Il ruolo degli effetti di sito sulla risposta strutturale degli edifici nella conca aquilana

Il terremoto de L’Aquila del 6 aprile 2009 è stato significativamente caratterizzato dagli effetti di sito, evidenziati sia dalla variabilità delle registrazioni accelerometriche in zona near fault che dalla disuniforme distribuzione del danno rilevato. In particolare, nel quartiere aquilano di Pettino, in corrispondenza di un complesso residenziale composto da sette edifici della stessa tipologia strutturale, è stato osservato un danneggiamento molto diversificato. La nota riporta i risultati di una serie di analisi di risposta sismica locale 1D, condotte in corrispondenza di alcuni degli edifici del quartiere, per i quali si disponeva di indagini geotecniche di dettaglio, finalizzate a valutare l’influenza degli effetti di sito sulla risposta delle strutture. I risultati delle analisi condotte in condizioni di campo libero hanno mostrato significative amplificazioni del moto proprio in corrispondenza delle frequenze fondamentali del moto di input. Le analisi del sistema sottosuolo-edificio, condotte mediante l’utilizzo di un codice con formulazione a masse concentrate hanno inoltre consentito di verificare l’incidenza dell’interazione inerziale sul moto in superficie, nonché di riprodurre in forma semplificata il meccanismo di piano soffice osservato

RINTC-E: Towards seismic risk assessment of existing residential reinforced concrete buildings in Italy

The RINTC research project (RINTC Workgroup, 2018), financed by the Italian Department of Civil Protection, is aimed at evaluating the seismic risk of buildings conforming to the Italian building code. Within the framework of this project, the attention has been recently focused on existing buildings, too. In this study, case-study structures, representative of the existing residential reinforced concrete (RC) building stock in Italy, are analyzed. These structures are three-storey buildings with compact rectangular plan, and they have been defined through a simulated design process, in order to represent two types of buildings, namely designed for gravity loads only during 1970s (gravity load designed, GLD) or for moderate seismic loads during 1990s (seismic load designed, SLD). GLD buildings are assumed to be located in three different sites, namely Milan, Naples and Catania, in increasing order of seismic hazard. SLD buildings are assumed to be located in L'Aquila. The assumed design typologies are consistent with the seismic classification of the sites at the assumed ages of construction. The presence of typical nonstructural masonry infill walls (uniformly distributed in plan as external enclosure walls) is taken into account, assuming three configurations along height, namely “bare” (without infills), uniformly infilled and “pilotis” (without infills at the bottom storey) buildings. Two (not code-based) Limit States are investigated, namely Usability-Preventing Damage, corresponding to an interruption of the building use, and Collapse. RC elements are modelled with a lumped plasticity approach, through an empirical-based macromodel. The possible occurrence of shear failures in columns is taken into account through a preliminary classification of the expected failure mode (flexure- or shear-controlled, in the latter case prior to or following flexural yielding) and, if needed, a modification of the backbone of the nonlinear moment-chord rotation response, through empirical models providing the expected deformation capacity at shear and axial failure, the latter meant as the (initiation of) loss of axial-load-carrying-capacity. The nonlinear response of beam-column joints is modelled, too, with a “scissors model” based on concentrated springs representing the nonlinear response of the joint panel, at the intersection of beams' and columns' centerlines, through a preliminary evaluation of the expected failure mode (i.e. prior to or following yielding of adjacent beam/column elements). Materials properties are provided by literature studies, consistent with the age of construction of the buildings. The in-plane response of infills is modelled, taking into account the presence of openings, too. Modeling should be considered as simplified and, from some points of view, still preliminary, since advances are foreseen within the project in order to capture further failure modes that can occur in structural and nonstructural elements of older, nonductile RC buildings. Nonlinear static analyses, allowing to identify the (top) displacement capacity at the investigated Limit States, are carried out. Multiple stripe nonlinear time history bi-directional analyses of the three-dimensional structural models are carried out in order to evaluate the demand, for ten stripes - each corresponding to a return period ranging from 10 to 105 years - and for twenty couples of records for each stripe. Records were selected, within the activities of the research project, based on a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis at the sites of interest for the selected return periods. Results are illustrated, highlighting the role of a - although obsolete - seismic design in the response of the buildings and in their capacity, more specifically in terms of displacement capacity at Collapse, but also in terms of demand estimated from multiple stripe analyses. Finally, demand-to-capacity ratios at the investigated Limit States are analyzed, which allow, within the scope of the project, the assessment of the seismic risk of the case study structures

