Component-based Probabilistic Methodology for the Vulnerability Assessment of RC Frames Retrofitted with Dissipative Braces

F.Freddi2, Enrico Tubaldi1, Laura Ragni2, Andrea DallAsta1

1

School of Architecture and Design, University of Camerino, Ascoli Piceno, Italy

2

Department of Architecture, Construction and Structures, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy

Motivations and Objectives (1)

Recent earthquakes have highlighted the high vulnerability of many existing RC buildings designed before the introduction of modern seismic codes due to their reduced ductility capacity.
2009 LAquila Earthquake 2002 Molise Earthquake

Vb

dcn

Motivations and Objectives (2)

Elasto-plastic (EP) dissipative braces, such as those based on buckling restrained braces (BRBs), are often employed to retrofit existing RC buildings by increasing their stiffness and dissipation capacity.
F

Steel brace

BRB

Dual load path behavior

RC FRAME - low elastic stiffness; - low ductility capacity; - high hardening; DISSIPATIVE BRACES - high elastic stiffness; - high ductility capacity; - low hardening;

Vb

SYSTEM RC FRAME DISSIPATIVE BRACES

dcn

Motivations and Objectives (3)

The evaluation of the actual system vulnerability and retrofit effeciveness should involve probabilistic tools (fragility curves) to account for the uncertainties affecting the seismic input (characteristics and intensity) and model parameters. Critical points to be addressed: - DEMAND PARAMETERS CHOICE: Global EDPs not appropriate for problem involving low-ductility frame and retrofit by dissipative braces. Refined local EDPs necessary to capture the failure. - CHANGE OF FAILURE MODALITIES: component fragility curves should be built to identify the most critical frame components and monitor the changes of failure modalities due to retrofit. - RETROFIT EFFECTIVENESS MEASURE: to make possible to compare systems with different dynamic properties (bare and retrofitted frame)

Probabilistic Methodology (1)

1. Seismic Input Uncertainty
Selection of a set of Ngm natural records reflecting the record-to-record variability; Scaling of records to a common seismic intensity measure IM, which is assumed here as the spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the system Sa(T1)

2. Probabilistic Response analysis

Choice of appropriate local EDPs (e.g. concrete strains, braces ductility demand); Incremental Dynamic Analysis performed to propagate the randomness of the seismic input by generating a set of EDPs samples;

0.6

1
Sa(T1) [g]

0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

EDP

T1

Ngm nonlinear dynamic analyses

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2

IDA results

Ngm

0.2 0.15 0.1

0.1 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0 0 1 2 3 4

0.05 0 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

T [sec]

-0.2

IM [g]

Probabilistic Methodology (2)

3. Vulnerability analysis
Selection of Limit States (LS) consistent with the monitored EDPs (e.g., concrete crushing, braces failure); Numerical component and system fragility curves; Series arrangement of failure modes; Component and system fragility curves fitted by a lognormal distribution, defined by: - Median capacity IMc,50 (IM that causes failure in 50% of the cases) - Lognormal dispersion c

Component fragility curves

1 0.8
1 0.8

System fragility curve

Lognormal distr. parameters

IMc,50
1 IM c,84 c = ln 2 IM c ,16

Pf [-]

Pf

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

Pf = 0.5 IMc,50
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Median capacity

concrete crush. steel failure joint compress. shear

Dispersion

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

IM [g]

IM [g]

Probabilistic Methodology (3)

4. Comparison of system fragility curves before and after retrofit
The system dynamic properties change due to retrofit it is necessary to account for the change of IM (structural dependent) in comparing the fragilities.
Uniform hazard spectrum at TR

Capacity Margin Ratio

m50 = IM c,50 IM TR

Retrofitted frame Bare frame

IM = Sa (T)

m50 =

IM c,50 IM TR

IM c ,50 Median capacity

IM TR
0.5 0 1 2 T [sec] 3 4 1 0 Pf [ ]

IM corresponding to a reference return period (TR)

TR such that m50=1 for the bare frame. The capacity margin ratio accounts for the increase of seismic capacity and demand of the system in evaluating the retrofit effectiveness.
m16 = IM16 IMTR m84 = IM84 IMTR

Capacity margin ratios for different confidence levels

Case Study
Three-story moment resisting RC frame belonging to a structure representative of low-rise office buildings constructed in Eastern and Central US (based on a survey of El-Attar 1991); No consideration for seismic load and no anti-seismic detailing (ACI 318-89)

Large experimental campaign carried out by Bracci et al. (1992) and Aycardi et al. (1992) on 1/3 scale model (global behaviour) and sublassemblages (local behaviour): - Snap-back tests - White noise test - Shaking table test - Quasi-static lateral load test Dynamic Global Response (1/3 scale model) Cyclic Local Response (columns and subassemblages)

Finite element model calibration and validation (1)

Cyclic local response of columns (Quasi-static lateral load test)
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10
-5%

Experimental Numerical (OpenSees)

Force [ kN ]

-4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

drift [ % ]
10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10
-5%

Experimental Numerical (OpenSees)

Force [ kN ]

-4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%

drift [ % ]

Finite element model calibration and validation (2)

Cyclic local response of beam-column joints (Quasi-static lateral load test)
4 3 2

Experimental Numerical (OpenSees)

Force [ kN ]

1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% F N

drift [ % ]
10 8 6

Force [ kN ]

Experimental Numerical (OpenSees)

4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -5% -4% -3% -2% -1% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% F N

drift [ % ]

Finite element model calibration and validation (3)

Dynamic global response validation (Shaking table test)
1

dnc [ cm ]

Taft - 0.05g

Experimental
Numerical

0.5 0 -0.5 -1 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 0 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 0 Taft - 0.20g 0 5 10 15 20

dnc
dnc [ cm ]

25

30

Experimental Numerical

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 0 -0.05 10 20 30 40 50 60

10

15 Taft - 0.30g

20

25

30

-0.1

-0.15

-0.2

dnc [ cm ]

Experimental Numerical

10

15

20

25

30

Time [ sec ]

Retrofit scenarios investigated

Method objectives
- Maintain the first mode shape of the bare frame; - Achieve the simultaneous failure of both the frame and all the dissipative devices.
J3-1 C3-1 J2-1 C2-1 J1-1 C1-1 B1-1 B2-1 B3-1 J3-2 C3-2 J2-2 C2-2 J1-2 C1-2 B3-2 D-3 B2-2 D-2 B1-2 D-1 J3-3 C3-3 J2-3 C2-3 J1-3 C1-3 B1-3 B2-3 B3-3 J3-4 3.66 m 3.66 m 3.66 m C3-4 J2-4 C2-4 J1-4 C1-4

Retrofit level
1 Vd Dissipative braces base shear = 1= Bare frame base shear Vf

=0

Bare frame (T1=0.8s)

5.49 m

5.49 m

5.49 m

= 0.4 3.2
= 0.4 (T1=0.670s) = 1.6 (T1=0.404s) = 3.2 (T1=0.321s)

Base shear [kN]

800 600 400 200

d=0.102m

= 3.2 = 1.6 = 0.4

d=0.183m

Story 3 2 1 0.2

Fd

kd [kN/m] 36046 25106 22921

Fd

kd [kN/m] 144183 100423 91685

Fd

kd [kN/m] 288365 200847 183371

[kN] 88 75 43

[kN] 351 30 1 173

[kN] 702 601 346

0.05

0.1

0.15

Control node displ. [m]

Demand parameters and capacity

Local EDPs monitored for vulnerability assessment
EDPs Capacity limits LSs Combined flexural and axial behaviour LS1: concrete failure of frame elements cu

c s V

su Vu

LS2:

steel failure of frame elements

Brittle behaviour LS3: shear failure of frame elements LS4: compression failure of frame joints Braces behaviour LS6: failure of dissipative braces

c d

cu du

Limit states considered and corresponding capacities

- Concrete crushing (at any frame section) - Rebar steel failure (at any frame section) -- Shear failure (at any element) -- Joint panel failure in tension/compression -- Braces failure
du = 0u = 12 cu = 0.0035 su = 0.04
Priestley et al. (1994)

Vu = Vc + Vs + Vn

cu = 0.42 f c tu = 0.5 fc Priestley et al. (1995, 1997)

Probabilistic analysis of bare frame

Evaluation of most vulnerable components
J3-1 C3-1 J2-1 C2-1 J1-1 C1-1 B1-1 B2-1 B3-1 J3-2 C3-2 J2-2 C2-2 J1-2 C1-2 B3-2 D-3 B2-2 D-2 B1-2 D-1 J3-3 C3-3 J2-3 C2-3 J1-3 C1-3 B1-3 B2-3 B3-3 J3-4 3.66 m C3-4 J2-4 C2-4 J1-4 C1-4

0.06

Concrete strains
C1-2

0.1
C1-2

Steel strains

c [-]

c [-]
0 0.2 0.4 0.6

0.04 0.02 0

3.66 m 3.66 m

0.05

5.49 m

5.49 m

5.49 m

0.2

0.4

0.6

IM [g]

IM [g]

Component fragility curves

1 0.8 1 0.8 0.6 concrete crush. 0.4 0.2 0 steel failure joint compress. shear failure 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0.4 0.2 0 0

System fragility curve

Pf [-]

0.6

System C1-2 C1-3 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

IM [g]

IM [g]

Probabilistic analysis of retrofitted frame

Change of failure modalities
J3-1 C3-1 J2-1 C2-1 J1-1 C1-1 B1-1 B2-1 B3-1 J3-2 C3-2 J2-2 C2-2 J1-2 C1-2 B3-2 D-3 B2-2 D-2 B1-2 D-1 J3-3 C3-3 J2-3 C2-3 J1-3 C1-3 B1-3 B2-3 B3-3 J3-4 3.66 m 3.66 m 3.66 m C3-4 J2-4 C2-4 J1-4 C1-4

=0.4
0.8

=1.6

Pf [-]

0.6

5.49 m

5.49 m

5.49 m

=3.2
0.4 System C1-2 C1-3 D1 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

0.06

Concrete strains (=1.6)

C1-2

80 60

Brace ductility (=1.6)

D-1

0.2 00

0.04

c [ ]

0.02

d [ ]

40 20 0

IM [g]
0 0.5 1 1.5 2

0.5

IM [g]

1.5

IM [g]

For low values, the vulnerability of frame and braces are similar. This confirm the reliability of the design method seeking the simultaneous failure of frame and braces. For high values, the difference among the components vulnerability increases and column C1-2 becomes the most vulnerable component in consequence of the increased axial force induced by the adjacent brace.

Retrofit effectiveness
5 4

Capacity margin

0.5 0.4

Dispersion
Retrofitted frame Bare frame

c [-]
m16 m50 m84
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2

m [-]

3 2 1 0

0.3 0.2 0.1 0

0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2

[]

[]

Up to = 1.6, the seismic capacity (parameter m50) increases linearly. For higher values, the seismic capacity increases weakly in consequence of the change of failure modalities (column C1-2 due to the high axial force) Increase of dispersion of the retrofitted frames capacity with respect to the bare frame due to: - increase of non-linearity of the system response; - introduction of an additional failure modality (dissipative braces failure). Increase of dispersion affects the risk estimate and reduces the retrofit effectiveness

Global EDPs vs local EDPs

Capacity assessment: global vs local EDPs
Global EDPs capacity calibrated such that the m50=1 for the bare frame
Top Story Drift Interstory Drift
4

Global EDPs

m50 [-]

Local EDPs
3 2

Freddi et al. (Earth.Eng.Struct.Dyn 2012)

1 0 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2

[]

Conclusion
The use of global EDPs leads to an overestimation of the increment of capacity A probabilistic methodology based on local EDPs and component fragility curves is required to obtain a reliable estimate of the retrofitted frame capacity.

Thank you! Any question?

Retrofit design method

Method objectives
- Maintain the first mode shape of the bare frame - Achieve the simultaneous failure of both the frame and all the dissipative devices.

Retrofit design procedure (BRBs)

STEP 1: Assessment of frame capacity (via pushover analysis)
V1 f
=
= frame base shear

Vb
1 V1 f + Vd

P.O. performance level

du = ultimate design displacement

1 Vd

STEP 2: definition of the bracing system base shear 1 V du 1 d and ductility d 0 stiffness K d = du 1 STEP 3: distribution of the braces story shear and stiffness along the height (according to bare-frame first mode distribution vi ki)
i 1 i Kd = Kd k 1 i V di = V d v

V1 f
1 Vd
u ddu

dnc nc

Diagonal brace forces Fd i

STEP 4: design of brace component properties (Fb,Kb,0u)

Kd = Kb K 0 Dissipative brace stiffness Kb + K 0 K + Kb 0u = 0 Brace ductility capacity Kb + K 0 Kb Elastic brace stiffness K 0 BRB initial stiffness

Dissipative brace

du

Steel brace Kb BRB K 0 0u

Finite element model

Finite element code OpenSees (McKenna et al. 2006) used to build a numerical model of the frame and perform non-linear time history analyses (NTHA) required by IDA Beam with Hinge Elements (Scoot and Fenves 2006) used to model beams and columns
Elastic part cracked Stiffness evaluated via Moment-Curvature analysis
80

Plastic hinge length Lpl,1 Elastic part Fiber Section - Steel - Concrete

Lpl,2

Moment [kNm]

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07

Rebars yielding Jeff 0.3JG

Hysteretic Material Concrete 02 Material Panagiotakos and Fardis (2001)

EJeff

Jeff 0.5JG

- Plastic hinge length

Curvature [1/m]

L pl = 0.12 LV + 0.014 dbl f y

Beam-column joints modeled simply as Rigid Elements due to high computational cost involved by IDA