Civil engineers using a specialized laboratory at Purdue University have demonstrated the effectiveness of a simple, inexpensive method to strengthen buildings that have a flaw making them dangerously vulnerable to earthquakes.
The flaw is widespread in China, Latin America, Turkey and other countries. The buildings have too many "partial-height" walls between structural columns and could be easily strengthened by replacing some windows with ordinary masonry bricks, said Santiago Pujol, an assistant professor of civil engineering at Purdue.
Partial-height walls do not extend all the way to the ceiling, sometimes causing structural columns to fail during powerful quakes. The strengthening would not only be low-cost but also easy to install, Pujol said.
"There are countries where there is a huge gap between the building codes and what is actually being built," he said. "Sure, government enforcement is lax, but I would like to think that if we engineers made the standards easier to apply they would also be easier to enforce. That's where we have an obligation to find solutions that are simple, affordable and effective."
The researchers built an entire three-story building inside Purdue's Robert L. and Terry L. Bowen Laboratory for Large-Scale Civil Engineering Research in work led by former Purdue civil engineering doctoral student Damon Fick, who is now an assistant professor in civil and environmental engineering at the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology.
The reinforced-concrete structure was subjected to forces simulating the effects of a strong earthquake by pulling and pushing the building with six powerful hydraulic "actuators." The six actuators could be likened to giant car jacks that exerted a total of about 300,000 pounds of force on the structure.
Findings were detailed in a paper presented in October during the 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering in Beijing, China. The paper was written by Pujol, civil engineer Amadeo Benavent-Climent from the Department of Structural Mechanics at the University of Granada, civil engineer Mario E. Rodriguez from the Instituto de Ingenieria in Mexico City, and civil engineer J. Paul Smith-Pardo from Berger/Abam Engineers Inc. in Federal Way, Wash.
"The most important result is that we showed that buildings with partial-height walls, which are very common throughout the world, especially in schools, can be improved very easily with not a lot of investment by simply rearranging the masonry walls," Pujol said. "Granted, this is not the best technology can offer, but this is cheap, and people can do it with their own hands."
Findings indicated the strengthened building was twice as strong and six times stiffer than the same structure having only reinforced-concrete columns but no walls. The building's roof displacement, or how much it moved at roof-level, was 1.5 percent of its total height, which is within what could be expected for a building of similar characteristics during a moderately strong earthquake, Pujol said.
The researchers also used computational simulations to show that the reinforced structure would likely have withstood the ground motion caused by strong earthquakes recorded in the past.
The engineers studied buildings damaged by earthquakes in Turkey in 1999 and 2000 and another earthquake in Peru in 2007. In the Peru quake, columns located between windows were destroyed in one building, whereas another building in the immediate vicinity was not seriously damaged.
"So I was very much intrigued," Pujol said. "Why were the columns in one building destroyed while a very similar building in the same area looked fine?"
Thirteen out of 20 columns were destroyed in the damaged building, and no columns failed in the other.
Pujol discovered that the building without serious damage had more full-height walls completely filling the spaces between columns than the other building.
He theorized that filling in some of the partial-height walls with masonry bricks might make vulnerable structures sturdy enough to prevent collapse during strong earthquakes and decided to test this hypothesis at the Purdue laboratory.
Fick took on the challenge of precisely controlling all six of the actuators during testing, which was critical to ensuring the researchers' safety as the building was pushed and pulled, Pujol said.
Features in the Bowen Laboratory, completed in 2004, include a testing area with a "strong floor" and 40-foot-high "reaction wall" containing numerous holes in which to anchor the hydraulic actuators that apply forces to large-scale structural models.
This work was partially funded by the U.S. Army and the National Science Foundation.
Comments
counter intuitive
February 11, 2009 by Anonymous, 41 weeks 20 hours ago
Comment: 34465
Bravo! Your comments are not only more succinct, but more polite.
I realize that reltive to the standards imposed in Califonia, Oregon, Washington and a few other western states there are some places in the US where seismic design has never been an issue until the recent adpotion of the ICC. These standards that have been adopted are quite clear when it comes to proper seismic design and retrofit of existing structures in areas prone to seismic activity and filling the bay between the columns and beams with brick that is not reinforced to take the seismic shear to an element that has now become the most rigid element in the structure is not the correct answer.
Maybe it means razing the old wall in places and adding new reinforced wall in discrete locations that have been properly designed based on a rational anaysis of it's reltive rigidity and the ability of the existing structure to transfer those seismic loads to the new element is the correct approach for the US.
