Fragility curves of gravity-load designed RC buildings with regularity in plan

Masi, Angelo; Digrisolo, Andrea; Manfredi, Vincenzo

doi:10.12989/eas.2015.9.1.001

Cited by 24 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(ii) The first infill attains a strength reduction equal to 50%; (iii) The top displacement exceeds the value corresponding to the attainment of 95% of the peak lateral strength from POA LS Buildings that meet this PL level experience significant damage to structural and/or nonstructural components (including the out-of-plane collapse of infill walls) that may pose at risk human life First condition between: (i) Out-of-plane collapse of the first infill; (ii) Maximum interstory drift greater than: 1.00% for GLD (Masi et al 2015) 1.35% for SSD (Rossetto and Elnashai 2003) 2.00% for HSD (FEMA 356 2000) GC Buildings that meet this PL level experience an incipient collapse with a high risk for the human life, due to extensive damage to structural and nonstructural components. Damage is not repairable from a technical and/ or economical point of view First condition between: (i) The top displacement exceeds the value corresponding to a reduction of 50% of the peak lateral strength from POA.…”

Section: Definition Of Performance Levelsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Damage is not repairable from a technical and/ or economical point of view First condition between: (i) The top displacement exceeds the value corresponding to a reduction of 50% of the peak lateral strength from POA. (ii) Maximum interstory drift greater than: 1.50% for GLD (Masi et al 2015) 3.00% for SSD (Rossetto and Elnashai 2003) 4.00% for HSD (FEMA 356 2000) (i) Extensive damage of many infills: attainment of the peak lateral strength in more than 50% of the infills, for interstory drifts greater than 0.40%, in accordance with the definition of DS2 damage state reported in Cardone and Perrone (2015); (ii) Severe damage of the first infill: strength reduction greater than 50% of the first infill, for interstory drifts greater than 1.4%, in accordance with the definition of DS3 damage state reported in Cardone and Perrone (2015), corresponding to a not-repairable condition of the infill; (iii) Onset of structural damage requiring some repair interventions: the top displacement from NTHA exceeds the value corresponding to the attainment of 95% the peak lateral strength (the force level before the peak) from PushOver Analysis (POA).…”

Section: Definition Of Performance Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(i) Out-of-plane collapse of the first infill; (ii) Exceedance of a given interstory drift limit, corresponding to the attainment of a LS performance level in the main structure. The drift limit under consideration has been assumed equal to 1.00% for GLD buildings [in accordance with Masi et al (2015)], 1.35% for SSD buildings [in accordance with Rossetto and Elnashai (2003)] and 2.00% for HSD buildings [in accordance with FEMA 356 2000].…”

Section: Definition Of Performance Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…50% reduction of the shear forces in the RC columns of the first storey) from POA; (ii) The interstory drift limit associated with the attainment of a GC performance level for the main structure. The drift limit under consideration has been assumed equal to 1.50% for GLD buildings [in accordance with Masi et al (2015)…”

Section: Definition Of Performance Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Seismic performance of RC frame buildings accounting for the out-of-plane behavior of masonry infills

Gesualdi

Viggiani

Cardone

2020

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past earthquakes have repeatedly shown that damage to masonry infills can produce large economic losses and even jeopardize human lives. Nevertheless, in current design practice masonry infills are ignored, while available macro-models for nonlinear analysis focus the attention on the In-Plane (IP) behavior of masonry infills only, while neglecting the Out-Of-Plane (OOP) collapse mechanism. The main objective of this study is to investigate the seismic performance of RC frame buildings accounting for the interaction between IP and OOP behavior of masonry infills. To this end, a suitable nonlinear model, able to capture the IP stiffness and strength reduction due to the OOP displacement demand (and vice versa) is implemented. The selected model incorporates a routine that removes infills from the structural model when either IP or OOP collapse occurs. Different building models, representative of typical residential buildings, realized in Italy (and other European countries) from 50's to 90's, are examined through nonlinear response-time history analysis at different earthquake intensity levels, with return period ranging from 30 to 5000 years. Two alternative infill configurations (single layer and double layer with inner cavity) are considered, in accordance with the construction practice of the time. The comparison between the models with and without IP/OOP interaction points out the relevance of the OOP behavior towards an accurate evaluation of the seismic performance of RC frame buildings. A set of fragility curves is tentatively proposed, for different building performance levels, ranging from immediate occupancy to life safety. Keywords Seismic performance assessment • RC frame buildings • Masonry infill walls • In-plane/out-of-plane interaction • Nonlinear response time-history analyses * D.

show abstract

Section: Definition Of Performance Levelsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Definition Of Performance Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Definition Of Performance Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Definition Of Performance Levelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Seismic performance of RC frame buildings accounting for the out-of-plane behavior of masonry infills

Gesualdi

Viggiani

Cardone

2020

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To this purpose, either single prototype structures selected to be representative of a class of buildings (e.g. Masi et al 2015) or a set of randomly generated structures (e.g. Borzi et al 2008;Del Gaudio et al 2015), are generally considered.…”

Section: Fragility Curves From Mechanical Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards the updated Italian seismic risk assessment: exposure and vulnerability modelling

Masi

Lagomarsino

Dolce

et al. 2021

Bull Earthquake Eng

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the 2019–2021 research agreement between the Civil Protection Department (DPC) and the Network of University Laboratories for Earthquake Engineering (ReLUIS), the work package WP4 “Seismic Risk Maps—MARS” is specifically devoted to update the 2018 release of the Italian National Seismic Risk Assessment. To this end, the previously considered models of hazard, exposure and vulnerability will be critically reviewed and updated by taking advantage also from the results deriving from other WPs of the DPC-ReLUIS research project. In the present paper some of the most relevant aspects that are being introduced in the development of the new Italian risk maps have been described and shortly analysed. First, a significant upgrade of the vulnerability model implemented in the new version of the platform used for risk calculation (IRMA) is proposed, where reference to the six EMS-98 classes is made also considering regional vulnerability features. Further, empirical data from observed real damage are integrated with results from numerical simulations (mechanical approach), in particular for reinforced concrete buildings. Finally, some special construction types such as schools, churches and bridges are included in order to provide a more comprehensive view of the national risk.

show abstract