2014 Presentacion NSC CDT Parte 01b

Proteccin Ssmica Sistemas No Estructurales Octubre 2014

Diseo Ssmico de Componentes y Sistemas No Estructurales

Parte I Rodrigo Retamales Saavedra, PhD

Ingeniero Civil Universidad de Chile

Octubre de 2014


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 estructurales

2


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 de proteccin ssmica

3

Contenidos del Curso


Nociones de Sismicidad Nacional

Proteccin Ssmica Sistemas No Estructurales Octubre 2014 7

Sismicidad Nacional


Sismicidad Nacional

Fuente: Servicio Sismolgico Universidad de Chile

Fuente: USGS


Sismicidad Nacional

bmalog m

m es la tasa anual de ocurrencia de sismos con magnitud M>m

a y b se 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 y Sistemas No Estructurales


Componentes No Estructurales

Corresponden a todos los contenidos de una estructura y todos sus componentes que no son estructurales (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. Incluyen generadores, paneles solares, calderas, sistemas HVAC, transporte vertical, 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 contenidos que requieren proteccin ssmica.

Generalmente no cuentan con diseo ssmico

Son especificados por arquitectos, especialistas o decoradores

Pueden ser comprados por los propietarios o usuarios 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 es fundamental 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 estructurales pueden imposibilitar la habitabilidad de una estructura con posterioridad a un terremoto

Las fallas de los componentes no estructurales pueden generar caos o daos que impidan la evacuacin de las estructuras o impedir el ingreso de los cuerpos de rescate


Objetivos de desempeo de las estructuras

Fuente: VISION 2000



Clasificacin del Sismo Intervalo de Recurrencia Probabilidad 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.



Los componentes no estructurales requieren proteccin 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 de incurrir 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 de caeras, prdidas comerciales por daos de computadores, etc.)

Riesgo de prdida de funcin u operacin: Corresponde al riesgo 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)



Pero, Que es el riesgo?:

RIESGO = AMENAZA x VULNERABILIDAD

Los siguientes cuadros muestran calificaciones de riesgo para los distintos tipos de componentes y sistemas 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 se exige ingeniera para TODO diseo, salvo excepciones



Componentes no estructurales y contenidos de edificios constituyen mas del 80% de la inversin en infraestructura

(Miranda et al.)



El diseo de la infraestructura, a nivel mundial, se esta moviendo hacia un diseo que proteja la inversin y la operacin, en adicin a los objetivos actuales de proteccin de la vida y prevencin del colapso.

Esto significa que se requiere especial atencin al diseo no estructural

NCh433



Desempeo ssmico de componentes estructurales

En general, el desempeo ssmico de los componentes y sistemas estructurales, en Chile, ha sido satisfactorio

Aplicacin de un cdigo de diseo estructural estricto en materia de deformaciones admisibles

Las deficiencias del cdigo fueron corregidas con posterioridad al terremoto de 2010


Fuente: Rene Lagos Engineers

Desempeo ssmico de componentes estructurales


Desempeo Sismico de Componentes y Sistemas No Estructurales

34


Desempeo ssmico de componentes no estructurales

En general, el desempeo ssmico de los componentes y sistemas no estructurales, en Chile y el mundo, NO ha sido satisfactorio

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


Fuente: Gua para la Reduccin de Vulnerabilidad en el Diseo de Nuevos Establecimientos de Salud

Desempeo ssmico de componentes no estructurales


Causas de daos de componentes no estructurales

Daos de componentes no anclados


Daos de componentes que cruzan separaciones entre cuerpos de un edificio



Daos de componentes sensibles a deformaciones



Daos observados en componentes no estructurales

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

6434 fallecidos


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

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



Nisqually EEUU 2001 (M6.8) Profundidad 52 km

US$ 2 Billones en prdidas

Casi todas las prdidas asociadas a dao no estructural



Nisqually EEUU 2001 (M6.8)



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)



