Shaking table tests and numerical analysis of RC coupled shear wall structure with hybrid replaceable coupling beams
Nan Gong
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Search for more papers by this authorFabio Freddi
Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Peizhen Li
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Correspondence
Peizhen Li, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorNan Gong
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Search for more papers by this authorFabio Freddi
Department of Civil, Environmental & Geomatic Engineering, University College London, London, UK
Search for more papers by this authorCorresponding Author
Peizhen Li
State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Correspondence
Peizhen Li, State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China.
Email: [email protected]
Search for more papers by this authorAbstract
A variety of innovative structural solutions have been recently introduced to mitigate damage and expedite the repair of buildings subjected to extreme seismic events, hence contributing to the urgent need for resilient societies. In this context, the present study experimentally and numerically investigates an innovative reinforced concrete (RC) shear wall (SW) structure with replaceable coupling beams (CBs) equipped with hybrid devices. These hybrid devices couple metallic and viscoelastic dampers and aim at satisfying multiple lateral load performances effectively. To assess the seismic performance of the proposed coupled SW system and verify the design principle, comparative shaking table tests were performed on two 1/4-scale seven-story SW structure specimens, including a conventional RC coupled SW and the proposed coupled SW with hybrid devices. The tests results indicate the improved performance of the proposed compared with the conventional system in terms of: (1) reduced interstory drifts and story accelerations demand under a wide range of seismic intensities, (2) concentrated damage in the hybrid device and minimal damage to the other components contributing to the reparability of the structure. Furthermore, 3D finite element models for the shaking table test specimens were established in OpenSees and validated against experimental response. Successively, a numerical parametric study was conducted by performing non-linear response history analyses under a set of 22 ground motions to investigate the influence of different design configurations of the hybrid device on the peak interstory drifts and peak story accelerations.
Open Research
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1 European Committee for Standardization (CEN). EN 1998-1:2004 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance—Part 1: General Rules, Seismic Actions and Rules for Buildings. 2005.
- 2 GB 50011–2010. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. China Architecture and Industry Press; 2010.
- 3 American Society of Civil Engineers. ASCE/SEI 7–16 Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for Buildings and Other Structures. 2017.
- 4Cimellaro GP, Dueñas-Osorio L, Reinhorn AM. Special issue on resilience-based analysis and design of structures and infrastructure systems. J Struct Eng. 2016; 142(8):C2016001.
- 5Freddi F, Galasso C, Cremen G, et al. Innovations in earthquake risk reduction for resilience: recent advances and challenges. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct. 2021; 60:102267.
- 6Soong TT, Spencer BF. Supplemental energy dissipation: state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice. Eng Struct. 2002; 24(3): 243-259.
- 7Symans MD, Charney FA, Whittaker AS, et al. Energy dissipation systems for seismic applications: current practice and recent developments. J Struct Eng. 2008; 134(1): 3-21.
- 8Gutiérrez-Urzúa F, Freddi F. Influence of the design objectives on the seismic performance of steel moment resisting frames retrofitted with buckling restrained braces. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2022; 51(13): 3131-3153.
- 9Lu X, Chen Y, Jiang H. Earthquake resilience of reinforced concrete structural walls with replaceable “fuses”. J Earthq Eng. 2018; 22(5): 801-825.
- 10Calvi PM, Calvi GM. Historical development of friction-based seismic isolation systems. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. 2018; 106: 14-30.
- 11Dall'Asta A, Leoni G, Gioiella L, et al. Push-and-release tests of a steel building with hybrid base isolation. Eng Struct. 2022; 272:114971.
- 12Tong F, Christopoulos C. Uncoupled rocking and shear base-mechanisms for resilient reinforced concrete high-rise buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2020; 49(10): 981-1006.
- 13Freddi F, Dimopoulos CA, Karavasilis TL. Experimental evaluation of a rocking damage-free steel column base with friction devices. J Struct Eng. 2020; 146(10):04020217.
- 14Shen Y, Freddi F, Li Y, Li J. Parametric experimental investigation of unbonded post-tensioned reinforced concrete bridge piers under cyclic loading. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2022; 51(15): 3479-3504.
