Modal pushover and response history analyses of a masonry chimney before and after shortening

Abstract The 50 m high masonry chimney located in the old industrial facility that houses the School of Engineering of the University of Ferrara, Italy, suffered severe damages during the 2012 Emilia seismic sequence. Afterward, for security reasons, the upper damaged 12.40 m were disassembled. Both before and after shortening, the ratio between the effective mass of the fundamental mode and the total mass is approximately 20%, leading standard pushover analysis methods not to be appropriate for estimating the seismic demand. Using a single, consistent 3D FE formulation, the results of a Modal Pushover Analysis (MPA) and four nonlinear Response History Analyses (RHA) for the shortened and the original chimney were presented in the paper. The ground motions considered in the simulations are accelerograms recorded during recent and less recent devastating seismic events in Italy, New Zealand, and Japan. For both chimneys, a very good agreement between MPA and RHA was observed in terms of lateral displacements. Moreover, for the 50 m high chimney, a strong similarity was observed between the damage maps deriving from the MPA and those obtained with the RHA. All analyses confirmed a significant contribution of the higher modes. For the shortened chimney, the MPA revealed damages in the lower part of the stack (8–21 m), because of a prevailing influence of the fundamental mode. In the RHA, a more evident contribution of the higher modes was observed, probably because of the effect of the vertical component of the ground motion, not accounted for in the MPA.

[1]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Modal-Pushover-Based Ground-Motion Scaling Procedure , 2011 .

[2]  Donato Sabia,et al.  Structural Characterization of Brick Chimney by Experimental Tests and Numerical Model Updating , 2006 .

[3]  Amir M. Halabian,et al.  Effect of non-linear soil–structure interaction on seismic response of tall slender structures , 2002 .

[4]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Role of Higher-“Mode” Pushover Analyses in Seismic Analysis of Buildings , 2005 .

[5]  Oscar A. Quintero,et al.  Modal pushover‐based scaling of earthquake records for nonlinear analysis of single‐story unsymmetric‐plan buildings , 2014 .

[6]  Federico Perotti,et al.  Seismic analysis of the Asinelli Tower and earthquakes in Bologna , 1998 .

[7]  Francisco J. Pallarés,et al.  Seismic behaviour of industrial masonry chimneys , 2006 .

[8]  Salvador Ivorra,et al.  Seismic assessment of a CFRP-strengthened masonry chimney , 2009 .

[9]  A. Ghobarah,et al.  Seismic response and retrofit of industrial brick masonry chimneys , 1992 .

[10]  Takayoshi Aoki,et al.  Influence of experimental data and FE model on updating results of a brick chimney , 2008, Adv. Eng. Softw..

[11]  J. Blaauwendraad,et al.  Crack Models for Concrete, Discrete or Smeared? Fixed, Multi-Directional or Rotating? , 1989 .

[12]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Evaluation of three‐dimensional modal pushover analysis for unsymmetric‐plan buildings subjected to two components of ground motion , 2011 .

[13]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Evaluation of a Modified MPA Procedure Assuming Higher Modes as Elastic to Estimate Seismic Demands , 2004 .

[14]  Jeeho Lee,et al.  Plastic-Damage Model for Cyclic Loading of Concrete Structures , 1998 .

[15]  Aw Page,et al.  THE BIAXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF BRICK MASONRY. , 1981 .

[16]  Salvador Ivorra,et al.  State of the art of industrial masonry chimneys: A review from construction to strengthening , 2011 .

[17]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake Engineering , 1995 .

[18]  Gabriele Milani,et al.  Seismic risk assessment of a 50 m high masonry chimney using advanced analysis techniques , 2014 .

[19]  Eduardo Kausel,et al.  Approximate formulas for dynamic stiffnesses of rigid foundations , 1988 .

[20]  G. Zijl,et al.  Modeling Masonry Shear-Compression: Role of Dilatancy Highlighted , 2004 .

[21]  Donato Sabia,et al.  Model Updating to Forecast the Dynamic Behavior of the Ghirlandina Tower in Modena, Italy , 2015 .

[22]  Domenico Liberatore,et al.  Guest editorial: The Emilia 2012 earthquakes, Italy , 2014, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering.

[23]  Salvador Ivorra,et al.  Seismic Behavior of a Masonry Chimney with Severe Cracking Condition: Preliminary Study , 2014 .

[24]  S. Ivorra,et al.  A comparison of different failure criteria in a numerical seismic assessment of an industrial brickwork chimney , 2009 .

[25]  Roberto Scotta,et al.  A scalar damage model with a shear retention factor for the analysis of reinforced concrete structures: theory and validation , 2001 .

[26]  E. Oñate,et al.  A plastic-damage model for concrete , 1989 .

[27]  Edward L. Wilson,et al.  Nonlinear dynamic analysis of complex structures , 1972 .

[28]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Evaluation of Modal and FEMA Pushover Analyses: SAC Buildings , 2004 .

[29]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Three‐dimensional modal pushover analysis of buildings subjected to two components of ground motion, including its evaluation for tall buildings , 2011 .

[30]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings , 2002 .

[31]  Clotaire Michel,et al.  Observed non-linear soil-structure interaction from low amplitude earthquakes and forced-vibration recordings , 2011 .

[32]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Modal Pushover-Based Scaling of Two Components of Ground Motion Records for Nonlinear RHA of Structures , 2012 .

[33]  Giuseppina Uva,et al.  Comparative seismic vulnerability analysis on ten masonry towers in the coastal Po Valley in Italy , 2013 .

[34]  Anil K. Chopra,et al.  Extension of Modal Pushover Analysis to Compute Member Forces , 2005 .

[35]  Paulo B. Lourenço,et al.  Numerical models for the seismic assessment of an old masonry tower , 2010 .