GNGTS 2021 - Atti del 39° Convegno Nazionale

315 GNGTS 2021 S essione 2.2 provide the experimental indications for cyclic racking tests to evaluate the minimum value for the drift capacity of the glazing systems (Δ fallout ) which generates the fall of the glass panel. This evaluation can be avoided, as reports in ASCE 7-10 (2013), when the drift that causes the contact between the glass panels and the frame (Δ clear ) is greater than 1.25 D p . The expression provided by the above codes concerns a traditional schematic system mullion-transom that doesn’t match with the case-study outlined in section 3.1. Even if the clearance between the glass edges and the frame was held to be constant, the formulation of Δ clear provide a value higher than the drift limits from NTC 2018 and Eurocode 8 to limit non-structural element damage in function of its typology. Given the lack of specific prescriptions the reference SLD drifts corresponding to 0.002h (for masonry construction in NTC18) and 0.005h (for non-structural element of brittle materials in EC8) can be taken into account to accommodate without damage. Furthermore, the Japanese JASS 14 (1996) specifies a minimum value of drift capacity of the façade in relation to the interstorey height, the severity of the seismic event and the probability of occurrence. In the worst-case scenario, the design value of drift is 0.01h. Fragility functions for the thresholds of damage defined above, were developed for both IM parameters by the application of the formula indicated in Section 3, as shown in Fig.3 - Fragility curves with respect to (a) S a (T 1 ) and (b) PGA. The present work is intended to lay the basis to understand how the FE modelling can be implemented to assess the seismic behaviour of any glazing system and provide readable vulnerability analysis results as necessary tools in the PBSD process. References AAMA; 2001: Recommended Dynamic Test Method for Determining the Seismic Drift Causing Glass Fallout from a Wall System , AAMA 501.6-01. Amadio C., Bedon C.; 2016: Effect of circumferential sealant joints and metal supporting frames on the buckling behavior of glass panels subjected to in-plane shear loads . GlassStruct.Eng., 61 , 77-90, DOI 10.1007/s40940-015-0001-2. ASCE; 2013: Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures , ASCE 7-10, Reston, VA. Caterino N., Del Zoppo M., Maddaloni G., Bonati A., Cavanna G. and Occhiuzzi A.; 2017: Seismic assessment and finite element modelling of glazed curtain walls . Struct.Eng.Mech., 61 , 77-90, DOI 10.12989/ sem.2017.61.1.077. European Standard; 2003: Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings . EN 1998-1, Brusselles, Belgium. Galli U.; 2011: Seismic behaviour of curtain wall facades: a comparison between experimental mock up test and finite element method analysis . Ph.D.Thesis in Building Engineering-Architecture, Politecnico Di Milano, Italy. Jalayer F., De Risi R., Manfredi G.; 2014: Bayesian Cloud Analysis: Efficient structural fragility assessment using linear regression . Bull.Earthq.Eng., 13 , 1183:1203, DOI 10.1007/s10518-014-9692-z. JASS 14; 1996: Japanese Architectural Standard Specification CurtainWall , AIJ, Architectural Institute of Japan. Mocibob D.; 2008: Glass panels under shear loading—use of glass envelopes in building stabilization . Ph.D.Thesis no. 4185, EPFL Lausanne, Switzerland. O’Brien W.C., Memari A.M., Kremer P.A., Behr R.A.; 2012: Fragility Curves for Architectural Glass in Stick- Built Glazing Systems . Earthq.Spectra, 2 , 639-665, DOI 10.1193/1.4000011. Porter K. A., Kennedy R., Bachman R.; 2007: Creating Fragility Functions for Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering . Earthq.Spectra, 23 , 471–489, DOI 10.1193/1.2720892. Zentner I., Gundel M., Bonfil N.; 2016: Fragility analysis methods: Review of existing approaches and application . Nucl.Eng.Des., 323, 245-258, DOI 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2016.12.021. Corresponding author: silvana.mattei@phd.units.it