94

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic
Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures
Non-Structural Reinforced Concrete Partition Walls

as Secondary Damping Devices
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by ESCOLA POLITECNICA- USP on 06/18/13. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Kaori OKUBO1, Hitoshi SHIOHARA2, Hseyin DARAMA3 and Kazuo TAMURA1

1
Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation, 3-4-17 Ecchujima Koto-ku Tokyo,

135-8530, JAPAN; PH +81-3-3820-5556; FAX +81-3-3820-5959;
email: kaori_okubo@shimz.co.jp
2
Dept. of Architecture, School of Engineering, the University of Tokyo, 7-3-1
Hongo Bunkyo-ku Tokyo, 113-8656 JAPAN; PH +81-3-5841-6159; FAX +81-35841-6156, email: shiohara@arch.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp
3
Arup North America Ltd, 12777 W. Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 200,Los Angles, CA
90066; PH (310)-578-4556; FAX (310)-577-7011;email:Huseyin.Darama@arup.com
Abstract
To investigate the seismic behavior of the fully isolated (slitted) non-structural
reinforced concrete walls using dowel bars, authors performed the static loading tests
and seismic response analysis. According to the results, such walls had no negative
effects on the stiffness balance or deformation capacity of the building structure and
consumed energy mainly by the damaged dowel bars under small and mid scale
earthquakes. The lateral strength and the hysteretic energy absorption of the nonstructural walls with only horizontal slit face could be calculated as the cumulative
increase of the performance of each dowel bar. The results show that non-structural
walls have potentials to be incorporated into actual buildings as a new passive
control device. It can be considered to be reserves for the seismic performance of the
building, which would contribute to re-appreciation of the asset value of existing
buildings.
Introduction
Performance evaluations for non-structural walls are not conducted in general in the
structural design, since non-structural elements are regarded to be separated from the
structural members at the connection. This is one the reasons why the non-structural
partition walls are not considered as structural members. However, according to the
past researches of earthquake damages or related subjects, non-structural walls were
discovered to be significantly related to the structural performance of buildings under
seismic loading. In particular, if non-structural walls are rigidly connected to
columns and beams, the structure could be partially weak due to the short columns
and beams action and it could induce eccentricity to the structure at the attachments.
Such conditions could result in the difficulty to monitor the seismic performance of
the structural frame. Depending on the case, negative effects may occur on the
structure.
Copyright ASCE 2009

Improving the Seismic Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures
1034

In recent yearsthe fully slitted non-structural walls, which are separated

from structures, became common to avoid such negative effects on the structure.
While the fully slitted non-structural walls are designed to have primary joint to
avoid its falling due to the external force (e.q. seismic vibration), their other effects
were not considered (e.q. rigidity or energy consumption) in the structural design.
There were little research data available.
If we can reveal that the joints of the non-structural members have no effect
on the stiffness and it can quantitatively show improvements for the deformation
characteristics of the building, non-structural members may be considered to be
reserves for the seismic performance of the building. They also contribute to reappreciation of the asset value of exiting buildings. Therefore, the authors conducted
the static incremental loading test of pulse amplitude between 2005 and 2007
focusing on the jointing method using dowel bars to connect non-structural walls and
its surrounding columns and beams of reinforced concrete structures (RC) in order to
obtain the basic data to study the effects of the non-structural walls on the seismic
performance of the buildings. This paper presents the restoring force and
deformation characteristics of non-structural walls from the series of experiments
and discusses the supplementary damping provided by the non-structural walls by an
analytical study performed on a prototype reinforced concrete mid-rise building.
Test Plan
Specimens. The specimen and testing devices were provided in reference to the
partition walls isolated from beams and columns by using dowel bars, which were
used for an ordinary reinforced concrete six story apartment building. For modeling
the specimen, the fully slitted side was at the floor beams (horizontal slit) and the
boundary against the columns (vertical slit). The boundary of the non-structural walls
and the beams of the upper floor (hereinafter, fixed side) were anchored with a
certain amount of rebars in order to generate no relative variance against the wall
panel of the non-structural walls.
The specimen was comprised of the reinforced concrete wall panel
(hereinafter, RC panel), dowel bars embedded onto the panel and the steel plate to
connect dowel bars and the testing device (Figure 1). For RC panel, a general type of
bar arrangements of the RC non-structural walls was applied. The slit was designed
based on the span of the fixed edges of the dowel bars. The fully slitted parts were
specified simply as a void in this study aiming at collecting the basic data, although
it is covered by sealing compound in practice. The specimen is categorized into
Series A and B for the precast method (conducted in 2005) and Series D and E for
cast-in-place method (conducted in 2007). For Series A and B, one side of the dowel
bars on the joint was directly welded onto the steel plate, while the other side was
embedded to RC panel. Series D and E had both sides of the dowel bars embedded to
the concrete board, while the small RC panel closer to the loading frame had the
connecting steel plate embedded onto it. The specimen was fabricated as flat casting,
though the following method is assumed to apply to the non-structural wall
installation in practical cases. The dowel bars would be placed as the joint bars (cast
Copyright ASCE 2009

