Case study of load-bearing precast wall system subject to low seismic intensity by linear and nonlinear analyses

This paper investigates the behaviour of load-bearing precast wall system (namely the HC Precast System − HCPS) subject to seismicity in Malaysia. Recent tremors felt across the country heeded the call for the need of seismic design guidelines to be implemented. For this study, the design ground acc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Tiong, Patrick Liq Yee, Chiew, Sing Ping, Teow, Beng Hur
Other Authors: School of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hdl.handle.net/10356/88906
http://hdl.handle.net/10220/46989
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Nanyang Technological University
Language: English
Description
Summary:This paper investigates the behaviour of load-bearing precast wall system (namely the HC Precast System − HCPS) subject to seismicity in Malaysia. Recent tremors felt across the country heeded the call for the need of seismic design guidelines to be implemented. For this study, the design ground acceleration for Malaysia has not been finalized. Throughout the years, several schools of thought that occurred among different researchers pertaining to the value of design ground acceleration, ranging from 0.05 g to 0.1 g. The implications of the selected values can be great especially in designing new buildings or retrofitting existing ones. Thus, linear analysis using Modal Response Spectrum Analysis (MRSA) and nonlinear pushover analysis of representative HCPS were performed for this study. The finite element (FE) model focused particularly on the nonlinear behaviour of the interface between a precast wall and cast in-situ column. Prior to the modal and pushover analyses, the FE model was validated against quasi-static cyclic test results of identical precast system obtained from literature. Differences between the MRSA and pushover approaches are presented and discussed. Performance levels of the structural system were subjected to three levels of design ground acceleration (0.05, 0.075 and 0.1 g) have been included.