii) seismic

design as per the codal provisions with special ductile detailing specified by the

corresponding standards. These specimens represent the existing condition of buildings

designed according to the available knowledge and prevailing guidelines at different times

spanning from gravity load design concept to fully earthquake resistant design. A detailed

experimental study has been carried out to investigate the seismic performance of the

structural component.

Specimen description: Total six numbers of specimens have been designed and detailed

based on Eurocode and Indian Standards and for three different stages of codal evolution

(described in Table 1). Out of specimen 1 and specimen 2, only one of the specimens

(specimen 1) was tested because it is found that gravity load design based on either of the

codes produce almost same type of reinforcement detailing for the specimens. Further, there

is a provision in Eurocode to choose the level of ductility as medium or high. Since the high

ductile detailing from Eurocode is comparable to ductile detailing of Indian Standard (SP-5),

only one specimen using medium ductility provision from Eurocode (SP-6) has been

investigated in this study. Grades of concrete and steel for the specimens have been taken

as M30 and Fe500 respectively. It is understandable that the GLD structures (representing

pre-1970s) with so high strength of steel may not be feasible, but to bring uniformity among

the test specimens, such strength has been chosen and designed accordingly. All sub-

assemblages have the same general and cross-sectional dimensions: height of column is

of 18

3800mm and length of beam is 1700 mm with cross-sections of (300 x 300)mm and (300 x

400)mm respectively. The geometry of the components (top and bottom portion of column

and beam length from joint face) was chosen to match the bending moment distribution at

the joint for which it was designed. The reinforcement details of the specimens are also

presented in Table 1. Only Specimens 5 and 6 include seismic detailing. Beam and column

stirrup spacings are tabulated for joint and required adjacent zones for the confinement, then

followed by the rest part of the member respectively. The test specimens were instrumented

with strain gages bonded on beam and column reinforcements (main bars, ties, stirrups) and

LVDTs (linear variable displacement transducers), which were mounted on the joint surface

as well as attached to the beam and the column to measure deflections along the length of

beam and column and to calculate the rotation of the joint.

Test set up and loading: The test set up has been arranged on the test floor so that the

beam-column joint is horizontally resting on the floor and the cyclic load is applied in the

plane of the test floor. Vertical arrangement has been avoided to make the test arrangement

simplified and to apply a predefined axial load in column through a hydraulic jack resting on

test floor. The schematic and actual test set up are shown in Fig. 2. About 300 kN of axial

load was applied to the column through a hydraulic jack positioned between the column and

one of the reaction blocks. The axial load was kept constant during the test. The lateral load

was applied on the beam tip in displacement control according to the load history shown in

Fig. 3. Reversed cyclic load is applied in terms of drift ratio (%) of the component where the

drift is calculated as

Drift ratio (%) = 100

bl

l

Where l and bl are the applied displacement at the beam tip and the length of the beam

from column face to the application point of the displacement respectively.

of 18

The amplitudes of the peaks in the displacement history were multiples of the yield

displacement, whereas the yield displacement was defined as the tip displacement

corresponding to yielding of the beam top reinforcement at the column face. Three complete

cycles were performed at each displacement ductility level, if possible up to the maximum

travel of the actuator. The lateral displacement increments have been applied in a quasi-

static reverse cyclic manner. Although in the case of seismic action the loading rates are

higher than the rates corresponding to static conditions, it is advantageous since the quasi-

static cyclic testing allows a careful monitoring of the specimen behaviour during the test and

that strain-rate effects do not affect the material behaviour.

Results and discussion: During the test of the specimens, it was observed that the failure

of the GLD specimen (SP-1) is due to inadequacy of bond capacity of bottom main

reinforcement in beam as there is no such detailing against reverse loading (as shown in Fig.

