THE EUROPEAN CENTER FOR RISK PREVENTION, SOFIA, BULGARIA
Bulgarian seismic design codes and
civil construction practice. Infilled RC
frames - Application and assessment of
their resistance to lateral forces
M. Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia,
Bulgaria
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
1
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
1.INTRODUCTION
•
Eurocode 8 and Eurocode 8 Part 3 in Bulgaria
•
Assessmen and retrofit programs in Bulgaria
•
Type of existing buildings structures.
- large panel systems
- masonry and masonry infilled structures
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
2
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
2.Bulgarian Seismic Codes and Eurocode 8 (Eurocode 8-3)
•
Pre 1947 – No Seismic Design Code
•
1947 – First Seismic Design Requirements
•
1957 – First Seismic Design Code – Low Level Seismic Design Codes
•
1964 – New Seismic Design Code – Medium Level Seismic Design Codes Introduction of Dynamic factors
•
1987 – Modern Bulgarian Seismic Design Code and preceding events (1977
Vrancea Earthquake and 1987 Strazhica Earthquake)
•
2007, 2009 and 2012 Editions
•
2012 - Introduction of Eurocode 8
•
2012 – 2014 – Joint Application of Codes
•
Post 2014 – Planned retirement of Bulgarian Seismic Code
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
3
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
Type of Buildings, classified by the reference Seismic Design Code at the time of design
and construction
•
Pre 1947 Construction
•
1947-1957 Construction
•
1957-1964 Construction
• 1964-1987 Construction – Medium and high rise residential buildings. Large Panel
Systems, Lift Slab method, prestressed reinforced concrete buildings, climbing
shuttering RC system, and others. Mass construction period.
•
1987 Seismic Design Code
-
1990s period
-
2000-present
Comparison between the codes
Seismic Assessment of buildings designed according to Bulgarian codes
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
4
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
5
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region – Undamaged buildings
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
6
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
7
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
8
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Pernik Region –Damaged buildings
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
9
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Elastic Spectrum soil type “C”
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
10
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Damages
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
11
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 – Sofia region – Damages
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
12
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
4.Assessment of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames and buildings
• Masonry together with reinforced concrete is the most widely used material in
Bulgarian cuvil practice.
• In Bulgaria masonry is used as:
• Structural material
• Non-structural material
Until now the effects of the infill on the behavior of the structures were usually
neglected in seismic analysis of RC/masonry buildings.
4.1 Masonry-infills in Bulgarian civil construction practice
• Use of masonry as primary (structural) material in combination with wood, steel etc.
• Use of masonry as primary (structural) material in combination with RC.
• 50s 60s – application in low rise buildings with up to 4-5stories (usually 34)
• 60s – present – use in low rise residential houses up to 2(max 3) stories high
• Use of masonry as nonstructural material
• 60s – present – application in low, middle and high rise buildings with RC
as primary structural material (usually RC shear walls are used)
• Positives of the early designs:
• Usually regular buldings
• Use of bricks with no openings
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
13
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
•
•
•
•
Quality control of the masonry
Conservative design
Usually low height
High safety against premature out of plane failure of the masonry
• Deficiencies of the early designs:
• Designed according to low-level Design codes and usually lower seismic
design acceleration
• Poor detailing – lack of enough transverse rebar
• Use of smooth rebar steel rods.
• Low-strength concrete
• Unknown quality of the mortar
• Possible degradation of strength due to removed internal walls.
• Brittle failure is expected
• Positives of later designs
• Designed according to better Design codes
• Better detailing
• Use of textured rebar steel rods (especially in the last decades)
• High-strength concrete.
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
14
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
• Neglecting the strength of infill is often on the safe side
• Better performance might be expected (especially in buildings designed
according to 1987 Seismic Design Code)
• Deficiency of late designs
• Use of bricks with high percentage of openings
• Less conservative designs
• Neglecting the stiffness of infill might be dangerous
• Low quality control of the masonry construction due to the understanding
that it is not important for the overall behavior of the structure.
• Design and construction of irregular structures (especially after 1990)
• 1990s period when overall control was not strict enough
• Possible premature collapse of internal masonry walls (due to lack of
connection between the frame and the masonry)
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
15
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
4.2 Assessment of the behavior of in-filled RC frames
• Importance
• Lack of modeling techniques, prescribed in Seismic codes (either Bulgarian or
Eurocode 8)
• Types of infill models:
• Macromodels
• Bare frame
• Single-strut
• Double Strut
• Multi-Strut
• EQUIVALENT WIDTH OF THE STRUT
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
16
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
• Micromodels
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
17
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
• Comparison of Analysis Results
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
18
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
• Nonlinear Strut Models
• Importance and field of application
• Data input requirements
SEISMOSTRUCT Software Package nonlinear model
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
19
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit
• Linear Strut Models
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
20
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit
• Nonlinear Strut Models
M. Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
21
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit
• Nonlinear Strut Models – Capacity Curves – Base Shear vs. Top displacement
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
22
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit
• Nonlinear Strut Models – Strengthening of existing structures
• Nonlinear Micromodels
M. Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
23
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
CONCLUSIONS
1. BDS EN 1998-3:2005 Assessment and Retrofitting of Buidings is the first
complete structural code of this type in Bulgaria.
2. Contradictions between the old and the new code exist
- Completely different principles
- Different definition of “seismically resistant structure”
3. 2012 Pernik Earthquake conclusions:
- The event in Pernik may be classified as a strong one (ref. 1987 code)
- The event in Pernik may be classified as moderate or even low
- Almost all buildings properly designed and constructed withstood the
earthquake without severe damages.
- Many of the Buildings that were constructed without proper designs and
in contradiction to “good construction practices” were heavily damaged.
- Some deficiencies of old local codes designs were detected.
- Danger of falling non-structural elements of buildings during an
earthquake exists.
4. Masonry-infills influence the behavior of structures.
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
24
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
CONCLUSIONS
5. Modeling of masonry requires a lot of information and knowledge.
6. Introduction of national application handbooks is required.
7. Many of the buildings in Bulgaria may be rated as not seismically resistant if
checked in accordance to BDS EN 1998-3:2005
8. But the last doesn’t mean that they really aren’t.
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
25
ATHENS 12th of April, 2013
TNANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
26