Seismic Performance Assessment of Substituting RC Coupling Beams with Replaceable Perforated Steel Type in Tunnel Form Concrete Building Structures

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Faculty, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 M.Sc. Graduate in Structural Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The coupled-shear wall system has been proven to be an outstanding lateral-load resisting system in the medium- to high-rise buildings. In this system, several individual shear walls are coupled with coupling beams. Thus, the walls show an integrated performance in resisting the earthquake loads by providing control over lateral displacements. In tunnel form buildings, the strength and the lateral stiffness are influenced by the coupling beam. In this system, the coupling beams act as a fuse in this system; they are the first elements to undergo inelastic deformations. The proper design of the concrete coupling beams (CCBs) leads to the use of diagonal reinforcements and high-level of detailing. There is a problem in construction of RC tunnel form buildings related to inserting the diagonal reinforcing shear bars, which is practically difficult and in most cases, this reinforcement is ignored. Therefore, these elements as the structural fuses have a minor contribution in dissipation of seismic input energy. Recent researches showed that the steel coupling beams (SCBs) exhibit better performance than the CCBs in terms of ductility and energy absorption during cyclic loadings. The pinching effect was not observed in the hysteretic loops for SCBs, which implied a more stable post-elastic behavior and a higher energy dissipation capacity than the CCBs. Also, the energy dissipation capacity of SCBs was more than three times larger than that of the CCBs. In this study, a regular symmetric plan seven-story tunnel form building was used. The coupling beams with a length of 1 m and a depth of 0.7 m above the openings were inserted. The building was assumed to be residential and located in Tehran. The story height was 3 m, and the soil was considered type B based on the regulatory seismic code of Iran. The building was designed according to ACI 318-14 by using ETABS software. The thickness of the walls and the slabs were 20 cm and 15 cm, respectively. No. 8 rebar with spacing of 20 cm was designed for the vertical and horizontal reinforcements in two layers. In the first two stories, only the vertical reinforcements were of No. 12 rebar. The compressive strength of concrete and the yield strength of reinforcements for structural members were 25 MPa and 400 MPa, respectively. The diagonal reinforcements of the CCBs were designed to provide the ductility and the improvement of the shear strength. In this research, the CCBs were substituted by SCBs with circular holes. The shear strength of the beam was improved with diagonal stiffeners. The holes in the web of the beam were used to convey installations and to avoid perforating shear walls in tunnel form buildings. The diagonal stiffeners prevented the buckling of the beam’s web. Also, the shear strength and the tension field action were improved. Therefore, the seismic performance of the coupling beam was overall enhanced. As the main design equipment the SCB, the relations related to determining the shear capacity of the steel beam were exploited. Then, the seismic behavior of tunnel-form structures with regular RC coupling beams against the same structures designed with the proposed steel beams has been evaluated and compared in a nonlinear range. Finite element modeling and nonlinear analyses were conducted in PERFORM-3D. The incremental dynamic analysis regarding the probable ground motions was performed on the buildings to consider the effects of amplitude variation, frequency content, and the duration of ground motions on the response. The results showed that the use of the proposed SCB reduces the system stiffness and thus increases story drifts. In addition to decreasing the probability of the walls to attain the first levels of failure slightly, under the design earthquake and the maximum probable earthquake, the reliability of buildings in achieving predetermined performances was increased. Indeed, the use of this proposed coupling beam also increases the ductility of the tunnel form structures. Easy to implement and easy to repair or replacement of this steel coupling beam after a destructive earthquake are its other advantages compared to RC type.

