Elastoplastic time-history analysis of prefabricated SRC frame structures in multi-floored grain warehouses

Abstract

The prefabricated steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) structure integrates the construction efficiency of prefabrication with the high-performance features of SRC materials, exhibiting great application potential in high-rise industrial buildings including Grain Warehouses subjected to lateral pressure and heavy loads. In order to evaluate the seismic performance of this structural system, this study takes a prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses in Guangzhou as the research object and then performs dynamic elastoplastic time-history analysis under rare earthquakes through the finite element software ABAQUS. The analysis concentrates on the seismic response, damage evolution, and energy dissipation mechanism of the structure, and shows the performance differences between this system and traditional reinforced concrete frame structures. The frequent earthquake level, which mainly considers serviceability under elastic conditions, is not investigated, and this study concentrates solely on rare earthquake excitation. The results suggest that under rare earthquake excitation, the maximum elastoplastic inter-story drift ratios in the X and Y directions are 1/248 and 1/266, respectively, both meeting the code limit of 1/100, suggesting excellent overall deformation capacity. When compared with traditional reinforced concrete structures, the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses shows a smaller damage range in major components, revealing superior deformation capacity, energy dissipation mechanism, as well as overall seismic resilience. Moreover, the findings also offer a theoretical foundation for the seismic design as well as engineering use of prefabricated SRC structural systems.

1 Introduction

Grain security is a cornerstone of national stability and social development. With accelerated urbanization and growing scarcity of land resources, Grain Warehouses have become vital infrastructure for grain storage because of their high land utilization efficiency and large storage capacity. These structures are featured by large spans, multiple stories, and heavy loads (as shown in Figures 1, 2). Under full-load conditions, the significant vertical dead loads and horizontal grain pressures can create complex coupling effects under seismic action, causing highly complex mechanical responses and posing great challenges to structural seismic design. As a result, exploring high-performance seismic structural systems which are suitable for Grain Warehouses is of important theoretical value and practical engineering importance (Li et al., 2025; Ding et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2026).

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 2

Recently, the deep integration of construction industrialization and green building concepts has driven prefabricated construction to be a mainstream direction in the industry. Prefabricated structures provide a lot of advantages, which include factory-based component production, effective on-site assembly, decreased construction pollution, and enhanced quality control, and have been extensively utilized in a variety of engineering structures like multi-story and high-rise buildings and industrial plants (Jayawardana et al., 2023). The Technical Standard for Prestressed Prefabricated Concrete Frame Structures, implemented in 2025, further standardizes the design and construction of prefabricated structures; it also specifies their applicability in regions with seismic fortification intensity up to degree 9, therefore laying a standardized basis for their engineering promotion (Wang et al., 2025). At the same time, steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) structures, as a high-performance composite structural system, embed steel sections within concrete to synergistically use the high ductility and tensile strength of steel with the high compressive strength of concrete. These structures provide significant advantages, like high load-bearing capacity, good ductility, strong energy dissipation capacity, and large lateral stiffness, making them extensively utilized in the seismic design of multi-story buildings and heavy-load structures (Liu et al., 2022). Recent studies suggest that SRC structures, via appropriate steel section arrangements and joint designs, can efficiently improve seismic resilience, particularly in suppressing the spread of structural damage under strong earthquakes and reducing post-earthquake repair costs (Ji et al., 2015).

The prefabricated SRC structural system, combining the construction advantages of prefabrication with the mechanical advantages of SRC structures, has emerged and is developing quickly. This system can not only inherit the excellent seismic performance of cast-in-place SRC structures but also enable standardized factory production and efficient on-site assembly of components, which obviously decreases on-site wet work and environmental pollution, conforming to the development directions of green construction and construction industrialization (Xiong et al., 2025). At present, research in this field, both domestically and internationally, has mainly concentrated on the connection performance of prefabricated SRC structures, seismic testing of single-story frames, as well as mechanical property testing of components. Remarkable progress has been achieved in fields including seismic performance optimization of joints and assembly precision control of prefabricated components (Geng et al., 2023). Nevertheless, study on the global seismic performance of prefabricated SRC structures used for specialized heavy-load buildings like Grain Warehouses is comparatively restricted, especially lacking systematic analysis under rare earthquakes (Bhandari et al., 2018). As shown in structural seismic performance analysis, dynamic elastoplastic time-history analysis is a key method for showing the elastoplastic deformation, damage evolution, and energy dissipation mechanisms of structures under strong earthquakes. Through inputting seismic waves matching site characteristics and using refined finite element models, the proposed method is able to simulate the realistic mechanical response of structures under rare earthquakes accurately, therefore offering a reliable foundation for structural seismic design and performance evaluation (Chen et al., 2015). Vibration simulation, as a key approach in structural seismic performance research, in combination with elastoplastic time-history analysis, has been a main technical path for exploring structural responses to strong earthquakes (Alam et al., 2022). At present, elastoplastic time-history analysis has been extensively used in the seismic performance study of different complex structures. Particularly in heavy-load and large-span structures, it can efficiently capture nonlinear behavior and cumulative damage processes, serving as a vital instrument for quantifying structural seismic performance (Katsimpini et al., 2025).

