Seismic Vulnerability of Structures

364 Pages·2013·4.331 MB·English

Seismic Vulnerability of Structures
Seismic Vulnerability
of Structures
Edited by
Philippe Gueguen
Firstpublished2013inGreatBritainandtheUnitedStatesbyISTELtdandJohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
Apart from any fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, or criticism or review, as
permittedundertheCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,thispublicationmayonlybereproduced,
storedortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withthepriorpermissioninwritingofthepublishers,
or in the case of reprographic reproduction in accordance with the terms and licenses issued by the
CLA. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside these terms should be sent to the publishers at the
undermentionedaddress:
ISTELtd JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
27-37StGeorge’sRoad 111RiverStreet
LondonSW194EU Hoboken,NJ07030
UK USA
www.iste.co.uk www.wiley.com
©ISTELtd2013
TherightsofPhilippeGueguentobeidentifiedastheauthorofthisworkhavebeenassertedbyhimin
accordancewiththeCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
LibraryofCongressControlNumber: 2012955533
BritishLibraryCataloguing-in-PublicationData
ACIPrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
ISBN:978-1-84821-524-5
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainbyCPIGroup(UK)Ltd.,Croydon,SurreyCR04YY
Table of Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Philippe GUEGUEN
Chapter 1. Seismic Vulnerability of Existing
Buildings: Observational and Mechanical
Approaches for Application in Urban Areas . . . . . 1
Sergio LAGOMARSINO and Serena CATTARI
1.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2. Damage levels andbuilding types
classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3. The macroseismic approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.4. The mechanical approach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.4.1. Masonry buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.4.2. Reinforced concrete buildings . . . . . . . . . . . 37
1.5. Implementation of models for scenario
analysis at territorial scale. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
1.6. Final remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
1.7. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Chapter 2. Mechanical Methods: Fragility
Curves and Pushover Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Caterina NEGULESCU and Pierre GEHL
2.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
2.2. Pushover analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
vi SeismicVulnerabilityofStructures
2.2.1. What is pushover analysis?. . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.2.2. How to calculate (or construct) a
pushover curve? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.2.3. Critical aspects in the construction
(or calculation) of a pushover curve . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.2.4. Hypotheses anddevelopments. . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.2.5. Evaluation of the target displacement and
the performance point (PP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
2.3. The fragility curves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.3.1. From deterministic evaluation to fragility
functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
2.3.2. The “indirect” methods based on the
capacity curve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.3.3. “Direct” methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
2.3.4. Toward multivariate fragility functions . . . . 98
2.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
2.5. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Chapter 3. Seismic Vulnerability and
Loss Assessment for Buildings in Greece . . . . . . . 111
Andreas J. KAPPOS
3.1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
3.2. Vulnerability assessment of RC buildings . . . . . 113
3.2.1. Buildings analyzed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
3.2.2. Inelastic analysis procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.2.3. Estimation of economic loss using
inelastic dynamic analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.2.4. Development of pushover and
capacity curves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.2.5. Derivation of fragility curves. . . . . . . . . . . . 124
3.2.6. Fragility curves in terms of S . . . . . . . . . . . 131
d
3.3. Vulnerability assessment of URM buildings . . . 133
3.3.1. Overview of the methodology adopted . . . . . 133
3.3.2. Purely empirical approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.3.3. Nonlinear analysis and capacity curves . . . . 136
3.3.4. Hybrid fragility curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
3.4. Region-specific fragility curves. . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
3.5. Development of earthquake scenarios. . . . . . . . 147
TableofContents vii
3.6. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
3.7. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
3.8. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Chapter 4. Experimental Method:
Contribution of Ambient Vibration
Recordings to the Vulnerability Assessment. . . . . 161
Clotaire MICHEL and Philippe GUEGUEN
4.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
4.2. Recordings and analysis of vibrations
in structures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
4.2.1. Historical background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
4.2.2. Stability and temporal variation
of the vibrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
4.2.3. Analysis of recordings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
4.3. Observation of vibration of buildings and
seismic design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
4.3.1. Case of the common building in
mainland France. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
4.3.2. Experimental data and
vulnerability models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
4.4. Modeling existing structures with
the help of experimental data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4.4.1. Modal model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
4.4.2. Validation using the buildings of Grenoble . . 184
4.5. Application to the study of vulnerability
at a large scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
4.5.1. Fragility curves and uncertainties . . . . . . . . 187
4.5.2. Application in Grenoble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
4.6. Limitations and outlook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
