Seismic Performance of a Deficient Reinforced Concrete Test Frame with Infill Walls

Abstract

A two-story, three-bay RC frame with code incompliant seismic design and detailing is tested using continuous pseudodynamic test method for three scale levels of Düzce ground motion. The ground motion produced minimum, significant, and severe damage states on the test structure. Diagonal cracking of the infill wall, column damage in the form of cover spalling and rebar buckling, and complete disintegration of the infill wall were the important observed damage events for the three scale levels, respectively. Nonlinear time history analyses were able to estimate the story displacement response with reasonable accuracy. The importance of element removal for near collapse damage state is unfolded. Tracing the local engineering demand parameters such as strains and curvature was found to be extremely difficult.

Pseudo‐dynamic testing of a concrete gravity dam

“…Equation 4 can be solved for k and c using the data obtained at N time intervals as long as N > 2 × ndof + 1. In addition, the secant stiffness matrix was utilized for the calculation of the fundamental periods in accordance with Kurt et al [34], who showed the change in the fundamental period calculated using the secant stiffness had better correlations with the observed damage. Following Maia and Silva [33], one can then extract the frequency and damping coefficient from: In Equation 6, w 1 is the natural frequency, and ζ 1 is the equivalent viscous damping ratio (or simply damping ratio) at the first mode.…”

Investigation of the relationship of seismic intensity measures and the accumulation of damage on concrete gravity dams using incremental dynamic analysis

“…As such, the use of displacement or drift ratio as an indicator for the damage level/state, i.e. as a damage measure, is an attractive preposition based on the studies on buildings . In lieu of the IDA, static pushover analyses are commonly used in order to determine the displacement limits for which the performance levels are attached.…”

Pseudo dynamic test of a deficient reinforced concrete frame upgraded with internal steel frames

“…The test frames were one‐half scaled versions of a typical frame in the prototype RC frame building as explained in a similar experimental program . Both the reference frame with infill walls and the ISF strengthened frame described for the first time in this study had the same RC frame details .…”

“…The test frames were one‐half scaled versions of a typical frame in the prototype RC frame building as explained in a similar experimental program . Both the reference frame with infill walls and the ISF strengthened frame described for the first time in this study had the same RC frame details . Gravity loads produced about 13% and 23% column axial load ratios (ratio between applied load and column axial load capacity) at the first story exterior and interior columns, respectively.…”