1035

Concept
1036
Specimen Setup
Figure 1. Test specimen concept

together with small RC frame) or chemical anchors (for those which newly
constructed for existing building) to the beams or wall members under the
installation point. The concrete for the wall panel would be placed with a
conventional method (cast-in-place method) or it is fabricated with precast RC walls.
Test Parameters and Specimen Overview. Table 1 shows the specification of the
specimens. Table 2 and 3 are the list of characteristics of the materials used. The
model parameter includes the width of RC panel for the partition wall, the position
and quantity of the dowel bars toward horizontal and vertical directions, type of
rebars, bonds remaining on the rebars and width of the full slit. The specimen is
fabricated for eleven in total including one Series A (A1) with vertical and horizontal
slits, four Series B with horizontal slit only (B1, B2, B3 and B4), four Series D with
the joint to the low yield strength steel (D1,D2,D3 and D4) and two Series E (E1 and
E2).
Table 1. Specification of specimen
Specimen
B1
A1
B2
B3
B4
D1
D2
D3
D4
E1
E2
Slit
Width
(mm)
20
20
20
20
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
RC panel
Width
Type
(mm)
PCa
1200
1200
PCa
PCa
1200
PCa
1200
1200
PCa
CIP
1200
CIP
1200
CIP
1200
CIP
1200
CIP
2000
CIP
2000
Dowel bar type

Fixed
H-Slit
V-Slit
side
2-D13
2-D13
2-D13
2-D13
2-D13
2-D13
2-14
2-D13
2-D13
2-D13
2-D13
2-D16
2-14
2-D16
2-14
2-14
3-D16
4-14
5-D16
4-14
5-D16
3-14
3-D16
5-14
Remarks
Standard of A,B
B1+V-dowels
Low yield steel bar
Unbonded rebar
Narrow slit
Standard of D,E
D1+V-dowels
Fixation degree check
Fixation degree check
Panel width, rebar vol.
Panel width, rebar vol.
Symbols; H-: Horizontal, V-:Vertical, CIP: cast-in-place
Copyright ASCE 2009


1037
Table 2. Concrete material properties (cylinder size: 100mmx H200mm)

Series
(Day)
81
85
Compressive
strength
(MPa)
35.1
36.1
Tensile
strength
(MPa)
2.72
2.82
Young
modulus
(MPa)
3.29104
2.97104
Table 3. Steel material properties

