1G3: Seismic Resistance of Buildings

GL: T. Saito (BRI), C. Zavala (UNI)

2

Project Flow‐chartPeriod
Research Topic (Organization)

20092010(2010-2014)

2011

2012

2013

2014

(10 Months)(12Months)

G1: Seismic Motion & Geotechnical【 Chiba, Tokyo Tech, BRI, NIED,CISMID, IGP】

Source Modeling

1) Source Modeling and Seismic Motion2) Site Response & Microzonatio

Microzonation

Seismic Response

Field Survey3) Slope Failure Assessment
G2: Tsunami【Tohoku，BRI，Tsukuba，TEPSCO
DHN, CISMID】
1) Tsunami Propagation and Impacts
2) Tsunami Hazard Mapping
3) Tsunami Damage Mitigation Technology

Simulation of Strong Motion

EQ and MT Measurement

Tsunami Simulation

Hazard Map

Inundation and Impact

Data Collection Damage Assessment Method Tsunami Damage Analysis
Tsunami Damage Mitigation technology

Historical Tsunami Data

G3: Buildings【BRI，Nagoya, Yokohama
National，Akita Pref., CISMID】
1) Seismic Tests Database2) Diagnosis and Retrofit
3) Retrofit of Historical Buildings
G4: Damage Assessment【Tokyo Tech，Chiba，AIST，Tsukuba,
CISMID】
1) Geo-spatial Database

Literature Survey, Tests
Diagnosis Method

Database Development

Retrofit Technology, Validation Tests Guideline

Survey, Risk Assessment

Retrofit TechnologyGuideline

Data Collection Geospatial Data

Database Development

Methodology

Damage Detection

Data Collection

2) Damage Detection using Remote Sensing

Damage Assessment MethodAssessment, Risk Map

3) Damage Assessment for Scenario EQ
G5: Disaster Mitigation Plan and Project

Project Officer，Project Management，Public Announcement

Management【 Chiba, Tohoku, BRI, Tokyo Tech,Ritsumeikan, INDECI, CISMID】
1) Project Management
2) Disaster Mitigation Planning

WS▼WS▼

WS▼

Workshop OrganizationWS▼

WS▼

Mitigation Planning Dissemination, Education

3Group 3 Building (Equipment)
Structural testing

Material testing

Self supporting loading system

Renewal of old CISMID machine

Equipment

Equipment

4-oil jacks withControl system

50ton Universal

Building monitoring

Equipment

300ton Compression

Dynamic behavior monitoring & testSensor

Equipment

Shaking machineAcc. sensor

EquipmentInternet sensor monitoredby Peru and Japan

Laser sensor

Motivation of structural test (1)X

2010 Chile Earthquake
Japan-Peru-Chile joint
investigation teamX’

17-story building

Wall structure suffered flexuralfailure.

Shear failure of wall … studied well
Flexural failure of wall … need more study5Japan
Yokohama Univ.

MQ

Double reinforcement
 confinement effectContribution oftransverse wall

MEffectivewidth
B=?tFlange wall
Web wallPeru
CISMID
Single wire mesh reinforcement
 no confinement effectContribution oftransverse wall

Progress Report
Seismic Test Database(1)Structural Test in National Yokohama University (2010-2011)
FlangeSeismicLoad

Web

Specimen without Flange

Plus force application
Plus force applicationpSpecimen with Flange•Ciclic loadp

Minus force application•1/3 Scale
Minus moment•Displacement
control

6

7

LOAD VS DRIFT ANGLE CURVE
N1Load (kN)

50Load (kN)

100N2150

150

10050

00‐50‐50‐100‐100

Drift angle (%)‐150

Drift angle (%)

‐150
‐2.5

‐2.5 ‐2 ‐1.5 ‐1 ‐0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5

‐1.5

‐0.5

0.5

1.5

2.5

Skeleton curve
100.0050.00
0.00

Specimen N1Specimen N2
Yielding of bars
Maximum load‐50.00‐100.00

Drift Angle (%)‐150.00
‐2.50

‐1.50

‐0.50

0.50

1.50

2.50

3.50

4.50
78

Effective Width calculation result
Effective Compression WidthB/t3025201510501/25 (1)1/50 (2)1/50 (1)1/66 (2)

1/66 (1)

AA' , Positive load ( South)

1/100 (2)1/100 (1)1/200 (2)1/200 (1)1/400 (2)1/400 (1)

DD' , Negative load (North)

1/800 (2)1/800 (1)1/1600 (1)1/3200 (1)1/6400 (1)

0.002

0

Drift
Angle (%)

Effective width =1250 mm

Effective Width Tension
50

A‐A

40
B/t

Load (kN)

150.00

B‐B

C‐C

D‐D

B= 1250 mm

3020
100
1/25 (1)1/50 (2)1/50 (1)1/66 (2)

1/66 (1)1/100 (2)1/100 (1)1/200 (2)1/200 (1)1/400 (2)1/400 (1)1/800 (2)1/800 (1)1/1600 (1)1/3200 (1)1/6400 (1)0.002

0Drift Angle(%)

8Motivation of structural test (2)OUT-OF-PLANE FAILURE

Arequipa Earthquake – Peru (2001 )Long Beach Earthquake – SoutherCalifornia (1933)

Puente Piedra – Lima - PerúSan Juan de Lurigancho – Lima - Perú

Progress Report
Seismic Test Database(2)Groudir nd mec otio tion nSpecimenSupport

Shaking
TableYX

bleTaingkaSh

ZTest Setup
TestType12345678910

sweep wave
sweep wave
sweep wave
random wave
random wave
random wave
random wave
random wave
random wave
random wave

Specimen on the shaking
table
Frequency Amplitude
(hz)
(mm)
0.8 ‐ 200.5
0.8 ‐ 200.5
0.8 ‐ 200.5
5 ‐ 200.5
5 ‐ 201012 ‐ 20
512 ‐ 20512 ‐ 201012 ‐ 20
15
10 ‐ 15
5Test

Type

111213
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

random wave
random wave
sweep wave
random wave
random wave
random wave
random wave
random wave
random wave
random wave

Frequency Amplitude(hz)(mm)
10 ‐ 151010 ‐ 15
150.8 ‐ 200.55 ‐ 15105 ‐ 15205 ‐ 10205 ‐ 1030
5 ‐ 1040
5 ‐ 1050
3‐ 87010INSTRUMENTATION FOR THE TEST
Positions of accelerometersB

A00 A01

AC

A02

A03

A05 A06

A08

A04

A07

A09

Elevation Plane A

B

A11

Elevation Plane B

A13 A12Elevation Plane C

Positions of pi gauges
BAC

B

P6

P1

P7P5

P2
Elevation Plane A

P3P4

Elevation Plane B

Elevation Plane C

MAXIMUM ACCELERATION RECORDED
0.05 gxy2.15 gxyxyzxyzz

Test 01xy

Test 123.24 gTest 16

4.89 gTest 15

5.73 gxyz

Test 17z

Test 14xyzx
yz

Test 13xy

5.00 gxyz

2.45 gTest 102.69 gxyzz

Test 09

1.47 gxy

Test 11z

Test 08

3.33 gxyx
yz

Test 07z

1.18 gxyz

1.96 gTest 05

5.01 gxyz

xy

Test 04

2.31 gxy

Test 06z

Test 03

1.06 gzxyz

Test 020.88 g3.10 g0.11 g2.02 gz

Test 18

Test 19

VARIATION OF THE NATURAL FREQUENCY
1000

251510Channel 03

5001234567891011121314151617181920

Fourier Amplitude (cm/s)

20

Frequency

Fourier Spectrum (Time:0-80s, Parzen:0.2Hz)
T02
T04
T06
T08
T1050010050

105

Test number
25

10.05

0.1

0.5
1
Frequency (Hz)Frequency

20

1020

Channel 03

1510

Channel 06

2000

5

Fourier Spectrum (Time:0-80s, Parzen:0.2Hz)
T02
T04
T06
T08
T10

1000

0500
12345678910111213

14151617181920

Fourier Amplitude (cm/s)

0

Test number25.00
20.00

Frequency

515.0010050

1010.00

Channel 08

520.05

5.00

0.1

0.5
1
Frequency (Hz)

