Upload
hadiep
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Department of Civil, Environmental and Architectural Engineering – DICEA Via F. Marzolo 9, 35131 – Padua, Italy. www.dicea.unipd.it
29 November 2015, Beer Sheva, Shamoom College
R.C. STRUCTURES: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE PAST EARTHQUAKES:
DAMAGE CATALOGUES AND INTERPRETATION
Prof. Eng. Claudio Modena [email protected]
Assessment and improvement of structural safety under seismic actions of existing constructions:
Historic Buildings and R.C. Structures.SEMINAR
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
2Seismic assessment of R.C. structures
- Ultimate Limit State : a seismic event with areturn period many times greater than servicelife of the structure is considered; thestructure should not collapse under groundshaking , but it may have sustained such alevel of damage that it could not be possibleto economically repair it following theearthquake. Inelastic behaviour
- Serviceability Limit State : a seismic event with a return period comparable to the servicelife of the structure is considered; there should be no damage requiring repair, and normaloperations of the structure should not be significantly affected. Elastic behaviour
Seismic codes aims to provide performance-based guidance for design and assessment ofstructures.
The performance of the structure is defined in relation to “limit states“. Beyond the limitstate condition the structure no longer meets the needs for which it was designed. There aretwo distinct levels of performance in seismic design:
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
3
R.C. structures should exhibit an adequate (possibly great) capability ofdissipate energy during inelastic response (DUCTILITY).
Energy dissipation should occur without a significant loss of RESISTENCE toboth vertical and horizontal actions.
• Elastic Stiffness: k=Fy/Δy
Quantity that correlates displacements and forces of a structural element within linear-elastic limits. Stiffness is relevant in limiting structural damage caused by seismic events of low to medium intensity (small elastic displacements).
• Resistance : Fy
Maximum force that a structural element (or the entire structure) can withstand responding elastically. Resistance is relevant in limiting structural damage caused by seismic events of low to medium intensity (inelastic response is prevented).
• Ductility: Δ/Δy
Ratio between current displacement Δ and yield displacement Δy. Ductility allows the structure to reach great displacements without collapsing (even though severe damage could occur).
3curated byIng. G. Tecchio [email protected]
Seismic assessment of R.C. structures
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
4
• Basic criterion for a building structure in a seismic zone is REGULARITY, intended both as PLAN and ELEVATION REGULARITY
• REGULARITY implies several requisites: compactness, symmetry, uniformity
• PLAN REGULARITY produce pure lateral motions
– regular distribution of masses and lateral load resisting elements eliminates large eccentricities leading to torsional effects
– to achieve plan regularity:• compactness and symmetry
• avoid or limit plan set-backs
• subdivide the building into separate independent units using seismic joints
• strengthen those parts of the building that experience largest displacements/forces
Earthquake-resistant buildings
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
5
• ELEVATION REGULARITY implies that the first eigenmode is predominant and that eigenmodesshapes in both direction can be considered as linear
– avoid sensitive zones where concentrations of stress or large ductility demands increase damage susceptibility
– to achieve elevation regularity:• nearly constant stiffness and mass distributions
• continuous bracings over total height
• avoid interruptions of the lateral stiffness over height by e.g. soft stories
• All lateral load resisting systems, such as cores, structural walls, or frames, shall run without interruption from their foundations to the top of the building or, if setbacks at different heights are present, to the top of the relevant zone of the building
Earthquake-resistant buildings
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
6
• Vertical lateral load resisting elements shall give rise to– comparable lateral stiffnesses– evenly distributed horizontal forces resisting
elements– symmetric distributed system of resisting elements
in both directions
• In general the positions of centre of gravity and centre of stiffness shall be coincident: thereby building has only pure lateral motions and torsional effects are avoided– Centre of gravity position is determined by mass
distribution– Centre of stiffness position is determined by plan
position of lateral resisting elements (frames and walls)
Earthquake-resistant buildings
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
7
• Rigid diaphgrams for floor levels• Continuous load path of horizontal forces down to the foundations.• Structural regularity in mass, stiffness and resistance distribution to achieve
– reduction of global torsional effects– reduction of local concentrations demands in terms of resistance or capacity– reduction of soft storey collapse probability
• Redundancy of structural elements, which permits– bending moment redistribution behaviour– to postpone structural collapse
• Limited masses and adequate stiffness to achieve low displacements and– reduction of second order effects– reduction of non-structural elements damage
• Flexural collapse mechanism• Absence of fragile failure modes (shear failure)
Earthquake-resistant buildings
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
8L’ Aquila 2009 earthquake
- The L’Aquila earthquake occurred the 6th April 2009 and was characterized by a Magnitude of 6.3 Mw.
- Significant damages were observed to cultural heritage and residential buildings, in particular referring to framed structures, most of which designed according to the seismic code of the time of construction (late sixties-early seventies)
STRUCTURAL DAMAGES TO RC STRUCTURES
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
9Accelerograms of 06/04/09 earthquake, l’ Aquila
Report by Masi & Chiauzzi, available at: http://www.reluis.it
PGA-X: 0,63gPGA-Y: 0,60gPGA-Z: 0,42g
L’AQUILA
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
10
Pseudo-acceleration response spectra (5% equivalent damping)
Report by Masi & Chiauzzi, available at: http://www.reluis.it
Sa-max: 1,61g; T=0,10sSa-max: 1,47g; T=0,16sSa-max: 1,24g; T=0,04s
L’AQUILA
Response spectra of L’ Aquila earthquake
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
11Factors influencing damage mechanisms in frame buildings
• Conceptual design
• Construction details
• Quality of materials
SOME EXAMPLES
Building close toVia XX Settembre,
L’Aquila
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
12
Hotel Duca degli Abruzzi, Via Giovanni XXIII (AQ)
“Soft-Storey” mechanism – ground floor
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
13
Building in Pettino (AQ)
“Soft-Storey” mechanism – ground floor
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
14
- Structural Damages Observed
“Soft-Storey” mechanism – ground floor
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
15
Building in Pianola (AQ)
“Soft-Storey” mechanism – upper floors
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
16Pounding of adjacent structures or insufficient joints
L’ Aquila, 2009
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
17L’Aquila, 2009
Pounding of adjacent structures or insufficient joints
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
18
Building in Pettino (AQ)foto Ferretti D.
Asymmetric bracing and plan irregularity
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
19
foto Ferretti D.
Asymmetric bracing and plan irregularity
L’Aquila, 2009
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
20
Ing. Danilo Ranalli Vile XXV Aprile 11, Sulmona - Tel./Fax.: 0864 201012 - Cell.: 3470329085 - 3470935165
RAPPORTO DI PROVA
OGGETTO: INDAGINI DIRETTE ED INDIRETTE PER LA CARATTERIZZAZIONE
STRUTTURALE DI UN EDIFICIO MULTIPIANO
LOCALITÀ: COMUNE DI L’AQUILA
INDIRIZZO: VIA AVEIA N°2
DATA ESECUZIONE PROVE: 10/12/2009 & 22/12/2009
CONSULENTI RESPONSABILI: Ing. RANALLI Danilo _______________________
Ing. SCOZZAFAVA Marco _______________________
Ing. ARETUSI Nicola _______________________
LUOGO E DATA: L’Aquila, 20.01.2010
NUMERO PAGINE: 48
20
Asymmetric bracing and plan irregularity
L’Aquila, 2009
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
21
Buildings in L’Aquila, (dx: Via Vicentini)
Lack of “capacity design”in the conceptual design phase
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
22
Buildings in Pianola and L’Aquila
In-plane and out-of-plane damage to infill walls
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
23
- Structural Damages Observed
Masonry infills out-of-plane damages
In-plane and out-of-plane damage to infill walls
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
24
- Structural Damages Observed
Masonry infills out-of-plane damagesMasonry infills in-plane damages
In-plane and out-of-plane damage to infill walls
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
25- Infill in-plane Damages
Shear damages
In-plane and out-of-plane damage to infill walls
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
26
Friuli, 1976School building in via Duca degli
Abruzzi, L’Aquila
Partially infilled frames
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
27
Stair in a building in L’Aquila
Short-column effect
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
28
Building in Pianola (AQ)
foto Ferretti D.
