Advertisement

Seismic fragility assessment of infilled frames subject to mainshock/aftershock sequences using a double incremental dynamic analysis approach

  • Fabio Di Trapani
  • Marzia Malavisi
Original Research
  • 104 Downloads

Abstract

The paper presents an assessment framework aimed at evaluating seismic fragility and residual capacity of masonry infilled reinforced concrete (RC) frames subject to mainshock/aftershock sequences. A double incremental dynamic analysis (D-IDA) approach is used, based on the combination of a mainshock (MS) signal at different intensities with a set of spectrum-compatible aftershocks (AS) scaled in amplitude with respect to peak ground acceleration. Limit state functions, specifically defined for infilled frames, are used to detect chord-rotation exceeding and shear collapse of RC members during standard and double incremental dynamic analyses. Intact and aftershock fragility curves are obtained for a reference full-scale RC frame specimen, by simulating seismic response with and without infills through a fully fiber section model developed in OpenSees. D-IDA results allow also defining aftershock residual capacity domains and loss diagrams, which are used to compare responses of bare and infilled frames subject to increasing MS intensities. Results show that masonry infills can drastically reduce seismic fragility of RC frame structures during main events and AS, and also limit and economic losses for the mid-low intensity earthquakes. Such beneficial contributions, however, depend on the capacity of RC members to support additional shear demand due frame-infill interaction and avoid sudden failures which conversely occur.

Keywords

Incremental dynamic analysis Fragility curves Masonry infilled frames Reinforced concrete Fiber-section OpenSees 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by DPC-RELUIS 2014-2018, WP6: Capacità sismica di tamponature ed interventi di rafforzamento.