Dowel bar type
Series
D13SD295A
14ELCH2
D16SD345
14ELCH2
A,B
A,B
D,E
D,E
Sectional
area
(mm2)
127
154
199
154
Ultimate
strength
(MPa)
509
307
592
301
Young
modulus
(MPa)
2.27105
2.14105
Elongation
at fracture
(%)
23.2
31.0
16.8
31.2
Yield
strength
(MPa)
354
193
402
197
The details of the typical specimen are as shown in Figure 2. The total RC
panel height (2000mm), thickness (120mm) and the depth of embedment of the
dowel bars to the concrete (200mm) are common. In testing, normal strength
concrete of 30MPa of the actual strength was used. In order to prevent splitting of
concrete, the cover thickness of the dowel bars was specified as six times more than
the diameter of the bar. The spiral bars were also used for confinement around
connectors. The specimen using round steels had the hooks at the edges. In order to
study the difference of the types of dowel bars, Series B was specified to include the
standard Specimen B1 with the slit width 20mm and the joint to the dowel bars by
two D13 (with the diameter of 13mm) deformed bars, Specimen B2 was using the
low yield strength steel. Specimen B3 had the bond of the bars removed. Specimen
B4 had the half slit width of Specimen B1. For Specimen A1, the vertical slit and two
joints were added to B1. For Specimen Series D and E, the slit width was 20mm to
study the variance of energy absorption depending on the designs and the level of
fixture between the non-structural walls and the upper beam. The low yield steel bar
of 14mm in diameter was also used for the dowels. The quantity of bars of the fixed
side and the slits are specified as variable.
Normal Deformed Bar

D13
B1
2000mm
1800mm
A,B
D,E
Age
Slit
20mm
D13
1200mm
(a) Series A,B
180mm
R/C Panel
D1
Normal Deformed Bar

D16
E1
Low-Yield Steel
14
Slit
20mm
2000mm
1200mm
(b) Series D,E
Figure 2. Typical specimen details
Copyright ASCE 2009

1038
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
Figure 3. Loading frame and test setup(unit: mm)
40
30
20
10
0
Force Control
Displacement Control
-10
-20
2.0%
10
0.10%
0.25%
0.50%
0.25%
0.75%
Force (kN)
20
5.0kN
30
2.5kN
7.5kN
10kN
15kN
40
0.25%
0.50%
1.25%
1.50%
Loading and Measurement Method. To simulate the deformation of non-structural

walls in the rigid concrete structure under seismic forcethe loading device was
proposed as shown in Figure 3. It was comprised of four pins and four rigid steel
beams. The horizontal slit face was set at the upper structure to facilitate the
installation of the specimen. Then the edges of the horizontal beams at the upper
structure were loaded by the hydraulic jack to place a horizontal variance to the
upper beam of the loading frame. Drift angles R was calculated as the horizontal
variance d (unit: mm) of the loaded beam is divided by the vertical distance of the
pin of the loading frame (2000mm).
-30
-40
Figure 4. Loading history

( Series A,B )
The loading history of Series A and B is shown in Figure 4. Specimen Series

A and B were loaded under force control until the drift angle reached
R=0.1%(d=2.0mm), which was followed by displacement control. Then, it was
logged repeatedly with the increment of the drift angle by 0.25%, with the interval of
the drift angle input as R=0.10%, 0.25% and 0.50% assuming small and mid-scale
earthquakes. For Specimen Series D and E, the pulse amplitude was repeated in
cycle for three times. The initial pulse amplitude was R=0.125% (d=2.5mm), which
was followed by the second amplitude as R=0.25%. The log was maintained with the
increment of R=0.25% for the third pulse amplitude and after.
The lateral force of the upper beam P (unit: kN) was measured by the load
cell attached to the hydraulic jack. The variance at each point of RC panel was
measured by the strain gauge. The interlayer deformation d (unit: mm) was specified
as the relative variance of the lower and upper beams of the loading frame. For the
story shear Q, P-d effects were measured at no load, when only the dead load of the
loading frame is exerted. It is then specified as the corrected value of the levitation
force.
Test Results
Failure Process. Figure 5 and Picture 1 show the shear resistance and stress
condition of the dowel bars and the observed destruction of the dowel bar
respectively. The dowel bars showed the shear resistance by the dowel action initially.
Thus, the dowel bars were in shape upon receipt of non-symmetric bending against
Copyright ASCE 2009

Displacement (mm)


1039
the symmetric axis at the center of the slit as shown in Figure 5. With increase of
deformation, it was observed that the concrete around the dowel bars were destructed
by bearing pressure, which generated the slipping shape at the hysteresis curve.
When the drift angle changed from R=0.5% to 0.75% (d=10mm to 15mm), the dowel
bars were changed its shape to be straight as shown in Picture 1. After the repeated
loading, the diameter of the dowel bars became smaller locally to decrease the
section area. The bars then eventually were stripped for destruction.
Shear Strength Qsy
s/2
a
M0 =eQ sy
Mmax
Slit Width s
Dowel-bar
Lateral Displacement
Dowel Action
Plastic Hinge Bearing