4.6.1. Nonlinear behavior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
4.6.2. Soil–strutcture interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
4.7. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
4.8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
4.9. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
viii SeismicVulnerabilityofStructures
Chapter 5. Numerical Model: Simplified
Strategies for Vulnerability Seismic
Assessment of Existing Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
Cédric DESPREZ, Panagiotis KOTRONIS and Stéphane
GRANGE
5.1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
5.2. Case study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5.2.1. Presentation of the structure. . . . . . . . . . . . 216
5.2.2. Spatial discretization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
5.2.3. Constitutive laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219
5.2.4. Validation of the numerical model. . . . . . . . 219
5.2.5. Assessment of the seismic vulnerability
(dynamic simulations). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
5.2.6. Estimation of the seismic vulnerability
using pushover analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
5.3. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
5.4. Caution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.5. Acknowledgments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
5.6. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240
Chapter 6. Approach Based on the Risk
Used in Switzerland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Pierino LESTUZZI
6.1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
6.2. Earthquake in the Swiss SIA
construction codes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
6.2.1. Seismic hazard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
6.2.2. New and existing: different approaches . . . . 254
6.2.3. Existing: approach based on risk. . . . . . . . . 255
6.3. Examples: masonry buildings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
6.3.1. Analysis methodand assumptions. . . . . . . . 273
6.3.2. Isolated building of three stories . . . . . . . . . 275
6.3.3. Seven-story “bar-shaped” building. . . . . . . . 278
6.4. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
TableofContents ix
Chapter 7. Preliminary Evaluation of the Seismic
Vulnerability of Existing Bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
Denis DAVI
7.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
7.2. Experimental feedback from past
earthquakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
7.2.1. Seismic behavior of bridges and main
reasons forfailure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
7.2.2. The approaches for vulnerability
evaluation developed abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
7.3. The SISMOA method for the preliminary
evaluation of the seismic vulnerability of
bridges adapted to the French context. . . . . . . . . . . 307
7.3.1. General context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
7.3.2. Presentation of the calibration method. . . . . 311
7.3.3. Calculation of the risk indexes and
use of the results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
7.3.4. Examples of application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
7.4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
7.5. Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
7.6. List of acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
List of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
Introduction
Earthquakes are one of the natural phenomena that, for a
long time, has significantly affected the imagination of
human beings. Indeed, earthquakes are sharp and sudden,
and in a few moments the victims can be counted in
thousands. They bore an even more mysterious character as
they would undermine the innate beliefs of man in an
unmoving Earth. Even if the physical origins of earthquakes
are better understood today, the power of their vibrations is
still sometimes astonishing. Those who have experienced a
moderate or strong earthquake in a reinforced concrete
building are frightened by the ease with which the walls and
floors oscillate; this disturbs the faith of modern man in the
robustness of the constructions of reinforced concrete.
No other natural forces can cause, in such a short time
span, as much damage and lead to as many victims as
earthquakes do. In the most recent catastophic examples,
such as Kobe (Japan, 1995, M = 7.3), Izmit (Turkey, 1999,
M = 7.6), Boumerdès (Algeria, 2003 M = 6.7), Kashmir
(Pakistan, 2005, M = 7.6), Sichuan (China, 2008, M = 7.9)
and even Haiti (Haiti, 2010, M = 7.0), earthquakes
demonstrate the weakness of urban environments relative to
the destructive power of these events. Wherever we are, the
IntroductionwrittenbyPhilippeGUEGUEN.
xii SeismicVulnerabilityofStructures
same observations are made: the weaker buildings suffer a
lot of damage, the old constructions made up of earth or
masonry resist the least, schools often greatly suffer from the
ground vibrations, the zones of destruction are very
scattered without any clear geographic distribution and
populations are often taken by surprise. However, there is a
hidden logic behind these general and repetitive
observations, which if better understood and controlled,
could allow us to reduce the impact of these earthquakes on
urban areas.
Already, in his lifetime, Rousseau had spotted the urban
incoherence of Lisbon in 1755 by explaining that if we
“hadn’t gathered here the twenty thousand houses of six to
seven storys and if the inhabitants of the large city had been
more evenly spread, and not as heavily burdened, the
damage would have been much smaller, and maybe absent”.
With this sentence, Rousseau sums up all the observations
made since the Lisbon earthquake, for each event. He clearly
expresses the anthropism of all hazards that are said to be
“natural”. Avoiding an excessive “rousseauization” that
would make man bear the responsibility for all natural
disasters, we observe a strong link between the phenomenon,
the action of man and the disaster; this is the classic
relationship with which every presentation addressing the
notions of risk, hazard and vulnerability generally begins:
R = H.V.E, a definition of which was given on the occasion of
the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction
[DIP 92].
In the above formula:
–“R” represents the risk, in other words the
“mathematical expectation of loss in human lives, injuries,
damage to goods and effects on the economic activity during
a reference period and in a given area, for a particular
hazard”.