Construction details and quality of materials
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
29
Buildings in and close by L’Aquila
Damage to structural joints and construction details
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
30- Structural Damages Observed
Steel bars instabilities
Damage to structural joints and construction details
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
31
Shear failure of column-of beams, insufficient stirrups
Buildings in L’Aquila
Construction details and quality of materials
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
32
Collaps due to failure of non-confined corner joint
Buildings in L’Aquila
14
2.1. Danni ai nodi di strutture in c.a.
(a) (b)
Figura 1. Nodo danneggiato dal sisma: a) lesione pseudo-orizzontale all’attacco pilastro-pannello; b) lesione diagonale nel pannello (by O.S. Bursi, T. Dusatti, R. Pucinotti)
(a) (b)
Figura 2. Nodo danneggiato dal sisma: a) vista d’insieme; b) particolare del nodo trave-pilastro (by O.S. Bursi, T. Dusatti, R. Pucinotti)
Construction details and quality of materials
Damage to beam-column joints
15
(a) (b)
Figura 3. Nodo danneggiato dal sisma: a) vista d’insieme; b) particolare del nodo trave-pilastro (by O.S. Bursi, T. Dusatti, R. Pucinotti)
(a) (b)
Figura 4. Nodo danneggiato dal sisma: a) vista d’insieme; b) particolare di uno dei nodi trave-pilastro (by I.Iervolino, A.Prota, P.Ricci, G.M. Verderame)
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
33
Castelnuovo di San Pio delle Camere (AQ)
Site effects
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
34
Province building, L’Aquila
Acqueduct in Paganica (AQ) Residential buildings in Pianola (AQ)
Damage to parapets, façade elements, celeings, installations
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
35
35
Polo Didattico di via G. Di Vincenzo, Università dell’Aquila: griglia di sospensione metallica e
pannelli in fibra minerale 60x60cm
Macerie di pannelli in fibra minerale. (Foto di G. Magliulo)
Caserma della Guardia di Finanza di Coppito (AQ), sala conferenze: griglia di sospensione
metallica e pannelli in fibra minerale 60x60cm
Danneggiamento e collasso dei pannelli (Foto di G. Magliulo)
© Reluis 2009www.reluis.it
© Reluis 2009www.reluis.it
Caserma della Guardia di Finanza di Coppito (AQ), padiglione circolo permanenti: griglia di
sospensione metallica e pannelli in lamierino di acciaio 60x60cm
Caduta dei correnti e danneggiamento dei pannelli e dei corpi illuminanti (Foto di G. Magliulo)
Caserma della Guardia di Finanza di Coppito (AQ), padiglione circolo permanenti: griglia di
sospensione metallica e pannelli in lamierino di acciaio 60x60cm
Particolare del danneggiamento del pannello (Foto di G. Magliulo)
© Reluis 2009www.reluis.it
© Reluis 2009www.reluis.it
Caserma della Guardia di Finanza di Coppito (AQ), edificio mensa: controsoffittatura a
doghe in lamierino di acciaio Collasso delle doghe per perdita di appoggio. (Foto di G. Magliulo)
Caserma della Guardia di Finanza di Coppito (AQ), edificio mensa: controsoffittatura a
doghe in lamierino di acciaio
Danneggiamento e pericolo di collasso delle doghe. (Foto di G. Magliulo)
© Reluis 2009www.reluis.it
© Reluis 2009www.reluis.it
Ospedale San Salvatore dell’Aquila: controsoffittatura a doghe in lamierino di acciaio
Collasso delle doghe. (Foto di G. Magliulo)
Ospedale San Salvatore dell’Aquila: controsoffittatura a doghe in lamierino di acciaio
Particolare della griglia di sospensione delle doghe. (Foto di G. Magliulo)
© Reluis 2009www.reluis.it
© Reluis 2009www.reluis.it
Damage to parapets, façade elements, celings, installations
Buildings in L’Aquila
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
36
INDUSTRIAL RC AND PRC BUILDINGS
http://www.reluis.it/ > Terremoto Emilia 2012 > rapporti tecnici
Structural damages in the recent Emilia earthquake (20-29 May 2012)
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
37
The recent earthquakes that struck the region of Emilia-Romagna in May 2012 revealed the enormous structural weaknesses of the industrial buildings and, more generally, the RC prefabricated buildings.
The construction systems typical of these structures (most of times of single-storey buildings) are characterized by isostaticschemes, free of redundancies, with floors without in-plane stiffness (no diapraghmaction, in which the resistant function is reduced to a simple system of "inverted pendulum" represented by the single pillar.
One-story industrial buildings typologies
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
38One-story industrial buildings typologies
Flat Roof(10-15%)
Period: 1960-2000PRC HORIZONTHAL STRUCTURESRC AND PRC VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Double T beams
FLAT ROOF:
Main beams: I section, L=10-15mSecondary beams: Double T, L=10-25m
Double slope(10-15%)
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
39
Main beams:I section, L=10-15m
Shed roof, Beam h=cost.L= 12-16m, i=6-15mInclined roof = RC secondary beams with enlightments
Secondary beams: ShedL=15-30m
One-story industrial buildings typologies
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
40
Cast on site structuresShed
Rc concrete-brick vaults
Period : 1930-60
One-story industrial buildings typologies
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
41
Period: 1960-2000PRC HORIZONTHAL STRUCTURESRC AND PRC VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Typical main beam span : L=10-15m
Multi-story industrial buildings typologies
TWO STORIES
Offices level
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
42
Period: 1960-2000PRC HORIZONTHAL STRUCTURESRC AND PRC VERTICAL ELEMENTS
Multi-story industrial buildings typologies
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
43Deficiencies in prefabricated rc industrial buildings
43
Typical one-story systems, designed and dimensioned essentially for vertical loads only (modest horizontal actions-wind load), without redundancies.The roof structure is not rigid ( no possible forces redistribution due to diaphragm action), with prchorizontal secondary elements simple laid over beams, and beams connected with hinges to the column top. The 3-d global system is reconducted to a series of simple "inverted pendulum" system constituted by the single pillar (which has no interactions with the rest of the structure, as in a frame structure) behaving like a cantilever.The following "chain" of vulnerabilities is determined:
Roof: loss of support of secondary element or main beamsBeam-column node: low reinforcement percentage (bars and stirrups), no reliable transmittal of horizontal forcesPillars: reinforcement bars and stirrups dimensioned according to lower bound Code limits ( 0.3% longitudinal percentage, stirrups of small diameter with excessive pitch). Reduced element ductility at ULS and insufficient resistance.Infills: out of plane overturningColumn-plinth node: pillar inserted in the prefabricated plinth (low reinforcement, does not guarantee adequate resistant moment and shear transfert at the base )Plinth (foundation beam): foundation dimensioned only for gravity loads, possibile sliding, overturinig…
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
44Weak points-conections
44
5. 4.
3.
2.
1.
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
45Structural damages in the recent Emilia earthquake(20-29 May 2012)
Epicenters distribution
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
46Time evolution of the earthquake sequence
Structural damages in the recent Emilia earthquake (20-29 May 2012)
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
47
Chemical factory,Paganica (AQ)
Connections in prefabricated buildings
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
48
Out-of-plane damage of upper panels
Rapporto dei sopralluoghi su edifici industriali prefabbricati danneggiati dal terremoto dell’Abruzzo del 6/04/2009
Figura 25- Velette fuori piano in sommità dell’edificio nelle facciate orientate est-ovest (foto dell’ing. A. Zambrano).
Figura 26 - Velette fuori piano in sommità dell’edificio nelle facciate orientate est-ovest vista dall’interno(foto
dell’ing. F. Giordano).
Rapporto dei sopralluoghi su edifici industriali prefabbricati danneggiati dal terremoto dell’Abruzzo del 6/04/2009
Figura 25- Velette fuori piano in sommità dell’edificio nelle facciate orientate est-ovest (foto dell’ing. A. Zambrano).
Figura 26 - Velette fuori piano in sommità dell’edificio nelle facciate orientate est-ovest vista dall’interno(foto
dell’ing. F. Giordano).
48
Industrial buildings
Connections in prefabricated buildings
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
49
Industrial buildings in Emilia, 2012
Connections in prefabricated buildings
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
50
Damage to fork connection due to pounding of main transverse beam
Industrial buildings in Emilia, 2012
Connections in prefabricated buildings
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
51
Loss of bearing area for shed roof structures
Industrial buildings in Emilia, 2012
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
52
LOSS OF SUPPORT
Industrial buildings in Emilia, 2012
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
53Construction details & materials in prefabricatedbuildings
Inadequate reinforcement and concrete quality
Industrial buildings in Emilia, 2012
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
54
Shelf damage(and industrial mezzanine)
Damage to secondary elements
Industrial buildings in Emilia, 2012
LIMITS OF THE EXISTING TOOLS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL RESPONSE TO STATIC AND DYNAMIC ACTIONS
55
Images from Structural Engineering Reconnaissance of the August 17, 1999 Earthquake: Kocaeli (Izmit), Turkey-PEER 2000
curated byIng. G. Tecchio [email protected]
55
Settlements caused by soil liquefaction - Kocaeli Earthquake 1999
Soil liquefaction - Niigata Earthquake 1964
Damage to foundations
56
Thanks for your attention!
[email protected] of Civil,
Environmental and ArchitecturalEngineering