In accordance with the seismic design aim of “no damage under minor earthquakes, repairable damage under moderate earthquakes, and no collapse under rare earthquakes,” the minor earthquake level stands for frequent seismic events. The key design objective at this level is to guarantee the serviceability of the structure in the elastic stage—that is, the structure should experience no plastic damage and keep normal functionality when impacted by minor earthquakes. The structural response at this level can be quickly confirmed based on code-specified formulas or elastic analysis methods (Wang et al., 2023). Considering the research focus of the current work, this study mainly focuses on the elastoplastic seismic performance of prefabricated SRC Grain Warehouses under rare earthquakes, highlighting damage evolution and energy dissipation mechanisms under strong seismic excitations. As a result, the minor earthquake level, which mainly concerns elastic behavior and serviceability, is not subjected to detailed analysis; rather, its compliance with serviceability requirements is confirmed via code-based checks (Wu et al., 2024). Even though study on the component-level performance of prefabricated SRC structures remains comparatively mature, studies on the global seismic performance of such systems applied to specialized heavy-load structures including Grain Warehouses remain limited (Kenawy et al., 2023). The elastoplastic deformation characteristics, damage evolution laws of key components, and overall energy dissipation mechanisms of prefabricated SRC Grain Warehouses under rare earthquakes still need to be further comprehended. Furthermore, there is a notable lack of comparative studies with conventional structural systems, making it challenging to quantitatively validate the seismic advantages of the prefabricated SRC system.

In order to deal with the existing gaps, this study takes a prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses as the research object and establishes a refined nonlinear finite element model through ABAQUS to systematically perform dynamic elastoplastic time-history analysis under rare earthquakes. The primary research contents include: (1) showing the seismic response features of the structure, including displacement and inter-story drift ratio; (2) clarifying the damage evolution process and energy dissipation mechanism; and (3) quantifying the seismic performance advantages of the prefabricated SRC structural system via comparative analysis with a traditional reinforced concrete frame structure. Moreover, the research findings aim to offer theoretical support and technical guidance for the seismic design and engineering application of this novel structural system.

2 Finite element modeling

2.1 Basic information of the prefabricated SRC frame grain warehouses

This study is based on a prefabricated steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) frame grain Warehouses situated in Guangzhou. The building is a four-story structure, with a first-story platform height of 2.5 m and second-to fourth-story grain storage heights of 10 m, causing a total height of 32.5 m. The design service life is 50 years, as specified in the Unified Standard for Reliability Design of Engineering Structures (GB 50153–2008) and the seismic fortification intensity is 7 (0.1g). as specified in the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (GB 50011–2010). The stored material is wheat with a unit weight of 8 kN/m³. The single Warehouses capacity is 43,600 tons, and the total storage capacity is 130,900 tons.

The structural system adopts a prefabricated steel-reinforced concrete (SRC) frame. The plan dimensions of the storage area are 43.2 m × 73 m, with a grid spacing of 7.2 m × 7.5 m. Figure 3 it is the standard floor plan of a prefabricated SRC framework building. For vertical load-bearing members, the SRC columns mainly have cross-sections of 1,000 mm × 1,000 mm and 900 mm × 900 mm, with embedded cruciform steel sections. For horizontal members, the primary SRC beams have cross-sections of 500 mm × 1,000 mm–1200 mm with embedded H-shaped steel sections, while the secondary beams are 300 mm × 700 mm waffle slab beams (spaced at 2.4–2.5 m), and the slab thickness is 120 mm. Regarding wall arrangement, the external enclosure walls consist of 200 mm thick precast concrete wall panels (C25 concrete, HRB400 reinforcement). The internal walls subjected to lateral grain pressure are constructed of 490 mm thick fly ash brick masonry (Mb7.5 mortar). Table 1 lists the cross-sectional details of the structural members.

