ATHENS 12 th of April, 20131 M. Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria Bulgarian seismic design codes and civil construction.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A. T. Tankut Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Advertisements

Recent Experience in Turkey for Building Vulnerability and Estimating Damage Losses P. Gülkan and A. Yakut Middle East Technical University.
During the semester Introductions Basics of earthquakes History and Recording Damaging Earthquakes and Understanding seismic exposure Undertaking loss.
Actions and Retrofit of Post Earthquake-Damaged Bridges
Performance of buildings in the February 2011 Christchurch Earthquake Associate Prof Rajesh Dhakal University of Canterbury Christchurch, NZ Sixth International.
1 LESSLOSS Sub Project 7 Techniques and Methods for Vulnerability Reduction Barcelona 18 th May 07 – Lisbon 24 th May 07 LESSLOSS Dissemination Meeting.
FIG. 19 BUILDING WITH PENTHOUSE
METHODS OF RETROFITTING
Improving the Seismic Performance of Stone Masonry Buildings
An-Najah National University
Structural System Overview
5. HEAVY TIMBER FRAME CONSTRUCTION
MUSE 11B Buildings in Earthquakes Why do buildings do the things they do?
Contents : Introduction. Rapid Visual Screening.
STRUCTURAL BASICS. Redundancy Redundancy Brittleness/ductility Brittleness/ductility Building dynamic behavior Building dynamic behavior Degradation of.
Bridge Vulnerabilities Oct What puts bridges at risk? Ability to withstand seismic forces and displacements.
CEE Capstone II Structural Engineering
During the semester Introductions Basics of earthquakes History and Recording Damaging Earthquakes and Understanding seismic exposure Undertaking loss.
by: Jon Heintz, S.E. & Robert Pekelnicky
University of Minho School of Engineering Territory, Environment and Construction Centre (C-TAC) Uma Escola a Reinventar o Futuro – Semana da Escola de.
SCEC Annual Meeting - ITR 09/17/ Izmit Earthquake August 17, 3:02am, 1999 Mw 7.4 Mw earthquake: >18,000 fatalities >300,000 homeless.
Seismic Performance Assessment of Flat Plate Floor Systems John W. Wallace, Ph.D., P.E. Thomas Hyun-Koo Kang, Ph.D. Student Department of Civil and Environmental.
Earthquake Resistant Features in Buildings Dr. K. S. Nanjunda Rao.
Prof. Sarosh H Lodi NED University of Engineering and Technology What Works and Does not Work in the Science and Social Science of Earthquake Vulnerability,
SEISMIC ANALYSIS WITH SHEAR WALLS
High Rise Structural Systems
Introduction Motivations: There are hundreds of miles of retaining wall systems that exist in western United States Their routine design for static applications.
How detailed should a model be? Pierre Hoogenboom Delft University of Technology.
Villanova University Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering CEE 8414 – Structural Dynamics Northridge Earthquake 1 Northridge Earthquake - Concrete.
ID-2125 Marianela Najul KARLYS PULIDO PARICIA CAMACHO FRAMED STRUCTURE.
Seismic Analysis Concepts - Prof SH Lodi
CABLE-STAYED BRIDGE SEISMIC ANALYSIS USING ARTIFICIAL ACCELEROGRAMS
Welcome to HRC Bagh Workshop on Safer Building Through Improving Steel Detailing.
1 st MEMSCON Event 07/10/10, BucharestTECNIC EUROPEAN COMMISSION SPECIFIC TARGETED RESEARCH PROJECT – NMP – NANOSCIENCES, NANOTECHNOLOGIES MATERIALS AND.
ATHENS WORKSHOP / EC 8 – 3 : 2005 and nGCSI : 2012 APRIL 12, 2013 Recent Greek Provisions for RC Structures with URM Infills M. Chronopoulos and P. Chronopoulos,
Static Pushover Analysis
VULNERABILITY OF BUILDINGS TO EARTHQUAKE GROUND SHAKING GENERALIZED VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS BASED ON CHANGES IN A BUILDING’S ELEVATION AND FLOOR PLAN.
Prof. Khalid Mosalam University of California, Berkeley.
TOPICS COVERED Building Configuration Response of Concrete Buildings
FEMA Nonstructural Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Training
Zheng Li PhD, Assistant Professor Department of Structural Engineering Tongji University Seismic Performance of Timber-Steel Hybrid Structures The Fifth.
Structural Analysis and Design of
Section C Nonstructural Protective Measures
E E R I TECHNICAL BRIEFING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2009 PADANG, INDONESIA EARTHQUAKE Outline Building Types and Occupancies Acceleration Response vs Design Base.
Team UCDSESM Yihai Bao, YeongAe Heo, Zhiyu Zong University of California, Davis April 4 th, 2008 Prediction for Progressive Collapse Resistance of a 2D.
An-Najah National University Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Department.
Construction of Buildings to Prepare for Earthquakes What structures are needed to prevent serious damage ?
An-Najah National University Faculty of Engineering Civil Engineering Department Graduation Project Prepared by : 1- Areej Melhem 2- Jawad Ateyani 3-Rasha.
Seismic of Older Concentrically Braced Frames Charles Roeder (PI) Dawn Lehman, Jeffery Berman (co-PI) Stephen Mahin (co-PI Po-Chien Hsiao.
Villanova University Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering CEE 3704 Statistical and Numerical Analysis 1 Group Project #2 Energy Dissipation Capacity.
BASICS OF DYNAMICS AND ASEISMIC DESIGN
Dr. Ashok Gupta Professor Department of Civil Engineering
2005 PS3 Summer Institute Buildings in Earthquakes Why do buildings do the things they do?
INTRODUCTION Due to Industrial revolution metro cities are getting very thickly populated and availability of land goes on decreasing. Due to which multistory.
Özgür BOZDAĞ Mutlu SEÇER Dokuz Eylül University Katip Çelebi University Izmir, Turkey SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE FOR CONVERTING.
Confined Masonry Construction
Structural Slab Analysis
Review of Indian Seismic Codes
Mohammad Maher Jaradat Raghad Abdel-Salam Owaidat
NUMERICAL SEISMIC SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF RC BRIDGES WITH HOLLOW PIERS
CFHT Pier Building Evaluation
Supervied by : Eng. Ibrahim Mohammad Prepared by : Atheer Daraghmeh
GUIDED BY, MS. D. DARLING HELEN LYDIA M.TECH., PRESENTED BY,
An-Najah National University
ATHENS WORKSHOP / EC 8 – 3 : 2005 and nGCSI : 2012 APRIL 12, 2013
A Brief Idea on Seismic Retrofitting Techniques
Earthquake resistant buildings
Masonry Bearing Walls.
5. HEAVY TIMBER FRAME CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION
Presentation transcript:

ATHENS 12 th of April, M. Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria Bulgarian seismic design codes and civil construction practice. Infilled RC frames - Application and assessment of their resistance to lateral forces THE EUROPEAN CENTER FOR RISK PREVENTION, SOFIA, BULGARIA

2 1.INTRODUCTION Eurocode 8 and Eurocode 8 Part 3 in Bulgaria Eurocode 8 and Eurocode 8 Part 3 in Bulgaria Assessmen and retrofit programs in Bulgaria Assessmen and retrofit programs in Bulgaria Type of existing buildings structures. Type of existing buildings structures. - large panel systems - large panel systems - masonry and masonry infilled structures ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

3 2.Bulgarian Seismic Codes and Eurocode 8 (Eurocode 8-3) Pre 1947 – No Seismic Design Code 1947 – First Seismic Design Requirements 1957 – First Seismic Design Code – Low Level Seismic Design Codes 1964 – New Seismic Design Code – Medium Level Seismic Design Codes - Introduction of Dynamic factors 1987 – Modern Bulgarian Seismic Design Code and preceding events (1977 Vrancea Earthquake and 1987 Strazhica Earthquake) 2007, 2009 and 2012 Editions Introduction of Eurocode – 2014 – Joint Application of Codes Post 2014 – Planned retirement of Bulgarian Seismic Code ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

4 Type of Buildings, classified by the reference Seismic Design Code at the time of design and construction Pre 1947 Construction Construction Construction Construction – Medium and high rise residential buildings. Large Panel Systems, Lift Slab method, prestressed reinforced concrete buildings, climbing shuttering RC system, and others. Mass construction period Seismic Design Code -1990s period present Comparison between the codes Seismic Assessment of buildings designed according to Bulgarian codes ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

