Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley Report - PEER - University of California, Berkeley
I d = 0.25elastic limitmaximum resistanceI d = 0.75ultimate stateI d = 1.00frame-floor system with equivalent strut bracing and stiff diaphragms representingslab and roof construction.5.2 Implication of the ModelEfficiency of the model was demonstrated within the CUREE-Caltech WoodframeProject. The shake table tests on a full scale two-story wood framed residentialbuilding were carried out in Charles Lee Powell Laboratory in La Jolla, California.Blind prediction of the response of the tested structure was made (Dujič and Žarnić2001). Good correlation between the numerical prediction and the test resultsdemonstrated high efficiency of the mathematical model, although only very basicdata were available (Dujič and Žarnić 2003).6. MASONRY STRUCTURESIn the last years, part of the masonry research at Slovenian National Building andCivil Engineering Institute has been oriented towards obtaining information about thevalues of design parameters which would ensure adequate performance of newlydesigned masonry structures in seismic conditions. In one of the studies, thepropagation of physical damage to masonry walls and structures under lateral load hasbeen analyzed and an attempt has been made to find a correlation between the amountof damage and limit states, used in the seismic resistance verification. On the basis ofthe analysis of experimental results, it has been shown that, although the type ofdamage to masonry walls and buildings varies in dependence on construction system,such as plain, confined and reinforced masonry, the damage to structural walls can beclassified and damage indexes I d introduced in an uniform way. Typical values of I dare presented in Fig. 18.Lateral loadusable safe near collapseI d = 0.50DisplacementFigure 18. Seismic resistance envelopewith characteristic limit states, states ofusability of building, and attrib. damageindexes.collapseBSC32,5M1-1d2ExperimentalR100Elastic response1,510,5R075R050R025IdealizedR150A0R010R0050 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04Rotation angleFigure 19. Experimental andidealized — base shear coefficient(BSC) - story rotation anglerelationships obtained for a confinedterraced house model305
Recently, six models representing buildings of two different structuralconfigurations and two different types of masonry materials have been tested on aunidirectional shaking table at ZAG: a two-story terraced house with main structuralwalls orthogonal to seismic motion and a three-story apartment house with uniformlydistributed structural walls in both directions. Four models of the first and two modelsof the second type, built at 1:5 scale, have been tested. In the case of the terracedhouse, two models have been built as either partly or completely confined masonrystructures (Table 2).Table 2. Shaking-table tests — description of tested modelsDesign Type Material Bed joint RemarksM1-1 Terraced house Calcium silicate Thin no confinementM1-2 Terraced house Hollow clay unit Normal no confinementM1-1c Terraced house Calcium silicate Thin confinedstaircase wallsM1-1d Terraced house Calcium silicate Thin fully confinedwallsM2-1 Apartm. house Calcium silicate Thin no confinementM2-2 Apartm. house Hollow clay unit Normal no confinementThe seismic behavior of the tested models has been analyzed in order to verifythe Eurocode 8 proposed values of structural behavior q. The results of tests aresummarized in Table 3, where the values of the maximum attained base shearcoefficient BSC max , evaluated on the basis of the known masses of the modelsconcentrated at floor levels, and measured floor acceleration responses, as well as themeasured values of the story rotation angle at the damage limit Φ dam (correspondingto damage index I d = 0.25), maximum attained resistance Φ Hmax (I d = 0.50) andultimate limit (before collapse) Φ u (I d = 0.75) are given.Table 3. Parameters of seismic resistance of the tested models atcharacteristic limit statesModel BSC max Ф dam Ф Hmax Ф uM1-1 0.52 0.19% 0.82% 0.91%M1-2 0.49 0.25% 0.56% 3.98%M1-1c 0.99 0.26% 0.26% 3.96%M1-1d 1.86 0.25% 1.31% 2.63%M2-1 0.69 0.33% 0.33% 0.43%M2-2 0.55 0.30% 0.66% 1.66%306
- Page 270 and 271: Base Shear (kN)Base Shear (kN)40002
- Page 272 and 273: 8. CONCLUSIONSBased on the test and
- Page 274 and 275: REAL-TIME DYNAMIC HYBRID TESTING OF
- Page 276 and 277: :::::2004) can be formulated using
- Page 278 and 279: The structure to be simulated is di
- Page 280 and 281: measurements, to the modeling of th
- Page 282 and 283: Figure 8. Two stories (left) and hy
- Page 284 and 285: ROLES OF LARGE-SCALE TEST FOR ASSES
- Page 286 and 287: mid-height in the third story, at w
- Page 288 and 289: cycles were repeated for each ampli
- Page 290 and 291: the tests with ALC panels were excl
- Page 292 and 293: the relationship between the moment
- Page 294 and 295: attachment details adopted for inst
- Page 296 and 297: FULL-SCALE LABORATORY TESTING: STRA
- Page 298 and 299: economic losses resulting from the
- Page 300 and 301: 4. OBJECTIVES AND OUTCOME OF STRUCT
- Page 302 and 303: 15001000500Shear [kN]0-8.0 -6.0 -4.