Capacity
5f c
Full Plastic
Moment
Mp
Stress State at Yielding
Figure 5. Dowel action
Picture 1. Failure of dowel bar
Performance of Specimens. The RC panels except Specimen D2 showed no

bending cracks or shear cracks until the end of the testing. The damage of the
specimen was only found at the dowel bars at the joint and the horizontal concrete
face around it. The specimen was destructed due to the rupture of the reinforcing
bars. Therefore, no specimen had the contact of RC panel and the horizontal beam of
the loading frame before destruction, in other words there was no closure observed
for the full slit. The specimens with the dowel bars at the horizontal slit face only
(without vertical dowels) absorbed most of the interlayer deformation by the
deformed dowel bars. There was little displacement of RC panel and the loading
frame at the fixed side as for these specimens.
In terms of Specimen Series A and B, Specimen B1 and B4 using the regular
steel dowel bar showed destruction before the drift angle reached R=1.0% (d=20mm),
which is considered to be the design limit against large scale earthquakes. However,
the deformation capacity of R=1.0% or more were observed for Specimen B2 using
the low yield strength steel dowel bars, Specimen B3 which the bond of regular steel
dowel bars was removed and Specimen A1 of the regular dowel bar with the vertical
and horizontal slits. In terms of Specimen Series D and E, Specimen D1 had the first
destruction at the joint at R=1.25% (d=25mm), and Specimen D4, E1 and E2 at
R=1.5% (d=30mm). Specimen D2 with the dowel bars at both sides of horizontal and
vertical slits failed at the fixed side, because of the rotational deformation of RC
panel increased by deformed dowel bars at the vertical slit.
Relationship between Story Shear and Interstory Displacement. Figure 6 shows
the relationship between the story shear and interstory displacement for each
specimen (hysteresis curve) and Table 4 shows the experimental value of the story
shear at each stage. Each specimen showed plastic deformations of the dowel bars by
the peak of R=0.125% (d=0.5mm) at the latest. In terms of Specimen Series A and B,
Copyright ASCE 2009


1040
Specimen A1 showed the largest strength as the number of the dowel bars are the
largest as 56.1kN, which was higher than that of B1, B2 and B4 by about 15 to 20%.
Specimen B2 with the low yield strength steel showed little difference from B1 in
terms of strength as the deformation capacity was larger than other groups of Series
B by about 30% and it has the spindle-shape hysteresis curve. The strength of
Specimen B3 was smaller than that of B1, B2 and B4 by about 30%, though the
deformation capacity was about twice as much as that.
While the hysteresis curve was spindle-shaped for Specimen Series D and E
using the low yield strength steel with the dowel bars, the shape was changed to the
inverse S showing the negative slope in the range of slips around the value R=0.75%
(d=15mm). The test showed the largest strength in the range that the hysteresis curve
became the spindle shape for Specimen E2 which has five dowel bars at the
horizontal slit face. It was around 58kN for both positive and negative sides. This
was about 2.6 times of Specimen D1, which has two dowel bars. The maximum
strength of Specimen D3, D4 and E1 were also proportional to the number of dowel
bars.
Table 4. Test results
Specimen
B1
A1
B2
B3
B4
D1
D2
D3
D4
E1
E2
Strength
Rmax
Qmax
(%)
(kN)
0.50
28.5
-0.50
-31.5
1.0
47.9
-0.75
-56.6
1.0
28.2
-1.0
-31.4
1.25
21.0
-1.25
-22.5
0.75
40.4
-0.50
-36.9
1.25
26.8
-1.25
-28.1
1.25
51.0
-1.0
-59.1
1.25
50.3
-1.25
-51.1
1.25
52.2
-1.25
-53.2
1.25
53.1
-1.25
-46.1
1.25
65.0
-1.25
-68.3
Deformation
Rdf
Qdf
(%)
(kN)
-0.75
-15.0
-1.0
1.25
-1.5
-0.75
-1.25
(3rd)
1.25
(3rd)
1.75
(1st)
1.75
(1st)
1.5
(3rd)
-1.5
(2nd)
-53.8
24.7
-13.9
-14.6
-14.8
15.2
12.0
22.2
15.4
-20.9
Maximum Shear Force(kN)

