Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Earthquake Engineering
PART C: Assessment and Retrofitting of
Existing Structures
Prof. Stephanos E. Dritsos, University of Patras, Greece.
Pisa, March 2015
CONTENT
Introduction
Performance Levels or Damage Levels
Elements Behaviour
Documentation
Methods of Analysis
Seismic Strengthening Strategies - Methods of Strengthening the
Whole Structure
Composite Elements
2
INTRODUCTION
EUROCODES
European Standard (EN) for the Design
EN 1990 Eurocode 0:
Basis of Structural Design
EN 1991 Eurocode 1:
Actions on structures
EN 1992 Eurocode 2:
Design of concrete structures
EN 1993 Eurocode 3:
Design of steel structures
EN 1994 Eurocode 4:
Design of composite steel and concrete
structures
EN 1995 Eurocode 5:
Design of timber structures
EN 1996 Eurocode 6:
Design of masonry structures
EN 1997 Eurocode 7:
Geotechnical design
EN 1998 Eurocode 8:
Design of structures for earthquake
resistance
EN 1999 Eurocode 9:
Design of aluminium structures
1: 1998-1
2: 1998-2
Bridges
3: 1998-3
4: 1998-4
5: 1998-5
6: 1998-6
CODE ENVIRONMENT
EUROPE
1983
1995
1996
2005
2006
2007
2008
2012
ATC 40.
Seismic Evaluation
and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings.
FEMA 356.
Prestandard and Commentary for the
Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings.
2000
2003
U.S.A.
GCSI, Draft
The structural system of many old buildings was designed with architectural
excesses. Lack of regularity (geometry, strength or stiffness) in plan or
in elevation.
(d) Design for seismic actions much lower than that now accepted for new structures.
QUESTIONS
Which structures have the priority to be strengthened and how to identify them?
REDESIGN
A MUCH MORE COMPLICATED ISSUE
THAN THE DESIGN OF NEW STRUCTURES
Limited knowledge, poorly documented for the subject
Lack of codes or other regulations
The configuration of the structural system of an existing structure may not
be permitted. However it exists
High uncertainty in the basic data of the initial phase of documentation.
Hidden errors or faults
Use of new materials which are still under investigation!
Low (or negative) qualifications or experience of workmanship
9
11
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
1st stage
Document the existing structure
2nd stage
Assessment of the (seismic) capacity of the structure
3rd stage
Decide if structural intervention required
4th stage
Design the structural intervention
5th stage
Design in progress
PERFORMANCE LEVELS
OR
DAMAGE LEVELS
13
What is failure?
Action effects > Resistance
Let
M=
150 KNm < M=
200 KNm
Rd
sd
14
Damage Levels
Performance Levels or Limit States (LS)
LS Level A Limitation Damage (DL)
Immediate Occupancy (other Codes e.g.
FEMA): Minimal damage, elements have not
substantially yielded
PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Acceptable Performance Levels or Level of Protection (e.g. State of Damage)
of the Structure:
Level A: Immediately Occupancy (IO) or Damage Limitation (DL)
Very light damage
Structural elements retain their strength and stiffness
No permanent drifts
No significant cracking of infill walls
Damage could be economically repaired
Level B: Life Safety (LS) or Significant Damage (SD)
Significant damage to the structural system however retention
of some lateral strength and stiffness
Vertical elements capable of sustaining vertical loads
Infill walls severally damaged
Moderate permanent drifts exist
The structure can sustain moderate aftershocks
The cost of repair may be high. The cost of reconstruction should be
examined as an alternative solution
16
PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Level C: Collapse Prevention (CP) or Near Collapse (NP)
17
PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Gradual pushing (static horizontal loading) of structure up to failure
V3
V2
V1
3
3
1 2 3
3 2 1
Points (vi, i)
(Base shear)
Performance Levels
Capacity curve
V3
V2
V1
(Top displacement)
1 2 3
Light
Significant Heavily
damage
18
SEISMIC ACTIONS
What is the design seismic action?
Which return period should be selected for the seismic action?
Should this be the same as for new structures?