Besides, having windows is a good thing for so many reasons.
counter intuitive?
February 11, 2009 by Anonymous, 41 weeks 20 hours ago
Comment: 34464
Political commentary aside, this gentleman and I are on the same page in terms of structural design. He illustrated my concern much more directly, which is this - These buildings are, to borrow his term, "non-compliant" with regard to seismic design. The solution to gain compliancy, at least here in the US, is not as this article implies.
I'm not in any way diminishing this research or even taking issue with the findings. It is the application of the findings and the misleading way that the article is written that I find troubling.
If you have ever had to explain to a lay person (who may happen to be your client) why an article written by an expert is not correct or applicable to a certain project, you certainly recognize this concern.
Partial-Height walls
February 11, 2009 by Anonymous, 41 weeks 21 hours ago
Comment: 34463
I think we were reading the same article but we certainly got our engineering training in two different worlds. This prof. received money from someone to do research on seismic design of buildings. Money that more than likey had a governmental component to it and he has the gaul to suggest we can modify a school building with your kids and mine in them by increasing the seismic mass to theoretically increase the run time for a building that will collapse. If he was worried about the short column effect maybe he should have considered takiing the wall down so that all the columns would have the same length, be more flexible and disipate more energy.
If your school house, no matter how it is made, has any resemblance to a building in Turkey or Peru my suggestion is to not let your kids go to school their! It is irresponsible to suggest that adding non-compliant mass to a non-compliant building is going to make enough difference to somehow justify the expense and tell parrents you have strengthened their childs school. There are many ways to improve the seismic performance of a building without breaking the bank other than installing more bricks.
In the third world where concrete is still mixed by the wheel barrel load with the water mixed by eye and the reinforcement almost non-existant and building standards are not enforced then maybe, justy maybe, this will give someone some run time. To suggest that we "reinforce" our buildings in the US this way is neglegent.
P.S. There was one person who died in the Paso Robles earthquake. She ran out of here colapsing un-reinforce brick building and was hit on the head by one (1) common brick. The rest of the people in the building took shelter under a table and lived to tell the story.
Are we reading the same article?
February 11, 2009 by Anonymous, 41 weeks 23 hours ago
Comment: 34462
Disregarding the lack of respect of comment id 34458, I would like to simply point out to a paragraph in the original article:
"The most important result is that we showed that buildings with partial-height walls, which are very common throughout the world, especially in schools, can be improved very easily with not a lot of investment by simply rearranging the masonry walls," Pujol said. "Granted, this is not the best technology can offer, but this is cheap, and people can do it with their own hands."
The way my limited intelligence understands the previous statement indicates that Prof. Pujol's proposal is to strengthen existing buildings (mainly schools) with partial-height walls by means of filling the remaining gap in an attempt to prevent a catastrophic failure due to the so-called "short-column effect"
Congratulations to Prof. Pujol and the team of researchers involved.
counter intuitive?
February 11, 2009 by Anonymous, 41 weeks 23 hours ago
Comment: 34460
I'm an engineer that designs building structures primarily in seismically insignificant areas. My understanding of seismic design and building performance is quite different than what is presented here. I have two primary observations to share. First, in very simplistic terms, increasing the building dead loads would increase seismic loads so adding full height masonry partitions seems a little counter-intuitive.
Secondly, I've always understood that a building's ability deform and disspate the energy imparted by a seismic event greatly reduces the loads that building systems must endure. Adding additional masonry partitions seems to work counter to this approach (stiffer structure = less deformation = higher seismic loads)
I'm afraid that the description of partial height partitions and windows being described as a building design "flaw" and the notion that failure of the frame is due to these "flaws" misses the point.
I think that the author wants the readers to assume that these recomedndations are presented as relatively easy "improvements" to buildings with structural frames not properly designed for seismic events. Correct?
Simply Dangerous Method
February 11, 2009 by Anonymous, 41 weeks 23 hours ago
Comment: 34458
What a bunch of crap! Adding un-reinforced bricks may make the building stiffer until the bricks break apart in a earthquake because they have little to no shear strength and one of those bricks falls onto someones head and kills them. Ask people who lived in Coalinga, CA or Paso Robles, CA when their un-reinforced structures came down around their heads. Lets all spend money on a dangerous building and put our kids into it telling their parents we made it better. "I am so sorry Mr. and Mrs. Jones about your child death but we did make the building better. Yes, we knew it wasn't good enough when we modified it."
Purdue!
February 11, 2009 by Anonymous, 41 weeks 23 hours ago
Comment: 34457
keep it up Pujol!
Post new comment