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

CONTENT:

Natural disasters Vulnerability Seismic risk assessment Case studies

Natural disasters
pests 1%

volcanoes 2%

fires extreme temperature 3% 3%

drought 8%

floods 31%

landslides 5%
earthquake and tsunami 9% epidemis 11%

meteorological events 69%

storms 27%

earthquakes 9%

The disasters are not natural The risk is not natural either
hazard
is natural

vulnerability
is not natural

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

Seismic vulnerability, V: element predisposition to suffer a specific loss as a result of a seismic action of a specific intensity S.

Seismic risk index

Seismic hazard, H: probability of occurrence of a seismic event with a severity greater than S during a exposure period T.

focus

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, or on 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

Vulnerability factors

Short column

Diagonal crack and shear collapse of the column due to this phenomenon almost lead to the general collapse of a parking structure (Northridge, California, 1994)

Vulnerability factors

Reinforced concrete frame infill

(a) (b) (a) Masonry infill cracking (Izmit, Turcia, 1999) (b) stiff masonry lead of to discontinuities the shear of thein Examples of collapsed columns due to the forming of The short column because columns - Ceyhan, Turcia, 1998) the infill (Adana masonry (Izmit, Turcia, 1999)

Vulnerability factors Insufficient stiffness due to plates

Structures made of prefabricated elements with inadequate connections (Armenia, 1988)

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Capacity curve

Sa F

Vb Sa 1W

Sd
F

top
PF1 top
F

Sd

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Design spectrum Design spectrum, AD Sa-T format Earthquake recording from March 1977, PGA=0.20g
0.7 0.7 2.00 0.6 0.6 1.50 1.00 0.5 0.5 0.50 0.4 0.4 Sa(0.2g)

0.00 0.00 0.3 0.3 -0.50

0.2 0.2 -1.00 0.1 -1.50 0.1 -2.00 0 0 0.00 0 -2.50

5.00

10.00

15.00

T Sd = 2 Sa 4
20.00 25.00 1.50 2 2.00 2.5 T(s) Sd(cm) 2.50

30.00

35.00

40.00

45.00

50.00

0.5

0.50

1.00

1.5

3.00 3.5

3.50 4

4.00 4.5

4.50 5

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Performance point

Spectru de proiectare cu amortizare de 5%

SaP

SdP

Deplasare spectrala

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Biliniar idealization of the capacity curve

Au Ay

Dy

Du

SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT

Capacity spectrum method, ATC-40
Damage states limits

ds 0

descriere Fara degradari

Usor degradate
Moderat Sever Complet

Au

2 3 4

Ay

2
Sd3

4
Du Sd4

Sd,3 = Dy S+0.25(D Sd,4 0.7 =u D D -D d,1 = d,2 y u y y)

Sd1 Sd2

0 Dy

RISCUL SEISMIC
Metoda spectrului de capacitate, ATC-40
Determinarea curbelor de fragilitate 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 P(DS>dsi/Sd=Sdi) 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.5 SdP 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Sd (cm) 3.5 4.0 Sever Fara degradati Slab Moderat

Complet

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

(a) (b) Frame type C2: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading of 1000 kN

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

(a) (b) Frame type C3: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading of 800 kN

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

(a) (b) Frame type C4: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading of 800 kN

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

(a) (b) Frame type C5: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading of 800 kN

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

(a) (b) Frame type C6: (a) Crack development in the concrete; (b) Reinforcement stresses for a loading of 1000 kN

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

(a) (b) Plastic hinge development: a model C2; b model C6.

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

Cracks and stress development for : a model C1; b model C2; c model C4; d model C6.

3D FRAME STRUCTURE

1200 1,200

1000 1,000

Forta taietoare dela baza (KN) (KN) baza taietoare Forta

800 800

600 600

Cadru cu placa plina de 15 cm - armare normala fara placa Cadru cu gol la placa 50cm pe colt Cadru armare redusa

400 400

Placa plina 15 cm Cadru cu inlocuire material pe colturi 50 cm armare redusa Cadru cu rost 5mm la placa pe colt - armare completa

200 200

0 0 0.00 0.00

0.02

0.04 0.01

0.06 0.02

0.08

Deplasare (m) Deplasare (m)

0.10 0.03

0.12 0.04

0.14

0.16 0.05

0.18 0.06

EFFECT OF INFILL MASONRY

Capacity curves for a 3 level 2D reinforced concrete frame structure with different infill geometries

EFFECT OF INFILL MASONRY

Plastic hinge development, frame with 4th infill model: (a) without joint, (b) with 5 cm joint

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