FIGURE 3

TABLE 1

Type	Sectional dimensions	Application scope	Concrete strength	Steel material
Steel-reinforced concrete column	Column Size:1,000 × 1,000 Cruciate steel Section:H500 × 250 × 10 × 18	First floor	C40	Q355B
Steel-reinforced concrete frame column	Column Size:1,000 × 1,000 Cruciate steel Section:H500 × 250 × 10 × 16	Area of 2nd–4th floors with partition wall load	C40	Q355B
Teel-reinforced concrete frame column	Column Size:900 × 900 Cruciate steel Section:H500 × 200 × 10 × 16	Area of 2nd–4th floors without partition wall load	C40	Q355B
Steel-reinforced concrete frame beam	Beam Size:500 × 1,000 H-shaped steel Section:H700 × 200 × 10 × 18	Other frame beams except 1st–4th floors 500 × 1,200	C35	Q355B
Steel-reinforced concrete frame beam	Beam Size:500 × 1,200 H-shaped steel Section:H750 × 200 × 12 × 20	Area of 1st–4th floors with middle partition wall load	C35	Q355B
Grid secondary beam	300 × 700	1st–4th floors	C35	HRB400

Sectional dimensions and material properties of prefabricated SRC frames.

The layout of the storage walls for the prefabricated SRC frame grain Warehouses is shown in Figure 4. These walls primarily serve to resist the lateral pressure exerted by the stored grain.

FIGURE 4

2.1.1 Element models for frames, walls, and slabs

The elastoplastic finite element model of the structure was established using ABAQUS, a widely used general-purpose finite element software. Frame beams and columns were modeled by utilizing B31 beam elements, accounting for the material nonlinearity of both steel and concrete. Walls and slabs were modeled using S4R layered shell elements. This element type enables the cross-section to be categorized into five layers—like the concrete cover layer, reinforcing steel layer, and concrete core layer—with material properties defined separately for each layer, allowing efficient simulation of the nonlinear mechanical behavior of reinforced concrete members under cyclic loading.

2.1.2 Determination of material constitutive models

The constitutive relation describes the mechanical response of a material to external disturbances. For seismic research, an ideal constitutive model should fulfill two requirements: it must ensure convergence and accuracy during numerical simulations, while also effectively capturing the hysteretic behavior of the material. Only then can the simulation results reflect the true physical phenomena under low-cycle fatigue or cyclic loading.

The constitutive characteristics of steel are rooted in material tests. When the stress state lies within the elastic domain—that is, below the yield limit—the stress-strain relationship is essentially linear, providing a reliable reference for the elastic modulus in subsequent calculations. Within this regime, the elastic modulus is 2.1 × 10⁵ MPa and Poisson’s ratio is 0.3. Upon application of higher loads, steel exhibits significant cyclic hardening after yielding (Table 2).

The Von Mises yield criterion is adopted for steel, and its yield condition is expressed as follows Equation 1:

FIGURE 5

The material library in ABAQUS offers three distinctive constitutive models for concrete: the brittle cracking model, the smeared crack model, and the plasticity damage model. The brittle cracking model focuses primarily on the nonlinear tensile behavior of concrete. While it works reasonably well for plain concrete or lightly reinforced members, it becomes inadequate when applied to normal reinforced or composite structures. The smeared crack model, by contrast, adopts a homogenized approach—discrete cracks are mapped onto a continuum, and the post-cracking response is represented by modifying the tensile stress-strain curve.

Plastic damage in concrete mainly arises from stiffness degradation caused by tensile cracking and compressive crushing. In the present model, this evolution is quantified by reducing the elastic stiffness of the material through two independent damage variables (dt for tension and dc​ for compression), along with stiffness recovery parameters (ωt​ and ωc​).

In this study, a bilinear kinematic hardening model was used for the steel material, accounting for the Bauschinger effect. The concrete damaged plasticity (CDP) model was adopted for concrete, which considers the anisotropic strength and stiffness degradation under tension and compression, thus enabling reasonable simulation of damage accumulation under cyclic loading.

The constitutive model for masonry is vital for simulating the mechanical behavior of infill walls accurately. Regarding the fly ash brick masonry utilized in the current study, the constitutive relationship put forward in the literature was applied. This model, derived by modifying the constitutive model for ordinary fired bricks, can reasonably depict the complete compression process of fly ash brick masonry, like the ascending branch, peak point, and descending branch. Furthermore, it is appropriate for simulating the damage evolution and stiffness degradation of masonry in elastoplastic time-history analysis under rare earthquakes. The masonry strength was identified in accordance with the relevant code specifications, guaranteeing consistency between material parameters and actual engineering conditions. Moreover, this constitutive model offers a theoretical basis for subsequent analyses of wall damage and energy dissipation mechanisms.

