sismicidad 1

7/24/2019 Sismicidad 1

1/130

Diseo Ssmico de Componentes ySistemas No Estructurales

Parte I

Rodrigo Retamales Saavedra, PhDIngeniero Civil Universidad de Chile

Julio de 2015

Corporacin de Desarrollo Tecnolgico


2/130


Contenidos del Curso

Sesin 1 Introduccin al curso

Sismicidad nacional

Importancia de componentes no estructurales Comportamiento de sistemas no estructurales

durante terremotos

Investigaciones recientes y en curso Sesin 2

Herramientas de modelacin y anlisis de

sistemas no estructurales2


3/130


Sesin 3 Requisitos de diseo ssmico de NTM 001

Alternativas de calificacin

Sesin 4 Ejemplos de diseo y detallamiento

Sesin 5 Proteccin de equipo no anclado

Recomendaciones adicionales deproteccin ssmica

3

Contenidos del Curso


4/130


Nociones de SismicidadNacional


5/130


Sismicidad Nacional

Cinturn de Fuego

del Pacifico

Cinturn

Alpino

Sismicidad mundial (M>5.5) entre 1977 y 1993 (Fuente: Elements of EarthquakeEngineering and Structural Dynamics, A. Filiatrault)


6/130


Sismicidad Nacional

Sismicidad mundial M>5.5 entre 1977 y 1993 (A. Filiatrault)

Bordes de Placas Tectnicas (Fuente: Elements of Earthquake Engineering andStructural Dynamics, A. Filiatrault)


7/130Corporacin de Desarrollo Tecnolgico 7

Sismicidad Nacional


8/130Corporacin de Desarrollo Tecnolgico

Sismicidad Nacional

Fuente: Servicio Sismolgico

Universidad de Chile

Fuente: USGS



Sismicidad Nacional

bmalog m

mes la tasa anual de ocurrencia de sismos conmagnitud M>m

ay bse determinan a partir de anlisis de

regresin de datos disponibles en catlogos de

sismos

Martin (1990) determino que a=5.86 y b=0.85

Caracterizacin de sismicidad por medio

de relaciones Gutenberg-Richter

Lo anterior implica que:Se produce un sismo M7 cada 9 meses!

Se produce un sismo M7.5 cada 2.5 aos!



Introduccin a Componentes ySistemas No Estructurales



Componentes No Estructurales

Corresponden a todos los contenidos de unaestructura y todos sus componentes que no sonestructurales (vigas, muros, columnas, losas,

nudos, capiteles, fundaciones, etc.) Se pueden clasificar en tres grupos: Componentes arquitectnicos. Componentes que forman parte

integral de la construccin: tabiques, cielos falsos, pisos falsos,luminarias, parapetos, puertas, ventanas, revestimientos y

terminaciones, elementos decorativos, letreros, etc. Equipos elctricos y mecnicos (puntuales y distribuidos).

Componentes que forman parte integral de la construccin. Incluyengeneradores, paneles solares, calderas, sistemas HVAC, transportevertical, redes elctricas, redes de gas, alcantarillado, agua potable,

corrientes dbiles, sistemas de extincin de incendio, etc.




Se pueden clasificar en tres grupos: (Contd) Contenidos. Generalmente son propiedad de los usuarios del

edificio. Incluyen mobiliario tales como escritorios, estantes,gabinetes, libreros, etc., y equipamiento menor (de oficina, de

cocina, etc.) tales como computadores, sistemas de telefona,hornos, etc. Se requiere juicio para determinar los contenidosque requieren proteccin ssmica.

Generalmente no cuentan con diseo ssmico

Son especificados por arquitectos, especialistaso decoradores

Pueden ser comprados por los propietarios ousuarios sin el consentimiento de los

diseadores, una vez entregada la estructura




Fuente: FEMA 74



Importancia de Componentes

No Estructurales La armonizacin del desempeo de

componentes estructurales y no estructurales esfundamental para el desempeo ssmico global

de un edificio Incluso en caso de un buen desempeo del sistema estructural,los daos de los componentes y sistemas no estructuralespueden imposibilitar la habitabilidad de una estructura conposterioridad a un terremoto

Las fallas de los componentes no estructuralespueden generar caos o daos que impidan laevacuacin de las estructuras o impedir elingreso de los cuerpos de rescate




No Estructurales



Objetivos de desempeo de las estructuras

Fuente: VISION 2000


No Estructurales



Clasificacin del Sismo Intervalo de RecurrenciaProbabilidad de

Ocurrencia

Frecuente 43 aos 100% en 50 aos

Ocasional 72 aos 50% en 50 aos

Raro 475 aos 10% en 50 aos

Muy raro 970 aos 10% en 100 aos

Estado limite Descripcin del Dao

Completamente

operacional

Sin dao, servicio continuo.

Operacional La mayora de las operaciones y funciones pueden recuperarse

inmediatamente. Reparaciones son requeridas para recuperar algunos

servicios no esenciales. El dao es moderado. La estructura es segura para ser

ocupada inmediatamente. Las operaciones esenciales son protegidas.Proteccin de la vida El dao es moderado. Sistemas estructurales y contenidos especficos pueden

ser protegidos del dao. La seguridad de la vida es generalmente protegida. La

estructura se daa pero permanece estable. No existe peligro de cada de

objetos. Las reparaciones son posibles.

