salem-resilience based blast design of reinforced concrete … · 2019-11-01 · 11/1/2019 1 the...
Post on 08-Apr-2020
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
11/1/2019
1
The Masonry SocietyAIA Provider: 50119857
AIA Course:
Resilience-Based Blast Design of Reinforced Concrete Masonry Systems
November 6th,2019
Shady SalemAssistant professor
Civil Engineering Department
Faculty of Engineering
The British University in Egypt
The Masonry Society is a registered Provider with the American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems. Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported to CES Records for AIA members. Certificates of completion for non-AIA members are available upon request.
This program is registered with AIA/CES for continuing professional education. As such, it does not include content that may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by the AIA of any material of construction or any method or manner of handling, using, distributing or dealing in any material or product.
Questions related to specific materials, methods, and services will be addressed at the conclusion of this presentation.
2
1
2
11/1/2019
2
ARE YOU REALLY SAFE?
3Global terrorism index 2016
World map for terrorism impact
WHY BLAST?
4
Terrorism weapons
Explosives/ Bombs/ Dynamite
Firearms
Other
Global terrorism index 2015
3
4
11/1/2019
3
CURRENT BLAST DESIGN STANDARDS
5
Design base threat (DBT)
Damage classification for individual elements
Determine the building LOP
ASCE 59‐11
CSA 850‐12
Ignores the probabilistic
nature
Ignores the wavefront variation
Ignores the system’s functionality and
downtime
OBJECTIVES
6
Street hardware
Target building
Buffer zoneSusceptible ground zero
Unsecured area
Secured areas
Building exterior(hazard mitigation design)
Building interior(localized hardening)
Blast building envelop(perimeter securing)
Threat
Schematic blast defensive lines (adapted from (FEMA 427)
• Develop a tool to assess the post‐blast functionality.
• Estimate the structure’s down time .
• Blast mitigation measures optimization.
• Quantification of the blast performance of
reinforced concrete masonry systems
5
6
11/1/2019
4
MAIN OBJECTIVE
Resilience triangle
7
Time (t)t0 tf
Functionality (Q)
Robustness
Rapidity
Recovery rate
(Downtime)
Target Functionality
Hazard event
Initial Functionality
End of repair
100 %
METHODOLOGY
8
Functionality loss
Time (hrs)
Functionality loss uncertainty
Repair time uncertainty
Ir
Mean functionality
loss
Mean robustness
Mean repair timeDensity
Dynamic Response Resilience Frameworks
Blast assessment
Blast uncertainty propagation
RM
out‐of‐plane
assessment
Resistance functions
Influence of vertical rft. and axial load
Resilience assessment
Static Response
7
8
11/1/2019
5
RESILIENCE IS THE ABILITY TO WITHSTAND AND RAPIDLY RECOVER FROM DISRUPTIONPPD‐8
9
Static ResponseS A L EM , S . , E Z Z E L D I N , M . , E L ‐DA KHA KHN I , W. , & TA I T, M . ( 2 0 1 9 ) . OUT ‐OF ‐ P LANE B EHAV I OR O F LOAD ‐ B EAR I NG R E I N FORCED MASONRY S H EAR WAL L S . J O U RNA L O F S T RU C TUR A L E NG I N E E R I N G , 1 4 5 ( 1 1 ) , 0 4 0 1 9 1 2 7 .
