11.06.2012

International Memorial Symposium

Seismically active Zones around the Mediteranian Sea

27 th of June 2012 Wednesday
at GRIPS

The importance of collaboration forcomplementary research in the field ofearthquake engineering
An example : SAFECAST project in Europe

Faruk Karadogan

An earlier project

ECOLEADER

1

11.06.2012

Another earlier project

PRECAST EC8PERFORMANCE OF INNOVATIVE MECHANICALCONNECTIONS IN PRECAST BUILDING STRUCTURESUNDER SEISMIC CONDITIONS••••••••

Grant agreement no. 218417
Research for SME associations
Project start date: 1st March 2009

Duration: 36 months

Coordinator: Dr. Antonella COLOMBO, ASSOBETON (AXB), Italy2

11.06.2012

Beneficiary nameBeneficiary short nameCountry(coordinator) ASSOBETON- National Italian Association of Precast ConcreteProducers AXB Italy
Asociación Nacional de Prefabricados y Derivados del Cemento ANDECE Spain
National Portuguese Association of Precast Concrete Producers ANIPB Portugal
SEVIPS - Greek National association of precast concreteproducers SEVIPS Greece
Turkish Precast Concrete Association TPCA Turkey
Joint Research Centre – Elsa Laboratory JRC Belgium
Politecnico di Milano POLIMI Italy
National Technical University of Athens NTUA Greece
Istanbul Technical University ITU Turkey
Laboratorio Nacional de LNEC Portugal
University of Ljubljana UL Slovenia
Labor srl LABOR Italy
DLC srl DLC Italy
Truzzi Prefabbricati TZPREF Italy
PRELOSAR SL – Losas Riojanas SL PRELOSAR Spain
LU.GE.A Progetti Costruzione Gestione Spa LUGEA Italy
HALFEN GmbH HALFEN Germany

Project PRECAST EC8AIMTo throw light onto the seismic behaviour of complete standard single-storey precast industrialstructures
MEANS
Large-scale pseudodynamic testing of representative portions of precast industrial buildings
MAIN CONCLUSIONSPrecast decks in the configuration of testing are capable of efficiently distributing the horizontal
loads among the vertical elements. The mechanical connections and the nonstructural elements
such as claddings can greatly modify the global behaviour
LIMITATIONS
Whereas the sizes of beams and columns were fully representative of real structures, the lengthof secondary beams had to be reduced to comply with total size limitations (thus making the floor
system artificially more rigid). Connections were intentionally over-designed with respect tocommon practice to avoid premature failures
OPEN PROBLEMS
The behaviour of connections is m uch more difficult to predict than expected, and no adequate
numerical model exists. As a consequence, the stiffness of realsize decks cannot be derived fromavailable experimental results. Experimental results for connections of real-size elements
are badly needed311.06.2012

More about

SAFECASTConnections
1. Floor - Floor
2. Floor - Beam
3. Beam - Column
4. Column - Foundation
5. Cladding - Frame
6. Cladding - Cladding
7. Cladding - Foundation4

11.06.2012

Column to Foundation Connections
POLIMU-Pocket Foundation-Protruding bars--

POLIMU

Separated protruding bars

Bolted Sockets-

Weakened Bolted Sockets-

Inverted Bolted Sockets-

Bolted Flanges-CouplersTesting Setup for column to foundation connections

511.06.2012

Typical Load – Deflection Curves

400300Moment [kNm]

200

100

0-0.06-0.04-0.0 200 .02

0.04

0.06

-100

-200

-300

experiment-400

Chord rotation [rad]611.06.2012

ContributionsofIstanbul Technical University

Industrial TypeBeam to column connections
ToppingHollow core slab
Protruded ties
Two fork r bars

Tests on Hybrid ConnectionsStructural Analyses & Design

GroutWelding

Residential TypeBeam to column to column onnections

711.06.2012

200150100500-40-30-20-1001020304050-50-100-150200,0Slab in Tension
150,0FORCE (kN)

100,050,00,0-50,0-100,0

Push Slab in Compression Test Part-1
Push Slab in Compression Test Part-2-150,0

Push Slab in Tension Test

Slab in Compression-200,0-250,0Cyclic-200,0-150,0-100,0-50,00,050,0100,0150,0200,0250,0DISPLACEMENT (MM)8

11.06.2012

The observed general characteristics ofbeam to column connections

Two push over curves for a structure with asymettric connections .
Which direction the structure should be pushed?

They are not symmetricStrength degradation
Stiffness degradation
Heavy pinching for Residential Types
Important differences between Monotonic andCyclicP-D Diagrams

Dowel Connections
NTUA - UL

NTUA

911.06.2012

100Dowels: 125, d=0.10
CyclicForce (kN)

50

0-50

-100
-50-40-30-20-100102030

4050

Displacement (mm)1011.06.2012

Finite Element Analyses
1,4ConcreteLongitudinal
Path (CFP)

Dowel Center-line Path(DCP)
Grout Longitudinal Path(GBP)

1,21Path

0,80,6

Concrete
Transverse
Direction

Concrete Front
Path-Pt2
Concrete Back
Path-Pt2

0,40,200,0E+00

5,0E-02

1,0E-01

1,5E-01

2,0E-01

2,5E-01

Plastic Strain

Tests on beam–to–column connections
Contribution of LNEC

Tests on beam–to–column connections
Contribution of UL

1111.06.2012

Shaking table tests
Contribution of NTUAELSA Contribution

1211.06.2012

An IPRED Collaboration - Van Mission in Turkey

1311.06.2012

Conclusions• Reginal cooperations should have priorities and have to beencouraged• Budget of the cooperative works should be increased• Local administrative bodies and the people should be a part ofthe problems to satisfy the local needs• Can IPRED be improved to such an organisation to coordinate
the predefined collaborative works ?

14