Cercano al colapso El colapso estructural es prevenido. Componentes no estructurales pueden

caer. Reparaciones son generalmente no posibles.

Colapso Colapso estructural completo.


No Estructurales



Los componentes no estructurales requierenproteccin ssmica dado que pueden constituir: Riesgo a la vida: Corresponde al riesgo de resultar daado

fsicamente por el componente. Esto no incluye los efectos de

prdida de funcin u operacin de equipo de soporte de vida(Esto es un riesgo asociado a la prdida de operacin).

Riesgo de prdida de la inversin: Corresponde al riesgo deincurrir en costos de reparacin o reemplazo por causa del dao.En general, no se incluyen en este tem los costos indirectos

asociados (dao por inundaciones causadas por roturas decaeras, prdidas comerciales por daos de computadores, etc.)

Riesgo de prdida de funcin u operacin: Corresponde alriesgo de prdida funcional por dao de un componente/sistema.Esto generalmente no incluye las prdidas funcionales por daos

en las redes pblicas (las que pueden ser catastrficas)


No Estructurales


19/130

Corporacin de Desarrollo Tecnolgico 19

Pero, Que es el riesgo?:RIESGO = AMENAZA x VULNERABILIDAD

Los siguientes cuadros muestran calificaciones de

riesgo para los distintos tipos de componentes ysistemas no estructurales

Las calificaciones dependen del tipo de sismicidad(amenaza): baja, moderada o alta

Se indica el tipo de calificacin ssmica requerida:Estudio de Ingeniera (ER), detallamiento prescriptivo(PR) o Ingeniera no requerida (NE). En Chile seexige ingeniera para TODOdiseo, salvo

excepciones


No Estructurales


20/130



No Estructurales


21/130



No Estructurales


22/130



No Estructurales


23/130



No Estructurales


24/130



No Estructurales


25/130



No Estructurales


26/130


Componentes no estructurales y contenidosde edificios constituyen mas del 80% de lainversin en infraestructura

(Miranda et al.)


No Estructurales


27/130


El diseo de la infraestructura, a nivelmundial, se esta moviendo hacia un diseoque proteja la inversin y la operacin, enadicin a los objetivos actuales de proteccinde la vida y prevencin del colapso.

Esto significa que se requiere especialatencin al diseo no estructural

NCh433


No Estructurales


28/130


Desempeo ssmico de

componentes estructurales

En general, el desempeo ssmico de loscomponentes y sistemas estructurales, enChile, ha sido satisfactorio

Aplicacin de un cdigo de diseo estructuralestricto en materia de deformacionesadmisibles

Las deficiencias del cdigo fueron corregidas

con posterioridad al terremoto de 2010


29/130


Desempeo ssmico de


Fuente: Rene Lagos Engineers


30/130


Desempeo ssmico de




31/130


Desempeo ssmico de




32/130


Desempeo ssmico de



D i d


33/130


Desempeo ssmico de




34/130


Desempeo Sismico deComponentes y Sistemas No

Estructurales

34

D i d


35/130


Desempeo ssmico de

componentes no estructurales

En general, el desempeo ssmico de loscomponentes y sistemas no estructurales, enChile y el mundo, NO ha sido satisfactorio

En muchos casos, los daos han impedido lacontinuidad de operacin de las estructuras


36/130


Desempeo ssmico de


37/130


Fuente: Gua para la Reduccin de Vulnerabilidad en el Diseo

de Nuevos Establecimientos de Salud

Desempeo ssmico de


Causas de daos de


38/130


Causas de daos de


Daos de componentes no anclados

Causas de daos de


39/130


Causas de daos de


Daos de componentes que cruzan separaciones entre cuerpos de un edificio

Causas de daos de


40/130


Causas de daos de


Daos de componentes sensibles a deformaciones

Daos observados en


41/130


Daos observados en


Kobe Japn 1995 (M6.8) US$ 102 Billones en prdidas (2.5% del PIB)

6434 fallecidos

Daos observados en


42/130


Daos observados en


El Salvador 2001 (M7.6) Prdidas equivalentes al 12% del PIB

La red de salud perdi 1917 camas(39% de la capacidad)


43/130


Daos observados en


44/130


Daos observados en


Nisqually EEUU 2001 (M6.8) Profundidad 52 km

US$ 2 Billones en prdidas

Casi todas las prdidas asociadas a dao no estructural

Daos observados en


45/130


Daos observados en


Nisqually EEUU 2001 (M6.8)

Daos observados en


46/130


Daos observados en


Christchurch NZ 2010 y 2011 (M7.1 y M6.3) 0 y 181 fallecidos

US$ 5 y US$ 12 billones en prdidas (Total 13% del PIB)

Daos observados en


47/130


Daos observados en


Christchurch NZ 2010 y 2011 (M7.1 y M6.3)

Daos observados en


48/130


Daos observados en


Christchurch NZ 2010 y 2011 (M7.1 y M6.3)

Daos observados en


49/130


Daos observados en


Tuhoku Japn 2011 (M9.0) Profundidad 32 km, distancia a la costa 70

km, rea ruptura 500x200 km

25000 fallecidos

US$ 309 Billones en prdidas PGA 2.9g

Daos observados en


50/130


Daos observados en


Maule Chile 2010 (M8.8) Profundidad 35 km

rea ruptura 500x100 km

Epicentro a 105 km Concepcin

25000 fallecidos US$ 30 Billones en prdidas

(14% del PIB)

