PSI - Issue 44

Alessandro Lubrano Lobianco et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 44 (2023) 910–917 A. Lubrano Lobianco et al./ Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2022) 000 – 000

916

7

and the corresponding DL, only the DL2 and DL3 seem to have a good match between the correlations read on the columns and those for the whole building.

Table 4 - Summary of natural period variation ranges at different damage levels considering both peak and average value.

Period variation – DL peak

Period variation – DL average

Global Damage Level

16th

84th

Median

16th

84th

Median

[%]

[%]

[%]

[%]

[%]

[%]

DL1

+10.3

+19.1

+17.5

+32.3

+36.6

+35.4

DL2

+28.8

+36.6

+32.7

+32.3

+40.4

+38.9

DL3

+32.4

+38.7

+37.2

+40.9

+42.4

+42.4

DL4

+41.9

+43.8

+42.8

-

-

-

Fig. 4 - Correlation with the a) peak and b) averaged column DS and period variation of the building

5 Conclusions In this paper, a methodology to assess and quantify the global damage occurred in a RC 3D building after earthquakes of increasing intensity via SHM data is proposed. A refined FEM model has been developed for a case-study building and it has been used to simulate the seismic damage via non-linear dynamic analysis, considering the intensity of AQG earthquake as seismic demand parameter. Local and global damage levels for the building have been assessed, following a correlation matrix derived by the authors in previous works. The results obtained for the case-study structure often show, as expected, a mismatch between the peak and average global damage level, being the average