unesco – ipred van mission · - level 1 seismic evaluation methodology - romanian code,...

TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CIVIL ENGINEERING OF BUCHAREST

UNESCO – IPRED

VAN MISSION

POST EARTHQUAKE INVESTIGATION REPORT

ROMANIAN TEAM

FINAL REPORT

RADU VACAREANU

VIOREL POPA

JULY 2012

Preamble

In the framework of the Programme and Budget of UNESCO for 2012-2013 Main line of action

7: Natural disaster risk reduction and mitigation; Point (25) Disaster resilience, Disaster risk

assessment and impact mitigation enhanced, including through participation in UN common

country approaches;

under the supervision of the Chief of the Unit on Natural Disasters (SC/DIS); and in the

framework of the extrabudgetary programme 546GLO2002 – International Platform for

Reducing Earthquake Disasters, (IPRED), and activities related to post-earthquake field

investigations,

a team from the Technical University of Civil Engineering of Bucharest was dispatched within

the contract no. 4500175841 to the earthquake affected city of Van, Turkey, for a post-

earthquake investigation mission.

The team consisted of two academic staff: prof. dr. eng. Radu Vacareanu and dr. eng. Viorel

Popa from the Reinforced Concrete Department.

The investigation mission was completed in the period June 1st – June 6

th.

The following activities were performed by the Romanian Team:

- Post-earthquake rapid assessment – Romanian procedure, ME 003-2007 – 10

buildings

- Level 1 seismic evaluation methodology - Romanian Code, P100-3/2008 – 5

buildings

- Detailed assessment - Level 3 seismic evaluation methodology - Romanian Code,

P100-3/2008 – 2 buildings

The activities results are presented in the following.

Post-earthquake rapid assessment – Romanian procedure

RAPID ASSESSMENT FORM

EVALUATION PERFORMED BY:

DATE: 04 06 2012 TIME:10:00

FINAL GRADING: INSPECTED BUILDING X

LIMITED ACCESS BUILDING

BUILDING WITH FALLING HAZARDS

UNSAFE BUILDING

BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS:

ADDRESS: 14 STORIES

BUILDING IN VAN

OWNER/ADMINISTRATOR:

NO OF STORIES: 14

BASEMENT: 3

TOTAL AREA:

NO OF APARTMENTS:

STRUCTURAL TYPE:

SHEAR MASONRY WALLS X

RC FRAMES X

RC SHEAR WALLS

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES X

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE

COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS X

OFFICE BUILDINGS

GOVERNMENTAL BUILDING

SCHOOL

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT

BUILDING ASSESSMENT:

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS: YES NO

Total or partial collapse X

Tilted building or stories X

Other information: X

STRUCTURAL DAMAGE: MINOR MODERATE SEVERE

Foundation

Roof

Horizontal diaframgs

Columns

Structural walls, braces

Joints

Others

NONSTRUCTURAL DAMAGE: MINOR MODERATE SEVERE

Parapets, finishing

Tiles, windows

Ceillings

Partition walls

Elevators

Stairs

Electricity, gas

Others

GEOTECHNICAL HAZARDS: MINOR MODERATE SEVERE

Landslides

Ground displacements, cracks

Others

GENERAL COMMENTS: No damage observed. Building has not been fully loaded at the time of the

earthquake.

PREVIOUS GRADING OF THE BUILDING: INSPECTED BUILDING



UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:

BASED OF THE RAPID ASSESSMENT RESULTS A MODIFICATION OF

PREVIOUS GRADING IS NECESSARY: YES NO

FURTHER ACTIONS: YES NO

RESTRICTED ACCESS IN THE AREAS WITH FALLING HAZARDS: X

DETAILED SEISMIC EVALUATION FOR STRUCTURAL SYSTEM X

DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION X

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS:

GENERAL COMMENTS (IF ANY):



