Residual seismic capacity of ductile RC frame with wing walls based on full-scale loading test

Abstract

In order to use a damaged building continuously after earthquake, owners and/or stakeholders need to understand residual seismic capacity of the building. In Japan, a method to evaluate residual seismic capacity for damaged buildings had been developed. In order to evaluate residual seismic capacity of damaged building, the damage level of structural elements should be evaluated properly. This paper presents the results of damage analysis based on experimental data obtained from a full-scale static loading test [1] on a five-story reinforced concrete building tested at Building Research Institute. The damage rating for the specimens evaluated by the residual seismic capacity concept [3] was ”Moderate” or ”Heavy” at 0.5% and 1% building drift angle despite the structure maintaining horizontal load carrying capacity. This implies that the applied method gives a conservative result for ductile buildings, such as relatively new moment resisting frames designed after 1981. In order to apply the method used in this paper to new buildings, the damage evaluation method for structural elements should be advanced more in the future.

Simplified Analytical/Mechanical Procedure for Post-earthquake Safety Evaluation and Loss Assessment of Buildings

“…In the past years a significant research effort has been dedicated at both national and international level [US, Europe and Japan, FEMA 306 (1998), JBDPA (2015)] to gain a better understanding on the residual capacity of buildings following an earthquake event (Cuevas et al 2014(Cuevas et al , 2015Cuevase andPampanin 2016, 2017;Loporcaro et al 2014Loporcaro et al . 2017Loporcaro et al , 2018Loporcaro et al , 2019Luco et al 2004;Ludovico et al 2013;Maeda 2008;Maeda and Eon-Kang 2009;Maeda et al 2012Maeda et al , 2017Mukai et al 2017;Polese et al 2012).…”

“…Limited information is available in literature for other type of structural systems and components, such as beam-column joints, beam plastic hinges, column flexural, lap splice or shear failure, floor/diaphragm behavior. Yet, recent numerical/experimental investigation in the past years have started filling the gap: in (Ludovico et al 2013;Polese et al 2012) modification factors were proposed to evaluate the residual capacity of non-confirming RC columns typical of the Mediterranean region; furthermore, experimental and numerical investigations on cumulating damage, residual capacity and repairing options for plastic hinges in beam-column subassemblies and beam cantilever as well as on the effects on strain hardening and low-cycle fatigue in steel rebars on the overall plastic hinge behavior and repairability have been carried out in New Zealand (Cuevas et al 2014(Cuevas et al , 2015Pampanin 2016, 2017;Elwood et al 2016;Loporcaro et al 2014Loporcaro et al , 2017Loporcaro et al , 2018Loporcaro et al , 2019Luco et al 2004;Maeda 2008;Maeda and Eon-Kang 2009;Maeda et al 2012Maeda et al , 2017Mukai et al 2017;.…”