1300 replicas M4+ en 1 mes


51/130


Fuente: USGS


52/130

Corporacin de Desarrollo Tecnolgico 52Fuente: R. Boroschek

Daos observados en


53/130


Daos observados en


Maule Chile 2010 (M8.8)Duracin del movimiento fuerte

Fuente: GEER

Daos observados en


54/130


Daos observados en


Maule Chile 2010 (M8.8)

Aceleraciones Mximas del Suelo

Fuente: R. Boroschek

Fuente: EERI

Altura de Olas

Daos observados en


55/130


Daos observados en


Maule Chile 2010 (M8.8)Estimacin de Prdidas

Fuente: EERI

Daos observados en


56/130


Daos observados en

componentes no estructurales Maule Chile 2010 (M8.8)

Prdidas en la industria Fuente: A. Filiatrault

Daos observados en


57/130


Daos observados en


57Fuente: E. Miranda

Daos observados en


58/130


Daos observados en


58

Daos observados en


59/130


Daos observados en


59

Daos Redes Contra Incendio


60/130



En general, no se observa cumplimiento de disposiciones deproteccin ssmica como las indicadas en NFPA-13 o SMACNA 60



61/130



En general, no se observa cumplimiento de disposiciones deproteccin ssmica como las indicadas en NFPA-13 o SMACNA

Colgador pandeado Interaccin rociador/cielo falso

61



62/130



En general, no se observacumplimiento de disposiciones deproteccin ssmica como lasindicadas en NFPA-13 o SMACNA

Daos Equipo Elctrico y Mecnico


63/130



En general, no se observan anclajes adecuados.

En muchos casos, los anclajes no existen 63



64/130


Equipamiento elctrico y mecnico sin diseo

ssmico adecuado 64


Daos Equipo Elctrico y


65/130


Daos Equipo Elctrico y

Mecnico



66/130



Daos Ascensores


67/130


Daos Ascensores

Daos Mobiliario


68/130


Daos Mobiliario

Daos ventanas, parapetos y


69/130


, p p y

vas de evacuacin

Daos en racks


70/130


Daos en racks

L i did


71/130


Lecciones aprendidas

Deficiente (e incluso inexistente) diseo ssmicode componentes y sistemas no estructurales En muchos casos no se observan anclajes Normativa no establece responsables por el

diseo ssmico de componentes y sistemas noestructurales Proyectos especialidades no son sujetos a

revisin ssmica

Daos por interaccin entre componentes Existencia en el mercado de componentes ysistemas no estructurales que no son adecuadospara uso en zonas de alta sismicidad

Deficiente inspeccin durante la instalacin


72/130


Cuales son los desafios?

En comparacin con los componentes ysistemas estructurales, existe muy pocainformacin para el diseo

La informacin disponible no se encuentra

debidamente resumida y consensuada En muchos casos, las disposiciones normativas

se ajustan con posterioridad a los eventosssmicos: se observa lo que no funciona o

funciona mal y se corrige en las siguientesediciones de los cdigos Armonizar el desempeo ssmico estructural y no

estructural


73/130


Investigacin Reciente y enDesarrollo

I ti i i t


74/130


Investigacin reciente

La investigacin efectuada entre los aos 70s y 80s,principalmente en EEUU, estuvo orientada a desarrollarprocedimientos de modelacin y anlisis de sistemas noestructurales para la industria nuclear

La investigacin reciente (2000-13) ha estado orientada a: Describir analticamente la dinmica de los componentes Evaluar la respuesta de componentes ensayados a escala real Desarrollar herramientas de modelacin y anlisis orientadas al

diseo de componentes Desarrollar nuevos materiales Desarrollar sistemas de proteccin ssmica de componentes

Desarrollar equipos de ensayo Desarrollar procedimientos de ensayo mas realistas Evaluar la interaccin entre componentes (Ejemplo: interaccin

entre tabiques, cielos falsos y sprinklers) Desarrollar bases de datos de fragilidad ssmica

Desarrollar herramientas cuantitativas de diseo resiliente



75/130


Mc Mullin and Merrick (2002) Lang and Restrepo (2005)

Investigated cost-damage relationships fordifferent gypsum wallboard partitionconfigurations

Investigated seismic fragility of a typicaloffice space constructed with gypsum lightgauge metal stud partition walls




76/130


Goodwin and Maragakis (2004)

Investigated seismic behavior of 3 -4 braced and unbraced pipingsystems. No significant damage found.




77/130


Konstantinidis and Makris (2005) Nastase, Hutchinson etal (2005)

Investigated seismic response of freestanding andrestrained laboratory equipment (incubator and refrigerator)

Investigated dynamicresponse of NSC during fullscale building vibration tests




78/130


Chaudhuri and Hutchinson (2005) Badillo-Almaraz and Whittaker (2005)

Investigated seismic fragility of storageglassware typically found in laboratories andhospitals

Investigated seismic fragility of full scalesuspended ceiling systems




79/130


Memari et al. (2006)

Investigated the seismic vulnerability of architectural glass panels curtain walls

79




80/130


NEES Wood Project @ University at Buffalo




81/130






82/130






83/130


NEES Wood Project @ e-defense


Investigaciones en desarrollo


84/130



Ensayos efectuados en E-Defense: Estructura escala realde 5 pisos montada sobre aisladores y rieles. Cada pisocontiene equipo y mobiliario oficina, hospitales y vivienda



85/130


g

Ensayos E-Defense: Efectuados en Agosto 2011



86/130


g

Ensayos E-Defense: Efectuados en Agosto 2011



87/130


gProteccin no estructural (calificacin ssmica)



88/130





89/130





90/130


gProteccin no estructural



91/130


gProteccin no estructural

The Nonstructural Component


92/130


The UB-NCS is a modularand versatile two-levelplatform for experimentalseismic performanceevaluation of full-scalenonstructural systemsunder realistic full-scale

building floor motions

92

A. Filiatrault, G. Mosqueda, A. Reinhorn y R. Retamales

p

Simulator


93/130



94/130


Building Building Description and LocationMeasuredPeak RoofAccel. (g)

EstimatedFundam.Period

T(s)

EstimatedPeak RoofVelocity(in/sec)

EstimatedPeak Roof

Disp.(in)

Pacific ParkPlaza

30-story concrete shear wall andmoment resisting frame; Emeryville,CA.

0.37LomaPrieta

2.69 61.0 26.4

Olive ViewMedicalCenter

6-story concrete moment resistingframes and steel plate shear walls;Sylmar, CA.

1.50Northridge

0.33 30.3 1.57

7-story R/Cbuilding

Moment resisting frames in perimeterand flat plates and columns in theinterior; Van Nuys, CA.

0.58Northridge

1.98 70.5 22.4

13-story R/Cbuilding

Non-ductile moment resistingconcrete frames with concrete shearwalls in basements; Sherman Oaks,CA

0.45Northridge

3.00 82.7 39.4

Floor motions recorded in 4 instrumented buildings Selection of high performance dynamic actuators:

Envelope of floor motions: Peak acceleration: up to 3g Peak velocity: 100 in/s Peak displacement: 40 in

Other actuator properties: Load capacity: 22 kips Actuator mid-stroke: 15 ft UB-NCS operating frequency

range: 0.2-5 Hz (based onactuator bow-string frequency)

94

p

Simulator


95/130



96/130


Experimental verification of equipment capabilities: Random, harmonic, simulated and recorded motions

Simulator



97/130



Simulator



98/130



Simulated building seismic response Existing medical facility located in the San Fernando Valley,

Southern California 4-story steel framed building with non uniform distribution of

mass and stiffness

ReactionWall

ReactionWall

Simulator



99/130


0 5 10 15 20 25-2

-1

0

1

2

Time (sec)

Drift(in)

Comparison Desired and Observed Interstory Drift

Observed

Desired

I i

i

i

0 5 10 15 20 25

-10

0

10

Time (sec)

Displacement(in)

Comparison Desired and Observed Displacement. Top Level

Observed

Desired

0 5 10 15 20 25

-10

0

10

Comparison Desired and Observed Displacement. Bottom Level

Time (sec)

Displacement(in)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5Comparison Desired and Observed Floor Response Spectra Bottom Level

Frequency (Hz)

Desired

Observed

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

1

2

3

4

5

6Comparison Desired and Observed Floor Response Spectra Top Level

Frequency (Hz)

Desired

Observed

Experimental verification of equipment capabilities: Simulated building seismic

response

FRS

(g)

FR

S

(g)

Simulator

99

Protocolo para el UB-NCS


100/130


Why new testing protocols are necessary? Current testing protocols focus either on

displacement or acceleration sensitivenonstructural components (NSCs):

Racking protocolsdisplacement sensitive NSCs

Shake table protocolsacceleration sensitive NSCs Some nonstructural systems may be sensitive to

both displacements and accelerations

Therefore, a general protocol is necessary to: Replicate seismic demands expected on distributed

nonstructural systems located at the upper levels ofmultistory buildings

Take advantage of the new UB-NCS testing capabilities Generate the data required by designers and practitioners

for improved seismic design of NSCs




101/130


Three testing protocols are proposed: One for seismic qualification complementing AC156 protocol

Two for seismic fragility analysis (dynamic and quasi-static) complementing FEMA461 protocols

The proposed testing protocols are: Defined by simple loading patterns given by a set of closed-formequations

Suitable for experimental testing of distributed, self standing oranchored (at a single or two consecutive building levels)

nonstructural components, systems and equipment locatedwithin multistory buildings

Suitable for evaluating seismic performance of individual NSCs

and evaluating dynamic interactions between components in anonstructural system


Estimacin de demandas en


102/130


Continuous beam model andRandom Vibration Theory (RVT)considered for estimating: Distribution of absolute accelerations

along building height

Distribution of generalized driftsalong building height

Parameters for building model: Primary system periods: Tp=0.1-5

sec Secondary system periods: Ts=0-5sec

Damping for primary and secondarysystems: p= s=5%

Parameter controlling building

deformation pattern: a=0, 5 and 10

x

k

c

u(x,t)

u (t)g

H

m

..

u (h,t)ss

s

s

h

GA EI p, Tp, s, Ts

1 GA

H EIa

estructuras



103/130


Seismic input for the building model consists ofPower Spectral Density (PSD) functions

Compatible with a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard (PSH)given by USGS-USH ground response spectrum

Period T (sec)Spectral

Amplitude (g)

0.0 0.63

0.1 1.220.2 1.51

0.3 1.340.5 0.961.0 0.502.0 0.22

USGS Spectral Acceleration Amplitudes

for a SH with PE 10%/50yrs

SDS

SD1

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

USGS Hazard Consistent Ground Response Spectrum

Period T (sec)

SpectralAccelerationSa

(g)

USGS Data

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

USGS Hazard Consistent Ground Response Spectrum

Period T (sec)

SpectralAccelerationSa(g)

USGS Data

Best Fit USGS Data

Interpolating Function

p

oo

a q

oo

T1 4.5

TAS T

T T1 1TT0.1T

R

103

estructuras



104/130


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500

50

100

150

200

250USGS Hazard Consistent PSD Ground Acceleration

Frequency f (Hz)

PSD

(cm

2/s3)

Definition of hazard consistent PSD (Gupta et al., 1998)

g

2

2

a du 2 2 4

d

6 S TS , 2ln

12 3 T2ln

104

estructuras



105/130


Estimation of PSD primary and secondary system seismicresponses

Absolute accelerations:

Generalized drifts:

T Ts

2 2 2 4 *

s s s s s su uS h, , S h, 4 H H

m

g g

m m

Tg

m m

g

N

2

u u n n n n n n

n 1

N N

2

u n m n m n n n nun 1 m 1

N N

*

n m n m n m n m n m m n n m u n m

n 1 m 1

S 2S x 1 H 2i

S x, S x x 1 2H 2i

x x 4 2i S H H

1

2 2

s s s sH 2i

12 2

n n n nH 2i

m m

g

N N*

u n m n m n m

n 1 m 1

S x, S H H

105

estructuras



106/130


Estimation of mean peak seismic demands (Cartwright etal., 1956)

Peak response amplitude:

Peak response factor:

Root mean square amplitude: Number of maxima:

nthmoment of PSDY:

Max max RMSY N Y

2 2

N 1

2 2 2max

0

N N e 1 e d

RMS oY m

d 4

2

T mN

2 m

nn Ym S d

106

estructuras



107/130


Three dimensional Floor Response Spectra FRS (a=5)

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

Ts(s)

3-D Floor Response Spectra at Ground Level

Tp(s)

AbsoluteAcceleration(g)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

Ts(s)

3-D Floor Response Spectra at 0.2H

Tp(s)


0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

Ts(s)


Tp(s)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

Ts(s)


Tp(s)

AbsoluteA

cceleration(g)

2

4

6

8

10

12

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

Ts(s)


Tp(s)

AbsoluteA

cceleration(g)

2

4

6

8

10

12

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

Ts(s)

3-D Floor Response Spectra at Roof Level

Tp(s)

AbsoluteA

cceleration(g)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

estructuras



108/130


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6

8

84th

Percentile FRS for Building with ao=0

Period Secondary System Ts(sec)

FRS(g)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6

8

84th

Percentile FRS for Building with ao=5


FRS(g)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6

8

84thPercentile FRS for Building with ao=10


FRS(g)

Ground h=0.1H h=0.2H h=0.3H h=0.4H h=0.5H h=0.6H h=0.7H h=0.8H h=0.9H Roof

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

1

2

3

4

5

6Mean 84thPercentile FRSs along Building Height


FRS(g)

Ground

h=0.1H

h=0.2H

h=0.3H

h=0.4H

h=0.5H

h=0.6H

h=0.7H

h=0.8H

h=0.9H

Roof

uotients between

peak RS values

along building height

and peak S

a

are

calculated

84thpercentile FRSs and mean 84thpercentile FRS alongbuilding height

108

estructuras


t t


109/130


Extrapolated mean 84thpercentile FRS along building

height

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

1

2

3

4

5

6Mean 84thPercentile FRSs along Building Height

Period Secondary Sys tem Ts(sec)

FRS(g)

Ground

h=0.1H

h=0.2H

h=0.3H

h=0.4H

h=0.5H

h=0.6H

h=0.7H

h=0.8H

h=0.9H

Roof

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.50

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Variation of Peak FRS / Peak SaRates along Building Height

Peak FRS / Peak SaRate

h/H

Data

Best Fit

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

1

2

3

4

5

6Extrapolated Mean 84thPercentile FRSs along Building Height

Period Secondary Syst em Ts(sec)

FRS(g)

Ground

h=0.1H

h=0.2H

h=0.3H

h=0.4H

h=0.5H

h=0.6H

h=0.7Hh=0.8H

h=0.9H

Roof

2 3

Factor

h h h hFRS 1 10 19.4 12.4

H H H H

s Factor a s

h hFRS T , , FRS S T ,

H H

109

estructuras


t t


110/130


Generalized Drift Spectra (GDS) and

mean 84th% generalized drift along

building height

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Generalized Drift Spectrum ao=0

Period Primary System Tp(sec)

Drift(

%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5



Drift(

%)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5



Drift(

%)

h=0.1H h=0.2H h=0.3H h=0.4H h=0.5H h=0.6H h=0.7H h=0.8H h=0.9H Roof

0 0.5 1 1.50

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

84th% Drift Demands along Building Height

Generalized Drift (%)

N

ormalizedBuildingHeighth/H

a=0

a=5

a=10

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.40

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1Variation of Mean 84th% Generalized Drift along Building Height

Generalized Drift (%)

NormalizedBuildingHeight

h/H

Data

Best Fit

Proposed

2 0.55

h1.09 0.3

Hh

H 1 h 6 h h hsin 7 1.9 0.3

4 H 5 H H H

estructuras

Protocolo para calificacinssmica


111/130


Complements current AC156 testing protocol

Imposes seismic demands compatible with mapped spectraldemands defined in current ASCE 7-05 provisions: Characterized by spectral parameters SDSand SD1

Considers the location of the component along buildingheight h/H: Large interstory drifts and relatively low accelerations are

imposed on components located at lower levels Large accelerations and relatively low interstory drifts are

imposed on components located at upper levels

Floor motion histories calibrated to match: ASCE 7-05 ground response spectrum FEMA450 FRS at a given building height h/H (Approximately)

Interstory drift history matches a hazard consistentgeneralized drift expected at a given normalized buildingheight h/H

Floor motions calibrated to induce and impose the samenumber of total and damaging Rainflow cycles onacceleration and displacement sensitive nonstructural

systems as would be observed during real (recorded) 111

ssmica



112/130


Bottom DS D1 DS D1 Factor

h h h

x t, ,S ,S t, ,S ,S f t cos t w t FRSH H H

a

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-20

0

20

Time (sec)

Disp(in)

Bottom Displacement History

i

l

i

l i i

i

i

Functioncontrollingshapeof protocol

response spectrum

Instantaneoustesting frequency

(Time at which minimum testingfrequency is reached)

max

d 2

r min

f1t log

S f

Instantaneoustesting phase

Windowingfunction

rS 12oct min

(Sweeping rate calibrated to induce a controllednumber of Rainflow cycles on acceleration

sensitive NSCs)

Peak groundresponse spectrumextrapolation factor

= -1.25parametercalibrated tomatch response spectra in the longperiod range

d

d

t t1

tmin

max

max

ff t f

f

Closed-form equation for bottom level of UB-NCS :

ssmica

l i l i l i l i l i



113/130


2

dt t

D1

D1 NCS

Sh ht, ,S h e cos t w t H 0.5g H

i

i

l

i

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-1

0

1

Protocol Interstory Drift History

Time (sec)

Drift(%)

l l i i

i

l

i

i

l l i i

i

l

i

i

i

l

i

l i l i i

i

i

l i l l i i

i

l

i

i

l i l l i i

i

l

i

UB-NCS interstoryheight

Target (ASCE7 hazard consistent)

generalized drift expected at agiven building height

Top DS D1 Bottom DS D1 D1

h h hx t, ,S ,S x t , ,S ,S t, ,S

H H H

Closed-form equation for top level of UB-NCS

Envelopingfunction

(Gaussian)

= 10.5 sec is calibrated to impose acontrolled number of Rainflow cycles

on displacement sensitive NSCs

Closed-form equation for interstory drift:

113

ssmica



114/130


CSMIPStation

IDCity

BuildingStructural

System

Numberof Stories

BuildingPeriod

(s)Type

DesignDate

SiteGeology

RecordedEarthquakes

in Station

Min.Distance

toSource(km)

Max.PGA(g)

Max.PFA(g)

24464 NorthHollywood

Reinforcedconcrete

columns andbeams

20 2.56 Hotel 1967 Sandstone,shale

WhittierNorthridge

15 0.30 0.65

24514 Sylmar Concrete slab,metal deck, steel

frames

6 0.40 Hospital 1976 Alluvium WhittierNorthridge

13 0.80 1.50

24629 Los Angeles Concrete slabs,steel frames and

deck

54 6.20 Office 1988 Alluviumover

sedimentaryrock

Northridge 32 0.13 0.18

47459 Watsonville Concrete slabsand shear walls

4 0.37 Commercial - Fill overalluvium

Loma Prieta 17 0.58 1.20

24322 ShermanOaks

Concrete slabs,beams, and

columns

13 0.84 Commercial 1964 Alluvium WhittierLanders

Northridge

13 0.75 0.42

24386 Van Nuys Concrete slabs,columns,

spandrel beams

7 1.58 Hotel 1965 Alluvium LandersBig Bear

Northridge

7 0.45 0.58

Calibration of cycles induced and imposed byprotocol

A parameter is considered

N10

and N50

are considered representative of the number of totaland damaging cycles induced on acceleration sensitive NSCs

Nlwith lin the range 10-90 considered for calibrating interstorydrift protocol

Cycles Cycle Max N N A A

ssmica



115/130


Example 1: SDS=1.283g, SD1=0.461g and h/H=1 (Northridge, Soil

Class B)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-20

0

20

Time (sec)

Disp(in)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-50

0

50

Time (sec)

Veloc(in/sec)

Bottom Velocity History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-1

0

1

Time sec)

Acc(g)

Bottom Acceleration History

I

I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-20

0

20

Time (sec)

Disp(in)

Top Displacement History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-50

0

50

Time (sec)

Veloc(in/sec)

Top Velocity History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-1

0

1

Time (sec)

Acc(g)

Top Acceleration History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5Interstory Drift History

Time (sec)

InterstoryDrift(in)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5Comparison Floor Response Spectra

Period Secondary Sy stem (sec)

FRS(g)

Target FEMA450 FRS

Bottom level

Top level

Mean

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60Number of Cycles Imposed on Displacement Sensitiv e Components

Noo

fCyclesN

Protocol

Mean FloorMotions

84th% FloorMotions

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40

50

Frequency Secondary Sy stem (Hz)

NoCyclesN50

Number of Cycles with A>0.5AMax

Induced on Ac celeration Sensitive Components

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

50

100

150

Frequency Secondary Sy stem (Hz)

NoCyclesN10



Mean Floor Motions

84th% Floor Motions

Protocol

Peak Displacements Peak Interstory Drift Peak Velocities Peak Accelerations

DMax Bot

(in)

DMax Top

(in)Max(in)

Max(%)

VMax Bot

(in/s)

VMax Top

(in/s)

AMax Bot

(g)

AMax Top

(g)

18.8 20.0 1.21 0.79 26.6 28.0 0.55 0.58

ssmica



116/130


Example 2: SDS=0.365g, SD1=0.114g and h/H=0 (New York, Soil Class

D)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-2

0

2

Time (sec)

Disp(in)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-5

0

5

Time(sec)

Veloc(in/sec)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-0.1

0

0.1

Time (sec)

Acc(g)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-2

0

2

Time (sec)

Disp(in)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-5

0

5

Time (sec)

Veloc(in/sec)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-0.1

0

0.1

Time (sec)

Acc(g)


I

I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4Interstory Drift History

Time (sec)

InterstoryDrift(in)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45Comparison Ground Response Spectra

Period Secondary Syst em (sec)

Sa(g)

Target ASCE7 GRS

Bottom level

Top level

Mean

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40



Frequency Secondary Syst em (Hz)

NoCyclesN50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

50

100

150

Frequency Secondary Syst em (Hz)

NoCyclesN10



Mean Floor Motions

84th% Floor Motions

Protocol

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60Number of Cycles Imposed on Displacement Sensitiv e Components

Noo

fCyclesN

Protocol

Mean Floor Motions

84th% Floor Motions


DMax Bot(in)

DMax Top(in)

Max(in)

Max(%)

VMax Bot(in/s)

VMax Top(in/s)

AMax Bot(g)

AMax Top(g)

1.16 1.54 0.38 0.25 1.64 2.10 0.04 0.05

ssmica

Protocolo para anlisis defragilidad ssmica


117/130


Complement current FEMA461 protocols Two protocols for fragility assessment are

proposed: Dynamic if velocities and/or accelerations control

specimen performance

Quasi-static if loading rate does not control specimenperformance

Based on simplified qualification protocolequations

Considers a site characterized by spectral

coordinates: SDS=1g and SD1=0.6g Fragility protocol imposes maximum seismic

demands expected along height of multistorybuildings: Matching a maximum mean 84th% FRS Reachin a maximum drift tar eted accordin to

fragilidad ssmica

Protocolo para anlisis defragilidad ssmica: Dinmico


118/130


Closed-form equation for bottom level of UB-NCS:

a FragilityBottom F

x t 4 t f t cos t w t

Function controllingtarget spectral

acceleration shape

Closed-form equation for interstory drift history:

2

d

F

t t

Fragility

Maxt e cos t w t

Closed-form equation for top level of UB-NCS:

Fragility Fragility FragilityTop Bottomx t x t t

fragilidad ssmica: Dinmico

Protocolo para anlisis defragilidad ssmica: Dinmico


119/130


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40


Induced on Acceleration Sensitive Components

Frequency Secondary System (Hz)

NoCyclesN50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

50

100

150

Frequency Secondary System (Hz)

NoCycles

N10


Induced on Acceleration Sensitive Components

Mean Floor Motions

84th% Floor Motions

Protocol

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60Number of Cycles Imposed on Displacement Sensitive Components

Noo

fCyclesN

DynamicFragilityProtocol

Mean Floor Motions

84th% FloorMotions

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-30

-15

0

15

30

Time (sec)

Disp(in)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-40

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Veloc(in/sec)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-0.8

-0.4

0

0.40.8

Time (sec)

Acc(g)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-30

-15

0

15

30

Time (sec)

Disp(in)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45-40

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Veloc(in/sec)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-0.8

-0.4

0

0.4

0.8

Time (sec)

Acc(g)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5Interstory Drift History

Time (sec)

InterstoryDrift(in)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5Desired Floor Response Spectra

Period Secondary System (sec)

FRS(g)

Bottom level FRSTop level FRS

Mean FRS


DMax Bot

(in)

DMax Top

(in)Max(in)

Max(%)

VMax Bot

(in/s)

VMax Top

(in/s)

AMax Bot

(g)

AMax Top

(g)

22.5 26.6 4.14 3.00 33.9 39.1 0.57 0.65

fragilidad ssmica: Dinmico

Protocolo para anlisis defragilidad ssmica: Cuasi-esttico


120/130


Proposed as an alternative to

current QS protocol in FEMA461

Compatible with demands imposed

by dynamic fragility protocol All cycles imposed by QS drift

protocol are primary cycles

fragilidad ssmica: Cuasi-esttico

Protocolo para anlisis defragilidad ssmica: Cuasi-esttico


121/130


Closed-form equations for interstory drift protocol:

