Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 1575–1602 | Cite as

Improving seismic behaviour of core walls of dual structural systems using multi-plastic hinges

  • Mohammad KhanmohammadiEmail author
  • Nima Samadzadegan
Original Research
  • 81 Downloads

Abstract

This paper studies the implication of the development of shear wall plastic hinges in high-rise dual systems. Multi-plastic hinge approach is intended to reduce the effects of higher modes of vibration in tall structural walls under earthquakes. This research investigated analytically the seismic response of three code conforming designed buildings with 16, 27 and 45 stories. These buildings which consist of a core wall/special moment frame dual system are modeled with four different approaches with single, dual, three and four plastic hinges, and some main structural responses including moment and shear distribution and values, drift ratio distribution and values, floor accelerations, contribution of frame in dual system and finally energy dissipation among plastic hinges are assessed. Findings of this research show that the application of multi-plastic hinge approach in wall design can properly affect seismic behavior of core walls and leads to improvement of system seismic capacity and economy of design. The investigation also shows that the application of multi-plastic hinge design concept can cause better use of frame nonlinear deformation capacity which would help better control of effects of higher modes. Based on analyses results, more frame contribution and improvement of wall behavior is observable in models with three and four plastic hinged walls in comparison with single plastic hinge model designed based on ACI 318-14 provisions.

Keywords

Reinforced concrete shear walls High-rise buildings Multi-plastic hinge approach Dual structural system Higher modes effects 

References

  1. ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2014) Building code requirements for structural concrete and commentary. ACI 318-14, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  2. ASCE/Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7, RestonGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE/Structural Engineering Institute (SEI) (2013) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings. ASCE/SEI 41, RestonGoogle Scholar
  4. CEN (European Committee for Standardization) (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance. EC8, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  5. CSA (Canadian Standard Association) (2004) Design of concrete structures. CSA A23.3-04, MississaugaGoogle Scholar
  6. FEMA (2009) Quantification of building seismic performance factors. FEMA P695, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Lange S, Deierlein GG (2007) Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings. PEER Rep. 2007/12, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(12):1489–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mander JB, Priestley MJN, Park R (1988) Theoretical stress–strain model for confined concrete. J Struct Eng ASCE 114(8):1804–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Center, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  11. Menegotto M, Pinto P (1973) Method of analysis for cyclically loaded RC plane frames including changes in geometry and non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and bending. Symposium on resistance and ultimate deformability of structure Acted on by Well-Defined Repeated Loads, IABSE Reports, vol 13Google Scholar
  12. Mezzi M, Comodini F (2010) Critical aspects in designing earthquake-resistant dual system. IABSE Rep 97:1–8, ISSN: 2221-3783Google Scholar
  13. Moehle J (2015) Seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Panagiotou M, Restrepo JI (2009) Dual-plastic hinge design concept for reducing higher-mode effects on high-rise cantilever wall buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38:1359–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research) Center (2010a) Modeling and acceptance criteria for seismic design and analysis of tall buildings. Rep. No. 2010/11, College of Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  17. PEER (Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research) Center (2010b) Tall buildings initiative: guidelines for performance-based seismic design of tall buildings. Rep. No. 2010/05, College of Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  18. Rodriguez ME, Restrepo JI, Carr AJ (2002) Earthquake-induced floor horizontal accelerations in buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:693–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tjhin TN, Aschheim MA, Wallace JW (2007) Yield displacement-based seismic design of RC wall buildings. Eng Struct 29:2946–2959CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yang T, Bozorgnia Y, Moehle J (2008) The tall buildings initiative. In: Proceedings of the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  21. SNZ Standards New Zealand (2006) Concrete structures standard, Part 1: the design of concrete structures. NZS 3101: Part 1, WellingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Civil Engineering, College of EngineeringUniversity of TehranTehranIran

Personalised recommendations