Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Random variables
Structural response
Wall fragility
Conclusions
1
Institute for MultiHazard Systemic Risk Studies
McMaster University, Hamilton ON, Canada
2
AMEC Foster Wheeler Nuclear, Toronto ON, Canada
Outline
Previous work
sign) thickness of 10 mm and for the range limits of 8 and
12 mm given by the Swiss code [2]. It is clear from Table 8, that
Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of the bed joint thickness for wall W1 at site S1.
have been tted to the sample data. Figs. 6 and 7 show, typically,
within the single wall, anomalies typical for each building site,
histograms and log-normal ts for the bed joint thickness distribu-
such
tion (site S1) andasforthe
headgreater thickness
joint thickness of the bed
distribution joints towards the top of
(site S3),
thinner joints are correlated to higher reliability indices, i.e., lower the wall, as well as a smaller thickness in the lower part of the wall,
respectively.
failure probabilities, see also Fig. 14, which shows the dependencyIn orderwere to determine
observed.the goodness
Sometimesof the ts of log-normal
excessive
790 and
thickness of the head joint to-
Spatial (lognormal) distribution of
of the failure probability on the (deterministic) bed joint thickness
the joint thickness
normal probability distributions to Spatial
the measured(truncated
set of data, the
wards the side ends of the wall was also observed. These anomalies
normal) distribution ofJ. the
Li et al. / Engineering Structures 59 (2014) 787
bond strength
well-known KolmogorovSmirnov test was employed, which tests
(using limit state function g2). It seems that it could be recom- should be taken into account
the hypothesis if the theoretical model is substantiated bywhen designing
7 the test load-bearing ma- 7
mended to reduce the design value or the range limits for mortar sonry
data at some walls. level [25]. For this purpose, both(a)the
signicance COV=0.1 Spatial (a)
cumulative distribution functions (CDF) for the above-mentioned 6 under compression showed Non-spatial 6
joint thickness. However, other limit states should be checked A reliability analysis of the masonry
theoretical distributions and the sample cumulative frequency
(shear and bending) and other, non-structural aspects shouldobtained be that probabilistic
test data were modelling
constructed of forbedthejoint thickness results in higher
Probability density
Probability density
from bed
5 joint 5
also considered (workability of the mortar, maximum sizethickness of reliability
at indices,
site S2. In this compared
case, the signicanceto theof reliability
level 0.05 has index obtained for
aggregate in the mixture, aesthetics aspects, etc.). There is clearly been chosenthe and for the total number
deterministic valueofof measurements
the bed joint of
4 nthickness.
= 582 Further, the level 4
from the tabled values one obtains 0.056 for the critical value. Com-
a balance between safety, construction practices and costs. of the reliability, i.e., safety is different at different sites and the
thinner joints are correlated to higher 3 reliability indices. 3
The spatial correlation of the joint thickness is an area that mer- 2
8. Summary and conclusions 2
its future research.
1 1
Data on the thickness of the mortar joints in clay block masonry
walls were collected from four different sites in Switzerland. Acknowledgment 0
0 0
Considering a coefcient of variation of the joint thickness as a 0 1 2 3 4 5
measure for the quality of work at the site it may be concluded that The assistance of student Ms. Maja Mojsilovic in data acquiring
Mid-height cracking load (kPa)
Fig. 5. Spatial distribution of the head joint thickness for wall W3 at site S1. is gratefully acknowledged.
7 7
(b) COV=0.3 Spatial (b)
of the bed joints towards the top of the wall, as well as a smaller 6
thickness in the lower part of the wall, i.e., in the courses just above
Appendix A. Supplementary data Fig.
6 11. Typical crack pattern [34]. Non-spatial
the oor concrete slab. Sometimes excessive thickness of the head
Probability density
Probability density
5 this article can be found, in 5
joint towards the side ends of the wall was also observed. Supplementary data associated with
Fig. 5 shows that the spatial distribution of the head joint thick-
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.02. 4
ness for wall W3 at site S1 was much less uniform and sometimes 4
excessive thickness towards the side ends of the wall was ob- 005.
Fig. 6. Histogram and log-normal t for bed joint thickness at site S1.
3 3
Table 3 realisations of failure behavioursReferences classied by the crack 2 opening weaker units in the bottom course 2
Site statistics and maximum likelihood estimators for normal and lognormal distributions.
width, ignoring widths below 0.002
Site and joint n Sample statistics mm.
[1] Francis Normal distribution 1
begin to crack, see Fig. 10(b) s1.
AJ, Horman CB, Jerrems LE. The effects of joint thickness and other
Log-normal distribution
factors on the compressive strength of brickwork. In: Proceedings of the
S1 LF
Examining a propped cantilever
536
x (mm)
9.99
s (mm)
2.32
l
in
COV (%)
linear
second
23.25
r
beam
(mm)
international
9.99
brick theory,
(mm)
the bend-
masonry conference.
2.32 0
British Masonry Society, At the pressure load of 2.06
k (mm)
2.27
f (mm)
0.23 0
Stoke-on-Trent; 1981. p. 317.
0 1 2 3 4 5 0
S1
S2
SF
LF ing moment at the xed end (the base
536
582
12.9
9.78
3.73
3.47
28.91
in the
[2] SIA 266:2003.
35.49
12.9
current
Structural
9.78
Architects; 2003.
3.72
case)
masonry.
3.46
Zurich: is greater
Swiss Society of Engineersstrength
2.52
2.23
and in the extreme tensile b
0.27
0.3
Mid-height cracking load (kPa)
S2 SF 582 12.11 3.96 32.69 12.11 3.95 2.45 0.27
S3 LF than the
600 bending 7 moment 2.03 in
Fig. 14. Failure probability-bed joint thickness relationship for limit state function
S3 SF 600 11.22 2.63
the[3]middle
29.01 7 area.
EN 1996-1-1:2005. DesignTherefore,
2.03 when
of masonry structures1.9 a
Part 1-1: common
reinforced and unreinforced masonry structures. Brussels: European
23.39 11.22 2.62 2.4
wall,
rules for the strongest
0.31
0.2
joint in the bas
Campidelli et al. RC block wall2005.
fragility under blast 7 7
4 / 38
g . S4 LF 138 8.75 1.68 19.21 8.75 1.67
Committee for 2.14
Standardization; 0.24 Spatial
Wall case studies
Test specimens (a)
and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions
Wing
07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
wall
Masonry
PN3 specimen PN4
Bunker
Explosive
(b) (c)
(a)
Reaction frame top beam
PM5
Wing
Displacement
wall Concrete 0.60 sensors
block
wall
PN5
PM4
PM3 0.60 0.60
0.60 Wing
wall
Reaction frame bottom beam
(a) (b)
(a)
Reaction frame top beam
Round bar
PN5
Wing
05/07/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
wall
Masonry
PN3 specimen PN4
Steel
Top channels
clearance
(b)
Residual
deflection
Test matrix
Specimen designation Trial No. Charge mass (kg) Height of burst (m)
L6 3 5 0.40
H6 4 5 0.40
L12 7 10 0.40
H12 8 10 0.40
L30 9 25 0.50
H30 10 25 0.50
Pentex D (TNT eq. ' 1.2)
Instrumentation
3 pressure transducers (faceon)
3 displacement sensor at mid and quarterspan
Geometry
0.04
0.02
0
20 25 30 35 40
Bar position d (mm)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 8 / 38
Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions
the stressstrain relationships of masonry prism and mid and quarterspan of the leeward side
steel reinforcement as well as the position of the re- (Campidelli et al. 2015a, Hayman 2014).
