The Effects of System Change on Buildings Equipped with Structural Systems with the Sandwich Composite Wall with J-Hook Connectors and Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls
Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 32920
The Effects of System Change on Buildings Equipped with Structural Systems with the Sandwich Composite Wall with J-Hook Connectors and Reinforced Concrete Shear Walls

Authors: Majid Saaly, Shahriar Tavousi Tafreshi, Mehdi Nazari Afshar

Abstract:

The sandwich composite walls (SCSSC) have more ductility and energy dissipation than conventional reinforced concrete shear walls. SCSSCs have acceptable compressive, shear, in-plane bending, and out-of-plane bending capacities. The use of sandwich-composite walls with J-hook connectors has a significant effect on energy dissipation and reduction of dynamic responses of mid-rise and high-rise structural models. In this paper, incremental dynamic analyses for 10- and 15-story steel structures were performed under seven far-faults by OpenSees. The demand values of 10- and 15-story models are reduced by up to 32% and 45%, respectively, while the structural system change from shear walls (SW) to SCSSC.

Keywords: Sandwich composite wall, SCSSC, fling step, fragility curve, IDA, inter story drift ratio.

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 238

References:


[1] Yan JB, Wang T., Li ZL., “Seismic behaviours of SCS sandwich shear walls using J-hook connectors,” Thin-Walled Structures, 2019, 144: 106308.
[2] Liew JYR, Sohel KMA., “Lightweight steel–concrete–steel sandwich system with J-hook connectors,” Eng. Struct, 2009, 31(5): 1166–1178.
[3] Yan JB, Liew JYR., “Experimental and analytical study on ultimate strength behaviour of steel-concrete-steel sandwich composite beam structures,” Mater. Struct, 2015, 48(5): 1523–1544.
[4] Wibowo A, Wilson JL, Lam N, Gad E. “Drift performance of lightly reinforced concrete columns. Engineering Structures,” 2014;59:522-35.
[5] OpenSees. “Open System for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. University of California,” Berkeley, California: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2020.
[6] Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. “Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multidegree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation,” Journal of Structural Engineering. 2005;131(4):589-99.
[7] Bolt BA., “Seismic input motions for nonlinear structural analysis,” ISET journal of earthquake technology, 2004, 41(2):223-32.
[8] Chopra AK, Chintanapakdee C., “Comparing response of SDF systems to near‐fault and far‐fault earthquake motions in the context of spectral regions,” Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics., 2001, 30(12):1769-89.
[9] Kalkan E, Kunnath SK., “Effects of fling step and forward directivity on seismic response of buildings.” Earthquake spectra. 2006;22(2):367-90.
[10] Peer. Peer Ground Motion Database: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2015, Available from: http://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/spectras/8475/searches/4547/edit.
[11] BHRC. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings: Standard no. 2800 (Fourth Revision) Iran Building and Housing Research Center; 2014.
[12] MHUD. Iranian National Building Code for Structural Loadings (part 6), Third Revision, Tehran (Iran). Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. 2013.
[13] MHUD. Iranian National Building Code (part 9): concrete structures design, Tehran (Iran). Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. 2009.
[14] FEMA. Quantification of building seismic performance factors (FEMA P-695). Washington D.C.: Prepared by Applied Technology Council for the Federal Emergency Management Agency; 2009.
[15] Hazus-MH MR-5, Multi Hazad loss Estimation Methodology: Earthquake Model. FEMA. Washington, D.C.: Department of Homeland security; 2003.