1. The elastic column has the ability to move elastically in the earthquake as it also has the necessary plasticity for inelastic displacements. On the other hand, it does not put down large torques at the base However, the column does not have dynamics like a rigid reinforced wall, and it does not have a second lever arm in width, which reduces the overturning moment. The wall has great dynamics towards the earthquake, it has a second lever arm in width that reduces the overturning moment, but it does not have great plasticity and on the other hand, it lowers large moments to the base due to stiffness and breaks beams and joists. Also, due to greater mass, the inertia of the structure increases and thus the seismic loads. Question Is there a vertical load-bearing element that has a double lever arm, ductility, elasticity, dynamics, and does not transmit its moment to the beams and joists, and is strong towards the intersection of the base, and economical with the minimum steel reinforcement? Yes there is. But they don't use it It is called an elongated wall with prestressed and ground-consolidated ends.
2. If we want to increase the response of the structure to the earthquake, we increase the mass of the concrete by building walls and large beams. We are still increasing the steel reinforcement. Nicely we built a dynamic rigid structure something like a reinforced concrete precast which has great dynamics. Normally it should withstand the earthquake. However, it does not last, especially when the construction is tall. The reasons are as follows. By increasing the mass, we also increase the inertia of the structure and thus the seismic loads. By increasing the height and stiffness we increase the overturning moment These three factors, if they do not overturn the structure, will at least create a small overturning - swelling in the area of the base of the building. The structure losing partial soil support will divert the now unsupported static loads to the beam cross-sections and break them. This happens when we increase the dimensions of the load-bearing organism to increase the dynamic response of the structure. Question There is a solution? Yes, there is a solution. We must increase the dynamics of the structure without increasing its mass, which causes greater inertia. That is, we can increase the linear and transverse reinforcement, and the quality of the concrete, as well as reduce the diameter (not the kilograms) of the reinforcement, in order to achieve greater resistance, in terms of the shear failure of the coating concrete, due to its super strength steel in tension. This they do today and have greatly improved the dynamics and ductility, but greatly increased the cost of steel reinforcement. A steel of diameter Φ/50 has the ability to lift a two-story building with an area of 100 m2 weighing 140 tons, and today they put 8500 kg of steel on the two-story and we have failures in large earthquakes. And this is because the concrete cannot hold the steel reinforcement in it to cooperate and it breaks. Is there another solution? Yes, there is another solution and it is the one I propose. This solution removes 80% of the reinforcement so the construction becomes more economical. This solution triples the dynamic response of the structure to seismic displacements, without increasing the mass, i.e. the inertia that causes the seismic loads, and this happens because the force that counteracts the earthquake comes from an external factor, that of the ground, so it has no mass added to the structure. This solution diverts the seismic loads outside the structure and the structure is not stressed by the earthquake. This solution is called an elongated wall with prestressed and soil-consolidated ends.
very intriguing concept of using an elongated wall with prestressed and ground-consolidated ends as an alternative to traditional elastic columns and rigid reinforced walls. This method seemingly offers numerous advantages, such as improved ductility, elasticity, and dynamics, while minimizing the transmission of moments to beams and joists. Additionally, it appears to be a more economical solution with reduced steel reinforcement requirements.
It would be beneficial to explore further research and empirical evidence to validate the effectiveness and performance of this elongated wall design in real-world applications. Are there any case studies, simulations, or experimental tests that demonstrate its potential for enhancing the seismic resilience of structures? The incorporation of this method into engineering practices could potentially revolutionize the way we design and construct buildings in seismically active regions, thus warranting further investigation and discussion within the academic and professional communities. More to come.
Dear Kian Lajevardi Thank you for your support!
I need help from academic community to prove this utility of earthquake design method. I am not an academic. I am an independent researcher. I did my own micro-scale experiments with and without this particular method to draw useful conclusions.
Experiment with this method with natural acceleration of 2.41g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RoM5pEy7n9Q
Experiment with the same microscale model but without the specific method. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-X4tF9C7SE&t=2s
The conclusion is yours to make.
Dear Dr Ioannis Lymperis
Thank you for sharing this interesting topic !!!
Best regards
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Statistics
- Survey