- 15Elettore E, Freddi F, Latour M, Rizzano G. Design and analysis of a seismic resilient steel moment resisting frame equipped with damage-free self-centering column bases. J Constr Steel Res. 2021; 179:106543.
- 16Pieroni L, Freddi F, Latour M. Effective placement of self-centering damage-free connections for seismic-resilient steel moment resisting frames. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2022; 51(5): 1292-1316.
- 17Li J, Wang W, Cao Z. Self-centering hybrid dampers for improving seismic resilience. Eng Struct. 2021; 244:112829.
- 18Shen Y, Liu X, Li Y, Li J. Cyclic tests of precast post-tensioned concrete filled steel tubular (PCFT) columns with internal energy-dissipating bars. Eng Struct. 2021; 229:111651.
- 19El-Tawil S, Harries KA, Fortney PJ, Shahrooz BM, Kurama Y. Seismic design of hybrid coupled wall systems: state of the art. J Struct Eng. 2010; 136(7): 755-769.
- 20Mahin SA, Bertero VV. Nonlinear seismic response of a coupled wall system. J Struct Div. 1976; 102(9): 1759-1780.
10.1061/JSDEAG.0004428 Google Scholar
- 21Yayong W. Lessons learned from the 5.12 Wenchuan Earthquake: evaluation of earthquake performance objectives and the importance of seismic conceptual design principles. Earrhq Eng Eng Vib. 2008; 7(3): 255-262.
- 22Murat S, Dan P, Ahmed G, et al. Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the 27 February 2010 Maule (Chile) earthquake. Can J Civ Eng. 2013; 40(8): 693-710.
- 23Jünemann R, de la Llera JC, Hube MA, Vásquez JA, Chacón MF. Study of the damage of reinforced concrete shear walls during the 2010 Chile earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2016; 45(10): 1621-1641.
- 24Kam WY, Pampanin S. The seismic performance of RC buildings in the 22 February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. Struct Concr. 2011; 12(4): 223-233.
- 25Wilkinson S, Grant D, Williams E, et al. Observations and implications of damage from the magnitude Mw 6.3 Christchurch, New Zealand earthquake of 22 February 2011. Bull Earthq Eng. 2013; 11(1): 107-140.
- 26Fortney PJ, Shahrooz BM, Rassati GA. Large-scale testing of a replaceable “fuse” steel coupling beam. J Struct Eng. 2007; 133(12): 1801-1807.
- 27Ji X, Liu D, Sun Y, Molina Hutt C. Seismic performance assessment of a hybrid coupled wall system with replaceable steel coupling beams versus traditional RC coupling beams. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2017; 46(4): 517-535.
- 28Jun T, Botao M, Weihua L, Hao Z, Dongxue C. Pseudo-static test for coupling beam damper of coupled shear wall structure. J Build Structures. 2010; 31(12): 92.
- 29Chen Y, Lu X. New replaceable coupling beams for shear wall structures. Paper presented at: 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering 2012.
- 30Chung H-S, Moon B-W, Lee S-K, Park J-H, Min K-W. Seismic performance of friction dampers using flexure of rc shear wall system. Struct Des Tall Spec Build. 2009; 18(7): 807-822.
- 31Qu Z, Ji X, Shi X, Wang Y, Liu H. Cyclic loading test of steel coupling beams with mid-span friction dampers and RC slabs. Eng Struct. 2020; 203:109876.
- 32Lettieri A, de la Peña A, Freddi F, Latour M. Damage-free self-centring links for eccentrically braced frames: development and numerical study. J Constr Steel Res. 2023; 201:107727.
- 33Christopoulos C, Montgomery M. Viscoelastic coupling dampers (VCDs) for enhanced wind and seismic performance of high-rise buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2013; 42(15): 2217-2233.
- 34Montgomery M, Christopoulos C. Experimental validation of viscoelastic coupling dampers for enhanced dynamic performance of high-rise buildings. J Struct Eng. 2015; 141(5):04014145.
- 35Tubaldi E, Ragni L, Dall'Asta A, Ahmadi H, Muhr A. Stress softening behaviour of HDNR bearings: modelling and influence on the seismic response of isolated structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2017; 46(12): 2033-2054.
