Retrofit Project Performance Level Problem

[izmirlimuhendis]

I have a few questions about the retrofit project I sent in the example. I will be glad if it is answered.. I created the system. After adding the sheathings and making a "linear performance analysis" and getting a reinforcement report, I see that the targeted performance level in the building performance evaluation part of the report, the "Immediate Use" performance level, is not achieved. What I want to ask is: Do all of the beams have to stay in the minimum zone? If it is necessary to strengthen the beams, why not beam reinforcement in the idea. ? What should I do to strengthen the beams? I want to put a reinforcement screen under some beams. Should I draw the reinforcement curtain by lowering the upper level of the curtain as much as the beam level? When I look at the Earthquake Code, I am asked to solve the building for which I have solved the project with the target of "Immediate Use" against a design earthquake with a probability of exceeding 10% in 50 years, "Life Safety" against a design earthquake with a probability of exceedance of 2% in 50 years, with the performance target? Which one should I choose in the project. Should I make a solution for both of them separately? I would also be happy if the project team members make a general assessment about the project.

 

[NYILMAZ]

I'd like to write a few quick answers: I don't know how it uses material qualities. A lot of material quality has been determined in the project. The regulation says 3 cores on the floor. Plus another one after 400 m2. Therefore, your building must have 4+4=8 tiles. In addition, must have 9 cores, since the total cannot be less than 9 in the building. Subtract the standard deviation from the average of these core values , thus obtaining the calculation strength[/ b] you should. You should use this calculation strength in all elements except reinforcement elements. You may have done this, I don't know, but I wrote it as a reminder. The performance level is determined depending on the purpose of use of the building. Or a technical team (if there is an administration or something) demand an earthquake limit and performance level. If there is no such thing, it is sufficient to choose one of the performance levels corresponding to one of the earthquake exceedance probabilities determined in the regulation, depending on the use of the building. For example, in residences, hotels, workplaces and touristic facilities, a life-safe performance level should be used against earthquakes, which is 10% likely to be exceeded in 50 years. should provide this level of performance in all earthquake directions. There are certain criteria in the regulation regarding damage zones. For example, at the immediate use performance level, the number of beams in the building can be at most 10% of the significant damage zone. It cannot be at all in the advanced damage and collapse zone. On the other hand, all of the carrier elements (columns and walls) can be in the minimum damage zone at most. It can't even be in the obvious damage zone. I recommend you read the regulation. For example, at the level of life safety performance, apart from the damage areas of the elements, the ratio of the shear forces of the columns and curtains on the floor appears as a separate criterion. The program checks all this automatically. But if you know how right the path you are on is, it will be easy to strengthen it. Otherwise, you may not be able to do enough work on what needs to strengthen unnecessary elements. One of the important issues here is the status of the reinforcements in the existing structure. The number, spacing, stirrups, crossties, stirrup wrapping, corrosion status, etc... It is difficult to say anything about the reinforcement style of the building without the architecture. But I would definitely want and recommend reinforcement with curtains in sufficient quantities and directions.

 

[izmirlimuhendis]

thank you for your reply. so how do we do the beam reinforcement in the idea?

 

[unver]

In addition to what Mr. izmirlimuhendis Nedim wrote, my suggestion is: --Before that, read the empowerment-related issues and answers on this forum. --If the beams carry vertical loads during the reinforcement project, it is not recommended to strengthen the beams. It is preferred that almost all of the horizontal loads be taken with additional curtains. -- For this, put an additional reinforcement curtain that will take earthquake loads in both directions on your building. --Since your building importance coefficient is 1, it is sufficient to ensure life safety. (Assuming building type structure) --My preference is not to jacket the columns if possible. -- Especially, jacketing the column from one, two or three sides as you did is very problematic for me. It's even better if it's not done at all. Do it from all four sides if you have to. APPENDIX: INSULATION -- Often not taken into account here: Inspection of the foundation, which was not present in TDY 2007 (foundation reinforcement). --Foundation: give the old foundation the foundation concrete value you determined and MUST check the new foundation with the reinforcement concrete value you accepted. Take it easy Unver ÖZCAN

 

[unver]

BOOK ADVICE

 

[NYILMAZ]

Unver said very nice things. In particular, the issue of single double reinforcement is an issue that should never be ignored. But ünver bey

--Since your building importance coefficient is 1, it is enough to ensure life safety. (with building type structure acceptance) I would like to remind you about the sentence

. In retrofit and performance analysis calculations There is a statement in the regulation about the building importance coefficient. Therefore, 1 is entered regardless of the building type in the calculations. However, the building types are checked at the performance level. If there is a mistake or a difference in interpretation, it is useful to warn me. Also, let me convey the issue to the ide authorities on this occasion. If there are no errors, you should review the program's performance analysis reports.

 

[unver]

Nedim Bey As you know, the building importance factor is not taken into account in the performance calculation. APPENDIX: RESULT OF THE CALCULATION (The result does not change when the calculation is made by taking 1 and 1.5.) For this reason, when 1 is written, I guessed that it would be included in the scope of other buildings according to TDY table 7.7 (ANNEX: TABLE), I said it would be enough to provide life safety (CG). If there is something missing in the comments made by both of us, the IDE can give the correct interpretation. Take it easy Unver ÖZCAN

 

[NYILMAZ]

Unver Bey, I have already understood the purpose of your writing from what you wrote. I realized that it has to do with examining performance. I thought there would be no other meaning from your comment. But for example, when the building importance factor is 1.5, it is written as 1.5 in the performance report. I don't think this is an accurate report. I wrote it for this purpose and for general information purposes. Good luck with.

 

[canerozen]

Hello, I have a question about the retrofit report; The knowledge level of our structure is comprehensive and the targeted performance level is life safety. Are we going to understand from the parts I marked in the picture I added that 30% in the sentence that the shear force carried by the columns with significant damage in article 7.7.3c cannot be 30% more than the shear force of all the columns on that floor? For example, the column shear force on the 1st floor appears to be 100%. Should it not exceed 30%?

 

[Levent Özpak]

Hi, I have a question about the retrofit report; The level of knowledge of our structure is comprehensive and the targeted performance level is life safety. In item 7.7.3c, the shear force carried by the columns with significant damage is 30% less the shear force of all columns in that floor For example, the column shear force on the 1st floor appears to be 100%. Does this not exceed 30%?

Hello, The picture you added belongs to the Linear Performance Analysis Evaluation report of 2007 regulation and TDY 2007 Item 7.7.3.c) is as follows: Whether these conditions are met or not can be understood from the lines marked with red in the picture below.In case these conditions are not met, information is given on whether the life safety performance level is provided or not in the Performance Summary report, even if other conditions are met.