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



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



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



Fuente: USGS

Proteccin Ssmica Sistemas No Estructurales Octubre 2014 52 Fuente: R. Boroschek


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

Fuente: GEER



Maule Chile 2010 (M8.8)

Aceleraciones Mximas del Suelo

Fuente: R. Boroschek

Fuente: EERI

Altura de Olas



Maule Chile 2010 (M8.8) Estimacin de Prdidas

Fuente: EERI



Maule Chile 2010 (M8.8) Prdidas en la industria Fuente: A. Filiatrault


Proteccin Ssmica Sistemas No Estructurales Octubre 2014 57 Fuente: E. Miranda



Daos Redes Contra Incendio

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


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

Colgador pandeado Interaccin rociador/cielo falso

61



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



Daos Equipo Elctrico y Mecnico

En general, no se observan anclajes adecuados. En muchos casos, los anclajes no existen 63


Equipamiento elctrico y mecnico sin diseo ssmico adecuado 64



Daos Ascensores


Daos Mobiliario


Daos ventanas, parapetos y vas de evacuacin


Daos en racks


Lecciones aprendidas

Deficiente (e incluso inexistente) diseo ssmico de componentes y sistemas no estructurales

En muchos casos no se observan anclajes Normativa no establece responsables por el diseo

ssmico de componentes y sistemas no estructurales Proyectos especialidades no son sujetos a revisin

ssmica Daos por interaccin entre componentes Existencia en el mercado de componentes y sistemas

no estructurales que no son adecuados para uso en zonas de alta sismicidad

Deficiente inspeccin durante la instalacin


Cuales son los desafos?

En comparacin con los componentes y sistemas estructurales, existe muy poca informacin 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 eventos ssmicos: se observa lo que no funciona o funciona mal y se corrige en las siguientes ediciones de los cdigos

Armonizar el desempeo ssmico estructural y no estructural


Investigacin Reciente y en Desarrollo


Investigacin reciente

La investigacin efectuada entre los aos 70s y 80s, principalmente en EEUU, estuvo orientada a desarrollar procedimientos de modelacin y anlisis de sistemas no estructurales 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


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

Investigated cost-damage relationships for different gypsum wallboard partition configurations

Investigated seismic fragility of a typical office space constructed with gypsum light gauge metal stud partition walls



Goodwin and Maragakis (2004)

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



Konstantinidis and Makris (2005) Nastase, Hutchinson et al (2005)

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

Investigated dynamic response of NSC during full scale building vibration tests



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

Investigated seismic fragility of storage glassware typically found in laboratories and hospitals

Investigated seismic fragility of full scale suspended ceiling systems



Memari et al. (2006)

Investigated the seismic vulnerability of architectural glass panels curtain walls

79



NEES Wood Project @ University at Buffalo



NEES Wood Project @ e-defense



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



Ensayos E-Defense: Efectuados en Agosto 2011



Investigaciones en desarrollo Proteccin no estructural (calificacin ssmica)


Investigaciones en desarrollo Proteccin no estructural


The UB-NCS is a modular and versatile two-level platform for experimental seismic performance evaluation of full-scale nonstructural systems under realistic full-scale building floor motions

92

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

The Nonstructural Component Simulator


Porque es necesario?

Las mesas vibradoras solo tienen capacidad para reproducir, a escala y en tiempo real, los movimientos del suelo (stroke 15 cm)

Se necesita un equipo que permita reproducir los desplazamientos y aceleraciones esperador en los niveles superiores de los edificios

Los equipos utilizados para el ensayo de componentes no estructurales sensibles a desplazamientos operan cuasi- estticamente

Se necesita un equipo que imponga simultneamente desplazamientos de piso y deformaciones de entrepiso a escala real y en tiempo real



Building Building Description and Location Measured Peak Roof Accel. (g)

Estimated Fundam. Period T (s)

Estimated Peak Roof Velocity (in/sec)

Estimated Peak Roof

Disp. (in)

Pacific Park Plaza

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

0.37 Loma Prieta

2.69 61.0 26.4

Olive View Medical Center

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

1.50 Northridge

0.33 30.3 1.57

7-story R/C building

Moment resisting frames in perimeter and flat plates and columns in the interior; Van Nuys, CA.