- Page 304 and 305: 5.1 3D Tests on a Torsionally Unbal
- Page 306 and 307: Non-linear substructuring was recen
- Page 308 and 309: PERFORMANCE BASED ASSESSMENT — FR
- Page 310 and 311: 4 x 50 m = 200 mC1 C2 C3h u = 7 mh
- Page 312 and 313: some procedures are (contrary to th
- Page 314 and 315: 5 th floor disp. [cm]0.60.0-0.6CC =
- Page 316 and 317: While the global drift of the build
- Page 318 and 319: the use of such connections in eart
- Page 322 and 323: As regards the influence of differe
- Page 324 and 325: ON GROUND MOTION DURATION AND ENGIN
- Page 326 and 327: time between the first and last acc
- Page 328 and 329: FyFyFyFFFkk0.03kδδδcover a large
- Page 330 and 331: T5b, T13a, T13b, T20a and T20b can
- Page 332 and 333: Tabled results show that in the cas
- Page 334 and 335: 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1Dkin PfSa[g]0 0.25
- Page 336 and 337: ON DRIFT LIMITS ASSOCIATED WITH DIF
- Page 338 and 339: BehaviourElasticInelasticCollapseDa
- Page 340 and 341: Other factors such as the applied l
- Page 342 and 343: 4. MOMENT RESISTING FRAMES4.1 Ducti
- Page 344 and 345: 5Ductility factor432100 0.2 0.4 0.6
- Page 346 and 347: 5.1 Flexural Structural WallsAn exa
- Page 348 and 349: MODAL PUSHOVER ANALYSIS: SYMMETRIC-
- Page 350 and 351: Floor963SeattleNonlinear RHAFEMA1st
- Page 352 and 353: The peak modal demands r n are then
- Page 354 and 355: 9BostonSeattleLos AngelesFloor63RSA
- Page 356 and 357: 5. EVALUATION OF MPA: UNSYMMETRIC-P
- Page 358 and 359: Without additional conceptual compl
- Page 360 and 361: AN IMPROVED PUSHOVER PROCEDURE FOR
- Page 362 and 363: for a response governed by the fund
- Page 364 and 365: 2.2 Modal ScalingThe principal aim
- Page 366 and 367: 2.3 Pushover-History AnalysisSubsti
- Page 368 and 369: (3) Calculate cumulative scale fact
I d = 0.25elastic limitmaximum resistanceI d = 0.75ultimate stateI d = 1.00frame-floor system with equivalent strut bracing and stiff diaphragms representingslab and ro<strong>of</strong> construction.5.2 Implication <strong>of</strong> the ModelEfficiency <strong>of</strong> the model was demonstrated within the CUREE-Caltech WoodframeProject. The shake table tests on a full scale two-story wood framed residentialbuilding were carried out in Charles Lee Powell Laboratory in La Jolla, <strong>California</strong>.Blind prediction <strong>of</strong> the response <strong>of</strong> the tested structure was made (Dujič and Žarnić2001). Good correlation between the numerical prediction and the test resultsdemonstrated high efficiency <strong>of</strong> the mathematical model, although only very basicdata were available (Dujič and Žarnić 2003).6. MASONRY STRUCTURESIn the last years, part <strong>of</strong> the masonry research at Slovenian National Building andCivil Engineering Institute has been oriented towards obtaining information about thevalues <strong>of</strong> design parameters which would ensure adequate performance <strong>of</strong> newlydesigned masonry structures in seismic conditions. In one <strong>of</strong> the studies, thepropagation <strong>of</strong> physical damage to masonry walls and structures under lateral load hasbeen analyzed and an attempt has been made to find a correlation between the amount<strong>of</strong> damage and limit states, used in the seismic resistance verification. On the basis <strong>of</strong>the analysis <strong>of</strong> experimental results, it has been shown that, although the type <strong>of</strong>damage to masonry walls and buildings varies in dependence on construction system,such as plain, confined and reinforced masonry, the damage to structural walls can beclassified and damage indexes I d introduced in an uniform way. Typical values <strong>of</strong> I dare presented in Fig. 18.Lateral loadusable safe near collapseI d = 0.50DisplacementFigure 18. Seismic resistance envelopewith characteristic limit states, states <strong>of</strong>usability <strong>of</strong> building, and attrib. damageindexes.collapseBSC32,5M1-1d2ExperimentalR100Elastic response1,510,5R075R050R025IdealizedR150A0R010R0050 0,01 0,02 0,03 0,04Rotation angleFigure 19. Experimental andidealized — base shear coefficient(BSC) - story rotation anglerelationships obtained for a confinedterraced house model305
Change language