journal article·2014-09

Pseudo-Dynamic Testing, Performance Assessment, and Modeling of Deficient Reinforced Concrete Frames

Haluk Sucuoğlu, Wesley Wei-Chih Lin, Barış Binici, Pourang Ezzatfar

ACI Structural Journal· Volume 111· Issue 5
Publisher page

Abstract

A pair of half-scale, three-story, three-bay concrete bare frames were tested by the pseudo-dynamic (PsD) testing procedure. Both frames represent common deficiencies. of non-seismic construction. Continuous column reinforcement in one specimen and insufficient lap splices at the bottom ends of columns in the other specimen were the only significant differences. Measured seismic performances of both frames were assessed by using the rotation and strain-based acceptance criteria of two different seismic codes. Dynamic responses of both frames were also predicted by employing nonlinear frame models. Analytical models of deficient frames were capable of predicting global deformation response, but failed to predict local deformations. Prediction of local deformations in deficient frames can only be improved if joint deformations and hysteretic degradation in member properties are considered directly in the analytical models.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Structural Health Monitoring Techniques · Structural Behavior of Reinforced Concrete · Concrete Corrosion and Durability

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (17)

Show source-provided references
1. Retrofit of Concrete Columns with Inadequate Lap Splices by the Use of Rectangular Steel Jackets10.1193/1.1585906 ↗
2. Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Building Columns10.1193/1.1585907 ↗
3. Cyclic Behavior of Columns with Short Lap Splices
4. Eshghi, S., and Zanjanizadeh, V., “Cyclic Behavior of Slender R/C Columns with Insufficient Lap Splice Length,”14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Beijing, China, Oct. 12-17, 2008.
5. Contribution of Reinforced Concrete Infills to Seismic Behavior of Structural Systems
6. ASCE/SEI 41, “Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings,” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2007.
7. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, “European Standard EN 1998-3 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance – Part 3: Assessment and Retrofitting of Buildings,” Brussels, 2005.
8. Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, “Turkish Earthquake Code: Specifications for Buildings Constructed in Disaster Areas,” Ankara, Turkey, 2007.
9. The Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA), “Standard for Seismic Evaluation of Existing Reinforced Concrete Buildings,” Tokyo, Japan, 2001.
10. New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering (NZSEE), “Assessment and Improvement of the Structural Performance of Buildings in Earthquakes,” Wellington, New Zealand, 2003.
11. Takanashi, K.; Udagawa, K.; Seki, M.; Okada, T.; and Tanaka, H., “Nonlinear Earthquake Response Analysis of Structures by a Computer-Actuator On-Line System,”Bulletin of Earthquake Resistant Structure Research Center 8, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, Japan, 1975.
12. Molina, F. J.; Pegon, P.; and Verzeletti, G., “Time-Domain Identification from Seismic Pseudo-Dynamic Test Results on Civil Engineering Specimens,”2nd International Conference on Identification in Engineering Systems, Cromwell Press, Wiltshire, UK, 1999.
13. Performance of Flexure Controlled Concrete Columns under Severe Displacement Cycles
14. Update to ASCE/SEI 41 Concrete Provisions10.1193/1.2757714 ↗
15. OpenSees, “Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation,” 2011. Available from: http://opensees.berkeley.edu.
16. Flexural Members with Confined Concrete10.1061/JSDEAG.0002957 ↗
17. Behavior of Concrete under Compressive Loading10.1061/JSDEAG.0002424 ↗