DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-712919/v1
The residual capacity of a damaged structure after the main earthquake is equal to the smallest spectral acceleration of the first mode, which causes local or general failure during the aftershock. In this research, the effect of seismic sequence on the residual capacity of reinforced concrete frame systems and a relatively new system of reinforced concrete frames eqquipped with steel plate shear wall has been investigated. Based on this, four system of 4, 8, 12 and 24 stories, which represent short, intermediate, tall, are modeled in finite element software and subject to three sets of of single and real seismic sequence, taking into account the damage, The effects of mainshock earthquakes have been analyzed under aftershock earthquakes nonlinear increment dynamic analysis. The analysis showed that in the real seismic sequence, the residual capacity of reinforced concrete frame with steel plate shear wall in short and intermediate structures on average 3 times and in tall structures up to 8 times compared to the residual capacity of reinforced concrete frame without steel plate shear wall. Also, in the real seismic sequence, the residual capacity of the structure decreased with increasing the height of short to intermediate structures and intermediate to tall structures, so that this capacity reduction decreased by an average of 65% in reinforced concrete frame with steel plate shear wall and 75% in reinforced concrete frame without steel plate shear wall.
Table 1
Comparison of Finite Element Analysis Results[27] and Choi and Park Model Test [26].
Energy Dissipation (kN.m)
|
Elastic Stiffness (kN/mm)
|
Lateral Load (kN) |
||||||
Ratio Finite Element To Test |
Finite Element |
Test |
Ratio Finite Element To Test |
Finite Element |
Test |
Ratio Finite Element To Test |
Finite Element |
Test |
1.08 |
349.23 |
323.98 |
0.91 |
48 |
53 |
1.02 |
903 |
886 |
Table 2
Comparison of Finite Element Analysis Results[27] and Choi and Park Model Test [26]
Elastic Stiffness (kN/mm)
|
Lateral Load (kN) |
||||
Ratio Finite Element To Test |
Finite Element |
Test |
Ratio Finite Element To Test |
Finite Element |
Test |
1 |
6 |
6 |
0.91 |
173 |
190 |
Table 3
Summary of calculations of bracing equivalent for 4 story model.
As (cross section of each strip)(10 strip)
|
Plate Thickness(mm)
|
equivalent cross-sectional area of the brace(cm^2) |
Story |
9.51 |
1.6 |
52 |
1 |
9.51 |
1.6 |
52 |
2 |
9.51 |
1.6 |
52 |
3 |
6.5 |
1.1 |
36 |
4 |
Table 4
Result for scaling the first category records of seismic scenario (with maximum EPA).
Scale coefficient of Models |
EPA Mainshock, Aftershock |
Ratio PGA Aftershock to Mainshock |
PGA(g) Aftershock Earthquake |
PGA(g) Mainshock Earthquake |
Aias Intensity cm/s |
Year month day Time |
Station name |
Earthquake name |
|||
24st |
12st |
8st |
4st |
||||||||
1.16 |
0.89 |
0.78 |
0.67 |
0.4854,0.1047 |
0.32 |
0.143 |
0.446 |
193.3 11 |
86-07-21 14:42,14:51 |
CDMG 54428 Zack Brothers Ranch |
Chalfant Valley |
5.36 |
4.32 |
4.10 |
4.70 |
0.0725-0.0794 |
0.97 |
0.072 |
0.074 |
13.3 9.6 |
61-04-09 7:23,7:25 |
USGS 1028 Hollister city Hall |
Hollister |
2.19 |
1.69 |
1.50 |
1.23 |
0.2601-0.043 |
0.21 |
0.053 |
0.255 |
65.2 2.6 |
87-03-02 1:42,1:51 |
99999 Matahina Dam |
New zeland |
Table 5
Result for scaling the second category of seismic scenario (with nearly maximum EPA).
