On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

COLE POLYTECHNIQUE FDRALE DE LAUSANNE -EPFL-

APPLIED COMPUTING AND MECHANICS LABORATORY -IMAC-

ON THE SEISMIC VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT OF UNREINFORCED MASONRY EXISTING BUILDINGS IN SWITZERLAND

Authors:

Belmouden Y., Lestuzzi P. youssef.belmouden@epfl.ch , pierino.lestuzzi@epfl.ch

cole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL)

ENAC-IS-IMAC, EPFL, Station 18, CH-1015, Lausanne, Switzerland

Research Report

Lausanne, 03 December, 2007

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. - Jan L.A. Van de Snepscheut

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Abstract
Earthquakes are considered to be the major cause of structural failure of buildings in Europe. Despite their rarity and moderate intensity, earthquakes in the interior and particularly in Switzerland have the potential to cause extensive damage and associated financial losses, due to the vulnerability of the local building stock. The present report summarizes a contribution for seismic vulnerability assessment of existing unreinforced masonry buildings in Switzerland. The work presents a methodology for modern fragility curve generation. For this purpose, a classification of typical buildings is presented. Then, a Swiss-type unreinforced masonry building is selected. An investigation on the non linear behaviour of unreinforced masonry structures is performed using both simplified and finite element methods. Capacity curves and capacity spectrum are generated with and without torsion effect. Vulnerability functions are developed based on the EMS98 damage grade. Moreover, the study shows the need of efficient and reliable simplified methods for seismic analysis of existing buildings. Thus, a novel approach for capacity curves generation is developed and validated against experimental tests and numerical results. Finally, the remaining steps that yield to modern fragility curves are defined.

Rsum
Les tremblements de terre constituent la principale cause de destruction des btiments en Europe. Malgr leur raret et leur intensit juge comme moyenne, les sismes en Europe centrale et en particulier en Suisse ont un grand potentiel destructeur pouvant engendrer dimportants dommages et des pertes conomiques, cause de la vulnrabilit sismique du stock de btiments local. Le prsent rapport rsume une contribution pour lvaluation de la vulnrabilit sismique des btiments existant en maonnerie en Suisse. Le travail prsente une mthodologie pour la gnration de courbes de fragilit dites modernes. Dans ce but, une classification de btiments types est prsente. Ensuite, un btiment en maonnerie non arme du type suisse a t slectionn. Une investigation portant sur le comportement non linaire des structures en maonnerie non arme est conduite en utilisant une mthode danalyse simplifie et la mthode des lments finis. Des courbes de capacit et des spectres de capacit sont gnres avec et sans considration de leffet de la torsion. Les fonctions de vulnrabilit sont dveloppes en fonction de lchelle de dommage EMS98. En plus, ltude a dmontr le besoin dune mthode fiable pour lanalyse sismique des btiments existant. Ainsi, une nouvelle approche pour la gnration des courbes de capacit a t dveloppe et valid par rapport des rsultats exprimentaux et numriques. Enfin, les tapes restantes menant aux courbes de fragilit recherches sont dfinies.

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Contents
1. Introduction.....5 2. Methodology....6 3. Building classification and typology..7 4. Structural analysis and damage assessment...11 4.1 Seismic vulnerability assessment using simplified models...11 4.2 Seismic vulnerability assessment using finite element models.....14 4.3 A novel analytical model for capacity curves generation.21 4.3.1 Introduction....21 4.3.2 Description and hypotheses of the structural model..22 4.3.3 A Pushover analysis of an URM building..24 5. Conclusions and futur work.....31 6. References..31

Annexe I Correspondance entre les classifications de lEMS-98, Risk_UE et HAZUS-99...34 Annexe II Typologie du bti existant suisse en vue de l'apprciation de sa vulnrabilit sismique42 Annexe III Btiments en maonnerie non arme.....75 Annexe IV Modlisation du btiment existant en maonnerie non arme par la mthode des lments finis multifibres.99 Annexe V Analyse modale du btiment existant en maonnerie non arme...104 Annexe VI Mthode analytique danalyse statique non linaire simplifie des btiments existants en maonnerie non arme.....127 Annexe VII Modlisation parasismique..133

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

1. Introduction
The present work is a contribution to the seismic vulnerability assessment and seismic risk mitigation in Switzerland as the structural characteristics of Swiss building stock significantly differ from those included in the existing methodologies. The work aims to provide a building classification and fragility functions as a first step to develop realistic and modern fragility curves of existing buildings in Switzerland and in particular for unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings. The present work is a part of the VFK research project untitled Wirklichkeitsnahe Erdbebenverletzbarkeits und Verschiebungsfunktionen von Mauerwerksgebuden. The part of the EPFL team work concerns the seismic vulnerability assessment of existing unreinforced masonry buildings in Switzerland. The main objective is the development of realistic vulnerability functions for a selection of typical Swiss masonry buildings based first, on the improvement of existing methodologies taking into accounts for torsion effect and second, on the damage analysis of north Europe earthquake. In this context, in the few last decades, technical advances have been made in seismic engineering and particularly in the seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings. The vulnerability assessment focuses on the study of the extent of damage for different earthquake scenarios. There are two ways to describe the structural damage distribution in a given region: (1) fragility curves and, (2) damage probability matrix (DPM) [2, 9]. Both of them represent the distribution of damage. The former is a graphic continuous representation, and the latter uses a tabular discrete representation. One of the most widely used methodologies is the so-called HAZUS methodology. HAZUS methodology framework is composed of (1) input databases, (2) analysis modules and, (3) an application software [1, 2]. HAZUS input data module requires (1) an inventory data from GIS information, (2) earthquake hazard and geologic data maps and (3) analysis parameters. In general, the vulnerability assessment of buildings includes (1) hazard analysis, (2) classification of the critical existing structures with regard to their seismic vulnerability and (3) fragility curves generation [1]. Fragility curves represent an analytical tool for decision making such as in the decision process for emergency plans, retrofitting of critical structures as a mean of pre-disaster mitigation, reinsurance policy and so on [4]. The VFK project started on 01/01/2007. It is organized into four main stages. The first and second stages finishes on 31/10/2007. These involved the formulation of a methodology for vulnerability functions and to define a typical Swiss unreinforced masonry existing building. The third phase is planned to be achieved by 31/03/2008. This deals with capacity and vulnerability curves development. The fourth phase consists of the application of new vulnerability curves to evaluate the seismic risk of some examples. This stage is planned to be achieved by the end of 2008. The report is organized as follows. A simplified description of the methodology is presented. Then, a typology of existing buildings and a standardized classification of existing buildings are proposed based on the available data. A summary of seismic analysis of a typical URM building using