DATE: 04 06 2012 TIME:13:30

FINAL GRADING: INSPECTED BUILDING

LIMITED ACCESS BUILDING X


UNSAFE BUILDING


ADDRESS: Blue building in Van

downtown


NO OF STORIES: 5

BASEMENT:

TOTAL AREA:

NO OF APARTMENTS:

STRUCTURAL TYPE:


RC FRAMES

RC SHEAR WALLS

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES X

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE

COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

OFFICE BUILDINGS


SCHOOL

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT







Foundation

Roof

Horizontal diaframgs X

Columns

Structural walls, braces X

Joints

Others


Parapets, finishing X

Tiles, windows X

Ceillings

Partition walls X

Elevators

Stairs

Electricity, gas

Others


Landslides


Others

GENERAL COMMENTS: Severe nonstructural damages (partition walls, perimetral walls, ceilings).

Concrete quality is not clear.




UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:











DATE: 02 06 2012 TIME:09:30




UNSAFE BUILDING


ADDRESS:

ILSA BETON, VAN


NO OF STORIES: 1

BASEMENT:

TOTAL AREA: 640

NO OF APARTMENTS: -

STRUCTURAL TYPE:

SHEAR MASONRY WALLS

RC FRAMES X

RC SHEAR WALLS

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE

COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS X

OFFICE BUILDINGS


SCHOOL

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT







Foundation

Roof

Horizontal diaphragms

Columns


Joints

Others


Parapets, finishing

Tiles, windows

Ceilings

Partition walls X

Elevators

Stairs

Electricity, gas

Others


Landslides


Others

GENERAL COMMENTS: Building has survived the earthquake with no visible structural damage.




UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:











DATE: 01 06 2012 TIME:17:45


LIMITED ACCESS BUILDING X


UNSAFE BUILDING


ADDRESS:

KIVANC – BLOC A


NO OF STORIES: 7

BASEMENT: 1

TOTAL AREA: -

NO OF APARTMENTS: 14

STRUCTURAL TYPE:

SHEAR MASONRY WALLS

RC FRAMES X

RC SHEAR WALLS X

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES X

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE


OFFICE BUILDINGS


SCHOOL

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT







Foundation

Roof

Horizontal diaframgs X

Columns


Joints

Others



Tiles, windows X

Ceillings X

Partition walls X

Elevators

Stairs X

Electricity, gas

Others


Landslides


Others


Poor concrete quality.




UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:








GENERAL COMMENTS (IF ANY): Detailed seismic assessment is necessary to explain the extensive

nonstructural damages and to mitigate the effects.



DATE: 01 06 2012 TIME:17:00




UNSAFE BUILDING X


ADDRESS:

KIVANC – BLOC B


NO OF STORIES: 7

BASEMENT: 1

TOTAL AREA: -


STRUCTURAL TYPE:

SHEAR MASONRY WALLS

RC FRAMES X

RC SHEAR WALLS X

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES X

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE


OFFICE BUILDINGS


SCHOOL

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT







Foundation

Roof

Horizontal diaphragms X

Columns


Joints

Others



Tiles, windows X

Ceillings X

Partition walls X

Elevators

Stairs X

Electricity, gas

Others


Landslides


Others


Very poor concrete quality (average compressive strength of 6 MPa).




UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:









nonstructural damages and to mitigate the effects; material tests (concrete).



DATE: 04 06 2012 TIME:15:30




UNSAFE BUILDING


ADDRESS: KURUBAS

primary school building.


NO OF STORIES: 3

BASEMENT:

TOTAL AREA: 930sqm

NO OF APARTMENTS: -

STRUCTURAL TYPE:

SHEAR MASONRY WALLS

RC FRAMES

RC SHEAR WALLS X

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE


OFFICE BUILDINGS


SCHOOL X

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT







Foundation

Roof


Columns


Joints

Others



Tiles, windows

Ceilings

Partition walls X

Elevators

Stairs

Electricity, gas

Others


Landslides


Others

GENERAL COMMENTS: Building has survived the earthquake with minor structural and nonstructural

damage. However a similar building has collapsed in a nearby town.




UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:








GENERAL COMMENTS (IF ANY): Structural assessment is necessary to decide if the educational

activities can be carried out in this building.



DATE: 01 06 2012 TIME:15:30




UNSAFE BUILDING


ADDRESS:

POST-TENSIONED

BUILDING


NO OF STORIES: 8

BASEMENT: 1

TOTAL AREA: 3300sqm


STRUCTURAL TYPE:

SHEAR MASONRY WALLS

RC FRAMES X

RC SHEAR WALLS

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES X

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE


OFFICE BUILDINGS


SCHOOL

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT







Foundation

Roof

Horizontal diaframgs

Columns


Joints

Others



Tiles, windows X

Ceillings X

Partition walls X

Elevators

Stairs

Electricity, gas

Others


Landslides


Others

GENERAL COMMENTS: Severe nonstructural damages (partition walls, perimetral walls, ceilings)




UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:









nonstructural damages and to mitigate the effects.



DATE: 04 06 2012 TIME:11:30




UNSAFE BUILDING


ADDRESS: VAN

primary school building.


NO OF STORIES: 3

BASEMENT:

TOTAL AREA: 930sqm

NO OF APARTMENTS: -

STRUCTURAL TYPE:

SHEAR MASONRY WALLS

RC FRAMES

RC SHEAR WALLS X

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE


OFFICE BUILDINGS


SCHOOL X

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT







Foundation

Roof

Horizontal diaphragms X

Columns


Joints

Others



Tiles, windows

Ceilings

Partition walls X

Elevators

Stairs

Electricity, gas

Others


Landslides


Others

GENERAL COMMENTS: Building has survived the earthquake with minor structural and nonstructural

damage. However a similar building has collapsed in a nearby town.




UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:








GENERAL COMMENTS (IF ANY): Structural assessment is necessary to decide if the educational

activities can be carried out in this building.



DATE: 02 06 2012 TIME:16:00




UNSAFE BUILDING


ADDRESS: M2121, VAN

YTONG Building 1


NO OF STORIES: 2

BASEMENT:

TOTAL AREA: 121

NO OF APARTMENTS: -

STRUCTURAL TYPE:


RC FRAMES

RC SHEAR WALLS

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE X


OFFICE BUILDINGS


SCHOOL

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT







Foundation

Roof


Columns


Joints

Others



Tiles, windows

Ceilings

Partition walls

Elevators

Stairs

Electricity, gas

Others


Landslides


Others

GENERAL COMMENTS: Building has survived the earthquake with minor structural damage.




UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:











DATE: 03 06 2012 TIME:13:30




UNSAFE BUILDING


ADDRESS: M2144, Edremit

YTONG Building 2


NO OF STORIES: 2

BASEMENT:

TOTAL AREA: 144

NO OF APARTMENTS: -

STRUCTURAL TYPE:


RC FRAMES

RC SHEAR WALLS

GRAVITY RC FRAMES

STEEL STRUCTURE

BUILDING OCCUPANCY:

COLLECTIVE HOUSES

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE X


OFFICE BUILDINGS


SCHOOL

PUBLIC BUILDING

HISTORICAL MONUMENT







Foundation

Roof


Columns


Joints

Others



Tiles, windows

Ceilings

Partition walls

Elevators

Stairs

Electricity, gas

Others


Landslides


Others

GENERAL COMMENTS: Building has survived the earthquake with no visible structural damage.




UNSAFE BUILDING

SITE INSPECTOR:

DATE:









Level 1 seismic evaluation methodology - Romanian Code P100-3


Building name Van primary school buidling

Structural sistem RC shear walls

Story number 3

Length 21.6 m

Width 14.4 m

Floor area 311.04 m2

Total area 933.12 m2

R1- building general characteristics

Max. points Eff. Points

General configuration 50 35

Building interactions 10 8

(partitions inside attached without seismic joint)

Structural elements 30 20

Horizontal diafragms 10 10

(no horizontal floor diafragm)

R1 - Total Points 100 73

R2- current structural damage state


Earthquake damages 50 30

Gravity damages 20 20

Settelments, temperature, creep 10 5

Construction quality 10 10

Chemical degradation 10 10


R3 - Structural assessment by simplified method

Building weight

Equiv. grav. Load 13 kN/m2

Building weight, W 12130.56 kN

Seismic design force

Fundamental period, T 0.25 s kt 0.045

Ground acceleration, ag 0.4 m/s2

H 9.6

Normalized spectral ordinate, β 2.50

SDOF equiv. factor, λ 0.85

Importance factor, γ 1.2

Behavior factor, q 2.5

Seismic coefficient, c 0.41

Seismic design force 4949 kN

Normalized shear stress

Shear force 4949.27 kN

Shear area 2.7 m2

(transversal direction)

Concrete quality C12/15 60% of class obtained

Confidence factor 1

Concrete compressive strength 3.3 MPaConcrete compressive strength 3.3 MPa

Concrete tensile strength 0.4 MPa

Allowable normalized shear stress 1.40

Effective normalized shear stress 4.17

Ratio 0.34

Normalized axial stress

Axial force 778 kN Perimetral Column 222

Allowable normalized axial stress 0.650 (Tributary area 25.92 sqm, 100x30)

Effective normalized axial stress 1.296

Ratio 0.5

R3 0.5

Grading of seismic risk

R1 R2 R3 Risk class

73 75 34

Risk Class III III I II

Conclusion

Building has been graded seimic risk class II (on a I to IV scale, I being the most

dangerous).

In case of incidence of design earthquake major structural damage is expected, loss of

general stability is unlikely.

The conclusion is supported by the following reasons: poor concrete quality and high level

of the normalized shear stress in RC walls.


Building name

Structural sistem RC transversal frames with hinged beams

Story number 5

Length 15.04 m

Width 15.25 m

Floor area 175.2 m2

Total area 876 m2












Earthquake damages 50 N/A

Gravity damages 20 N/A

Settelments, temperature, creep 10 N/A

Construction quality 10 N/A

Chemical degradation 10 N/A

R2 - Total Points 100 N/A


Building weight


Building weight, W 13140 kN




H 17.2

Normalized spectral ordinate, β 1.83 11.7

SDOF equiv. factor, λ 0.85 2.925

Importance factor, γ 1






Shear area 3.64 m2


Confidence factor 1.35

Concrete compressive strength 5.9 MPa




Ratio 0.7


Axial force 1418 kN Column 222 (Tributary area 13.7 sqm, 60x30)

Allowable normalized axial stress 0.650


Ratio 0.5

R3 0.5


R1 R2 R3 Risk class

57 N/A 50 IV

Risk Class II N/A II II

Conclusion


dangerous).



The conclusion is supported by the following reasons: poor concrete quality and high

level of the normalized axial stress in columns.


Building name Prefabricated industrial building

Structural sistem RC transversal frames with hinged beams

Story number 1

Length 32 m

Width 20 m

Floor area 640 m2

Total area 640 m2



















Building weight

qld G(qld) G(SecB) G(MainB) G(col)

1.4 896 640 540 250

Equiv. grav. Load 3.634375 kN/m2



Fundamental period, T 1.09 s


I 0.005208

Normalized spectral ordinate, β 1.12 E 30000000

SDOF equiv. factor, λ 1 H 9

Importance factor, γ 1 k 7716.049

Behavior factor, q 2.5 T 1.090906





Shear area 0.25 m2

Concrete quality C20/25






Ratio 10.1


Axial force 291 kN



Ratio 3.3

R3 3.3


R1 R2 R3 Risk class

90 100 100 IV

Risk class IV IV IV IV

Conclusion

Building has been graded seimic risk class IV (on a I to IV scale, I being the most

dangerous).

In case of incidence of design earthquake the expected performance fits the requirements

of the enforce design code for new buildings.

The conclusion is supported by the following reasons: low axial and shear stress in

columns, no existing structural damage, good structural configuration and good

construction quality.


Building name Van primary school buidling

Structural sistem RC shear walls

Story number 3

Length 21.6 m

Width 14.4 m















(inclined cracks in RC shear walls)







Building weight


Building weight, W 12130.56 kN




H 9.6



Importance factor, γ 1.2






Shear area 4.32 m2

(transversal direction)


Confidence factor 1





Ratio 0.6


Axial force 778 kN Perimetral Column 222

Allowable normalized axial stress 0.650 (Tributary area 25.92 sqm, 100x30)


Ratio 0.6

R3 0.6


R1 R2 R3 Risk class

78 85 60

Risk Class III III II III

Conclusion


dangerous).



The conclusion is supported by the following reasons: poor concrete quality and high level

of the normalized shear stress in RC walls. Still, the poor concrete quality is not certified.


Building name Prefabricated multistory building

Structural sistem RC frames with post-tensioning

Story number 8

Length 25.3 m

Width 16.2 m





















Building weight






H 20.88



Importance factor, γ 1






Shear area 0.525 m2

Concrete quality C40/50


Concrete compressive strength 22.2 MPa




Ratio 1.1

Normalized axial stress - central column

Axial force 9564 kN Central column (700*750, trib. area 100sqm)



Ratio 0.8

Normalized axial stress - central column

Axial force 4782 kN Central column (700*750, trib. area 50sqm)



Ratio 1.6

R3 0.88


R1 R2 R3 Risk class

82 100 0.88 IV

Risk Class III IV III III

Conclusion

Building has been graded seimic risk class III (on a I to IV scale, I being the most

dangerous).

In case of incidence of design earthquake minor structural damage and major

nonstructural damages is expected. Loss of general stability is highly unlikely.

The conclusion is supported by the following reasons: high level of the normalized axial

stress in the central column, possible short column failure mode in the columns at

basement, no existing structural damage but major nonstructural damages, code

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF

KIVANÇ BUILDING

- STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS -

Overview

The seismic evaluation of Kivanc buildings had two main objectives:

1. Explain the building behavior during the last earthquakes, especially the high level of

nonstructural damage which could be observed on the site.

2. Investigate the structural safety of the building for future earthquakes.

Both of these objectives represent a challenging task for a professional engineer or researcher given

the structural characteristics of the building and the characteristics of the ground motion.

At first glance, the structural system of the buildings seemed to be robust and limited damage could be

observed in the structural members. Poor quality of the construction works for the structural system

was noticed on site. Low concrete quality is expected. Concrete samples have been extracted but the

laboratory results are not available yet.

Nonstructural elements including partition wall, finishing and ceilings have been severely damaged.

Due to this damage the building is evacuated at this moment. Major rehabilitation might be necessary

to prevent the demolition of this building.

Structural analysis was performed using ETABS (Computer and Structures Inc.). Static nonlinear

analysis (pushover) was used to investigate the structural response in the nonlinear range.

A tridimensional mathematical model which accounts for the nonlinear response of the structural

system was developed. Some characteristics of the mathematical model are:

- Beams and columns were modeled using frame elements. Section designer have been used to

declare complicated shapes of the transversal sections of the columns.

- Shear walls having length of the transversal section smaller than 1,5m (including) were

modeled using frame elements.

- Shear walls having length of the transversal section larger than 1,5m, namely the shear walls

along axis 3, G, H, I, H’, G’, were modeled using shell elements.

- Within the boundaries of the columns sections the longitudinal and the transversal beams were

considered stiff. If the transversal beam axis, longitudinal beam axis and the column axis did

not intersect in the same point a stiff beam link was considered to model the connection.

- The “elastic stiffness” was taken equal to half of the gross stiffness for each structural member.

- Foundation beams were the supports for the columns at the bottom of the basement. The

foundation beams were supported on springs with elastic behavior in Z direction. The

translation of the foundations in x and y direction have been restrained. No other restraints

were applied.

- Horizontal diaphragms were introduced at each level.

- Gravity loads, other than the dead weight of the structure, were applied as uniform distributed

loads on the slabs at each floor. An equivalent “liquid” load 12.8 kN/sqm has been obtained.

- Nonlinear M3 hinges were introduced at the end of each beam.

- Nonlinear P-M2-M3 hinges were introduced at the bottom of each column, directly above the

foundation beams.

- Nonlinear P hinges were introduced at the boundary columns for shear walls. Nonlinear P

hinges were used to simulate the yielding of the vertical reinforcement in the web of the shear

walls.

- Calibration of the deformation capacities of the nonlinear hinges, especially of the P hinges,

still needs to be performed, due to time constraints.

- Pushover analysis have been performed in both X and Y direction. Two lateral load

distribution patterns were considered for each direction: uniform (mass proportional) and

triangular (acceleration proportional).

- Capacity Spectrum Method have been used to determine displacement demand for the

structure. Two level of the earthquakes were taken into account: design earthquake (ag=0,4 g

and Tc=0,4s) and recorded earthquake (ag=0,22 g and Tc=0,4s). For each earthquake level

resulted: (1) Ca=0,4, Cv=0,4 (2) Ca=0,22, Cv=0,22.

Figure 1. Front view of the damaged building

Figure 2. Mathematical model of the structure

Structural layout

Figure 3. Structural layout at each floor

Figure 4. Building grid lines

Figure 5. Structural system – x direction

1-1 (rear view)

7-7 (front view)

3-3

5-5

Figure 6. Structural system – y direction

A-A (right side view)

A’-A’ (left side view)

G-G, G’-G’

H-H, I-I, H’-H’

Figure 7. Foundation beams

Modeling assumptions

Figure 8. Frame modeling

Figure 9. Joint modeling for not intersected beams and column axes

I=∞

M3 Hinge

Transversal

beam axis

Column axis

Longitudinal

beam axis

Ground floor

Foundation beam

M3 Hinge

P-M2-M3 Hinge

Basement

M3 Hinge

M3 Hinge

Figure 10. Modeling of shear walls bases

Figure 11. Modeling of support

Ground floor

Foundation beam M3 Hinge P Hinge

(tension, compression)

M2 Hinge

(out of plane bending)

Basement

M3 Hinge

(in plane bending)

I=∞ 400x800

k=100000 kN/m

(assumption)

Building weight

Story Story

weight

Accumulated

weight

kN kN

STORY7 5567 5567

STORY6 5567 11133

STORY5 5567 16700

STORY4 5567 22267

STORY3 5567 27833

STORY2 5567 33400

STORY1 5564 38964

Table 1. Building weight

TOTAL WEIGHT 38964 kN

TOT. WEIGHT/ DEV. AREA 12.80 kN/sqm

Table 2. Equivalent weight per square metter

Modal analysis

Figure 12. Mode 1

Figure 13. Mode 2

T=0,76s (x translation, torsion)

T=0,92s (torsion)

Figure 14. Mode 3

Mod

e

Peri

od

UX UY UZ SumU

X

SumU

Y

SumU

Z

RX RY RZ SumR

X

SumR

Y

SumR

Z

1 0.92 21.1 0.0 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.8 58.6 0.0 26.8 58.6

2 0.76 57.4 0.0 0.0 78.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 73.1 21.7 0.0 99.9 80.3

3 0.62 0.0 78.9 0.0 78.5 78.9 0.0 100. 0.0 0.0 100. 99.9 80.3

4 0.27 2.1 0.0 0.0 80.7 78.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.7 100. 99.9 89.9

5 0.21 11.4 0.0 0.0 92.1 78.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 100. 99.9 92.0

6 0.15 0.0 14.8 0.0 92.1 93.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100. 99.9 92.0