Scale coefficient of Models |
EPA Mainshock, Aftershock |
Ratio PGA Aftershock to Mainshock |
PGA(g) Aftershock Earthquake |
PGA(g) Mainshock Earthquake |
Aias Intensity |
Year month day Time |
Station name |
Earthquake name |
|||
24st |
12st |
8st |
4st |
cm/s |
|||||||
2.70 |
1.83 |
1.65 |
1.37 |
0.2197,0.0887 |
0.43 |
0.106 |
0.248 |
50.1 6.9 |
86-07-21 14:42,14:51 |
CDMG 54171 Bishop-LADWP South St |
Chalfant Valley |
4.17 |
2.15 |
1.78 |
1.31 |
0.1797-0.2268 |
1.23 |
0.262 |
0.212 |
31.7 63.9 |
99-09-20 17:57,18:03 |
CWB 99999 TCU079 |
Chi-Chi Taiwan 1 |
3.73 |
1.72 |
1.42 |
1.00 |
0.1026-0.2844 |
0.38 |
0.15 |
0.396 |
14.8 78.7 |
99-09-20 17:57,18:03 |
CWB 99999 TCU129 |
Chi-Chi Taiwan 2 |
1.28 |
1.05 |
0.92 |
0.71 |
0.4215-0.1614 |
0.46 |
0.238 |
0.519 |
165.4 11.1 |
79-10-15 23:16, 23:19 |
USGS 952 EL Centro Array #5 |
Imperial Valley |
1.37 |
1.46 |
1.35 |
1.29 |
0.2528-0.0771 |
0.28 |
0.071 |
0.25 |
144.1 7.3 |
80-11-23 19:34,19:35 |
ENEL 99999 Sturno |
Irpinia, Italy 1 |
1.82 |
1.69 |
2.28 |
2.43 |
0.1335-0.1221 |
0.74 |
0.132 |
0.177 |
57.8 46.3 |
80-11-23 19:34,19:35 |
ENEL 99999 Calitri |
Irpinia, Italy 2 |
0.78 |
0.62 |
0.58 |
0.49 |
0.6244-0.0385-0.0944 |
0.18 |
0.107 |
0.583 |
436 1.3 7.3 |
94-01-17 12:31,12:32,12:41 |
CDMG 24279 Newhall - Fire Sta |
Northridge 1 |
0.47 |
0.34 |
0.28 |
0.22 |
1.3491-.0638 |
0.04 |
0.069 |
1.78 |
2274.8 4.5 |
94-01-17 12:31,12:41 |
CDMG 24436 Tarzana – Cedar Hill A |
Northridge 2 |
Table 6
Records with after-earthquake acceleration to main earthquake ratio greater than one [16, 37].
Mechanism |
PGA(g) |
Arias(cm/s) Intensity |
Magnitude |
RSN |
Earthquake |
NO |
Strike-slip |
0.236 |
53.7 |
5.77 |
547 |
Chalfant Valley |
1 |
Strike-slip |
0.447 |
193.8 |
6.19 |
558 |
Chalfant Valley |
|
Reverse |
0.519 |
82.8 |
5.77 |
406 |
Coalinga |
2 |
Reverse |
0.677 |
142.4 |
5.21 |
418 |
Coalinga |
|
Strike-slip |
0.221 |
86 |
6.53 |
185 |
Imperial Valley |
3 |
Strike-slip |
0.255 |
13.5 |
5.01 |
208 |
Imperial Valley |
|
Reverse-oblique |
0.194 |
30.5 |
5.99 |
691 |
Whittier |
4 |
Reverse-oblique |
0.206 |
17.5 |
5.27 |
716 |
Whittier |
|
Table 7
Residual capacity of models under real seismic sequence for group I earthquakes with effective peak acceleration.