The strength values of the masonry were taken according to the relevant code specifications. The constitutive relationship can be expressed as follows Equation 2:

2.1.3 Damping model

In dynamic time-history analysis, the selection of damping directly influences the seismic response of the structure. In elastic analysis, modal damping is commonly employed. However, in elastoplastic analysis, the stiffness and vibration modes of the structure undergo significant changes, rendering modal damping no longer applicable. Therefore, Rayleigh damping is adopted in this study to account for the damping effect, in which the damping matrix is expressed as a linear combination of the mass matrix and the stiffness matrix (Equations 3, 4):

In the above equation, [C] refers to the structural damping matrix, [M]and [K]represent the structural mass matrix and stiffness matrix, espectively,ω1andω2 are the first and second natural frequencies of the structure.For elastic time-history analysis, the damping ratio was determined according to material types: 0.05 for concrete and 0.02 for steel. For the current model, the stiffness damping coefficient is approximately 0.665, and β is approximately 0.00376.

2.1.4 Determination of grain load

According to Article 1.1.6 (National Standard of the People’s Republic of China, 2014) of the Code for Design of Grain Square Warehousess, the standard value of horizontal lateral pressure exerted by wheat on the wall is given by Equation 5:

where, k is the lateral pressure coefficient for grain under flat storage conditions. According to Appendix B of the code, the lateral pressure coefficient for wheat is 0.4059;

γ the unit weight of the grain, taken as 8 kN/m³ in this study;

s refers to the vertical distance from the grain surface to the calculation section (m), as illustrated in Figure 6.

FIGURE 6

According to Article 1.1.6 of the Code for Design of Grain Square Warehousess, the standard value of the maximum horizontal lateral pressure exerted by wheat on the wall is 22.73 kN/m², which is directly applied to the wall. The standard value of the vertical pressure exerted by wheat on the slab is 56 kN/m², which is directly applied to the slab. According to Article 1.2.6 of the Code for Design of Grain Square Warehousess, the combination coefficient for seismic action is 0.9 in the seismic design of Grain Warehouses. In structural design, when considering the basic combination of grain loads, the combination coefficient for the variable grain load is taken as 1.0.

2.1.5 Finite element model of the structure

A finite element model of the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses was established using ABAQUS. Frame beams and columns were modeled using B31 beam elements, while walls and slabs were modeled using S4R shell elements. On this basis of validation results from prefabricated SRC joint tests, It should be noted that under the rigid connection assumption, the interaction between the infill wall and the main frame is the strongest—meaning the lateral restraint effect of the infill wall on the frame column is maximized. Compared with rigid connections, flexible connections would reduce the stiffness and strength of the specimen, but increase its ductility. This implies that the adoption of the rigid connection assumption in this study yields conservative results, which is consistent with the safety principles of seismic design in engineering practice. the beam–column connections were viewed as rigid connections, and the connections between walls and the frame were also considered as rigid connections to guarantee integral cooperative behavior. The slab thickness is 120 mm, modeled through layered shell elements. The grain loads were applied as follows: a vertical pressure of 56 kN/m² was applied to the slabs, and a horizontal lateral pressure was applied to the walls, which varied linearly along the height, with a value of 22.73 kN/m² at the slab level and zero at the bottom of the Warehouses. The model mesh size was 1 m, and fixed boundary conditions were applied at the bottom to simulate pile foundations. The established finite element model is presented in Figure 7, providing a foundation for the subsequent elastoplastic time-history analysis.

FIGURE 7

3 Modal analysis

Modal analysis methods mainly include the eigenvector method and the Ritz method. The eigenvector method solves the eigenvalue equation for undamped free vibration [K]{ϕ} = λ[M]{ϕ} obtain the eigenvalues λ = ω² and the corresponding mode shapes, commonly implemented using the subspace iteration method. The Ritz method, on the other hand, accounts for the load distribution characteristics by solving the Equation 6:

Where K is the stiffness matrix,M is the mass matrix,u is the displacement and mode shape distribution and R(t) is the load pattern.

The resulting mode shapes are associated with the load pattern, making this method more suitable for structures subjected to specific distributed loads. Given that the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses primarily resists the self-weight of grain and lateral pressure, the Ritz method was adopted for modal analysis in this study.

Perform modal analysis on the structure, and obtain the first 20 modes of the structure as shown in Figure 8. From the calculation results. The first 20 modes of the structure were obtained from the analysis, with a cumulative mass participation factor reaching 99%, satisfying the code requirement of not less than 90%. The characteristics of the first three modes are as follows: the first mode is translation in the X-direction with a period T1 = 0.4737s; the second mode is translation in the Y-direction with a period T2 = 0.4719s; the third mode is overall torsion with a period T3 = 0.3482s. T1 is slightly larger than T2, indicating relatively lower stiffness in the X-direction. The ratio T3/T1 = 0.735 satisfies the code requirement for torsional period ratio control. The mode shape distribution is reasonable, and the overall stiffness is uniform, indicating that the structural layout exhibits favorable dynamic characteristics.

