1 / 30

Earthquake Engineering in Australia – International Collaboration and Future Directions

Earthquake Engineering in Australia – International Collaboration and Future Directions. Mike Griffith President, Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Associate Professor, University of Adelaide. Introduction. Australian Earthquake Hazard & Seismic Risk:

dewey
Download Presentation

Earthquake Engineering in Australia – International Collaboration and Future Directions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Earthquake Engineering in Australia – International Collaboration and Future Directions Mike Griffith President, Australian Earthquake Engineering Society Associate Professor, University of Adelaide

  2. Introduction • Australian Earthquake Hazard & Seismic Risk: • Effective PGA design coefficient = 0.08g ± 50% • Population concentrated in capital cities, with nearly 50% living in either Melbourne or Sydney • Use of unreinforced masonry (URM) construction widespread, especially for house and 2- to 4-storey apartment dwellings • Commercial buildings typically have long clear spans with gravity frames and lift core shear walls to resist e/q

  3. Research Results (to date): • R/C frames should survive the 500-year design magnitude earthquake (DME) event by virtue of elastic over-strength but limited ductility exists to cope with much larger event • URM construction can survive a DME if it is well designed and constructed; otherwise major damage is likely and no real capacity to survive bigger event.

  4. Relationship between PGA and annual probability of exceedance for different seismic regions (from Paulay and Priestley, 1992).

  5. Shake-table test of 1/5-scale 3-storey r/c frame

  6. International Collaborations • International collaborations are critical for Australian researchers to advance the practice of earthquake engineering within Australia • Provides much need added value to the limited amount of money available for this research from Australian sources • 3 collaboration that I have been involved with will be described here

  7. International Collaborations (cont.) • Seismic behaviour of R/C Frame + URM Infill (conducted at ELSA at JRC in Ispra with Dr. Pinto) • Seismic retrofit of R/C columns (with Prof. Monti, Univ. of Rome) • Seismic behaviour of URM buildings (with A.Prof. Magenes at Univ. of Pavia)

  8. Seismic behaviour of R/C frames with URM infill walls

  9. RC frame + URM infill

  10. Storey shear versus drift for ELSA test frames (from Pinto et al, 1999).

  11. (a) Storey shear versus drift (no infill) (b) Storey shear versus drift (with infill) Test results for ½-scale r/c frame subject to cyclic loading (from Griffith and Alaia, 1997).

  12. Adelaide test results for 200x200mm R/C column (Wu et al, 2001) 2.5% drift

  13. Seismic retrofit of R/C columns

  14. Seismic retrofit of columns in ELSA frames

  15. Column retrofit research at Adelaide (from Wu et al, 2003)

  16. Damage to retrofit columns during and at conclusion of testing (from Wu et al, 2003)

  17. Seismic behaviour of URM buildings

  18. Shaking Table Test Set-up

  19. Shaking Table Test of URM Wall

  20. Force-displacement relationship of URM wall in vertical bending (Doherty et al, 2002)

  21. Response spectrum predictions using T1 values for period

  22. Response spectrum predictions using T2 values for period

  23. Mean and standard deviation of the error Err(T)=[Sd(T)- Dmax]/Dmax using different definitions of effective period, for all walls and all accelerograms (from Griffith et al, 2003).

  24. Future Directions • R/C structures and URM buildings are the primary types of construction of interest w/r E/Q loading • Research priority should focus on 2 broad areas: • assessment of seismic capacity • development of appropriate retrofit strategies

  25. Closing Remarks • E/Q hazard in much of Europe, North America and Asia is similar to that in Australia. • Also many common forms of construction materials and methods • Hence, closer international collaborations can realistically be used to: • tackle common issues • build on experience and expertise of researchers concerned with high seismicity

  26. Acknowledgements • R/C Frame plus URM infill research at ELSA with Dr Pinto supported by ICONS TMR-Network research program grant. • Seismic behaviour or URM buildings (with Magenes at Univ. of Pavia) supported by INGV-GNDT 2002-2003 framework program and the Aust. Research Council • Seismic retrofit of RC columns research (with Monti at Univ. of Rome) supported by an ARC International Linkage grant.

  27. Shake table test results for 1/5-scale 3-storey r/c frame

  28. Static push-over test of 1/5-scale 3-storey r/c frame (experiment and analysis) 2.5% Drift = 1.5%

More Related