10
9
10
11/1/2019
6
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
11
Vertical reinforcement: 6#3 (Walls L‐00 and L‐10)
Vertical reinforcement: 6#4 (Walls M‐00, M‐05, M‐10 and M15)
Vertical reinforcement: 15#3 (Wall H‐10)
Test setup
LOAD‐DISPLACEMENT HYSTERETIC RELATIONSHIP
12
0
50
100
150
200
0 25 50 75 100
0
50
100
150
200
0 25 50 75 100 0 25 50 75 100
0
50
100
150
200
0 25 50 75 100
0
50
100
150
200
0 25 50 75 100
0
50
100
150
200
0 25 50 75 100
L‐10L‐00
M‐00 M‐05 M‐10 M‐15
H‐10
Total load
(P)(kN
)
Total load
(P)(kN
)
Total load
(P)(kN
)
P
PA
θ
θ
Δ
Mid‐height displacement (Δ) (mm)
Mid‐height displacement (Δ) (mm) Mid‐height displacement (Δ) (mm)
0 25 50 75 100
Low VL rft ratio
Mid‐height displacement (Δ) (mm)
Medium VL rft ratio
High VL rftratio
Mid‐height displacement (Δ) (mm) Mid‐height displacement (Δ) (mm) Mid‐height displacement (Δ) (mm)
11
12
11/1/2019
7
SELECTED EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
13
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0 20 40 60 80 100
Chord rotation (degrees)
Total load
(P) (kN)
Mid‐height displacement (Δ) (mm)
L‐00 L‐10 M‐00 M‐05 M‐10 M‐15 H‐10
Resistance functions for the tested walls
P
PA
θ
θ
Δ
L‐00
M‐15M‐05 M‐00
M‐10L‐10
L‐00
OUT‐OF‐PLANE RESISTANCE FUNCTIONS
14
Total load
(P)(kN
)
Mid height displacement (Δ)(mm)
Plastic Elastic‐Plastic Elastic
Pu
Pe
ΔeΔep
Ke
Kep
Mp
Mp
Mp
Δm
Mp
Mp/2
Mp
Idealized resistance function of the USACE (2008)/USDOD (2014) Idealized resistance function of the USACE (2008)/USDOD (2014)
13
14
11/1/2019
8
RESISTANCE FUNCTIONS VALIDATION
15
Models assessment
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Total load
(P) (kN)
Mid‐height displacement (Δ) (mm)
L‐10
Proposed model
UFC
Experimental vs Analytical (L‐10)
∆e
∆ep ∆u*
0
20406080
100120140
L‐00 L‐10 M‐00 M‐05 M‐10 M‐15
Deviation (%
)
USACE/USDOD Proposed model
At Δep
02040
6080
100120
140
L‐00 L‐10 M‐00 M‐05 M‐10 M‐15
Deviation (%
)
USACE/USDOD Proposed model
At Δu*
0
20406080
100120140
L‐00 L‐10 M‐00 M‐05 M‐10 M‐15
Deviation (%
)
USACE/USDOD Proposed model
At Δe
Dynamic ResponseSALEM , S . , E Z Z E L D I N , M . , TA I T, M . J . & E L ‐DAKHA KHN I , W. W. B LA S T F RAG I L I T Y A S S E S SMENT FOR LOAD ‐ B EAR I NGR E IN FORCED MA SONRY SH EAR WAL L S . A S C E JOU RNA L O F S T RU C TU R E ENG IN E E R I NG , SU BM I T T ED FOR PUB L I C AT I ON INAUGU S T 2 0 1 8
16
15
16
11/1/2019
9
NUMERICAL MODEL
17
Zero length element
Elastic beam‐column element
Zero length element
Rotational spring (steel01 material)
Rotational spring (steel01 material)
Rotational spring (steel01 material)
Elastic beam‐column element
Fixed support
Fixed support
φy
My
Curvature
Moment
ky
Schematic diagram of the developed model
Start
Define geometry, material, load, n
My , θy , ky
i=1.0
My , θy , ky
i=n
Dispalcement history
hy
hy
Noi = i+1
Yes
M > My
hy
Dynamic analysis
hy
DIFs DIFs =1.0
Yes
Fiber analysis
No
Fiber analysis
Dynamic analysis
DIFs =1.0
(a)
(b)
Developed model: (a) framework; (b) iterative subroutine
EFFECT OF WAVEFRONT PARAMETERS
UNCERTAINTY/VARIABILITY ON RMSWS
18
Is=1000 kpa.ms
Mid‐height displacement (m
m)
Mid‐height displacement (m
m) Pr=500 kpa
17
18
11/1/2019
10
BLAST FRAGILITY SURFACE
19
200
330
400
500600
700800
9001000
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
50
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
190
200
0.9‐1
0.8‐0.9
0.7‐0.8
0.6‐0.7
0.5‐0.6
0.4‐0.5
0.3‐0.4
0.2‐0.3
0.1‐0.2
0‐0.1Is (kPa.ms)
Pr (kPa)
Probability P(DS2)
Blast fragility surface for wall L12 (θ=2°): (a) 3D view; (b) elevation (c) side view; (d) plan
(a)
(b) (c)
(d)
Deterministic Resilience AssessmentSALEM , S . , C AMP I D E L L I , M . , E L ‐DAKHAKHN I , W. W. , & TA I T, M . J . ( 2 0 1 8 ) . R E S I L I E NCE ‐BA S ED D ES I GN OF URBANC ENT R ES : A P P L I C AT I ON TO B L A S T R I S K A S S E S SMENT . S U S TA I N AB L E AND R E S I L I E N T I N F R A S T RUC TUR E , 3 ( 2 ) , 6 8 ‐ 8 5 .