FIGURE 8

4 Elastoplastic time-history analysis under rare earthquakes

4.1 Selection and input of seismic waves

Ground motion input is critical in elastoplastic time-history analysis of structures, as its amplitude, frequency content, and duration directly affect the accuracy of the structural dynamic response. Based on the Code for Seismic Design of Buildings (GB 50011), the seismic waves chosen for time-history analysis should be in consistence with the site category and design seismic grouping, and actual strong-motion records should account for no less than two-thirds of the total number of waves. This principle conforms to the international consensus on seismic time-history analysis in recent years. In the present study, two natural waves and one artificial wave were chosen for elastoplastic analysis under rare earthquakes, balancing the authenticity of natural ground motions with the controllability of artificial ground motions, conforming to current mainstream approaches to ground motion selection.

The project is situated in Guangzhou, China, with a seismic fortification intensity of 7, a design basic ground acceleration of 0.1g, and a design seismic grouping of the first group. In the rare earthquake analysis, the site characteristic period was considered as 0.4 s. The wave selection principle concentrated on the characteristic period of 0.4 s to guarantee that the frequency content of the selected seismic waves matched the code-specified response spectrum. This approach effectively enhances the accuracy of structural dynamic response analysis and aligns with the core concept in relevant studies that “site characteristic period dominates wave selection”. Comparative analysis indicates that the average response spectrum of the three selected seismic waves deviates by less than 20% from the code-specified response spectrum at the periods of the dominant structural modes, meeting the code requirements. The waveforms of the selected seismic waves are shown in Fig 1.13.

The duration of ground motion is an important factor affecting cumulative structural damage. The code requires that the duration of seismic waves be no less than 5 to 10 times the fundamental period of the structure and no less than 12 s. To fully capture the damage evolution process of the structure, the mainshock durations of the selected seismic waves in this study all exceed 20 s. The seismic waves were selected based on a site characteristic period of 0.4 s. The time-history curves of the three selected waves are displayed in Figure 9 and their comparison with the code-specified response spectrum is presented in Figure 10 validating the rationality of the wave selection.

FIGURE 9

FIGURE 10

4.2 Elastoplastic inter-story drift ratio and floor displacement

As shown in Figures 11, 12, under the excitation of the three seismic waves, the floor displacements of the structure exhibit a shear-type distribution pattern, with the maximum values occurring at the top floor. The response under Natural Wave one is the most significant, with a maximum X-direction displacement of 47.86 mm and a maximum Y-direction displacement of 46.27 mm, which are 14% and 20% higher than those under the artificial wave, respectively. The inter-story drift ratio initially increases and then decreases along the height, with the maximum value occurring at the second story. The maximum elastoplastic inter-story drift ratio in the X-direction is 1/248, and that in the Y-direction is 1/266, both satisfying the code limit of 1/100 with a safety margin of approximately 100%. The results indicate that the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses exhibits excellent deformation capacity under rare earthquakes.

FIGURE 11

FIGURE 12

Figure 13 exhibits the maximum deformation cloud map of the overall structure under Natural Wave 1. It can be found that under seismic excitation, the maximum X-direction displacement is 147 mm, occurring at the infill wall on the first story; the maximum Y-direction displacement is 143.5 mm, also occurring at the infill wall on the first story. This is attributed to the large horizontal forces induced by the earthquake, which cause significant deformation of the infill walls. It is evident that under seismic action, the deformation induced by the lateral pressure of the grain leads to substantial deformation of the infill walls, potentially resulting in damage and cracking of these walls. Cracking of the walls may alter the insulation performance of the grain storage, thereby affecting grain preservation. Therefore, the effect of infill walls should be considered in seismic design when conducting time-history analysis under rare earthquakes.

FIGURE 13

4.3 Top floor acceleration time-history analysis

Figure 14 presents the top floor acceleration time-history curves from the elastoplastic time-history analysis under rare earthquakes for different seismic waves. It can be found from the Fig that under the artificial wave, the maximum X-direction top floor acceleration occurs at 3.8 s, with a value of 0.964 m/s², while the maximum Y-direction top floor acceleration occurs at 3.2 s, with a value of 0.870 m/s². Under Natural Wave 1, the maximum X-direction top floor acceleration is 1.113 m/s², and the maximum Y-direction acceleration is 1.103 m/s². Under Natural Wave 2, the maximum X-direction top floor acceleration is 0.932 m/s², and the maximum Y-direction acceleration is 1.006 m/s² (Table 3). The results indicate that the top floor acceleration under Natural Wave one is relatively larger. Furthermore, the top floor acceleration results reveal that the structure amplifies the seismic waves, and this amplification effect becomes more pronounced as structural stiffness increases.

