seismic evaluation

54
SEISMIC EVALUATION OF ST. AUGUSTINE CHURCH USING NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

Upload: jkib93

Post on 27-Jul-2015

87 views

Category:

Engineering


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: SEISMIC EVALUATION

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF

ST. AUGUSTINE CHURCH USING

NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

Page 2: SEISMIC EVALUATION
Page 3: SEISMIC EVALUATION

SEISMIC EVALUATION OF

ST. AUGUSTINE CHURCH USING

NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

Page 4: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Baclayon Church, Bohol

Loboc, Church

Maribojoc Church

Loon Church

Page 5: SEISMIC EVALUATION

The PROBLEM AND A REVIEW OF RELATED

LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Page 6: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Brief History of the Structure

• In 1613, construction started.

• In 1645, it was slightly damaged during the earthquake.

• In 1942 and in 1962, it was damaged by the war and strong typhoons.

• In1949-1952,it was then repaired.

• In 2007, it was reconstructed with new red block bricks.

Page 7: SEISMIC EVALUATION

The St. Augustine Church of Lubao is not only Pampanga’s oldest and largest Agustinian church in Central Luzon but also in the entire Northern Luzon.

• In August 2013, the church was recognized by the National Commission on Culture and the Arts (NCCA) as one of the country’s national treasure.

Brief History of the Structure

Page 8: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Construction Materials Used• Adobe mud blocks• Stone• Sand with Lime• Egg Albumen

Page 9: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Nonlinear Static Analysis

Page 10: SEISMIC EVALUATION

ASCE 41 (ASCE 2007)• Immediate Occupancy

• Life Safety• Collapse Prevention

Page 11: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Static Nonlinear versus Static Linear

Page 12: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Statement of the Problem

Page 13: SEISMIC EVALUATION
Page 14: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Specific Problems

•What is the current performance level of the building?•What are the weak parts of the structure?•What is the present integrity of the structure?

Page 15: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Significance of the Study

Page 16: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Range and Restriction

Page 17: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Conceptual Framework

Page 18: SEISMIC EVALUATION

• Gathering Information

• Testing of Adobe Bricks

• Structural Modeling

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES

Page 19: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Testing of Adobe BricksAdobe brick in

situ

2”x2”x2” specimens

Grinding Process

Crushed adobe sample

Page 20: SEISMIC EVALUATION
Page 21: SEISMIC EVALUATION
Page 22: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Structural ModelingETABS (Extended Three-Dimensional Analysis of Building Systems)

(Figure 2.3.1)

 

Page 23: SEISMIC EVALUATION

(Figure 2.3.2)

 

(Figure

2.3.3)

 

Page 24: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Defining Material Properties of Adobe

Sample Mass (kg) Volume (cu.m) Density (kg/cu.m)

1 0.2 0.000125 1,600

2 0.167 0.000125 1,336

3 0.227 0.000125 1,816

Page 25: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Defining Section Properties

Column (C1)

 

Column (C4)

 

Column (C5)

Masonry WallThickness= 2.46m

Page 26: SEISMIC EVALUATION

 Defining Static Load CasesLoad Name Load Type Details Value

DEAD

Dead Load

Self-Weight of Structural Members Calculate automatically using Self

Weight Multiplier in ETABS

--

Uniform Load on Roof

0.5 kN/m2

LIVE

Live Load Uniform Load on Roof(Table 205-3 NSCP 2010)

0.6 kN/m2

EQY

Quake Load UBC 1997

--

EQX

QuakeLoad

UBC 1997

--

Figure 2.3.1.2 Dead loads acting on each columns

Figure 2.3.1.3 Live loads acting on each columns

Figure 2.3.1.4 Base shear distribution using Portal Method, EQYFigure 2.3.1.5 Lateral force distribution, EQX

Page 27: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Parameter Values Remark

Zone 4 Table 208-3

Time Period (T) 0.285 Eq. (208-8)

Response Modification Factor (R)

5.5

Table 208-11

Seismic Source Type A Table 208-6

Soil Profile Type SD Table 208-2

Seismic Coefficient, Ca 0.44 Table 208-7

Seismic Coefficient, Cv 0.64 Table 208-8

Horizontal Force Factors, ap

1.0

Table 208-12

Horizontal Force Factors, Rp

3.0

Table 208-12

Table 2.3.3.1 Equivalent Static Force Parameters (NSCP 2010)

Page 28: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Members

Weight ( kN )

Weight considering half of the height ( kN )

C1 9902.306688 4951.153344

C4 4207.096532 2103.548266

C5 2504.389644 1252.194822

Walls 55069.22952 27534.61476

Roof 1741.344 1741.344

TOTAL 73424.36638 37582.85519

 Table 2.3.3.2 Weight Calculation of The

Structure

Page 29: SEISMIC EVALUATION

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF

RESULTS

Page 30: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Process of Non Linear Static Analysis• Modeling of Adobe Masonry Infill

