Performance-Based Pushover Cyclic Test For Innovative Prefabricated Hybrid Industrialised Building System Sub-Frame

Authors

  • Wong Jing Ying Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
  • Abdul Kadir Marsono Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
  • Masine Md. Tap Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
  • Chun-Chieh Yip Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 UTM Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v74.3372

Keywords:

Industrialised Building System (IBS), pushover pseudo-dynamic cyclic load test, hysteresis curve, capacity curve, damage ranking, damage index

Abstract

The paper presents a pseudo-dynamic cyclic load test to evaluate the structural performance of innovative prefabricated hybrid Industrialised Building System (IBS) subjected to earthquake-induced ground motions. Two beams, three columns and six wall panels with scale of 1:5 were casted using concrete grade 30. Steel bars with diameters of 6 mm and 1.5 mm were used as main reinforcement and links, respectively. The frame was set-up and tested in two reversal directions of cyclic lateral loads in the structural laboratory. Eight Linear Variable Displacement Transducers (LVDTs) and seven strain gauges were instrumented in the model to record deflections and strains. This experiment was conducted in displacement-controlled mode. Four cycles of loads were applied corresponding to the initial targeted lateral displacement to obtain hysteresis curve. The structural performance was assessed using structural seismic demand parameters such as story displacement, displacement ductility and energy dissipation. Three structural performance levels that were Immediate Occupancy (IO), Life Safety (LS) and Collapse Prevention (CP) were assessed with compliance of FEMA 356. Structural behaviour, localised stressed and failed components were checked and recorded. The experimental results were presented in load-displacement of the system, mapped crack patterns, and development of capacity curve. Damage ranking were proposed based on degree of damage of scaled 1:5 of SMART IBS frame. 

References

CIDB. 2003. Industrialised Building System (IBS) Roadmap 2003-2010. In CIDB. Malaysia (Ed.). Kuala Lumpur: CIDB.

Zainal Abidin, A. R. 2007. Simulation of Industrialised Building System Formation For Housing Construction. Master of Science, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia.

Building Assembly System. 2011. International Patent No: PCT/MY2011/000182 PI2010003779. Dr. Abdul Kadir Marsono, Dr. Ahmad Mahir Makhtar and Dr. Masine Md. Tap.

Bournas, D. A., Negro, P. and Taucer, F. 2013. The Emilia Earthquakes: Report and Analysis on the Behavior of Precast Industrial Buildings from a Field Mission. 4th ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 12–14 June. Kos Island, Greece.

Housner, G. W. and He, D. X. 2002. Report on The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976. California Institute of Technology. Pasadena, California.

Girty, G. H. 2009. Perilous Earth: Understanding Processes Behind Natural Disasters. Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University.

1988. Death Toll Rises in Armenian Earthquake. December 10. BBC News.

Lew, H. S., Cooper, J., Hays, W. and Mahoney, M. 1994. The January 17, 1994, Northridge Earthquake California. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) SP 871. 375–426.

Murat, S., Denis, M., Rene, T., N. John, G., Anthony, G. G. and Ahmed, G. 2001. The August 17, 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey) Earthquake -Damage to Structures. Canada Journal Civil Engineering.

ï›10ï Moghadasi, M and Marsono, A. K. 2012. Comparative Experimental Study of Full-scale H-Subframe Using a New Industrialized Building System and Monolithic Reinforced Concrete Beam-to-Column Connection. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Building. Published online in Wiley Online Library.

Applied Technology Council. 1996. ATC 40. California: Applied Technology Council.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1997. FEMA 273. Washington: Applied Technology Council.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2000. FEMA 356. Washington: American Society of Civil Engineers.

Applied Technology Council. 2005. FEMA 440. Washington: Applied Technology Council.

Vision 2000. 1995. Performance Based Seismic Engineering of Buildings. Structural Engineers Association of California. California.

British Standard Institution. 2004. (Eurocode 8). London: British Standard Institution. BS EN 1998–1:2004

Marsono, A. K and Khoshnoud, H. R. 2010. Evaluating Equivalent Static Analysis of Iranian Code with Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis. Proceedings of First Makassar International Conference on Civil Engineering (MICCE 2010). Makassar, Indonesia.

Datta, T. K. 2010. Seismic Analysis of Structures. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pte Ltd.

Tso, W. K. and Moghadam, A. S. 1998. Pushover Procedure for Seismic Analysis of Buildings. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials. I(3): 337–344.

ï›20ï Vatansever, C. and Yardimci, N. 2010. Cyclic Behavior and Numerical Modelling of a Semi-rigid Frame. Steel Construction. 3(3).

Bosco, M., Ghersi, A. and. Marino, E. M. 2009. On the Evaluation of Seismic Response of Structures by Nonlinear Static Methods. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 38: 1465–1482.

ï›22ï Bozorgnia, Y. and Bertero, V. V. (Eds.). 2004. Earthquake Engineering-From Engineering Seismology to Performance-Based Engineering. London: CRC Press.

ï›23ï Ghobarah, A. 2000. Seismic Assessment of Existing RC structures. Progress in Structural Engineeering and Materials. 2: 60–71.

Masayoshi Nakashima, Tomohiro Matsumiya, Keichiro Suita and Dawei Liu. 2006. Test on Full-scale Three Storey Steel Moment Frame and Assessment of Ability of Numerical Simulation to Trace Cyclic Inelastic Behaviour. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 35: 3–19.

Pinho, R. and Elnashai, A. S. Dynamic Collapse Testing of a Full-scale Four Storey RC Frame. ISET. Journal of Earthquake Technology 2000. 37(4): 143–63.

Weng, Y. T., Lin, K. C. and Hwang, S. J. 2006. Experimental and Analytical Performance Assessment of In-situ Pushover Tests of School Buildings in Taiwan. 4th International Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Paper No. 154.

Tu, Y. H., Jiang, W. C. and Hwang, S. J. 2006. In Situ Pushover Test of a School Building In Taiwan. NCREE Newsletter. 1(1).

Wang, J. C., Ou, Y. C., Chang, K. C. and. Lee, G. C. 2008. Large-scale Seismic Tests of Tall Concrete Bridge Columns with Precast Segmental Construction. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics. 37: 1449–1465.

Zhang, Y., Liu, J. J. and Qian, J. R. 2011. Numerical Simulation and Analysis of a Pushover of a Full-scale Two-story Model. International Conference on Information Science and Technology. March 26-28, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China.

Sharma, A., Reddy, G. R., Vaze, K. K. and Eligehausen, R. 2013. Pushover Experiment and Analysis of a Full Scale Non-seismically Detailed RC Structure. Engineering Structures. 46: 218–233

Okada, S. and Takai, N. 2000. Classification of Structural Types and Damage Patterns of Buildings for Earthquake Field Investigation. 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. 30 January-4 February. Auckland, New Zealand.

Takashi, K., Fumitoshi, K. and Yoshiaki, N. 2002. Quick Inspection Manual For Damaged Reinforced Concrete Buildings Due To Earthquakes: Based On Disaster Of 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake In Turkey. National Institute of Land and Infrastructure Management.

Downloads

Published

2015-04-13

How to Cite

Ying, W. J., Marsono, A. K., Md. Tap, M., & Yip, C.-C. (2015). Performance-Based Pushover Cyclic Test For Innovative Prefabricated Hybrid Industrialised Building System Sub-Frame. Jurnal Teknologi, 74(1). https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v74.3372

Issue

Section

Science and Engineering