Seismic performance evaluation of the ceiling-bracket-type modular joint with various bracket parameters

Abstract In this study, the seismic performance and inelastic behavior of joints were investigated using the bracket thickness, depth, and stiffener of the ceiling-bracket-type modular system as parameters. The performances of the joints were evaluated through a cyclic loading test and the nonlinear FEA. The initial stiffness, maximum flexural strength, failure mode at the ultimate stage, energy dissipation capacity, and inelastic behavior were analyzed, and it was determined whether the strong-column/weak-beam-type mechanism occurs at the joint. The results of the analysis were compared with those of the theoretical and FE models, respectively. For the comparison of the seismic performances, the flexural strength of the joint at the 0.04 and 0.05 rad inter-story drift ratios, which exceed the plastic moment, was investigated. From the comparison results, the standard specimen had a sufficient structural performance compared to the reference model, which was a welded joint. The joint was shown to be capable of maintaining a seismic performance higher than 80% of the plastic moment, and showed strain curves pointing to a strong column-weak beam behavior. In the joints, the initial stiffness was increased with a higher bracket thickness. In addition, the maximum flexural strength showed a large change in the loading direction due to the ceiling bracket. If the number of stiffeners is reduced, the joint will have both reduced initial stiffness and reduced maximum flexural strength. The bracket-type modular building was shown to be an effective and dependable modular system for resisting seismic loads, and the energy dissipation capacity of the standard specimen was shown to be higher than those of the other modular joints

[1]  Su-Deok Shon,et al.  A Study of Modular Dome Structural Modeling with Highly Filled Extrusion Wood-Plastic Composite Member , 2015 .

[2]  Jeong Kim,et al.  Finite element analysis and modeling of structure with bolted joints , 2007 .

[3]  Moon Sung Lee,et al.  Shaketable tests of a cold-formed steel shear panel , 2006 .

[4]  Mohamed Al-Hussein,et al.  Evolution of the crane selection and on-site utilization process for modular construction multilifts , 2014 .

[5]  Maged A. Youssef,et al.  Experimental evaluation of the seismic performance of modular steel-braced frames , 2009 .

[6]  R. Mark Lawson,et al.  Application of Modular Construction in High-Rise Buildings , 2012 .

[7]  Hassan Moghimi,et al.  Better connection details for strap-braced CFS stud walls in seismic regions , 2009 .

[8]  Ho-Chan Lee,et al.  Influence of Analytical Models on the Seismic Response of Modular Structures , 2016 .

[9]  Zhihua Chen,et al.  Experimental study of an innovative modular steel building connection , 2017 .

[10]  Charles W. Roeder,et al.  Embedded steel column-to-foundation connection for a modular structural system , 2016 .

[11]  Liu Jiadi,et al.  Experimental study on interior connections in modular steel buildings , 2017 .

[12]  Vincenzo Piluso,et al.  Advances in theory of plastic mechanism control: closed form solution for MR‐Frames , 2015 .

[13]  Gap-Deug Kim,et al.  An Experimental Study on 2 Hours Fire Resistance Performance of Load Bearing Walls Used in Modular Buildings , 2014 .

[14]  Seungjae Lee,et al.  Verification of the Seismic Performance of a Rigidly Connected Modular System Depending on the Shape and Size of the Ceiling Bracket , 2017, Materials.

[15]  Hong Hao,et al.  Structural response of modular buildings – An overview , 2018 .

[16]  Sung-Gul Hong,et al.  Behavior of framed modular building system with double skin steel panels , 2011 .

[17]  Dong-Soo Kim,et al.  A Study on the Strategy for Creating Demand of Modular Construction through Case Analysis by Building Type , 2013 .