8 views

Uploaded by mariana_dragomir_2

ll

- Seismic soil-structure interaction of buildings on hill slopes EIJCSE3045
- paper4009 consolidare zid
- chaaasaassas.pdf
- EN1992_3_Jones
- Eurocode2_Commentary2008
- Ac i Diaphragm
- A study on response reduction factor of RC wter tank
- PushoverAnalysisOfMultiStoreyRccFrameWithAndWithoutVerticalIrregularities(20-25)
- MBr-February2017-toUpload
- Defining Yield Stress and Failure Stress (Strength)
- Www.asce.Org - ASCE_SEI 7-2002 Errata_Section922_04
- Effect of Confining Pressure on Horizontal Load Carrying Capacity of Circular RC Bridge Pier-41904
- MBr-February2017-toUpload.pdf
- Seismic Performance Assessment of RCS Building By Pushover Analysis
- porter
- 13_649
- NIL
- Torsion Lecture
- MATLab Code for Economical Seismic design of Irregular Building
- RC-lecture2

You are on page 1of 110

Istituto Universitario

di Studi Superiori

Universit degli

Studi di Pavia

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK

ROSE SCHOOL

STRUCTURES AND STRENGTHENING BY R.C. SHEAR

WALLS

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

by

CASOLI DAVIDE

December, 2007

The dissertation entitled Assessment of existing mixed r.c. masonry structures and

strengthening by r.c. shear walls, by Casoli Davide, has been approved in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.

Guido Magenes

Andrea Penna

Alessandro Galasco

Abstract

ABSTRACT

The present study is carried out following the new Italian seismic code (OPCM 3431)

procedures, which, up to now, show a certain scarcity of indications about the seismic safety

evaluation of building with mixed structure, in particular, about the interaction criteria

between different earthquake resisting systems. The present study aims to the accomplishment

of a two goals. The first one is the reliability evaluation of quite simplified engineering tools,

such as monotonic pushover analyses with rough elasto plastic constitutive law implemented

for elements, in such a way to balance the necessities of an accurate simulation of the

structural response, moderate computational effort, and outcomes of easily comprehension;

this is done through the comparison with more refined elements non linear constitutive laws

(i.e. Macroelement for masonry, Takeda for reinforced concrete), and more complex non

linear analyses (cyclic pushover, dynamic non linear). The second goal is the proposal of a

retrofitting design method of general validity, which, starting from the performance obtained

by the original structure, has the force based design feature, namely an uncertain inelastic

displacement capacity prediction. This topic is faced through the choice of a pretty simple

case study, for which it is believed to be reasonable the adoption of the above mentioned

simplified hypothesis.

Index

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................................................ii

LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................................iv

LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................vi

1. OVERVIEW......................................................................................................................................1

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MODELLING..........................................................................................4

2.1 General consideration ................................................................................................................4

2.1.1 The equivalent frame....................................................................................................5

2.2 Bilinear masonry elements modelling........................................................................................7

2.2.1 Differences between the two constitutive law .................................................................8

2.2.2 Resistance criterions for masonry walls...........................................................................9

2.3 Macroelement modelling .........................................................................................................13

2.4 Resistance criterion for spandrels ............................................................................................16

2.5 Concrete elements modelling...................................................................................................17

2.5.1 Flexural strength ............................................................................................................17

2.5.2 Shear strength.................................................................................................................18

2.5.3 Deformability.................................................................................................................18

2.6 Effects of interaction between the non linear elements and criteria of seismic design............20

2.7 Loadings...................................................................................................................................21

2.7.1 Seismic action ................................................................................................................21

2.7.2 Gravity loads..................................................................................................................22

2.7.3 Loadings combination....................................................................................................22

2.8 Pushover and Non linear static analysis procedure..................................................................23

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE BUILDING ............................................................................................25

ii

Index

3.2 Reinforced concrete elements ..................................................................................................28

4. ASSESSMENT OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE .....................................................................31

4.1 Damage state of elements at collapse Bilinear Models.........................................................33

4.1.1 Model 1 - Andil Wall.....................................................................................................34

4.1.2 Model 2 TreMuri............................................................................................................37

4.2 Damage state of elements at collapse Model 3 TreMuri (Macroelement)............................39

5. STRENGTHENING DESIGN ........................................................................................................40

5.1 Constant yield displacement hypothesis (Design n1).............................................................42

5.2 Constant stiffness hypothesis (Design n2) .............................................................................43

5.3 Effective stiffness of concrete element ....................................................................................44

6. ASSESSMENT OF THE RETROFITTED STRUCTURE.............................................................61

6.1 Bilinear models ........................................................................................................................62

6.1.1 Reinforced structure n 1 Code provision concrete stiffness ......................................64

6.1.2 Reinforced structure n 1 Effective concrete stiffness................................................66

6.1.3 Reinforced structure n2 ................................................................................................68

6.2 Reinforced structure n1 Macroelement models...................................................................70

6.2.1 Reinforced structure n1 (Code provision concrete stiffness ) Macroelement ...........71

6.2.2 Reinforced structure n1 (Effective concrete stiffness ) Macroelement .....................73

6.3 Comments ................................................................................................................................75

7. CYCLIC PUSHOVER ANALYSES...............................................................................................76

7.1 General consideration on Hysteretic models for reinforced concrete elements.......................77

7.1.1 Bilinear Takeda model...................................................................................................78

7.2 Cyclic pushover analyses of the original structure ..................................................................80

7.3 Cyclic pushover analyses of the reinforced structure ..............................................................82

8. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS..........................................................................................................87

REFERENCES .....................................................................................................................................90

APPENDIX A Reinforced concrete walls design n2 Equal stiffness hypothesis ..............................1

iii

Index

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 2. Members modelling.....................................................................................................7

Figure 3. Constitutive law Andil wall(left) TreMuri (right) ....................................................8

Figure 4. Member deformability Andil wall(left) TreMuri (right) ..........................................8

Figure 5. Flexural behaviour.......................................................................................................9

Figure 6. Flexural strength domain...........................................................................................10

Figure 7. Shear behaviour .........................................................................................................10

Figure 8. Shear strength domain (diagonal cracking)...............................................................11

Figure 9. Shear strength domain (shear sliding) .......................................................................13

Figure 10. Macroelemento kinematic model ............................................................................14

Figure 11. (a) Cyclic vertical displacement-rotation interaction with (red line) and w/o toe

crushing (blue dots) in Penna [3]; (b) Rocking panel with (red line) and without (blue

line) crushing. ...................................................................................................................14

Figure 12. Spandrels behaviour ................................................................................................16

Figure 13. Concrete member flexural hypothesis .....................................................................17

Figure 14. Ritter Morsh mechanism .........................................................................................18

Figure 15. Plan of the building .................................................................................................25

Figure 16.Sections of the building ............................................................................................25

Figure 17. Portion of the building under investigation .............................................................26

Figure 18. Reinforcement details..............................................................................................26

Figure 19. Identification of beam sections................................................................................28

Figure 20. R.c. sections.............................................................................................................30

Figure 21. Andil Wall members identification .........................................................................33

iv

Index

Figure 23. Constant yield displacement approach ....................................................................42

Figure 24. Constant stiffness approach.....................................................................................43

Figure 25. Effective stiffness ....................................................................................................44

Figure 26. Effective element stiffness ......................................................................................44

Figure 27. Effective sectional stiffness.....................................................................................45

Figure 28. Cyclic pushover curve comparison between models............................................81

Figure 29. Cyclic pushover curve (Takeda model) shear distribution - ................................81

Figure 30. Cyclic pushover curve EPP model for concrete ...................................................83

Figure 31. Cyclic pushover curve EPP model for concrete shear distribution ...................83

Figure 32. Cyclic pushover curve Takeda model for concrete ..............................................84

Figure 33. Cyclic pushover curve Takeda model for concrete shear distribution ..............84

Figure 34. Cyclic pushover curve Comparison between EPP and Takeda model in Total

Base shear .........................................................................................................................85

Figure 35. Cyclic pushover curve Comparison between EPP and Takeda model in wall 22

base shear ..........................................................................................................................85

Index

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3.2. Concrete properties ..................................................................................................27

Table 3.3. Steel properties ........................................................................................................27

vi

Chapter 1. Overview

1. OVERVIEW

The problem of the seismic assessment and retrofit of existing buildings, amongst which a

great number are unreinforced masonry, has become by now one of the main topic of interest

in the world of construction, also due to progressive relative reduction of new construction

activity, with respect to interventions on existing structures.

The topic itself is extremely complex, due to the enormous variability of structural forms and

materials that can be found in countries with a long history of civilization such as in Europe.

Such complexity constitutes a great hindrance to a strict codification of methodologies and

approaches, such as may be possible with new designs. Considering specifically masonry

buildings, such a diversity of structural forms and materials is enormous from country to

country, but first of all, such structural forms very often do not lend themselves to be

approached with the same engineering criteria used for reinforced concrete or steel

construction.

Thats why Europeans national codes on the seismic design/assessment of masonry buildings

have shown until recent times a rather heterogeneous, apparently even contradictory approach

to the problem, especially regarding the seismic design load levels, which show wide

variations from country to country, not necessarily consistently correlated with different

levels of seismic hazard. In fact, the seismic assessment process is made of different steps that

cannot be analyzed independently from each other: for instance, the definition of the seismic

input depends on the methods and criteria that are being used for the analysis (linear, non

linear, modal with response spectrum) and safety checks (strength criteria, deformation

criteria, allowable stresses or limit state approach). Most codes are based on a strength

approach, closer to the traditional way of thinking of the practicing engineer, despite seismic

assessment being conceptually better described by a displacement/deformation approach.

Also, masonry design practices are still characterized by a rather high level of empiricism and

are strongly influenced by the local traditions.

Chapter 1. Overview

approaches, but extreme care should be paid in codifying the procedures to avoid inconsistent,

contradictory or unrealistic results. In particular, in such rationalization, made according to

quantitative, engineering criteria, following a common language as for other structural

typologies, it is essential to interpret correctly all the basic elements of the design and safety

assessment procedures, to adapt them properly to masonry structures, and it is mandatory to

verify that the analytical procedures do not produce results that contradict experience and

experimental evidence.

In May 2003 a new national seismic code was issued in Italy (OPCM 3274). The new code

had been conceived as a document of transition from the previous national seismic code,

dated 1996, towards the final adoption of Eurocode 8, and to this end, many elements of it had

been included, among which the limit state formulation and the recommended q-values for

masonry buildings. The attempt of transposing Eurocode 8 part 3 (CEN-EN 1998-3) to the

Italian reality presented a series of novelties that in part were a serious progress towards a safe

and rational approach to assessment, and in part were not compatible with the reality of the

problem, due to the impossibility to extend concepts and procedures which would be

appropriate for other types of structures such as r.c. or steel framed buildings to masonry.

Besides the definition of rational criteria for global assessment, an important problem appears

to be the approach to buildings with mixed structures, for which very limited research has

been carried out so far. In fact from the early 20th-century the spreading of reinforced

concrete technology caused the birth of mixed solutions starting from existing structures, in

order to satisfy requirements mostly related to functional purposes: masonry structures

subjected to internal demolishment, column insertions. Functional and not only structural

aspects inspired the development of hybrid masonry-RC configurations. A significant number

of such buildings is present on the Italian territory and in general in European countries. The

variety of all these cases causes a difficulty not only in the typological classification but also

in the coding of structural schemes: therefore the investigation of the vulnerability of this

class becomes worth.

Chapter 1. Overview

Nevertheless, despite the spreading of this typology, very little is known about their seismic

behaviour, since very little research has been carried out, especially experimental, and the

scientific studies on the combined-system structures above described are almost absent,

because of the previously mentioned structural variety, but also because of the problem

concerning the mutual interaction: also the recent codes, both international and national (EC8

2004 OPCM no.3431 2005 8.5.), provide only brief explanations not only about the

structural idealization but also concerning the seismic-safety criteria. Moreover, although

there is a well-established background focused on the non-linear analysis of masonry

structures and RC frames, the set of numerical and experimental instruments for the study of

their interaction effects is limited. As a consequence, codes provide little support to the

designer besides suggesting methodological principles, in fact, although in principle only

nonlinear models could give a reasonable estimate of the seismic behaviour of such structures,

code makers must realize that nonlinear models for such structures still must be developed

and, if available, must be validated against experimental results. On the other hand, the use of

elastic analysis in structures, in which the deformation capacity of different structural

elements can differ by large amounts, may cause a total unreliability of methods based on the

use of a single q-factor.

In this dissertation, a case study is presented, which consists in a structural system made of

peripheral masonry walls and internal isolated reinforced concrete columns, for which,

according to the Italian code, the assessment is carried out, and the retrofitting by the insertion

of additional r.c. walls, in order to reduce the seismic vulnerability .

In this context, in the masonrys idealization as equivalent 3D frame, a formulation and

implementation of non linear elements is proposed in order to model RC columns, beams and

walls; the main aim is to investigate the overall seismic behaviour, keeping into account of the

different properties of resistance and stiffness of the structural modelled (RC and masonry)

elements.

2.1 General consideration

In general, masonry buildings are complex, three-dimensional structures, in which all the

elements cooperates in the resistance to the applied loads; the experience coming from the

observation of damages in real buildings and experimental tests allows the introduction of

some simplifications of the behaviour, in the analysis and the design process, in order to

overcome this complexity. The global behaviour of the building under seismic excitation is

governed by any single element response, but mainly by the level of connection among them:

walls are the resistant elements with respect to vertical and horizontal loads, while the slabs

contributes to distribute the actions among them and to avoid local failure.

