2015
DOI: 10.1007/s11709-015-0294-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cyclic behavior of prefabricated reinforced concrete frame with infill slit shear walls

Abstract: A composite structural system consisting of prefabricated reinforced concrete frame with infill slit shear walls (PRCFW), with good ductility, is a new type of earthquake resistant structure. Pseudo-static tests were performed to evaluate the seismic behavior of the PRCFW system. Two one-bay, two-story PRCFW specimens were both built at onehalf scale. Additional computational research is also conducted to enhance the nonlinear analytical capabilities for this system. Combined with the concrete damaged plastic … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 4 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because of the high computational cost of nonlinear analysis of RC structures, especially for fine mesh sizes between 25 mm and 12.5 mm [32][33][34], many researchers [35][36][37][38][39][40] successfully obtain the detailed behaviors of different structural elements tested under cyclic loading (i.e., load-displacement backbone curves, cracking patterns, yielding in reinforcement bars) by adopting monotonic loads through the CDP model. On the other side, several researchers [41][42][43][44][45][46] failed to obtain the cyclic characteristics of different structural responses for elements modeled via CDP even at a 30 mm mesh element size [47]. As a result, monotonic loading is typically preferred over cyclic loading when using the CDP model due to the absence of shear retention, which can lead to improper capture of the pinching behavior during load cycles in shear-dominated scenarios [48].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Because of the high computational cost of nonlinear analysis of RC structures, especially for fine mesh sizes between 25 mm and 12.5 mm [32][33][34], many researchers [35][36][37][38][39][40] successfully obtain the detailed behaviors of different structural elements tested under cyclic loading (i.e., load-displacement backbone curves, cracking patterns, yielding in reinforcement bars) by adopting monotonic loads through the CDP model. On the other side, several researchers [41][42][43][44][45][46] failed to obtain the cyclic characteristics of different structural responses for elements modeled via CDP even at a 30 mm mesh element size [47]. As a result, monotonic loading is typically preferred over cyclic loading when using the CDP model due to the absence of shear retention, which can lead to improper capture of the pinching behavior during load cycles in shear-dominated scenarios [48].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%