FIGURE 14

4.4 Component damage and failure modes

On the basis of the analysis, component damage was evaluated under the excitation of Natural Wave 1 (Figure 15). The compression damage cloud map indicates that the maximum compression damage could be found in the infill wall on the first story (Dc = 0.966), while damage to the frame beams and columns was minor (Dc = 0.399), and the slabs revealed virtually no compression damage (Figure 16). Regarding tension damage, the infill walls generally revealed obvious tension damage, with the most pronounced tension damage occurring at the frame joints (Dt = 0.994), owing to the large bending moments sustained by the joint regions under seismic action. Nevertheless, the tensile strains did not exceed the peak strain, meeting the bearing capacity requirements. From the damage evolution process, damage to the infill walls preceded that to the frame. In the early stage of the earthquake, the second-story walls initially developed tensile and compressive damage under the combined effects of grain lateral pressure and seismic action. As the seismic input continued, damage to the second-story walls intensified and propagated to the third story. By the peak moment, the second-story walls exhibited extensive severe damage (Dc = 0.966), the third-story walls sustained damage levels between 0.4 and 0.5, while the frame as a whole remained in a state of minor damage. The results indicate that the infill walls serve as the primary energy-dissipating components, while the frame acts as a secondary seismic defense line, providing a safety reserve.

FIGURE 15

FIGURE 16

Under rare earthquakes, the primary load-bearing components of the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses—namely, the SRC beams and columns—sustained only minor damage, with only a few experiencing slight compression damage, demonstrating excellent seismic performance. As the primary energy-dissipating components, the infill walls exhibited a layered damage evolution pattern: the first-story walls sustained severe compression damage (Dc = 0.966), while the third- and fourth-story walls experienced only minor damage. Regarding damage sequence, the infill walls failed before the frame, with first-story damage intensifying as the earthquake continued, whereas the upper walls were intact. This shows a dual seismic defense mechanism featured by “infill walls dissipating energy while the frame guarantees safety.”

4.5 Damage and energy dissipation analysis

Under seismic action, the structure follows the principle of energy conservation, with input energy being converted into kinetic energy, elastic strain energy, damping energy, as well as plastic dissipation energy. Analysis of the strain energy distribution among components (Figure 17) indicates that the infill walls occupy 83.3% of the total, far exceeding the contributions of columns (7.6%), slabs (3.4%), and beams (5.7%) (Figure 18). This suggests that the infill walls, which bear the lateral pressure from the stored grain, are the main energy-dissipating components, with their damage being the most significant.

FIGURE 17

FIGURE 18

Based on the damage energy dissipation time-history curves (Figure 19), it can be found that under rare earthquakes, the plastic energy dissipation of the structure increases roughly linearly with seismic input and tends to stabilize following a certain period. Besides, the energy dissipation values vary obviously among different seismic waves. Under X-direction seismic excitation, the maximum damage energy dissipation of the artificial wave is 12.166 MJ, that of Natural Wave TH1TG040 is 14.760 MJ, while that of Natural Wave Coalinga-0 is merely5.165 MJ. Under Y-direction excitation, the corresponding values are shown to be 12.349 MJ, 14.712 MJ, and 5.544 MJ, respectively. The energy dissipation values exhibit a close relationship to the intensity and frequency characteristics of the ground motions. The artificial wave and Natural Wave TH1TG040 induce comparatively larger energy dissipation responses, conforming to the displacement response patterns observed previously.

FIGURE 19

5 Comparative analysis of prefabricated SRC grain warehouses and traditional grain warehouses

5.1 Finite element modeling of the traditional grain warehouses

In the traditional grain Warehouses, the internal and external walls surrounding the bulk grain storage area are constructed of 490 mm thick fly ash brick masonry, while the remaining walls above ±0.000 elevation are constructed of 250 mm thick autoclaved aerated concrete blocks (Figure 20). Specifically, the 490 mm thick fly ash brick masonry walls that primarily bear the grain loads have a mortar strength grade of Mb7.5, as detailed in Table 4.

