Title:
Testing of Reinforced Concrete Frames Extracted from a Building Damaged during the Canterbury Earthquakes
Author(s):
Kevin Walsh, Richard Henry, Gye Simkin, Nicholas Brooke, Barry Davidson, and Jason Ingham
Publication:
Structural Journal
Volume:
113
Issue:
2
Appears on pages(s):
349-362
Keywords:
cyclic loading; ductility; earthquake; frames; precast concrete; reinforced concrete; shear-ductile
DOI:
10.14359/51688198
Date:
3/1/2016
Abstract:
In the aftermath of the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes in New Zealand, the residual capacity and reparability of damaged reinforced concrete (RC) structures was an issue pertinent to building owners, insurers, and structural engineers. Three precast RC moment-resisting frame specimens were extracted during the demolition of the Clarendon Tower in Christchurch after sustaining earthquake damage. These specimens were subjected to quasi-static cyclic testing as part of a research program to determine the reparability of the building. It was concluded that the precast RC frames were able to be repaired and retrofitted to an enhanced strength capacity with no observed reduction in displacement capacity, although the frames with “shear-ductile” detailing exhibited less displacement ductility capacity and energy dissipation capacity than the more conventionally detailed RC frames. Furthermore, the cyclic test results from the earthquake-damaged RC frames were used to verify the predicted inelastic demands applied to the specimens during the 2010-2011 Canterbury earthquakes.
Related References:
1. Standards New Zealand (NZS), “3101 Part 1: Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures,” Wellington, New Zealand, 1982, 127 pp.
2. Standards New Zealand (NZS), “4203: Code of Practice for General Structural Design and Design Loadings for Buildings,” Wellington, New Zealand, 1984, 108 pp.
3. Brooke, N., “Improving the Performance of Reinforced Concrete Beam-Column Joints Designed for Seismic Resistance,” doctoral thesis, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 2011, 508 pp.
4. Holmes Wood Poole and Johnstone Ltd, “Structural Drawings: Clarendon Project,” Paynter Developments Limited, 1987.
5. Park, R., “A Perspective on the Seismic Design of Precast Concrete Structures,” PCI Journal, V. 40, No. 3, 1995, pp. 40-60. doi: 10.15554/pcij.05011995.40.60
6. Bull, D., “Guidelines for the Use of Structural Precast Concrete in Buildings: Report of a Study Group of the New Zealand Concrete Society and the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering,” Centre for Advanced Engineering, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1991, 143 pp., caenz.squarespace.com/s/Precast_Concrete.pdf
7. Restrepo, J.; Park, R.; and Buchanan, A., “Design of Connections of Earthquake Resisting Precast Reinforced Concrete Perimeter Frames,” PCI Journal, V. 40, No. 5, 1995, pp. 68-80. doi: 10.15554/pcij.09011995.68.80
8. Bradley, B., “Site-Specific and Spatially-Distributed Ground-Motion Intensity Estimation in the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquakes,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, V. 61-62, June-July 2014, pp. 83-91. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.01.025
9. Cattanach, A., and Thompson, J., “The Clarendon Tower Deconstruction: Lessons Learnt on 1980s Building Performance,” The New Zealand Concrete Industry Conference, Queenstown, New Zealand, 2013, pp. 1-24.
10. Cooper, M.; Carter, R.; and Fenwick, R., “Final Report: Volume 2: The Performance of Christchurch CBD Buildings,” Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2012, 237 pp., http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/Final-Report-Volume-Two-Contents
11. Zimmerman, R., and Holmes, W., “Seismic Performance Investigation: Clarendon Tower,” Rutherford & Chekene, San Fransisco, CA, 2012, http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz /documents-by-key/20120229.3475
12. Fleischman, R.; Restrepo, J.; Pampanin, S.; Maffei, J.; Seeber, K.; and Zahn, F., “Damage Evaluations of Precast Concrete Structures in the 2010-2011 Canterbury Earthquake Sequence,” Earthquake Spectra, V. 30, No. 1, 2014, pp. 277-306. doi: 10.1193/031213EQS068M
13. Restrepo, J.; Park, R.; and Buchanan, A., “Tests on Connections of Earthquake Resisting Precast Reinforced Concrete Perimeter Frames of Buildings,” PCI Journal, V. 40, No. 4, 1995, pp. 44-61. doi: 10.15554/pcij.07011995.44.61, https://www.pci.org/pci_journal-1995-july-august-5/
14. Park, R., “Evaluation of Ductility of Structures and Structural Assemblages from Laboratory Testing,” Bulletin Of The New Zealand National Society For Earthquake Engineering, V. 22, No. 3, 1989, pp. 155-166, http://www.nzsee.org.nz/db/Bulletin/Archive/22(3)0155.pdf.
15. ACI Committee 374, “Guide for Testing Reinforced Concrete Structural Elements under Slowly Applied Simulated Seismic Loads (ACI 374.2R-13),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 2013, 18 pp.
16. ASCE, “Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing Buildings (ASCE 41-13),” American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, 2014, 518 pp.
17. Restrepo-Posada, J., “Seismic Behaviour of Connections between Precast Concrete Elements,” doctoral thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1993, http://hdl.handle.net/10092/7666
18. Priestley, M., “Brief Comments on Elastic Flexibility of Reinforced Concrete Frames and Significance to Seismic Design,” Bulletin of the New Zealand National Society for Earthquake Engineering, V. 31, No. 4, 1998, pp. 246-259, http://www.nzsee.org.nz/db /Bulletin/Archive/31(4)0246.pdf.
19. Priestley, M.; Calvi, G.; and Kowalsky, M., Displacement-Based Seismic Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy, 2007, 721 pp.
20. Standards New Zealand (NZS), “3112.2 Part 2: Tests Relating to the Determination of Strength of Concrete,” 12th edition, Wellington, New Zealand, 1986, 22 pp.
21. ASTM C39/C39M-14, “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011, 7 pp. doi: 10.1520/C0039_C0039M-14A10.1520/C0039_C0039M-14A
22. Restrepo-Posada, J.; Dodd, L.; Park, R.; and Cooke, N., “Variables Affecting Cyclic Behavior of Reinforcing Steel,” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 120, No. 11, 1994, pp. 3178-3196. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(1994)120:11(3178)
23. Mander, J.; Panthaki, F.; and Kasalanati, A., “Low-Cycle Fatigue Behavior of Reinforcing Steel,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, V. 6, No. 4, 1994, pp. 453-468. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1994)6:4(453)
24. “Clarendon Tower,” 43.531395° S and 172.634025° E, Google Earth, 2014, http://www.google.com/earth/. (last accessed Mar. 21, 2014)