λ1hcol)-0.4rinf

=

Page 31: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Where:• α = width of the compression strut

• hcol = column height between centerlines of beams;

• hinf = height of infill;

• Efe = expected modulus of elasticity of frame material;

• Eme = expected modulus of elasticity of infill material;

• Icol = moment of inertia of column;

• Linf = Length of infill panel;

• rinf = diagonal length of infill panel;

• tinf = thickness of infill panel and equivalent strut;• Ɵ = angle whose tangent is the infill height to length aspect ratio;

and• = coefficient used to determine equivalent width of the infill strut

Page 32: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Masonry Infils Calculated width (m)

1A-1B 2.37

1A-2A, 1B-2B 1.84

2A-3A, 2B-3B 1.52

3A-4A, 3B-4B 1.27

4A-5A, 4B-5B 1.33

5A-6A, 5B-6B 1.30

6A-7A, 6B-7B 1.30

7A-8A, 7B-8B 1.87

8A-9A, 8B-9B 1.33

Page 33: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Defining Static Nonlinear Case Data

Page 34: SEISMIC EVALUATION

•Defining Static Nonlinear Case Data

Page 35: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Where:

1 = target displacement

Te = effective fundamental period (in seconds)

Ki = elastic lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration Ke = effective lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under

C0 = modification factor to relate spectral displacement and likely building roof displacement

C1 = modification factor to relate expected maximum inelastic displacements to displacements calculated for linear elastic response

C2 = modification factor to represent the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum displacement response

C3 = modification factor to represent increased displacements due to second-order effects.

Sa = response spectrum acceleration Figure 3.2.1 Bilinear Representation of Capacity Curve for

Displacement Coefficient Method

Number of Stories Modification Factor 1

1 1.0

2 1.2

3 1.3

5 1.4

10+ 1.5

Table 3.2.1 Values for Modification Factor, C0

Ke = effective lateral stiffness of the building in the direction under consideration.

C0 = modification factor to relate spectral displacement and likely building roof displacement

T = 0.1 second T > To second

Structural Performance Level Framing Type 1

Framing Type 2

Framing Type 1 Framing Type 2

Immediate Occupancy 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Life Safety 1.3 1.0 1.1 1.0

Collapse Prevention 1.5 1.0 1.2 1.0

Table 3.2.2 Values for Modification Factor, C2

C2 = modification factor to represent the effect of hysteresis shape on the maximum displacement response.

Sa = response spectrum acceleration as determined from Section 4.4.3.3 of ATC 40, at the effective fundamental period of the building.

Page 36: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Defining Frame Nonlinear Hinge Properties

Page 37: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Running the Analysis

1. Lateral Forces at Global Axis Y

2. Lateral Forces at Global Axis X

Page 38: SEISMIC EVALUATION

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Page 39: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Summary of Findings

Performance Level Magnitude Intensity

Immediate Occupancy 1.0 – 5.9 I - VI

Life Safety 6.0 – 6.9 VII - VIII

Collapse Prevention 7.0 - higher IX - higher

Table 4.2. Corresponding Magnitude and Intensity

Page 40: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Conclusions

Page 41: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Recommendations

Page 42: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Seismic Retrofitting

Page 43: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Purposes of Retrofitting

• Public safety.

• Structure survivability.

• Structure functionality.

• Structure unaffected.

Page 44: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Shotcrete Method

Page 45: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Advantages and Disadvantages of Shotcrete Method

Advantages Disadvantages

More convenient and less costly than the other retrofitting methods.

High mass

Strong Require surface treatment

Durable Affect Architecture

Resistant to disasters, fires, molds, insects and vermin

Require finishing

Low permeability High disturbance

Good thermal mass

Page 46: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Wet-Mix Shotcrete Method

Page 47: SEISMIC EVALUATION
Page 48: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Process of Wet-Mix Shotcrete

1. Cleaned surface, watered and grinded

Page 49: SEISMIC EVALUATION

2. Placing reinforcement

Installation of Wire Mesh

Page 50: SEISMIC EVALUATION

3. Wall surface sprayed under 7 Mpa pressure on wall surface.

Page 51: SEISMIC EVALUATION

4. Wall Finishing

Plastering Finished Surface

Page 52: SEISMIC EVALUATION
Page 53: SEISMIC EVALUATION

Costs

1. Computation of External Area of Walls

a. Considering the whole structure• Total Area = 16,372.168 sq.ft ( 2,213.5 pesos per sq.ft )• Total Costs of Retrofitting is 36,239,793.868 pesos approximately

36.3Million pesos.

b. Considering the weak portions (Facade and Columns at the altar)

• Total Area = 3,620.998 sq.ft. (2,213.5 pesos per sq. ft)• Total Cost of Retrofitting is 8, 015, 079.073 pesos approximately 8.1 Million pesos

Page 54: SEISMIC EVALUATION

THANK FOR LISTENING