Control of Structural Seismic Damage in Prefabricated Reinforced Concrete Frames through Hybrid-Selfcentering Connections
Journal: Journal of Building Technology DOI: 10.32629/jbt.v6i2.2300
Abstract
Current seismic design philosophy of industrial structures in Chile aims at the protection of life and continuity of operation in the industry. The compliance with these requirements allows controlling structural damage based on resistance criteria, without detecting the failure mode or specifying its location in the event of a major seismic event. In this paper, we discuss the application of an innovative technique for controlling the structural damage in prefabricated reinforced concrete frames, which are founded on granular soils. This technique is applied in the construction of the Forest and Paper Pulp Plant Concepción. This is done by incorporating hybrid post-tensioned joints in precast columns of the project, and this approach aims to control energy dissipation in the union and maintain the initial stiffness of the system. Using a nonlinear dynamic analysis with 2D Ruaumoko software, potential performance in traditional design versus innovative design is compared. The analysis is performed for various Chilean representative seismic records and different types of soils. The results indicate that the structure with the traditional design could suffer displacement in the roof of the order of 40 cm, moving heavily into the inelastic range, with residual deformations and concentrating the damage generation of plastic hinges at the ends of the columns and some beams not designed for ductility. In contrast, the use of self-centering hybrid joints causes the structure to recover its original position, without the presence of remnant deformations.
Keywords
precast concrete; hybrid post-tensioned joints; seismic damage
Full Text
PDF - Viewed/Downloaded: 3 TimesReferences
[1] ACI T1.2-03. 2003. Special hybrid moment frames composed of discretely jointed precast and post-tensioned concrete members. American Concrete Institute and Innovation Task Group 1 and Collaborators, Farmington Hills, MI.
[2] Arslan, M.H., Korkmaz, H.H. and Gulay, F.G. 2006. Damage and failure pattern of prefabricated structures after major earthquakes in Turkey and shortfalls of the Turkish Earthquake code. Engineering Failure Analysis, 13(4), 537-557.
[3] Boroschek, R., Soto, P. y Leon, R. 2010. Registros del terremoto del Maule Mw = 8.8, 27 de febrero de 2010. Red Nacional de Acelerógrafos, Universidad de Chile, Informe RENADIC 10(05).
[4] Buchanan, A.H., Bull, D., Dhakal, R.P., MacRae, G., Palermo, A. and Pampanin, S. 2011. Base isolation and damage-resistant technologies for improved seismic performance of buildings. Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes. University of Canterbury.
[5] Carr, A.J. 2004. Ruaumoko 2D-Inelastic dynamic analysis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
[6] Celik, O. and Sritharan S. 2004. An evaluation of seismic design guidelines proposed for precast concrete hybrid frame systems. Iowa State University.
[7] Clough, R.W. 1966. Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements. Internal Report, University of California, Berkeley.
[8] Kam, W.Y., Pampanin, S., Dhakal, R.P., Gavin, H., and Roeder, C.W. 2010. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the September 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquakes. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, 43(4), 340-350.
[9] Kam, W.Y., Pampanin, S. and Elwood, K. 2011. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the 22 February Christchurch (Lyttleton) earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, 44(4), 239-279.
[10] Pampanin, S. 2005. Emerging solutions for high seismic performance of precast/prestressed concrete buildings. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 3(2), 207-223.
[11] Posada, M. and Wood, S. 2002. Seismic performance of precast industrial buildings in Turkey. In 7th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (7NCEE).
[12] Priestley, M.J.N. 1991. Overview of the PRESSS research programme. PCI Journal, 36(4), 50-57.
[13] Priestley, M.N. 1996. The PRESSS program: current status and proposed plans for phase III. PCI Journal, 41(2), 22-40.
[14] Priestley, M.J.N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J.R. and Pampanin, S. 1999. Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-story precast concrete test building. PCI Journal, 44(6), 42-67.
[15] Saatcioglu, M., Mitchell, D., Tinawi, R., Gardner, N. J., Gillies, A. G., Ghobarah, A. and Lau, D. 2001. The August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake damage to structures. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 28(4), 715-737.
[16] Sezen, H. and Whittaker, A.S. 2006. Seismic performance of industrial facilities affected by the 1999 Turkey earthquake. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(1), 28-36.