In particular, for the walls, is possible to distinguish two types of mechanisms: out of plane

and in plane ones. The firsts are mainly local phenomenon of single facades or parts of them,

which often occurs in heritage buildings due to the low level of connection between

orthogonal walls and between walls and slabs; usually it is possible to avoid them by

localized interventions, such as the building behaviour is similar to that of a rigid box under

seismic loading, in which the walls show just an in plane response.

The presence of good connections among parts of the building, in fact, restrains the out of

plane failure of walls, and lets the development of in plane mechanisms, which are much

stronger and ductile.

Under the above mentioned hypothesis the building shows a global response, characterized by

hyper static behaviour, which allows the analysis of the structure as an equivalent hyper static

frame .

In such a frame walls are the bearing elements, while the floors, apart from sharing vertical

loads to the walls, are considered as planar stiffening elements, on which the horizontal

actions distribution between the walls depends (in the extreme case of rigid slab, the

distribution is proportional to the wall stiffness and position, through the rigid body

kinematics); the local flexural behaviour of the floors and the walls out-of-plane response are

not computed because they are considered negligible with respect to the global building

response, which is governed by their in-plane behaviour.

A frame-type representation of masonry walls consists in the subdivision of each wall into

piers and spandrels (coupling masonry beams), connected by rigid zones (nodes): earthquake

damage observation shows, in fact, that only rarely (very irregular geometry or very small

openings) cracks appear in these areas of the wall: because of this, the deformation of these

regions is assumed to be negligible.

This modelling is carried out with two software, Andil Wall and TreMuri, which are able to

describe the non linear behaviour of the structure with different levels of accuracy, due to

different hypothesis about the response of the masonry components: in particular TreMuri can

model masonry elements according to two different constitutive behaviour, bilinear

element and macroelement. The Andil Wall modelling and the bilinear element version

of TreMuri have the common feature that they follow the minimum code requirements, so

they can be defined as bilinear modelling, while the macroelement version of TreMuri

provides a more refined non linear representation of the behaviour. These aspects are faced in

details in the following paragraphs.

According to the OPCM, the elements are characterized by a bilinear elasto- plastic

behaviour, with an equivalent limit elastic strength, elastic and ultimate displacement defined

as a function of the flexure and shear response. Therefore, resistance criterions based on

forces and moments are adopted.. The stiffness matrix of the structure, in the elastic part,

related to the cracked stage, assumes the same form of the element of a frame, with shear

deformability, so it is known once E, G, and sectional sizes are defined..

A linear elastic behaviour is assumed until one of the possible failure occurs:

flexural failure, when the acting moment on one of the extreme sections reaches Mu; in

this section a plastic hinge is placed;

shear failure, when the acting shear on one of the extreme sections reaches Vt

value is defined depending on the type of failure, over which the strength of the element

becomes null.. The code defines this value in terms of horizontal relative displacement of the

sections , as a percent of the deformable height Heff (punto 11.5.8.1 Pareti murarie)

Flexural failure Shear failure

Existing buildings 6 Heff

4 Heff

The two software show also some differences: in the Andil Wall modelling the elements are

characterized by an elastic-perfectly plastic behaviour, while in TreMuri (bilinear element

version) the constitutive law has an unloading branch ( with secant stiffness) which let also a

cyclic pushover analysis .

T

Tu

Moreover, while in TreMuri model the ductility control is carried out just in terms of

maximum drift, in the Andil Wall model, in order to take into account any rigid displacement

or rotation, the deformation parameters are evaluated in terms of chord rotation , which is the

sum of the flexural deformation i and the shear one (i = i + ), and whose limit values

is u, fixed by the code for the ratio u/Heff .

Finally, while TreMuri considers the actual stiffness of the slab, while Andil Wall assumes

the rigid diaphragm hypothesis.

(a) Flexural strength

a)

b)

Flexural failure is due to the crushing in the compressive part at the extreme sections: due to

wide horizontal cracks the walls tends to overturns like a rigid body. The ultimate moment Mu

is calculated assuming a null tensile strength of the masonry and a non linear compressive

stress distribution. For a rectangular section the equation is:

l 2 t 0

M u =

2

1 0

fd ,

being:

l

0 =

P

l t , being P the axial

resistance reduction coefficient, which takes into account the degradation due to cyclic

loadings ( = 0.85 );

fd

design compressive strength in the vertical direction; which is assumed to be, for non

fm =

fk

f

fk

characteristic value ( mc = 0.7 )), divided by the confidence factor. f d = m =

FC mc .FC

Two failure mechanisms are adopted: the first one consists in wide diagonal cracks along the

height of the panel, which may cross the mortar or the bricks depending on the relative

resistance of the components and the mean compressive stress. The second consists in

horizontal cracks (typically in the mortar layers when the bricks have regular shape).

a)

b)

A shear failure by diagonal crack occurs when the macroscopic principal tensile stress reaches

f

a limit value td , assumed to be the conventional tensile strength of the masonry. This

criterion is expressed by the following equation (punto 11.5.8.1 Pareti murarieO.P.C.M.),

which gives the shear resistance Vt of masonry panel:

Vt =

f td l t

1+

0

f td

being:

10

f td

design tensile strength by diagonal crack; which is assumed to be, in case of non linear

f tm

f tm =

f tk

f td =

f tk

f tm

=

FC mv FC

0 =

P

l t , being P the axial

load;

hl

assumed to be :

1.0 for h l 1.0

The alternative criterion is based on the Coulomb theory ;in which the unitary shear strength

is expressed by:

= c + ,

being:

11

shear strength contribution given by the cohesion of the material in the absence of

compressive load;

bond coefficient

compressive stress.

Following this approach, the shear strength Vt of the panel can be expressed as the unitary

strength , multiplied by the area of the panel, computed under the hypothesis of no tensile

strength.

The sectional shear strength Vt is expressed by the following equation (punto 8.2.2.2 Taglio):

Vt = l t f vd

being:

l

f vd

design shear strength ; which is assumed to be, in case of non linear analysis, equal to

f vm0

The value of

f vd

f vm , lim = 1.4 f bm

(being

=

f bm

f bm

f vm0 =

n =

f vk 0

mv ,

P

l t

the mean

f bk

mv , in which f bk is the

Assuming a linear distribution of the compressive stress, the reacting length l, in the case of

eccentric compression ( e l 6 ), could be expressed as:

1 e

l ' = l = 3 l

2 l

While in the case of e < l 6 , it is = 1, being the whole section under compressive stress

( l' = l )

12

According to the previous equations, the flexural strength Mu of a panel of given geometrical

and mechanical properties change as a function of the axial load P, while the shear strength Vt

in the Coulomb approach depends also on the flexural action M.

The software TreMuri allows a more refined modelling of the masonry elements non linear

behaviour, through the macroelement, a bi-dimensional element which is able to capture the

shear response in the central part and the flexural response in the edges, according to the

experimental evidence. Such modelling is able to represent the two main in-plane masonry

failure modes: shear sliding mechanism and its evolution, controlling the strength

deterioration and the stiffness degradation, and rocking mechanism, with toe crushing effect.

In fact, the macro element is divided into three sub-structures: two layers, inferior 1 and

superior 3, in which the bending and axial effects are concentrated and are rigid for shear,

and the central part 2 which suffers shear-deformations and presents no evidence of axial or

bending deformations .Being w the axial displacement, u the transversal ones, and the

rotations; u1=ui , u2=uj, w1= w2=, 1=2= , the model is characterized by 8 degrees of

freedom: 6 displacements of the extreme nodes (ui, wi, i, uj, wj, j ), the axial displacement

and rotation of the rigid body (,).

13

The overturning mechanism, which happens because the material does not show tensile

strength, is modeled by a mono-lateral elastic contact between 1 and 3 interfaces. The

constitutive equations between the kinematic variables w , and the correspondent static

m b

quantities n and m are uncoupled until the limit condition n 6 , for which the partialization

The macro-element used in the program to assemble the wall model keeps also into account

the effect (especially in bending-rocking mechanisms) of the limited compressive strength of

masonry. Toe crushing effect is modelled by means of phenomenological non-linear

constitutive law with stiffness deterioration in compression: the effect of this modelling on the

80

60

40

20

0

-20

-40

-60

-80

-25

(a)

-20

-15

-10

-5

10

15

20

25

(b)

Figure 11. (a) Cyclic vertical displacement-rotation interaction with (red line) and w/o toe crushing (blue

dots) in Penna [3]; (b) Rocking panel with (red line) and without (blue line) crushing.

14

The panel shear response is expressed considering a uniform shear deformation distribution

ui u j

h

quantities

T = T j

ui u j

,

. The cracking damage is usually located

and , and the shear stress i

on the diagonal, where the displacement take place along the joints and is represented by an

inelastic deformation component, which is activated when the Coulombs limit friction

condition is reached.

15

2.4

The masonry spandrels play a primary role in multi-storey walls response, if certain

conditions subsist: in fact the coupling effect given by the spandrels is a function of the

compression in the horizontal direction, because this gives the flexural strength which

prevents the overturning mechanism. It is also very important, in general, the presence of

tensile resistant elements, like girders or chains, which, opposing to this mechanism, cause the

increase of compression and the formation of a diagonal strut mechanism which helps the

coupling effect on the walls. Under these condition the possible failure mechanism are the

same of those of the wall and for which the same failure criterions are allowed.

In many models the evaluation of the horizontal compression on spandrels is very uncertain,

often underestimated, so the code shows an alternative criterion, which is not based on the

effective axial load, but on the tensile strength of the horizontal elements :

Vt = h t f vd 0

M = H p h

u

2

Hp

1

f hd h t

being:

h

f vd 0

design shear strength of the material in the absence of compressive load, which can be

assumed equal to the mean value

f mv 0

Hp

minimum value between the tensile strength of the horizontal element and 0.4 f hd h t ,

f hd

being f hm =thef hkdesign horizontal compressive strength which can be assumed equal to the mean

value

mc

16

These elements are modelled like six degrees of freedom elements, with a limited strength and

elastic perfectly-plastic behaviour. The elastic behaviour takes into account the flexural and

shear contribution through E, G and the sectional geometry (neglecting the reinforcement

contribution).According to the OPCM, the resistant mechanism are: flexure (with or without

axial load), which is ductile, for each end of the element with the formation of a plastic hinge,

and shear, which is brittle.

2.5.1 Flexural strength

The N-M domain is built fixing a failure deformed shape, and then, through constitutive laws

of the materials, calculating the resultant sectional forces.

N s = s As

N s' = s' As'

N c = f c bd

M rd = N c d c + N s d s + N s' d s'

N = N c + N s + N s'

17

The calculation of the shear strength is carried out according to the Ritter Morsh model of the

cracked element.

Vsdu 0.3 f cd bw d

Vsdu Vcd + Vwd

Vwd = Asw f ywd

0 .9 d

s

2.5.3 Deformability

The flexural deformation capacity is defined as the chord rotation of the extreme section

with respect to that of zero moment. The elements instead have no plastic deformation

capacity due to shear failure, since this mechanism is assumed to be brittle, hence, when shear

due to equilibrium with the extreme moments is greater than shear capacity, the element is

assumed to be collapsed. The ultimate value u, over which the element loses the flexural

capacity, is calculated in a different way by the two software :

(a) TreMuri u estimation.

max(0.01; ' )

fc

0.016(0.3 )

u =

el

max(0.01; )

1

0.225

( ix

L

( V ) 0.35 25

h

f yw

fc

(1.25100 d )

In which:

and are the mechanical reinforcement ratio

is the geometrical transversal reinforcement ratio

2

s h

s h bi

1

1

= 1

2b0 2h0 6h0 b0

18

u =

1

y + (u y ) L pl

1,5

0,5 L pl

1

LV

In which:

u is the ultimate curvature capacity

u is the yielding curvature

Lpl is the plastic hinge length, evaluated as:

db

L pl = 0,1 LV + 0,17 h + 0,24

f ym

FC

f cm

FC

19

2.6 Effects of interaction between the non linear elements and criteria of seismic

design

In the proposed model, the interaction among the non linear elements is derived only by their

differences in terms of stiffness, in fact combined failure criteria are not considered. Therefore

the non linear analyses (static and dynamic) are more suitable to keep into account these

effects, like as the forces redistribution and the following phases which marks the

development in the non linear range of the elements.

A first critical issue is the choice of the general seismic design approach, based on force or on

displacement. About the proposed criteria, for example in the OPCM 3431/2005, concerning

the non linear static procedures, they appear quite different for the RC or masonry structures.

The performance acceptability is based on limit states in terms of global target displacement

on the capacity curve, which refers to the overall condition of the building. For the masonry

structures the state of every element is checked during the analysis comparing the actual

forces and drifts with the correspondent ultimate values: when an element collapses its

contribute is cancelled making the redistribution of the forces on the elements that are still

active (fact that may causing softening on the pushover curve). On the contrary for the RC

structures the state examination of each member is made later corresponding at point which

represents the seismic demand on the capacity curve performed by the pushover analysis: in

fact the collapse of the element (for example caused by the overcoming of .u) doesnt keep

into account during the analysis, possible softening phenomena are only ascribable to second

order effect. The criterion proposed (according to the OPCM 3431/2005 8.5) is to adopt the

approach used for the main structural system, represented in the case of the considered mixed

structures by the masonry: as a result of this choice, the reason to introduce directly in the

formulation on the non linear RC elements the limits of resistance and collapse, so the

structural check of the elements is made directly during the analysis. It is obvious that the

lawfulness of this assumption can be doubted for limit cases of the classification of the main

structural system. The focus of this procedure is the identification of the performance

point, obtained from the intersection between the capacity curve, correctly transformed into

equivalent single degree of freedom (SDOF) system, and the elastic spectrum appropriately

reduced.

