| Popis: |
Many of the Y-12 Plant buildings, constructed during the 1940s and 1950s, consist of steel ed concrete framing infilled with hollow clay tile (HCT). The infill was intended to provide for building enclosure and was not designed to have vertical or lateral load-carrying capacity. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, seismic and wind evaluations were performed on many of these buildings in conjunction with the preparation of a site-wide safety analysis report. This analytical work, based on the best available methodology, considered lateral load-carrying capacity of the HCT infill on the basis of building code allowable shear values. In parallel with the analysis effort, DOE initiated a program to develop natural phenomena capacity and performance criteria for existing buildings, but these criteria did not specify guidelines for determining the lateral force capacity of frames infilled with HCT. The evaluation of infills was, therefore, based on the provisions for the design of unreinforced masonry as outlined in standard masonry codes. When the results of the seismic and wind evaluations were compared with the new criteria, the projected building capacities fell short of the requirements. Apparently, if the buildings were to meet the new criteria, many millions of dollars would bemore » required for building upgrades. Because the upgrade costs were significant, the assumptions and approaches used in the analyses were reevaluated. Four issues were identified: (1) Once the infilled walls cracked, what capacity (nonlinear response), if any, would the walls have to resist earthquake or wind loads applied in the plane of the infill (in-plane)? (2) Would the infilled walls remain within the steel or reinforced concrete framing when subjected to earthquake or high wind loads applied perpendicular to the infill (out-of-plane)? (3) What was the actual shear capacity of the HCT infill? (4) Was modeling the HCT infill as a shear wall the best approach?« less |