Table 3. Modal participation mass ratios

T=0,62s (y translation)

Pushover analysis – x direction

Figure 15. Pushover deformation. X direction. Uniform pattern. Axis: 3-3

Figure 16. Pushover deformation. X direction. Uniform pattern. Axis: 7-7

Pushover analysis – y direction

Figure 17. Pushover deformation. Y direction. Uniform pattern. Axis: A-A

Figure 18. Pushover deformation. Y direction. Uniform pattern. Axis: H-H I-I

Pushover analysis – results – x direction

Figure 19. Force displacement relation. X direction, positive. Uniform loading pattern.

Figure 20. Force displacement relation. X direction, positive. Triangular loading pattern

Pushover analysis – results – Y direction

Figure 21. Force displacement relation. Y direction, positive. Uniform loading pattern.

Figure 22. Force displacement relation. Y direction, positive. Triangular loading pattern

Capacity spectrum method

x direction, ag=0,22g

Figure 23. Capacity spectrum method, x direction, uniform pattern, ag=0,22g, Tc=0,4s

Figure 24. Capacity spectrum method, x direction, triangular pattern, ag=0,22g, Tc=0,4s


x direction, ag=0,4g

Figure 25. Capacity spectrum method, x direction, uniform pattern, ag=0,4g, Tc=0,4s

Figure 26. Capacity spectrum method, x direction, triangular pattern, ag=0,4g, Tc=0,4s


Y direction, ag=0,22g

Figure 27. Capacity spectrum method, y direction, uniform pattern, ag=0,22g, Tc=0,4s

Figure 28. Capacity spectrum method, y direction, triangular pattern, ag=0,22g, Tc=0,4s


y direction, ag=0,4g

Figure 29. Capacity spectrum method, y direction, uniform pattern, ag=0,4g, Tc=0,4s

Figure 30. Capacity spectrum method, y direction, triangular pattern, ag=0,4g, Tc=0,4s

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF

L-shaped BUILDING

- STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS -

L-shaped building

Seismic assessment by pushover analysis - preliminary results

Acceleration design spectra (Z2)

Capacity curve, X direction

Capacity curve, Y direction

Conclusions and further actions

1. The post-earthquake investigation information on the damage on buildings, structures and

lifelines shall be valuable in two directions:

- lessons learnt on the vulnerability of different building typologies and/or

construction techniques and details; this information shall be used to improve the

seismic design regulations;

- statistical information for different building typologies and different seismic

demands; this information might be used for both seismic design regulations and

for fragility/vulnerability and risk analysis.

2. Prepare and endorse a manual for post-earthquake investigation to be used within IPRED

missions; manual shall include very clear rules and very precise criteria for making the

decision on the damage state of the buildings.

Acknowledgements

• UNESCO – IPRED platform for financing the mission of the Romanian delegation

• Yasuo Katsumi and Jair Torres for the total technical and administrative support in the

preparation phase of the mission and beyond

• Professor Faruk Karadogan for perfect organization and management of the mission, for

knowledge sharing and for excellent hosting

• Dr. Gulseren Erol for the wonderful support during the mission

• Local engineers & authorities and local people for the profound and heartfelt hospitality

and kindness in very harsh times

References

1) P100-3/2008, Cod de proiectare seismica, partea a III-a; Prevederi pentru evaluarea

seismica a cladirilor existente, MDRL 2008

2) P100-1/2006 Cod de proiectare seismica, partea I; Prevederi de proiectare pentru cladiri,

MTCT 2008

3) ME 003-2007, Metodologie privind investigarea de urgenta a sigurantei post-seism a

cladirilor si stabilirea solutiilor cadru de interventie, MDLPL 2007

4) FEMA 356, Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings,

FEMA, FEMA 2000

5) EN 1992-1-1 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and

rules for buildings, CEN 2004

unesco – ipred van mission · - level 1 seismic evaluation methodology - romanian code,...

Documents