Design Levels
Occurrence probability
in 50 years
Collapse prevention
(CP)
Life safety
(LS)
Immediately occupancy
(IO)
2%
Return period 2475 years
CP2%
LS2%
DL2%
10%
Return period 475 years
CP10%
LS10%
DL10%
20%
Return period 225 years
CP20%
LS20%
DL20%
50%
Return period 70 years
CP50%
LS50%
DL50%
19
Minimal Damage
(Immediate Occupancy)
Severe Damage
(Life Safety)
Collapse Prevention
10%
(Seismic actions
according to 8-1)
50%
(Seismic actions =
0.6 x 8-1)
The public authority defines when the 50% probability is not permitted
20
ELEMENTS BEHAVIOUR
21
ELEMENT BEHAVIOR
Ductile
Brittle
Flexure controlled
Shear controlled
S d Rd
deformation demand
deformation capacity
Seismically Primary
S d Rd
strength demand
strength capacity
Seismically Secondary
d
m=
y
= ef =
upl
M y Ls
3 y
y
Fy
K=
y
Fy
y
23
Elements Capacity
Chord rotation at yielding of a concrete element
Walls of rectangular,
T- or barbell section
The value of the total chord rotation capacity of concrete elements under cyclic loading
The value of the plastic part of the chord rotation capacity of concrete elements under cyclic loading
24
S
R
d
Rd
+ u ) / 2
Sd , R d concern forces
For ductile components/mechanisms (e.g. flexural) Sd , R d concern deformations, sd,
(G.S.I. Code)
A Level (IO)
B Level (LS)
= y
Rd
1 y + u
Rd 2
u
Rd
Rd
u
=
Rd
Rd
C Level (NC)
Rd
primary elements
secondary elements
Rd =1,8
Rd =1, 0
Rd
Rd =1,8
Rd =1,8
25
Shear Walls
26
DOCUMENTATION
27
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE
1st stage
Document the existing structure
2nd stage
Assessment of the (seismic) capacity of the structure
3rd stage
Decide if structural intervention required
4th stage
Design the structural intervention
5th stage
Design in progress
Strength of materials
Reinforcement
Geometry (including foundation)
Actual loads
Past damage or wear and tear or defects
29
Full Knowledge
KL3
Normal Knowledge
KL2
Limited Knowledge
KL1
Inadequate: May allowed only for secondary elements
30
DOCUMENTATION
Knowledge Levels and Confidence Factors
KL1: Limited Knowledge
KL2: Normal Knowledge
KL3: Full Knowledge
=
1.35
=
1.20
=
31
1.00
Concrete (G.C.S.I.)
Steel
Visual identification and classification is allowed. In this case, the KL is32
32
considered KL2
33
ORIGINAL
DESIGN
DRAWINGS
Exist
NOTES
DATA
TYPE AND
GEOMETRY OF
FOUNDATION OR
SUPERSTRUCTURE
Do
not
exist
KL1
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
KL2
KL3
THICKNESS, WEIGHT
etc. OF INFILL
WALLS, CLADDING,
COVERING, etc.
KL1
KL2
KL3
REINFORCEMENT
LAYOUT AND
DETAILING
KL1
KL2
KL3
34
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
35
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
36
METHODS OF ANALYSIS
Same as those used for design new construction (EC8-Part 1)
37
PERFORMANCE LEVELS
Gradual pushing (static horizontal loading) of structure up to failure
V3
V2
V1
3
3
1 2 3
3 2 1
Points (vi, i)
(Base shear)
Performance Levels
Capacity curve
V3
V2
V1
(Top displacement)
1 2 3
Light
Significant Heavily
damage
38
CAPACITY DEMAND
d
acceptable curve
T1
T2
2
=
d g
2
4
T1
T2
demand curves
elastic spectrum
V = d W
0.90
1.20
0.80
1.35
inelastic spectrum
39
SAFETY VERIFICATION
Checking a Structures Capacity
Insufficient
Safe Behaviour
Unsafe behaviour
C
Demand Curve
(Required Seismic Capacity)
40
41
Base Shear
Displacement
Safe Design
Unsafe Design
42
Strength
Steel or
Concrete
Bracing
Adding RC
Wing Walls
Ductility
Jackets
(a) of RC
(b) of steel elements
(c) of composite materials
43
WARNING
Additional shear forces are induced in the columns and beams of the frame
45
46
46
Frame Encasement
Reinforced walls are constructed from one column to another enclosing the
frame (including the beam) with jackets placed around the columns. Note, all
new construction must be suitably connected to the existing foundation
New column
New wall
Existing column
New column
Existing column
New wall
47
New wall
Existing column
New wall
Existing column
Jacket
Existing column
Jacket
48
Strengthening proposal
50
51
52
53
55
56
57
58
COMPOSITE ELEMENTS
59
Concrete
Steel
FRP
60
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
(UNIVERSITY OF PATRAS)
61
62
63 63
64
65
Composite Element
Influence of Interface Connection
66
DESIGN FRAMEWORK
Into the existing framework for new constructions
Supplemented by:
67
S d Rd
interface
Sd
interface
Rd
int erface
V
INTERFACE SHEAR FORCES: sd
Viinterface
j =
FAB FCD
Viinterface
j =
FAB FCD
69
Technological
guidelines for
repairs and
strengthening:
70
Roughening by sandblasting
71
73
74
Total jacket
75
76
YES
77
78
79
int erface
Rd
Mechanisms
Dowel Action
Clamping Action
Welded Connectors
80
UNREINFORCED INTERFACES
/fud
4
rough interface with adhesion
sf
s fu
1,14
=
(s
/ s fu
fud
(N/mm )
f
0 ,5
fud
sf
s fu
f
> 0 ,5
fud
sf
= 0 ,81 + 0 ,19
s fu
=
fu 0.4(f c2 c )1/ 3
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5sfu
sfu
sf
s (mm)
(CEB Bul. No. 162, 1983)
Concrete-to-concrete adhesion
(GRECO, 2012)
REINFORCED INTERFACES
Additional Friction
When a Steel Bar Crosses an Interface, a Clamping Action May Occur if:
Surface of Existing Concrete has been Roughened
The Steel Bar is Adequately Anchored
(Tassios and Vintzeleou, 1987)
Clamping Action
Reinforced Interfaces
Frictional resistance
/fud
sf
s fu
f
0 ,5
fud
1,14
=
(s
/ s fu
fud
sf
s fu
f
> 0 ,5
fud
sf
= 0 ,81 + 0 ,19
s fu
=
fud 0.4(f cd2 (cd + d f yd ))1/ 3
0.5sfu
sf
sfu
(GRECO, 2012)
83
Reinforced Interfaces
V
Dowel action
84
Shear Resistance
for Dowel Action as a function of the interface slip
3
V 4
V
sd
sd
0 ,1du + 1,80du
sd =
0 ,5
Vud
Vud
Vud
Vsd
5db
3db
0,5Vud
db
6db
s
s
0.1d
0,1d=0.005d
u
0.1s
uu
b d
=0,1db
sduduu=0,05d
b
fc f y
85
86
Reinforced Interfaces
Bent Connecting Steel Bars
87
hs
When
Ts
new bar
old bar
s
s/ 2
=
sb
s/ 2
s
s
=
f yb
and sb
s
2h s
2h s 2h s
s
Force is Transferred between Reinforcements:
Ts
Ts = A sb E s (s / 2h s ) Tsy =
2A sb f yb
88
Tsy = 2 Asb f yb
Ts /Tsy
0.8
0.6
hs = 60 mm
0.4
hs = 120 mm
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5 0.6
s (mm)
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Vf
Vf+c,u
V fi
Sf,u 2 mm
S [mm]
Sf
S [mm]
Stot,u
S [mm]
b) Clamping action
Vtot
Vd
Vtot,u
Vd,u
Sd,u
c) Dowel action
S [mm]
=
Vtot D Vd + f V f
90
Full interaction
Partial interaction
Independent action
91
new
element
(a)
(b)
(c)
92
93
CAPACITY CURVES
F
Monolithic Element
Action effect
Fy,
Fy,
Strengthened Element
Fres,
Fres,
y, y,
u, u,
F
r = y,
Fy,
y,
=
y
y,
Deformation
=
u,
u
u,
94
k y =
(EI)strengthened = kk (EI)M
Rstrengthened = kr RM
i,strengthened = ki i,M
95
96
Monolithic Factors
kr = 0,95
ky = 1,15
ku = 0,85
ky = 1,25
ku = 0,80
ky = 1,25
ku = 0,75
kr = 0,90
kr = 0,85
97
Monolithic Factors
Influence of Interface Connecting Conditions in Case of
Concrete Jackets
Monolithic coefficient of resistance
1.00
1.050
0.95
1.025
0.90
1.000
0.85
0.975
Kr
Kk
0.80
0.75
0.950
0.925
first crack
0.70
steel yield
0.900
0.65
failure
0.875
first crack
steel yield
failure
0.850
0.60
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Friction coefficient
For =1.4
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
Friction coefficient
(G.C.S.I.)
98