[17] Sharpe, R. 1974. The seismic response of inelastic structures. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
[18] Stanton, J., Stone, W.C. and Cheok, G.S. 1997. A hybrid reinforced precast frame for seismic regions. PCI Journal, 42(2), 20-32.
[19] Thiers, R. 2014. Daños en edificios de hormigón armado y su relación con el suelo - Terremoto de Chile 2010. Tesis de Magister, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa Maria.
[20] Zhao, B., Taucer, F. and Rossetto, T. 2009. Field investigation on the performance of building structures during the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Engineering Structures, 31(8), 1707-1723.
[2] Arslan, M.H., Korkmaz, H.H. and Gulay, F.G. 2006. Damage and failure pattern of prefabricated structures after major earthquakes in Turkey and shortfalls of the Turkish Earthquake code. Engineering Failure Analysis, 13(4), 537-557.
[3] Boroschek, R., Soto, P. y Leon, R. 2010. Registros del terremoto del Maule Mw = 8.8, 27 de febrero de 2010. Red Nacional de Acelerógrafos, Universidad de Chile, Informe RENADIC 10(05).
[4] Buchanan, A.H., Bull, D., Dhakal, R.P., MacRae, G., Palermo, A. and Pampanin, S. 2011. Base isolation and damage-resistant technologies for improved seismic performance of buildings. Royal Commission of Inquiry into Building Failure Caused by the Canterbury Earthquakes. University of Canterbury.
[5] Carr, A.J. 2004. Ruaumoko 2D-Inelastic dynamic analysis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch.
[6] Celik, O. and Sritharan S. 2004. An evaluation of seismic design guidelines proposed for precast concrete hybrid frame systems. Iowa State University.
[7] Clough, R.W. 1966. Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirements. Internal Report, University of California, Berkeley.
[8] Kam, W.Y., Pampanin, S., Dhakal, R.P., Gavin, H., and Roeder, C.W. 2010. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the September 2010 Darfield (Canterbury) earthquakes. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, 43(4), 340-350.
[9] Kam, W.Y., Pampanin, S. and Elwood, K. 2011. Seismic performance of reinforced concrete buildings in the 22 February Christchurch (Lyttleton) earthquake. Bulletin of the New Zealand Society of Earthquake Engineering, 44(4), 239-279.
[10] Pampanin, S. 2005. Emerging solutions for high seismic performance of precast/prestressed concrete buildings. Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology, 3(2), 207-223.
[11] Posada, M. and Wood, S. 2002. Seismic performance of precast industrial buildings in Turkey. In 7th US National Conference on Earthquake Engineering (7NCEE).
[12] Priestley, M.J.N. 1991. Overview of the PRESSS research programme. PCI Journal, 36(4), 50-57.
[13] Priestley, M.N. 1996. The PRESSS program: current status and proposed plans for phase III. PCI Journal, 41(2), 22-40.
[14] Priestley, M.J.N., Sritharan, S., Conley, J.R. and Pampanin, S. 1999. Preliminary results and conclusions from the PRESSS five-story precast concrete test building. PCI Journal, 44(6), 42-67.
[15] Saatcioglu, M., Mitchell, D., Tinawi, R., Gardner, N. J., Gillies, A. G., Ghobarah, A. and Lau, D. 2001. The August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake damage to structures. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 28(4), 715-737.
[16] Sezen, H. and Whittaker, A.S. 2006. Seismic performance of industrial facilities affected by the 1999 Turkey earthquake. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 20(1), 28-36.
[17] Sharpe, R. 1974. The seismic response of inelastic structures. PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury.
[18] Stanton, J., Stone, W.C. and Cheok, G.S. 1997. A hybrid reinforced precast frame for seismic regions. PCI Journal, 42(2), 20-32.
[19] Thiers, R. 2014. Daños en edificios de hormigón armado y su relación con el suelo - Terremoto de Chile 2010. Tesis de Magister, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa Maria.
[20] Zhao, B., Taucer, F. and Rossetto, T. 2009. Field investigation on the performance of building structures during the 12 May 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China. Engineering Structures, 31(8), 1707-1723.
Copyright © 2024 Juan Marcus, Rodrigo Thiers
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License