4). When the structure is designed for earthquake loading but no such ductile detailing is

adopted (SP-3 and SP-4), the behaviour is much improved in comparison with SP-1, but

predominant shear failure of the joints and wedging out of concrete in joint has occurred (as

shown in Figs. 5-6). The failure pattern of both the specimens (based on Indian Standard and

Eurocode) is qualitatively the same. Cover cracking at the back of the column and loosening

of concrete integrity have been also noted under higher level of loading. Finally, the

specimens designed for earthquake load and detailed as per ductility requirement (SP-5 and

SP-6) showed a similar mode of failure as observed for SP-3 and SP-4, but with a spreading

of the wedge continuing in both top and bottom part of the column (shown in Figs. 7-8).

Though at initial stage of loading, bending cracks occurred in the beam and column outside

the joint, no such contribution in dissipating energy was noticed in further steps. Hence, the

major energy dissipation had taken place in the joint region only.

of 18

The most important parameter for seismic performance of structural D-regions can be

described by load-displacement hysteresis during the cyclic loading which can indicate the

ductility capacity and energy dissipation efficiency of the component. It is well proven that the

beam-column joint of reinforced concrete structures is the single crucial component in

dissipating seismic energy during earthquake. In view of this, load-displacement hysteresis

diagrams for each specimen (SP-1, SP-3, SP-4, SP-5 and SP-6) are presented in Fig. 9,

where these figures are drawn by obtaining the actuator data to get a fair qualitative

behaviour of the specimens. It shows the poor performance of the GLD structure and the

consequent improvement of the seismic performance as the design and detailing provisions

are upgraded. It is important to mention here that, though SP-3 and SP-4 show an improved

performance in comparison with SP-1, hysteresis behaviour has not been enhanced to the

desired extent due to its lacking in ductile detailing. This inadequacy is solved by the next

level of specimens, i.e. ductile detailed specimens (SP-5 and SP-6). Beside the qualitative

comparison, it is required to obtain the energy dissipation capacity of each of the joints which

would reflect the quantitative seismic performance. The cumulative energy dissipation

capacity with respect to the drift ratio of all the specimens considered in this study is

presented (as shown in Fig. 10) by considering the actual response from the LVDT placed

opposite to the actuator at the beam tip. The figure clearly depicts the improvement of the

specimens designed according to the upgradation of the standards. Among the seismically

analysed specimens without ductility detailing, though both the specimens (based on Indian

Standard and Eurocode) show a similar performance under low drift ratio, the specimen

designed according to Indian Standard (SP-3) exhibits better performance (with a 10% more

energy dissipation capacity) over the Eurocode (SP-4) with the increase in drift ratio. This is

due to higher percentage of reinforcement in both beam and column in specimen (SP-3). It is

further to note that the specimen (SP-6) has been designed according to Eurocode medium

ductile (DCM) design, hence performs not to that extent as that of the specimen designed

according to Indian Standard ductile design (25% less energy dissipation) which aims at full

ductility.

of 18

Conclusion: In the present study, two widely used structural design guidelines (Eurocode

and Indian Standard) have been considered to evaluate the seismic performance of the

structural D-region with three different stages of codal evolution (GLD; seismic design

without ductile detailing; and seismic design with ductile detailing). The central objective of

the study is to evaluate the performance of the existing structures designed according to the

prevailing guidelines and further to identify the implications of the differences in the

guidelines on the seismic performance. It is observed that both the GLD and seismic design

without ductile detailed specimens possess a low energy dissipation capacity in comparison

with the ductile one. The specimens of second level (seismically designed but without ductile

detailing), though provide almost same deformability, the specimen designed according to

Indian Standard (SP-3) exhibits better performance over the Eurocode (SP-4) under higher

drift ratio, due to higher percentage of reinforcement in both beam and column in specimen