0.58 Northridge

1.98 70.5 22.4

13-story R/C building

Non-ductile moment resisting concrete frames with concrete shear walls in basements; Sherman Oaks, CA

0.45 Northridge

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 on actuator bow-string frequency)

94



UB-NCS Drawings 12'-

6"

Removable Beam

Removable Beam

Removable Beam

2'

2'

2'

2'

2' 2' 2' 2'2' 2'

2'

2'

HSS8x6x1/2" (TYP)

Removable Beam

9"

1'

1'

1'

1'

1'

1'

1'

9"

Holes 1 3/8" (TYP)

9"1'1'1'1'1'1'1'9" 1' 1' 1' 1'

12'-6"

1'

1'

1'

1'

Restrainer Beam (TYP)

14'

14'

10'

EL 340.00HSS8x6x1/2" (TYP)

Stopper (TYP)

EL 172.00HSS8x6x1/2" (TYP)

HSS8x8x1/2" (TYP)

8"

8"

EL 000.00

HSS8x8x1/2" (TYP)

Curtis Universal Joint (TYP)Model CJ655

28'-

5"

12'-6"

Plan view & elevation


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




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

Rea

ctio

n W

all

Rea

ctio

n W

all



0 5 10 15 20 25-2

-1

0

1

2

Time (sec)

Drift

(in

)

Comparison Desired and Observed Interstory Drift

Observed

Desired

0 5 10 15 20 25-2

-1

0

1

2Observed Interstory Drift

Time (sec)

Drift

(in

)

0 5 10 15 20 25

-10

0

10

Time (sec)

Dis

pla

cem

ent

(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)

Dis

pla

cem

ent

(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)

SA (g)

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)

SA (g)

Desired

Observed

Experimental verification of equipment capabilities: Simulated building seismic response

FRS

(g)

FRS

(g)

99



Why new testing protocols are necessary? Current testing protocols focus either on displacement or acceleration sensitive nonstructural components (NSCs):

Racking protocols displacement sensitive NSCs

Shake table protocols acceleration 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 of multistory buildings

Take advantage of the new UB-NCS testing capabilities

Generate the data required by designers and practitioners for improved seismic design of NSCs

Protocolo para el UB-NCS


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-form equations

Suitable for experimental testing of distributed, self standing or anchored (at a single or two consecutive building levels) nonstructural components, systems and equipment located within multistory buildings

Suitable for evaluating seismic performance of individual NSCs and evaluating dynamic interactions between components in a nonstructural system

Protocolo para el UB-NCS


Continuous beam model and Random Vibration Theory (RVT) considered for estimating: Distribution of absolute accelerations along building height

Distribution of generalized drifts along building height

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

Secondary system periods: Ts=0-5 sec

Damping for primary and secondary systems: 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 EIp, Tp, s, Ts

1 GA

H EIa

Estimacin de demandas en estructuras


Seismic input for the building model consists of

Power 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 1.22

0.2 1.51

0.3 1.34

0.5 0.96

1.0 0.50

2.0 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

1.6USGS Hazard Consistent Ground Response Spectrum

Period T (sec)

Spectr

al A

ccele

ration S

a (

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

1.6USGS Hazard Consistent Ground Response Spectrum

Period T (sec)

Spectr

al A

ccele

ration S

a (

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



0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500

50

100

150

200

250USGS Hazard Consistent PSD Ground Acceleration

Frequency f (Hz)

PS

D (

cm

2/s

3)

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



Estimation of PSD primary and secondary system seismic

responses

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

1

2 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



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

Peak response amplitude:

Peak response factor:

Root mean square amplitude:

Number of maxima:

nth moment 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



Three dimensional Floor Response Spectra FRS (a=5)

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)

3-D Floor Response Spectra at Ground Level

Tp (s)

Absolu

te A

ccele

ration (

g)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)