References

  1. Amadio C, Fragiacomo M, Rajgelj S (2003) The effects of repeated earthquake ground motions on the non-linear response of SDOF systems. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 32(2):291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asteris PG, Tsaris AK, Cavaleri L, Repapis CC, Papalou A, Di Trapani F, Karypidis DF (2015) Prediction of the fundamental period of infilled RC frame structures using artificial neural networks. Comput Intell Neurosci.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/5104907 Google Scholar
  3. Asteris PG, Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Sarhosis V (2016) A macro-modelling approach for the analysis of infilled frame structures considering the effects of openings and vertical loads. Struct Infrastruct Eng 12(5):551–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asteris PG, Cavaleri L, Trapani Di, Tsaris AK (2017) Numerical modelling of out-of-plane response of infilled frames: state of the art and future challenges for the equivalent strut macromodels. Eng Struct 132:110–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolis V, Stavridis A, Preti M (2017) Numerical investigation of the in-plane performance of masonry-infilled RC frames with sliding subpanels. J Struct Eng 143(2):04016168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campione G, Cavaleri L, Macaluso G, Amato G, Di Trapani F (2015) Evaluation of infilled frames: an updated in-plane-stiffness macro-model considering the effects of vertical loads. Bull Earthq Eng 13(8):2265–2281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Campione G, Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Macaluso G, Scaduto G (2016) Biaxial deformation and ductility domains for engineered rectangular RC cross-sections: a parametric study highlighting the positive roles of axial load, geometry and materials. Eng Struct 107(15):116–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campione G, Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Ferrotto MF (2017) Frictional effects in structural behavior of no-end-connected steel-jacketed RC columns: experimental results and new approaches to model numerical and analytical response. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 143(8):04017070CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carvalho EC, Coelho E (2001) Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of structures. radECOEST2- ICONS report no. 2, European Commission—training and mobility of researchers programmeGoogle Scholar
  10. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F (2014) Cyclic response of masonry infilled RC frames: experimental results and simplified modeling. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 65:224–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F (2015) Prediction of the additional shear action on frame members due to infills. Bull Earthq Eng 13(5):1425–1454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Macaluso G, Papia M (2012) Reliability of code proposed models for assessment of masonry elastic moduli. Ing Sismica 29(1):38–59Google Scholar
  13. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Macaluso G, Papia M, Colajanni P (2014) Definition of diagonal Poisson’s ratio and elastic modulus for infill masonry walls. Mater Struct 47(1–2):239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavaleri L, Di Trapani F, Asteris PG, Sarhosis V (2017) Influence of column shear failure on pushover based assessment of masonry infilled reinforced concrete framed structures: a case study. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 100:98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Celarec D, Dolšek M (2013) Practice-oriented probabilistic seismic performance assessment of infilled frames with consideration of shear failure of columns. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42:1339–1360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. D.M. LL. PP. 14.01.2008 (2008) Nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioniGoogle Scholar
  17. Di Sarno L (2013) Effects of multiple earthquakes on inelastic structural response. Eng Struct 56:673–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Di Trapani F, Macaluso G, Cavaleri L, Papia M (2015) Masonry infills and RC frames interaction: literature overview and state of the art of macromodeling approach. Eur J Environ Civil Eng 19(9):1059–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Di Trapani F, Bertagnoli G, Ferrotto MF, Gino D (2018a) Empirical equations for the direct definition of stress-strain laws for fiber-section based macro-modeling of infilled frames. J Eng Mech (ASCE).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0001532 Google Scholar
  20. Di Trapani F, Shing PB, Cavaleri L (2018b) Macroelement model for in-plane and out-of-plane responses of masonry infills in frame structures. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 144(2):04017198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2008) The effect of masonry infills on the seismic response of four storey reinforced concrete frame—a deterministic assessment. Eng Struct 30(7):1991–2001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. El-Dakhakhni W, Elgaaly M, Hamid A (2003) Three-Strut model for concrete masonryinfilled steel frames. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 129(2):177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eurocode 8 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  24. Fragiacomo M, Amadio C, Macorini L (2004) Seismic response of steel frames under repeated earthquake ground motions. Eng Struct 26(13):2021–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hatzigeorgiou GD, Liolios AA (2010) Nonlinear behaviour of RC frames under repeated strong ground motions. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:1010–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hatzivassiliou M, Hatzigeorgiou GD (2015) Seismic sequence effects on three-dimensional reinforced concrete buildings. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 72:77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby AE (2017a) Effect of different aspects of multiple earthquakes on the nonlinear behavior of RC structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:706–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hosseinpour F, Abdelnaby AE (2017b) Fragility curves for RC frames under multiple earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 98:222–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jeon JS, Park JH, DesRoches R (2015) Seismic fragility of lightly reinforced concrete frames with masonry infills. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44:1783–1803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li Y, Song R, Van De Lindt JW (2014) Application of reliability-based robustness assessment of steel moment resisting frame structures under post-mainshock cascading events. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 140(12):04014095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mainstone RJ (1974) Supplementary note on the stiffness and strength of infilled frames. Building research station, current paper CP 13/74, UKGoogle Scholar
  32. McKenna F, Fenves GL, Scott MH (2000) Open system for earthquake engineering simulation. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  33. Pantò B, Caliò I, Lourenço PB (2017) Seismic safety evaluation of reinforced concrete masonry infilled frames using macro modelling approach. Bull Earthq Eng 15(9):3871–3895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Preti M, Bolis V (2017) Masonry infill construction and retrofit technique for the infill-frame interaction mitigation: test results. Eng Struct 132:597–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Raghunandan M, Liel AB, Luco N (2015) Aftershock collapse vulnerability assessment of reinforced concrete frame structures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 44(3):419–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ribeiro FLA, Barbosa AR, Neves LC (2014) Application of reliability-based robustness assessment of steel moment resisting frame structures under post-mainshock cascading events. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 140(8):A4014008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vamvatsikos D, Cornell AC (2002) Incremental dynamic analysis. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31(3):491–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Varum H (2003) Seismic assessment, strengthening and repair of existing buildings. University of Aveiro, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  39. Vanmarcke EH, Cornell CA, Gasparini DA, Hou S (1976) SIMQKE-I: Simulation of earthquake ground motions. https://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getpkg?id=SIMQKE1. Accessed 31 July 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Ingegneria Strutturale, Edile e GeotecnicaPolitecnico di TorinoTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations