非延性钢筋混凝土柱验收标准对比研究

IF 0.8 Q4 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL
O. Eyitayo, K. Elwood
{"title":"非延性钢筋混凝土柱验收标准对比研究","authors":"O. Eyitayo, K. Elwood","doi":"10.5459/BNZSEE.51.4.183-196","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Poor seismic performance of older reinforced concrete buildings in past seismic events has frequently been attributed to failure of non-ductile columns not detailed for seismic demands. The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings Guidelines developed in New Zealand (NZ Guideline) provides a performance-based engineering framework for assessment of existing buildings, with concrete buildings covered in section C5. This study compares the probable failure mode and deformation capacity assessed based on NZ Guideline, ASCE/SEI 41-13, and ASCE/SEI 41-17 with the results from quasi-static cyclic tests conducted on 52 rectangular and 13 circular reinforced concrete columns with reinforcement details similar to those of non-ductile columns. Results indicate that the general curvature-based method of the NZ Guideline was not able to identify the observed failure mode but generally provides a conservative estimate of deformation capacity in comparison with ASCE/SEI 41-17. Based on the results of this study, a direct rotation-based acceptance criteria is proposed for NZ Guidelines. Also, slight modifications, to reduce conservatism, have been proposed for the curvature-based method.","PeriodicalId":46396,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study on acceptance criteria for non-ductile reinforced concrete columns\",\"authors\":\"O. Eyitayo, K. Elwood\",\"doi\":\"10.5459/BNZSEE.51.4.183-196\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Poor seismic performance of older reinforced concrete buildings in past seismic events has frequently been attributed to failure of non-ductile columns not detailed for seismic demands. The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings Guidelines developed in New Zealand (NZ Guideline) provides a performance-based engineering framework for assessment of existing buildings, with concrete buildings covered in section C5. This study compares the probable failure mode and deformation capacity assessed based on NZ Guideline, ASCE/SEI 41-13, and ASCE/SEI 41-17 with the results from quasi-static cyclic tests conducted on 52 rectangular and 13 circular reinforced concrete columns with reinforcement details similar to those of non-ductile columns. Results indicate that the general curvature-based method of the NZ Guideline was not able to identify the observed failure mode but generally provides a conservative estimate of deformation capacity in comparison with ASCE/SEI 41-17. Based on the results of this study, a direct rotation-based acceptance criteria is proposed for NZ Guidelines. Also, slight modifications, to reduce conservatism, have been proposed for the curvature-based method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46396,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5459/BNZSEE.51.4.183-196\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5459/BNZSEE.51.4.183-196","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在过去的地震事件中,老旧钢筋混凝土建筑的抗震性能差通常归因于未详细说明抗震要求的非延性柱的破坏。新西兰制定的现有建筑地震评估指南(NZ指南)为现有建筑评估提供了一个基于性能的工程框架,其中混凝土建筑在C5节中有所涵盖。本文将基于NZ准则、ASCE/SEI 41-13和ASCE/SEI 41-17评估的可能破坏模式和变形能力与52根矩形和13根圆形钢筋混凝土柱的准静力循环试验结果进行了比较,这些柱的配筋细节与非延性柱相似。结果表明,与ASCE/SEI 41-17相比,NZ准则的一般基于曲率的方法不能识别观察到的破坏模式,但通常提供了保守的变形能力估计。基于这项研究的结果,我们提出了一个直接基于轮转的接受标准。此外,还对基于曲率的方法进行了一些修改,以降低保守性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative study on acceptance criteria for non-ductile reinforced concrete columns
Poor seismic performance of older reinforced concrete buildings in past seismic events has frequently been attributed to failure of non-ductile columns not detailed for seismic demands. The Seismic Assessment of Existing Buildings Guidelines developed in New Zealand (NZ Guideline) provides a performance-based engineering framework for assessment of existing buildings, with concrete buildings covered in section C5. This study compares the probable failure mode and deformation capacity assessed based on NZ Guideline, ASCE/SEI 41-13, and ASCE/SEI 41-17 with the results from quasi-static cyclic tests conducted on 52 rectangular and 13 circular reinforced concrete columns with reinforcement details similar to those of non-ductile columns. Results indicate that the general curvature-based method of the NZ Guideline was not able to identify the observed failure mode but generally provides a conservative estimate of deformation capacity in comparison with ASCE/SEI 41-17. Based on the results of this study, a direct rotation-based acceptance criteria is proposed for NZ Guidelines. Also, slight modifications, to reduce conservatism, have been proposed for the curvature-based method.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
17.60%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信