53pimmune related adverse events correlate with clinical outcomes in non small cell lung cancer nsclc patients treated with nivolumab in the italian expanded access programme

n/

Testing analytical models for assessing the out-ofplane capacity of infill masonry walls

The influence of masonry infills on the seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete buildings has been widely studied in terms of their strength and stiffness contribution in the in-plane direction while less studies have been carried out on their response in their out-of-plane (OOP) direction. OOP collapses were observed on recent earthquakes motivating experimental efforts to characterize this behaviour combined and not with previous damage due to in plane loading demands. The present paper pretends to compare the test findings of two different experimental campaigns carried out on full-scale and scaled infill masonry panels under out-of-plane load. The main results of both experimental campaigns will be detailed and discussed to evaluate the key parameters that governed the infill panels OOP behaviour. The results will be presented in terms of force-displacement envelopes, energy dissipation and failure modes. Besides that, the second main goal of the manuscript is to present the comparison of the experimental results with the analytical models available in the literature

Safety and clinical outcomes of abiraterone acetate (aa) after docetaxel (doc) in octogenarians with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mcrpc)

n/

Real-world ANASTASE study of atezolizumab+nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment of PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer

The combination of atezolizumab and nab-paclitaxel is recommended in the EU as first-line treatment for PD-L1-positive metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC), based on the results of phase III IMpassion130 trial. However, ‘real-world’ data on this combination are limited. The ANASTASE study (NCT05609903) collected data on atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel in PD-L1-positive mTNBC patients enrolled in the Italian Compassionate Use Program. A retrospective analysis was conducted in 29 Italian oncology centers among patients who completed at least one cycle of treatment. Data from 52 patients were gathered. Among them, 21.1% presented de novo stage IV; 78.8% previously received (neo)adjuvant treatment; 55.8% patients had only one site of metastasis; median number of treatment cycles was five (IQR: 3–8); objective response rate was 42.3% (95% CI: 28.9–55.7%). The median time-to-treatment discontinuation was 5 months (95% CI: 2.8–7.1); clinical benefit at 12 months was 45.8%. The median duration of response was 12.7 months (95% CI: 4.1–21.4). At a median follow-up of 20 months, the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (95% CI: 3.9–8.7) and the median time to next treatment or death was 8.1 months (95% CI: 5.5–10.7). At 12 months and 24 months, the overall survival rates were 66.3% and 49.1%, respectively. The most common immune-related adverse events included rash (23.1%), hepatitis (11.5%), thyroiditis (11.5%) and pneumonia (9.6%). Within the ANASTASE study, patients with PD-L1-positive mTNBC treated with first-line atezolizumab plus nab-paclitaxel achieved PFS and ORR similar to those reported in the IMpassion130 study, with no unexpected adverse events

Phase II trial of weekly 24-hour infusion of gemcitabine in patients with advanced gallbladder and biliary tract carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced gallbladder and biliary tract carcinoma face a dismal prognosis, as no effective palliative chemotherapy exists. The antitumor effect of gemcitabine is schedule-dependent rather than dose-dependent. We evaluated the activity of a prolonged infusion of gemcitabine in advanced gallbladder and biliary tract carcinomas. METHODS: Nineteen consecutive eligible patients were enrolled. All patients were required to have histologically confirmed diagnosis and measurable disease. Gemcitabine was infused over 24 hours at a dose of 100 mg/m(2 )on days 1, 8, and 15. Treatment was repeated every 28 days until progression of disease or limiting toxicity. Tumor response was evaluated every second course by computed tomography (CT) scans. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were evaluable for response. A total of 89 cycles of therapy were administered. One partial response was observed (6%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0–27%) and ten additional patients had stable disease for at least two months (disease control rate 61%; 95% CI: 36–83%). The therapy was well tolerated, with moderate myelosuppression as the main toxicity. The median time to tumor progression and median overall survival was 3.6 months (95% CI 2.6–4.6 months) and 7.5 months (95% CI 6.5–8.5 months), respectively. CONCLUSION: Weekly 24-hour gemcitabine at a dose of 100 mg/m(2 )is well tolerated. There was a relatively high rate of disease control for a median duration of 5.3 months (range 2.8–18.8 months). However, the objective response rate of this regimen in gallbladder and biliary tract carcinomas was limited

