Fragility curves for buildings and bridges in the Thessaloniki study area

Transcription

1 Systemic Seismic Vulnerability and Risk Analysis for Buildings, Lifeline Networks and Infrastructures Safety Gain Fragility curves for buildings and bridges in the Thessaloniki study area Georgios Tsionis, University of Patras

2 UPAT research team Prof. Michael N. Fardis Dr Fillitsa Karantoni Paraskevi Askouni Eftichia Liossatou Foteini Lyrantzaki Alexandra Papailia 2

3 Fragility curves for reinforced concrete (RC) and unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings Study area Buildings blocks: Buildings: ntotal > ,000 2,000 Meters 3

4 Building typologies 17% 8% 75% Low code High code URM 4

5 Building typologies 16% 6% 0% 17% Dual infilled Dual pilotis Infilled frames Frames pilotis 78% Stone masonry Brick masonry 83% Reinforced concrete buildings Unreinforced masonry buildings 5

6 Fragility curves for RC buildings Structural system: infilled frames, frames with open groundstorey (pilotis), dual (wall-frame) infilled, dual pilotis Number of storeys: 2, 4, 9 Level of seismic design: low (RD 1959), high (1984, EC8) Design for 1959 and 1984 by AUTH (Kappos et al 2003) 6

7 Fragility curves for RC buildings Intensity measure: peak ground acceleration Damage grades: yielding, ultimate Damage measure: chord rotation at end and shear force of beams, columns and walls Derivation of fragility curves: Mean values of demand from static analysis per EC8-3 (elastic response spectrum, mean values of material properties, seccant stiffness) Mean values of capacity according to EC8-3 Coefficients of variation for demand and capacity account for model uncertainties and dispersion of geometry and material properties 7

8 Fragility curves for RC buildings Beams Columns Nonlinear dynamic analysis (Antoniou 2013, MSc thesis) Equivalent static analysis 5-storey frame building, DCH, α g = 5g 8

9 Fragility curves for RC buildings Beams Columns Wall Nonlinear dynamic analysis (Antoniou 2013, MSc thesis) Equivalent static analysis 5-storey wall building, DCH, α g = 5g 9

10 Fragility curves for RC buildings Infilled frames, 1959 code [6%] Infilled frames, 1984 code 10

11 Fragility curves for RC buildings Frames with open ground-storey, 1959 code Frames with open ground-storey, 1984 code 11

12 Fragility curves for RC buildings Dual buildings, 1959 code [70%] Dual buildings, 1984 code [1984+EC8: 20%] 12

13 Fragility curves for RC buildings Dual buildings, EC8 [1984+EC8: 20%] 13

14 Fragility curves for masonry buildings 5 damage grades from European Macroseismic Scale (EMS) Intensity measure: peak ground acceleration FE analysis with non-linear failure criterion under biaxial stress for inplane and out-of-plane failure Static analysis with inverted triangular distribution of lateral forces Combination of components of seismic action: E x +0.3E y, 0.3E x +E y 14

15 Fragility curves for masonry buildings Four-storey URM buildings with flexible floors Four-storey URM buildings with rigid floors 15

16 Fragility curves for masonry buildings Peak ground acceleration, α g (g) Peak ground acceleration, α g (g) Peak ground acceleration, α g (g) Peak ground acceleration, α g (g) Rigid floors Flexible floors 16

17 Fragility curves for masonry buildings DG=1 DG=2 DG=3 DG=4 DG=5 DG=1 DG=2 DG=3 DG=4 DG=5 Low-rise URM buildings, rigid (left) or flexible (right) floors DG=1 DG=1 DG=2 DG=2 DG=3 DG=3 DG=4 DG=4 DG=5 DG=5 Mid-rise URM buildings, rigid (left) or flexible (right) floors 17

18 Fragility curves for bridges AUTH database: 80 Study area: 60 Full details: 22 Acknowledgements: Egnatia Odos S.A. Central Macedonia Region - Department of Public Construction Projects Maintenance 18

19 Bridge typologies Deck with intermediate joints, support on bearings Continuous deck, support on bearings Continuous deck, monolithic with piers Continuous deck, monolithic connection to piers and bearings Single-span deck, support on bearings 19

20 Structural system and period of construction 27% 33% 37% 33% 10% 17% Deck with joints Monolithic connection Support on bearings Monolithic & bearings Single-span Type of deck and connection to piers 13% 30% < > 1993 Year of construction 20

21 Fragility curves for bridges Intensity measure: peak ground acceleration Damage grades: yielding ultimate Damage measures: chord rotation at end and shear force of piers, deformation of bearings Derivation of fragility curves: Mean values of demand from static analysis per EC8-3 (elastic response spectrum, mean values of material properties, seccant stiffness, rigid deck model or modal analysis) and equal displacement rule Mean values of capacity according to EC8-3 Coefficients of variation for demand and capacity account for model uncertainties and dispersion of geometry and material properties 21

22 Effect of structural type and geometry Monolithic deck-pier connection, support on bearings Monolithic deck-pier connection 22

23 Effect of seismic design Construction year: 1985 Construction year:

24 Effect of pier height h = m, construction year: 2004 h = 4.0 m, construction year:

25 Effect of span length l = 13 m, construction year: 1990 l = 28 m, construction year:

26 Summary AUTH database of buildings and bridges in Thessaloniki Fragility curves for RC buildings designed with seismic codes of 1959, 1984 and 2000 Simplified analysis with the lateral force method verified with results from 3D non-linear dynamic analyses Fragility curves for masonry buildings based on refined FE analysis and non-linear failure criterion Fragility curves for RC bridges in the study area different curves for each specific bridge of the same class 26

27 Thank you for your attention 27