(SP-3). Further, among the third level specimens (ductile detailed specimen), the one based

on Indian Standard (SP-5) shows superior performance over the Eurocode design. It is due

to the fact that a medium ductility specification from Eurocode is adopted in this study and

further an option for high ductility still remains in Eurocode. On the other hand, there is no

such provision in Indian code to choose level of ductility than to provide the full ductile

detailing. The present study emphasises the fact that the existing reinforced concrete

structures which were GLD or non-ductile, require immediate and adequate upgradation to

avoid any catastrophic failure. Further, the structures with proper ductile detailing though

show a noticeable improvement in seismic performance, it differs from one code to another

and the detailing provisions of either code lead to put question on their practicability which

can be solved by further research on smart detailing or by using new materials. For

example, first test has been performed using fiber reinforced concrete in the joint region

which showed a significant improvement of the joint itself. The details of this test, however,

are not included in this paper.

of 18

Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to Dr. N.Lakshmanan, Director, SERC, for his suggestions, constant encourangement and providing excellent facility for conducting the tests at SERC, Chennai, India. The support received from the management, scientists and staff of SERC is also duly acknowledged.

References:

1. Beaufait, F. and Williams, R. R., “Experimental Study of Reinforced Concrete Frames Subjected to Alternating Sway Forces”, ACI J. Proc., V. 65, No. 11, 1968, pp. 980-984

2. Durrani, A. J. and Wight, J. K., “Behavior of Interior Beam-to-Column Connections Under Earthquake-Type Loading”, ACI J. Proc., V. 82, No. 3, 1985, pp. 343-349

3. Ehsani, M. R. and Wight, J. K., “Exterior Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connections Subjected to Earthquake-Type Loading”, ACI J. Proc., V. 82, No. 4, 1985, pp. 492-499

4. ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Joints in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures”, American Concrete Institute, 1976

5. Ahmad, S. H. and Shah, S.P., “Behavior of Hoop Confined Concrete Under High Strain Rates”, ACI J. Proc., V. 82, No. 5, 1985, pp. 634-647

6. Aycardi, L.E., Mander, J. B. and Reinhorn, A. M. , “Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed Only for Gravity Loads: Experimental Performance of Subassemblages, ACI Structural J, V. 91, No. 5,1994, pp. 552-563

7. American Concrete Institute Committee ACI 318-89, “Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-89)”, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1989, 351 pp.

8. Bracci, J. M., Reinhorn, A. M. and Mander, J. B., “Seismic Resistance of Reinforced Concrete Frame Structures Designed for Gravity Loads: Performance of Structural System”, ACI Structural J., V. 92, No. 5, 1995, pp. 597-609

9. El-Attar, A. G., White, R. N. and Gergely, P., “Behaviour of Gravity Load Designed Reinforced Concrete Buildings Subjected to Earthquakes”, ACI Structural J., V. 94, No. 2, 1997, pp. 133-145

10. Hakuto, S., Park, R. and Tanaka, H., “Seismic Load Tests on Interior and Exterior Beam-Column Joints with Substandard Reinforcing Details”, ACI Structural J., V. 97, No. 1, 2000, pp. 11-25

11. NZS 3101, “The Design of Concrete Structures“,1995, Standards New Zealand, Wellington, 1995

12. Elwood, K. J. and Moehle, J. P., “Shake Table Tests on The Gravity Load Collapse of Reinforced Concrete Frames”, Seventh US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Boston, MA, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, July 2002

13. Dhakal, R.P., Pan, T.-C., Irawan, P., Tsai, K.-C., Lin, K.-C. and Chen, C.-H., “Experimental Study on the Dynamic Response of Gravity-Designed Reinforced Concrete Connections”, Engineering Structures, V. 27, No. 1, 2005, pp. 75-87

14. BS 8110, “Structural Use of Concrete- Code of Practice for Design and Construction”, London: British Standards Institution; 1985

of 18

15. American Concrete Institute Committee ACI318-02“Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete (ACI 318-02)”, ACI 318-95, 99, 02, Detroit, Michigan, 1995, 1999, 2002

16. Han, S. W. and Jee, N.Y., “Seismic Behaviours of Columns in Ordinary and Intermediate Moment Resisting Concrete Frames”, Engineering Structures, V. 27, No. 6, 2005, pp. 951–962

17. Tsonos, A.G., “Cyclic Load Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Subassemblages of Modern Structures”, ACI Structural J., V. 104, No. 4, 2007, pp. 468-478

18. CEN Technical Committee 250, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures-Part:1-1: General rules and rules for buildings” (EN 1992-1-1:2004), CEN, Berlin, Germany, 2005, 248 pp.

