| The research on seismic performance of slab-column-shear wall structures ismainly based on the slab-column connection experiments and shaking table tests onlower-rise structure. However, few theoretical researches have been carried outespecially on the response of slab-column shear wall structure under different types ofearthquake. According to the current seismic code for slab-column shear wallstructure, the maximum applicable height in the earthquake-hazard zone is increasedcompared to the older code. However, as for the frame-shear wall structure (FSW),the maximum applicable height is still insufficient. In order to deal with the aboveproblems, the nonlinear dynamic time history analysis and static nonlinear analysis ofthe slab-column shear wall (SCSW) structure and frame-shear wall (FSW) structurehas been carried out in this paper. With the finite element methods applied，theperformance-based differences of the structures mentioned above under variant typesof the seismic loads are discussed in this paper and conclusion is made for betterevaluating the seismic performance and the maximum applicable height ofslab-column shear wall structure.The main contents are:（1）Midas finite element software is applied to study the time history. Theeffective of finite element software is proved by the SCSW and FSW structureverification. The response spectrum analysis of the chosen seismic records and thecomparison with the10seismic codes is carried out in this paper.（2）Through analyzing the nonlinear dynamic time history of21earthquakerecords, the differences of seismic-induced structural performance under near-fieldpulse earthquake, near-field non-pulse earthquake, far-field earthquake is studied infive aspects：The roof displacement, the maximum story drift angle, the amplificationratio, the base shear, the distribution of plastic hinges and the ratio of shear wall oneach floor. The value of roof displacement, maximum story drift angle and the baseshear value in the slab-column shear wall structure are proved to be larger than that inthe frame-shear wall structure. The maximum story drift angle meets the code forSCSW and FSW structure. For the cases under the same peek acceleration, theamplified effect on the slab-column shear wall structure is larger than that on thefame-shear wall structure. The amplified effect on roof displacement and maximumstory drift angle is larger than the base shear. （3）The pushover analysis of structures under two kinds of lateral loaddistribution also has been discussed in this paper.The difference of seismic-inducedstructural performance and two kinds of seismic methods has been discussed in threeaspects：The distribution of plastic hinges, the maximum story drifts angle and thebase shear. The comparisons show that the results of pushover analysis is consistentwith the time history analysis of near-field non-pulse earthquake while less than thetime history analysis of near-field pulse earthquake which considers the earthquake’samplification effect of fling-step and forward-rupture directivity. However, pushoveranalysis can’t display the effects of fling-step and forward-rupture directivity and as itis a static nonlinear method, it can’t consider the effects of earthquake duration timeand accumulation of energy dissipation. |
PDF Full Text Request