Earthquake |
1 |
2 |
Res cap |
Res cap% |
3 |
4 |
Res cap |
Res cap% |
5 |
6 |
Res cap |
Res cap% |
4Frame |
3.3 |
5.25 |
1.93 |
36.8% |
4.95 |
5.85 |
1.72 |
29.4% |
1.42 |
1.42 |
1.42 |
100.0% |
4SPSW |
13.75 |
16.3 |
7.13 |
43.7% |
5.25 |
9.95 |
7.13 |
71.7% |
3.72 |
5.02 |
0 |
0.0% |
8Frame |
7.8 |
6.16 |
2.08 |
33.8% |
2.08 |
2.08 |
0.87 |
41.8% |
3.3 |
1.42 |
1.42 |
100.0% |
8SPSW |
15.8 |
6.2 |
0 |
0.0% |
13.25 |
11.28 |
5.45 |
48.3% |
8.08 |
7.8 |
0 |
0.0% |
12Frame |
1.42 |
2.8 |
0.4 |
14.3% |
1.42 |
1.93 |
0.27 |
14.0% |
2.08 |
2.08 |
0.32 |
15.4% |
12SPSW |
10.33 |
6.17 |
0.62 |
10.0% |
9.22 |
11.53 |
0.057 |
0.5% |
3.57 |
3.57 |
0.25 |
7.0% |
24Frame |
0.23 |
0.23 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.23 |
0.23 |
0.04 |
17.4% |
0.6 |
0.23 |
0.07 |
30.4% |
24SPSW |
1.85 |
2.8 |
0.74 |
26.4% |
0.67 |
0.23 |
0.23 |
100.0% |
1.42 |
1.2 |
0.56 |
46.7% |
In table7, Frame equal reinforced concrete frame without steel shear wall, SPSW reinforced concrete frame equipped with steel plate shear wall and Res cap, residual capacity and numbers before Freme and SPSW indicate the number of stories of model.
Table 8
Residual capacity of models under real seismic sequence for group II earthquakes with nearly maximum EPA.
Earthquake |
1 |
2 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
3 |
4 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
5 |
6 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
4Frame |
2.8 |
3.57 |
0.87 |
24.4% |
2.8 |
5.25 |
1.72 |
32.8% |
2.08 |
3.3 |
1.56 |
47.3% |
4SPSW |
8.08 |
12.05 |
11.5 |
95.4% |
18.55 |
17.75 |
13.55 |
76.3% |
13.6 |
13.7 |
10.33 |
75.4% |
8Frame |
3.57 |
4.1 |
2.24 |
54.6% |
3.3 |
6.16 |
1.66 |
26.9% |
3.56 |
3.3 |
1.32 |
40.0% |
8SPSW |
9.17 |
7.76 |
1.32 |
17.0% |
6.8 |
10.5 |
1.89 |
18.0% |
7.8 |
7.13 |
2.55 |
35.8% |
12Frame |
0.8 |
1.42 |
0.71 |
50.0% |
1.93 |
1.93 |
0.53 |
27.5% |
1.27 |
2.55 |
0.93 |
36.5% |
12SPSW |
5.85 |
7.13 |
0.8 |
11.2% |
3.57 |
6.17 |
0 |
0.0% |
8.15 |
5.25 |
1.56 |
29.7% |
24Frame |
0.23 |
0.23 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.23 |
0.23 |
0.07 |
30.4% |
0.23 |
1.2 |
0 |
0.0% |
24SPSW |
0.6 |
2.55 |
0 |
0.0% |
2.08 |
2.08 |
0.27 |
13.0% |
1.42 |
2.8 |
0.8 |
28.6% |
Continous of Table 8
Earthquake |
7 |
8 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
9 |
10 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
11 |
12 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
4Frame |
1.42 |
3.3 |
0.67 |
20.3% |
1.42 |
0.8 |
0.8 |
100.0% |
1.42 |
1.42 |
0.55 |
38.7% |
4SPSW |
7.8 |
9.95 |
9.95 |
100.0% |
3.3 |
20 |
16.2 |
81.0% |
2.08 |
1.2 |
1.2 |
100.0% |
8Frame |
2.55 |
4.95 |
0.74 |
14.9% |
2.55 |
2.55 |
1.66 |
65.1% |
2.8 |
3.3 |
3.3 |
100.0% |
8SPSW |
2.76 |
9.22 |
0.23 |
2.5% |
4.38 |
8.15 |
4.1 |
50.3% |
6.12 |
4.38 |
3.7 |
84.5% |
12Frame |
1.42 |
1.27 |
0.33 |
26.0% |
0.67 |
1.2 |
0.71 |
59.2% |
0.8 |
2.8 |
0.62 |
22.1% |
12SPSW |
3.57 |
4.1 |
0.05 |
1.2% |
2.8 |
4.1 |
2.9 |
70.7% |
9.95 |
5.85 |
5.85 |
100.0% |
24Frame |
0.23 |
0.8 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.67 |
0.62 |
0.26 |
41.9% |
0.6 |
0.23 |
0.15 |
65.2% |
24SPSW |
1.42 |
0.8 |
0.18 |
22.5% |
2.08 |
1.42 |
1.27 |
89.4% |
0.8 |
1.27 |
0.8 |
63.0% |
Continous of Table 8
Earthquake |
13 |
14 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
16 |
17 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
4Frame |
2.08 |
4.38 |
1.2 |
27.4% |
3.56 |
5.85 |
0.93 |
15.9% |
4SPSW |
2.15 |
2.08 |
0 |
0.0% |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0.0% |
8Frame |
4.38 |
4.38 |
1.93 |
44.1% |
2.55 |
8.15 |
1.85 |
22.7% |
8SPSW |
5.21 |
0.18 |
0 |
0.0% |
5.8 |
2.76 |
2.34 |
84.8% |
12Frame |
1.42 |
2.08 |
0.36 |
17.3% |
1.42 |
2.55 |
0.4 |
15.7% |
12SPSW |
4.38 |
6.8 |
0.74 |
10.9% |
4.38 |
2.08 |
2.08 |
100.0% |
24Frame |
0.23 |
0.6 |
0.05 |
8.3% |
0.23 |
0.23 |
0.23 |
100.0% |
24SPSW |
1.42 |
0.8 |
0.23 |
28.8% |
0.62 |
3.57 |
0.23 |
6.4% |
Table 9
Residual capacity of models under real seismic sequence for group III earthquakes
Earthquake |
185 |
208 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
406 |
418 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
547 |
558 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
4Frame |
1.2 |
2.08 |
0.55 |
26.4% |
2.8 |
4.38 |
1.32 |
30.1% |
2.8 |
3.3 |
1.47 |
44.5% |
4SPSW |
4.1 |
5.25 |
5.25 |
100.0% |
16.2 |
17.6 |
12.3 |
69.9% |
5.85 |
12.71 |
12.71 |
100.0% |
8Frame |
2.08 |
5.25 |
0.38 |
7.2% |
3.57 |
5.25 |
1.66 |
31.6% |
3.3 |
6.16 |
3.08 |
50.0% |
8SPSW |
1.27 |
11.1 |
5.45 |
49.1% |
6.17 |
7.13 |
0.3 |
4.2% |
5.25 |
14.85 |
0.36 |
2.4% |
12Frame |
0.8 |
0.66 |
0.33 |
50.0% |
1.42 |
2.08 |
0 |
0.0% |
2.08 |
1.27 |
1.2 |
94.5% |
12SPSW |
1.41 |
6.8 |
1.12 |
16.5% |
4.1 |
5.25 |
0.71 |
13.5% |
3.3 |
10.33 |
2.55 |
24.7% |
24Frame |
0.6 |
0.23 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.62 |
0.66 |
0 |
0.0% |
0.66 |
0.23 |
0.01 |
4.3% |
24SPSW |
2.55 |
0.67 |
0.23 |
34.3% |
2.08 |
2.08 |
0.8 |
38.5% |
1.42 |
1.42 |
0.834 |
58.7% |
Continous of Table 9
Earthquake |
691 |
716 |
Res cap |
Res cap |
4Frame |
2.55 |
3.57 |
2.55 |
71.4% |
4SPSW |
6.8 |
16.2 |
7.13 |
44.0% |
8Frame |
3.56 |
4.38 |
1.66 |
37.9% |
8SPSW |
10.3 |
7.13 |
1.08 |
15.1% |
12Frame |
0.8 |
2.55 |
0 |
0.0% |
12SPSW |
7.8 |
6.16 |
2.55 |
41.4% |
24Frame |
0.23 |
0.8 |
0.23 |
28.8% |
24SPSW |
0.8 |
2.08 |
0.8 |
38.5% |
Table 10
Comparison of residual capacity of models under earthquakes of groups I, II and III
Earthquake |
groups I |
groups II |
groups III |
4Frame |
1.69 |
1.04 |
1.47 |
4SPSW |
4.75 |
7.84 |
9.35 |
8Frame |
1.46 |
1.84 |
1.70 |
8SPSW |
1.82 |
2.02 |
1.80 |
12Frame |
0.33 |
0.57 |
0.38 |
12SPSW |
0.31 |
1.75 |
1.73 |
24Frame |
0.04 |
0.10 |
0.06 |
24SPSW |
0.51 |
0.47 |
0.67 |