51020

0.00
012345678910111213

1415161718

1920

Channel 06

Test number

14

CRACK PATTERNS (1)Elevation Plane A

B

A

B

A

B

A

C

After Test 05

After Test 09

Elevation Plane B

After Test 13

B

CB

CB

After Test 09

After Test 09

Elevation Plane C

After Test 13

15

CRACK PATTERNS (2)

B

A

CB

CB

After Test 19
B

Elevation Plane AA

Elevation Plane B

Elevation Plane C

After Test 20

After Test 19

Progress Report
Simulation of collapse behavior of masonry structure

STERA_Briq

Discrete element model for brick16

Progress Report
Diagnosis and Retrofit(1)17Literature Survey and Database of Seismic Diagnosis Method(Building Research Institute)
Review of Experimental Data
Resistance mechanism, failure mode, ultimate strength, ultimate displacement
Proposal: restoring force characteristics model
Proposal: equations to determine restoring force characteristics models

Review of Analytical Data
Analytical methods, analytical model
Proposal: restoring force characteristics model

Review of Design Codes
Analytical methods, target performance, acceptance criteria
design equations

Data Source
Domestic: Technical papers (AIJ, JCI etc.)
International: Existing design codes, technical papers (EERI, ACI, ASCE, etc.)

18

Collection of Data of Masonry Structure(as of March 13, 2012)
Reference

Total
Numberof Papers

EmpiricalStudy

OthersRemarks

Architectural Institute ofJapan (AIJ)

367

241

57:material
69: others

1979 - 2010

Japan Concrete Institute(JCI)20

12

8: material,analysis,others

2003 - 2008

World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering(WCEE)

243

89

154: design, 1980(7WCEE) analysis,
2008(14WCEE)others

Earthquake Spectra(Earthquake Engineering
Research Institute: EERI)

158

12146: design, 1984 - 2011
analysis,othersMasonry : Unreinforced Masonry, Reinforced Masonry and Confined Masonry18

19
Elwood 2009

In‐plane shear response
Cracking
Maximum“Ultimate”

19

Progress Report
Diagnosis and Retrofit(2)
3650

B-1

4300

3650

B-1

5300

3650

B-1

6300

3650

B-1

7300

3650

B-1

8300

3650

B-1

0.30

B-1

A

B-1

B-1

B-1

C3

B-1

B-1

B-2

B-1

B-1

B

B-1

B-1

B-1

B-1

C3

B-1

B-1

B-1

CC1

C1C13950
1Y3950
2XC13950

3C13950

4C13950

C1395065B

C

Seismic vulnerability assessmentof Peruvian buildings using
Japanese method (Is index)

3550

B-2

B-2

C4B-2

C2B-2

C2B-2

C2B-2

C2B-2

C4B-2

3950

C3A

7000

C3B-2

C5B-2

C5B-2

C5B-2

B-2

C5B-2

C3

B-27500

C3500

3300

500

23650

300

1300

C1395078

Masonry(w=230mm)

13950

23950

33950

43950

53950

63950

73950

Capacity

8> Demand ?

Floor level: 9600 mm

C-93000

C-10C-7C-3B-1

C-10B-1

B-1

C-4B-1

C-10B-1

C-8C-4B-12003000

B-1B-12003000

200

B-1C-10B-1

C-8B-1C-2

B-1

C-10C-8
B-1

C-2

B-1

B-1C-2

B-1

C-8

IS = 0.500

Floor level: 6400 mm

Is0 = 0.6 (Japan, RC)

B-1

C-4
B-1

C-2

C-9

C-10
B-1

B-1

20

C-7

IS = 0.300

Floor level: 3200 mm

B-1

C-4C-3

IS = 0.250

Floor level: 0 mm

Is0 = 0.4 (Peru, RC)= ? (Peru, Masonry)

ELEVATION: Axis "B"

EXAMPLE: Framed Structure of RC - Usage: Education (Engineering Faculty FIC-UNI)

Progress Report
Simulation of dynamic performance of a building

STERA_3D

Progress Report
Retrofit of Historical Buildings
Vibration Characteristics of Traditional Adobe-Quincha Buildings(Akita Prefectural University, BRI and CISMID)

Comercio Hotel

Micro-tremor measurement

Dominant frequency

22

Human Resources Development

Lecture in CISMID

G3 meeting in CISMID
Lecture in TACNA

Short term training in BRI

Field survey of historical buildings in LIMA23