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

analytical and finite element methods that include and neglect torsion effect is presented. Moreover, a novel approach for capacity curves generation and structural damage prediction is developed and described herein. Finally a preliminary series of fragility functions are developed for the Swiss-type existing building. This report is a synthesis of the work done till the end of 2007. More details may be found in the following references [4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 36]. 2. Methodology By definition, fragility curves provide estimates for the probabilities of reaching or exceeding different limit states at a given ground shaking intensity for a given building or a stock of buildings. In general, three methods are provided for fragility curves generation: (1) the empirical statistical method, (2) the seismic code method as adopted by HAZUS99 (RMS, 1999), (3) the analytical method as followed in this study and based on the nonlinear static Pushover analysis. Among the above mentioned methods, the third method is the most efficient one in particular when sufficient and reliable post-earthquake data are unavailable [1]. This approach is used also when the seismic capacity due to ductility details of structural components can not be implemented with sufficient accuracy. This is more likely to happen in existing unreinforced masonry buildings. Further details on the methods can be found in these references [1, 2, 7, and others]. The proposed methodology for realistic fragility generation is based on the following steps (Fig. 1): 1A classification of existing buildings based on experts and engineering judgment, structural criteria (structural wall, frame, slabs, structural regularity, storey height,), material type (steel, concrete, masonry, wood, adobe, and others), and mechanical characteristics (lateral stiffness indices, seismic resistance indices, elastic period of vibration,), 234Nonlinear analysis of the buildings (Pushover analysis, NSP): capacity curves generation, median capacity curves for typical buildings, reliable and efficient damage grade model; Vulnerability assessment of existing buildings (vulnerability functions, fragility curves in absence of torsion effect, fragility surfaces if torsion effect is considered), Single and typical multiple degree of freedom systems (Modal spectral analysis (ADRS), Nonlinear dynamic analysis (IDA), damage models compatibility, seismic records data base,), 5Calibration of existing models such as HAZUS for seismic risk mitigation in Switzerland.

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Inventory: Class of buildings Inventory Models: Models Simplified, FEM DG:Damage DG degree model Typical capacity curve (bilin. or trilin. Idealization)
Typical CC (ADRS format)

Structural criteria: Nstorey, criteria storey Heigth,Regularity, Mechanical characteristics criteria: Floor Mass, Inertia, criteria: Floor Area, etc.

Pushover analysis (NSP)

Demand Spectrum (Scenarios, seismic microzonation) Seismic records (data base)

Analytical fragility curves (Developped method) Typical SDOF (IDA analysis

Fragility curves (HAZUS)

HAZUS calibration

Analytical fragility curves

Figure 1 Flow chart of the proposed methodology for realistic fragility curves generation

3. Building classification and typology

Classifications and typology of existing buildings is the most challenging task for fragility analysis. The critical issue is the availability of a building stock and the related database. The buildings are first categorized into different classes according to their structural system and characteristics (construction material type) [1]. The model is decomposed into 10 main classes and 7 sub-classes [5] (See Appendix 1). The main criteria followed for the classification is based on the structural system and material type of the buildings. However, an efficient approach necessitates including the number of storeys, year of construction (construction age) and class of vulnerability. As the data of individual buildings is not enough to develop a representative and efficient model for parameters that affect closely the resulting fragility functions, the curves have to be considered as a first attempt for seismic vulnerability assessment in Switzerland. This first investigation was strengthened by a second one performed at the EPFL [6] (voir Annexe 2) in a semester project by Bieri M., Gentil T., Michaud N (Tabl. 2). This study had focused mainly on the Office Federal des Douanes building stock. Some examples are shown in the figures 3, 4, and 5.

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Table 1 Proposed classification of existing buildings in Switzerland [5] (voir Annexe 1)

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Figure 2 An URM typical existing building (Yverdon-les-bains building) [4, 5]

Table 2 Description of the building stock of the Office Federal des Douanes [6] (voir Annexe 2)

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Figure 3 Drflingen Zollgebude building [6]

Figure 4 Oberriet building [6]

Figure 5 Vernier building [6]

10

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

4. Structural analysis and damage assessment of an URM typical existing building

In order to obtain fragility curves, damage states need to be defined. In this study the EMS98based damage states are considered. Both HAZUS and Risk_UE damage states are also used and compared to the EMS98 damage grade. In the EMS98 model, damage states are defined in a qualitative manner. However, in the HAZUS [2] and Risk_UE [8] models, damage states are defined in terms of inter-storey drift. A total of five damage grades are provided by all of these models. These are: none, slight, moderate, extensive, and complete damage. Each damage grade can be defined in terms of structural damage according to the constructed material type of the building prototype. In this study, vulnerability functions are developed for typical URM structure using EMS98 damage grade. Hence, a simplified description of each damage can be found in the references [3, 4, 7]. It is well known that fragility curves represent a probabilistic measure for the fragility of a prototype of buildings under various levels of ground motions [1]. Two kinds of fragility curves can be obtained: empirical fragility curves or analytical fragility curves. The project aims to generate analytical fragility curves as ultimate goal. For this purpose, a Pushover-based approach is used. In this study, vulnerability functions are developed only as an intermediate stage before development of fragility curves. Different methods for structural analysis are tested such as a simplified methods and finite element method. 4.1 Seismic vulnerability assessment using simplified models The generated capacity curves are based on the simplified method called Lang method [7] (See Appendix 6). For vulnerability assessment, the Yverdon-les-bains building was selected (Fig. 2, 6). This building was found to be the representative existing URM building in Switzerland based on expert judgements and structural criteria. The building is a four storey structure with reinforced concrete slabs. The building has 35 walls in the longitudinal direction (x-direction) and 15 walls in the transversal direction (y-direction). All these masonry walls have a same thickness equal to 250mm. The storey height is equal to 2.5m (Fig. 6). The structural damage criteria followed in the seismic vulnerability assessment is based on the EMS-98 damage grade [3]. Five damage degrees are considered: DG1 (Negligible), DG2 (Moderate), DG3 (Substantial to heavy), DG4 (Very heavy), and DG5 (Destruction). The gravity load (dead+live load) acting on the floor is equal to 7kN/m2. The total floor mass is equal to 252tons. Additional data and assumptions are given in the following references [4, 5]. Four cases are investigated for the structural analysis (tabl. 3).
Model M1 M2 M3 M4 Assumptions Restricted ductility equal to 12 for masonry walls (Lang assumption [7]), Frame effect neglected Restricted ductility equal to 12 for masonry walls (Lang assumption [7]), Frame effect considered Non restricted ductility for masonry walls, Frame effect neglected Non restricted ductility for masonry walls, Frame effect considered
Table 3 Case studies of the Yverdon-les-bains building

11

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Figure 6 Layout of the ground floor of the Yverdon-les-bains building (X-X : Longitudinal direction, Y-Y : Transversal direction)

Both capacity curves and capacity spectrum are generated using the simplified model. The capacity curve represents graphically the seismic behaviour of a building. The graphic ordinate represents the total base shear of the building while its abscissa represents the roof displacement. The capacity spectrum represents graphically the seismic behaviour of a building but using spectral parameters. The graphic ordinate represents the spectral acceleration of the building while its abscissa represents the spectral top displacement. This transformation is called ADRS format. It includes the dynamic characteristics of the building in comparison to the capacity curves that are restricted only to static characteristics. The ADRS transformation is detailed in the Applied Technology Council 1996 [4, 16].

