Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회논문집)

Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea (한국지진공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Performance of Korean Existing School Buildings with Masonry Infilled Walls Against Earthquakes

조적조 비내력벽을 가진 기존 학교 구조물의 내진 성능평가

  • Received : 2012.08.09
  • Accepted : 2012.11.23
  • Published : 2012.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In Korea, most existing school buildings have been constructed with moment frames with un-reinforced infill walls designed only considering gravity loads. Thus, the buildings may not perform satisfactorily during earthquakes expected in Korea. In exterior frames of the building, un-reinforced masonry infill walls with window openings are commonly placed, which may alter the structural behavior of adjacent columns due to the interaction between the wall and column. The objective of this study is to evaluate the seismic performance of existing school buildings according to the procedure specified in ATC 63. Analytical models are proposed to simulate the structural behavior of columns, infill walls and their interaction. The accuracy of the proposed model is verified by comparing the analytical results with the experimental test results for one bay frames with and without infill walls with openings. For seismic performance evaluation, three story buildings are considered as model frames located at sites having different soil conditions ($S_A$, $S_B$, $S_C$, $S_D$, $S_E$) in Korea. It is observed that columns behaves as a short columns governed by shear due to infill masonry walls with openings. The collapse probabilities of the frames under maximum considered earthquake ranges from 62.9 to 99.5 %, which far exceed the allowable value specified in ATC 63.

Keywords

References

  1. Architectural Institute of Korea, Korean Building Code 2005, 2005.
  2. Architectural Institute of Korea, Korean Building Code 2009, 2009.
  3. Je JH, Kim JS, Yoon, TH, Inelastic Behavior of Standard School Building according to Hysteresis Models. The Korea Academia-Industrial Cooperation Society. 2009; 10(4): 838-845. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2009.10.4.838
  4. Kang SG, Kim SE, Kim MY, O JY, Jang YJ, Jo MY, Cha JM. Education National Survey and Data Annual Report 2005. Korea Educational Development Institute, 2005.
  5. National Emergency Management Agency, A Study on Status of Seismic Design by types of Structures. 2010
  6. ATC, Quantification of building seismic performance factors, ATC 63. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA., 2009.
  7. Ryu HG, Park TW, Lee SH, Chung L, Cho SH. Seismic Performance Evaluation of School Buildings in Gyunggi Region Considering Seismic Hazard Map. Korean Society of Safety. 2009; 24(4):66-73.
  8. Lee SH, Jeong TK. A Proposal for the Effective Evaluation Method of Seismic Capacity Using RC School Structures Damaged by Kobe Earthquake. Journal of the Architectural Institute of Korea. 2006; 22(4):83-93.
  9. Fiorato AE, Sozen MA, Gamble WL. An investigation of the interaction of reinfoced concrete frames with masonry filler walls. Report UIU\LU-ENG-70-100, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign IL, USA. 1970.
  10. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL. Performance of masonry-infilled r/c frames under in-plane lateral loads. Report CU/SR-94-6, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder CO, USA. 1994.
  11. Mehrabi, AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL. Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled rc frames. Journal of Structural Engineering. 1996;122(3):228-237. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1996)122:3(228)
  12. Dolsek M, Fajfar P. Mathematical modelling of an infilled RC frame structure based on the results of pseudo-dynamic tests. Earthquake Engineering and Structure Dynamic, 2002;31:1215-1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.154
  13. Yang IS, Chae HS, Choi SM. Examples of Earthquake Damage and Seismic Retrofit for Existing School Building in Foreign. Journal of Korean Society of Steel Construction. 2009; 41-44.
  14. Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G. Open system for earthquake engineering simulation (OpenSees). User Command Language Manual, University of California, Berkeley: Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; 2006.
  15. Hisham M, Yassin M. Nonlinear analysis of prestressed concrete structures under monotonic and cycling loads. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1994.
  16. Filippou FC, Popov EP, Bertero VV. Effects of bond deterioration on hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete joints. Report EERC 83-19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 1983.
  17. FEMA. Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, report FEMA-356. Washington, DC: SAC Joint Venture for the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2000.
  18. Lee YH, Kim MS, Byeon EH, Kim HC. Experimental Investigation of The Shear Strengthening of Unreinforced Masonry Infilled RC Frames Using CFRP Sheet. Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea. 2010; 14(1):63-70. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2010.14.1.063
  19. Stanfford SB. Lateral stiffness of infilled frames. Journal of the Structural Division (ASCE). 1962; 88(6): 183-199.
  20. Ko H, Kim HS, Park YK, Lee DG. Evaluation of Seismic Behavior for RC Moment Resisting Frame with Masonry Infill Walls. Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea. 2010; 14(5):13-22. https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2010.14.5.013
  21. Kim HC, Kim KJ, Park JH, Hong WK. Experimental Study on the Material Properties of Unreinforced Masonry Considering Earthquake Load. Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea. 2001; 5(2):93-101.
  22. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA. Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2002; 31(3):491-514. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.141
  23. Han SW, Chopra AK. Approximate incremental dynamic analysis using the modal pushover analysis procedure. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. 2006; 135:1853-1873.

Cited by

  1. A Comparison Study of Equivalent Strut Models for Seismic Performance Evaluation of Masonry-Infilled Frame vol.18, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2014.18.2.079
  2. Seismic Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Moment Frames Retrofitted by Toggle Bracing System with High Density Friction Damper vol.18, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5000/EESK.2014.18.3.133