Mechanical properties: Masonry prism
inforcing bars. Direct Monte Carlo sampling The specimens were set in an upright position and
(Melchers 1999) is used to determine fragility subjected to the pressure generated by the detonation
curves under the assumption of a Friedlanderlike of explosive charges positioned in front of the wall
Modified Thorenfeldt
pressureformulation
profile (Baker et al. 1983). center, at a standoff distance of 5.0 m. Each wall
type was tested with 5, 10, and 25 kg charges of
m Pentolite explosive, which features a TNT equiva-
2n DIF0
MASONRY WALL CASE STUDIES lency factor approximately equal to 1.2 (Campidelli
fm = DIFfm0
m
n et al. 2015a).
m
n 1The
+ data
DIF0used in the current investigation are drawn
m
from the test results of actual specimens subjected to Table 1. Masonry prism mechanical properties.
______________________________________________
the
m blast overpressure generated by live explosives.
n DIF fm
Prism # ____ m
_______ n
____ 2
____ L
____
fm = DIF The material properties and dimensions referred MPa mm/mm
______________________________________________
m n
n 1 +henceforth
DIF are pertinent to two masonry wall types 01 22.92 2.20E-03 2.40 1.13 0.93
having the following characteristics (Hayman 2014): 02 18.86 1.95E-03 2.93 1.13 0.72
1, 0 m Thirdscale
1 construction, in compliance with 03 23.31 2.15E-03 3.00 1.13 0.70
= 1wellestablished similitude requirements, in 04 20.82 1.65E-03 4.12 1.13 0.47
L + m 2 +
terms1 of ,geometry,
m > 1material properties, and load- 08
10
21.98 2.01E-03
21.32 2.40E-03
3.10
2.09
1.13
1.17
0.67
1.15
2 L
ingconditions (Harris & Sabnis 1999). 12 17.72 1.65E-03 4.62 0.80 0.47
Dimensions:
DIF = 1 under static loading 1,0001,00063 mm (width 13 19.29 1.72E-03 3.84 0.90 0.57
_____________________________________________
height depth).
Under dynamic loading: CEB (1990) + uncertainty. . . Mean 20.78 1.97E-03 3.26 1.07 0.71
Simply supported boundary conditions (pinroller Sd. Dev. 02.00 2.78E-04 0.86 0.14 0.23
_____________________________________________
supports) inducing oneway bending and no ver-
tical restraints, in order to prevent arching action. Table 2. blast
D4 reinforcing bar mechanical properties.
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under
______________________________________________ 9 / 38
Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions
Strain-1
20.0
Strain-2
Mod. Thorenfeldt
Stress (MPa)
0.0
0.00E+00 2.00E-03 4.00E-03 6.00E-03 8.00E-03 1.00E-02
Strain (mm/mm)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 10 / 38
Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions
1.50 2
1.30
o 1.13 lim fm = 0
1.10 m
nm
0.90 lim =0
L 0.68 n 1 + n
m m
0.70
1
0.50
>
-1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
n
Normalized strain (m /'m )
3 In case of poor data, Banting
Data
Fitted hyperbola (2013) suggests fm ' 0.2 when
ln n fm n + 1 1 m ' 5
=
m = L +
n ln m m + L
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 11 / 38
Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions
100% 100%
Banting (2013)
2 = (m = 2) ' 1
Final formulation
1
(m ) = L +
m 1
0
2+
m 2 L
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 13 / 38
Wall case studies
Test specimens and setup
Random variables
Geometry
Structural response
Masonry prism mechanical properties
Wall fragility
Steel bar mechanical properties
Conclusions
5 10
Malvar & Ross (1998)
Mortar (Hao & Tarasov 2008)
DIF (peak compression)
Stress (MPa)
3 -10
2 -20
S-rate = 0.00/s
1 -30 S-rate = 0.01/s
S-rate = 0.10/s
CEB (1990) S-rate = 1.00/s
0 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -40
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 -10 -5 0 5
Strain rate (1/s) Strain (mm/mm) x 10
-3
Stress (MPa)
action.
