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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), 2005Improvement of Nonlinear Static Seismic Analysis Procedures: Report No. FEMA 440, Washington DC, 392
2.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2000Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings Report No. FEMA 356, Reston, VA
3.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2007Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings Report No. ASCE/SEI 41-06, Reston, VA, 428 pp
4.
BerteroV. V.AktanA. E.CharneyF. A. and SauseR.1984Earthquake simulation tests and associated studies of a 1/5th-scale model of a 7-story R/C frame-wall test structure Report No. UCB/EERC-84/05, University of California, Berkeley, 180 pp
5.
BiniciB. and ÖzcebeG.2006Analysis of infilled reinforced concrete frames strengthened with FRPs, Advances in Earthquake Engineering for Urban Risk Reduction Editors WastiS. T. and ÖzcebeG.NATO Science Series, Earth and Env. Sciences66455–471
6.
CanbayE.ErsoyU.TankutT.2004A three-component force transducer for RC structural testingEngineering Structures26257–265
7.
CloughR. W.JohnstonS. B.1966Effect of stiffness degradation on earthquake ductility requirementsProceedings of Japan Earthquake Engineering SymposiumTokyo, Japan
8.
Comité Européen de Normalisation, 2003Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for BuildingsBrussels
9.
ElkhoraibiT. and MosalamK. M.2007Towards error-free hybrid simulation using mixed variablesEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics361497–1522
ErdemI.AkyuzU.ErsoyU.ÖzcebeG.2006An experimental study on two different strengthening techniques for RC framesEngineering Structures281843–1851
12.
HashemiA. and MosalamK. M.2006Shake-table experiment on reinforced concrete structure containing masonry infill wallEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics351827–1852
13.
HashemiA. and MosalamK. M.2007Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Buildings Including Effects of Masonry Infill Walls PEER Report 2007/100, University of California, Berkeley, 268 pp
14.
KalkanE. and GülkanP.2004Site-dependent spectra derived from ground motion records in TurkeyEarthquake Spectra201111–1138
15.
KarsanI. D. and JirsaJ. O.1969 Behavior of concrete under compressive loading, Journal of Structural Division ASCE, 952543–2563
16.
KentD. C. and ParkR.1971Flexural members with confined concreteJournal of Structures Division ASCE, ST7(97), 1969–1990
17.
MadanA.ReinhornA. M.ManderJ. B. and VallesR. E.1997Modeling of masonry infill panels for structural analysisJournal of Structural Engineering1231295–1302
18.
MaiaN. M. M. and SilvaJ. M. M.1997Theoretical and Experimental Modal AnalysisResearch Studies Press, John Wiley, New York
19.
MazzoniS.McKennaH.ScottM. H. and FenvesG. L.2009OpenSees Manual Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, http://OpenSees.berkeley.edu
20.
Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, 2007Turkish Code for Buildings in Seismic ZonesAnkara, Turkey, 159 pp. (in Turkish)
21.
MolinaF. J.PegonP. and VerzelettiG.1999Time-domain identification from seismic pseudodynamic test results on civil engineering specimens2nd International Conference on Identification in Engineering SystemsUniversity of Wales, Swansea, March 29–31
22.
MolinaF. J.VerzelettiG.MagonetteG.BuchetP. H.GéradinM.1999Bi-Directional pseudodynamic test of a full-size three-storey buildingEarthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics281541–1566
23.
MosalamK. M.WhiteR. N. and GergelyP.1997 Static response of infilled frames using quasi-static experimentation, Journal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 1231462–1469
24.
MarjaniF. and ErsoyU.2002Behavior of Brick Infilled RC Frames Under Reserved Cyclic Loading ECAS 2002 International Symposium on Structural and Earthquake Engineering, METU Publication
25.
ÖzcebeG. and SaatciogluM.1987Confinement of Concrete Columns for Seismic Loading. Structural Journal ACI, 84308–315
26.
PintoA. V. and TaucerF.2006Assessment and retrofit of full-scale models of existing RC frames. Advances in Earthquake Engineering for Urban Risk Reduction Editors WastiS. T. and ÖzcebeG. NATO Science Series, Earth and Environmental Sciences 66, 353–367
27.
PopovicsS.1973A review of stress–strain relationships for concreteAmerican Concrete Institute Journal67243–248
28.
SezenH.2002Seismic Behavior and Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Building Columns. Ph.D Dissertation, UC Berkeley, 333 pp
29.
SaneinejadA. and HobbsB.1995Inelastic design of infilled framesJournal of Structural Engineering ASCE, 121634–650
30.
TalaatM. and MosalamK. M.2009Modeling progressive collapse in reinforced concrete buildings using direct element removalEarthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics38609–634
31.
Turkish Earthquake Code, 2007Ministry ofPublic Works and Settlement, Government of the Republic of Turkey
32.
YehY. H. and LiaoW. L.2005Cyclic performance of two-story ductile RC frames with infill wallsProceedings of the ASME Pressure Vessels and Piping Conference8259–264
