Response modification factors of school facilities for non-seismic RC moment frames with partial masonry infills in ‘Manual for Seismic Performance Evaluation and Retrofit of School Facilities’ published in 2018 were investigated in the preceding study. However, since previous studies are based on 2D frame analysis and limited analysis conditions, additional verification needs to be performed to further apply various conditions including orthogonal effect of seismic load. Therefore, this study is to select appropriate response modification factors of school facilities for non-seismic RC moment frames with partial masonry infills by 3D frame analysis. The results are as follows. An appropriate response modification factor for non-seismic RC moment frames with partial masonry infills is proposed as 2.5 for all cases if the period is longer than 0.6 seconds. Also if the period is less than 0.4 seconds and the ratio of shear-controlled columns is less than 30%, 2.5 is chosen too. However, if the period is less than 0.4 seconds and the ratio of shear-controlled columns is higher than 30%, the response modification factor shall be reduced to 2.0. If the period is between 0.4 and 0.6 seconds, then linearly interpolates the response correction factor.
In this study, SMG(Smart Material with Grease) was developed, which was improved the precipitation minute particle in grease during long term standstill. Also, small-sized cylinder damper equipped with an electromagnet in a piston was developed for using a performance evaluation of the damper with SMG and the dynamic load test, and damping force using Power model and Bingham model was derived in order to compare to the result of that of the damper. The data obtained from the dynamic load test were analyzed and plotted, and then a dynamic range was calculated to evaluate the usability of the damper with SMG. The performance of the damper with SMG was compared to the damping forse derived from the Power and Bingham model. The result of this evaluation shown that the usability of SMG damper was demonstrated by this test as a semi-active controlling equipment of small-sized damper.
Several water tanks installed in the building were damaged during the Gyeongju earthquake (2016) and the Pohang earthquake (2017). Since a water tank for fire protection is very important component, seismic safety should be ensured. In this study, an interaction between a water tank and a building was studied by the dynamic analysis of the RC building with the water tank. In case the water tank was installed on the roof of the RC building, it was confirmed that it did not significantly affect the response of the building. Based on the result, dynamic response characteristics of the water tank in the building were studied using two SDOF models represented dynamic behavior of the water tanks under earthquake. An earthquake time-history analysis was carried out with variables of aspect ratio of the tank, story of the building, and installed location in the building using three kinds of earthquakes.
A conventional lumped-mass stick model is based on the tributary area method to determine the masses lumped at each node and used in earthquake engineering due to its simplicity in the modeling of structures. However the natural frequencies of the conventional model are normally not identical to those of the actual structure. To solve this problem, recently an updated lumped-mass stick model is developed to provide the natural frequencies identical to actual structure. The present study is to investigate the seismic response accuracy of the updated lumped-mass stick model, comparing with the response results of the shaking table test. For the test, a small size four-story steel frame structure is prepared and tested on shaking table applying five earthquake ground motions. From the comparison with shaking table test results, the updated model shows an average error of 3.65% in the peak displacement response and 9.68% in the peak acceleration response. On the other hand, the conventional model shows an average error of 5.15% and 27.41% for each response.