Bar300# fy having______
____ Esthe following
fu
____
characteristics
u
_______
(Hayman 2014): 03 400 23.31 2.15E-03 3.00 1.13 0.70
MUs), as- Thirdscale construction, in compliance with 04 20.82 1.65E-03 4.12 1.13 0.47
ith 3 mm MPa MPa MPa mm/mm
______________________________________________ 08 300 21.98 2.01E-03 3.10 1.13 0.67
200 wellestablished similitude requirements, in terms
Specimen 1
meters de- 1 481.7 202080 514.6 4.01E-02 10 21.32 2.40E-03 2.09S-rate1.17
= 0.00/s1.15
2 100
of geometry, material
473.5 262413 516.8 9.39E-02
properties,
Specimen 2 and loading 12 200 17.72 1.65E-03 4.62S-rate0.80
= 0.01/s0.47
e masonry
473.6conditions
179376 (Harris
519.5 &
3_____________________________________________ Sabnis 31999).
6.13E-02
Specimen 13 100 19.29 1.72E-03 3.84S-rate0.90
_____________________________________________ = 0.10/s0.57
ed in Ta- Dimensions: 1,0001,00063 mm (width height
gth fm, the Mean 0 476.3 214623 517.0 6.51E-02 Mean 20.78 1.97E-03 3.26S-rate1.07
= 1.00/s0.71
St. Dev. 2.00% depth).
0.00%0 004.7 4.00%
042916 6.00% 002.58.00% 10.00% 12.00%
2.71E-02 Sd. Dev.0 0 02.00 0.02 2.78E-040.04 0.86 0.060.14 0.08 0.23
itting fac- _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________
Simply supported boundary conditions (pinroller
Strain (mm/mm) Strain (mm/mm)
. supports) inducing oneway bending and no verti-
ratio = Table 3. D7 reinforcing D7barBars
mechanical properties.
______________________________________________ Table 2. D4 reinforcing D4barBars
mechanical properties.
______________________________________________
cal restraints, in order to prevent arching action.
deformed Bar # fy Es fu u Bar # f____
y E
______
s f____
u _______
u
Fully
____ grouted
______ ____concrete masonry units (CMUs), as-
_______
. The pa- MPa MPa MPa mm/mm
sembled in halfblock running bond with 3 mm
______________________________________________ MPa MPa MPa
______________________________________________ mm/mm
onship ob- 1 462.8thick mortar536.9
257580 bed/head joints. The parameters de-
6.62E-02 1 481.7 202080 514.6 4.01E-02
ported in 2 502.8fining
215968 553.8 1.01E-01
the stressstrain relationship of the masonry 2 473.5 262413 516.8 9.39E-02
stic mod- 3_____________________________________________
486.3 217634 548.1 1.12E-01 3_____________________________________________
473.6 179376 519.5 6.13E-02
prism in uniaxial compression are reported in Ta-
train u. Mean 484.0ble230394 546.3 the
1including 9.29E-02
compressive strength fm, the Mean 476.3 214623 517.0 6.51E-02
3
ratio = St. Dev. 020.1 023558 008.6 2.38E-02 St. Dev. 0 004.7 042916 002.5 2.71E-02
_____________________________________________
strain at peak stress m, and the three fitting fac-
_____________________________________________
deformed tors n, o, and L used in Eqs. (1) and (2).
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 15 / 38
Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions
Random variables
Dummy var.