20

2.7

Loadings

Seismic action is defined according to O.P.C.M. (Capitolo 3 Azione sismica). The building is

assumed to be in a seismic zone 2, for which the PGA, for a type A soil (stiff soil),

corresponding to a return period of 475 years, is a g = 0.25 g . The soil under the building is

assumed to be of type B (punto 3.1 Categorie di suolo di fondazione).

category description

B

Deposits of very dense sand, gravel, or very stiff clay, at least several tens of m in

thickness, characterized by a gradual increase of mechanical properties with depth

The response spectrum, for structure with natural period not greater than 4 s, is defined by the

equations (punto 3.2.3 Spettro di risposta elastico):

0 T < TB

T

( 2.5 1)

S e (T ) = a g S 1 +

T

B

TB T < TC

S e (T ) = a g S ( 2.5 )

T

S e (T ) = a g S 2.5 C

T

T T

S e (T ) = a g S 2.5 C 2 D

T

TC T < TD

TD T

= 10 (5 + ) 0.55

natural period;

TB, TC, TD natural periods which separate different branches of the spectrum.

Soil category

TB

TC

TD

B, C, E

1.25

0.15

0.50

2.00

21

The unitary loads transmitted by the slabs are:

Permanent load:

Gk=3.25 kN/m2

Qk=5 kN/m2

Qk=2 kN/m2

Ultimate limit state verification is carried out for the following combination of seismic with

other kind of loadings (punto 3.3 Combinazione dellazione sismica con le altre azioni):

I E + Gk + i( 2,i Qk ,i )

being:

I

importance factor;

Gk

2i

Qk ,i

Seismic action effects are evaluated taking into account of the masses due to the following

gravity loadings:

Gk +

(

i

E ,i

Qk ,i )

being:

E ,i

into account the probability that all the loadings

E ,i

Qk ,i )

, = 2 ,

, which takes

Building use

2,i

Storey loadings

roof

0.20

roof

1.0

store

0.80

store

1.0

22

2.8

The structural verification consists in the comparison between the displacement capacity and

the displacement demand. According to OPCM, no local verifications on single elements are

required, since the non linear model already takes into account strengths and displacement

capacities of single elements.

The building is subjected to a force distribution proportional to the product of masses and the

first mode of vibration deformed shape: these forces are gradually scaled with the same factor,

so that the control node displacement increases until the ultimate condition is reached. The

analysis outcome is the pushover curve, which shows on x axis the control node displacement

and in y axis the base shear; its aim is to represent the envelope of all possible hysteretic loops

generated during the motion. On this curve is pointed out the maximum strength Fmax and the

maximum displacement du, displacement capacity, defined as the one corresponding to a

strength reduction of 20% of the maximum.

The procedure is based first on the transformation of the pushover curve into the capacity

curve, representing the equivalent single degree of freedom structure, through the

participation factor .

* Fb

F =

d

d * = c

;

Then, this curve has to be transformed in an equivalent bilinear, representing the equivalent

elasto-plastic single degree of freedom oscillator, whose stiffness k is defined plotting the

secant at the 70% of the maximum strength F*max, and whose yielding strength Fy is defined

imposing the equality of the areas. Given k and Fy, also dy is obtained, while the equivalent

mass is: m*= Ni=1(mi i)

At this step, being the equivalent elasto-plastic single degree of freedom system fully

characterized, the maximum response displacement is given: (punto 4.5.4.4 Risposta massima

in spostamento del sistema equivalente):

if T*TC, the maximum displacement of the system is the same of that of an elastic one

with the same period:

*

d max

= d e*,max = S De (T * )

, being

T*

S De (T * ) = Se (T * )

2

, while

one with the same period:

23

*

d max

=

*

e,max

*

*

1 + q * 1 C* d e,max

, being

T

q* =

S e (T * ) m*

Fy*

, the elastic

According to (punto 8.1.6 Verifiche di sicurezza), for masonry building, if q* exceeds the limit

*

value q = 3.0 , the verification has to be considered not satisfied. This limitation means a

*

*

ductility limitation of the whole structures. In this case, assuming q = q , the response

*

displacement d max is given by:

( )

*

d max

= d *y 1 + q * 1 C*

T

, being

*

d e,max

= q * d y*

Once d*max is given, the actual displacement response of the building, which has to be

compared with the displacement capacity is dmax= d*m

24

This building is a slaughter house located in Rome, built in 1911; its a rectangular shape, 19

metres wide, 65 metres long, three storey height . The earthquake resisting system consist in

the pherimetrical, and four transversal masonry walls, all of them are 75 cm thick. The gravity

loads are also carried by internal square concrete column, through a rectangular net of

concrete beams which sustain a 10 cm thick concrete slab.

25

There are no ring beams along the perimeter, and the connection is provided only by the 15

cm penetration of the concrete slab into the walls. Not all the building is analyzed, but just a

19 X 32 meters portion of it, which is continuous along the height and perfectly symmetric

along the X axis : the longer walls have the same windows pattern, the western wall has two

doors while the eastern one has no holes. From the original report and drawings all the

information about the concrete element reinforcement are available.

26

In such building the earthquake resisting system is easily identified; it satisfies the

requirements concerning the regularity of walls geometry, the regularity and the alignment of

the openings; moreover the connection guaranteed by the slab penetration into the walls, and

the high thickness of these is considered to be sufficient to avoid local mechanism . Therefore

the above explained frame type modelling is considered to be pretty realistic for this case

study.

According to OPCM, chapter 11, since an existing building reflects the technical knowledge

of the past, could have some hidden deficiencies, or could have been subjected to earthquakes,

it has an higher level of uncertainties rather than a new building. Therefore, in the analysis,

the so called confidence factors are applied to the materials properties, whose values depend

on the level of knowledge of the building. In this case the that level is assumed to be LC1, the

confidence factor is 1.35. The mechanical properties of the materials are: (OPCM, Allegati

11.D.1 11.D.2):

Table 3.1. Masonry properties

Bricks

Pieni

Mortar

M2

Unitary weight

18000 N/m3

2 MPa

Mean vertical compressive strength fcm

1,5 MPa

Mean horizontal compressive strength fhcm

Mean shear strength with no axial load fvm0 0,09 MPa

0,4

Bond coefficient mu

3 MPa

Bricks horizontal compressive strength fbc

Maximum shear strength fvmlin

2,2 MPa

E

2700 MPa

G

450 MPa

Table 3.2. Concrete properties

Type

C 25/30

33 MPa

Mean compressive strength fcm

25 MPa

Characteristic compressive strength fcm

0,3 MPa

Mean shear strength rm

2,6 MPa

Mean tensile strength fctm

3,5

Ultimate deformation cu

E

30000 MPa

G

12000 MPa

Table 3.3. Steel properties

Type

Characteristic yielding and ultimate strength fyk=fuk

Feb 32K

320 MPa

27

1%

210000 MPa

Ultimate deformation cu

Elastic modulus E

The net consists in four primary beams, in the shortest direction and with an higher depth,

and five secondary ones, in the orthogonal direction, three of which are supported directly by

the primary beams. The concrete slab is reinforced in the shortest direction of the building.

For beams, seven different type of sections are used in the modelling, while columns sections

just change at each storey.

28

SECTION TYPE 1

SECTION TYPE 2

Beff

Beff

10

4 12 + 4 18 + 1 16

10

2 12 + 4 18

closed stirrups

7 / 30 cm

55

55

closed stirrups

7 / 30 cm

2 20

2 20

25

25

SECTION TYPE 3

SECTION TYPE 4

Beff

Beff

10

4 12 + 6 16

45

closed stirrups

7 / 30 cm

closed stirrups

7 / 30 cm

45

10

4 12 + 3 16+ 2 18

2 16

25

2 16

25

29

SECTION TYPE 5

SECTION TYPE 6

Beff

Beff

10

4 14 + 2 20 + 4 24

65

closed stirrups

7 / 30 cm

closed stirrups

7 / 30 cm

65

10

2 14 + 2 22

2 24

2 24

25

25

SECTION TYPE 7

Vertical bars: 820

Stirrups/ties: 10/ 10 cm

Beff

2 14 + 2 22

10

50

50

65

closed stirrups

7 / 30 cm

2 24

25

Stirrups/ties: 10/ 11 cm

Stirrups/ties: 10/ 13 cm

40

40

45

45

30

All the analyses are carried out in the weakest direction of the building, Y, which is the

shortest one; no accidental eccentricity is applied to the seismic force, and the cracked

stiffness of the element is assumed to be half of the gross one, for both concrete and masonry.

In order to investigate deeply the non linear response of the structure, three different

modelling are carried out: one with Andil Wall and two with TreMuri.

In the firsts two models , masonry elements are modelled as bilinear, according to the OPCM

instructions, while in the third model these are modelled through the macroelement. In this

last case the following masonry property are adopted: Eeff=1500 MPa, Geff=300 MPa,

fcm=1,48 MPa, fvom=0,12 MPa. lim= 0,6 %. All these models consider, as ring beams, the

portion of slab inside the walls (10 x 15 cm).

Summarizing:

MODEL

Software

AndilWall

2

3

Constitutive law

Bilinear

TreMuri

Macroelement

31

PUSHOVER CURVE

500.000

Model 2

400.000

Bilinear Model 2

300.000

Bilinear Model 1

200.000

Model 1

100.000

Model 3

0

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

Since the firsts two models follow the code modelling, the bilinearization is carried out:

Capacities

MODEL

Demands

dmax (cm)

450394

1,22

3,68*10^7

0,39

4,28

3,35 4,92

439000

1,19

3,69*10^7

0,44

3,49

4,24 5,4

From the observation of the curves, it is pretty evident how the bilinear models capture the

non linear response in a similar way, except to the difference in the ultimate displacement

capacity estimation. This is due to a different coupling effect given by the spandrels

(resistance criterion are different due to the rigid slab assumption made by AndilWall), which

is lower in AndilWall: this fact affects pretty much the equivalent frame global stiffness, in

such a way that the torsional effect is amplified, and the higher nodes rotation modifies the

elements drift calculation; therefore, ultimate centroidal displacement becomes higher. In all

cases, the verifications are not satisfied in terms of minimum strength (q>3) and maximum

displacement (dmax>du).

32

In the followings, the state of damage of each element at failure is shown: while AndilWall

results are summarized in tables, TreMuri ones are shown in pictures, in which elements are

coloured depending on the state of damage.

The term FAILURE means that ultimate relative displacement is reached, while the term

PLASTIC means that the maximum strength is reached, and the element is subjected to

plastic deformation. The term NO DAMAGE means that the element is in the elastic stage.

33

The ultimate condition is reached for a storey mechanism at ground floor (the squattest wall

Y8, and wall Y1 have reached their maximum strength), and first floor (also wall Y3 is in the

plastic range); moreover plastic hinges have formed in three columns. Among the horizontal

elements, all the masonry spandrels have reached their maximum flexural strength, while

most of the concrete beams are still in the elastic range. None of the reinforced concrete

elements have failed for shear.

Floor

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Elem.

X1

X10

X11

X12

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

Y1

Y10

Y11

Y12

Y2

Y3

Y4

Y5

Y6

Y7

Y8

Y9

State of Damage

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC SHEAR

NO DAMAGE

VERTICAL ELEMENTS

Floor Elem. State of Damage

2 X1

NO DAMAGE

2 X10 NO DAMAGE

2 X11 NO DAMAGE

2 X12 PLASTIC FLEX

2 X2

NO DAMAGE

2 X3

NO DAMAGE

2 X4

NO DAMAGE

2 X5

NO DAMAGE

2 X6

NO DAMAGE

2 X7

NO DAMAGE

2 X8

NO DAMAGE

2 X9

NO DAMAGE

2 Y1

PLASTIC SHEAR

2 Y10 PLASTIC FLEX

2 Y11 PLASTIC FLEX

2 Y12 PLASTIC FLEX

2 Y2

NO DAMAGE

2 Y3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 Y4

NO DAMAGE

2 Y5

NO DAMAGE

2 Y6

NO DAMAGE

2 Y7

NO DAMAGE

2 Y8

PLASTIC SHEAR

2 Y9

PLASTIC FLEX

Floor

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Elem.

X1

X10

X11

X12

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

Y1

Y10

Y11

Y12

Y2

Y3

Y4

Y5

Y6

Y7

Y8

Y9

State of Damage

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

Floor Elem. State of Damage

Floor Elem. State of Damage

Floor Elem.

