Application of Endurance Time method in evaluation of seismic performance of a typical sandwich panel building

Document Type : Research

Author

Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

This study deals with the seismic performance evaluation of a typical five-story sandwich panel building with load-bearing wall as the only lateral force-resisting structural elements. For this purpose, incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) were performed on the model making use of seven selected ground motions. As a substitute to IDA, the response of the model in terms of maximum plastic strain, base shear and the inter-story drift ratio of the first story were compared with those from Endurance Time (ET) analysis. The results show that ET can simulate the seismic response of the studies model with an acceptable accuracy. However, the discrepancy between the ET results and those of the real ground motions increases with by increasing the excitation intensity. In general, ET underpredicts the drift ratios in very intense excitations, whereas the error of base shear with respect to the real ground motions remains almost constant regardless of the ground motion intensity.

Keywords

References

1. Estekanchi H., Harati M., Mashayekhi M. (2018). An Investigation on the interaction of RC shear walls and moment resisting frames in RC dual system using endurance time (ET) method, The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, e1489, 27(12), 1-16. [DOI:10.1002/tal.1489]
2. Benayoune A., Abdul Samad A., Trikha D.N., Abang Ali A.A., Ellinna S.H.M. (2008). Flexural behaviour of pre-cast concrete sandwich composite panel- Experimental and theoretical investigations, Construction and Building Materials, 22, 580-592. [DOI:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.11.023]
3. ICC evaluation service, Legacy report ER-5618, Tridipanel 3D/EVG panels, March 2006.
4. ACI Committee. (2002). Building code requirements for structural concrete:(ACI 318-02) and commentary (ACI 318R-02). American Concrete Institute.
5. The Islamic Republic of Iran Vice Presidency for Strategic Planning and Supervision, The code of practice for design specification, manufacturing and construction of 3D panel structures, (First Revision), No. 385, Office of Deputy for Strategic Supervision Department of Technical Affairs, 2013.
6. Mourtaja W., Karadog F., Yuksel E., Alper I. and Balci A.A. (2000). 3D behavior of shotcreted lightweight panel buildings, 12 WCEE, Auckland, New Zealand.
7. Walker M. and Smith R. (2002). A computational methodology to select the best material combinations and optimally design composite sandwich panels for minimum cost, Computers and Structures 80, 1457-1460. [DOI:10.1016/S0045-7949(02)00092-5]
8. Benayoune A., Samad A.A.A., Abang Ali A.A., Trikha D.N. (2007). Response of pre-cast reinforced composite sandwich panels to axial loading, Construction and Building Materials, 21, 677-685. [DOI:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.12.011]
9. Voon K.C. and Ingham J. (2000). In-plane testing of 3-D wall panels, Uniservices No. 7654.02, The University of Auckland.
10. Pavese A. and Bournas D.A., Experimental assessment of the seismic performance of a prefabricated concrete structural wall system, Engineering Structures 33 (2011), 2049-2062. [DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.02.043]
11. Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization (2005).
12. Rezaifar O, Kabir M.Z., Taribakhsh M. and Tehranian A. (2008). Dynamic behaviour of 3D-panel single-storey system using shaking table testing, Engineering Structures 30, 318-337. [DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.03.019]
13. ASCE. (2005). Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures. ASCE/SEI 7-05 including Supplement No.1, Reston, VA. [DOI:10.1061/9780784408094]
14. Abaqus, User's manual version 6.9, Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc., Pawtucket (RI, USA), 2005.
15. Lubliner J., Oliver J., Oller S., and O˜nate E. (1989). A plastic-damage model for concrete, International Journal of Solids and Structures, 25(3), 299-329. [DOI:10.1016/0020-7683(89)90050-4]
16. Lee L., and Fenves G. (1998). Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892), 892-900. [DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892)]
17. Kent D.C., and Park R. (1971). Flexural members with confined concrete, Journal of Structural Division, 97(7), 1969-1990. [DOI:10.1061/JSDEAG.0002957]
18. Kabir, M. Z., Shadan, P., & Kabir, H. (2018). A numerical and experimental study on the dynamical behavior of 3D-Panel Wall on Piloti RC Frame. International Journal of Structural Integrity. [DOI:10.1108/IJSI-09-2017-0053]
19. Estekanchi H.E., Vafai A. and Sadeghazar M. (2004). Endurance Time method for seismic analysis and design of structures, Scientia Iranica, 11(4), 361-370.
20. Mashayekhi M., Estekanchi H., Vafai A., Ahmadi G. (2019). An evolutionary optimization-based approach for simulation of endurance time load functions, Engineering Optimization, 52(12), 2069-2088. [DOI:10.1080/0305215X.2019.1567724]
21. Mashayekhi M., Harati M., Estekanchi H. (2019). Development of an alternative PSO-based algorithm for simulation of endurance time excitation functions, Engineering Reports, (3), 1-15. [DOI:10.1002/eng2.12048]
22. Estekanchi H., Mashayekhi M., Vafai A., Ahmadi G., Mirfarhadi S.A., Harati M. (2020). A state-of-knowledge review on the Endurance Time Method, Journal of Structures, 27, 2288-2299. [DOI:10.1016/j.istruc.2020.07.062]
23. Applied Technology Council (ATC) (2005). "Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures." Rep. No. FEMA-440, Washington, D.C.
24. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings (Standard 2800) (2013), Fourth Edition. Building and Housing Research Center, Iran (in Persian).
25. Bommer J.J., Magenes G., Hancock J., Penazzo P. (2004). The influence of strong-motion duration on the seismic response of masonry structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2(1), 1-26. [DOI:10.1023/B:BEEE.0000038948.95616.bf]
26. Ancheta T.D., Darragh R.B., Stewart J.P., Seyhan E., Silva W.J., Chiou B.S., ... and Donahue J.L. (2013). PEER NGA-West2 database. [DOI:10.1193/070913EQS197M]
27. ASCE 41-06 (2006). Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia.
28. Harati M., Mashayekhi M., Ashouri M., Estekanchi H. (2019). Influence of ground motion duration on the structural response at multiple seismic intensity levels, Numerical Methods in Civil Engineering, 3(4), 10-23. [DOI:10.29252/nmce.3.4.10]
29. Harati M, Mashayekhi M, Estekanchi H. (2019), "Estimating the duration effects in structural responses by a new energy-cycle based parameter", 8th International Conference on Seismology and Earthquake Engineering (SEE8), IIEES, Nov 11-13, Tehran.
30. Mashayekhi M, Harati M, Ashouri M, Estekanchi H. (2019), "Introducing a response-based duration metric and its correlation with structural damages", Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 17, 5987-6008. [DOI:10.1007/s10518-019-00716-y]
31. Mashayekhi M, Harati M, Darzi A, Estekanchi H. (2020), "Incorporation of strong motion duration in incremental-based seismic assessments", Journal of Engineering Structures, 223. [DOI:10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111144]
Numerical Methods in Civil Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 2
December 2020
Pages 45-52

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 15 October 2020
  • Revise Date: 15 November 2020
  • Accept Date: 15 December 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics