Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Intensity of
earthquake
shaking
Degree of damage
Traditional Approach –
Collapse of Buildings in Past Earthquakes still used today
Lateral Deformation
Component-Based
Approach (FEMA 273, System-Based Approach
(SEAOC, 1999 – new buildings)
1996 – existing buildings)
Peak acceleration
in percent of
gravity δj
EQ effect Glo
b
acceleration with θj disp al
lace
2% probability of θi men
t, δ
exceedance in 50 δi
years
Life Safety limit
Force
B C
Global model
D E
A
Deformation
level
Displacement
∆T = Target Displacement
Seismic Performance Objectives Example 1: Hildebrand Hall
• 1966 construction
EQ-III • 3 stories tall
(10%/100yr) •CA Building Code
• Vertical system
3.00 for minimum
• flat plate
Spectral Acceleration (g)
(10%/50yr)
strength • interior columns
2.50
EQ-II •EQIII - Collapse • bearing walls
2.00 (10%/50yr with cap)
Prevention • Lateral system
'97 UBC, Soil Type Sb
• light shear walls
1.50 •EQII – Life Safety • Foundation
1.00 EQ-I •Cost efficient
• spread footings
(50%/50yr)
( • Deficiencies
0.50
performance • flexure/shear critical
enhancements walls
0.00 • deficient columns
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
• punching at slab-column
Period ( sec) connection
Steel braced
frame, typ.
Vertical
reinforcement
continuous
through floor.
Horizontal
reinforcement
epoxy-anchored
to columns
Concrete placed
from one side by
shotcrete
method.
Slab punching
limit
Stanford University
Stanford seismic performance
objectives
A EQ-I
EQ-II
New and existing
facilities critical to
disaster response
Stanford
University
B EQ-I
EQ-II
New facilities and
existing facilities critical
to academic program
C EQ-I
EQ-II
All other
existing facilities
Example 2: Escondido Village
Midrises Typical Floor Plan
• 1961-64 construction D1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
• 8 stories tall
• Vertical system Concrete columns
• columns H
6'-3"
• bearing walls G
6'-3"
• Lateral system F
flexure E
• Foundation
• spread footings
Concrete shear walls 18'-4"
• Deficiencies
D
10'-7"
• shear-critical columns C
6'-3"
• inadequate boundary B
6'-3"
steel in walls A
• punching at slab-column 12' 12' 12'-7" 12' 12' 12' 12'-7" 12' 12'
connection
Escondido Village
(before retrofit) Retrofit Measures
Base
shear 2000
Escondido Village
after retrofit Boundary Steel
Capacity curve after retrofit
Base Time history (max.)
shear 2000
5 10 15
Existing RC column
Pipe column to
2
A6.1
catch floor if
24
A6.1
3
A6.1
24
A6.1
existing column
10
A6.5
fails
3
A6.1
13 14 13
A6.5 A6.5 A6.5
12
A6.2
(E) GRADE
5
A7.1
1 S O U T H E LE VA T IO N / S E C T IO N
A4.3
∆ Large
Large
displacements
cause frame
damage
Foundation Rocking
existing
structure
Roof Displacement
unstrengthened
Precast wall
retrofit. Note PT Steel bracing retrofits.
for boundary
reinforcement.
Tasai, 2000
Shear-Friction Model for Axial Failure Shear-Friction Model for Axial Failure
P
Shear
θ
Aswfy
s
Drift Ratio N Vsf
Aswfy
Friction
Coefficient
σy
Axial failure τcr
point
Dy Ds Dp
Column Lateral Displacement
τcr
Axial failure
Column envelope
Axial
Load
σy
τ cr = 0.5 f c' 1 − , MPa
Column Lateral Displacement 0.5 f c'
}
0.08
0.03 - 0.06
0.12 - 0.18
0.20 - 0.22
Drift ratio
Range of γ values
Lateral Load
0.06
Interior
0.04 Exterior, hooks bent in
Exterior, hooks bent out
0.02 Corner
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
One test with
Drift at “tensile failure” Axial load ratio
axial load failure
Drift at axial failure
Priestley and Hart, 1994
existing
structure
Roof Displacement
Steel jacket retrofit for shear
Welded
Bolted Partial
Jacket
Collars
Basic
Welded
Partial Jacket
Basic
composite fiber
retrofits Column jackets
0.06
Measured
0.04
PT Slabs
0.02
0.00
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0