t locationscale distribution
Masonry prism 0 DIF
fm tls -6.25E-01 8.74E-01 4.94E+00 ln
DIFtest 1
DIFmodel 1 +1
" 2 #( +1
2 )
0
fm normal 2.08E+01 2.00E+00 N/A N/A
1 2 x
0m normal 1.97E-03 2.78E-04 N/A N/A
f (x) =
1+
n normal 3.26E+00 8.64E-01 N/A N/A
2
2 normal 1.07E+00 1.36E-01 N/A N/A
L normal 7.09E-01 2.31E-01 N/A N/A
x
Students t distribution with
DIFtest 1
Steel bar fy DIF tls 6.40E-02 1.93E-01 1.53E+00 ln
DIFmodel 1
fu DIF tls 1.10E-01 5.73E-01 2.04E+00 ln
DIFtest 1 DoFs
DIFmodel 1
(dh/2)
d normal 3.08E-02 3.60E-01 N/A tan
hc = location parameter
D4 bar fy normal 4.76E+02 4.73E+00 N/A N/A
Es normal 2.15E+05 4.29E+04 N/A N/A = scale parameter
fu normal 5.17E+02 2.45E+00 N/A N/A
u normal 6.51E-02 2.71E-02 N/A N/A = shape parameter
D7 bar fy normal 4.84E+02 2.01E+01 N/A N/A
Es normal 2.30E+05 2.36E+04 N/A N/A Mean =
fu normal 5.46E+02 8.62E+00 N/A N/A
u normal 9.29E-02 2.38E-02 N/A N/A Variance = 2 2
Watstein (1953)
3.00 Atchley & Furr (1967)
Cotsovos & Pavlovic (2008)
Sparks & Menzies (1973)
2.0
150 300 mm cylinders, water cured at
20 2 C, tested at 1 MPa/s,. . . 1.0
80
y = 0.0017x2 + 0.7378x y = 0.08x + 0.84 dimensions factor
R = 0.9995 1.00 R = 1
Correction factor
70 0.98 15 30 cm 1.00
60
0.96 10 20 cm 0.97
50
0.94 25 50 cm 1.05
40
0.92 fc<=70 MPa 15 15 45 cm 1.05
30
0.90 fc>70 MPa
20 20 20 60 cm 1.05
CEB (1990) Poly. (fc<=70 MPa)
10 0.88 10 10 10 cm 0.80
Poly. (CEB (1990)) Linear (fc>70 MPa)
0 0.86 15 15 15 cm 0.80
0 50 100 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
20 20 20 cm 0.83
Cube strength (MPa) L/D
30 30 30 cm 0.90
DIFtest 1
2 PDF(x 0) for DIFmodel 1
DIFtest 1
2 PDF(x 0) for DIFmodel 1
Normal
t locationscale (tls)
Extreme value, generalized extreme value
Lognormal, Gamma, Weibull, Rayleigh
(x 0)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 20 / 38
Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions
Data pruning
5
1.5
-5
1.0
0.5 -10
5
0.0 -15
40 0 100 200 300 400
model
0
30 -20
model
(DIF
0.4
-10
0
test -1)/
Probability density
-10 0.3
ln(DIF
-15
-20
(DIF
Data pruning
= 3.226, = 0.933
RAW SEL
(DIF-1) ratio
distance from the mean :
0
= 1.410, = 1.110
o 1 RAW SEL
o = CDF1t , o = , 1 5
2N 2
0
ln[(DIF-1) ratio]
Problems -5
Probab
Wall case studies
Pr
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF 0.1
Structural response Steel strength DIFs 0.05
Wall fragility Rebar position 0.1
Conclusions 0.01
0.00
0
Probabilistic model -5 0
ln[(DIF-1) ratio]
5
0.5 1
Data 0.995
Cumulative probability
0.99
Normal
Probability density
Probability
0.3 0.75 0.6
0.5
0.2 0.25 0.4
0.1 Data Data
0.1 0.05
Normal 0.2 Normal
0.01 tls tls
0.005
0 0
-5 0 5 -4 -2 0 2 4 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
ln[(DIF-1) ratio] ln[(DIF-1) ratio] ln[(DIF-1) ratio]
DIF percentile
1 p : = 0.625, = 0.874, = 4.941
umulative probability
0.8
pvalue = 94%
DIFp () = 1+exp CDF1 ( p |, , ) [DIFmodel () 1]
0.6 Dataset: n = 321
CDF = t locationscale distribution Data purged: j = 2, [o ( = 3) = 8.8]
0.4
Data
0.2 Normal Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 23 / 38
Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions
Cowell (1965) - fy=59.20 ksi
DIF =
Gran & Klopp (1997) - fy=66.73 ksi 104
1.15
Cowell (1965) - fy=87.10 ksi
fy
fy = 0.074 0.040
1.10
= 400 MPa
= 0.019 0.009
fy
fu
1.05 400 MPa
Pr
Wall case studies
Probabilit
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF 0.1
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
0.5 0.05
Wall fragility Rebar position 0.01
Conclusions 0.005
0
-2 -1 0 1 2 -3
Probabilistic model for yield stress Ln[(DIFy-1) ratio]
2 1
Probability density function
Data 0.995
Cumulative probability
0.99
Normal 0.95 0.8
1.5 0.9
tls
Probability
EV 0.75 0.6
1 GEV 0.5 Data
0.25 Data 0.4 Normal
Normal
0.1 tls
0.5 0.05 tls
EV 0.2 EV
0.01 GEV GEV
0.005
0 0
-2 -1 0 1 2 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 -2 -1 0 1 2
Ln[(DIFy-1) ratio] Ln[(DIFy-1) ratio] Ln[(DIF -1) ratio]
y
= 1.051, = 0.520
RAW SEL
1 10
Kept (n=225)
0.8 Discarded (j=4)
pvalue = 0.41% 0
y
0.6
Dataset: n = 225 Data
0.4 Normal -10
Data purged: j = 4, [
tls o ( = 3) = 7.8] 0 50 100 150 200 250
Data point No.
0.2 EV
GEV
0 Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 26 / 38
0.25
Pr
Probabilit
Wall case studies
0.1
Random variables 0.2
Masonry compressive strength DIF
0.05
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position 0.01
Conclusions 0.005
0
-5 0 5
Probabilistic model for tensile strenght Ln[(DIF -1) ratio]
u
0.8 1
Probability density function
Data 0.995
Cumulative probability
0.99
tls 0.95 0.8
0.6 0.9
EV
Probability
0.75 0.6
0.4 0.5
0.25 0.4
0.1 Data
0.2 0.05 Data
tls 0.2 tls
0.01 EV EV
0.005
0 0
-5 0 5 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -4 -2 0 2
Ln[(DIF -1) ratio] Ln[(DIF -1) ratio] Ln[(DIF -1) ratio]
u u u
= 1.485, = 1.091
RAW SEL
1 5
0.8 0
pvalue = 36%
u
0.6 -5 Kept (n=39)
Dataset: n = 39 Discarded (j=2)
0.4 -10
Data purged: j = 2, [oData
( = 5) = 3.1] 0 10 20 30 40
Data point No.
0.2 tls
EV Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 27 / 38
Wall case studies
Random variables Masonry compressive strength DIF
Structural response Steel strength DIFs
Wall fragility Rebar position
Conclusions
Probability density
tls 0.9
EV 0
Probability
1 GEV
x = d h/2 0.7
h hc 0
x 0.5
0.2
y1 = tan d 0
hc 0.0
0.0
x 0.00
hc 0
y2 = 30 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
1 y1 y2 y3(=4)
hxc Bar position (y1)
2 20
Dummy variables
x 1 10 1
y3 = N 1 + 0, Distribution p value
Cumulative probability
hc 2 0
0.8
-10 Normal 0.89
Bar position percentile p 0.6 tls 0.76
-20 EV 0.38 Data
0.4 Normal
h hc -30 GEV 0.72
dp = + arctan[CDF1 ( p )] -0.5 0 0.5
tls
2 x/hc 0.2 = 0.031, = 0.360
EV
GEV
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 0 28 / 38
Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions
Forcing function
PN5
450
Specimen perimeter 415
Uniform pressure on the exposed side: 0.6 0.6
F (t) = P(t)L2 0.4 410 0.4 445
y (m)
y (m)
PN3 PN4
Modified Friedlander equation for 0.2 0.2
m
405
pressurehistory (MPa) 0 P 0 I 440
Pressure (kPa)
Gauge PB3
Pressure (kPa)
Z ta +t0
e +1 600 K-B model Peak
400 Gauge PB4
I = P(t)dt = Pm t0
2 Gauge PK4
ta 400 Pm
Gauge PN4
t0 200
Pressure profile for impulsecontrolled 200 ta td
structures 0
! 0
t ta tta
2
I
t0 4 6 8 10 0 1 2 3
P(t) = 1 e Time (ms) Time (ms)
t0 t0 e +1
[W = 6 kg-TNT, Hb = 0.4 m, Rg = 5 m, i = 7.22 , Z = 2.77 m/kg1/3 ]
Nf i=1
Bending moment (kN.m)