Ductility of wide-beam RC frames as lateral resisting system

[EN] Some Mediterranean seismic codes consider wide-beam reinforced concrete moment resisting frames (WBF) as horizontal load carrying systems that cannot guarantee high ductility performances. Conversely, Eurocode 8 allows High Ductility Class (DCH) design for such structural systems. Code prescriptions related to WBF are systematically investigated. In particular, lesson learnt for previous earthquakes, historical reasons, and experimental and numerical studies underpinning specific prescriptions on wide beams in worldwide seismic codes are discussed. Local and global ductility of WBF are then analytically investigated through (1) a parametric study on chord rotations of wide beams with respect to that of deep beams, and (2) a spectral-based comparison of WBF with conventional reinforced concrete moment resisting frames (i.e. with deep beams). Results show that the set of prescriptions given by modern seismic codes provides sufficient ductility to WBF designed in DCH. In fact, global capacity of WBF relies more on the lateral stiffness of the frames and on the overstrength of columns rather than on the local ductility of wide beams, which is systematically lower with respect to that of deep beams.Gómez-Martínez, F.; Alonso Durá, A.; De Luca, F.; Verderame, GM. (2016). Ductility of wide-beam RC frames as lateral resisting system. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering. 14(6):1545-1569. doi:10.1007/s10518-016-9891-xS15451569146ACI (1989) Building code requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-89). ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USAACI (2008) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary (318-08). ACI Committee 318, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USAACI-ASCE (1991) Recommendations for design of beam-column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures (ACI 352R-91). Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USAACI-ASCE (2002) Recommendations for design of beam-column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures (ACI 352R-02). Joint ACI-ASCE Committee 352, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, USAArslan MH, Korkmaz HH (2007) What is to be learned from damage and failure of reinforced concrete structures during recent earthquakes in Turkey? Eng Fail Anal 14(1):1–22ASCE (2007) Seismic Rehabilitation of Existing Buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonASCE (2010) Minimum Design Loads for Building and Other Structures, ASCE/SEI 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonBenavent-Climent A (2007) Seismic behavior of RC side beam-column connections under dynamic loading. J Earthquake Eng 11:493–511Benavent-Climent A, Zahran R (2010) An energy-based procedure for the assessment of seismic capacity of existing frames: application to RC wide beam systems in Spain. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:354–367Benavent-Climent A, Cahís X, Zahran R (2009) Exterior wide beam-column connections in existing RC frames subjected to lateral earthquake loads. Eng Struct 31:1414–1424Benavent-Climent A, Cahís X, Vico JM (2010) Interior wide beam-column connections in existing RC frames subjected to lateral earthquake loading. Bull Earthq Eng 8:401–420BHRC (2004) Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design of Buildings. Standard Nº 2800, 3rd edn. Building and Housing Research Center, TehranBorzi B, Elnashai AS (2000) Refined force reduction factors for seismic design. Eng Struct 22:1244–1260Borzi B, Pinho R, Crowley H (2008) Simplified pushover-based vulnerability analysis for large-scale assessment of RC buildings. Eng Struct 30:804–820BSI (2004) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures: Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. British Standards Institutions, LondonCalvi GM (1999) A displacement-based approach for vulnerability evaluation of classes of buildings. J Earthquake Eng 3(3):411–438CDSC (1994) Seismic construction code, NCSR-94. Committee for the Development of Seismic Codes, Spanish Ministry of Construction, Madrid, Spain (in Spanish)CDSC (2002) Seismic construction code, NCSE-02. Committee for the Development of Seismic