3-D Floor Response Spectra at 0.2H

Tp (s)

Absolu

te A

ccele

ration (

g)

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)


Tp (s)

Absolu

te A

ccele

ration (

g)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)


Tp (s)

Absolu

te A

ccele

ration (

g)

2

4

6

8

10

12

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)


Tp (s)

Absolu

te A

ccele

ration (

g)

2

4

6

8

10

12

01

23

45

0

2

4

60

5

10

15

T s (s)

3-D Floor Response Spectra at Roof Level

Tp (s)

Absolu

te A

ccele

ration (

g)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9



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)

FR

S (

g)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6

8

84th



FR

S (

g)

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

2

4

6

8

84th



FR

S (

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 84th Percentile FRSs along Building Height


FR

S (

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

Quotients between

peak FRS values along building

height and peak Sa are calculated

84th percentile FRSs and mean 84th percentile FRS along building height

108



Extrapolated mean 84th percentile 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 84th Percentile FRSs along Building Height


FR

S (

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 Sa Rates along Building Height

Peak FRS / Peak Sa Rate

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 84th Percentile FRSs along Building Height


FR

S (

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

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



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)

Dri

ft

(%

)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5



Dri

ft

(%

)

0 1 2 3 4 5 60

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5



Dri

ft

(%

)

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

184th% Drift Demands along Building Height

Generalized Drift (%)

Norm

aliz

ed B

uild

ing H

eig

ht

h/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 (%)

Norm

aliz

ed B

uild

ing H

eig

ht

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



Complements current AC156 testing protocol

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

Considers the location of the component along building height 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 consistent generalized drift expected at a given normalized building height h/H

Floor motions calibrated to induce and impose the same number of total and damaging Rainflow cycles on acceleration and displacement sensitive nonstructural systems as would be observed during real (recorded) building floor motions (CSMIP database)

111

Protocolo para calificacin ssmica


Bottom DS D1 DS D1 Factor

h h hx t, ,S ,S t, ,S ,S f t cos t w t FRS

H H H

a

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

0

20

Time (sec)

Dis

p (

in)

Bottom Displacement History

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

0

50

Time (sec)

Ve

loc (

in/s

ec)

Bottom Velocity History

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

0

1

Time (sec)

Acc (

g)

Bottom Acceleration History

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450

2

4

6

Time (sec)

Inst

Fre

q (

Hz)

Instant Frequency

Function controlling shape of protocol

response spectrum

Instantaneous testing frequency

(Time at which minimum testing frequency is reached)

max

d 2

r min

f1t log

S f

Instantaneous testing phase

Windowing function

rS 12oct min

(Sweeping rate calibrated to induce a controlled number of Rainflow cycles on acceleration sensitive NSCs)

Peak ground response spectrum

extrapolation factor

= -1.25 parameter calibrated to match response spectra in the long period range

d

d

t t1

tmin

max

max

ff t f

f

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



2

dt t

D1

D1 NCS

Sh ht, ,S h e cos t w t

H 0.5g H

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

-10

-5

0

5

10

15Protocol Displacement History

Time (sec)

Dis

pla

cem

ent

(in)

Bottom

Top

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-1

0

1

Protocol Interstory Drift History

Time (sec)

Drift

(%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

-50

0

50

Protocol Velocity History

Time (sec)

Velo

city (

in/s

ec)

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

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5Protocol Acceleration History

Time (sec)

Accele

ration (

g)

0 5 10 15 20 25-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15Nonscaled Hospital Displacement History

Time (sec)

Dis

pla

cem

ent

(in)

Bottom

Top

0 5 10 15 20 25

-1

0

1

Nonscaled Hospital Interstory Drift History

Time (sec)

Drift

(%

)

0 5 10 15 20 25

-50

0

50

Nonscaled Hospital Velocity History

Time (sec)

Velo

city (

in/s

ec)

0 5 10 15 20 25-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5Nonscaled Hospital Acceleration History

Time (sec)

Accele

ration (

g)

