Seismic Performance of Compliant and Non-Compliant Special Moment-Resisting Reinforced Concrete Frames

Rizwan, Muhammad; Ahmad, Naveed; Khan, Akhtar Naeem

doi:10.14359/51702063

Cited by 47 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Typically, frames conforming to seismic codes have been observed with beam-sway mechanism, i.e., experience flexure yielding at the beam ends and slight flexure cracking at the bottom end of columns at the ground story under input excitation representative of design basis earthquake [24]. Unlike the code-conforming structures, deficient models have been observed with flexure cracking also in columns and severe damages in joint panels under input excitation well below the design-basis earthquake [7,24]. e use of low-strength concrete and the lack of lateral ties in joint panels, along with improper reinforcement and detailing, have resulted in the Northridge), the model was observed with few hairline flexure cracks in the columns at the ground and first story.…”

Section: Observed Seismic Behavior Of Tested Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Modern Bare and Masonry‐Infilled RC SMRF Structures

Ahmad

Pervez

et al. 2019

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improper execution of modern code-designed structures in many developing countries have resulted in significant deficient building stock; low strength of concrete, reduced reinforcement, inappropriate detailing of beam-column members, and lack of lateral ties in joint panels. Observations based on earthquake-induced damages and experimental studies conducted on such buildings have revealed significant vulnerability of beam-column joints of bare moment-resisting frame structures. Shake table tests were conducted on selected three 1 : 4 reduced-scale three-story reinforced concrete (RC) moment-resisting frames, including one bare RC frame and two masonry-infilled RC frames, having relatively lower bay width-to-height ratio. The models were tested under multilevels of seismic excitations using natural acceleration time history of 1994 Northridge and also free vibration tests, to acquire the models’ dynamic characteristics, i.e., frequencies and elastic viscous damping, and seismic response parameters, i.e., roof displacement, interstory drift and interstory shear, and seismic response curves, in order to understand the role of masonry infill in the selected frames under moderate seismic actions. The inclusion of masonry infill avoided joint shear hinging of the frame. Additionally, the infill provided energy dissipation to the structure through masonry sliding over multiple cracks. This enabled the structure to control seismic displacement demand and resist relatively higher ground motions, yet limiting structural damages.

show abstract

Section: Observed Seismic Behavior Of Tested Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Modern Bare and Masonry‐Infilled RC SMRF Structures

Ahmad

Pervez

et al. 2019

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Columns of frame having dimensions 12 inch × 12 inch (305 mm × 305 mm) were reinforced with 8#6 (8 ϕ 20 mm) longitudinal steel re-bars and provisioned with #3 ( ϕ 10 mm) stirrups provided at 9 inch (229 mm) center-to-center distance. Geometric and reinforcement details of the considered frame were similar to that of Model-5 previously tested by authors (Akbar et al, 2018, 2019; Rizwan et al, 2018).…”

Section: Experimental Programmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…A natural acceleration time-history record of 1994 Northridge earthquake (horizontal component, 090 CDMG Station 24,278—PEER strong motion database) was selected as input excitation (Figure 2). The authors (Ahmad et al, 2019; Akbar et al, 2018, 2019; Rizwan et al, 2018) have selected the 1994 Northridge earthquake very carefully after analyzing a number of acceleration time histories.…”

Section: Experimental Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one acceleration time history was used for testing models, scaling the amplitude of acceleration from 5% to 100%, in order to study the behavior of model both in the elastic and plastic states. This technique is sufficient to construct the force–displacement capacity curve of the test models (Ahmad et al, 2019; Akbar et al, 2018, 2019; Rizwan et al, 2018). The selected acceleration time history has maximum acceleration of 0.57 g , maximum velocity of 518 mm/s and maximum displacement of 90 mm, and can laterally excite the structure symmetrically in both positive and negative directions.…”

Section: Experimental Programmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shake-table tests on frame built in crumb rubber concrete

Ullah

Ahmad

Rizwan

2020

Advances in Structural Engineering

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents experimental study performed on a first-of-its-kind frame fabricated using crumb rubber concrete, that is, concrete with waste rubbers (crumb) as a partial replacement of fine aggregate (sand). A 20% volume of sand was replaced by rubber crumb. Free vibration and shake-table tests were performed on 1:3 reduced scale frame models, both conventional reinforced concrete frame and crumb rubber concrete frame. The dynamic properties (i.e. frequency/time period, elastic viscous damping, and floor acceleration amplification) and seismic response parameters (i.e. ductility and response modification factors) were obtained. In addition, lateral displacement demand was correlated with peak base acceleration to derive seismic response curves. The seismic performance of crumb rubber concrete frame was compared with the conventional reinforced concrete frame in order to assess the feasibility of rubberized concrete for building constructions in areas of active seismicity. The following were concluded on the basis of experimental study: the elastic damping reduced by 12%, the initial time period increased by 6%, specific weight of concrete reduced by 6%, maximum lateral load reduced by 20%, lateral maximum story drift capacity increased by 30%, displacement ductility ratio increased by 2%, response modification factor reduced by 24%, maximum peak base acceleration resistance corresponding the incipient collapse state increased by 40%.

show abstract

“…During the validation stage of the shake table with dead weight, development of transfer function with self-check test leads to uncontrollable shaking [36]. Also in the previous studies, problems were encountered by researchers in the form of damage in the model before actual testing [37]. In some of the studies [33,34,38], behavior of masonry structures has been extracted through sinusoidal ground motion.…”

Section: Testing Protocols and Input Groundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shake Table Response of Unreinforced Masonry and Reinforced Concrete Elements of Special Moment Resisting Frame

Shah

Khan

Ali

et al. 2019

Advances in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Half-scaled reinforced concrete frame of two storeys and two bays with unreinforced masonry (URM) infill walls was subjected to base excitation on a shake table for seismic performance evaluation. Considering the high seismic hazard Zone IV of Pakistan, reinforcement detailing in the RC frame is provided according to special moment resisting frames (SMFRs) requirement of Building Code of Pakistan Seismic-Provisions (BCP SP-2007). The reinforced concrete frame was infilled with in-plane solid masonry walls in its interior frame, in-plane masonry walls with door and window openings in the exterior frame, out-of-plane solid masonry wall, and masonry wall with door and window openings in its interior frame. For seismic capacity qualification test, the structure was subjected to three runs of unidirectional base excitation with increasing intensity. For system identification, ambient-free vibration tests were performed at different stages of experiment. Seismic performance of brick masonry infill walls in reinforced concrete frame structures was evaluated. During the shake table test, performance of URM infill walls was satisfactory until design ground acceleration was 0.40g with a global drift of 0.23%. The test was continued till 1.24g of base acceleration. This paper presents key findings from the shake table tests, including the qualitative damage observations and quantitative force-displacement, and hysteretic response of the test specimen at different levels of excitation. Experimental results of this test will serve as a benchmark for validation of numerical and analytical models.

show abstract

Seismic Performance of Compliant and Non-Compliant Special Moment-Resisting Reinforced Concrete Frames

Cited by 47 publications

References 26 publications

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Modern Bare and Masonry‐Infilled RC SMRF Structures

Seismic Performance Evaluation of Modern Bare and Masonry‐Infilled RC SMRF Structures

Shake-table tests on frame built in crumb rubber concrete

Shake Table Response of Unreinforced Masonry and Reinforced Concrete Elements of Special Moment Resisting Frame

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About