PSI - Issue 47

A. Vrouva et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 47 (2023) 521–534 Vrouva et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

525

5

Fig. 6. Up: The DEM model and the positions of the acceletrometers used for calibration. Down: Calibration diagram.

Table 1. Ground motions considered. (*) Predominant period derived from the peak of PSV spectrum for 5% damping. No Earthquake Date Magnit. Mw Record pga (g) Tp (*) (sec) Ampl. Factor

1

Campano Lugano, Italy Campano Lugano, Italy

23/11/80

6.9

Bisaccia (bsc) L:0.079 T:0.092 V:0.055

1.02 2.02 3.51 1.26 1.58 1.50 1.17 0.84 0.70

1.1

2

23/11/80

6.9

Bagnoli- Irpino (bgi)

L:0.139 T:0.181 V:0.104 L:0.112 T:0.172 V:0.106 L:0.208 T:0.143 V:0.084 L:0.109 T:0.086 V:0.087

1.4

3

Northrodge, California, USA

17/1/94

6,7

Wonderland Ave., L.A. (won)

3.2

4

Kozani, Greece

13/5/97

6.5

Kozani, Perfecture Blg. (koz) Syntagma Metro B (sgmb)

0.230 0.39 1.30

3.2

5

Athens, Greece

7/9/99

5.9

0.89 0.52 1.71

4.4

The calibrated model was used to establish the design forces acting on the connectors between the two parts of the tympanon (i.e. orthostates and backing wall). The connections proved numerically to be crucial for the behavior of the tympanon and the avoidance of a possible collapse of its central part. The numerical analysis results are presented for 4 selected seismic events that were evaluated and proved crucial in the case of the free standing