UB-NCS interstory height

Target (ASCE7 hazard consistent) generalized drift expected at a given

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

Enveloping function (Gaussian)

= 10.5 sec is calibrated to impose a controlled number of Rainflow cycles on displacement sensitive NSCs

Closed-form equation for interstory drift:

113



CSMIP Station

ID City

Building Structural

System

Number of Stories

Building Period

(s) Type

Design Date

Site Geology

Recorded Earthquakes

in Station

Min. Distance

to Source (km)

Max. PGA (g)

Max.PFA (g)

24464 North Hollywood

Reinforced concrete

columns and beams

20 2.56 Hotel 1967 Sandstone, shale

Whittier Northridge

15 0.30 0.65

24514 Sylmar Concrete slab, metal deck, steel

frames

6 0.40 Hospital 1976 Alluvium Whittier Northridge

13 0.80 1.50

24629 Los Angeles Concrete slabs, steel frames and

deck

54 6.20 Office 1988 Alluvium over

sedimentary rock

Northridge 32 0.13 0.18

47459 Watsonville Concrete slabs and shear walls

4 0.37 Commercial - Fill over alluvium

Loma Prieta 17 0.58 1.20

24322 Sherman Oaks

Concrete slabs, beams, and

columns

13 0.84 Commercial 1964 Alluvium Whittier Landers

Northridge

13 0.75 0.42

24386 Van Nuys Concrete slabs, columns,

spandrel beams

7 1.58 Hotel 1965 Alluvium Landers Big Bear

Northridge

7 0.45 0.58

Calibration of cycles induced and imposed by protocol A parameter is considered

N10 and N50 are considered representative of the number of total and damaging cycles induced on acceleration sensitive NSCs

Nl with l in the range 10-90 considered for calibrating interstory drift protocol

Cycles Cycle MaxN N A A



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)

Dis

p (

in)


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

0

50

Time (sec)

Ve

loc (

in/s

ec)


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

0

1

Time (sec)

Acc (

g)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 450

2

4

6

Time (sec)

Inst

Fre

q (

Hz)

Instant Frequency

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

0

20

Time (sec)

Dis

p (

in)

Top Displacement History

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

0

50

Time (sec)

Ve

loc (

in/s

ec)

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 40 450

2

4

6

Time (sec)

Inst

Fre

q (

Hz)

Instant Frequency

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)

Inte

rsto

ry D

rift

(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 System (sec)

FR

S (

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 Sensitive Components

No o

f C

ycle

s N

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 System (Hz)

No C

ycle

s N

50

Number of Cycles with A>0.5AMax

Induced on Acceleration Sensitive Components

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

50

100

150


No C

ycle

s N

10



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



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)

Dis

p (

in)


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

0

5

Time (sec)

Ve

loc (

in/s

ec)


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 40 450

2

4

6

Time (sec)

Inst

Fre

q (

Hz)

Instant Frequency

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

0

2

Time (sec)

Dis

p (

in)


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

0

5

Time (sec)

Ve

loc (

in/s

ec)


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 40 450

2

4

6

Time (sec)

Inst

Fre

q (

Hz)

Instant Frequency

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)

Inte

rsto

ry D

rift

(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


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




No C

ycle

s N

50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

50

100

150


No C

ycle

s N

10



Mean Floor Motions

84th% Floor Motions

Protocol

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50


No o

f C

ycle

s N

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



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 specimen performance

Based on simplified qualification protocol equations Considers a site characterized by spectral coordinates:

SDS=1g and SD1=0.6g

Fragility protocol imposes maximum seismic demands expected along height of multistory buildings: Matching a maximum mean 84th% FRS Reaching a maximum drift max targeted according to observations and results of monotonic tests

Protocolo para anlisis de fragilidad ssmica


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

a FragilityBottom F

x t 4 t f t cos t w t

Function controlling target 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

Protocolo para anlisis de fragilidad ssmica: Dinmico


0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

10

20

30

40




No C

ycle

s N

50

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 50

50

100

150


No C

ycle

s N

10



Mean Floor Motions

84th% Floor Motions

Protocol

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50


No o

f C

ycle

s N

DynamicFragilityProtocol

Mean Floor Motions

84th% FloorMotions

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

-15

0

15

30

Time (sec)

