Presentation Athens

ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013 1
M. Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia,
Bulgaria
Bulgarian seismic design codes and
civil construction practice. Infilled RC
frames - Application and assessment of
their resistance to lateral forces
THE EUROPEAN CENTER FOR RISK PREVENTION, SOFIA, BULGARIA
2
1.INTRODUCTION
Eurocode 8 and Eurocode 8 Part 3 in Bulgaria
Assessmen and retrofit programs in Bulgaria
Type of existing buildings structures.
- large panel systems
- masonry and masonry infilled structures
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
M.Eng. Velyan Petkov
The European Center for Risk Prevention, Sofia, Bulgaria
3
2.Bulgarian Seismic Codes and Eurocode 8 (Eurocode 8-3)
Pre 1947 No Seismic Design Code
1947 First Seismic Design Requirements
1957 First Seismic Design Code Low Level Seismic Design Codes
1964 New Seismic Design Code Medium Level Seismic Design Codes -
Introduction of Dynamic factors
1987 Modern Bulgarian Seismic Design Code and preceding events (1977
Vrancea Earthquake and 1987 Strazhica Earthquake)
2007, 2009 and 2012 Editions
2012 - Introduction of Eurocode 8
2012 2014 Joint Application of Codes
Post 2014 Planned retirement of Bulgarian Seismic Code
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
4

Type of Buildings, classified by the reference Seismic Design Code at the time of design
and construction
Pre 1947 Construction
1947-1957 Construction
1957-1964 Construction
1964-1987 Construction Medium and high rise residential buildings. Large Panel
Systems, Lift Slab method, prestressed reinforced concrete buildings, climbing
shuttering RC system, and others. Mass construction period.
1987 Seismic Design Code
- 1990s period
- 2000-present
Comparison between the codes
Seismic Assessment of buildings designed according to Bulgarian codes
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
5
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
6
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 Pernik Region Undamaged buildings
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
7
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 Pernik Region Damaged buildings
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
8
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
9
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
10
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 Sofia region Elastic Spectrum soil type C
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
11
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 Sofia region Damages
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
12
3.Pernik Earthquake 2012 Sofia region Damages
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
13
4.Assessment of masonry-infilled reinforced concrete frames and buildings
Masonry together with reinforced concrete is the most widely used material in
Bulgarian cuvil practice.
In Bulgaria masonry is used as:
Structural material
Non-structural material
Until now the effects of the infill on the behavior of the structures were usually
neglected in seismic analysis of RC/masonry buildings.

4.1 Masonry-infills in Bulgarian civil construction practice
Use of masonry as primary (structural) material in combination with wood, steel etc.
Use of masonry as primary (structural) material in combination with RC.
50s 60s application in low rise buildings with up to 4-5stories (usually 3-
4)
60s present use in low rise residential houses up to 2(max 3) stories high
Use of masonry as nonstructural material
60s present application in low, middle and high rise buildings with RC
as primary structural material (usually RC shear walls are used)
Positives of the early designs:
Usually regular buldings
Use of bricks with no openings
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
14
Quality control of the masonry
Conservative design
Usually low height
High safety against premature out of plane failure of the masonry

Deficiencies of the early designs:
Designed according to low-level Design codes and usually lower seismic
design acceleration
Poor detailing lack of enough transverse rebar
Use of smooth rebar steel rods.
Low-strength concrete
Unknown quality of the mortar
Possible degradation of strength due to removed internal walls.
Brittle failure is expected

Positives of later designs
Designed according to better Design codes
Better detailing
Use of textured rebar steel rods (especially in the last decades)
High-strength concrete.
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
15
Neglecting the strength of infill is often on the safe side
Better performance might be expected (especially in buildings designed
according to 1987 Seismic Design Code)

Deficiency of late designs
Use of bricks with high percentage of openings
Less conservative designs
Neglecting the stiffness of infill might be dangerous
Low quality control of the masonry construction due to the understanding
that it is not important for the overall behavior of the structure.
Design and construction of irregular structures (especially after 1990)
1990s period when overall control was not strict enough
Possible premature collapse of internal masonry walls (due to lack of
connection between the frame and the masonry)

ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
16
4.2 Assessment of the behavior of in-filled RC frames
Importance
Lack of modeling techniques, prescribed in Seismic codes (either Bulgarian or
Eurocode 8)
Types of infill models:
Macromodels
Bare frame
Single-strut
Double Strut
Multi-Strut
EQUIVALENT WIDTH OF THE STRUT
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
17
Micromodels
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
18
Comparison of Analysis Results
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
19
Nonlinear Strut Models
Importance and field of application
Data input requirements
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
SEISMOSTRUCT Software Package nonlinear model
20
4.3 Application of infill modeling in assessment and retrofit
Linear Strut Models
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
21
Nonlinear Strut Models
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
22
Nonlinear Strut Models Capacity Curves Base Shear vs. Top displacement
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
23
Nonlinear Strut Models Strengthening of existing structures
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
Nonlinear Micromodels
24
CONCLUSIONS
1. BDS EN 1998-3:2005 Assessment and Retrofitting of Buidings is the first
complete structural code of this type in Bulgaria.

2. Contradictions between the old and the new code exist
- Completely different principles
- Different definition of seismically resistant structure

3. 2012 Pernik Earthquake conclusions:
- The event in Pernik may be classified as a strong one (ref. 1987 code)
- The event in Pernik may be classified as moderate or even low
- Almost all buildings properly designed and constructed withstood the
earthquake without severe damages.
- Many of the Buildings that were constructed without proper designs and
in contradiction to good construction practices were heavily damaged.
- Some deficiencies of old local codes designs were detected.
- Danger of falling non-structural elements of buildings during an
earthquake exists.

4. Masonry-infills influence the behavior of structures.
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
25
CONCLUSIONS
5. Modeling of masonry requires a lot of information and knowledge.

6. Introduction of national application handbooks is required.

7. Many of the buildings in Bulgaria may be rated as not seismically resistant if
checked in accordance to BDS EN 1998-3:2005

8. But the last doesnt mean that they really arent.

ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
26
ATHENS 12
th
of April, 2013
TNANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Presentation Athens

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Presentation Athens

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ATHENS 12

You might also like