c strength
1335
Bending moment (kN.m)
C. rate = 0/(mm.s)
C. rate = 0.1/(mm.s) 5
1336
1337
30 C. rate = 1/(mm.s)
C. rate = 10/(mm.s) 4 Moment resistance MR
1338 3
20 2Nf +1
1339 h X
1340 2
10 MR (, ) = wi bi fm (yi , c, , )yi +
1341 1 Nf i=1
1342
1343 0 0
1344
0 2 4 6 4 86 8 0 2 + fs (c, , )As (h d)
Curvature (mm-1)
-4
Curvature (mm-1)
-4
x 10 x 10
1365
1345
1366 Figure 4. Moment curvature diagram: (a) Diagram of a typeL wall under static load; (b)
Campidelli etEffect
al. RC block wall fragility under blast 30 / 38
Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions
0.76
1 Array of pressure values
Plastic plateau
Load-mass factor
40
Load (pressure area)
Load (kN)
0.74 2
MR @ midspan
30 MR @ midspan (masonry crushing)
(masonry crushing) 0.72 3 Bending moment (200 sections)
Type-L wall
20 Type-L (BRASS)
Masonry 0.7 Type-H wall
cracking
Type-H (BRASS)
Elastic limit
4 Curvature distribution
10 Type-L (CSA) 0.68 Plastic limit
Type-H (CSA) Plastic plateau 5 Deflection curve
416 0 0.66
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
417
Z zj Z s
Mid-span deflection (mm) Mid-span (b)
deflection (mm)
384
418 (a) v (zj ) = (r )dr ds
385 Figure
60 5. Static loaddeflection analysis of test walls:
0.8(a) Resistance functions (CSA predictions 0 0
386 are for maximum resistance only); (b) Loadmass factors versus midspan deflection.
0.78 zj
Z L Z s
387 50
388 (r )dr ds
0.76 L
Load-mass factor
389 40 0 0
Load (kN)
390 0.74
30 6 Deformed shape = v /vmax
391 0.72 C. rate = 0/(mm.s)
392 20 C. rate = 2E-5/(mm.s)
393 0.7 C. rate = 2E-2/(mm.s)
7 Loadmass factor
C. rate = 0/(mm.s)
394 10 C. rate = 2E-5/(mm.s) 0.68
Elastic limit RL 2
395 C. rate = 2E-2/(mm.s)
Plastic limit (z)dz
396 0 0.66 KLM = R0 L
0 (z)dz
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
397 Mid-span deflection (mm)
419 Mid-span deflection (mm)
398
420 Figure 6. Effect of the average curvature rate on typeL wall: (a) Resistance
Campidelli etfunction;
al. (b)
RC Load
block wall fragility under blast 31 / 38
Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions
SDOF modeling
Time integration scheme
h i
KLMi mi+1 + Ri + ki (i+1 i ) = Fi + Fi (ti+1 ti ) Ui
Ri+1 Ri
ki = , Ui = Unbalanced forces
i+1 i
Fi Fi Ui Ri
i+1 =i + (ti+1 ti ) + [1 cos i (ti+1 ti )] +
ki ki
Equation of motion 22 !