2*QS

QS

t t

QS QS

QS max QS min d t e cos t t t t

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

Time (sec)

InterstoryDriftRatio(%)

Quasi-Static Fragility Interstory Drift Protocol

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50

60Number of Cycles Imposed on Displacement Sensitive Components

N

QS Protocolfor UB-NCS

Mean CSMIPFloor Motions

84th% CSMIPFloor Motions

FEMA461Protocol

121

fragilidad ssmica: Cuasi-esttico

Evaluacin desempeossmico sala de emergencias


122/130


Experimental seismic performance assessment of full-scale

emergency room Testing protocol for SDS = 1.51g, SD1 = 0.5g, and h/H = 1

Particular case of protocol considering a = 0.75 (constant) and = -1.35

Detailed performance analysis conducted on partition walls and wall mounted

monitors

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

(a) Dummy sitting on gurney, poles with IV pumps, video rack, cart and monitor; (b) Medical gas

piping, outlets and monitor; (c) Video rack; (d) Surgical lamp; and (e) Sprinkler runs

Monitor 1Cabinet

Gurney & Dummy

Monitor 4

Pole 1

Monitor 315x18x18in

15x18x18in

13x16x7 in

26x28x76

Pole 2

1'-53 8" 2'

10'-812"

1'-107

8"

3'-53

8"

5'-414"

5'-113 4" 95

16" 3'-8" 2'-1" 2'

14'-618"

Monitor 215x18x18in

2'-4"

2'-01

2"

Cart

11'-03 4" Photo ER Lateral view ER Layout ER

ssmico sala de emergencias



123/130


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-20

0

20

Time (sec)

Disp(in)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-40

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Veloc(in/s)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-1

0

1

Time (sec)

Acc(g)


i

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-20

0

20

Time (sec)

Disp(in)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-40

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Veloc(in/s)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-1

0

1

Time (sec)

Acc(g)


i

DMax Bot(in) DMax Top(in) dMax(in) Max(%) VMax Bot(in/s) VMax Top( in/s) AMax Bot(g) AMax Top(g)

1 10% 1.63 1.76 0.13 0.09% 3.1 3.3 0.07 0.08

2 25% 4.08 4.4 0.33 0.22% 7.6 8.2 0.18 0.19

3 50% 8.15 8.80 0.66 0.43% 15.3 16.3 0.37 0.39

4 100% 16.3 17.6 1.31 0.87% 30.5 32.6 0.73 0.775 150% 24.5 26.4 1.97 1.30% 45.8 48.9 1.10 1.16

TestScaling

Factor


Test

Description DMax Bot(in) DMax Top(in) dMax(in) Max(%) VMax Bot(in/s) VMax Top(in/ s) AMax Bot(g) AMax Top(g)

12 Drift Protocol (Quasi-static) 200% - 2.62 2.62 1.73% - - - -




TestScaling

Factor





124/130


Protocol loading histories

124




125/130


Comparison with simulated building floormotions

125




126/130



Desempeo ssmico detabiques


127/130


Drift Ratio

(%) Observed Damage

0.09 : No visible damage in specimen

0.23 : Minimum level of damage observed

Incipient hairline cracks along base of cornerbeads and gypsum panel joints

0.47 : Raised areas and small cracks around screws near bottom and top tracks

Hairline cracks all along of corner beads

Vertical cracks t 1 16" along wall boundary panel joints

Small hairline cracks around door fenestration

1.42 : Widespread pop-out of screws around wall boundariesTape covering vertical wall boundaries completely damaged

Permanent gaps1 16" t 1 4" along cornerbeads, some horizontal gypsum panel joints,

and door fenestration

1.77 : Widespread pop-out of screws in the whole specimen

Tape covering vertical wall boundaries completely damaged

Permanent gaps1 16" t 1 4" along cornerbeads, horizontal gypsum panel joints, and

door fenestration

Some permanent gaps t 1 4" along cornerbeads

Initiated gypsum panel detachment from steel studded frame

2.22 : Generalized pop-out of screws in the whole specimen

Tape covering vertical wall boundaries completely damaged

Permanent gaps t 1 4" and crushing of joint compound along cornerbeads, horizontal

gypsum panel joints, and door fenestration

Gypsum panel detached from steel studded frame

2.67 : Damage total of specimen

Most of gypsum panels are detached of steel studded frame

Extensive crushing of gypsum along panel joints and cornerbeads127

tabiques

Desempeo ssmico detabiques


128/130


-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30Ensemble Histeresis Loops Emergency Room

Interstory Drift (%)

Force(Kips)

10% Protocol

25% Protocol

50% Protocol

100% Protocol

150% Protocol

200% Protocol (QS)

250% Protocol (QS)

300% Protocol (QS)

350% Protocol (QS)

tabiques

Desempeo ssmicomonitores de signos vitales


129/130


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 30

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1Fragility Curve for Wall-Mounted patient Monitor

Horizontal Acceleration at Equipment Base (g)

Proba

bilityofCollapse(%)

Data

Best Fit

Best Fit Parameter for Monitor

Base Acceleration (g)Damage Measure Damage StateAssociated

Peak acceleration at

base of monitor

Monitors

supporting

device failure

1.35 0.20

monitores de signos vitales

Gracias!Preguntas?


130/130

Preguntas?

sismicidad 1

Documents