19. CEN Technical Committee 250/SC8, “Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part: 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings (ENV 1998-1:2004),” CEN, Berlin, Germany, 2006, 192 pp.

20. Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, “Recommendations for Design of Beam-Column Connections in Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Structures (ACI 352R-02),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2002, 37 pp.

21. ERC-1995, “New Greek Earthquake Resistant Code,” Athens, Greece, 1995, 145 pp. (in Greek)

22. Indian Standard (IS-456-2000), “Plain and Reinforced Concrete - Code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000

23. Indian Standard (IS-13920-1993), “Ductile Detailing of Reinforced Concrete Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces — Code of Practice”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2002

of 18

Table 1: Specimens details

Specimens Code of practice Reinforcement details

Beam main Column main

Beam stirrup

Column stirrup

Specimen-1 (SP-1)

GLD IS 456-2000 (2+2

*)-16 top

(2+1*)-16 bot

(* =extra reinf)

4-25 2L

-8 @130 c/c

2L

-8@300 c/c

Specimen-3 (SP-3)

GLD+Seismic Load IS 456-2000 4-25 top

4-16+1-25 bot

12-25 2L

-8 @110 c/c

2L

-8@140 c/c

Specimen-4 (SP-4)

GLD+Seismic Load EC 2: 1-1:2004, EN 1990:2002 EC 8 (EN 1998-1:2004)

3-16+2-25 top

5-16 bot

8-25 2L

-8 @120 c/c

2L

-8@130 c/c

Specimen-5 (SP-5)

GLD+Seismic Load+ductile detailing

IS 456-2000, IS 13920-1998

4-25 top

4-16+1-25 bot

12-25 2L

-10 @100 /120 c/c

2L

-10@75/150 c/c

Specimen-6 (SP-6)

GLD+Seismic Load+ductile detailing (medium)

EC 2: 1-1:2004, EN 1990:2002 EC 8 (EN 1998-1:2004)

5-20 top

3-20 bot

8-25 2L

-10 @100/150 c/c

2L

-

10@120/200 c/c

of 18

Figures:

Fig.1 General arrangement of the building frame considered for the study

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2 (a) Schematic diagram of the test set up placed on test floor, (b) actual set up [at

SERC, Chennai]

6m 6m 6m

3.5m

3.5m

3.5m Sub-assembly considered

of 18

-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10123456789

10

Time% D

rift

Fig.3 Typical cyclic load history adopted in experiments

Fig. 4 Failure pattern of Specimen 1 (SP-1) Fig. 5 Failure pattern of Specimen 3 (SP-3)

Fig. 6 Failure pattern of Specimen 4 (SP-4) Fig. 7 Failure pattern of Specimen 5 (SP-5)

of 18

Fig. 8 Failure pattern of Specimen 6 (SP-6)

Load-Displacement for SP-1

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

-60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Displacement (mm)

Lo

ad

(kN

)


-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Displacement (mm)

Lo

ad

(kN

)

of 18


-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Displacement (mm)

Lo

ad

(kN

)


-200

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Displacement (mm)

Lo

ad

(kN

)


-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150

Displacement (mm)

Lo

ad

(kN

)

Fig. 9 Load displacement hysteresis of the specimens (SP-1, SP-3, SP-4, SP-5 and SP-

6 respectively)

of 18

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Input drift ratio (%)

Cu

mu

lati

ve e

nerg

y d

issip

ati

on

(kN

m)

SP-1 SP-3 SP-4 SP-5 SP-6

Fig. 10 Cumulative energy dissipation capabilities of the specimens

Seismic Performance of Structural D-region of Existing RC ... · the reinforced concrete structure....

Documents

Transcript of Seismic Performance of Structural D-region of Existing RC ... · the reinforced concrete structure....