Presentation Athens

THE EUROPEAN CENTER FOR RISK PREVENTION, SOFIA, BULGARIA
Bulgarian seismic design codes and

civil construction practice. Infilled RC
frames - Application and assessment of
their resistance to lateral forces
M. Eng. Velyan Petkov

The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia,
Bulgaria
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013 1

ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
1.INTRODUCTION
• Eurocode 8 and Eurocode 8 Part 3 in Bulgaria
• Assessmen and retrofit programs in Bulgaria
• Type of existing buildings structures.
- large panel systems
- masonry and masonry infilled structures
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

2
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
2.Bulgarian Seismic Codes and Eurocode 8 (Eurocode 8-3)

• Pre 1947 – No Seismic Design Code
• 1947 – First Seismic Design Requirements
• 1957 – First Seismic Design Code – Low Level Seismic Design Codes
• 1964 – New Seismic Design Code – Medium Level Seismic Design Codes -
Introduction of Dynamic factors
• 1987 – Modern Bulgarian Seismic Design Code and preceding events (1977
Vrancea Earthquake and 1987 Strazhica Earthquake)
• 2007, 2009 and 2012 Editions
• 2012 - Introduction of Eurocode 8
• 2012 – 2014 – Joint Application of Codes
• Post 2014 – Planned retirement of Bulgarian Seismic Code

3
Type of Buildings, classified by the reference Seismic Design Code at the time of design
and construction
• Pre 1947 Construction
• 1947-1957 Construction
• 1957-1964 Construction
• 1964-1987 Construction – Medium and high rise residential buildings. Large Panel
Systems, Lift Slab method, prestressed reinforced concrete buildings, climbing
shuttering RC system, and others. Mass construction period.
• 1987 Seismic Design Code
- 1990s period
- 2000-present
Comparison between the codes
Seismic Assessment of buildings designed according to Bulgarian codes

4
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012

5
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region – Undamaged buildings

6
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings

7

8

9
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Elastic Spectrum soil type “C”

10
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Damages

11
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Damages

12
4.Assessment of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames and buildings

• Masonry together with reinforced concrete is the most widely used material in
Bulgarian cuvil practice.
• In Bulgaria masonry is used as:
• Structural material
• Non-structural material
Until now the effects of the infill on the behavior of the structures were usually
neglected in seismic analysis of RC/masonry buildings.
4.1 Masonry-infills in Bulgarian civil construction practice

• Use of masonry as primary (structural) material in combination with wood, steel etc.
• Use of masonry as primary (structural) material in combination with RC.
• 50s 60s – application in low rise buildings with up to 4-5stories (usually 3-
4)
• 60s – present – use in low rise residential houses up to 2(max 3) stories high
• Use of masonry as nonstructural material
• 60s – present – application in low, middle and high rise buildings with RC
as primary structural material (usually RC shear walls are used)
• Positives of the early designs:
• Usually regular buldings
• Use of bricks with no openings
13
• Quality control of the masonry

• Conservative design
• Usually low height
• High safety against premature out of plane failure of the masonry
• Deficiencies of the early designs:

• Designed according to low-level Design codes and usually lower seismic
design acceleration
• Poor detailing – lack of enough transverse rebar
• Use of smooth rebar steel rods.
• Low-strength concrete
• Unknown quality of the mortar
• Possible degradation of strength due to removed internal walls.
• Brittle failure is expected
• Positives of later designs

• Designed according to better Design codes
• Better detailing
• Use of textured rebar steel rods (especially in the last decades)
• High-strength concrete.

14
• Neglecting the strength of infill is often on the safe side

• Better performance might be expected (especially in buildings designed
according to 1987 Seismic Design Code)
• Deficiency of late designs

• Use of bricks with high percentage of openings
• Less conservative designs
• Neglecting the stiffness of infill might be dangerous
• Low quality control of the masonry construction due to the understanding
that it is not important for the overall behavior of the structure.
• Design and construction of irregular structures (especially after 1990)
• 1990s period when overall control was not strict enough
• Possible premature collapse of internal masonry walls (due to lack of
connection between the frame and the masonry)

15
4.2 Assessment of the behavior of in-filled RC frames

• Importance
• Lack of modeling techniques, prescribed in Seismic codes (either Bulgarian or
Eurocode 8)
• Types of infill models:
• Macromodels
• Bare frame
• Single-strut
• Double Strut
• Multi-Strut
• EQUIVALENT WIDTH OF THE STRUT

16
• Micromodels

17
• Comparison of Analysis Results

18
• Nonlinear Strut Models

• Importance and field of application
• Data input requirements
SEISMOSTRUCT Software Package nonlinear model

19
4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit

• Linear Strut Models

20

• Nonlinear Strut Models

21

• Nonlinear Strut Models – Capacity Curves – Base Shear vs. Top displacement

22

• Nonlinear Strut Models – Strengthening of existing structures
• Nonlinear Micromodels

23
CONCLUSIONS
1. BDS EN 1998-3:2005 Assessment and Retrofitting of Buidings is the first
complete structural code of this type in Bulgaria.
2. Contradictions between the old and the new code exist

- Completely different principles
- Different definition of “seismically resistant structure”
3. 2012 Pernik Earthquake conclusions:

- The event in Pernik may be classified as a strong one (ref. 1987 code)
- The event in Pernik may be classified as moderate or even low
- Almost all buildings properly designed and constructed withstood the
earthquake without severe damages.
- Many of the Buildings that were constructed without proper designs and
in contradiction to “good construction practices” were heavily damaged.
- Some deficiencies of old local codes designs were detected.
- Danger of falling non-structural elements of buildings during an
earthquake exists.
4. Masonry-infills influence the behavior of structures.

24
CONCLUSIONS
5. Modeling of masonry requires a lot of information and knowledge.
6. Introduction of national application handbooks is required.
7. Many of the buildings in Bulgaria may be rated as not seismically resistant if

checked in accordance to BDS EN 1998-3:2005
8. But the last doesn’t mean that they really aren’t.

25
TNANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

26

Presentation Athens

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presentation Athens

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE EUROPEAN CENTER FOR RISK PREVENTION, SOFIA, BULGARIA

Bulgarian seismic design codes and

M. Eng. Velyan Petkov

ATHENS 12th of April, 2013 1

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

2.Bulgarian Seismic Codes and Eurocode 8 (Eurocode 8-3)

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

3.Pernik Earthquake 2012

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region – Undamaged buildings

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Damages

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Damages

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

4.Assessment of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames and buildings

4.1 Masonry-infills in Bulgarian civil construction practice

• Quality control of the masonry

• Deficiencies of the early designs:

• Positives of later designs

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

• Neglecting the strength of infill is often on the safe side

• Deficiency of late designs

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

4.2 Assessment of the behavior of in-filled RC frames

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

• Comparison of Analysis Results

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

• Nonlinear Strut Models

SEISMOSTRUCT Software Package nonlinear model

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit

M. Eng. Velyan Petkov

4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit

M. Eng. Velyan Petkov

2. Contradictions between the old and the new code exist

3. 2012 Pernik Earthquake conclusions:

4. Masonry-infills influence the behavior of structures.

6. Introduction of national application handbooks is required.

7. Many of the buildings in Bulgaria may be rated as not seismically resistant if

8. But the last doesn’t mean that they really aren’t.

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

TNANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

M.Eng. Velyan Petkov

You might also like