In the presented practice-oriented probabilistic approach for the seismic performance assessment of building structures, the SAC-FEMA method, which is a part of the broader PEER probabilistic framework and permits probability assessment in closed form, is combined with the pushover-based N2 method. The most demanding part of the PEER probabilistic framework, i.e. Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA), is replaced by the much simpler N2 method which requires considerably less input data and much less computational time, but which can, nevertheless, often provide acceptable estimates for the mean values of the structural response. Using some additional simplifying assumptions that are consistent with seismic code procedures, an explicit equation for a quick estimation of the annual probability of “failure” (i.e. the probability of exceeding the near collapse limit state) of a structure can be derived, which is appropriate for practical applications, provided that predetermined default values for the dispersion measures are available. In the paper, this simplified approach is summarized and applied to the estimation of the “failure” probability of reinforced concrete frame buildings representing both old structures, not designed for earthquake resistance, and new structures designed according to Eurocode 8. The results of the analyses indicate a high probability of the “failure” of buildings which have not been designed for seismic loads. For a building designed according to a modern code, the conservatively determined probability of “failure” is about 30 times less but still significant (about 1% over the lifetime of the structure).
COBISS.SI-ID: 5478241
The injection of grout into multi-leaf stone masonry walls with a sufficient amount of voids can be an effective technique for the seismic strengthening of such walls. In order to evaluate the effectiveness of different types of commercial grouts that fulfilled the adopted criteria, the stone masonry walls of an actual building were strengthened by means of grout injection, using cement and combined cement-lime grouts. The quality and effectiveness of grout injection technique was assessed by non-destructive tests (sonic and radar tests), minor destructive tests (surface and in-depth probing and coring, and the double flat jack test), and destructive test (shear-compressive test), all in situ. Preliminary laboratory tests were also performed on mortar and stone specimens, on the injection grouts, and on cylinders representing the inner core of the strengthened walls. Finally, the seismic resistance of the building was evaluated in non-strengthened and strengthened variants (i.e. after grout injection of the walls with cement or lime-cement grout) by means of non-linear static analysis, using the pushover method. Obtained results show that shear characteristics of the walls (tensile strength and stiffness) depend significantly on the type and properties of the injected grout, i.e. on the grout's ability to achieve a solid bond between the stones and the leaves including the properties (strength and stiffness) of the grout itself. In the case of the type of masonry under consideration, an adequate level of seismic resistance can be achieved also by using combined cement-lime grouts, although cement grout can provide higher seismic resistance.
COBISS.SI-ID: 5626977
The paper contains a discussion of the inelastic dynamicmagnification of seismic shear forces in cantileverwalls with rectangular cross-sections.An extensive parametric study was performed in order to determine the reliabilityof the procedure in Eurocode 8 (EC8). A large number of single cantilever walls which are characteristic for the design practice in Europe and designed to satisfy all the EC8 requirements were analysed. The results obtained with the (modified) code procedures were compared with the results ofinelastic response history analyses. If properly applied, the EC8 procedure for DCH walls usually yields good results for the base shears. However, as presently formulated and understood in the EC8, it can yield significantly incorrect results (overestimations of up to 40%). For this reason three modifications were introduced: (1) Keintzelćs formula, which is adopted in EC8, should be used in combination with the seismic shears obtained by considering the first mode of the excitation only; (2) the upper limit of the shear magnification factor should be related to the total shear force; and (3)a variable shear magnification factor along the height of the wall should be applied. The present procedure in EC8 for DCM structures (using a constant shear magnification factor of 1.5 for all walls) is non-conservative. For DCM walls
COBISS.SI-ID: 5503585