Collapse capacity assessment of non-ductile open ground story reinforced concrete frame

Abstract

It is a well-known fact that the absence of infill walls at the ground story, which is termed as “open ground story” may lead to a soft-story deficiency, especially in the case of non-ductile buildings. The previous severe earthquakes have shown that catastrophic destruction may occur in such a condition. Therefore, the seismic assessment of open ground story reinforced frames, where the effects of infill walls are incorporated, is of vital importance. However, the effects of infill walls are generally disregarded or considered indirectly in the seismic assessment procedures of the codes. This may mislead the actual condition of the open ground story buildings at different performance levels. This study aims to assess a non-ductile reinforced concrete frame with an open ground story regarding the collapse prevention performance level. The pushover and incremental dynamic analyses results are evaluated following the code limitations for collapse prevention. The results demonstrate the measure of misleading caused by the ignorance of infills at the upper stories while applying these code limitations.

Keywords

• Reinforced Concrete
• Infill Wall
• Soft Story
• Open Ground Story
• Collapse Capacity

Supporting Institution

Adnan Menderes University Scientific Research Projects Commission

Project Number

MF-19013

References

1. Asteris, P. G. (2003). Lateral Stiffness of Brick Masonry Infilled Plane Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 129(8), 1071–1079. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2003)129:8(1071)
2. Cavaleri, L. & Di Trapani, F. (2014). Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames: Experimental results and simplified modeling. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 65, 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.06.016
3. Comite Euro-International du Beton (CEB) (1996). RC Frames Under Earthquake Loading: State of the Art Report. Thomas Telford, London, UK.
4. Dolšek, M., & Fajfar, P. (2008). The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of a four storey reinforced concrete frame-a probabilistic assessment. Engineering Structures, 30(11), 3186–3192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2008.04.031
5. Hashemi, A., & Mosalam, K. M. (2006). Shake-table experiment on reinforced concrete structure containing masonry infill wall. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 35(14), 1827–1852. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.612
6. Mehrabi, A. B, Shing, P. B., Schuller, M. P., & Noland, J. L. (1996). Experimental Evaluation of Masonry-Infilled RC Frames. Journal of Structural Engineering, 122(3), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:3(228)
7. Negro, P. & Verzeletti, G. (1996). Effect of infills on the global behaviour of R/C frames: Energy considerations from pseudodynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 25(8), 753–773. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199608)25:8<753::AID-EQE578>3.0.CO;2-Q
8. Dolšek, M., & Fajfar, P. (2001). Soft storey effects in uniformly infilled reinforced concrete frames. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 5(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632460109350383

9. Negro, P., & Colombo, A. (1997). Irregularities induced by nonstructural masonry panels in framed buildings. Engineering Structures, 19(7), 576–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(96)00115-0
10. Akın, E. (2019). Open ground story in properly designed reinforced concrete frame buildings with shear walls. Structures, 20, 822-831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.07.003
11. Eurocode 8 (2005). European Standard EN 1998-3:2005: Design of structures for earthquake resistance - Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Comite Europeen de Normalisation, Brussels, Belgium.
12. TEC (2018). Turkish Earthquake Code for Buildings. Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, Ankara, Turkey.
13. SeismoStruct (2020). A computer program for static and dynamic nonlinear analysis of framed structures. Seismosoft Ltd. https://seismosoft.com
14. Kadaş, K. (2006). Influence of idealized pushover curves on seismic response. MSc Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Ankara, Turkey, 320p.
15. Mander, J. B., Priestley, M. J. N., & Park, R. (1988). Theoretical Stress‐Strain Model for Confined Concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804–1826. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1988)114:8(1804)
16. Martínez-Rueda, J. E., & Elnashai, A. S. (1997). Confined concrete model under cyclic load. Materials and Structures, 30(3), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02486385
17. ACI (American Concrete Institute) (2008). Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318M-08) and Commentary. Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
18. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2000). Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings (FEMA 356). Washington, D.C., USA
19. TEC (2007). Turkish Earthquake Code for Buildings. Republic of Turkey Prime Ministry Disaster and Emergency Management Authority, Ankara, Turkey.
20. SeismoMatch (2018). A computer program for spectrum matching of earthquake records. Seismosoft Ltd. https://seismosoft.com
21. FEMA-350 (2000). Recommended Seismic Design Criteria for New Steel Moment-Frame Buildings. Washington, D.C., USA.
22. Vamvatsikos, D., & Cornell, C. A. (2005). Direct estimation of the seismic demand and capacity of multidegree-of-freedom systems through incremental dynamic analysis of single degree of freedom approximation. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(4). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:4(589)