1 C1

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C1

PLASTIC FLEX

3 C1

1 C10 NO DAMAGE

2 C10 NO DAMAGE

3 C10

1 C11 NO DAMAGE

2 C11 NO DAMAGE

3 C11

1 C12 NO DAMAGE

2 C12 NO DAMAGE

3 C12

1 C13 NO DAMAGE

2 C13 NO DAMAGE

3 C13

1 C14 NO DAMAGE

2 C14 NO DAMAGE

3 C14

1 C15 NO DAMAGE

2 C15 NO DAMAGE

3 C15

1 C16 NO DAMAGE

2 C16 NO DAMAGE

3 C16

1 C17 NO DAMAGE

2 C17 NO DAMAGE

3 C17

1 C18 NO DAMAGE

2 C18 NO DAMAGE

3 C18

1 C19 NO DAMAGE

2 C19 NO DAMAGE

3 C19

State of Damage

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

34

1

1

1

1

1

1

C2

C20

C21

C22

C23

C24

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

2

2

2

2

2

2

1 C25

NO DAMAGE

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

C26

C27

C28

C29

C3

C30

C31

C32

C33

C34

C35

C36

C37

C38

C39

C4

C40

C41

C42

C43

C44

C45

C46

C47

C48

C49

C5

C50

C51

C52

C53

C54

C55

C56

C57

C58

C59

C6

C60

C61

C7

C8

C9

C2

C20

C21

C22

C23

C24

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

3

3

3

3

3

3

2 C25

NO DAMAGE

3 C25

NO DAMAGE

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

C26

C27

C28

C29

C3

C30

C31

C32

C33

C34

C35

C36

C37

C38

C39

C4

C40

C41

C42

C43

C44

C45

C46

C47

C48

C49

C5

C50

C51

C52

C53

C54

C55

C56

C57

C58

C59

C6

C60

C61

C7

C8

C9

C2

C20

C21

C22

C23

C24

C26

C27

C28

C29

C3

C30

C31

C32

C33

C34

C35

C36

C37

C38

C39

C4

C40

C41

C42

C43

C44

C45

C46

C47

C48

C49

C5

C50

C51

C52

C53

C54

C55

C56

C57

C58

C59

C6

C60

C61

C7

C8

C9

PLASTIC FLEX

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

NO DAMAGE

35

Floor

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Elem.

C1

C2

C3

C31

C32

C33

C34

C35

C4

C44

C49

C5

State of Damage

Floor Elem. State of Damage

Floor

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C1

PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C2

PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C3

PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C31 PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C32 PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C33 PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C34 PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C35 PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C4

PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C44 PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C49 PLASTIC FLEX

3

PLASTIC FLEX

2 C5

PLASTIC FLEX

3

Elem.

C1

C2

C3

C31

C32

C33

C34

C35

C4

C44

C49

C5

State of Damage

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

PLASTIC FLEX

36

A quite similar damage distribution take place at collapse in this model, with storey

mechanism (the largest wall got the ultimate drift for shear) and plastic hinges in concrete

columns. The deformed shape shows a typical shear behaviour of the building, with higher

relative displacement at the bottom. From the plan view deformed shape, it can be observed

that pretty small torsional effects take place, and the slab works almost as a rigid diaphragm.

37

38

4.2

The damage pattern and the deformed shapes of the structure modelled with the macroelement

are pretty similar to the bilinear ones.

N16

185

27

N52

186

28

N44

187

84

N36 188

85

N28

189

29

N20

190

30

N12

N4

152

13

N56

153

14

N48

154

15

N40

155

16

N32

156

17

N24

157

18

N8

149

10

N31

150

11

N23

151

12

N7

143

4

N30

144

5

N22

145

6

N6

41

92

94

93

N15

179

23

N51

180

24

N43

181

N35 182

82

N27

183

25

N19

184

26

N11

N3

146

7

N55

147

8

N47

148

9

N39

83

40

89

91

90

N14

173

19

N50

174

20

N42

175

80

N34 176

81

86

N13

N4

135

16

33

N3

27

N2

136

17

N59

125

2

N58

131

12

N67

126

4

N66

N25

132

13

N76

138

19

N75

133

14

140

1

N54

141

2

N46

142

3

N74

128

8

N84

N83

N82

N9

N1

139

20

N8

N53

N64

473

N105 474

38

134

15

N7

10129

N45

N102 475

N37

N98

N29

476

P556

N63

467

N104 468

32

25

7

N73

N38

39

31

24

N65

N10

N2

37

30

6127

178

22

N17

36

23

3

N57

137

18

29

22

1

N68

N18

88

N33

35

28

21

N1

N41

34

130

11

177

21

87

N49

N60

N26

N101 469

N62

461

N103 462

26

N100 463

N5

477

N91

478

N60

471

N90

472

N59

465

N89

466

N58

P555

N97

470

P548

N6

N95

N21

N94

P541

N96

464

N93

P540

P539

N99

N92

9

N81

N5

N61

N88

527

N156 528

N153 529

N149 530

P551

N146 531

N57

N142

532

N84

N141

526

N83

N140

520

N82

P552

P1

N87

521

N155 522

N152 523

N148 524

N145 525

P5

P545

P544

P6

P4

P10

P11

P7

P12

P13

P2

N86

P8

P9

N85

515

N154 516

N151 517

N147 518

N144 519

P535

P536

N150

N143

N81

P3

39

5. STRENGTHENING DESIGN

The retrofit consists in the design of two reinforced concrete shear walls, symmetrically

placed and equally sized, (the existing structure already has an appreciable symmetry) in

order to enhance the global strength of the structure. Walls dimensions are constant for all the

three storeys, and they are placed along the external columns axis, in order to provide the

maximum torsional stiffness.

In the following picture a number is assigned to each element in order to simplify member

identification.

1

16

17

22

21

18

r.c. wall

r.c. wall

15

7

20

19

14

13

12

11

10

40

The goal of the design is obviously the attainment of the code requirements, through a

strength enhancement which reduce the displacement demand of the design earthquake.

Such requirements consist in the response peak displacement estimation equation, under the

well known equal energy hypothesis (being the period T* lower than 0,5 seconds): this

consists in the modification of the peak displacement of the corresponding elastic SDOF

system, of equal initial stiffness and unlimited strength, equating the energy absorbed by the

inelastic (elastic-perfectly plastic) oscillator, on a monotonic displacement to peak response,

to the energy absorbed by the elastic one.

du =

( )

S De T *

T

1 + q * 1 C* , being

*

q

T

( )

S e T * m*

q =

, and

Fy*

*

( )

S De T

T*

= S e T

2

( )

*

T*

TC

2 S e T * m*

du =

1

1

T*

m*

F

y

*

Fy

( )

In this equality the three main features of an earthquake resisting system appear: strength

(Fy), stiffness (K) and ultimate displacement capacity (du). The procedure implies the

solution of the equality, in which the strength is the only unknown, being the other two

parameters dependant on a simplified hypothesis. Once the strength increment is known, this

is equally shared between the two walls. In the following, the strengthening design is carried

out following two approach, each based on a simplified hypothesis.

Strengthening design is carried out only for Model 2 (Bilinear TreMuri).

41

The first design approach consists in find out the necessary strength, in order to let the

ultimate displacement capacity (du) of the original structure be high enough to sustain the

design earthquake, assuming that the strengthening would not change the yield displacement.

This means that the reinforced structure would keep the ductility unchanged. In the equality,

the stiffness of the reinforced system (unknown) appears as a function of the strength

(K=Fy/dy ), so that this is the only unknown.

Original structure

Strengthened structure

F'y

Fy

Dy

D'y

Du

D'u=D'max

Dmax

42

5.2

The second design approach consists in find out the necessary strength, in order to let the

plastic displacement capacity (p=du-dy) of the original structure be high enough to sustain

the design earthquake, assuming that the strengthening would keep the stiffness constant..

Actually, the above mentioned hypothesis is pretty strong, since walls of similar sizes

probably affect the stiffness pretty much.

F

O riginal structure

Strengthened structure

F'y

Fy

Dy

D 'y

Du

D 'u=D 'm ax

D m ax

43

Given their sizes, concrete walls affect pretty much the global reinforced structure response,

therefore, concrete element stiffness becomes an important issue. Actually, the assumption

made by the code (cracked stiffness half of the gross one) is pretty rough; in fact, according to

the experimental evidence, this is a strength dependent property, and so it is affected by the

axial load and by the amount of reinforcement, instead of being just a geometrical property, as

it is considered in the traditional elastic approach.

In the followings, the effective stiffness is calculated in two ways. In the first as a element

property, calculating yielding shear over yielding displacement ratio: while the shear strength

comes equilibrium (the element fails for flexure), yielding displacement comes from the

double integration of the curvature trend along the height, being assumed a displacement with

null nodal rotation. Yielding curvature, according to the experimental evidence, is a constant

property

Mu

Tu

Mu

Tu

Mu

Tu

Mu

Dy

44

In the second way the stiffness is calculated as a sectional property, through the ratio of first

yielding moment over first yielding curvature; in a moment curvature constitutive curve

bilinearization the first yielding point lays on the elastic branch, and it is defined as that, at

which tensile reinforcement yields, or concrete extreme compression fibres attain a strain of

0.002, whichever occur first. First yielding moment is calculated with equilibrium equation

assuming a linear elastic behaviour of materials, while first yielding curvature comes, of

course, from geometric relationship.

45

CALCULATIONS

EXISTING STRUCTURE PROPERTIES - Bilinear 3Muri Model

H := 12.95

m := 1867596

:= 1.301

(N)

Fy_M := 4390000

dy_M := 0.0119

(m)

(m)

du_M := 0.0349

Fy_S :=

K :=

Fy_M

dy_S :=

Fy_S

m

K

du_S :=

d y_S

T := 2

dy_M

du_M

K = 3.689 10

Stiffness (N/m)

T = 0.447

p_S = 0.018

RESPONSE SPECTRUM

Zone 2 - Soil type B

ag := 0.25

S := 1.25

TB := 0.15

TC := 0.5

Sde := SAe

2

T

TD := 2

46

2

m d y_S

SAe m

TC

d u_S , F

Fy_Sn_d1 := root SAe

1 +

1

F

S Ae m

m d y_S

F

F

Fy_Sn_d1 = 6.328 10

Fy_Mn_d1 := Fy_Sn_d1

Vbase_d1 :=

Fy_Mn_d1 = 8232653

Fy_Mn_d1 Fy_M

Vbase_d1 = 1.921 10

the r.c. walls (N)

2 1 +

Fy_Sn_d2 := root SAe

SAe m

SAe m TC F

1

p_S , F

F

T K

Fy_Sn_d2 = 8.482 10

Fy_Mn_d2 := Fy_Sn_d2

Vbase_d2 :=

Fy_Mn_d2 Fy_M

2

Fy_Mn_d2 = 11035259

Vbase_d2 = 3.323 10

Base shear assigned to

the r.c. walls (N)

47

Once the base shear is known, design actions distributions on walls are based on simplified

hypothesis.

For moments, a linear trend, with point of contraflexure at the 65% of the height, is assumed.

For shear, a force distribution proportional to the first mode deformed shape is assumed.

4.3

hs := 4.35

4.3

M base_d1 :=

M base_d2 :=

M I_d1 :=

M I_d2 :=

Vbase_d1 zi

2

1000

Vbase_d2 zi

2

1000

M base_d1

zi

M base_d2

zi

4.3

zi := 8.65

12.95

hs

M I_d2 = 1.429 10

design n1

design n2

M base_d2 = 2.874 10

M I_d1 = 8.262 10

M base_d1 = 1.662 10

hs

design n1

design n2

M II_d1 := M I_d1

M II_d1 = 8.262 10

M II_d2 := M I_d2

M II_d2 = 1.429 10

design n1

design n2

48

1

ws := 1

0.5

Feqk_d1 :=

Feqk_d2 :=

Vbase_d1

1000

Vbase_d2

1000

ws zi

ws zi

ws zi

ws zi

425.313

Feqk_d1 = 855.571

640.442

735.511

3

Feqk_d2 = 1.48 10

3

1.108 10

3

2

VI_d1 = 1.496 10

3

2

VI_d2 = 2.587 10

VII_d1 := Feqk_d1

3

VII_d1 = 640.442

VI_d2 := Feqk_d2

3

VI_d2 = 1.108 10

vector. Design n1 (kN)

vector. Design n2 (kN)

design n1

First floor shear (kN)

design n2

Second floor shear (kN)

design n1

design n2

49

Reinforced concrete walls design follows the OPCM provision for ductility class

"A" walls, in terms of geometry, steel reinforcement amount, and strength

verification. In the followings, the design is shown only for reinforced structure n

1 - equal yield displacement hypothesis - . Design n2 will be shown in the

appendix

MATERIALS PROPETIES OF R.C. WALLS

CONCRETE C30/37 (EC2):

3

kN /m2

kN /m2

kN /m2

kN /m2

Elastic modulus

fck := 30 10

fctk := 2 10

Rd := 0.32 10

Ecm := 32000 10

c := 1.6

fck

fcd :=

co := 0.002

cu := 0.0035

Ultimate strain

fyk := 430 10

3

3

Eym := 200000 10

kN /m2

kN /m2

Elastic modulus

s := 1.15

su := 0.01

Ultimate strain

fyd :=

y :=

:=

fyk

s

fyd

Eym

Yield strain

Eym

Ecm

50

d1 := 0.04

Depth (m)

Width (m)

Cover (m)

d := l d 1

b := 0.35

l := 6.3

b l

Igross :=

12

10 :=

0.010

4

12 :=

18 :=

0.018

4

20 :=

0.026

4

14 :=

4

0.02

26 :=

0.012

16 :=

22 :=

4

2

28 :=

0.014

0.022

4

32 :=

0.032

4

4

2

25 :=

0.028

0.016

40 :=

0.025

4

0.04

WALLS ACTIONS:

Acting moments (kNm):

4

Ground floor

M sd := M base_d1

M sd = 1.662 10

M sd_1 := M I_d1

M sd_1 = 8.262 10

M sd_2 := M II_d1

M sd_2 = 8.262 10

First floor

Second floor

Vsd :=

Vbase_d1

1000

Vsd1 := VI_d1

Vsd2 := VII_d1

Vsd = 1.921 10

Ground floor

Vsd1 = 1.496 10

First floor

Vsd2 = 640.442

Second floor

51

Walls moment capacities are calculated under the usual concrete sections hypothesis, taking

into account of all the bars contribution.