R=0.5%
R=0.75%
R=1.0%
28.5
-31.5
41.8
-52.0
27.0
-26.5
15.7
-16.0
40.1
-36.9
21.8
-21.6
45.9
-55.2
43.4
-41.6
41.5
-43.2
35.4
-32.7
55.6
-55.7
15.1
-15.0
47.0
-56.6
27.3
-27.9
18.6
-19.5
40.4
-26.2
22.1
-22.7
48.7
-58.8
43.3
-41.7
42.3
-44.2
36.4
-33.2
57.6
-58.7
47.9
-56.1
28.2
-31.4
20.6
-21.6
25.1
-25.9
50.5
-59.1
45.5
-44.6
42.7
-47.4
44.6
-37.0
62.1
-66.9
Copyright ASCE 2009

Shear Force Q, kN
40
40
20
20
-20
-20
-40
-2.0
60
40
A1
-60
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
2.0 -2.0
2-14 Low yield
B2
1041
4-D13 Normal
A1
-40
B1
First Failure
-60
Shear Force Q, kN
2-D13 Normal 60
B1
60
60
40
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
2.0
2-D13 Normal
Unbonded
B3
60
20
20
-20
-20
-20
-40
-40
B2
-60
-2.0
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
2.0 -2.0
B4
-60
2.0 -2.0
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
2-D13 Normal
Slit 10mm
-40
B3
-60
B4
40
20
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
2.0
Shear Force Q, kN
(a) Specimen Sereies A,B

60
40
D1
60
2-14 Low yield
40
60
D2
4-14
20
20
-20
-20
-20
-40
D1
60
40
First Failure
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
-40
60
D4
40
4-14
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
2.0 -2.0
60
E1
40
3-14
20
20
-20
-20
-20
D4
-60
-2.0
-40
2.0 -2.0
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
E2
E2
-60
2.0 -2.0
(b) Specimen Sereies D,E
2.0
5-14
-40
E1
-60
-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
D3
-60
20
-40
4-14
-40
D2
-60
2.0 -2.0
D3
40
20
-60
-2.0
Shear Force Q, kN

-1.0
0
1.0
Story Drift R, %
2.0
Figure 6. Hysteresis curve

Hysteretic Energy Absorption. According to the test results, the hysteretic energy
absorption per cycle of each specimen was calculated as the area of the hysteresis
curve loop W. Figure 7 shows the average W per pulse amplitude of each
Copyright ASCE 2009

1042
specimen. It should be noted that W was calculated as the average of the first and
second repeated loading for Specimen Series A and B, and the average of second and
third for Specimen Series D and E. The consumption energy of Specimen A1 was the
largest among Specimen Series A and B, which was followed by B2B1 and B4 in
order. Specimen B3 showed the energy absorption only for 10% of the top specimen
A1. Amongst Specimen Series D and E, Specimen D1 with two dowel bars at the
horizontal slit face showed the pulse amplitude for R=1.0% as W =947 N-m.
Specimen E1 with three dowel bars showed about 1.7 times of D1. Specimen D3 and
4 with four dowel bars were 1.9 times, and Specimen E2 with five dowel bars was
2.7 times of that respectively. It leads the consideration that the hysteresis absorption
energy W is almost proportional to the number of dowel bars at the horizontal slit
face, in the same manner as the story shear. Meanwhile, the value W of Specimen
D2 with two dowel bars for both horizontal and vertical slit faces were 1.6 times
higher than Specimen D1.
3000
Energy Dissipation, N-m

2500
2000
B1
B3
D2
E1
A1
B4
D3
E2
B2
D1
D4
1500
1000
500
0
0.25%
0.50%
0.75%
Story Drift R, %
(a) Energy dissipation
1.0%
(b) Concept of cyclic energy
Figure 7. Hysteretic energy absorption comparison