Keywords


  1. El-Tawil, S., Christopher, M.K., and Mohammad, H. (2002) Pushover of hybrid coupled walls, design and modeling. Journal of Structural Engineering, 128(10), 1272-1281.
  2. Paulay, T. (2002) The displacement capacity of reinforced concrete coupled walls. Engineering Structures, 24(9), 1165-1175.
  3. Paulay, T. and Binney, J.R. (1974) Diagonally reinforced coupling beams of shear walls, shear in reinforced concrete. ACI Special Publications, 42, 579-598.
  4. Zhao,Z., Kwan, A.K.H., and He, X.G. (2004) Nonlinear finite element analysis of deep reinforced concrete coupling beams. Engineering Structures, 26(1), 13-25.
  5. Harries, K.A., Mitchell, D., Cook, W.D., and Redwood, R.G. (1993) Seismic response of steel beams coupling concrete walls. Journal of Structural Engineering, 119(12), 3611-3629.
  6. Harries, K.A. (1995) Seismic Design and Retrofit of Coupled Walls Using Structural Steel.D. Thesis, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
  7. Park, W.S., Yun, H.D., Hwang, S.K., Han, B.C., and Yang, I.S. (2005) Shear strength of the connection between a steel coupling beam and a reinforced concrete shear wall in a hybrid wall system. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 61(7), 912-941.
  8. Park, S. and Hyun-Do, Y. (2006) The bearing strength of steel coupling beam-reinforced concrete shear wall connections. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 236, 77-93.
  9. Hosseini, M., Sadeghi, H., and Habiby, S. (2011) Comparing the nonlinear behaviors of steel and concrete link beams in coupled shear walls system by finite element analysis. Procedia Engineering, 14, 2864-2871.
  10. Chen, Y. and Lu, X. (2012) New replaceable coupling beams for shear wall structures. 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisbon, Portugal, Paper ID 2583, 24-34.
  11. Ji, X., Wang, Y., Ma, Q., and Okazaki, T. (2016) Cyclic behavior of replaceable steel coupling beams. Journal of Structural Engineering, 143(2), DOI: 10.1061/ (ASCE) ST.1943-541X.0001661.
  12. Ji, X., Liu, D., Sun, Y., and Molina Hutt, C. (2016) Seismic performance assessment of a hybrid coupled wall system with replaceable steel coupling beams versus traditional RC coupling beams. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 46(4), 517-535.
  13. Beheshti Aval, S.B. and Mohsenian, V. (2016) Probabilistic seismic performance model for tunnel form concrete building structures. Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering, 3(3), 42-57 (in Persian).
  14. Yuksel, S.B. (2008) Slit‐connected coupling beams for tunnel form building structures. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings, 17(3), 579-600.
  15. Permanent Committee for Revising the Standard 2800 (2014) Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings, 4th Edition, Building and Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran (in Persian).
  16. ACI Committee 318 (2014) Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14) and Commentary. American Concrete Institute.
  17. Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI) (2008) Structural and Earthquake Engineering Software, ETABS, Extended Three Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems Nonlinear Version 9.7.4, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  18. Approved Technologies inDirection of Sub-Note 2-6, Paragraph "D", Note 6, (2007) A Step in Direction of Building Industrialization, First Edition, Building and Housing Research Center Press, Pages 21 and 22 (in Persian).
  19. Beheshti Aval, S.B. and Mohsenian, V. (2017) Multi-level R-factor determination for RC tunnel-form buildings. Sharif Journal of Civil Engineering, 33(2), 1.2, 53-59 (in Persian).
  20. A‌r‌a‌b‌z‌a‌d‌e‌h, A. and O‌m‌r‌a‌n‌i‌a‌n, E. (2014) Parametric investigation of the behavior of a proposed steel coupling beam in coupled shear wall structures under cyclic loading. Sharif Journal of Civil Engineering, 30(2), 133-141 (in Persian).
  21. Institute of National Building Regulations (2013) Design and construction of Steel Structures, Topic 10. 4th Edition, Ministry of Roads & Urban Development, Iran (in Persian).
  22. Sigariyazd, M.A., Joghataie, A., and Attari, N.K. (2016) Analysis and design recommendations for diagonally stiffened steel plate shear walls. Thin-Walled Structures, 103, 72-80.
  23. Chung, K.F., Liu, C.H., and Ko, A.C.H. (2003) Steel beams with large web openings of various shapes and sizes: an empirical design method using a generalized moment-shear interaction curve. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 59(9), 1177-1200.
  24. Computers and Structures Inc. (CSI) (2007) Structural and Earthquake Engineering Software, PERFORM-3D Nonlinear Analysis and Performance Assessment for 3-D Structures, Version 5.0.0, Berkeley, CA, USA.
  25. Technical Criteria Codification & Earthquake Risk Reduction Affairs Bureau (2014) Instruction for Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, No. 360, Management and Planning Organization, Iran.
  26. ASCE (2017) Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings. ASCE/SEI41-17, American Society of Civil Engineers.
  27. AISC 341-10 (2010) Seismic Provisions for Structural Steel Buildings. American Institute of Steel Construction.
  28. ABAQUS (2014) ABAQUS User Manual. Version 6.14, SIMULIA World Headquarters, Providence.
  29. PEER Ground Motion Database, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, Available: http://peer.berkeley.edu/peer_ground_ motion_database.
  30. Beheshti Aval, S.B, Mohsenian, V., and Kouhestani, H.S. (2018). Seismic performance-based assessment of tunnel form building subjected to near-and far-fault ground motions. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 19(1), 79-92.
  31. Beheshti Aval, S.B. (2013) Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings. Vol. I, K. N. Toosi University of Technology Press, Iran (in Persian).
  32. Cimellaro, G.P., Reinhorn, A.M., Bruneau, M., and Rutenberg, A. (2006) Multi-Dimensional Fragility of Structures: Formulation and Evaluation. Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, MCEER-06-0002.
  33. Beheshti Aval, S.B. and Asayesh, M.J. (2017) Seismic Performance Evaluation of Asymmetric Reinforced Concrete Tunnel-Form Buildings. Structures, Elsevier, 10, 157-169.