Codes, Spanish Ministry of Construction, Madrid, Spain (in Spanish)CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Standard EN 1998-1:2003—Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, BelgiumCEN (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Standard EN 1998-1:2005—Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, BelgiumCheung PC, Paulay T, Park R (1991) Mechanisms of slab contributions in beam-column subassemblages. ACI Spec Publ 123Cosenza E, Manfredi G, Polese M, Verderame GM (2005) A multilevel approach to the capacity assessment of existing RC buildings. J Earthquake Eng 9(1):1–22Crowley H, Pinho R (2010) Revisiting Eurocode 8 formulae for periods of vibration and their employment in linear seismic analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 39:223–235CS.LL.PP (2009) Instructions for the application of the technique code for the Constructions. Official Gazette of the Italian Republic, 47, Regular Supplement no. 27 (in Italian)De Luca F, Vamvatsikos D, Iervolino I (2013) Near-optimal piecewise linear fits of static pushover capacity curves for equivalent SDOF analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 42(4):523–543De Luca F, Verderame GM, Gómez-Martínez F, Pérez-García A (2014) The structural role played by masonry infills on RC building performances after the 2011 Lorca, Spain, earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):1999–2026Decanini LD, Mollaioli F (2000) Analisi di vulnerabilità sismica di edifici in cemento armato pre-normativa. In: Cosenza E (ed) Comportamento sismico di edifici in cemento armato progettati per carichi verticali. CNR—Gruppo Nazionale per la Difesa dei Terremoti, Rome (in Italian)Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2004) IN2—a simple alternative for IDA. In: Proceedings of the 13th World conference on Earthquake Engineering. August 1–6, Vancouver, Canada. Paper 3353Domínguez D, López-Almansa F, Benavent-Climent A (2014) Comportamiento para el terremoto de Lorca de 11-05-2011, de edificios de vigas planas proyectados sin tener en cuenta la acción sísmica. Informes de la Construcción 66(533):e008 (in Spanish)Domínguez D, López-Almansa F, Benavent-Climent A (2016) Would RC wide-beam buildings in Spain have survived Lorca earthquake (11-05-2011)? Eng Struct 108:134–154Dönmez C (2013) Seismic Performance of Wide-Beam Infill-Joist Block RC Frames in Turkey. J Perform Constr Facil 29(1):04014026Fadwa I, Ali TA, Nazih E, Sara M (2014) Reinforced concrete wide and conventional beam-column connections subjected to lateral load. Eng Struct 76:34–48Fardis MN (2009) Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete, Buildings edn. Springer, LondonGentry TR, Wight JK (1992) Reinforced concrete wide beam-column connections under earthquake-type loading. Report no. UMCEE 92-12. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAGómez-Martínez F (2015) FAST simplified vulnerability approach for seismic assessment of infilled RC MRF buildings and its application to the 2011 Lorca (Spain) earthquake. Ph.D. Thesis, Polytechnic University of Valencia, SpainGómez-Martínez F, Pérez García A, De Luca F, Verderame GM (2015a) Comportamiento de los edificios de HA con tabiquería durante el sismo de Lorca de 2011: aplicación del método FAST. Informes de la Construcción 67(537):e065 (in Spanish)Gómez-Martínez F, Pérez-García A, Alonso Durá A, Martínez Boquera A, Verderame GM (2015b) Eficacia de la norma NCSE-02 a la luz de los daños e intervenciones tras el sismo de Lorca de 2011. In: Proceedings of Congreso Internacional sobre Intervención en Obras Arquitectónicas tras Sismo: L’Aquila (2009), Lorca (2011) y Emilia Romagna (2012), May 13–14, Murcia, Spain (in Spanish)Gómez-Martínez F, Verderame GM, De Luca F, Pérez-García A, Alonso-Durá, A (2015c). High ductility seismic performances of wide-beam RC frames. In; XVI Convegno ANIDIS. September 13–17, L'Aquila, ItalyHawkins NM, Mitchell D (1979) Progressive collapse of flat plate structures. ACI J 76(7):775–808Iervolino I, Manfredi G, Polese M, Verderame GM, Fabbrocino G (2007) Seismic risk of RC building classes. Eng Struct 29(5):813–820Inel M, Ozmen HB, Akyol E (2013) Observations on the building damages after 19 May 2011 Simav (Turkey) earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 11(1):255–283Kurose Y, Guimaraes GN, Zuhua L, Kreger ME, Jirsa JO (1991) Evaluation of slab-beam-column connections subjected to bidirectional loading. ACI Spec Publ 123:39–67LaFave JM, Wight JK (1997) Behavior of reinforced exterior wide beam-column-slab connections subjected to lateral earthquake loading. Report no. UMCEE 97-01. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USALaFave JM, Wight JK (1999) Reinforced concrete exterior wide beam-column-slab connections subjected to lateral earthquake loading. ACI Struct J 96(4):577–586LaFave JM, Wight JK (2001) Reinforced concrete wide-beam construction vs. conventional construction: resistance to lateral earthquake loads. Earthq Spectra 17(3):479–505Li B, Kulkarni SA (2010) Seismic behavior of reinforced concrete exterior wide beam-column joints. J Struct Eng (ASCE) 136(1):26–36López-Almansa F, Domínguez D, Benavent-Climent A (2013) Vulnerability analysis of RC buildings with wide beams located in moderate seismicity regions. Eng Struct 46:687–702Masi A, Santarsiero G, Nigro D (2013a) Cyclic tests on external RC beam-column joints: role of seismic design level and axial load value on the ultimate capacity. J Earthquake Eng 17(1):110–136Masi A, Santarsiero G, Mossucca A, Nigro D (2013b) Seismic behaviour of RC beam-column subassemblages with flat beam. In: Proceedings of XV Convegno della Associazione Nazionale Italiana di Ingegneria Sismica, ANIDIS. Padova, ItalyMazzolani FM, Piluso V (1997) Plastic design of seismic resistant steel frames. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 26:167–191MEPP (2000a) Greek earthquake resistant design code, EAK 2000. Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works, AthensMEPP (2000b) Greek code for the design and construction of concrete works, EKOS 2000. Ministry of Environment, Planning and Public Works, Athens (in Greek)Miranda E, Bertero VV (1994) Evaluation of strength reduction factors for earthquake-resistant design. Earthq Spectra 10(2):357–379MPWS (2007) Specifications for buildings to be built in seismic areas. Turkish Standards Institution, Ministry of Public Works and Settlement, Ankara (in Turkish)Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2002) Calibration of force reduction factors of RC buildings. J Earthquake Eng 6(2):239–273NZS (2004) Structural design actions. Part 5: earthquake actions, NZS 1170.5. New Zealand Standards, WellingtonNZS (2006) Concrete structures standard: part 1—the design of concrete structures, NZS 3101 part 1. New Zealand Standards, WellingtonPan A, Moehle JP (1989) Lateral displacement ductility of reinforced concrete flat plates. ACI Struct J 86(3):250–258Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J 98(2):135–148 [and Appendix 1 (69 pp)]Paulay T, Priestley MJN (1992) Seismic design of concrete and masonry structures. Wiley, New York, USAQuintero-Febres CG, Wight JK (1997) Investigation on the seismic behavior of RC interior wide beam-column connections. Report no. UMCEE 97-15. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USAQuintero-Febres CG, Wight JK (2001) Experimental study of Reinforced concrete interior wide beam-column connections subjected to lateral loading. ACI Struct J 98(4):572–582Serna-Ros P, Fernández-Prada MA, Miguel-Sosa P, Debb OAR (2001) Influence of stirrup distribution and support width on the shear strength of reinforced concrete wide beams. Mag Concr Res 54(00):1–11Shuraim AB (2012) Transverse stirrup configurations in RC wide shallow beams supported on narrow columns. J Struct Eng 138(3):416–424Siah WL, Stehle JS, Mendis P, Goldsworthy H (2003) Interior wide beam connections subjected to lateral earthquake loading. Eng Struct 25:281–291Tore E, Demiral T (2014) A parametric study of code-based performance limits for wide beams. e-GFOS 5(8):1–11Vamvatsikos D, Cornell CA (2002) Incremental Dynamic Analysis. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 31:491–514Vidic T, Fajfar P, Fischinger M (1994) Consistent inelastic design spectra: strength and displacement. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 23:507–521Vielma JC, Barbat AH, Oller S (2010) Seismic safety of low ductility structures used in Spain. Bull Earthq Eng 8:135–15