12

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

3500

M1_x M1_y
3000

M2_x M2_y M3_x M3_y M4_x M4_y

kN) Total Base la base (kN) Effort tranchant Shear (kN)

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Dplacement au sommet (mm) Roof Displacement (mm)

Roof Displacement (mm)

Solid lines : Restricted ductility Dotted lines : Infinite ductility

Figure 7 Capacity curves in the principal directions of the Yverdon-les-bains building

Damage grade Degr de dgats

3
M1_DG_x M1_DG_y M2_DG_x M2_DG_y M3_DG_x M3_DG_y M4_DG_x M4_DG_y

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5

Dplacement spectral Sd (mm) Spectral Displacement (mm)

Figure 8 Vulnerability functions of the Yverdon-les-bains building with regards to the EMS98 damage grade

13

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Based on the results from the simplified method, the following remarks are drawn [4]: 1. Ductility of masonry walls: The figure 7 shows the effect of the ductility of masonry walls on the damage assessment of the building (M1_x and M3_x ; M1_y and M3_y ; M2_x and M4_x ; M2_y and M4_y ). The structural behaviour shift from relatively weak behavior (restricted ductility equal to 12 [7]) to a ductile behaviour (non restricted ductility). This result is considered with caution since the real behavior is somewhere between these two particular cases. 2. Frame effect: The frame effect substantially increases the global strength or resistance of the building. The total base shear is increased by 42% in the Y-Y direction, when it is increased by 69.7% in the X-X direction (Fig. 7). 3. Damage prediction: The results show that all cases are close until the damage grade 2. For the subsequent damage grades, the contribution of the non restricted ductility characteristic provides additional capacity for the structure to withstand earthquake with high intensities. Similar results are shown when considering coupling effect between parallel walls (frame effect). The generated vulnerability functions (Fig. 8) show the sensitivity of the results from initial assumption of the model. Thus the vulnerability assessment is influenced by the considered model, particularly for high damage grades that describe the vulnerability of structures subjected to relatively strong earthquakes. Finally, it is evident that the followed simplified method suffers from some limitations such as non redistribution of forces, plastic hinge and non linearity concentrated only at the first storey, constant coupling (or frame effect) between walls, no spandrel effect is considered, elastic perfectly plastic law of behaviour for the walls and so on. Moreover, torsion effect is not considered in the method. Torsion effect has to be considered in a three-dimensional model of the structure. 4.2 Seismic Vulnerability assessment using finite element models The structural analysis of the Yverdon-les-bains building was performed with a multifiber smeared crack model using Drain-3DX software. The material constitutive models for masonry, the mechanical and geometrical characteristics for the entire structure and the structural modelling assumptions are given in reference [4]. The building belongs to the M3.4M Pre-Code class with regards to the RiskUE model [8]. In the XX series of models, masonry walls in the ZZ direction are omitted. Similarly, in the ZZ series of models, walls in the XX direction are not considered. However, for the XZ models, all the walls in both orthogonal directions, XX and ZZ, were considered. The building is analysed using the simplified method with and without frame effect (100% of the floor outof-plane inertia Ipl, and 10% of the floor out-of-plane inertia Ipl) (Tabl. 4).

14

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Again, the results obtained from the simplified method are shown and compared to those extracted from finite element method. The considered models with and without frame effect are named such as the simplified-1 and the simplified2 model respectively. Both models consider an unrestricted ductility for masonry walls.
Models Lateral load direction X-X X-X Z-Z Z-Z X-X and Z-Z X-X and Z-Z X-X X-X Z-Z Z-Z X-X and Z-Z X-X and Z-Z Frame effect : Floor out-of-plane stiffness Ipl 10% Ipl Ipl 10% Ipl Ipl 10% Ipl Ipl 10% Ipl Ipl 10% Ipl Ipl 10% Ipl

Structural model without spandrels M_XX1 M_XX2 M_ZZ1 M_ZZ2 M_XZ1 M_XZ2

Structural model with spandrels but without rigid offsets MSZR_XX1 MSZR_XX2 MSZR_ZZ1 MSZR_ZZ2 MSZR_XZ1 MSZR_XZ2

Table 4 Model assumptions for the Yverdon-les-bains building

6000

MSZR-XX1
5000

M-XX1

Total base shear (kN) Effort tranchant total la base (kN)

M-XX1 MSZR-XX2
4000

M-XX2 MSZR-XX1 MSZR-XX2

M-XX2

3000

Simplified 2

Simplified 1 Simplifi - 1

Simplifi - 2 Simplified 2
2000

Simplified 1
1000

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05

Roof displacement (m)

Dplacement au sommet (m)

Figure 9 Capacity curves generated using finite element method and simplified analysis in the longitudinal direction of the building without torsion effect

15

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

3500

M-ZZ1
3000 Effort base shear (kN) Totaltranchant total la base (kN)

MSZR-ZZ1

M-ZZ1 M-ZZ2

MSZR-ZZ2
2500

M-ZZ2
MSZR-ZZ1

Simplified 2
2000

MSZR-ZZ2

Simplified Simplifi ZZ1- 1

1500

Simplified Simplifi ZZ2- 2 Simplified 1

1000

500

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 Dplacement au sommet (m) Roof displacement (m)

Figure 10 Capacity curves generated using finite element method and simplified analysis in the transversal direction of the building without torsion effect

0.7

M-XX1

MSZR-XX1
M-XX2
0.6

M-XX1

MSZR-XX1

Spectral acceleration (g)(g) Acclration spectrale

MSZR-XX2
0.5

MSZR-XX2

M-XX2
0.4

Simplified 2 Simplifi - 2

Simplifi XX - 1 Simplified 1

Simplified 2 Simplifi XX - 2
M3.4L M3.4M Risk_UE M3.4L Risk_UE

0.3

0.2

M3.4M
0.1

Simplifi - 1 Simplified 1

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Dplacement spectral du sommet (m)

Roof spectral displacement (m)

Figure 11 Capacity spectrum generated using finite element method and simplified analysis in the longitudinal direction of the building without torsion effect

16

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

0.45

0.4

MSZR-ZZ1 M-ZZ1 MSZR-ZZ2 M-ZZ2

M3.4L
M-ZZ1

Acclration spectrale (g) Spectral acceleration (g)

0.35

M-ZZ2

0.3

MSZR-ZZ1

Simplifi - 22 Simplified
0.25 MSZR-ZZ2

0.2

Simplifi ZZ - 1 Simplified 1

Simplifi 1 Simplified -1 M3.4M

Simplified 2 Simplifi ZZ - 2
M3.4M Risk_UE

0.15

0.1 M3.4L Risk_UE 0.05

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

Dplacement displacement (m) Roof spectral spectral au sommet (m)

Figure 12 Capacity spectrum generated using finite element method and simplified analysis in the transversal direction of the building without torsion effect

8000
M-XZ1 Mode Sens XX M-XZ1 Mode 1 1 dirc-XX

7000

Mode 2 dirc-XX XX Mode 2 Sens

Effort tranchant total la base Total base shear(kN) (kN) 6000

M-XZ1 Mode Sens ZZ M-XZ1 Mode 1 1 dirc-ZZ M-XZ1 Mode 2 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode 2 Sens XX M-XZ1 Mode 2 dirc-ZZ M-XZ1 Mode 2 Sens ZZ

Mode 1 Sens ZZ dirc-ZZ

5000

Mode 1 dirc-XX Mode 1 Sens XX

4000

Mode 2 dirc-ZZ ZZ Mode 2 Sens

Simplified XX-1 Simplifi XX - 1

Simplifi XX - 2 Simplified XX-2

Simplified XX-2 Simplifi XX - 2

3000

Simplifi ZZ - 1ZZ-1 Simplified

Simplified -ZZ-2 Simplifi ZZ 2 Simplified Simplifi ZZ - 2ZZ-2

2000

Simplified ZZ - 1 Simplifi ZZ-1

1000

Simplified XX-1
0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 Dplacement au Roof displacement sommet du CM (m) of mass (m) of the center

Simplifi XX - 1

Figure 13 Capacity curves generated using finite element method in both longitudinal direction (dirc-XX) and transversal (dirc-ZZ) direction of the building with torsion effect for mode of vibration 1 and 2

17

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

8000

M-XZ1 Mode Sens XX M-XZ1 Mode 1 1 dirc-XX

7000

Mode 2 dirc-XX XX Mode 2 Sens

M-XZ1 Mode 1 1 dirc-ZZ M-XZ1 Mode Sens ZZ

Effort tranchant total la base Total base shear (kN) (kN)

6000

M-XZ1 Mode 22 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode Sens XX

5000

M-XX 1 M-XX1 Mode Sens XX Mode 11 dirc-XX

Mode 11Sens ZZ Mode dirc-ZZ
M-XX2 M-XX 2

M-XZ1 Mode 22 dirc-ZZ M-XZ1 Mode Sens ZZ

M-XX1 M-XX

4000 Mode 2 Sens ZZ Mode 2 dirc-ZZ

M-XX2 M-XX

3000

2000

1000

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 Dplacement au sommet du CM (m)

Roof displacement of the center of mass (m)

Figure 14 Capacity curves generated using finite element method with and without torsion effect in the longitudinal direction (dirc-XX) for mode of vibration 1 and 2

8000

M-XZ1Mode 1 1 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode Sens XX

7000

M-XZ1 Mode Sens ZZ M-XZ1Mode 1 1 dirc-ZZ

Mode 2 dirc-XX XX Mode 2 Sens

M-XZ1Mode 2 2 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode Sens XX

Effort tranchant total la base (kN)

6000
M-XZ1Mode 2 2 dirc-ZZ M-XZ1 Mode Sens ZZ

Total base shear (kN)

Mode 1 Sens ZZ dirc-ZZ

5000
M-ZZ1 M-ZZ

1 2

4000

Mode Sens XX Mode 11 dirc-XX

Mode 2 2 Sens ZZ Mode dirc-ZZ

M-ZZ2 M-ZZ

3000

M-ZZ1 M-ZZ1

M-ZZ2 M-ZZ2

2000

1000

0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03

Roof displacement of the center of mass (m)

Dplacement au sommet du CM (m)

Figure 15 Capacity curves generated using finite element method with and without torsion effect in the transversal direction (dirc-ZZ) for mode of vibration 1 and 2

18

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

0.9 0.8 0.7

Mode 2 dirc-XX Mode 2 Sens XX Mode 2 2 Sens ZZ Mode dirc-ZZ Mode 1 dirc-ZZ Mode 1 Sens ZZ
Mode 11 dirc-XX Mode Sens XX
M-XZ1 Mode Sens XX M-XZ1 Mode 1 1 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode Sens ZZ M-XZ1 Mode 1 1 dirc-ZZ

Spectral acceleration (g) Acclration spectrale (g)

0.6 0.5 0.4

Simplified - 2 Simplifi XX XX-2 Simplified ZZ-2 Simplifi ZZ - 2

M-XZ1 Mode 2 2 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode Sens XX M-XZ1 Mode 2 2 dirc-ZZ M-XZ1 Mode Sens ZZ Simplifi XX - 1 Simplified XX-1

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Simplified ZZ-1 1 Simplifi ZZ -

Simplified XX-2 Simplifi XX - 2 Simplified Simplifi ZZ - 1 ZZ-1

Simplifi XX - 1 Simplified XX-1

Simplified Simplifi ZZ - 2 ZZ-2

0.03

Roof spectral displacement of the center of mass (m)

Dplacement spectral du CM (m)

Figure 16 Capacity spectrum generated using finite element method with torsion effect in the longitudinal direction (dirc-XX) and transversal direction (dirc-ZZ) for mode of vibration 1 and 2

0.9 0.8 0.7

M-XZ1 Mode 1 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode 1 Sens XX M-XZ1 Mode 1 dirc-ZZ M-XZ1 Mode 1 Sens ZZ

Mode 22dirc-XX Mode Sens XX

Mode 1 Sens XX Mode 1 dirc-XX

Mode 22 Sens ZZ Mode dirc-ZZ Mode 1 dirc-ZZ Mode 1 Sens ZZ

M-XX1

M-XZ1 Mode 2 Sens XX M-XZ1 Mode 2 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode 2 Sens ZZ M-XZ1 Mode 2 dirc-ZZ M-XX1 1 M-XX M-XX2 2 M-XX

Spectral acceleration (g) Acclration spectrale (g)

0.6 0.5 0.4

M-XX2 M3.4M Risk_UE M3.4L Risk_UE M3.4L

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04

M3.4M

Roof spectral displacement of the center of mass (m)

Dplacement spectral du CM (m)

Figure 17 Capacity spectrum generated using finite element method with and without torsion effect in the longitudinal direction (dirc-XX) for mode of vibration 1 and 2

19

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5

M-XZ1 Mode 1 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode 1 Sens XX M-XZ1 Mode 1 dirc-ZZ M-XZ1 Mode 1 Sens ZZ

Mode 2 dirc-XX XX Mode 2 Sens Mode Sens XX Mode 11 dirc-XX Mode 1 dirc-ZZ Mode 1 Sens ZZ Mode 2 dirc-ZZ Mode 2 Sens ZZ

M-XZ1 Mode 2 dirc-XX M-XZ1 Mode 2 Sens XX M-XZ1 Mode 2 dirc-ZZ M-XZ1 Mode 2 Sens ZZ

Spectral acceleration (g) Acclration spectrale (g)

M-ZZ1 M-ZZ2 M3.4M Risk_UE

0.4
M-ZZ1

M-ZZ2 M3.4L

M3.4L Risk_UE

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 Dplacement spectral du center Roof spectral displacement of the CM (m) of mass (m)

M3.4M

Figure 18 Capacity spectrum generated using finite element method with and without torsion effect in the transversal direction (dirc-ZZ) for mode of vibration 1 and 2

In the following the main results of the vulnerability assessment of the building are given. It consists of capacity curves and capacity spectrum generated by a simplified method and a finite element method. However, for a detailed description of the results refer to the reference [4]. 1The results show that both capacity curves (Fig. 9, 10, 13, 14, 15) and capacity spectrum (Fig. 11, 12, 16, 17, 18) generation are challenging tasks for unreinforced masonry structures. In particular for deformation capacity prediction for the structure. The failure criteria was based both on maximum compressive strains in the masonry fibers and on the global stiffness (significant loss of the stiffness), 2In general all followed methods (finite element, simplified) give results close to the elastic stiffness of the building (Fig. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16). However, maximum strengths and deformations are found to be very different. These performances need to be defined with sufficient accuracy in order to develop reliable fragility curves that are based on damage prediction in the structure (strength and deformation criteria). It is found that these differences are due to various effects such as the spandrel contribution in the structural behavior, the material constitutive models for masonry structures and the considered failure modes of behavior. Moreover, it was found that the standardized Risk_UE curves do not closely match those generated by finite elements and simplified methods. These results encourage us to develop specific capacity curves and capacity spectra that realistically represent the behavior of Swiss type buildings.

20

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

3-

In the absence of torsion, the capacity curves (Fig. 9, 10) and the capacity spectra (Fig. 11, 12) are correlated. However, they are not correlated when torsion deformation is considered (Fig. 13, 14). The capacity curves with or without torsion are substantially different and then the damage states predictions are different from one curve to another. The trend is seen for capacity spectra with and without torsion effect (Fig. 17, 18). Another critical issue is the combination of modes of vibration in the case of multiple significant modes of vibration: combinations of capacity spectra for different modes of vibration in a given direction. It should be noted that the capacity curves and the capacity spectra are plotted with regards to the center of mass. In the presence of torsion, the behavior can differ from a point to another (center of mass, center of shear, stiff edge, flexible edge and so on),

4-

It has been found that values for structural flexibility, maximum strengths, maximum deformations, failure mechanisms, and structural collapse extracted when torsion effect is considered differ substantially from those calculated without torsion. This leads to the conclusion that the torsion effect has to be considered in the fragility curves.

4.3 A novel analytical model for capacity curves generation 4.3.1 Introduction In this paragraph, an analytical model for seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings is presented. The need for such models is always motivated by first, the large amount of structures that should be analyzed in a very short time and second, the search for optimal solutions for structural retrofitting. For vulnerability assessment purposes, the analysis of a large number of existing buildings requires relatively simple approaches that are capable of representing their essential characteristics. The models should be able to evaluate the ultimate strength, maximum displacements and the failure modes. Different models are developed based on analytical and finite element approaches [12]. The analytical models are found to be very simple to use and require lesser amount of data. However they are very limited, particularly for large building analysis in terms of structural behavior (coupling effect, distribution of the nonlinearity, force moment interaction and force redistribution, spandrel effect, coupling effect between parallel walls, modes of failures prediction and so on). The performed analyses show that they are conservative and are not able to represent all features of such buildings [4]. On the other hand, finite element approaches are powerful tools for seismic analysis but they are time consuming and require large amounts of data. Moreover, refined models based on either discrete or continuum approaches suffer from strong mesh-dependency and require numerous parameters that may not be directly extractable from structural analysis. Hence, these models are very sensitive to the parameter calibration that directly affects the reliability of the results and the analysis stability (lack of convergence, flip-flop occurrence, sudden load falling, and so on). With such methods it is not

21

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

possible to treat a stock of buildings. Thus, these methods are cumbersome due to the high analytical skills required for their numerical implementation and they are restricted only to practitioners with a high level of knowledge. A widely used model for structural analysis is the linear (beam-column element) finite element or the equivalent frame model. Despite some limitations in the equivalent frame model, it is very attractive in comparison to complex finite element models [12, 13, 14, 15]. Moreover, they have shown satisfactory results particularly for RC structures. In this context, the proposed model is based on beam-column element and distributed non-linearity approaches. It is adapted to analytical methods without use of finite element method. 4.3.2 Description and hypotheses of the structural model The mathematical model can represent solid walls, frame structural elements (made in beams and columns), coupled walls and perforated walls [16]. The model can represent different openings. However, the vertical axis should lies through all vertical piers elements as well as for the horizontal axes that should lies through all spandrels. The structural model consists of an assemblage of vertical plane walls with openings that form a single perforated wall. Each structural wall is made of pier elements with or without rigid offsets and a portion of spandrels such that there are two kinds of individual walls: exterior walls and interior walls (Fig. 19). The length of these parts of spandrels is equal to the zero moment length, and can be updated at each step depending on the bending moments at the spandrel ends. In the equivalent frame models that are based on finite element method, nonlinear flexural springs (lumped plasticity) are inserted into the model at the ends of the piers and/or spandrel elements. These elements are defined in terms of moment-rotation laws. Translational shear springs are added at each pier and spandrel at mid-points. These springs are expressed in terms of shear forcedisplacement laws. However, the occurrence of yielding is unlikely along spandrel spans and piers heights. For this reason, nonlinearity should be distributed along the clear pier height and clear spandrel length. Thus, the proposed model is based on the spread nonlinearity approach. Each pier and spandrel can be discretized into a series of slices [17] and each cross-section is considered as homogeneous. The structural element behavior is monitored at the center of the slices [17] while bending moments are evaluated at slice ends. The mechanical model undergoes flexural as well as shear deformation. In the current formulation, the model only considers a biaxial interaction between axial forces - bending moments (N-M) and axial forces - shear forces (N-V). The so-called shifting of the primary curve technique is used [18]. The axial force is evaluated in a simple manner based on initial axial forces plus vertical shear forces produced in spandrels at joints. A triaxial interaction rule, (N-M-V), is not currently considered. At present, only interaction curves that represent bending moment or shear force interaction with regards

22

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

to a compressive axial force are considered. The major features of this model are summarized as follows: 1- All previous attempts to use simplified models based on static equilibrium method, always consider a constant zero moment location (Nuray Aydinolu [19], Kilar and Fajfar [20], Lang [7], FEMA356 [21], FEMA306 [22], Paquette and Bruneau [23], and others). The wall formulation herein permits the capture of the coupling effect in elevation due to the nonlinearity distribution in both piers and spandrels. Thus, the zero moment location in both piers and spandrels can be mitigated during the nonlinear analysis. 2- In the current development, the variation of the axial vertical loads are considered for piers only and they are based on an over-simplified approach. The axial loads on piers are updated based on the initial axial forces at each storey plus the shear forces developed on spandrel ends. 3- The nonlinearity is treated using a smeared plasticity approach [17]. Thus, the piers and spandrels are discretized into finite homogenized slices [24]. Variable sections can be specified over either spandrels or piers. In pier elements the axial forces can increase or decrease. In that case, the pier slices can shift either from elastic-to-plastic or from plastic-to-elastic state depending on the axial force distribution. 4- The model can take into account both flexural and shear behavior in the inelastic range. The interaction effect can be defined by using experimental and phenomenological models. These equations are considered as failure criteria that can be defined by points and linear segments. The non linear constitutive model for both flexural and shear behavior is considered as a bilinear envelop curve with a very small post-yield stiffness to avoid numerical problems. The flexural behavior is modelled as a moment-curvature law that is based on an equilibrium statement in a cross-section. 5- The present formulation deals with a Pushover analysis. It is based on the well-known event-toevent strategy. A simplified algorithm for systems with interaction effect is presented through an equilibrium correction at each step of calculation. The analysis is performed by a force-controlled technique. The change of sign in a structural element is permitted only in the elastic range. In the inelastic range, this leads to stoppage of the analysis. 6- The structural wall is a planar structure (two-dimensional). However, the sum of all capacity curves, on the basis of the equal top displacement assumption, permits to analyze an entire building and to develop capacity curves.

23

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

F
hi

lsp

hp
Opening Rigid zone Deformable part Edge wall Intermediate wall

Li
Edge wall

Figure 19 A schematic representation of equivalent frame model for planar walls with openings

4.3.3. A Pushover analysis of an URM building The proposed model can be used also for modeling URM structures. The URM piers and spandrels are subdivided into a series of slices. The slices represent a homogeneous brick and mortar one-phase material. As known, the masonry material is a weak isotropic material with very limited ductility. Thus, the softening behavior is very burdensome for computation and causes failure of convergence problems particularly when the analysis is force-controlled. The post-peak behavior with softening is beyond the scope of this model. The yield criteria considered are expressed for flexure (Eq. 1) and for shear behavior (Eq. 2) according to the Magenes model (Ref. [20], [7], and [21]) as follows:

f ( N , M ) = M + N + N 2 0
N + 1 N 2 V + 2 + 2 N V 3 1 + 3 N 0 f ( N , V ) = MIN V 1 1 + N

(1)

(2)

Two constants and are required for flexure failure criteria, while nine constants i, i and i (for i=1,3) are required for shear failure criteria (Ref. [30], [31], and [32]). N is the axial compressive load acting on a pier element. The same failure criteria can be found in many other procedures for masonry assessment (Ref. [21], [22], [23], [33] and others]. These equations deal with elastic perfectly plastic models in terms of moment- rotation and shear force displacement laws. In this study, the behavior of the spandrel is assumed to be elastic linear in both flexure and shear. A full-scale two-storey unreinforced masonry tested at the Pavia University was chosen for model validation (Ref. [30], [31], and [32]). This structure has been extensively studied in literature with different models: 1- using both a plane-stress nonlinear finite element in a continuum model (F.E.M) and a simplified finite element point hinge model (SAM: Simplified Analysis of Masonry buildings), [31]

24

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

2- using a nonlinear eight node solid element (Solid 65, ANSYS Software) with a triaxial yield criteria initially developed for concrete materials and a simplified phenomenological model [15] 3- using a simplified phenomenological model with a diagonal truss-plasticity approach and upper bound plasticity theory [7] 4- using a beam element (a macro element) with additional degrees of freedom (TREMURI program) [35]. A remarkable feature of this structure is that axial loads in piers vary during the experimental test. The variation of the axial load in the considered structure is exploited to study the sensitivity of the model to the axial force variation in piers. The structural model is subjected to increasing lateral forces that are applied at the floor levels, keeping a 1:1 ratio between the force at the first and the second floor. In this application the door wall D (Fig. 20, 21) was chosen as no flange effect is considered. The elastic properties of the structure used in the model are summarized as follows: The maximum compressive strength of a masonry prism orthogonal to the mortar bed, fm, is equal to 7.9MPa [32], and the shear modulus (Geff=90fm) is equal to the effective value. For full data see Ref [32].

Figure 20 Geometry of the model building

25

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

6.435 5.7525 5.5069 5.07

1.365

2.7625 3.835 3.398 2.99 2.5314

2.145

1.235 2.1088

1.69

2.5314 0.94 0.94

P1

P2

P3

Figure 21 Elevation view of the wall D and geometry (in m). Exterior walls length and axial loads on the bottom and top levels are equal to 1.15m, 56kN, 26.9kN respectively. Interior wall length and axial loads on the bottom and top level are equal to 1.82m, 133kN, and 64.5kN respectively

In the current application, The (N-M) interaction is shown in the figure 22. However, the (N-V) interaction was not activated. In fact, it was found that axial forces in the second storey are confined to the first failure mode domain of validity (Fig. 23) since the variation in axial forces for this storey is very low. The second and third modes of failures are not activated. However, despite the variation in axial forces in the first storey, they are confined to the second failure mode domain of occurrence during the analysis (Fig. 23). Hence, an elastic perfectly plastic model without (N-V) interaction is used.
1000 900 800 700
Axial force (kN)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 100 200 300

Bending moment (kN) Exterior walls Interior walls

400

500

600

Figure 22 Flexural criteria for rocking mode of failure in piers

26

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

500 450 400 350

Axial force (kN)

Mode 3

300 250 200 150 100 50

Mode 1 Mode 2

Vshear mode 1 Vshear mode 2 Vshear mode 3 Minimum Shear

0 0 50 100 150
Shear force (kN)

200

250

29

300

Figure 23 Shear failure criteria for piers only. Mode 1: (cs) shear failure along bed-joints at the end section cracked in flexure; Mode 2 : (ws) diagonal cracking at the centre of the panel due to mortar joint failure; Mode 3: (b) diagonal cracking at the centre of the panel due to brick failure

The use of rigid offsets is a crucial issue in equivalent frame modelling. The dimensions of rigid offsets in piers are calculated based on an empirical approach proposed by Dolce [34]. In this study, full rigid offsets are considered. The capacity curves (total base shear versus top lateral displacement) are developed for different cases (Table 5). In the light of the obtained results, the following recommendations are made: 1- The effect of the axial force - bending moment, (N-M), interaction is showed by the case 1 and 2. As displayed in figure 24, as axial compressive load increases, flexural strength of the piers also increases with regards to the failure criteria (Fig. 22). 2- The nonlinear effect of shear mechanism is illustrated by cases 3 and 4 in the absence of rigid offsets, and by cases 7, 8 and 9 in the presence of rigid offsets (Fig. 25). As expected, the contribution of shear mechanism tends to decrease the capacity of the structure due to the occurrence of shear damage. This feature is successfully captured by the simplified model. 3- As displayed in figures 24 and 25, the rigid offsets have a significant effect on the global response. They affect not only the stiffness, but also the strength capacity of the structure (Ref. [15], [24], and [31]). This is expected as the horizontal element stiffness closely affects the contribution of the frame mechanism to structural response (cases 10, 11 and 12). The capacity curves obtained from EFM (case 12) versus PHFE model (case 13) are satisfactory. 4- In cases 12 and 13, the two capacity curves are close to a certain extent in spite of the smeared approach in the EFM. Both cases 5-6, and 12-13, show the comparison of the modelling performance, including shear effect and (N-M) interaction rule and using either the EFM and the PHFE model with or without rigid zones.

27

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

160
Experiment

140

Case 3 Case 2 Case 1, 4 and 6 Case 5

Total base shear (kN)

120

100

80

Experiment Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5 Case 6

60

40

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Roof lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 24 Capacity curves of the wall D with no rigid offsets

180

Case 8

160
Experiment Case 12

140

Total base shear (kN)

120

100

Experiment Case 7 Case 8 Case 9 Case 10 Case 11 Case 12 Case 13

80

60

40

20

0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

Roof lateral displacement (mm)

Figure 25 Capacity curves of the wall D with rigid offsets

28

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

Case 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Model type PHFE PHFE EFM PHFE PHFE EFM EFM EFM EFM EFM EFM EFM PHFE

Rigid Zone in Pier

(with 2Em) (with 2Em) (with 4Em) (with 10Em) (with 2Em) (with 10Em) (with 10Em)

Rigid Zone in Spandrel (with 2Em) (with 10Em) (with 10Em)

(N-M) failure criteria -

V Shear effect -

Maximum strength ratio (*) -20.1% -15.5% -10.7% -21.7% -22.4% -20.5% -9.9% +18% -9.9% -9.0% -8.5% -7.1% -9.3%

Legend: PHFE: Point Hinge Finite Element model, EFM: Equivalent Frame Model, (-) Option considered, ( ) Option not considered, (*) The maximum strength ratio=analytical /experimental maximum strengths, Em is the masonry Young Modulus. Table 5 Case studies for both EFM and PHFE models.

Due to the coupling effect, the resulting crack patterns displayed by the numerical simulation are different on the left and right sides (Fig. 26, 27). On the other hand, the crack pattern predicted by the EFM is symmetrical (Fig. 28). The shear cracks on spandrels were not obtained since the spandrels were modelled as elastic linear. It is clear that the numerical results should be more accurate, in comparison to the EFM, since both the axial deformation and axial force redistribution were not considered in the EFM. The axial force and deformation are crucial issues when using failure criteria for the plastic hinge formation and damage occurrence. Moreover, in comparison to the test crack pattern, the numerical and analytical results were extracted at 17mm while the tests represent a crack pattern at 24mm. Also, the shear failure is neglected in the lintels in both models. These are the reasons for the lack of match between the experimental, the analytical and the numerical crack patterns.

F F S S

S: F:

Shear cracks

S S S

Flexural cracks

Figure 26 Crack patterns from the experimental test of the URM building (at failure state (top displacement equal to 24mm))

29

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

F F S F F S

Figure 27 Crack patterns from numerical results at 17mm

c c

F c F F S F

Figure 28 Crack patterns from analytical results (on the EFM) F: flexural crack in one slice, S: shear crack over a pier

Finally, this paragraph presents a simplified formulation of an equivalent frame model. The model permits to consider many relevant features of structural behavior such as structural wall coupling, zero moment location shifting, axial force-bending moment interaction, axial force-shear force interaction, and failure mode prediction. However, in the case of URM buildings, it is well known that smeared crack approach suffers from a few limitations. The smeared crack model is enable to represent effectively the rocking and bed joint sliding mode of failures. For the development of capacity curves, the obtained results from the proposed model show good agreement with experimental and numerical results (Fig. 24, 25). The model has proven its capability to satisfactorily predict the maximum strength. The calculated maximum strengths, in particular for the masonry structure (in the range of 9%), could be judged as good results since the model is based on simplified approaches in comparison to finite element models. However, the post peak behavior with softening is not yet obtained since the model is force-controlled. Care should be taken when modelling dual buildings as frame-wall structures in particular with respect to the initial zero moment length assumption. In all cases, obtained results should be considered from an engineering point of view as is generally done for all simplified existing models. It is evident that the failure mode identification is a challenging task even if finite element models are used. This feature is sensitive to various analysis parameters such as the modelling of shear mechanisms, the lateral load pattern and force redistribution capabilities. The proposed model requires

30

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland

further improvements for URM structural modelling (displacement control, variation of axial force in spandrels, multilinear models with softening).

5. Conclusions and futur work

The report presents a summary of a work dealing with a seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland. The work presents a methodology for realistic fragility curve generation. For this purpose, a classification of typical buildings is presented. Then, an unreinforced masonry Swiss-type building is selected. An investigation of the non linear behaviour of unreinforced masonry structures is performed using both simplified and finite element methods. Capacity curves and capacity spectra are generated with and without torsion effect. Vulnerability functions are developed based on the EMS98 damage grade. Finally, a novel approach for capacity curves generation are developed and validated against experimental tests and numerical results. As the project aims to address seismic risk mitigation in Switzerland, this study represents a preliminary investigation to accurately and reliably find modern fragility curves. However, the resulting analytical fragility curves have to be validated by comparison to empirical ones. However, this is not possible in Switzerland. Hence, attention has to be given to performance limit states and to the seismic response parameters in the calculation of fragility curves. Both limit states and seismic response have to be modelled as random variables and as deterministic quantities. All potential uncertainties in the considered parameters should be considered otherwise the results may be nonconservative leading to incorrect fragility curves and hence to unreliable economic loss evaluation and seismic risk mitigation. It is evident that not all uncertainties can be analyzed, hence a certain number of parameters that affect closely the fragility curves calculation have to be selected and considered. The next step has to be organized as follows: 1- Capacity curves generation for a stock of unreinforced masonry buildings with or without torsion, 2- Fragility curves for a stock of Swiss type URM buildings : statistical + probabilistic model (a Fragility Curve = integration of probability density function PDF log-normally distributed), 3- Proposition of a Swiss-type URM building : typical bilinear capacity curve and a SDOFtype model, 4- Perform a dynamic analysis with a set of records using the SDOF-type model: generate fragility curves and surfaces with or without torsion, 5- HAZUS Calibration for Switzerland-type URM buildings with or without torsion.

6. References
[1] Wen-I L., Chin-Hsiung L., Keh-Chyan T., Study on the fragility of building structures in Taiwan, Natural Hazards, 37:55-69, 2006. [2] HAZUS-99, Direct physical damage general building stock, Chapter 5, HAZUS99 Technical Manual.

31

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland [3] Grnthal G., Levret A., Lechelle Macrosismique Europenne, European Macroseismic Scale 1998, Cahiers du Centre Europen de Godynamique et de Sismologie, Volume 19, Luxembourg 2001. [4] Belmouden Y., Lestuzzi P., Evaluation de la vulnrabilit sismique des btiments existants en Suisse, Rapport de Recherche. EPFL-ENAC-IS-IMAC, Informatique et Mcanique Appliques la Construction. Publication Nr. 6. Lausanne, Avril, 2006. [5] Belmouden Y., Lestuzzi P., Elments de Typologie du Bti Existant Suisse, Rapport de Recherche. EPFLENAC-IS-IMAC, Informatique et Mcanique Appliques la Construction. Publication Nr. 5. Lausanne, Mars, 2005. [6] Bieri M., Gentil T., Michaud N., Typologie du bti existant suisse en vue de lapprciation de sa vulnrabilit sismique, 2007. [7] Lang. K., Seismic vulnerability of existing buildings, PhD Thesis, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zrich, Switzerland, February 2002. [8] Milutinovic Z. V., Trendafiloski G. S., Vulnerability of current buildings, September report 2003, RISK-UE, Work Package 4, An advanced approach to earthquake risk scenarios with applications to different European towns, Nice, September 2003. [9] Whitman R. V., Damage probability matrices for prototype buildings, MIT Report R73-57, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1996. [10] Belmouden Y., Lestuzzi P., An equivalent frame model for seismic analysis of masonry and reinforced concrete buildings, Construction Building and Material Journal, 2007. [11] Belmouden Y., Lestuzzi P., An Analytical Model for Capacity Curves Generation and Damage Prediction of Masonry Structures, International Review of Mechanical Engineering, November 2007. [12] Tzamtzis A. D., Asteris P.G., FE Analysis of complex discontinuous and jointed structural systems: Part 1: Presentation of the method A state-of-the-art review, Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering, 1, 2004. [13] Roca P.; Molins C., Mar A. R., Strength Capacity of Masonry Wall Structures by the Equivalent Frame Method J. of Struct. Eng., Volume. 131, No. 10, pp. -16011610, 2005. [14] Salonikios T., Karakostas C., Lekidis V., Anthoine A. Comparative inelastic pushover analysis of masonry frames, Engineering Structures Journal, Volume 25, pp. 1515-1523, 2005. [15] Kappos A., Penelis G., Drakopoulos C., Evaluation of simplified models for lateral load analysis of unreinforced masonry buildings, Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 128, July N7, pp. 890-897, 2002. [16] ATC-40, Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings, Vol. 1, Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, California, 1996. [17] Belmouden Y., Lestuzzi P., Analytical model for predicting nonlinear reversed cyclic behaviour of reinforced concrete structural walls, Engineering Structures, Vol. 29/7, pp. 1263-1276, 2007. [18] ElMandooh K., Ghobarah A., Flexural and shear hysteretic behavior of reinforced concrete columns with variable axial load, Engineering Structures, Volume 25, pp. 1353-1367, 2003. [19] Nuray Aydinolu M., An incremental response spectrum analysis procedure based on inelastic spectral displacements for multi-mode seismic performance evaluation, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, pp. 3-36, Volume 1, 2003.

32

On the seismic vulnerability assessment of unreinforced masonry existing buildings in Switzerland [20] Kilar V., Fajfar P., Simple pushover analysis of asymmetric buildings, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 26, pp. 233-249, 1997. [21] FEMA 356, Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, Washington (DC): Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2000. [22] FEMA 306, Evaluation of earthquake damaged concrete and masonry wall buildings, basic procedures manual, Washington (DC): The Partnership for response and recovery, 1999. [23] Paquette J., Bruneau M., Pseudo-dynamic testing of unreinforced masonry building with flexible diaphragm and comparison with existing procedures, Construction and Building Materials, Volume 20, pp. 220-228, 2006. [24] Penelis GR.G., An efficient approach for pushover analysis of unreinforced masonry (URM) structures, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 10, N3, pp. 359-379, 2006. [25] Prakash, V., Powell, G.H. and Campbell, S., DRAIN3DX: Base Program Description and User Guide, UCB/SEMM-1994/07, Berkeley: Department of Civil Engineering, University of California, August 1994. [26] ETABS, Integrated Building Design Software, Computers and Structures, Inc. Berkeley, California, USA, Version 9, November 2005. [27] Bachmann H., Dazio A, A Deformation-Based Seismic Design Procedure for Structural Wall Buildings, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Seismic Design Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, Bled/Slovenia, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam 24-27 June 1997. [28] Dazio A., Entwurf und Bemessung von Tragwandgebuden unter Erdbebeneinwirkung, (in German), Institut fr Baustatik und Konstruktion, ETH Zrich, Bericht Nr. 254, Birkhuser Verlag Basel, 2000. [29] Wilkinson S. M., Hiley R. A., A non-linear response history model for the seismic analysis of high-rise framed buildings, Computers and Structures Volume 84, pp. 318-329, 2006. [30] Magenes G., A method for pushover analysis in seismic assessment of masonry buildings, Paper 186612WCEE, 2000. [31] Magenes G., Della Fontana A., Simplified non-linear seismic analysis of masonry buildings, Proc. of the Fifth International Masonry Conference, London, 13th-15th, 1998. [32] Magenes G., Calvi G. M., In-Plane response of brick masonry walls, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Volume 26, pp. 1091-1112, 1997. [33] Tomazevic M., Seismic resistance verification of buildings: Following the new trends, Seismic Methodologies for the Next Generation of Codes, P. Fajfar and H. Krawinkler (eds.), Balkema, Rotterdam, 1997. [34] Dolce M., Schematizzazione e modellazione per azioni nel piano delle pareti (Models for in-plane loading of masonry walls), Corso sul consolidamento degli edifici in muratura in zona sismica, Ordine degli Ingegneri, Potenza, 1989. [35] Galasco A., Lagomarsino S., Penna A., On the use of Pushover analysis for existing masonry buildings, First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, Switzerland, 3-8 September, Paper N1080, 2006. [36] Bruchez P, Brussard L., Campana S., Thorens G., Modlisation Parasismique, Projet de semestre, Cycle de Master, EPFL, Juin 2007.

33