Seismic vulnerability assessment of a RC structure before and after FRP retrofitting

In earthquake engineering, reliable vulnerability assessment tools suitable to existing reinforced concrete structures are necessary in order to mitigate the seismic risk. Furthermore, amongst the wide range of technical solutions available for structural upgrading, external reinforcement by fiber reinforced polymer (FRP) is often an interesting option. Nevertheless, the use of FRP is limited, one of the reasons being the lack of predictive numerical tools allowing for vulnerability assessment. Based on a case study, this article presents a simplified modeling strategy to assess the seismic vulnerability of an existing reinforced concrete building before and after FRP retrofitting. The structure is simulated using multifiber beam elements and constitutive laws based on damage mechanics and plasticity, while the dynamic characteristics of the numerical model are validated using in-situ ambient vibration records. Nonlinear transient dynamic analysis studies are performed using a synthetic earthquake signal compatible with the Eurocode 8 spectra. Local indicators are adopted to quantify the damage level in the structure before and after FRP retrofitting, in correspondence with the European Macroseismic Scale 98. One of the main conclusions of this study is that the use of local indicators can lead to contradictory assessment results with the evaluations based on global indicators as adopted in HAZUS or Risk-UE.

[1]  Panagiotis Kotronis,et al.  A simplified modelling strategy for R/C walls satisfying PS92 and EC8 design , 2005 .

[2]  Clotaire Michel,et al.  Vulnérabilité Sismique de l'échelle du bâtiment à celle de la ville - Apport des techniques expérimentales in situ - Application à Grenoble , 2008 .

[3]  Panagiotis Kotronis,et al.  Full‐scale dynamic response of an RC building under weak seismic motions using earthquake recordings, ambient vibrations and modelling , 2007, 0710.1205.

[4]  Cécile Cornou,et al.  Calibrating Median and Uncertainty Estimates for a Practical Use of Empirical Green’s Functions Technique , 2008 .

[5]  Craig D. Comartin,et al.  Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings: A Practical Overview of the ATC 40 Document , 2000 .

[6]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  A modal pushover analysis procedure to estimate seismic demands for unsymmetric‐plan buildings , 2004 .

[7]  Panagiotis Kotronis,et al.  The effects of Soil-Structure Interaction on a reinforced concrete viaduct , 2011 .

[8]  C. Borderie Phénomènes unilatéraux dans un matériau endommageable : Modélisation et application à l'analyse de structures en béton. , 1991 .

[9]  Panagiotis Kotronis,et al.  Numerical modelling of the seismic behaviour of a 7-story building: NEES benchmark , 2009 .

[10]  Sashi K. Kunnath,et al.  Adaptive Modal Combination Procedure for Nonlinear Static Analysis of Building Structures , 2006 .

[11]  Panagiotis Kotronis,et al.  Stress-strain model for FRP-confined concrete columns under cyclic and seismic loading , 2012 .

[12]  Cédric Desprez Analyse et Réduction de la Vulnérabilité Sismique des Structures Existantes : Renforcement par Collage de Tissus de Fibres de Carbone (TFC) , 2010 .

[13]  Panagiotis Kotronis,et al.  Damage model for FRP-confined concrete columns under cyclic loading , 2013 .

[14]  Panagiotis Kotronis,et al.  SIMPLIFIED MODELLING STRATEGIES TO SIMULATE THE DYNAMIC BEHAVIOUR OF R/C WALLS , 2005 .

[15]  K. Lang Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings , 2002 .

[16]  J. Mazars,et al.  Using multifiber beams to account for shear and torsion: Applications to concrete structural elements , 2006 .

[17]  Iztok Peruš,et al.  TORSIONAL EFFECTS IN THE PUSHOVER-BASED SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF BUILDINGS , 2005 .

[18]  A. Kappos,et al.  3D PUSHOVER ANALYSIS: THE ISSUE OF TORSION , 2001 .

[19]  Jacky Mazars,et al.  Numerical modelling for earthquake engineering: the case of lightly RC structural walls , 2004 .

[20]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  A Modal Pushover Analysis Procedure to Estimate Seismic Demands for Buildings: Theory and Preliminary Evaluation , 2001 .

[21]  Rui Pinho,et al.  ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS OF ADAPTIVE AND NON-ADAPTIVE FORCE-BASED PUSHOVER PROCEDURES , 2004 .