GROUND FLOOR:

DESIGN ACTIONS

kN

Nsd := 2264

M sd = 1.662 10

Axial load

Moment

kNm

Nsd

:=

= 0.055

b d fcd

Bars area vector (m2):

kkc1 := 1 .. 7

kkc2 := 26 .. 32

kk := 8 .. 25

1

Asi

:= 2 20

kkc1

Asi

:= 2 20

kkc2

hh := 2 .. 16

hh1 := 18 .. 32

zi := 0.04

1

:= zi

+ 0.2

hh 1

zi

hh

zi

17

zi

hh1

:= 3.26

:= zi

+ 0.2

hh1 1

Asi := 2 10

kk

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0.04

0.24

0.44

0.64

0.84

1.04

1.24

1.44

1.64

1.84

11

12

13

14

15

Asi = 16

17

18

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

11

12

13

14

15

zi = 16

17

18

2.04

2.24

2.44

2.64

2.84

3.04

3.26

3.46

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

1.5710-4

6.2810-4

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

3.66

3.86

4.06

4.26

4.46

4.66

4.86

5.06

27

28

29

30

31

32

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

6.2810-4

27

28

29

30

31

32

5.26

5.46

5.66

5.86

6.06

6.26

52

q := 1 .. 32

This is the first attempt value of neutral axis depth (m), in order to

define all the bars strains; this value has to be changed until it's equal

to that coming from force equilibrium equation.

r := 1.1

Bars strain vector: this is calculated under the hypothesis of extreme tensile bars rupture

su

if

r zi < y

dr

q

q

d r

su

y if

r zi > y

q

d r

su

y if

r zi < y

q

d r

su

si :=

q

r zi

x = 1.104

su

dx

x = 0.002141

l

x + Eym Asi si zi

2

0.67

M rd = 1.789 10

bars step (m)

s := 0.15

w :=

2 10

(b 2 d1 + 0.02 + 0.01) s

w = 3.491 10

ratio

SHEAR VERIFICATION:

M rd

Vsd := Vsd 1.2

M sd

Vsd = 2.482 10

fck

f b 0.8 l

1000 200 cd

Vrd2 = 7.276 10

kN

53

Asi100

tot% :=

b l

Vwd := 2 10 fyd

0.9 d

tot% = 0.527

Vcd = 796.405

3

Vwd = 2.206 10

Vrd3 = 3.002 10

Vdd := 0.25 fyd

Asi

Compressive concrete

contribution (kN)

Vdd = 1.087 10

x

Vfd := 0.25 fcd l b

d

Vfd = 1.823 10

Vrds = 2.909 10

FIRST FLOOR:

DESIGN ACTIONS

Nsd_1 := 1420

M sd_1 = 8262

Moment (kNm)

:=

Nsd_1

= 0.035

b d fcd

Bars area vector (m2):

kkc1 := 1 .. 7

kkc2 := 26 .. 32

kk := 8 .. 25

Asi_1

:= 2 14 Asi_1

:= 2 14 Asi_1 := 2 10

kkc1

kkc2

kk

54

hh := 2 .. 16

hh1 := 18 .. 32

zi_1 := 0.04

1

:= zi_1

+ 0.2

hh 1

zi_1

hh

zi_1

17

zi_1

hh1

:= 3.26

:= zi_1

+ 0.2

hh1 1

qq := 1 .. 32

This is the first attempt value of neutral axis depth (m), in order to

define all the bars strains; this value has to be changed until it's equal

to that coming from force equilibrium equation.

rr := 0.831

Bars strain vector: this is calculated under the hypothesis of extreme tensile bars rupture

si_1

:=

su

rr zi_1 < y

qq

d rr

su

y if

rr zi_1 > y

qq

d rr

su

y if

rr zi_1 < y

qq

d rr

su

rr zi_1 if

d rr

qq

x = 0.828

su

dx

x = 0.00152

M rd_1 = 1.148 10

l

x + Eym Asi_1 si_1 zi_1

2

0.67

bars step (m)

s := 0.2

w :=

2 10

b 2 d1 + 0.014 + 0.01 s

w = 2.671 10

ratio

55

SHEAR VERIFICATION:

M rd_1

Vsd_1 := Vsd1 1.2

M sd_1

Vsd_1 = 2.495 10

fck

f b 0.8 l

1000 200 cd

Vrd2_1 = 7.276 10

kN

Vcd_1 := 0.6

fctk

c

b d

Vwd_1 := 2 10 fyd

Vcd_1 = 1.643 10

0.9 d

Vwd_1 = 1.655 10

Vrd3_1 = 3.298 10

Vdd_1 := 0.25 fyd

Asi_1

Vdd_1 = 667.22

x

Vfd_1 := 0.25 fcd l b

d

Vfd_1 = 1.368 10

Vrds_1 = 2.035 10

Compressive concrete

contribution (kN)

Not verified !!

SECOND FLOOR:

DESIGN ACTIONS

Axial load (kN)

Moment (kNm)

Nsd_2 := 577

M sd_2 = 8262

:=

Nsd_2

= 0.014

b d fcd

Bars area vector (m2):

kkc1 := 1 .. 7

Asi_2

:= 2 14

kkc1

kkc2 := 26 .. 32

kk := 8 .. 25

Asi_2

:= 2 14

kkc2

Asi_2 := 2 10

kk

56

hh := 2 .. 16

hh1 := 18 .. 32

zi_2 := 0.04

1

:= zi_2

+ 0.2

hh 1

zi_2

hh

zi_2

17

zi_2

hh1

:= 3.26

:= zi_2

+ 0.2

hh1 1

qqq := 1 .. 32

This is the first attempt value of neutral axis depth (m), in order to

define all the bars strains; this value has to be changed until it's equal

to that coming from force equilibrium equation.

rrr := 0.648

Bars strain vector: this is calculated under the hypothesis of extreme tensile bars rupture

si_2

qqq

:=

su

qqq

d rrr

su

y if

rrr zi_2 > y

qqq

d rrr

su

y if

rrr zi_2 < y

qqq

d rrr

su

rrr zi_2 if

d rrr

qqq

x := root b 0.67 rrr 0.85 fcd + Asi_2 Eym si_2 Nsd_2 , rrr

x = 0.647

su

dx

x = 0.00115

M rd_2 = 9.278 10

l

x + Eym Asi_2 si_2 zi_2

2

0.67

bars step (m)

s := 0.2

w :=

2 10

b 2 d1 + 0.014 + 0.01 s

w = 2.671 10

57

SHEAR VERIFICATION:

M rd_2

Vsd_2 := Vsd2 1.2

M sd_2

Vsd_2 = 863.108

fck

3

Vrd2_2 := 0.4 0.7

fcd b 0.8 l Vrd2_2 = 7.276 10

1000

200

Vcd_2 := 0.6

fctk

c

b d

Vwd_2 := 2 10 fyd

Vcd_2 = 1.643 10

0.9 d

s

Vwd_2 = 1.655 10

Vrd3_2 = 3.298 10

Vdd_2 := 0.25 fyd

Asi_1

Vdd_2 = 667.22

x

Vfd_2 := 0.25 fcd l b

d

Vfd_2 = 1.067 10

Vrds_2 = 1.735 10

Compressive concrete

contribution (kN)

58

EFFECTIVE STIFFNESS

In the following, the flexural element effective stiffness is calculated, assuming a deformed shape

with null nodal rotation. This implies a moment distribution with zero value in the midspan.

kel :=

12 Ecm Igross

3

hs

y := 2

3.522 107

7

kel = 3.402 10

3.522 107

yield curvature

hs

Dy := y

6

1.829 10 3

3

Dy = 1.872 10

1.829 10 3

Mrd

M u := M rd_1

M

rd_2

1.789 104

4

M u = 1.148 10

9.278 103

8.321 103

3

TR = 5.279 10

4.316 103

TR :=

2 Mu

hs

TR

keff :=

Dy

:=

keff

kel

4.55 106

6

keff = 2.82 10

6

2.359 10

0.129

= 0.083

0.067

59

Actually, after a preliminary pushover analysis, it is pointed out that the above designed

reinforced concrete walls get the shear failure when the structure is still in the loading stage,

before reaching the plastic plato; therefore the horizontal reinforcement is enhanced until

inelastic deformations take place.

Summarizing, the amount of reinforcement of r.c. walls is, for each reinforced structure:

Ground floor

Sizes (m)

b

First floor

Vert. bars

Ends

Web

Second floor

Vert. bars

Hor.

bars

Ends

Vert. bars

Web

Hor.

bars

Ends

Web

Hor.

bars

Design 0,35 6,3 1420 10/20 12/12 1414 10/20 12/15 1414 10/20 10/20

cm

cm

cm

cm

cm

cm

n1

Design 0,45 6,3 1422 22/20 14/10 1420 20/20 12/10 1418 18/20 12/20

cm

cm

cm

cm

cm

cm

n2

And the effective stiffness of concrete walls in comparison to code provision: in reinforced

structure n1 this is calculated as element property, in reinforced structure n2 this is

calculated as sectional property.

50%

Code assumption

Reinforced structure n1

12,9%

8,3%

6,7%

Reinforced structure n2

18,2%

14,9%

11,5%

It is pretty clear that the assumptions made in design n 2 lead to a much more conservative

retrofitting design. In fact, assuming that the stiffness would not change, the displacement

demand reduction relies only on the strength enhancement, with a global ductility reduction;

moreover, such hypothesis of doubtful reliability, lead to the contradiction of a stronger and

stiffer reinforcement. In the first case instead, the displacement demand reduction relies also

on the stiffness increase, keeping the ductility constant. It is evident, from the physical point

of view and from the observation of the response peak displacement estimation equation, that

as long as the strength and stiffness are high, as the ultimate displacement demand becomes

lower. Finally, apart from the strict code requirement satisfaction, since it is universally

recognized that in seismic engineering the ductility is the most important tool, a conceptually

correct retrofitting should ever raise the ductility .

60

In the followings, pushover analyses of the reinforced structure are carried out, in order to

find out how the above designed shear walls affect the whole structure non linear response,

relating to the previsions made in the design phase. Further, the influence of the concrete

elements stiffness is investigated , using both the code indication (50% of the gross stiffness)

and the strength dependant stiffness, as suggested by the literature. In particular, for the

strengthened structure n1 (equal yield displacement approach), both the methods are used,

while for the strengthened structure n2 (equal stiffness approach), the latter is used. Finally,

strengthened structure n1 is modelled also with the Macroelement

This is done only by the TreMuri software.

61

6.1

Bilinear models

PUSHOVER CURVE

1.300.000

Reinf.-equal stiffness

1.200.000

1.100.000

Orig. 3Muri

1.000.000

Bilinear Orig. 3Muri

900.000

800.000

Reinf.-equal displacement

700.000

Bil. Reinf-equal

displacement

600.000

500.000

Bil.Reinf.-equal stiffness

400.000

300.000

200.000

Bil. Reinf.-equal

displacement-effective

stiffness

100.000

0

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

In the following, the numerical values of the bilinear curves, and the design earthquake

demands are shown, in comparison with original structure ones.

Capacities

Demands

dmax (cm)

Original

439000

1,19

3,69*10^7

3,49

Reinforced n 1

912000

1,2

7,58*10^7

894000

2,3

3,89*10^7

5,46

2,37 1,97 5

1250000

3,3

3,78*10^7

5,25

1,59 1,4

1,92 3,1

Reinforced n 1

(effective stiffness)

Reinforced n 2

4,9

62

In the following table it is pointed out the percentage variations in strength, stiffness, and

ductility, due to the assessment, with respect to the original structure, in order to find out if

the initial hypothesis are satisfied.

Fy

K

R. n 1

(stiffness code provision)

107%

105%

70%

103%

5,4%

-19%

184%

2,4%

-45%

R. n 1

(effective stiffness)

Reinforced n 2

In the first and in the last cases, the assumptions made in the design stage are quite satisfied,

in fact, while in the first the yield displacement dy almost does not change, in the last the

stiffness enhancement is close to zero. The second case instead does not follow the initial

hypothesis of constant yield displacement, and has a very low stiffness increase, similarly to

the last case. Actually, both in the second and in the last case, the initial stiffness is increased

pretty much, but the behaviour shows a strong non linearity already in the loading stage, that

puts the bilinear stiffness down: this feature is due to the low values of concrete walls

stiffness, of the same order of magnitude of masonry elements, given by the strength

dependant approach, which make the structure sensitive to the masonry piers behaviour, so

that the curve assumes a sort of tri linear shape. The first case shows instead a strong linearity

in the elastic stage, while in the inelastic stage lays on an horizontal straight line, so that the

whole curve is close to a bilinear elasto-plastic curve. In all models, code verifications are

satisfied.