Consideration of Damping Performance for Non-structural walls
Model Building and Modeling of Non-structural Walls. The damping effects on
non-structural walls were studied under seismic load of small and mid-scale
earthquakes by Nonlinear Time-history Analysis. The analysis model was a six-story
RC moment frame structure including the six-span at the longitudinal direction and
one-transverse for the span direction. The standard floor height was 2.85m. Figure 8
illustrates the outline of the structure and modeling for analysis. Table 5 shows the
section of the structural members and the materials.
The analysis case N1 was a model only for the frame, ignoring the effects of
the nonstructural walls. The analysis case N2 was a model considering the energy
consumption of the aforementioned non-structural walls for the same building model,
for comparison of the maximum story displacement. The hysteresis model of the
structure was a tri-linear type (Figure 9) and each parameter was specified as shown
in Table 6 according to push-over analysis For the structure, two non-structural walls
Copyright ASCE 2009


Structure
Damper
17.1m
@2.85m
Elevation
@2.85m
13m
@2.85m
Mass
40m
Plan
1043
Non-structural walls
N1
N2
Figure 8. Outline of the structure and modeling

Table 5. Structural sections and material
Column
Floor
Lowest
Middle
Highest
inner
bxD(mm)
800x1000
800x1000
800x1000
Beam
longitudinal
span
bxD(mm)
bxD(mm)
550x720
450x880
450x720
450x880
450x720
450x880
corner
bxD(mm)
750x900
700x900
700x900
Concrete
Fc
(MPa)
30
27
24
were placed for each span toward the longitudinal direction of the building, which
was reflected onto the analysis model by converting the data to the shear damper,
which has twice as much strength as Specimen E2. The hysteresis model of the wall
damper was bi-linear type (Figure 9). The seismic loading was corrected to apply as
that the maximum acceleration of three types of waves such as Taft (EW), Hachinohe
(NS) and El Centro (NS) would be 80gal, which is in the 4 to lower 5 range of the
seven-point Japanese intensity scale. The structure model had the first and the second
damping ratio of 3% and had the damping characteristics of proportional to the initial
stiffness.
Table 6. Parameters for analysis
Floor
1
2
3
4
5
6
Mass
(kN)
8700
8000
8000
7800
7800
7200
K1
(N/mm)
42.8105
40.0105
39.1105
29.4105
27.0105
25.2105
K2
(N/mm)
6.99105
5.60105
5.37105
4.51105
4.13105
3.60105
K3
(N/mm)
1.51105
1.43105
1.04105
0.310105
0.272105
0.172105
K
(N/mm)
9.49105
7.55105
6.76105
5.74105
5.27105
4.35105
Copyright ASCE 2009


Force
K2
K3
Qsy
1044
Qsy = 1200kN
dsy = 0.5mm
Force
K1
Disp.
(a) Structure
dsy
Disp.
(b) Dowel Damper
Figure 9. Hysteresis model

Results of Analysis. Figure 10 shows the analysis results of case N1 and N2. In case
N1, the structure stayed elastic in El Centro (El) wave, and became plastic by
cracking at the second, the third and the sixth floor in Taft (Tf) and Hachinohe (Hc)
waves. In case N2, the structure became plastic in all the waves at the same floors as
the result of the case N1 in Tf and Hc waves. The wall dampers yielded at the first
through the fourth floor in Tf wave, at the first through the third in Hc, but stayed
elastic in El wave. The own natural periods of N1 and N2 were 0.391 and 0.299
(unit: second) respectively. The resultant story displacement under El Centro (El)
wave was smaller than those of others. Each N2 result shows that non-structural
walls were effective reducing story displacement by 14% to 50%.
6
5
4
N1-Tf
Story
N2-Tf
N1-Hc
N2-Hc
N1-El
N2-El
1
0
2
3
Maximum story displacement, mm
Figure 10. Maximum story displacement