Dis

p (

in)


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

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Velo

c (

in/s

ec)


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 45-30

-15

0

15

30

Time (sec)

Dis

p (

in)


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

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Velo

c (

in/s

ec)


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)

Inte

rsto

ry D

rift

(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

5Desired Floor Response Spectra


FR

S (

g)

Bottom level FRS

Top level FRS

Mean FRS

Peak Displacements Peak Interstory Drift Peak Velocities Peak Accelerations R DMax Bot

(in)

DMax Top

(in) Max (in)

Max (%)

VMax Bot

(in/s)

VMax Top

(in/s)

AMax Bot

(g)

AMax Top

(g)

1* 22.5 26.6 4.14 3.00 33.9 39.1 0.57 0.65

Protocolo para anlisis de fragilidad ssmica: Dinmico


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

Protocolo para anlisis de fragilidad ssmica: Cuasi-esttico


Closed-form equations for interstory drift protocol:

2*QS

QS

t t

QS QS

QS max QS min dt 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)

Inte

rsto

ry D

rift

Ratio (

%)

Quasi-Static Fragility Interstory Drift Protocol

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 1000

10

20

30

40

50


N

QS Protocolfor UB-NCS

Mean CSMIPFloor Motions

84th% CSMIPFloor Motions

FEMA461Protocol

121

Protocolo para anlisis de fragilidad ssmica: Cuasi-esttico


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

Monitor 1Cabinet

Gurney & Dummy

Monitor 4

Pole 1

Monitor 315x18x18in

15x18x18in

13x16x7 in

26x28x76

Pole 2

1'-53 8" 2'

10'-81

2"

1'-107

8"

3'-53

8"

5'-41

4"

5'-113 4" 9516" 3'-8" 2'-1" 2'

14'-618"

Monitor 215x18x18in

2'-4"

2'-012"

Cart

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

(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'-81

2"

1'-107

8"

3'-53

8"

5'-41

4"

5'-113 4" 9516" 3'-8" 2'-1" 2'

14'-618"

Monitor 215x18x18in

2'-4"

2'-012"

Cart

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

(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

Evaluacin desempeo ssmico sala de emergencias


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-20

0

20

Time (sec)

Dis

p (

in)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-40

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Ve

loc (

in/s

)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-1

0

1

Time (sec)

Acc (

g)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

2

4

6

Time (sec)

Inst

Fre

q (

Hz)

Instant Frequency

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-20

0

20

Time (sec)

Dis

p (

in)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-40

-20

0

20

40

Time (sec)

Ve

loc (

in/s

)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40-1

0

1

Time (sec)

Acc (

g)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 400

2

4

Time (sec)

Inst

Fre

q (

Hz)

Instant Frequency

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 0.77

5 150% 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




Protocol loading histories

124



Comparison with simulated building floor

motions

125



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 boundaries

Tape 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


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


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 cornerbeads

127

Desempeo ssmico de tabiques


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

-20

-10

0

10

20

30Ensemble Histeresis Loops Emergency Room

Interstory Drift (%)

Forc

e (

Kip

s)

10% Protocol

25% Protocol

50% Protocol

100% Protocol

150% Protocol

200% Protocol (QS)

250% Protocol (QS)

300% Protocol (QS)

350% Protocol (QS)

Desempeo ssmico de tabiques


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)

Pro

babili

ty o

f C

olla

pse (

%)

Data

Best Fit

Best Fit Parameter for Monitor

Base Acceleration (g) Damage Measure Damage State

Associated

Peak acceleration at

base of monitor

Monitors supporting

device failure

1.35 0.20

Desempeo ssmico monitores de signos vitales


Gracias! Preguntas?


131

2014 Presentacion NSC CDT Parte 01b

Documents

Transcript of 2014 Presentacion NSC CDT Parte 01b