Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparative Seismic Performance Between Precast Hollow Core Walls and Conventional Walls Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis

  • Research Article - Civil Engineering
  • Published:
Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A seismic performance comparison is made for warehouse buildings constructed using (a) rocking precast hollow core wall with (b) fixed-base monolithic conventional walls. Incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) is used as a basis for a comparative performance-based earthquake engineering assessment. The initial step is to model each wall type using nonlinear dynamic analysis subjected to 20 selected earthquakes records. Wall performance is analysed from low to high ground motions until collapse. Responses in terms of wall displacements (drifts) are examined statistically and IDA curves are parameterized into various percentile bands. Once damage limit states are assigned and coupled with hazard-recurrence risk relations the results are integrated to indicate probable losses. This vulnerability assessment reveals that precast hollow core walls using damage avoidance design philosophy perform considerably better than fixed-based conventional wall panels designed for ductile performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A.: Direct estimation of seismic demand and capacity of multidegree-of-freedom system through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 131(4), 122–134 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cornell, C.A., Luco, N.: The effects of connection fractures on steel moment resisting frame seismic demands and safety: a report on SAC Phase II Task 5.,4.6. Rep. No. SAC-BD/99-03. SAC Joint Venture, Sacramento, California (1999)

  3. Cornell C.A., Jalayer F., Hamburger R.O., Foutch D.A.: Probabilistic Basis for 2000 SAC Federal Emergency Management Agency Steel Moment Frame Guidelines. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 128(4), 526–531 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Luco N., Cornell C.A.: Effects of connection fractures on SMRF seismic drift demands. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 126(1), 127–136 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee K., Foutch D.A.: Performance evaluation of new steel frame buildings for seismic loads. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31(4), 653–670 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A.: Applied incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq. Spectra 20(2), 324–335 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Vamvatsikos D., Cornell C.A.: Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 31, 491–514 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Shome, N., Cornell, C.A.: Probabilistic Seismic Demand Analysis of nonlinear structures, Report No. 5, RMS-35, RMS Program, Stanford University, Stanford (1999). http://pitch.stanford.edu/rmsweb/Thesis/NileshShome.pdf

  9. NZS 1170.5. New Zealand Standard Code of Practice for Structural Design Actions, Part 5: Earthquake Actions, New Zealand. Wellington, New Zealand (2004)

  10. Ramberg, W., Osgood, W.R.: Description of stress-strain curves by three parameters. Technical Note 902, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (1943)

  11. Giovenale P., Cornell C.A., Esteva L.: Comparing the adequacy of alternative ground motion intensity measures for the estimation of structural responses. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 33(5), 951–979 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mander, J.B., Cheng, C.-T.: Seismic Resistance of Bridge Piers Based on Damage Avoidance Design. Technical Report NCEER-97-0014. Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, State University of New York at Buffalo, New York (1997)

  13. Holden T.J., Restrepo J., Mander J.B.: Seismic Performance of precast reinforced and prestressed concrete walls. J. Struct. Eng. ASCE 129(3), 286–296 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kennedy R.P., Cornell C.A., Campbell R.D., Kaplan S., Perla H.F.L.: Probabilistic seismic safety study of an existing nuclear power plant. Nucl. Eng. Des. 59, 315–338 (1980)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hamid, N.H.: Seismic damage avoidance design of warehouse buildings constructed using precast hollow core panels. PhD thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (2006)

  16. NZS 3101: Part 1: New Zealand Standard Code of Practice for Concrete Structures Standard: The Design of Concrete Structures. Wellington, New Zealand (1995)

  17. Carr, A.J.: RUAUMOKO: Inelastic Dynamic Analysis Program. Department of Civil Engineering. University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (2003)

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Infrastructure and Sustainable Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University Teknologi MARA, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia

    N. H. Hamid

  2. Zachry Department of Civil Engineering, Texas A & M University, Kingsville, TX, 77843, USA

    John B. Mander

Authors
  1. N. H. Hamid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John B. Mander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N. H. Hamid.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hamid, N.H., Mander, J.B. A Comparative Seismic Performance Between Precast Hollow Core Walls and Conventional Walls Using Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Arab J Sci Eng 37, 1801–1815 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-012-0301-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-012-0301-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation