Abstract

This paper presents the comparison of the results of modal and nonlinear analyses carried out on a 2-story masonry building with rigid diaphragms, inspired by the Pizzoli’s town hall (AQ, Italy). The case study is one of the Benchmark Structures (labeled BS6) in the “URM nonlinear modelling–Benchmark project” funded by the Italian Department of Civil Protection (DPC) within the framework of the ReLUIS projects. The building has been instrumented since 2009 with a permanent monitoring system by the Osservatorio Sismico delle Strutture (OSS) of the DPC and was hit by the 2016/2017 Central Italy earthquake sequence. In the research first phase, modal and nonlinear static analyses were carried out in a blind prediction, without any preliminary calibration of the models, but referring only to commonly made assumptions on materials and modelling. Five computer programs based on the Equivalent Frame Model (EFM) approach were used. Four different structural configurations were considered: with weak spandrels (A), with tie rods coupled to spandrels (B), with RC ring beams coupled to spandrels (C) and with “shear type” idealization (D). In the research second phase, two of the developed EFMs were calibrated in the elastic range using the results of available Ambient Vibration Tests (AVTs). The models were then validated in the nonlinear range by simulating the dynamic response of the structure recorded during the mainshocks of the 2016/2017 Central Italy earthquake. Recorded and numerical results were compared at both the global and local scale.

Highlights

  • Availability of reliable numerical models is a key aspect in the seismic assessment of existing unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings

  • The aim of this paper is dual: on the one hand, the paper intends to verify the reliability of five selected SWs that used the Equivalent Frame Model (EFM) approach by comparing the results of linear and nonlinear analyses for the blind prediction of a benchmark case study; on the other hand, for two of these SWs, the study intends to check the capability of the EFM to reproduce the actual seismic response of the structure, once the numerical models have been refined thanks to available data from Ambient Vibration Tests (AVTs) and recordings from a permanent monitoring system

  • Two higher modes are identified at frequencies equal to f4 = 9.05 Hz and f5 = 12.25 Hz. These results are consistent with those obtained by other Research Units (RU) involved in the ReLUIS project by Department of Civil Protection (DPC) in 2017 and 2018 (Task 4.1 “Analysis of buildings monitored by Osservatorio Sismico delle Strutture”), performed using different output-only techniques both in the frequency and time domains (Cattari et al 2018a; Cattari et al 2019)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Availability of reliable numerical models is a key aspect in the seismic assessment of existing unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings. The reliability and effectiveness of this modelling strategy has been documented through numerical simulations of actual URM buildings damaged by earthquakes (Morandi et al 2019; Marino et al 2019; Cattari et al 2021a; Brunelli et al 2021) In this context, the aim of this paper is dual: on the one hand, the paper intends to verify the reliability of five selected SWs that used the EFM approach by comparing the results of linear and nonlinear analyses for the blind prediction of a benchmark case study; on the other hand, for two of these SWs, the study intends to check the capability of the EFM to reproduce the actual seismic response of the structure, once the numerical models have been refined thanks to available data from AVTs and recordings from a permanent monitoring system. Within the aim of this validation, the recorded and numerical results were compared both at the global scale (in terms of dynamic hysteretic curves and occurred damage) and at the local scale (in terms of accelerations and floor spectra)

Geometry and structural details
Overview on the available data from OSS monitoring system
Building dynamic identification
Blind predictions
Modelling of the cyclic nonlinear response
Comparison between recorded and simulated accelerograms
Comparison between actual and simulated damage
Findings
Conclusions
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call