20
19
20
11/1/2019
11
POST‐BLAST FUNCTIONALITY
21
Functionality loss indicator (λ)
Superficial
Moderate
Heavy
Hazardous
Blowout*
λ = 0
λ = 1
Pressure (Kpa)
Impulse (Kpa.ms)
DS1 DS2 DS4DS3
Deterministic performance
λ = 0
λ = 1
* Check for progressive collapse
DOWNTIME ESTIMATION
22
𝐵𝑎𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒 ℎ𝑟𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑖𝑟 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡 $ 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 %
𝐸𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 $ ℎ𝑟⁄
θ
Repair cost ($)
Replacement cost (CRPL)
LS LRPL Lh
Baseline estimate (FEMA P58)
21
22
11/1/2019
12
Deterministic Framework (case study)
23
Case study elevation
3200
3200
3200
3200
3200
3200
3200
3200
3200
3200
3200
Ground floor
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
4th floor
5th floor
6th floor
7th floor
8th floor
9th floor
10th floor
Roof
3200
6400
9600
12800
16000
19200
22400
25600
28800
32000
35200
0
23000
8000 7000 8000
35200
A B C D E F G H
A B C D E F G H
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
1
11000 11000 11000 11000 11000 11000 11000
77000
10000
3000
10000
23000
200 mmcast‐in‐place
slab
200 mmcast‐in‐place
slab
8000
7000
8000
500 kg TNT
40m
Case study plan
Deterministic Framework (continued)
24
Deterministic damage mapping
Non‐functional
area(f = 1)
Functional area(f = 0)
Time (t)t0 t0+110days
IR =7.89 unit
System functionality (Q)
IF = 14.3%
Repair time
110 Days
Deterministic resilience triangle
23
24
11/1/2019
13
Probabilistic Resilience AssessmentSALEM , S . , S I AM , A . , E L ‐DA KHA KHN I , W. W. , & TA I T, M . J . P ROBAB I L I S T I C R E S I L I ENC E ‐ I N FORMED R I S K MANAGEMENT:A P P L I C AT I ON TO B LA S T HA ZARD S . A S C E J OU RNA L O F MANAG EMEN T I N ENG IN E E R I NG S P EC I A L CO L L E C T I ON :MANAGEMEN T O F R E S I L I E N C E I N C I V I L I N F R A S T RUC TU R E S Y S T EMS : AN I N T E RD I S C I P L I N AR Y A P P ROACH , SU BM I T T EDFOR PU B L I C AT I ON I N J U LY 2 0 1 9 .
25
Probabilistic Loss Quantification
26
Probabilistic performance
DS1 DS2
Pr[DS]
1.0
0.0 Impulse (kPa.ms)
DS3 DS4
λ = 0
$
$$$...
λ = 1
Pr[superficial]
Pr[moderate]
Pr[heavy]
Pr[hazardous]
Pr[blowout]
10P ( ) Pr rP Function loss G X LS Ι Ι dΙ
1
1 1
%
$
P ( ) .Pnf q
rs k k rs ksk
is
LS Ι G X LS Ι Ι .Q LPCT Repair time hr
Effective hourly rate hr
25
26
11/1/2019
14
Probabilistic Framework (case study)
27
67.0
3000
0
6000
9000
Ground floor
1st floor
2nd floor
3rd floor
12.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 12.0
120004th floor
4.0 4.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D
C
B
A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D
C
B
A
67.012.0 10.0 15.0 10.0 12.04.0 4.0
10.0
3.0
10.0
23.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
500 kg TNT
40m
Probabilistic case study
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
96.5%
96.1%
95.5%
94.8%
54.8%
54.3%
53.6%
52.5%
54.8%
54.3%
53.6%
52.5%
96.5%
96.1%
95.5%
94.8%
Fragility curves for the façade components: (a) RMSW; (b) 6mm toughened glass (adapted from Campidelli et al. (2016) Stewart and Netherton (2008)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
0 2000 4000 6000
Probability
I (kPa.ms)
DS1 DS2 DS3 DS4
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Probability
I (kPa.ms)
50 kg 500 kg
Dysfunctional probabilities
(a) (b)
Probabilistic Framework (continued)
28
Probabilistic case study
Functionality loss Time (hrs)
Functionality loss uncertainty
Repair time uncertainty
IrMean
functionality loss
Mean robustnes
s
Mean repair time
Density
Probabilistic resilience triangleTime (t)
t0 tf
Mean resilience indicator (IR)
Functionality (Q)
mean
robustness
100 %
Mean
functionality
index (IF)
Mean Repair time
27
28
11/1/2019
15
The Masonry Society
This concludes The American Institute of Architects Continuing Education Systems Course
Shady SalemAssistant Professor, Civil Engineering DepartmentFaculty of EngineeringThe British University in EgyptEl Sherouk City ‐ 11837, Cairo, EgyptShady.salem@bue.edu.eg
29
top related