Journals / ARI The Bulletin of the Istanbul Technical University / 2003 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 2

Performance based seismic evaluation of shear-wall dominant building structures

Pages
65–72
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This study shows that 3D effects have great significance to predict the actual capacity, failure mechanisms, and to evaluate the seismic performance. 3D nonlinear analysis provides higher and more accurate capacity evaluations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The occurrences of the 1999 (Mw 7.4) Kocaeli and (Mw 7.1) Düzce earthquakes in Turkey once again demon-strate the behavioral importance of reinforced concrete (RC) shear-wall dominant structures that commonly built by using tunnel form technique.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Reported non-damaged condition of these buildings in the aftermath of these two destructive urban earthquakes drew our attention to focus on performance of shear-wall dominant systems under earthquake forces.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This study shows that 3D effects have great significance to predict the actual capacity, failure mechanisms, and to evaluate the seismic performance. 3D nonlinear analysis provides higher and more accurate capacity evaluations.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The occurrences of the 1999 (Mw 7.4) Kocaeli and (Mw 7.1) Düzce earthquakes in Turkey once again demon-strate the behavioral importance of reinforced concrete (RC) shear-wall dominant structures that commonly built by using tunnel form technique. Reported non-damaged condition of these buildings in the aftermath of these two destructive urban earthquakes drew our attention to focus on performance of shear-wall dominant systems under earthquake forces. For that purpose, seismic behavior of these structures is investigated in details by performing inelastic three and two dimensional pushover analyses on a representative 5-story RC building model. The importance of 3D action in the structure'behavior because of slab-wall interaction, efficiency of transverse walls, effect of 2D and 3D modeling on the evaluation of capacity and demand relations, as well as damping effects are discussed. The 5-story building was modeled in a finite element domain considering material nonlinearity of steel and concrete including rotating and opening/closing crack capabilities. Performance of the model is determined by Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM). This study shows that 3D effects have great significance to predict the actual capacity, failure mechanisms, and to evaluate the seismic performance. 3D nonlinear analysis provides higher and more accurate capacity evaluations.

🔖

Cite This Article

BALKAYA, C. (2022). Performance based seismic evaluation of shear-wall dominant building structures. ARI The Bulletin of the Istanbul Technical University, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 2, 65–72. https://ajindex.com/articles/448168

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (24)

  1. C. Balkaya and E. Kalkan, Computers & Structures, 81, 153 (2003)
  2. ACI 318, Building code requirements for reinforced concrete and commentary (ACL Detroit, Michigan, 1989)
  3. C. Balkaya and W. C. Schnobrich, Struct. Eng. and Mech., 1, 1 (1993)
  4. POLO-FINITE, Structural mechanics system for linear and nonlinear, static and dynamic analysis (Dept. of Civil Eng., UIUC)
  5. K.H. Gerstle, IABSE Colloquium DELF, 33, 41 (1981
  6. F.J. Vecchio and M.P. Collins, ACL Struct. J. Proc, 83, 219 (1986)
  7. H. Okamura and K. Maekawa, Proc. of SCIC, Computer Aided Analysis and Design of Reinforced Concrete Structures, 831 (Pineridge Press, 1990
  8. A.K Gupta and H. Akbar, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE., 110, 1735 (1984
  9. R.V. Milford and W.C. Schnobrich, Computers & Structures, 20, 225 (1985
  10. S. Gallegos-Cezares and W.C. Schnobrich, Struct. Research Series. Report No. 543, UIUC (1988
  11. ATC-40, Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings (Applied Technology Council, Redwood, CA, 1996)
  12. C. Balkaya and E. Kalkan, Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dyn., 32, 985 (2003
  13. C. Balkaya, and E. Kalkan, Engineering Structures (2003), (in review)
  14. Specifications for structures to be built in disaster areas (Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara, Turkey, 1998)
  15. UBC, Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, CA. (1997)
  16. FEMA 273 and 274 (FEMA, Washington, D.C., 1997)
  17. ATC-19, Structural response modification factors (Applied Technology Council, Redwood, CA., 1995)
  18. ATC-34, A critical review of current approaches to earthquake resistant design (Applied Technology Council, Redwood, CA., 1995
  19. A. Whittaker, G. Hart, and C. Rojahn, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, 125, 438 (1999)
  20. CM. Uang, Earthquake Eng. and Struct. Dyn., 23, 507 (1994)
  21. H. Hwang and M. Shinozuka, Proceedings of 5th U.S. National Conf. on Earthquake Engrg., Earthquake Engineering Research Ins., Oakland, CA, 223 (1994)
  22. A.S. Elnashai and A.M. Mwafy, The Structural Design of Tall Buildings, 11, 329 (2002)
  23. CEN (Comite European de Normalisation), Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures, 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3, Eurocode 8, European pre-standard ENV 1998-1-1, 1-2 and 1-3. CEN (Bruxelles, 1994)
  24. M. Celebi, M. Erdik, and O. Yuzugullu, METUEERI Report No: 77-6 (Middle East Technical University, Ankara, 1977).