FIGURE 20

The “equivalence principle” serves as a core concept in precast construction. A design benchmark is first established using a typical Guangzhou warehouse in accordance with the Chinese national code (GB 50320–2014). An equivalent precast SRC structural system is then designed to meet or exceed the bearing capacity, stiffness, and stability of the benchmark. Accurate numerical models of both structural schemes are developed in Abaqus, incorporating realistic material constitutive laws, loads (including grain lateral pressure), and boundary conditions. Finally, a multi-dimensional comparative analysis is conducted to evaluate key indicators such as structural performance, construction efficiency, cost, and environmental impact.

Additionally, the beams and columns of the traditional grain Warehouses are made of reinforced concrete, with the dimensions of the structural members as shown in Table 5.

The results of modal analysis for the two structures are compared as follows: the first three periods of the traditional reinforced concrete grain Warehouses are T1 = 0.5688s (X-direction translation), T2 = 0.5076s (Y-direction translation), and T3 = 0.4160s (torsion). The mode shapes of the grain Warehouses conform to the typical mode shape characteristics of general structures, with uniform overall stiffness distribution. The prefabricated SRC frame grain Warehouses exhibits relatively higher overall stiffness. From the comparison of the first 20 periods presented in Table 6 and Figure 21, it can be observed that the frequency of the first mode of the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses is approximately 16.71% higher than that of the traditional reinforced concrete grain Warehouses. Moreover, the first three mode frequencies of the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses are all approximately 7.03%–16.71% higher than those of the traditional reinforced concrete grain Warehouses, indicating that the stiffness of the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses is greater than that of the reinforced concrete grain Warehouses.

FIGURE 21

5.2 Comparative analysis of displacement

Under the excitation of the three seismic waves, the maximum elastoplastic inter-story drift ratio of the traditional concrete grain Warehouses occurs at the second story, with values of 1/310 in the X-direction and 1/320 in the Y-direction, both satisfying the code limit of 1/100. Compared with the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses (1/249 in the X-direction and 1/267 in the Y-direction) (Tables 7, 8), both structural systems meet the seismic requirements in terms of displacement response. However, the prefabricated SRC structure exhibits relatively larger inter-story drift ratios, indicating its superior deformation capacity. In terms of floor displacement, the maximum floor displacements of the two structures are comparable. In summary, the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses demonstrates better deformation performance.

5.3 Comparative analysis of acceleration

Table 9 presents the top floor accelerations of the traditional concrete grain Warehouses from the elastoplastic time-history analysis under rare earthquakes for different seismic waves. Under the artificial wave, the maximum X-direction top floor acceleration is 0.0461 m/s², and the maximum Y-direction acceleration is 0.0806 m/s². Under Natural Wave 1, the maximum X-direction top floor acceleration is 0.0353 m/s², and the maximum Y-direction acceleration is 0.0470 m/s². Under Natural Wave 2, the maximum X-direction top floor acceleration is 0.0267 m/s², with the maximum Y-direction acceleration being 0.0390 m/s². When compared with the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses, the traditional concrete grain Warehouses has comparatively lower overall stiffness, and its maximum top floor accelerations are significantly smaller than those of the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses. This indicates that the structure amplifies the seismic waves, and the amplification effect becomes more pronounced with increasing structural stiffness.

5.4 Comparative analysis of component damage

Under the excitation of Natural Wave 1, (Figure 22) the first-story infill walls of the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses sustain severe compression damage (Dc = 0.966), while the frame beams and columns exhibit only minor damage Dc = 0.324), and the slabs remain essentially intact. In contrast, the traditional concrete grain Warehouses shows a wider range of compression damage in the frame beams and columns, with a greater number of damaged components. The results indicate that the prefabricated SRC structure effectively protects the primary frame through energy dissipation by the infill walls, demonstrating superior seismic performance of the prefabricated SRC grain Warehouses.

FIGURE 22

5.5 Comparative analysis of damage energy dissipation

Table 10 presents a comparison of damage dissipation energy for traditional concrete warehouse buildings under three seismic ground motions. Under X-direction excitation of an artificial wave, the maximum damage dissipation energy in the traditional concrete warehouse reaches 11.640 MJ. Under the natural wave TH1TG040 (X-direction), this value rises to 14.40 MJ, whereas under the Coalinga-0 natural wave (X-direction) it is only 5.310 MJ. For Y-direction excitation, the corresponding figures are 11.35 MJ (artificial wave), 14.59 MJ (natural wave TH1TG040), and 5.28 MJ (natural wave Coalinga-0). Based on these results, the prefabricated SRC (steel-reinforced concrete) warehouse building consistently exhibits higher damage dissipation energy than the traditional frame structure with wall panels and block walls. This indicates that the prefabricated SRC warehouse building possesses a markedly superior energy dissipation capacity.