- 36Kim YC, Kanda J. Wind response characteristics for habitability of tall buildings in Japan. Struct Des Tall Spec Build. 2008; 17(3): 683-718.
- 37Burton MD, Kwok KC, Abdelrazaq A. Wind-induced motion of tall buildings: designing for occupant comfort. Int J High-Rise Build. 2015; 4(1): 1-8.
- 38Irwin PA. Wind engineering challenges of the new generation of super-tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn. 2009; 97(7): 328-334.
- 39Ibrahim YE, Marshall J, Charney FA. A visco-plastic device for seismic protection of structures. J Constr Steel Res. 2007; 63(11): 1515-1528.
- 40Karavasilis TL, Blakeborough T, Williams MS. Development of nonlinear analytical model and seismic analyses of a steel frame with self-centering devices and viscoelastic dampers. Comput Struct. 2011; 89(11): 1232-1240.
- 41Vargas R, Bruneau M. Effect of supplemental viscous damping on the seismic response of structural systems with metallic dampers. J Struct Eng. 2007; 133(10): 1434-1444.
- 42Marshall JD, Charney FA. Seismic response of steel frame structures with hybrid passive control systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2012; 41(4): 715-733.
- 43Rahnavard R, Rebelo C, Craveiro HD, Napolitano R. Numerical investigation of the cyclic performance of reinforced concrete frames equipped with a combination of a rubber core and a U-shaped metallic damper. Eng Struct. 2020; 225:111307.
- 44Marshall JD, Charney FA. A hybrid passive control device for steel structures, I: development and analysis. J Constr Steel Res. 2010; 66(10): 1278-1286.
- 45Marshall JD, Charney FA. A hybrid passive control device for steel structures, II: physical testing. J Constr Steel Res. 2010; 66(10): 1287-1294.
- 46Yamamoto M, Sone T. Damping systems that are effective over a wide range of displacement amplitudes using metallic yielding component and viscoelastic damper in series. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2014; 43(14): 2097-2114.
- 47Benavent-Climent A, Escolano-Margarit D, Yurkin Y, Ponce-Parra H, Arcos-Espada J. Shake table tests on a reinforced concrete waffle-flat plate structure with new hybrid energy dissipation devices. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2023; 52: 727-749.
- 48Oh SH, Choi KY, Kim H-J, Kang CH. Experimental validation on dynamic response of RC shear wall systems coupled with hybrid energy dissipative devices. Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Paper-ID 1422, 2012: 24-28.
- 49Li S, Jiang H, He L. Study of a new type of replaceable coupling beam in reinforced concrete shear wall structures. Struct Des Tall Spec Build. 2019; 28(10):e1620.
- 50Jiang H, Li S, Bolander JE, Kunnath SK. Seismic performance of a new type of coupled shear wall with replaceable components: experimental validation. J Earthquake Eng. 2023; 27(4): 810-832.
- 51Li S, Jiang H, Kunnath SK. Seismic assessment of a new resilient coupled shear wall. Eng Struct. 2023; 277:115476.
- 52Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott MH. OpenSEES, Open system for Earthquake Engineering Simulation. Pacific earthquake engineering research Centre (PEER), Univ. of California; 2009. http://opensees.berkeley.edu
- 53 GB 50010–2010. Code for Design of Concrete Structures. China Architecture and Industry Press; 2010.
- 54 ACI. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318–19) and Commentary on Building Code Requirements. ACI-318. American Concrete Institute; 2019.
- 55 ANSI/AISC. Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. AISC 341-10. American Institute of Steel Construction; 2010.
- 56 Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People's Republic of China. JGJ3-2010 Technical specifications for concrete structures of tall buildings. Beijing, China: Architecture & Building Press; 2010.
- 57 DGJ08-9-2013. Code for Seismic Design of Buildings. Shanghai Urban and Rural Development and Transportation Commission; 2013.
- 58Martinelli P, Filippou FC. Simulation of the shaking table test of a seven-story shear wall building. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. 2009; 38(5): 587-607.
- 59Wang Z, Pan W. A hybrid coupled wall system with replaceable steel coupling beams for high-rise modular buildings. J Build Eng. 2020; 31:101355.
- 60 Applied Technology Council. Quantification of Building Seismic Performance Factors. FEMA P695; 2009.
