PSI - Issue 26

F. Di Trapani et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 26 (2020) 383–392 Di Trapani et al. / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000–000

389

7

occurrence of O-LS, DL-LS and ISD-LS for traditionally infilled frames are about 10 times, 13 times and 5 times the probabilities evaluated in the case sliding-joint infilled frames. This result can be justified by the reduced stiffness and shear interaction of SJ infills with the frame, which allows the attainment of non-structural LS at significantly larger drifts with respect to the case of TI frames. Moreover, the hazard for the SJ infilled frame is significantly lower than that of TI case, due to a longer vibration period, which is close to that of the bare frame.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 5. Fragility curves of structural limit states and hazard curves (Cosenza, Soil Type C) for: a) bare frame; b) traditionally infilled frame; c) sliding-joint infilled frame.

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

Sliding-joint Infills O-LS

DL-LS ISD-LS Hazard (T1=1.36s)

Probability of Exceeding

0.2

0

1

2

3

4

a)

b)

S a (T 1 ) [g]

Fig. 6. Fragility curves of non-structural limit states and hazard curves (Cosenza, Soil Type C) for: a) traditionally infilled frame; b) sliding-joint infilled frame.

Table 2. Probabilities of occurrence of limit states for the different structures. Probabilities of failure P f (-) Bare Frame Traditional Infills

Sliding-joint infills

1.60 x 10 -2 7.41 x 10 -3 4.41 x 10 -3 2.50 x 10 -2 4.45 x 10 -3 2.61 x 10 -3

O-LS

- - -

1.72 x 10 -1 9.53 x 10 -2 2.23 x 10 -2 1.50 x 10 -1 4.77 x 10 -3 3.95 x 10 -3

Non-structural LS

DL-LS ISD-LS FID-LS LS-LS CO-LS

1.48 x 10 -2 3.92 x 10 -3 2.49 x 10 -3

Structural LS