The shear distribution among the walls in each storey, as the roof displacement increases, is

shown, for each model, in the following graphs

63

PUSHOVER CURVE (3 M uri)

1.000.000

TOT

900.000

22

800.000

21

700.000

7

600.000

14

500.000

16

400.000

300.000

200.000

100.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

800.000

TOT

700.000

22

600.000

21

500.000

400.000

300.000

14

200.000

16

100.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

64

350.000

TOT

300.000

22

21

250.000

7

200.000

14

16

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

D=0,92 cm

D=1,1 cm

D=1,2 cm

D=1,53 cm

65

1.000.000

TOT

900.000

22

800.000

Base shear (daN)

700.000

21

600.000

7

500.000

400.000

14

300.000

16

200.000

100.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

800.000

TOT

700.000

22

600.000

21

500.000

7

14

400.000

16

300.000

200.000

100.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

66

350.000

TOT

300.000

22

21

250.000

7

200.000

14

16

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

D=1,05 cm

D=1,47 cm

D=2,95 cm

D=3,54 cm

67

PUSHOVER CURVE (3 M uri)

1.400.000

TOT

22

1.200.000

21

1.000.000

Base shear (daN)

7

800.000

14

16

600.000

400.000

200.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

1.200.000

TOT

22

1.000.000

21

7

800.000

14

600.000

16

400.000

200.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

68

500.000

TOT

450.000

22

400.000

21

350.000

7

300.000

14

250.000

16

200.000

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

D=0,95 cm

D=1,43 cm

D=3,85 cm

D=4,45 cm

69

6.2

In the following picture, the macroelement models of the original structure and reinforced

structure n1 (in both the concrete stiffness estimation versions) are shown in comparison

with the bilinear models. It is clear how, until a certain displacement, when the masonry

elements get their maximum strength, the curves are pretty closed.

PUSHOVER CURVE

1.000.000

Orig. 3Muri

900.000

800.000

Reinf .-equal

displacement

700.000

Reinf .-equal

displacementef f ective

stif f ness

600.000

500.000

OriginalMacroelement

400.000

300.000

Reinf .-equal

displacementMacroelement

200.000

Reinf .-equal

displ-eff

stif f nessMacroelement

100.000

0

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

70

1.000.000

TOT

900.000

800.000

22

700.000

21

600.000

500.000

400.000

14

300.000

16

200.000

100.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

800.000

TOT

700.000

22

600.000

21

500.000

7

14

400.000

16

300.000

200.000

100.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

71

400.000

TOT

350.000

22

300.000

21

250.000

7

14

200.000

16

150.000

100.000

50.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

N12 164

13

N56 165

14 N48 166

15 N40 167

16 N32 168

17 N24

S547

N63 477 N105478 N10233

N98 34

N97 32

N11 158

7

N55 159

8

N47 160

9

N39 161

10 N31 162

11 N23

N100

N96

N10 152

1

N92

N57

N9

N54 153

2

N46 154

3

N38 155

4

N30 156

5

N22

N56 165

14 N48 166

15 N40 167

16 N32 168

17 N24 169

18

N8

D=3,35 cm

N45

92

N55 159

8 N47 160

9 N39 161

10 N31 162

11 N23 163

12

N7

23

N15 191

N37

N29

N6

N21

N5

N54 153

2

N46 154

3

N38 155

4

N30 156

5

N22 157

6

N6

19

N14 185

N53

N45

N37

N51 192

24 N43 193 N35 194

82

83

N21

N5

N13

N50 186

20 N42 187 N34 188

80

81

N49

94

N27 195

25 N19 196

26 N3

91

90

86

N29

93

89

39

N9

N53

84

85

40

N10 152

1

157

6

D=2,81 cm

41

N11 158

7

N7

39

D=1,13 cm

N12 164

13

163

12

40

S545

N61

N8

41

S546

N62 473 N104474 N10131

169

18

N26 189

21 N18 190

22

88

87

N41

N33

N2

N25

N17

N1

D=6,75 cm

72

PUSHOVER CURVE (3 Muri - MACROELEM ENTO)

1.000.000

TOT

900.000

800.000

22

700.000

21

600.000

500.000

400.000

14

300.000

16

200.000

100.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

7,5

800.000

TOT

700.000

22

600.000

21

500.000

7

14

400.000

16

300.000

200.000

100.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

7,5

73

350.000

TOT

300.000

22

21

250.000

7

200.000

14

150.000

16

100.000

50.000

0

0

0,5

1,5

2,5

3,5

4,5

5,5

6,5

7,5

27

N16 197

N52 198

28 N44 199 N36 200

84

85

92

N15 191

23

N51 192

24 N43 193 N35 194

82

83

86

N13

N49

N27 195

25 N19 196

26

N26 189

21 N18 190

22

N33

41

N3

N11 158

7

N55 159

8 N47 160

9 N39 161

10 N31 162

11 N23 163

12 N7

40

N2

N10 152

1

N54 153

2 N46 154

3 N38 155

4 N30 156

5 N22 157

6

N6

39

88

87

N41

N12 164

13 N56 165

14 N48 166

15 N40 167

16 N32 168

17 N24 169

18 N8

91

90

N50 186

20 N42 187 N34 188

80

81

N4

94

93

89

N14 185

19

N28 201

29 N20 202

30

N25

N17

N1

N9

N53

N45

N37

N29

N21

N5

D=2,57 cm

D=2,39 cm

N64 481 N106482 N103 35 N99 36 N95 483 N91 484 N60

N12 164

13 N56 165

14 N48 166

15 N40 167

16 N32 168

17 N24 169

18 N8

41

S547

N11 158

7 N55 159

8 N47 160

9 N39 161

10 N31 162

11 N23 163

12 N7

N63 477 N105478 N102 33 N98 34 N94 479 N90 480 N59

40

S546

N10 152

1

N54 153

2 N46 154

3 N38 155

4 N30 156

5 N22 157

6

N6

N62 473 N104474 N10131 N97 32 N93 475 N89 476 N58

39

S545

N9

N61

D=3,88cm

N100

N96

N92

N53

N45

N37

N29

N21

N5

N57

D=4,84 cm

74

6.3

Comments

From the observation of the deformed shapes it is evident that the global response, in all

models is heavily conditioned by the reinforced concrete walls. These elements, due to their

geometry and to the presence of steel reinforcements introduce a typical a vertical cantilever

behaviour, with higher relative displacement on the top: this is clearly visible, comparing the

deformed shapes with those of the original structure. Such behaviour affects also the damage

distribution, and floor shear sharing with masonry elements, which, on the contrary, have a

shear dominant feature, with higher displacement on the bottom. As a matter of fact, masonry

elements reach their maximum strength ( walls 14-16 for flexure, wall 7 for shear) at higher

floors before than lower floors, and their relative contribution to the storey shear becomes

higher at upper floors.

Another common feature among the models is that, in the loading stage, wall 22 carries higher

load than wall 21; this is due to the position of centre of stiffness, which is closer to wall 21:

the building tends to rotate around a point close to that, therefore wall 22 is subjected to an

higher displacement, and so, being the walls equally sized and reinforced, carries an higher

load, until they reach their maximum strength (wall 22 before wall 21).

As it was pointed out before, model 1 curve (reinforced walls designed with equal yield

displacement criterion code provision for concrete) has a similar elasto-plastic shape. Due to

their high stiffness value, concrete walls are much more loaded than masonry ones, and get

the plastic hinge almost simultaneously; once that happens all the load increment is carried by

wall 7, which, in few steps, reach its maximum resistance as well. In model 2 and 3 instead

(effective concrete stiffness), the shear sharing is much more balanced (the stiffness values

are of the same order of magnitude), and masonry element reach their maximum strength

much before concrete ones: in this cases the displacement gap between masonry and concrete

failure is so high that the curve shows an high non linearity, with a similar tri-linear shape.

The macroelement versions of the first two models have a curve very close to the bilinear

ones until about 2 centimetres of top displacement, after wall 7 shear failure in bilinear

models, over which the masonry macroelement is still in the increasing branch. With this

modelling it can also be observed the softening of masonry walls, implemented in the

macroelement constitutive law, once they reach their peak resistance.

75

In order to represent in a realistic manner the actual behaviour of a structure under a seismic

motion, a simple pushover analysis is not enough, since it applies just a monotonic increasing

static load, while the actual physical phenomenon implies also motion reversal: a cyclic

pushover analysis is an effective tool, since it implies outcomes of simpler interpretation and

less computational effort than non linear dynamic analyses. In fact it consists in cyclic

increasing static load, through the imposition of a certain cyclic displacement history; in this

way it is possible to capture the hysteretic behaviour, and the dissipative capacities which are

the theoretical background on which all the assumption made in simpler analyses are based.

Finally, through these load reversals, it is also possible to capture structural asymmetries.

At this degree of investigation only a refined modelling makes sense, so only the

macroelement model is used for masonry panels. For concrete element are used both the

rough elastic-perfectly plastic and the Takeda constitutive law.

76

Hysteretic models for r.c. element are derived by extracting common feature from resistance

deformation relations observed in laboratory tests of members with similar properties; these

models, of course, have to be able to express resistance deformation relations under any

loading histories, including load reversals.

General hysteretic characteristics can be summarized:

Stiffness changed due to flexural cracking of concrete and tensile yielding of the

longitudinal reinforcement

deformation amplitude, the loading stiffness in the second cycle is lower than that in

the first one, although the resistance at peak displacement is almost identical. This

reduction in stiffness is attributable to the formation of new cracks, and Bauschinger

effect on longitudinal reinforcement.

Average peak to peak stiffness of a complete cycle decreases with previous maximum

displacement.

The resistance at peak deflection is almost the same for the two successive cycles in

the member dominated by flexural behaviour

77

Among the many models available in the literature, one of the most known is the Takeda one,

which can be stated in many versions depending on the level of complexity. In the following

it is shown the version chosen for the case study, through a concrete section numerical test.

140

Moment (kNm)

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0

0,005

0,01

0,015

0,02

0,025

0,03

0,035

0,04

Rotation (rad)

primary curve is made bilinear simply choosing the cracking point to be the origin of

the hysteretic plane

TAKEDA HYSTERETIC MODEL

140

120

Moment (kNm)

100

80

60

40

20

0

0

0,005

0,01

0,015

0,02

0,025

0,03

0,035

0,04

Rotation (rad)

k r = k max

y

78

TAKEDA HYSTERETIC MODEL

150

Moment (kNm)

100

50

0

-0,02

-0,01

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

-50

-100

-150

Rotation (rad)

TAKEDA HYSTERETIC MODEL

150

Moment (kNm)

100

50

0

-0,02

-0,01

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

0,03

0,04

-50

-100

-150

Rotation (rad)

150

Moment (kNm)

100

50

0

-0,02

-0,01

0,01

0,02

-50

-100

-150

Rotation (rad)

response point moves toward the peak of the immediately outer hysteretic loop

79

So, after many cycle, the model assumes the following shape.

TAKEDA HYSTERETIC MODEL

150

Moment (kNm)

100

50

0

-0,04

-0,03

-0,02

-0,01

0,01

0,02

0,03

0,04

-50

-100

-150

Rotation (rad)

The original structure is analyzed for the following cyclic top displacement history:

Cycle

Displacement(cm)

Cycle

0,5 -0,5

-1

13

14

1,5 -1,5

-2 2,5 -2,5

15 16

17

18

19

4,5 -4,5

-4

10

11 12

3

-3

CYCLIC DISPLACEMENT

6

0

1

11

13

15

17

19

-2

-4

-6

Cycle number

80

CYCLIC PUSHOVER CURVE

600.000

Monotonic

400.000

200.000

0

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

Takeda

model for

concrete

-200.000

EPP model

for concrete

-400.000

-600.000

Top displacement (cm)

600.000

Monotonic

400.000

200.000

Wall 7

0

-6

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

6

Total

-200.000

-400.000

Concrete

column

-600.000

Top displacement (cm)

81

In the first graph the cyclic pushover curve of the structure is shown comparing the two

different modelling for concrete: elastic-perfectly plastic constitutive law and Takeda one: it

can be observed that the curves are very closed, as the reinforced concrete elements do not

affect pretty much the response; the only difference is the anticipate global collapse at 4,5 cm

in EPP case. It can also be observed that the monotonic curves envelopes the cyclic ones.

In the second one it is shown the relative contribution of wall 7 and of a concrete column to

the total base shear: it can be observed how the latter contribution is negligible, and wall 7

draws typical shear failure hysteretic loops.

Among the reinforced structure models, the second case is analyzed (reinforced walls

designed with equal yield displacement criterion code provision for concrete), for a cyclic

top displacement history of larger amplitude :

Cycle

9 10 11 12 13 14 15

-4

-5

-6

CYCLIC DISPLACEMENT

8

6

4

2

0

1

11

13

15

-2

-4

-6

-8

Cycle number

82

1.000.000

800.000

600.000

400.000

200.000

Total

Monotonic

0

-8

-6

-4

-2

wall 22

-200.000

-400.000

-600.000

-800.000

-1.000.000

Top displacement (cm)

300.000

200.000

100.000

wall 7

0

-8

-6

-4

-2

wall 22

-100.000

-200.000

-300.000

Top displacement (cm)

Figure 31. Cyclic pushover curve EPP model for concrete shear distribution

83

1.000.000

800.000

600.000

400.000

200.000

Total

0

-8

-6

-4

-2

Monotonic

0

wall 22

-200.000

-400.000

-600.000

-800.000

-1.000.000

Top displacement (cm)

300.000

200.000

100.000

0

-8

-6

-4

-2

wall 22

wall7

-100.000

-200.000

-300.000

Top displacement (cm)

Figure 33. Cyclic pushover curve Takeda model for concrete shear distribution

84

1.000.000

800.000

Total

Takeda

model

600.000

400.000

Monoto

nic

200.000

0

-10

-5

-200.000

10

Total

EPP

model

-400.000

-600.000

-800.000

-1.000.000

Top displacement (cm)

Figure 34. Cyclic pushover curve Comparison between EPP and Takeda model in Total Base shear

300.000

wall 22

Takeda

200.000

100.000

0

-10

-5

10

wall 22

EPP

-100.000

-200.000

-300.000

Top displacement (cm)

Figure 35. Cyclic pushover curve Comparison between EPP and Takeda model in wall 22 base shear

85

From the observation of the graphs, it is pretty clear that the reinforced concrete walls govern

the global structure response, therefore, differently from the original structure, the elasticperfectly plastic constitutive law for concrete element is undoubtedly too rough to capture the

actual hysteretic behaviour, as it draws cycles of excessive amplitude, in comparison to the

experimental data. Once again it is pretty clear that masonry elements are subjected to a shear

failure mechanism, whose main feature is the strength decay as displacements increase, with

appreciable dissipative cycles. Finally, the cyclic response shows how the structure is

symmetric as the cycles shows the same shape both in positive and in negative quadrant.

