• Steel and Composite Structures
• /
• v.38 no.6
• /
• pp.671-690
• /
• 2021

Seismic responses of RC core wall with two outriggers are investigated in this study. In the models analyzed here, one of the outriggers is fixed at the top of the building and the second is placed at different levels along the height of the system. Each of the systems resulting from the placement of the outrigger at different locations is designed according to the prescriptive codes. The location of the outrigger changes along the height. Linear design of all the structures is accomplished by using prescriptive codes. Buckling restrained braces (BRBs) are used in the outriggers and forward directivity near fault and far fault earthquake record sets are used at maximum considered earthquake (MCE) level. Results from nonlinear time history analysis demonstrate that BRB outriggers can change the seismic responses like force distribution and deformation demand of the RC core-walls over the height and lead to the new plastic hinge arrangement over the core-wall height. Plasticity extension in the RC core wall occurs at the base as well as adjacent to the outrigger levels. Considering the maximum inter-story drift ratio (IDR) demand as an engineering parameter, the best location for the second outrigger is at 0.75H, in which the maximum IDR at the region upper the second outrigger level is approximately equal to the corresponding value in the lower region.

• Journal of the Korea Concrete Institute
• /
• v.23 no.5
• /
• pp.683-692
• /
• 2011

In piloti-type low-rise RC residential buildings, severe damages have been usually concentrated at piloti stories under the earthquake. In this study, a piloti story was retrofitted by installation of buckling-restrained braces (BRB's) to increase strength and stiffness of piloti story and by application of fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) sheet on columns to avoid the brittle shear and axial failure of columns. To verify this retrofit performance, reversed cyclic lateral load tests were performed on 1:5 scale bare and retrofitted frames. The test results showed that yield strength (43.2 kN) appeared to be significantly larger than design value (30 kN) due to the increase of strength in the compression side, but the stiffness value (11.6 kN/mm) turned out to be approximately one-half of the design value (24.2 kN/mm). The reasons for this difference in stiffness were due to slippage at joint between the frame and the BRB's, displacement and rotation at footing. The energy absorption capacity of the retrofitted frame was 7.5 times larger than that of the bare frame. The change of the number of load cells under the footing from 2 to 1 reduced lateral stiffness from 11.6 kN/mm to 6 kN/mm, which was only three times larger than that of the bare frame (2.1 kN/mm).