Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fundamental Periods of Damaged RC Buildings
Fundamental Periods of Damaged RC Buildings
Open Access
Atmospheric
Chemistry
and Physics
Open Access
Techniques
Biogeosciences
Open Access
Climate
of the Past
Open Access
2 National
Open Access
cess
Geosciences
Received: 4 July 2012 Published in Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.:
Revised: 2 June 2013 Accepted: 17 June 2013 Published: 31 July 2013
Introduction
Open Access
Solid Earth
Open Acces
1904
No.
Buildings
9
7
18
23
9
2
68
14
5
6
2
1
7
2
10
7
7
11
4
1
6
3
1
29
11
1905
Table 2. Continued.
Table 2. Main characteristics of surveyed RC buildings.
ID
Age
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
19922000
19922000
19821991
19821991
20012009
19821991
19922000
19922000
19922000
19922000
20012009
19461961
19821991
19821991
19922000
19821991
19721981
19821991
19821991
19821991
19821991
19821991
19821991
19922000
19821991
19821991
19821991
19721981
19721981
19721981
19721981
19821991
19621971
19721981
19721981
19721981
1972-1981
19621971
19621971
19621971
19621971
19721981
19461961
19461961
19461961
19461961
19461961
19461961
19461961
19721981
19721981
H
[m]
Period
[s]
DL
[EMS 98]
14.9
14.9
17.6
16.0
12.4
14.8
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
5.2
17.6
24.7
17.0
21.7
17.6
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
14.5
11.7
16.0
14.5
20.7
20.7
14.5
18.6
17.6
17.6
20.7
11.4
11.4
14.5
26.9
23.8
23.8
17.6
17.6
14.5
17.6
20.7
17.6
17.6
14.5
11.4
11.4
14.5
20.7
14.5
14.5
0.24
0.23
0.23
0.31
0.24
0.21
0.22
0.21
0.24
0.23
0.12
0.21
0.29
0.26
0.58
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.27
0.27
0.25
0.20
0.37
0.27
0.57
0.60
0.47
0.48
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.31
0.39
0.50
0.76
0.81
0.40
0.21
0.55
0.70
0.44
0.42
0.39
0.27
0.25
0.34
0.26
0.57
0.34
0.39
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/1903/2013/
ID
Age
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
19621971
19621971
19821991
19821991
19721981
19721981
19721981
19821991
19721981
19922000
19461961
19721981
19721981
19821991
19821991
19821991
19821991
H
[m]
Period
[s]
DL
[EMS 98]
24.0
24.0
18.6
18.6
18.6
14.5
14.5
11.4
26.9
11.4
12.8
14.5
14.5
18.6
11.4
11.4
11.4
0.69
0.69
0.55
0.61
0.53
0.54
0.50
0.31
0.50
0.38
0.35
0.50
0.47
0.63
0.41
0.38
0.38
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
stair structures (number 40 and 41 in Table 2), and one building with just one story with completely bare frames (Fig. 4a
number 44 in Table 2). The age classes have been derived
both from the post-earthquake damage and the safety assessment inspection form (AeDES form) released by the Italian Department of Civil Protection after the 1997 Umbria
Marche and the 2002 Molise earthquakes (Baggio et al.,
2007). Age classes have been selected according to different
periods of enforcing of different building codes.
1906
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 1. Reinforcement details of an RC building designed taking
into account the Italian seismic code (1975).
1907
Fig. 2. Comparison between damages from different Italian earthquakes. (a), (b), (c): LAquila, Italy, LAquila earthquake 2009. (d), San
Giuliano, Italy, Molise earthquake 2002. (e), Castelluccio Inferiore, Italy, Pollino earthquake 1998. (f), Bonefro, Italy, Molise earthquake
2002.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/1903/2013/
1908
(a)
(a)
(b)
(b)
Fig. 4. Example of special case 1, top panel, (a), and special case 2,
bottom panel, (b).
(c)
Fig. 3. Damage level 3 (a) and damage level 4 (b), (c).
1909
alfa
lower 95 %
higher 95 %
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/1903/2013/
DL2
DL3
DL2DL3
DL0DL1
0.026
0.023
0.028
0.028
0.024
0.033
0.026
0.024
0.028
0.016
0.014
0.018
Starting from the experimental evidence, possible improvements to the current code provisions can be proposed. The
analyses of the results reported in this paper show a significant difference between the code provision and the real
dynamic behaviour of the existing RC buildings, both damaged and undamaged. We first explore a possible separation
of more or less damaged buildings, dividing the database to
consider the different damage levels surveyed.
The period vs. height data of the buildings with DL1 are
very close to RC Italian and European relationships experimentally estimated by Gallipoli et al. (2009) and Gallipoli et
al. (2010) for undamaged buildings. The first damage level
(DL1) is defined in EMS 98 (Gruenthal, 1998) as negligibleto-slight damage (only non-structural damage) with fine
cracks in plaster over frame members or in walls at their
base, and fine cracks in partitions and infills. According to
this definition, it is possible to consider DL1 as the damage
limitation State defined in CEN (2005).
