Influence of Modelling Assumptions on the Seismic Risk of Industrial Precast Concrete Structures

Abstract

This research evaluates the influence of different modelling assumptions on the global and local seismic risk assessment of code-conforming precast reinforced concrete buildings, specifically single-story industrial buildings. In particular the modelling of the system mass, the overhead crane, the beam-to-column and roof-to-beam connections and the cladding system are investigated. For this purpose, a case study resembling a new industrial building designed in accordance with the current Italian building code was selected. Typical dowel beam-to-column connections were considered and the influence of various modelling strategies investigated: perfect hinges, linear elastic connections and non-linear connections with a degrading hysteretic force-displacement model which was calibrated from available data on experimental tests. Three different types of roof-to-beam connections were investigated removing the assumption of rigid diaphragm, namely hot-rolled, cold-formed and socket welded connections. Initially, simplified planar models of single frames were considered to evaluate the influence of the different modelling strategies, then 3D models of the entire building were analyzed. Multiple-stripe non-linear dynamic time history analyses allowed to evaluate displacements, drifts, deformations and ultimate curvatures of the main elements and connections for various intensity measure levels. The seismic risk was assessed in terms of failure rate considering the collapse of both the columns and of the connections. The results show that the beam-to-column connections fail right after reaching yielding due to their low displacement ductility, leading to the loss of support of the beam and therefore increasing the collapse rate of the investigated structural typology.

Modelling and Seismic Response Analysis of Non-residential Single-storey Existing Precast Buildings in Italy

“…The friction coefficient was evaluated following Magliulo et al (2011) for neoprene-concrete friction as a function of the normal stress acting on the sliding surface. For the dowel connections at the beam-column joints and at the roof element-beam joints, the parameters of the force-displacement curve were evaluated in accordance with Bressanelli et al (2021) and Magliulo et al (2021) on the basis of the results of experimental tests and analytical formulations (Dei Poli et al, 1992;Kremmyda et al,2014Kremmyda et al, , 2017Zoubek et al, 2015;Ferreira and El Debs, 2000;Sousa et al, 2020a). The implementation of the dowel connections in OpenSees was carried out by calibrating the ModIMKPeakOriented.…”

“…Similarly, Figure 12 shows the mean values for the buildings with masonry infills (EE1 and EE3) and with external RC cladding panels (EE2 and EE4). This last figure presents also the results of the previous RINTC-N project regarding industrial precast buildings designed in accordance with modern seismic regulations (Magliulo et al, 2018): only the demand-capacity curve for the L'Aquila site (Bressanelli et al, 2021) is shown, due to the same model characteristics and chosen engineering demand parameter (relative displacement of the beam-column connection); indeed, in the previous project (Magliulo et al, 2018) the beamcolumn dowel connection was modelled as elastic and the connection failure was determined during post-processing by looking at the connection load instead of at the connection displacement as carried out herein. It is worth mentioning that the case studies of the previous project were characterized by the presence of external cladding panels and by an additional RC topping at the roof level leading a rigid diaphragm behaviour, while herein the considered structural typology could be characterized either by rigid roof diaphragms (EE1 and EE3), in the case of additional RC topping, or flexible roof diaphragms (EE2 and EE4), in the case of precast roof elements directly connected to the supporting beam through dowels or friction.…”

“…Previous work was devoted to evaluate the failure rates for Italian buildings designed following modern anti-seismic regulations (Iervolino et al, 2018), therefore estimating the implicit risk of codeconforming buildings. At this regard, specific works on precast RC structures can be found in Magliulo et al (2018Magliulo et al ( , 2021, Gajera et al (2021), and Bressanelli et al (2021).…”

Assessment of the Seismic Behavior of a Precast Reinforced Concrete Industrial Building with the Presence of Horizontal Cladding Panels

“…The way to model the contribution of the cladding panels in the PRC building has suffered several improvements in the last years [17,20], from elastic elements mixed with rigid bars to include the initial stiffness, to multiple struts and springs to include the mass and nonlinear behavior of the connections [21], among other strategies. Belleri et al [3] presented a numerical model of horizontal panels, with elastic beams connected to the columns by means of nonlinear springs.…”

Seismic Risk and Finite Element Modelling Influence of an Existing One-Storey Precast Industrial Building

“…The seismic design and assessment of such buildings may be carried out following both traditional and displacement-based approaches (Biondini and Toniolo, 2009;Biondini et al, 2010;Colombo et al, 2016;Belleri, 2017;Torquati et al, 2018;Belleri and Labò, 2021;Bosio et al, 2020;Sousa et al, 2020). Considering the modelling strategies in the case of new buildings, specific considerations on this structural typology can be found in Magliulo et al (2018Magliulo et al ( , 2021, Gajera et al (2021), Bressanelli et al (2019Bressanelli et al ( , 2021, Rodrigues et al (2021), Zoubek et al 2014, De Stefani andScotta (2022). During past earthquakes, the main seismic vulnerabilities observed were related to the loss of support of beam and roof elements, to the failure of RC forks at the top of the columns, to the failure of dowel connections, to the overturning of RC cladding panels among others (Belleri et al, 2015;Bournas et al, 2014;Minghini et al, 2016;Nastri et al, 2017;Palanci et al, 2017;Savoia et al, 2012;Belleri et al, 2017;Scotta et al, 2015;Toniolo and Colombo 2012;Menichini et al, 2020).…”