Comparative response of rocking-wall systems with cast-in-place and precast floor systems in buildings. (1st May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Liu, Qingzhi; French, Catherine W.; Sritharan, Sri
• Is Part Of: Engineering structures. Volume 234(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-05-01
• Subjects: Precast concrete -- Rocking wall -- Wall-floor connection -- Constraint effect; Structural engineering -- Periodicals; Structural analysis (Engineering) -- Periodicals; Construction, Technique de la -- Périodiques; Génie parasismique -- Périodiques; Pression du vent -- Périodiques; Earthquake engineering; Structural engineering; Wind-pressure; Periodicals; 624.105
• DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.111942
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0141-0296

Abstract

Highlights: Two rocking-wall structural assemblages confirmed great performance through testing. Fast building-reoccupation was feasible with reduced damage and self-centering behavior. Wall-floor interaction had a great impact on strength, self-centering and energy dissipation. Strength of specimen with CIP wall-floor joint was twice that using vertical-isolation connectors. Key factors "gravity-load transfer" and "constraint from surrounding structures" are quantified. Abstract: Two large-scale structural assemblages, which had equivalent PreWEC (Precast Wall with End Columns) rocking-wall systems but different surrounding structures, were tested under quasi-static cyclic loading to study the impact of wall-floor interaction on the performance of rocking-wall buildings. The first specimen (PFS1) included cast-in-place (CIP) edge columns and a CIP unbonded post-tensioned slab with rigid wall-floor connections, which maximized wall-floor interaction. The second specimen (PFS2) included precast edge columns and a precast slab with special vertical-isolation wall-floor connectors, which minimized wall-floor interaction. Test results showed that both structural assemblages demonstrated great seismic performance with limited damage and self-centering behavior. The strength of PFS1 was more than twice that of PFS2; PFS2 encountered less damage and had better self-centering performance than PFS1, but it possessed less energy-dissipation capacity. The difference in the performance of the two assemblages was mainly attributed to the different gravity load transfer paths and constraint effects of the surrounding structures. Contributions to the strength and the self-centering behavior of the two assemblages from different structural elements were quantified and compared.