Uni and Bi Directional Quasi Static Tests on Alternative Hybrid Precast Beam Column Joint Subassemblies


A. Palermo
Department of Structural Engineering, Technical University of Milan, Milan, Italy
S. Pampanin and A. Amaris
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Presented at New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering Annual Conference (NZSEE06), New Zealand, 2006.

Recent developments on high performance seismic resisting precast concrete frame systems, based on the use of unbonded post-tensioned tendons with selfcentring capabilities in combination with additional sources of energy dissipation, are herein presented. Alternative arrangements for jointed ductile connections to accommodate different structural or architectural needs have been implemented and validated through quasi-static cyclic tests on a series of 2/3 scaled beam-column subassemblies under uni- or bi-directional loading regime. The satisfactory results confirmed the unique flexibility and potentiality of the proposed solutions for the development of the next generation of seismic resisting buildings.

Several alternative solutions to provide moment-resisting connections between precast elements for seismic resistance have been studied in the past and developed in literature (Watanabe et al 2000, Park 2002, fib Bulletin No. 27 2003) mostly relying on cast-in-place techniques to provide equivalent “monolithic” connections (i.e. equivalent strength and toughness to their cast-in-place counterparts). As implicit in a traditionally accepted seismic design approach, based on the development of a desired inelastic mechanism through the formation of plastic hinge regions in the discrete and controlled locations within the structure (i.e. weak beam, strong column mechanism), different levels of structural damage and, consequently, repair cost, will be expected and, depending on the seismic intensity, typically accepted as unavoidable results of the inelastic behaviour itself.

In the last decade, a revolutionary alternative approach in seismic design, has been introduced in the solutions developed under the U.S. PRESSS (PREcast Seismic Structural System) program coordinated by the University of California, San Diego (Priestley 1991, Priestley 1996, Priestley et al. 1999) for precast concrete buildings in seismic regions with the introduction of “dry” jointed ductile systems, as an alternative to the traditional emulation of cast-in-place solutions and based on the use of unbonded post-tensioning techniques.

A comprehensive overview of developments on high-performance seismic resisting
precast/prestressed systems based on jointed ductile connections has been recently given by Pampanin (Pampanin, 2005).

References

Priestley MJN. (1991). “Overview of the PRESSS Research Programme.” PCI Journal. 36(4), 50-57.
Priestley MJN, Sritharan S, Conley JR, Pampanin S. (1999). “Preliminary Results and Conclusions from the PRESSS Five-Storey Precast Concrete Test-Building.” PCI Journal, 44(6), 42-67.
Priestley MJN. (1996). “The PRESSS Program Current Status and Proposed Plans for Phase III.” PCI Journal, 41(2), 22-40.
Stanton JF, Stone WC and Cheok GS. (1997). “A Hybrid Reinforced Precast Frame for Seismic Region.” PCI Journal, 42 (2), 20-32.
ACI T1.1-01 & ACI T1.1R-01 2001. (2001). “Acceptance Criteria for Moment Frames Based on Structural Testing (T1.1-01) and Commentary (T1.1R-01).” ACI Innovation Task Group 1 and Collaborators.
Watanabe F. (2000). “Seismic Design for Prefabricated and Prestressed Concrete Moment Resisting Frames.” Proceedings of the 46th PCI Annual Convention, Orlando, Florida.
fib (2003), “International Federation for Structural Concrete. Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Building Structures.” Bulletin No. 27, Lausanne, 254 pp.
Pagani C. (2001). “Four is better than two – The principle of cable-stayed bridges applied to building beams.” Elite International Journal on the Art of Prefabrication, 4, 50-69.
SNZ (2005) DRAFT NZS3101:2005. (2005). "Appendix B: Special Provisions for the Seismic Design of Ductile Jointed Precast Concrete Structural Systems." Standards New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand.
Pampanin S, Pagani C, Zambelli S. (2004). “Cable-stayed and Suspended Post-tensioned Solutions for Precast Concrete Frames:the Brooklyn System.” Proceedings of New Zealand Concrete Industry Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand.
Pampanin S, Palermo A, Amaris A. (2006). “Implementation and Testing of Advanced Solutions for Jointed Ductile Seismic Resisting Frames.” Proceedings of the 2nd International fib Congress. Naples, Italy.
Pampanin S. (2005). “Emerging Solutions for High Seismic Performance of Precast/Prestressed Concrete Buildings.” Journal of Advanced Concrete Technology (ACT), invited paper for Special Issue on “High performance systems”, 3(2), 202-223.
Park R. (2002). “Seismic Design and Construction of Precast Concrete Buildings in New Zealand.” PCI Journal, 47(5), 60-75.


No comments:

Post a Comment