Buy article PDF
The purchased file will be sent to you
via email after the payment is completed.
US$ 35
|
Earthquakes and Structures Volume 13, Number 2, August 2017 , pages 177-191 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2017.13.2.177 |
|
|
|
Comparative performance of seismically deficient exterior beam-column sub-assemblages of different design evolutions: A closer perspective |
||
A. Kanchana Devi and K. Ramanjaneyulu
|
||
| Abstract | ||
| In the present study, exterior beam column sub-assemblages are designed in accordance with the codal stipulations prevailed at different times prior to the introduction of modern seismic provisions, viz., i) Gravity load designed with straight bar anchorage (SP1), ii) Gravity load designed with compression anchorage (SP1-D), iii) designed for seismic load but not detailed for ductility (SP2), and iv) designed for seismic load and detailed for ductility (SP3). Comparative seismic performance of these exterior beam-column sub-assemblages are evaluated through experimental investigations carried out under repeated reverse cyclic loading. Seismic performance parameters like load-displacement hysteresis behavior, energy dissipation, strength and stiffness degradation, and joint shear deformation of the specimens are evaluated. It is found from the experimental studies that with the evolution of the design methods, from gravity load designed to non-ductile and then to ductile detailed specimens, a marked improvement in damage resilience is observed. The gravity load designed specimens SP1 and SP1-D respectively dissipated only one-tenth and one-sixth of the energy dissipated by SP3. The specimen SP3 showcased tremendous improvement in the energy dissipation capacity of nearly 2.56 times that of SP2. Irrespective of the level of design and detailing, energy dissipation is finally manifested through the damage in the joint region. The present study underlines the seismic deficiency of beam-column sub-assemblages of different design evolutions and highlights the need for their strengthening/retrofit to make them fit for seismic event. | ||
| Key Words | ||
| beam-column sub-assemblage; seismic design; ductile detailing; energy dissipation; strength degradation; shear deformation | ||
| Address | ||
| A. Kanchana Devi and K. Ramanjaneyulu: CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai, 600113, Tamil Nadu, India A. Kanchana Devi and K. Ramanjaneyulu: Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Chennai, 600113, Tamil Nadu, India | ||