86

8. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

As it was pointed out at the beginning, an important problem is the approach to buildings with

mixed structures, for which very little literature is available nowadays, and whose variety

causes difficulty in the typological classification and in codification of methodologies.

Therefore this topic has been faced, in this dissertation, through the choice of a fairly simple

case study, for which it is reasonable the adoption of some simplifications at different steps of

the process.

In fact this consists in a regular rectangle, without any geometrical articulation, neither in

plan, nor along the height. The openings pattern is regular, being all of them aligned along

horizontal and vertical axis, though implying an appreciable eccentricity. Moreover, the wall

thickness and the masonry properties are constant anywhere, and the interstorey heights are

pretty much the same. Also reinforced concrete elements are placed in a regular configuration,

and oriented in same masonry walls axis. Finally, a net of very stiff concrete beams, with 10

cm thick slab, provides the connection among the vertical elements.

With respect to the actual physical phenomenon, it is practice, in masonry building seismic

engineering, to separate the response versus the so-called first damage mode mechanisms,

which involve usually out-of plane damage, to the second mode mechanisms, which are

associated to in-plane response of walls. In fact, first mode mechanism are also classified as

local mechanisms, in the sense that they are usually associated to the local response of

structural elements, which could in turn generate a global collapse, but can be studied without

recurring to a global structural model of the whole structure. A global model of the structure

is instead needed when the resistance to horizontal actions is provided by the combined effect

of floor diaphragms and in-plane response of walls. The first important assumption in this

work, is that, due to its geometrical properties and constructing techniques, local out of plane

mechanism are likely prevented, and therefore only a global analysis of the building is

meaningful.

87

The second simplification concerns the earthquake resisting system modelling: the building is

in fact modelled, at least at first steps, as an equivalent tri-dimensional hyper static frame,

made of macro-elements, characterized by a rough bilinear elasto- plastic constitutive law,

with an equivalent limit elastic strength, elastic and ultimate displacement defined as a

function of the flexure and shear response. Such a simplified modelling was developed from

the consideration that, if a sufficient plastic deformation capacity in the piers is assumed, the

distribution of internal forces at ultimate is basically governed by strength of members and by

equilibrium; their initial elastic stiffness is therefore not as important as the definition of

suitable and sufficiently accurate strength criteria, and simple bi-linear (elasto-plastic)

constitutive laws can yield effective results, even when compared with more refined nonlinear

finite elements analyses, or experimental results. Hence this modelling implies a moderate

computational effort, maintaining idealizations and obtaining results of easily comprehension,

but comparable with those of more sophisticated analysis. Of course, the reliability of such a

simplified modelling is based on a widespread geometrical and mechanical regularity.

About the seismic safety criterion, according to the OPCM 3431/2005 8.5, the main

structural system approach is adopted, represented in this case by masonry: the performance

acceptability is therefore based on ultimate limit state global target displacement on the

capacity curve, which refers to the overall condition of the building. The state of every

element is checked during the analysis, comparing the actual forces and drifts with the

correspondent ultimate values: when an element collapses, its contribute is cancelled making

the redistribution of the forces on the elements that are still active. Since in this building are

easily identified two distinct earthquake resisting systems, a regular masonry box, and a

three-dimensional reinforced concrete frame, it is believed to be reasonable the application of

different strength and deformation criteria, without any combined failure criteria.

Once the original structure had been assessed, a strengthening design has been carried out, in

order to let it be able to sustain the design earthquake: this has been done sizing two identical

reinforced concrete walls, acting therefore on the global structural response, in such a way to

amplify the capacities and reduce the earthquake demands. The walls have been designed

with a force based approach, whose goal is the achievement of the minimum strength

enhancement, necessary to satisfy the ultimate displacement estimation equation; in this

equality the macroscopic properties of the equivalent single degree of freedom system appear:

mass, strength, stiffness, displacement capacity. Assuming that the mass increment is

negligible, two different hypothesis, about the reinforced structure stiffness and ductility, have

been done in order to find out the strength: the first one consists in constant ductility, while

the second one in constant stiffness. Given the base shear on each walls, the actions (moments

and shears) have been allocated through two different hypothesis: a linear trend of moment,

along the height, with null moment point placed at two third of the height, and a force

distribution proportional to the first mode deformed shape, to calculate the design shears.

88

In the sixth chapter, pushover analyses on the reinforced structure have been carried out, in

order to find out how the assumptions made in the design stage were correct. At this stage it is

also investigated the concrete flexural cracked stiffness influence, comparing code provision

with those suggested by the literature. The most evident feature of the new structure is the

cantilever behaviour introduced by the reinforced concrete walls: the deformed shapes shows

higher displacement on the top, in comparison with those of the original structure, with higher

displacement on the bottom, typical of a shear response; such behaviour affects also the

damage distribution among the elements, in a way that masonry elements get the failure at

upper floors before than lower ones. In all cases, such walls implies a considerable stiffness

increase, even when strength dependant values for flexural stiffness are adopted, in such a

way that design hypothesis n 2 (constant stiffness) seems untruthful. In particular, when

strength dependant values are adopted, (the reliability of this approach has still to be checked

in case of mixed structure) the concrete walls contribution is delayed with respect to masonry

ones, in such a way that the curve shows an high level of non linearity (almost trilinear), and

the curves bilinearization loses its physical meaning, in summarizing the actual response.

In all three cases the total strength estimation is pretty correct, but, as it is recognized in a

force based design, there is no control on the ultimate displacement capacity, hence on the

ductility. It is believed that the reliability of the procedure adopted in this work, before

assuming a general worth, has to be checked in more complex cases, where all the above

mentioned assumptions may lose their plausibility.

89

References

REFERENCES

CEN [2001] Eurocode 1: Actions On Structures, Part 1-1: General Actions Densities, self-weight,

imposed loads for buildings, prEN 1991-1-1, Brussels, Belgium.

CEN [2003] Eurocode 6: Design of Masonry Structures, prEN 1996 1, Brussels, Belgium.

CEN [2003] Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance, Part 1: General

rules,seismic actions and rules for buildings, prEN 1998-1, Brussels, Belgium.

Fardis, M. [2005] Design of concrete buildings for earthquake resistance, classnotes, ROSE School,

Pavia, Italy.

Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A. [2002] TREMURI Program: Seismic Analyser of 3DMasonry

Buildings, University of Genoa, Italy.

Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A. [2006] On the use of pushover analysis for existing masonry

buildings, Proceedings of 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology,

Geneva, Switzerland.

Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Nicoletti, M., Lamonaca, G., Nicoletti, M., Spina, D.,

Margheriti, C., Salcuni, A. [2005] Identificazione ed analisi non lineare degli edifici in muratura

dellOsservatorio Sismico delle Strutture, Proceedings of 11th National Conference lIngegneria

Sismica in Italia, Genova, Italy, (CDROM in Italian).

Galasco, A., Lagomarsino, S., Penna, A., Resemini, S. [2004] Non-linear Seismic Analysis of

Masonry Structures, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,

Vancouver, Canada.

Gambarotta, L., Lagomarsino, S. [1996] On dynamic response of masonry panels, Proceddings of

National Conference Masonry mechanics between theory and practice, Messina, Italy (in

Italian).

Gambarotta, L., Lagomarsino, S. [1997] Damage Models for the Seismic Response of BrickMasonry

Shear Walls. Part II: The Continuum Model and Its Applications, EarthquakeEngineering and

Structural Dynamics, Vol. 26, pp. 441-463.

Macchi, G., Magenes, G. [2002] Le strutture in muratura, UTET, Italy..

Magenes, G., Della Fontana, A. [1998] Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings,

Proceedings of the British Masonry Society, 8, pp. 190-195.

90

References

OPCM, no. 3274 [2005] Primi elementi in materiali di criteri generali per la classificazione sismicadel

territorio nazionale e di normative tecniche per le costruzioni in zona ssmica, come

modificatodallOPCM 3431 del 3/5/05 (in Italian), Italy.

Penna, A. [2002] A macro-element procedure for the non-linear dynamic analysis of

masonrybuildings, Individual study. Ph.D. Disseration, Politecnico de Milano, Italy.

Priestley, M.J.N. [2003] Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake engineering, The ninth Mallet-Milne

lecture, London

Priestley, M.J.N., Paulay, T. [1992] Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings,

IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy..

Tomazevic M. [2000] Earthquake-resistant design of masonry buildings, Imperial College Press,

London

91

stiffness hypothesis

WALLS SECTION GEOMETRY:

Depth (m)

Width (m)

Cover (m)

Effective section height (m)

b := 0.45

l := 6.3

d1 := 0.04

d := l d 1

3

b l

Igross :=

12

1 :=

d1

M sd := 28740

Ground floor

M sd_1 := 14290

First floor

M sd_2 := 14290

Second floor

Vsd := 3323

Ground floor

Vsd1 := 2587

First floor

Vsd2 := 1108

Second floor

GROUND FLOOR:

DESIGN ACTIONS

Nsd := 2264

M sd = 2.874 10

Moment (kNm)

Nsd

:=

= 0.043

b d fcd

Bars area vector (m2):

kkc2 := 26 .. 32

kkc1 := 1 .. 7

1

2

1

7.610-4

7.610-4

3

4

7.610-4

7.610-4

5

6

7.610-4

7.610-4

7

8

7.610-4

7.610-4

9

10

7.610-4

7.610-4

:= zi

+ 0.2

hh

hh 1

11

12

7.610-4

7.610-4

13

14

7.610-4

7.610-4

15

Asi = 16

Asi

:= 2 22

kkc1

Asi

:= 2 22

kkc2

hh := 2 .. 16

hh1 := 18 .. 32

zi := 0.04

zi

kk := 8 .. 25

:= 3.26

zi

17

zi

hh1

:= zi

+ 0.2

hh1 1

Asi := 2 22

kk

1

1

2

3

0.04

0.24

0.44

0.64

0.84

6

7

1.04

1.24

1.44

1.64

10

11

1.84

2.04

12

2.24

13

14

2.44

2.64

7.610-4

15

2.84

zi = 16

3.04

17

7.610-4

7.610-4

18

19

7.610-4

7.610-4

17

18

3.26

3.46

19

3.66

20

21

7.610-4

20

3.86

7.610-4

22

23

7.610-4

21

22

4.06

4.26

7.610-4

23

4.46

24

25

7.610-4

7.610-4

24

25

4.66

4.86

26

27

7.610-4

7.610-4

26

5.06

27

5.26

28

29

7.610-4

28

29

5.46

5.66

30

31

7.610-4

7.610-4

30

5.86

31

6.06

32

7.610-4

32

6.26

7.610-4

q := 1 .. 32

define all the bars strains; this value has to be changed until it's equal

to that coming from force equilibrium equation.

r := 1.3

Bars strain vector: this is calculated under the hypothesis of extreme tensile bars rupture

su

r zi < y

if

q

q

dr

d r

su

r zi > y

y if

q

d r

su

r zi < y

y if

q

d r

su

si :=

q

r zi

x = 1.307

su

dx

x = 0.002639

l

0.4 x + Eym Asi si zi

2

M rd = 2.906 10

s := 0.12

w :=

2 12

b 2 d1 + 0.022 + 0.012 s

w = 4.666 10

ratio

SHEAR VERIFICATION:

M rd

Vsd := Vsd 1.2

M sd

Vsd = 4.033 10

fck

f b 0.8 l

Vrd2 := 0.4 0.7

1000 200 cd

kN

Vrd2 = 9.355 10

Asi100

tot% :=

Vwd := 2 12 fyd

tot% = 0.858

b l

0.9 d

Vcd = 1.12 10

Vwd = 3.971 10

Vrd3 = 5.091 10

Vdd := 0.25 fyd

Asi

Compressive concrete

contribution (kN )

Vdd = 2.274 10

x

Vfd := 0.25 fcd l b

d

Vfd = 2.775 10

Vrds = 5.049 10

1 :=

Asi

1

b d

Asi

32

2 :=

supposed uniformly distribuited

1 = 2.699 10

2 = 2.699 10

b d

31

v :=

z =2

Asi

z

v = 8.097 10

b d

Nsd

Ay := 1 + 2 + v +

b d fyk

y_y :=

y_y :=

Ay + 2 By Ay

fyk

Nsd

By := 1 + 2 1 + 0.5 v 1 + 1 +

b d fyk

y_y = 0.221

4

Eym 1 y_y d

y_y = 4.407 10

yield curvature

c_y :=

1.8 fck

Ecm

Nsd

Ac := 1 + 2 + v

y_c :=

y_c :=

Bc := 1 + 2 1 + 0.5 v 1 + 1

b d c_y Eym

y_c = 0.197

Ac + 2 Bc Ac

c_y

y_c = 1.367 10

y_c d

y = 4.407 10

yield curvature

y := y_y

Effective stiffness:

2

v

y Eym

y 1 + 1

( 1 y) 1 + ( y 1 ) 2 +

( 1 1 ) ( 1 1 )

+

EIeff := b d Ecm

6

2

3

2 2

EIeff

Ecm Igross

= 0.182

FIRST FLOOR:

DESIGN ACTIONS

Nsd_1 := 1420

Moment (kNm)

M sd_1 = 14290

:=

Nsd_1

= 0.027

b d fcd

Bars area vector (m2):

kkc1 := 1 .. 3

kkc2 := 30 .. 32

kk := 4 .. 29

:= 2 20 Asi_1 := 2 20

Asi_1

:= 2 20 Asi_1

kk

kkc2

kkc1

hh := 2 .. 16

hh1 := 18 .. 32

zi_1 := 0.04

1

:= zi_1

+ 0.2

hh 1

zi_1

hh

zi_1

17

zi_1

hh1

:= 3.26

:= zi_1

+ 0.2

hh1 1

qq := 1 .. 32

define all the bars strains; this value has to be changed until it's equal

to that coming from force equilibrium equation.

rr := 1.23

Bars strain vector: this is calculated under the hypothesis of extreme tensile bars rupture

si_1

:=

su

rr zi_1 < y

qq

d rr

su

rr zi_1 > y

y if

qq

d rr

su

rr zi_1 < y

y if

qq

d rr

su

rr zi_1 if

qq

d rr

x = 1.229

su

dx

x = 0.00244

l

0.67

l

x + Eym Asi_1 si_1 zi_1

M rd_1 := b 0.67 x 0.85 fcd

2

2

M rd_1 = 2.36 10

bars step (m)

s := 0.12

w :=

2 12

b 2 d1 + 0.02 + 0.012 s

ratio

w = 4.689 10

SHEAR VERIFICATION:

M rd_1

Vsd_1 := Vsd1 1.2

M sd_1

Vsd_1 = 5.126 10

fck

f b 0.8 l

Vrd2_1 := 0.4 0.7

1000 200 cd

Vrd2_1 = 9.355 10

kN

fctk

Vcd_1 := 0.6

Vwd_1 := 2 12 fyd

Vcd_1 = 2.113 10

b d

0.9 d

Vwd_1 = 3.971 10

Vrd3_1 = 6.084 10

Vdd_1 := 0.25 fyd

Asi_1

Compressive concrete

contribution (kN)

Vdd_1 = 1.879 10

x

Vfd_1 := 0.25 fcd l b

d

Vfd_1 = 2.609 10

Vrds_1 = 4.489 10

Not verified!!

1_1 :=

Asi_1

1

b d

Asi_1

2_1 :=

1_1 = 2.23 10

32

2_1 = 2.23 10

b d

31

v_1 :=

z=2

Asi_1

z

v_1 = 6.691 10

b d

supposed uniformly distribuited

Nsd_1

Ay_1 := 1_1 + 2_1 + v_1 +

b d fyk

y_y_1 :=

y_y_1 :=

fyk

Eym 1 y_y_1 d

Nsd_1

By_1 := 1_1 + 2_1 1 + 0.5 v_1 1 + 1 +

b d fyk

depth

y_y_1 = 0.198

y_y_1 = 4.28 10

yield curvature

c_y :=

1.8 fck

Compressive concrete

strain

Ecm

2

y_c_1 :=

y_c_1 :=

Nsd_1

b d c_y Eym

normalized neutral

axis depth

y_c_1 = 0.18

c_y

y_c_1 = 1.502 10

y_c_1 d

y_1 = 4.28 10

yield curvature

Actual yield

curvature

y_1 := y_y_1

Effective stiffness

2

1 + 1 y_1

3

2

2

v_1

Eym

3

( 1 y_1) 1_1 + ( y_1 1 ) 2_1 +

( 1 1) ( 1 1 )

EIeff_1 := b d C_1 +

6

2

C_1 := Ecm

EIeff_1

Ecm Igross

y_1

= 0.149

SECOND FLOOR:

DESIGN ACTIONS

Nsd_2 := 577

M sd_2 = 14290

Moment (kNm)

:=

Nsd_2

= 0.011

b d fcd

Bars area vector (m2):

kkc1 := 1 .. 3

Asi_2

:= 2 18

kkc1

kkc2 := 30 .. 32

kk := 4 .. 29

Asi_2

:= 2 18

kkc2

Asi_2 := 2 18

kk

hh1 := 18 .. 32

hh := 2 .. 16

zi_2 := 0.04

1

:= zi_2

+ 0.2

hh 1

zi_2

hh

zi_2

17

zi_2

hh1

:= 3.26

:= zi_2

+ 0.2

hh1 1

qqq := 1 .. 32

define all the bars strains; this value has to be changed until it's equal

to that coming from force equilibrium equation.

rrr := 0.977

Bars strain vector: this is calculated under the hypothesis of extreme tensile bars rupture

si_2

qqq

:=

su

qqq

d rrr

su

y if

qqq

d rrr

su

y if

qqq

d rrr

su

rrr zi_2 if

qqq

d rrr

x := root b 0.67 rrr 0.85 fcd + Asi_2 Eym si_2 Nsd_2 , rrr

x = 0.977

su

dx

x = 0.00185

M rd_2 = 1.824 10

l

x + Eym Asi_2 si_2 zi_2

2

2

0.67

s := 0.2

w :=

2 10

b 2 d1 + 0.018 + 0.01 s

w = 1.973 10

SHEAR VERIFICATION:

M rd_2

Vsd_2 := Vsd2 1.2

M sd_2

Vsd_2 = 1.698 10

fck

3

fcd b 0.8 l Vrd2_2 = 9.355 10

Vrd2_2 := 0.4 0.7

1000 200

kN

fctk

Vcd_2 := 0.6

Vwd_2 := 2 10 fyd

Vcd_2 = 2.113 10

b d

0.9 d

Steel contribution

(kN)

Vwd_2 = 1.655 10

Vrd3_2 = 3.767 10

Vdd_2 := 0.25 fyd

Asi_1

Compressive concrete

contribution (kN)

Vdd_2 = 1.879 10

x

Vfd_2 := 0.25 fcd l b

d

Vfd_2 = 2.073 10

Vrds_2 = 3.952 10

1_2 :=

2_2 :=

Asi_2

1

1_2 = 1.807 10

b d

Asi_2

32

2_2 = 1.807 10

b d

31

v_2 :=

z=2

Asi_2

z

3

v_2 = 5.42 10

b d

supposed uniformly distribuited

Nsd_2

Ay_2 := 1_2 + 2_2 + v_2 +

b d fyk

y_y_2 :=

y_y_2 :=

fyk

Nsd_2

By_2 := 1_2 + 2_2 1 + 0.5 v_2 1 + 1 +

b d fyk

normalized neutral

axis depth

y_y_2 = 0.17

4

Eym 1 y_y_2 d

y_y_2 = 4.139 10

yield curvature

10

c_y :=

1.8 fck

Compressive concrete

strain

Ecm

y_c_2 :=

y_c_2 :=

Nsd_2

b d c_y Eym

depth

y_c_2 = 0.161

c_y

yield curvature

y_c_2 = 1.674 10

y_c_2 d

y_2 = 4.139 10

y_2 := y_y_2

Effective stiffness:

2

C_2 := Ecm

y_2

2

3

1 + 1 y_2

3

2

EIeff_2 := b d C_2 +

EIeff_2

Ecm Igross

Eym

2

v_2

6

) (

1 1 1 1

= 0.116

11

- Seismic soil-structure interaction of buildings on hill slopes EIJCSE3045Uploaded byPrabhat Kumar
- paper4009 consolidare zidUploaded bynegritoru87
- chaaasaassas.pdfUploaded byomid
- EN1992_3_JonesUploaded byLuigiForgerone
- Eurocode2_Commentary2008Uploaded byClaudia Clarín
- Ac i DiaphragmUploaded byBintaZoelvia
- A study on response reduction factor of RC wter tankUploaded byMILAN
- PushoverAnalysisOfMultiStoreyRccFrameWithAndWithoutVerticalIrregularities(20-25)Uploaded byNitin shepur
- MBr-February2017-toUploadUploaded byakshaya b
- Defining Yield Stress and Failure Stress (Strength)Uploaded byMihaela Gheorghe
- Www.asce.Org - ASCE_SEI 7-2002 Errata_Section922_04Uploaded byMIKHA2014
- Effect of Confining Pressure on Horizontal Load Carrying Capacity of Circular RC Bridge Pier-41904Uploaded byEditor IJAERD
- MBr-February2017-toUpload.pdfUploaded byakshaya b
- Seismic Performance Assessment of RCS Building By Pushover AnalysisUploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- porterUploaded byapi-3733260
- 13_649Uploaded byShashikant Gaur
- NILUploaded byVỹ Cris Trần
- Torsion LectureUploaded byMohd Sharul Ikwan
- MATLab Code for Economical Seismic design of Irregular BuildingUploaded byIRJET Journal
- RC-lecture2Uploaded bySara Zavari
- R-11-28 (1).pdfUploaded bypouya
- 1 General Intro CovUploaded byanthony_haox
- Ies 1994 - II ScanUploaded byMonojit Pal
- Chapter 2Uploaded byFaizan Kedoo
- Seismic fragility assessment for RC High Rise BuildingUploaded byfaisalade
- Experimental Behaviour of Recycled Aggregate Concrete Filled Steel TubularUploaded byYahia Raad Al-Ani
- Som Coures FileUploaded byChaubey Ajay
- PTFE Cuong Do CaoUploaded byLong Nông Dân
- Review Paper PublishedUploaded byPrashant
- Innovative Composite Concrete Filled Plastic Tubes in CompressionUploaded byNaftary Gathimba

- jurnal alimentarUploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- Activare WinUploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- act_11.docUploaded byUdriste Florin
- Regim WashingtonUploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- regimUploaded bymarianaaroiu
- A1 Model C1 Continutul Cadru Al SFUploaded byC Trandafir
- Instructiunea.1.2016Uploaded byJohn Bee
- Instructiunea.1.2016Uploaded byJohn Bee
- ghid_devizUploaded byDemeter Zoltan
- Indicator Norme Deviz Constructii c 2007Uploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- Ord nr. 553-1999Uploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- Valori Beta P13-63 Model (1)Uploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- OR. 777.2003Uploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- Or. 784-1998 Decontarea LucrarilorUploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- Valori Beta P13-70 Model (1)Uploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- wUploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- act_11.docUploaded byUdriste Florin
- RpC,_RpD,_TsUploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- Catalog ProfileUploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- DinamicaUploaded byDragos Salagean
- Perete Gips Carton 1Uploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- CursUIS FinUploaded byMihaela Toma
- wUploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- Draica Ora de GramaticaUploaded byAlexaTudor
- Indicator Norme Deviz Constructii c 2007Uploaded byantongeany
- p100-78Uploaded bySilver Makc
- Oug 34 Actualizata 2013Uploaded byAna Bucoveanu
- Oug 34 Actualizata 2013Uploaded byAna Bucoveanu
- Masonry Walls MAAS 42(7) 09Uploaded bymariana_dragomir_2
- Valori Beta P13-70 Model (1)Uploaded bymariana_dragomir_2

- 09 PSC Single SpanUploaded bypravin
- 08 Offshore Pipeline Design - Braskoro Dronkers DrielUploaded byanton hidayat
- Ad.concrete Structurl DesignUploaded byravirainbow
- En 14229_E StolperUploaded byNikolic Dejan
- 2110010Uploaded bytoaniltiwari
- Deep Beams FinalUploaded byNilesh Balkrishna Sunita Apte
- Loaded Timoshenko BeamUploaded byap scattolin
- SFD-CSA-S16-14-60-117 PARTE IIUploaded byedilberto lopez
- Effect of Moisture Variation on the Structural Performance of Glue Laminated Grevillea TimberUploaded byANmunyao
- Civil Paper 1Uploaded by9290010274
- AEE-1984Uploaded bySHIRISHA YADAV
- Beam With Torsion With NibUploaded bysaravanan
- Linear Aeroelastic Stability of Beams and Plates in Three-Dimensional FlowUploaded bynim1987
- Lateral Torsional Buckling of Steel BeamsUploaded byapirakq
- IrokoUploaded byteckhuatl
- 11-03ChapGere.pdfUploaded byAfoldo
- Mathcad in Teaching Rotor and Structural DynamicsUploaded byVILLANUEVA_DANIEL2064
- MS1241-91Uploaded byHanizam Sulaiman
- PlasticsUploaded bySeow Fhan
- Cantilever Retaining Wall_RameswaramUploaded byD.V.Srinivasa Rao
- Combined Hardening P406Uploaded byparam
- Concrete Beam and Slab Design Using ProkonUploaded byChamila Kumara Rankoth
- EDO ALAUploaded byAditya Koutharapu
- Computation of Primary Tunnel SupportUploaded byErwin Simbolon
- DuctiIlityUploaded bysaudiman
- WoodUploaded byJillian Howard
- Question bank for Strength Of MaterialUploaded bySiddiqui Adil Adnan
- Thermal Fatigue due to Statification in PipingUploaded byhamadani
- Deflection of Reinforced ConcreteUploaded bycklcon
- Riser Collar COLBANCL03050010000 Mechanical FEA ReportUploaded byanon_831025548