Pseudo‐dynamic testing, repairability, and resilience assessment of a large‐scale steel structure equipped with self‐centering column bases

Elena Elettore; Fabio Freddi; Massimo Latour; Vincenzo Piluso; Gianvittorio Rizzano

doi:10.1002/eqe.4131

journal article Open Access Apr 27, 2024

Pseudo‐dynamic testing, repairability, and resilience assessment of a large‐scale steel structure equipped with self‐centering column bases

Elena Elettore

Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics Vol. 53 No. 9 pp. 2756-2781 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1002/eqe.4131

Abstract

AbstractRecent destructive seismic events have underlined the need for increasing research efforts devoted to the development of innovative seismic‐resilient structures able to reduce seismic‐induced direct and indirect losses. Regarding steel Moment Resisting Frames (MRFs), the inclusion of Friction Devices (FDs) in Beam‐to‐Column Joints (BCJs) has emerged as an effective solution to dissipate the seismic input energy while ensuring a damage‐free behavior. Additionally, recent studies have demonstrated the benefits of implementing similar damage‐free solutions for Column Bases (CBs). In this context, the authors have recently experimentally investigated a Self‐Centering CB (SC‐CB) aimed at residual drift reduction. Previous experimental tests only focused on the response of isolated SC‐CBs under cyclic loads. Conversely, the present paper advances the research through an experimental campaign on a large‐scale steel structure equipped with the proposed SC‐CBs, providing valuable insights into the global structural response and improved repairability. A set of eight Pseudo‐Dynamic (PsD) tests were conducted considering different records and configurations of the structure. The experimental results highlighted the effectiveness of the SC‐CBs in minimizing the residual interstory drifts and protecting the first‐story columns from damage, thus enhancing the structure's resilience. Moreover, the consecutive PsD tests allowed investigating the effectiveness of the reparation process in restoring the seismic performance of the ‘undamaged’ structure. An advanced numerical model was developed in OpenSees and validated against the global and component‐level experimental results. Incremental Dynamic Analyses were finally performed to investigate the influence of the SC‐CBs on the structure's seismic response while accounting for the record‐to‐record variability.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

74

[1]

10.4324/9780203474686

[2]

Faella C (2000)

[3]

EN 1998‐1 (2004)

[4]

ANSI/AISC 341‐16 (2016)

[5]

ASCE/SEI 7–16 (2017)

[6]

10.1193/1.4000124

[7]

10.1007/s10518‐021‐01062‐8

[8]

10.1016/s0141‐0296(01)00092‐x

[9]

10.1061/(asce)0733‐9445(2008)134:1(3)

[10]

10.1002/eqe.3332

[11]

10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102267

[12]

10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111521

[13]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2022.107172

[14]

10.1193/1.1585726

[15]

10.5459/bnzsee.43.3.202‐212

[16]

10.1002/eqe.2520

[17]

10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.09.075

[18]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.03.014

[19]

10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.08.002

[20]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2021.106791

[21]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106240

[22]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.105956

[23]

10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.107022

[24]

McCormickJ AburanoH IkenagaM NakashimaM Permissible residual deformation levels for building structures considering both safety and human elements.14th World Conference of Earth Engineering 2008 Beijing China.

[25]

FEMA P58‐1 (2012)

[26]

10.3390/buildings4030520

[27]

10.1061/(asce)0733‐9445(2001)127:2(113)

[28]

10.1002/eqe.859

[29]

10.1061/(asce)st.1943‐541x.0000696

[30]

10.1002/eqe.3615

[31]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2022.107489

[32]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2020.106417

[33]

10.1061/(asce)st.1943‐541x.0000056

[34]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2014.06.002

[35]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2013.08.009

[36]

10.1061/(asce)st.1943‐541x.0001602

[37]

10.1061/(asce)st.1943‐541x.0001937

[38]

10.1002/eqe.3242h

[39]

10.1016/j.engstruct.2021.113381

[40]

10.5459/bnzsee.42.4.275‐287

[41]

10.1061/(asce)st.1943‐541x.0001327

[42]

10.1002/eqe.2904

[43]

10.1061/(asce)st.1943‐541x.0002779

[44]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2018.06.027

[45]

10.1016/j.jcsr.2019.01.025

[46]

10.1016/j.engstruct.2018.12.077

[47]

10.1002/eqe.3392h

[48]

10.1061/(asce)st.1943‐541x.0003259

[49]

10.1016/j.rcns.2023.02.007

[50]

10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.10.011

Showing 50 of 74 references

Cited By

27

Experimental behavior, hysteretic model, and finite-element analysis of a low-prestressed self-centering friction dissipative brace

Xiantie Wang, Wenlong Lu · 2025

Journal of Constructional Steel Res...

Mechanical behavior of hybrid self-centering brace: Insights into the role of SMA cables

Fei Shi, Wenlang Yuan · 2025

Engineering Structures

Seismic performance evaluation of steel frame systems with self-centering beam-column joints and self-centering column bases

Zi-Qin Jiang, Wei Han · 2025

Structures

Metrics

27

Citations

74

References

Details

Published: Apr 27, 2024
Vol/Issue: 53(9)
Pages: 2756-2781
License: View

Authors

E

Elena Elettore

Department of Civil Engineering University of Salerno Salerno Italy

F

Fabio Freddi

Department of Civil Environmental and Geomatic Engineering University College London London UK

M

Massimo Latour

Department of Civil Engineering University of Salerno Salerno Italy

V

Vincenzo Piluso

Department of Civil Engineering University of Salerno Salerno Italy

G

Gianvittorio Rizzano

Department of Civil Engineering University of Salerno Salerno Italy

Cite This Article

Elena Elettore, Fabio Freddi, Massimo Latour, et al. (2024). Pseudo‐dynamic testing, repairability, and resilience assessment of a large‐scale steel structure equipped with self‐centering column bases. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 53(9), 2756-2781. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.4131

Pseudo‐dynamic testing, repairability, and resilience assessment of a large‐scale steel structure equipped with self‐centering column bases

You May Also Like