Seismic performance of reinforced concrete frame with lead viscoelastic damper under mainshock-aftershock sequences

Seismic behavior of novel low‐damage precast infill walls with sliding joints for reinforced concrete frame

“…Similarly, wooden planks with or without shear key, 31,32 multiple slit devices, 33 friction‐based devices, 34 steel tee energy absorbers, 35 steel cushions, 36 and mobile guide rail 37 are some optional choices to form the sliding joints for the vertical subpanels. Although the partitioned infills with sliding joints confirm low damage characteristics compared with traditional infills, the unexpected corner crushing or cracks of the infills once the drift ratio is higher than 3.0% still can be observed in literature at present, 38–40 which may inevitably lead to high repair cost after the earthquakes 41–43 …”

“…Although the partitioned infills with sliding joints confirm low damage characteristics compared with traditional infills, the unexpected corner crushing or cracks of the infills once the drift ratio is higher than 3.0% still can be observed in literature at present, [38][39][40] which may inevitably lead to high repair cost after the earthquakes. [41][42][43] To predict the seismic performance of the infills and quantify the resistance, a proper numerical model should balance the accuracy level and computational effort. [44][45][46] Although the micro model could theoretically provide an accurate description of the infill-frame interaction at the local level, this approach requires a large amount of information for the constitutive models about the materials and their interfaces.…”

Design, manufacturing, and testing of a hybrid self‐centering brace for seismic resilience of buildings

“…[33][34][35][36][37] Previous experimental studies 49,50 reveal that the training of SMA material has a considerable effect on the cyclic stability of the mechanical response. On the other hand, rubble-like viscoelastic materials also show mechanical degradation after experiencing large strains, [51][52][53] that is, the Mullins effect. In order to investigate the effect of training on the cyclic stability of the HSB, the HSB-II specimen is first cyclically loaded at a loading frequency of 0.1 Hz at 30 mm for thirty cycles.…”

“…59 These records are selected from PEER NGA database with sufficient consideration of uncertainty associated with earthquake record variability. This set of far-field ground motion records has been widely used in other studies 31,51,60 for seismic performance evaluation of building structures, more details can be found in FEMA P695. 59 The records are scaled to two hazard levels, design basis earthquake (DBE) level and maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level, to explore the seismic response of the frames with different bracing systems in this study.…”

Experimental and analytical studies of infill wall with sliding joints considering a door opening

“…62 While these solutions indeed offer wall panels with commendable ductility and mitigate damage compared to conventional infill walls with door openings, they still exhibit undesirable corner crushing and crack development in the infill walls surrounding the door openings once the inter-story drift ratio higher than 3.0%. [63][64][65] Consequently, supplementary fixtures are often deemed necessary to safeguard both the infill wall and door opening. [66][67][68] The principal reason is that the introduction of door openings disrupts the working mechanism and force transmission mechanism of these infill systems.…”