5 3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

6 3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region – Undamaged buildings ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

7 3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

8 3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

9 3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

10 3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Elastic Spectrum soil type “C” ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

11 3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Damages ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

12 3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Damages ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

13 4.Assessment of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames and buildings Masonry together with reinforced concrete is the most widely used material in Bulgarian cuvil practice. In Bulgaria masonry is used as: Structural material Non-structural material Until now the effects of the infill on the behavior of the structures were usually neglected in seismic analysis of RC/masonry buildings. 4.1 Masonry-infills in Bulgarian civil construction practice Use of masonry as primary (structural) material in combination with wood, steel etc. Use of masonry as primary (structural) material in combination with RC. 50s 60s – application in low rise buildings with up to 4-5stories (usually 3- 4) 60s – present – use in low rise residential houses up to 2(max 3) stories high Use of masonry as nonstructural material 60s – present – application in low, middle and high rise buildings with RC as primary structural material (usually RC shear walls are used) Positives of the early designs: Usually regular buldings Use of bricks with no openings ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

14 Quality control of the masonry Conservative design Usually low height High safety against premature out of plane failure of the masonry Deficiencies of the early designs: Designed according to low-level Design codes and usually lower seismic design acceleration Poor detailing – lack of enough transverse rebar Use of smooth rebar steel rods. Low-strength concrete Unknown quality of the mortar Possible degradation of strength due to removed internal walls. Brittle failure is expected Positives of later designs Designed according to better Design codes Better detailing Use of textured rebar steel rods (especially in the last decades) High-strength concrete. ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

15 Neglecting the strength of infill is often on the safe side Better performance might be expected (especially in buildings designed according to 1987 Seismic Design Code) Deficiency of late designs Use of bricks with high percentage of openings Less conservative designs Neglecting the stiffness of infill might be dangerous Low quality control of the masonry construction due to the understanding that it is not important for the overall behavior of the structure. Design and construction of irregular structures (especially after 1990) 1990s period when overall control was not strict enough Possible premature collapse of internal masonry walls (due to lack of connection between the frame and the masonry) ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

Assessment of the behavior of in-filled RC frames Importance Lack of modeling techniques, prescribed in Seismic codes (either Bulgarian or Eurocode 8) Types of infill models: Macromodels Bare frame Single-strut Double Strut Multi-Strut EQUIVALENT WIDTH OF THE STRUT ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

17 Micromodels ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

18 Comparison of Analysis Results ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

19 Nonlinear Strut Models Importance and field of application Data input requirements ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria SEISMOSTRUCT Software Package nonlinear model

Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit Linear Strut Models ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit Nonlinear Strut Models ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M. Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit Nonlinear Strut Models – Capacity Curves – Base Shear vs. Top displacement ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit Nonlinear Strut Models – Strengthening of existing structures ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M. Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria Nonlinear Micromodels

24 CONCLUSIONS 1.BDS EN :2005 Assessment and Retrofitting of Buidings is the first complete structural code of this type in Bulgaria. 2.Contradictions between the old and the new code exist -Completely different principles -Different definition of “seismically resistant structure” Pernik Earthquake conclusions: -The event in Pernik may be classified as a strong one (ref code) -The event in Pernik may be classified as moderate or even low -Almost all buildings properly designed and constructed withstood the earthquake without severe damages. -Many of the Buildings that were constructed without proper designs and in contradiction to “good construction practices” were heavily damaged. -Some deficiencies of old local codes designs were detected. -Danger of falling non-structural elements of buildings during an earthquake exists. 4.Masonry-infills influence the behavior of structures. ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

25 CONCLUSIONS 5. Modeling of masonry requires a lot of information and knowledge. 6. Introduction of national application handbooks is required. 7. Many of the buildings in Bulgaria may be rated as not seismically resistant if checked in accordance to BDS EN : But the last doesn’t mean that they really aren’t. ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria

26 ATHENS 12 th of April, 2013 M.Eng. Velyan Petkov The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria TNANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION