7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
1/29
Case study on directing plastic
hinges from columns into beams
Scientific Team:
asist.dr.ing. Ioana Olteanu
prof.dr.ing. Alex Barbat (from UPC, Barcelona, Spain)
ing. Radu Canarache
Iasi, Mai 2013
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
2/29
CONTENT:
Natural disasters
Vulnerability
Seismic risk assessment
Case studies
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
3/29
earthquakes 9%
meteorological events 69%
landslides
5%
drought
8%
extreme temperature
3%
31%
floods
pests
1%
volcanoes
2% fires
3%
storms
27%
epidemis
11%
9%
earthquake and tsunami
Natural disasters
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
4/29
The risk
The disasters
are not natural
is not natural either
hazard vulnerability
is not naturalis natural
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
5/29
VULNERABILITY
Vulnerability is a set of prevailing or consequential conditions, which adversely
affect an individual, a household or a community's ability to mitigate, prepare for or
respond to the earthquake hazard.
Vulnerability factors:Population
density
Physical
assets
Economic
activity
Anderson and Woodrow (1989) grouped vulnerabilities into three categories:
Physical/material vulnerability: inherent weakness of the built environment and
lack of access to resources, especially of poor section of the population
Social/organizational vulnerability: inherent weakness in the coping mechanism,
lack of resiliency, lack of commitment
Attitudinal/motivational vulnerability: fatalism, ignorance, and low level of
awareness
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
6/29
focus
Seismic vulnerability, V: elementpredisposition to suffer a specificloss as a result of a seismic action ofa specific intensity S.
Seismic hazard, H: probability of occurrence
of a seismic event with a severity greater than
S during a exposure period T.
Seismic risk index
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
7/29
VULNERABILITY vulnerable elements in the physical environment
older residential and commercial buildings and infrastructure constructed of
unreinforced masonry (i.e., URM's) or construction materials with inadequate
resistance to lateral forces;
older non-engineered residential and commercial buildings that have no lateral
resistance and are vulnerable to fire following an earthquake;
new buildings and infrastructure that have not been sited, designed, and
constructed with adequate enforcement;
buildings and lifeline systems sited in close proximity to an active fault system, oron poor soils that either enhance ground shaking or fail through permanent
displacements (e.g., liquefaction and landslides), or in low-lying or coastal areas
subject to either seiches or tsunami flood waves.
schools and other buildings that have been built to low construction standards.
communication and control centers that are concentrated in one area. hospital facilities that is insufficient for large number of casualties and injuries.
bridges, overhead crossings and viaducts that are likely to collapse or be
rendered unusable by ground shaking.
electrical, gas, and water supply lines that are likely to be knocked out of service
by ground failure
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
8/29
Vulnerability factors
Short column
Diagonal crack and shear collapse of the column due to this phenomenon almost lead to thegeneral collapse of a parking structure (Northridge, California, 1994)
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
9/29
Vulnerability factors
Reinforced concrete frame infill
(a) (b)(a) Masonry infill cracking (Izmit, Turcia, 1999) (b) The stiff masonry lead to the shear of the
columns (Adana - Ceyhan, Turcia, 1998)Examples of collapsed columns due to the forming of short column because of discontinuities in
the infill masonry (Izmit, Turcia, 1999)
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
10/29
Vulnerability factors
Insufficient stiffness due to plates
Structures made of prefabricated elements with inadequate connections (Armenia, 1988)
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
11/29
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
F
F
Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Capacity curve
F
b
a
1
VS
W
top
d
1 top
SPF
Sa
Sd
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
12/29
Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Design spectrum
-2.50
-2.00
-1.50
-1.00
-0.50
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00 50.00
Earthquake recording from March 1977, PGA=0.20g
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50
Sa(0.2g)
T(s)
Design spectrum, Sa-T
2
d a2
TS = S
4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Sd(cm)
Design spectrum, AD format
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
13/29
Deplasare spectralaSd
P
SaP
Spectru de proiectare cuamortizare de 5%
Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Performance point
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
14/29
Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Biliniar idealization of the capacity curve
Dy Du
Ay
Au
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
15/29
Dy Du
Ay
Au
Sd3 Sd4Sd1 Sd2
Complet4
Sever3Moderat2
Usor degradate1
Fara degradari0
ds descriere
0
12
3 4 Sd,1 = 0.7 DySd,2 = DySd,3 = Dy+0.25(Du-Dy)Sd,4 = Du
Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Damage states limits
SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
16/29
RISCUL SEISMIC
SdP0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Slab
Fara degradati
Moderat
Sever
Complet
Sd (cm)
P(
DS>dsi/
Sd=Sdi)
Metoda spectrului de capacitate, ATC-40Determinarea curbelor de fragilitate
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
17/29
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
18/29
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
19/29
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
(a) (b)
Frame type C2: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading
of 1000 kN
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
20/29
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
(a) (b)
Frame type C3: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading
of 800 kN
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
21/29
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
(a) (b)
Frame type C4: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading
of 800 kN
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
22/29
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
(a) (b)
Frame type C5: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading
of 800 kN
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
23/29
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
(a) (b)
Frame type C6: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading
of 1000 kN
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
24/29
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
(a) (b)
Plastic hinge development: a model C2; b model C6.
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
25/29
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
Cracks and stress development for : a model C1;
b
model C2; c
model C4; d
model C6.
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
26/29
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18
Fortataietoaredebaza(KN)
Deplasare (m)
Cadru fara placa
Placa plina 15 cm
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Fortataietoarel
abaza(KN)
Deplasare (m)
Cadru cu placa plina de 15 cm - armare normala
Cadru cu gol la placa 50cm pe colt armare redusa
Cadru cu inlocuire material pe colturi 50 cm armareredusa
Cadru cu rost 5mm la placa pe colt - armare completa
3D FRAME STRUCTURE
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
27/29
EFFECT OF INFILL MASONRY
Capacity curves for a 3 level 2D reinforced concrete frame structure with different infillgeometries
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
28/29
EFFECT OF INFILL MASONRY
Plastic hinge development, frame with 4th infill model: (a) without joint, (b) with 5
cm joint
7/29/2019 Vulnerabilitate Bucuresti Mai2013
29/29
Case study on directing plastic
hinges from columns into beams
Scientific Team:
asist.dr.ing. Ioana Olteanu
prof.dr.ing. Alex Barbat (from UPC, Barcelona, Spain)
ing. Radu Canarache
Iasi Mai 2013
Top Related