The DL2 and DL3 (cracks in columns and beam column
joints of frames at the base and at joints of coupled walls,
spalling of concrete cover, buckling of reinforced rods, large
cracks in partition and infill walls, failure of individual infill
panels. Cracks in columns and beams of frames and in structural walls, cracks in partition and infill walls, loss of brittle
cladding and plaster, and falling mortar from the joints of
wall panels.) could be considered as the ultimate limit state
and the relevant periods representative of the yielding period.
Based on the description of the SD (significant damage) limit
state proposed by EC8-3 (CEN, 2005), damage levels 2 and 3
could be grouped because they represent the low and medium
structural damage. Coherently with the papers goals, damage levels 2 and 3 can be considered as corresponding to the
life safety performance level.
Instead, based on the description of the NC (near collapse)
limit state proposed by EC8-3 (CEN, 2005), the most similar to this definition is DL4, when the structure has suffered heavy, non-repairable damage with low residual lateral
strength and stiffness.
Some statistical analyses have been carried out. The form
T = H has been considered. The constant depends on
the building properties and it is determined by regression
analysis of the measurements by minimizing the square error
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 13, 19031912, 2013
1910
(a)
Fig. 7. Heightperiod relationship for different damage levels and
comparison with code formula.
(b)
Fig. 6. Correlation between height and period for buildings with
damage levels 2 (a) and 3 (b).
Fig. 8. Height vs. fundamental periods: comparison between 37 fundamental periods estimated by Goel and Chopra (1997), and 64 in
this study (considering only the damage levels lower that DL4).
Conclusions
References
ATC: Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings, Report N. ATC3-06, Applied Technology
Council, California, 1978.
Baggio, C., Bernardini, A., Colozza, R., Corazza, L., Della Bella,
M., Di Pasquale, G., Dolce, M., Goretti, A., Martinelli, A.,
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/1903/2013/
1911
Orsini, G., Papa, F., and Zuccaro, G.: Field manual for postearthquake damage and safety assessment and short term countermeasures (AeDES), EUR 22868 EN Joint Research Centre
Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen, edited
by: Pinto, A. V. and Taucer, F., Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities 2007, EUR scientific
and technical research series ISSN 1018-5593, 2007.
BSSC: NEHRP Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations
for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Edn.,
Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington DC, 2003.
Castro, R. R., Mucciarelli, M., Pacor, F., Federici, P., and Zaninetti,
A.: Determination of the characteristic frequency of two dams
located in the region of Calabria, Italy, B. Seismol. Soc. Am., 88,
503511, 1998.
CEN: Eurocode 8: Design provisions for earthquake of structures
part 14: strengthening and repair of buildings, European Prestandard ENV 1998-1-4, Comite Europeen de Normalisation,
Brussels, 2005.
Di Giulio, G., Azzara, R. M., Cultrera, G., Giammarinaro, M. S.,
Vallone, P., and Rovelli, A.: Effect of local geology on ground
motion in the city of Palermo, Italy, as inferred from aftershocks
of the 6 September 2002 Mw 5.9 earthquake, Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am., 95, 23282341, 2005.
Ditommaso, R., Parolai, S., Mucciarelli, M., Eggert, S., Sobiesiak,
M., and Zschau, J.: Monitoring the response and the backradiated energy of a building subjected to ambient vibration
and impulsive action: the Falkenhof Tower (Potsdam, Germany),
Bull. Earthq. Eng., 8, 705722, 2010.
Ditommaso, R., Mucciarelli, M., Parolai, S., and Picozzi, M.: Monitoring the structural dynamic response of a masonry tower: comparing classical and time-frequency analyses, Bull. Earthq. Eng.,
10, 12211235, 2012.
Gallipoli, M. R., Mucciarelli, M., Castro, R. R., Monachesi, G., and
Contri, P.: Structure, soil structure response and effects of damage based on observations of horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio
of microtremors, Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng., 24, 487495, 2004.
Gallipoli, M. R., Mucciarelli, M., and Vona, M.: Empirical estimate
of fundamental frequencies and damping for Italian buildings,
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dynam., 38, 973988, 2009.
1912
2011.
Masi, A. and Vona, M.: Experimental and numerical evaluation of
the fundamental period of undamaged and damaged RC buildings, Bull. Earthq. Eng., 8, 643654, 2010.
Michel, C., Gueguen, P., Lestuzzi, P., and Bard, P. Y.: Comparison
between seismic vulnerability models and experimental dynamic
properties of existing buildings in France, Bull. Earthq. Eng., 8,
12951307, 2010.
Mucciarelli, M., Masi, A., Gallipoli, M. R., Harabaglia, P., Vona,
M., Ponzo, F., and Dolce, M.: Analysis of RC Building Dynamic
Response and Soil-Building Resonance Based on Data Recorded
during a Damaging Earthquake (Molise, Italy, 2002), Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am., 94, 19431953, 2004.
www.nat-hazards-earth-syst-sci.net/13/1903/2013/