• Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Society of Korea
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.53-61
• /
• 2014

RC shear wall sections which have irregular shapes such as T, ㄱ, ㄷ sections are typically used in low-rise buildings in Korea. Pushover analysis of building containing such members costs a lot of computation time and needs professional knowledge since it requires complicated modeling and, sometimes, fails to converge. In this study, a method using an equivalent column element for the shear wall is proposed. The equivalent column element consists of an elastic column, an inelastic rotational spring, and rigid beams. The inelastic properties of the rotational spring represent the nonlinear behavior of the shearwall and are obtained from the section analysis results and moment distribution for the member. The use of an axial force to compensate the difference in the axial deformation between the equivalent column element and the actual shear wall is also proposed. The proposed method is applied for the pushover analysis of a 5- story shear wall-frame building and the results are compared with ones using the fiber elements. The comparison shows that the inelastic behavior at the same drift was comparable. However, the performance points estimated using the pushover curves showed some deviations, which seem to be caused by the differences of estimated yield point and damping ratios.

• 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).