PSI - Issue 64

Elide Nastri et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 64 (2024) 153–160 Author name / Structural Integrity Procedia 00 (2019) 000 – 000

158

6

4. Damage evaluation through dynamic non-linear analysis Given the absence of a dominant mode in terms of participating mass, conventional seismic vulnerability assessment tools reliant on displacements or spectral accelerations, posed challenges. Hence, a focused structural component damage analysis has been prioritized to identify critical elements and collapse triggers across varying seismic intensities. Incremental Dynamic Analysis (IDA) has been employed to track damage evolution and stress status using the Abaqus/explicit solver for optimal evaluation of stress, deformation, and fracture states. For the incremental nonlinear dynamic analysis, data from the 1980 Irpinia earthquake in Italy were gathered, with Caserta experiencing significant damage. Accelerometric records from the Engineering Strong-Motion Database (ESM) were accessed, focusing on the Sturno station in Avellino, Italy, which recorded data from the 1980 earthquake. M ass-proportional damping has been adopted according to Chen et al. (2015), defining a mass proportional coefficient equal to =0.43 To catch the formation of cracks and the triggering of collapse mechanisms, the distribution of the (DAMAGET) parameter has been analysed until the end of the earthquake or until the model reached a potential collapse configuration. A high value of this parameter indicates the occurrence of cracks or, the potential collapse of the entire bell tower. The damage analysis has been conducted according to four seismic intensity levels, accompanied by the examination of the maximum principal stress . The results of the finite element simulation are presented in Fig. 5.

Damage (0.058g)

Life Safety (0.137g)

Near Collapse (0.173g)

PGA 0.35g

Fig. 5. Max principal stress and DamageT pattern.