1 Fi
+ i sin i (ti+1 ti )
i ki
KLM m(t) + R((t)) = F (t)
Solution (ki = 0)
Circular frequency Fi Ui Ri
i+1 =i + i (ti+1 ti ) + (ti+1 ti )2 +
r 2KLMi m
k
= , k = tan. stiff. Fi
KLM m + (ti+1 ti )3
2KLMi m
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 32 / 38
Wall case studies
Forcing function
Random variables
Crosssectional analysis
Structural response
Loaddeflection analysis
Wall fragility
SDOF modeling
Conclusions
Probability density
0.04 tls
Bilinear resistance function Lognormal
Gamma
0.03 EV
Elastic stiffness JAV = 0.75Jcr + 0.25Jg GEV
Weibull
Plastic plateau moment resistance 0.02 Rayleigh
Displacement (mm)
0.4 tls
60
0.3
Field test tls( = 4.96 , = 0.92 , =
2.87) 40
0.2
0.1
St. dev. = 1.67
20
Data
0 95% conf. int. = 1.96 7.97
0 5 10 0
Support rotation (deg.) Measurement: 4.28 0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (ms)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 34 / 38
Wall case studies
Random variables
Stochastic SDOF model
Structural response
Fragility curves
Wall fragility
Conclusions
Fragility curves
Fragility: Probability of limit state violation Type-L Type-H Impulsive reg. upp. bound 1
Fragility (Pf|impulse)
conditional on the occurrence of a specific 0.16
0.8
0.14
load parameter (specific impulse) 0.12
0.10
0.6
t0 / T
Pf = P[ lim |I ] 0.08
0.06
0.4 > 0.7
0.04 > 2.0
0.02 0.2 > 8.0
Limit states: ductility ratios and support 0.00 > 15.0
rotations associated with 4 damage states 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 0
500 1000 1500 2000
(superficial, moderate, heavy, hazardous) Scaled distance (m/kg1/3) Specific impulse (KPa.ms)
1 1
Fragility curves or surfaces?
Probability of failure
Superficial
Fragility (Pf|impulse)
0.8 0.8
Moderate
Impulsecontrolled response when
0.6 Heavy 0.6
t0 /T < 0.1 Hazardous
0.4 0.4
Pressure profiles: I = 200 2000 kPa.ms, > 1.0
t0 = 2.0 ms, = 2.2 0.2 Pf(%) = 99.2 | 98.6 | 4.9 | 0.0 0.2 > 2.0
> 8.0
> 15.0
Monte Carlo simulation: 3000 variates 0 0
500 1000 1500 2000
24
0 1000 2000 3000
No. of variates Specific impulse (KPa.ms)
Campidelli et al. RC block wall fragility under blast 35 / 38
Wall case studies
Random variables
Stochastic SDOF model
Structural response
Fragility curves
Wall fragility
Conclusions
Fragility curves
Fragility: Probability of limit state violation
conditional on the occurrence of a specific
load parameter (specific impulse)
Table 5. Observed damage states (measured peak rotations)
Pf = P[ lim |I ] versus predicted probabilities of failure.
_______________________________________________
Wall Impulse _______
_______ Rotation __________________
Pr[ lim]
Limit states: ductility ratios and support designation kPa.ms deg. 2 8 15
_______________________________________________
1
rotations associated with 4 damage states L6 0451 01.8 99% 43% 00% 00%
(superficial, moderate, heavy, hazardous) L12 0748 04.3 99% 99% 04% 00%
Fragility curves or surfaces? L30 1480 19.2 99% 99% 98% 88%
H6 0451 01.6 97% 18% 00% 00%
Impulsecontrolled response when H12 0748 02.1 99% 99% 02% 00%
t0 /T < 0.1 H30 1480 05.8 99% 99% 98% 40%
_______________________________________________
Pressure profiles: I = 200 2000 kPa.ms,
t0 = 2.0 ms, = 2.2
Monte Carlo simulation: 3000 variates 6 CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Funding organizations:
NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
CCMPA (Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association)
CMDC (Canada Masonry Design Centre)
CEDS (Centre for Effective Design of Structures, McMaster University)
MRI (Ministry of Research and Innovation of Ontario)
Special thanks:
CERL (Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory)
Canadian Forces
Dr. Demetrios Cotsovos, Imperial College London
Acknowledgments
Funding organizations:
NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
CCMPA (Canadian Concrete Masonry Producers Association)
CMDC (Canada Masonry Design Centre)
CEDS (Centre for Effective Design of Structures, McMaster University)
MRI (Ministry of Research and Innovation of Ontario)
Special thanks:
CERL (Canadian Explosives Research Laboratory)
Canadian Forces
Dr. Demetrios Cotsovos, Imperial College London
Question time!