Conclusion
The static incremental loading test of pulse amplitude was conducted for the full
scale model to study effects of the non-structural partition walls using the full scale
slit and dowel bars on the seismic performance of the building. The following are the
results.
(1) The dowel bars at the slit began deforming gradually and to be plastic at smaller
displacement, which could be seismic response of small and mid scale earthquakes.
This phenomenon eventually resulted in energy consumption. The lateral strength
and the hysteretic energy absorption of the non-structural walls with only horizontal
Copyright ASCE 2009


slit (without vertical slit) face can be calculated as the cumulative increase of the
performance of each dowel bar.
(2) Damages of the non-structural walls due to earthquakes were observed mainly at
the dowel bars and the concrete around it. Meanwhile, no phenomenon was observed
that the structural frame received compressed stress due to the closure of the slits, or
the structural frames are damaged due to the tensile axial force of the dowel bars.
Therefore, it is said that the non-structural walls have no negative effects on the
stiffness or deformation capacity of the building.
(3) Seismic Nonlinear Time-history Analysis considering energy consumption and
stiffness of non-structural walls was conducted for a mid-rise building model. The
model had a certain quantity of non-structural walls placed toward the longitudinal
direction. The results revealed that the story displacement of the frame structure with
non-structural walls was about 0.5 to 0.86 times smaller than that of the analysis of
the structural frame alone.
As above, mechanisms of such non-structural walls are considered to have potentials
to be incorporated into actual buildings as the new passive control design.
References
Okubo, K., Darama, T.H., Tamura, K., and Shiohara, H. (2006) Lateral loading tests
on precast concrete partition walls attached to structural frame with dowelbar connectors , Proceedings of the Japan Concrete Institute, 28(3) 925930 (in Japanese)
Okubo, K., Shiohara, H., Kusuhara, F., and Chen, Z. (2008) Lateral loading tests on
cast-in-place R/C non-structural walls with structural-slits , Proceedings of
the Japan Concrete Institute, 30(3) 1069-1074 (in Japanese)
Copyright ASCE 2009

1045

94

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

94

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

Performance of Existing Buildings and Other Structures

Non-Structural Reinforced Concrete Partition Walls

Kaori OKUBO1, Hitoshi SHIOHARA2, Hseyin DARAMA3 and Kazuo TAMURA1

Institute of Technology, Shimizu Corporation, 3-4-17 Ecchujima Koto-ku Tokyo,

Copyright ASCE 2009

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

In recent yearsthe fully slitted non-structural walls, which are separated

Copyright ASCE 2009

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

Figure 1. Test specimen concept

Dowel bar type

Symbols; H-: Horizontal, V-:Vertical, CIP: cast-in-place

Copyright ASCE 2009

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

Table 2. Concrete material properties (cylinder size: 100mmx H200mm)

Table 3. Steel material properties

Normal Deformed Bar

Normal Deformed Bar

Figure 2. Typical specimen details

Copyright ASCE 2009

Figure 3. Loading frame and test setup(unit: mm)

Loading and Measurement Method. To simulate the deformation of non-structural

Figure 4. Loading history

The loading history of Series A and B is shown in Figure 4. Specimen Series

Copyright ASCE 2009

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

Plastic Hinge Bearing

Stress State at Yielding

Figure 5. Dowel action

Picture 1. Failure of dowel bar

Performance of Specimens. The RC panels except Specimen D2 showed no

Copyright ASCE 2009

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

Maximum Shear Force(kN)

Copyright ASCE 2009

2-14 Low yield

(a) Specimen Sereies A,B

2-14 Low yield

(b) Specimen Sereies D,E

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

Figure 6. Hysteresis curve

Copyright ASCE 2009

Energy Dissipation, N-m

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

(a) Energy dissipation

(b) Concept of cyclic energy

Figure 7. Hysteretic energy absorption comparison

Copyright ASCE 2009

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

Figure 8. Outline of the structure and modeling

Copyright ASCE 2009

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

(b) Dowel Damper

Figure 9. Hysteresis model

Figure 10. Maximum story displacement

Copyright ASCE 2009

ATC & SEI 2009 Conference on Improving the Seismic

Copyright ASCE 2009

S-ar putea să vă placă și