6 Conclusion

References

• 1

  AlamZ.SunL.ZhangC. (2022). “Influence of seismic orientation on the statistical distribution of nonlinear seismic response of the stiffness-eccentric structure[C]//Structures,”, 39. Elsevier, 387–404.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  BhandariM.BhartiS. D.ShrimaliM. K.DattaT. K. (2018). The numerical study of base-isolated buildings under near-field and far-field earthquakes. J. Earthq. Eng.22 (6), 989–1007. 10.1080/13632469.2016.1269698

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  CaicedoD.KarimzadehS.BernardoV.LourençoP. B. (2024). Selection and scaling approaches of earthquake time-series for structural engineering applications: a state-of-the-art review. Archives Comput. Methods Eng.31 (3), 1475–1505. 10.1007/s11831-023-10025-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  ChenZ.XuJ.XueJ. (2015). Hysteretic behavior of special shaped columns composed of steel and reinforced concrete (SRC). Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib.14 (2), 329–345. 10.1007/s11803-015-0026-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  DingY. G.LiZ. D.ZhaoJ. Q.GuoC.XuZ.RenG.et al (2025). Seismic performance and damage model of prefabricated SRC joints in multi-floored grain warehouse. J. Build. Eng.111, 113514. 10.1016/j.jobe.2025.113514

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  GengF.LiA.LiuW. (2023). “Probabilistic seismic performance assessment of low-damage self-recovering prefabricated concrete frame subjected to near-field pulse-like earthquakes[C]//Structures,”, 55. Elsevier, 1839–1852.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  JayawardanaJ.KulatungaA. K.JayasingheJ.SandanayakeM.ZhangG. (2023). Environmental sustainability of off-site construction in developed and developing regions: a systematic review. J. Archit. Eng.29 (2), 04023008. 10.1061/jaeied.aeeng-1420

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  JiX.SunY.QianJ.LuX. (2015). Seismic behavior and modeling of steel reinforced concrete (SRC) walls. Earthq. Eng. and Struct. Dyn.44 (6), 955–972. 10.1002/eqe.2494

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  KatsimpiniP.PapagiannopoulosG.HatzigeorgiouG. (2025). An in-depth analysis of the seismic performance characteristics of steel–concrete composite structures. Appl. Sci.15 (7), 3715. 10.3390/app15073715

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  KenawyM.McCallenD.PitarkaA. (2023). Characteristics and selection of near-fault simulated earthquake ground motions for nonlinear analysis of buildings. Earthq. Spectra39 (4), 2281–2322. 10.1177/87552930231182164

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  LiZ. D.DingY. G.ZhaoJ. Q.GuoC.XuZ.XuQ.et al (2025). Experimental study on spatial joint of prefabricated steel reinforced concrete multi-floored grain warehouse. J. Build. Eng.103, 112001. 10.1016/j.jobe.2025.112001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  LiuY.ZhaoZ.ChengX.LiY.DiaoM.SunH. (2022). Experimental and numerical investigation of the progressive collapse of precast reinforced concrete frame substructures with wet connections. Eng. Struct.256, 114010. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2022.114010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  National Standard of the People's Republic of China (2014). Code for Design of Squat Silos: GB 50320-2014 [S]. Beijing: China Planning Press.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  WangX.ZhangH.HuX. (2023). Experimental analysis on the structural seismic behavior of steel frame-precast steel reinforced concrete (SRC) infill wall with lateral force resisting. J. Vibroengineering25 (6), 1166–1180. 10.21595/jve.2023.23092

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  WangY.LiuC.SunC.AshourA.YaoS.LuoL.et al (2025). Seismic performance of prestressed prefabricated concrete frames with mechanical connection steel bars. Buildings15 (9), 1432. 10.3390/buildings15091432

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  WangG. L.XuQ. K.DingY. G.XieH.ZhangY.LuX.et al (2026). Experimental study on the seismic behavior of integrated wall-RC frame in multi-floored grain warehouse structures. J. Build. Eng.119, 115185. 10.1016/j.jobe.2026.115185

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  WuC.FanM.SongH. (2024). “Elastic-plastic analysis of a novel prefabricated SRC column-steel beam composite frame structure[C]//Structures,”, 68. Elsevier.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  XiongM.XiongJ.HuS. (2025). Seismic Resilience of a Novel Resilient Prefabricated RCS Frame with Y-Eccentrically Braced Structure: an experimental and numerical analysis. J. Build. Eng.2023, 114723.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  XueJ.ZhouC. F.LiuZ. Q. (2018). Seismic response of steel reinforced concrete spatial frame with irregular section columns under earthquake excitation. Earthquakes Struct.14 (4), 337–347.

  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article