Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the quantification of local deformation demands and adequacy of linear analysis procedures for the seismic assessment of existing steel buildings to EC8-3

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The application of performance-based design and assessment procedures requires an accurate estimation of local component deformation demands. In the case of steel moment-resisting frames, these are usually defined in terms of plastic rotations. A rigorous estimation of this response parameter is not straightforward, requiring not only the adoption of complex nonlinear structural models, but also of time-consuming numerical integration calculations. Moreover, the majority of existing codes and guidelines do not provide any guidance in terms of how these response parameters should be estimated. Part 3 of Eurocode 8 (EC8-3) requires the quantification of plastic rotations even when linear methods of analysis are used. Therefore, the aim of the research presented in this paper is to evaluate different methods of quantifying local component demands and also to answer the question of how reliable are the estimates obtained using the EC8-3 linear analysis procedures in comparison to more accurate nonlinear methods of analysis, particularly when the linear analysis applicability criterion proposed by EC8-3 is verified. An alternative methodology to assess the applicability of linear analysis is proposed which overcomes the important limitations identified in the EC8-3 criterion.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

L :

Member length

q :

Uniformly distributed gravity load

V :

Point load applied at the top of the simplified cantilever system

d :

Displacement of the free node of the simplified cantilever system

d 2 :

Displacement of node 2

d L/2 :

Displacement at the mid-span

M E :

Bending moment due to earthquake load

M E+Q :

Bending moment due to combined earthquake and gravity loads

N E+Q :

Axial force due to combined earthquake and gravity loads

N pl :

Axial capacity of the member

M pl :

Plastic bending moment

M y :

Yielding bending moment

M 2 :

Bending moment at node 2

L ph :

Plastic hinge length

Φ u :

Ultimate member curvature

Φ y :

Yielding member curvature

x :

Abscissa of the cross-section within the member length L

Φ(x):

Member curvature at abscissa x

Φ pl (x):

Plastic member curvature at abscissa x

θ pl :

Plastic rotation

θ el :

Elastic rotation

θ t :

Total rotation

x Ls :

Abscissa of the point of contraflexure

δ 2 :

Distance between the member deflection at x Ls and the tangent to the member axis at node 2

x * :

Distance of the intersection point between the tangent to the member axis at node 2 and the perpendicular that intersects the member deflection at x Ls to node 2

θ 1 :

Member chord rotations at node 1

θ 2 :

Member chord rotations at node 2

θ 1a :

Contribution of the deflection at x Ls with respect to the initial member configuration to the member chord rotations at node 1

θ 2a :

Contribution of the deflection at x Ls with respect to the initial member configuration to the member chord rotations at node 2

θ 1b :

Contribution of the nodal rotation to the member chord rotations at node 1

θ 2b :

Contribution of the nodal rotation to the member chord rotations at node 2

d y :

Relative transverse displacements of the sections at nodes 1 and 2, neglecting the contribution of the axial deformation of the member

θ y :

Yielding chord rotation

θ y,ASCE41 :

Yielding chord rotation quantified using the ASCE41-13 approach

θ :

Inter-storey drift sensitivity coefficient

DCR :

Demand-to-capacity ratio

m :

ASCE41-13 member capacity factor that defines the acceptance criteria for linear procedures

k :

ASCE41-13 knowledge factor

θ D :

Deformation demands obtained from structural analysis, defined in terms of plastic rotations by EC8-3 for steel structures

θ C :

Deformation capacity, defined in terms of plastic rotations by EC8-3 for steel structures

CF :

EC8-3 confidence factor

E :

Modulus of elasticity of steel

I :

Moment of inertia of the member cross-section

Q f :

Quantity whose level of error is under evaluation

Q R :

Quantity used as reference to estimate the level of error associated to Q f

ΔQ :

Local error of quantity Q f with respect to quantity Q R

RMSE :

Root mean square error

n :

Number of element sections or number of stories

m i :

Masses at storey i

h i :

Heights of the masses m i above the level of application of the seismic action

T :

Period of vibration of the structure

e :

Exponent that is function of the period of vibration of the structure

mDCR i :

Maximum DCR within a floor i

\(\overline{DCR}_{i}\) :

Mean DCR within a floor i

References

  • Akkar S, Miranda E (2005) Statistical evaluation of approximate methods for estimating maximum deformation demands on existing structures. J Struct Eng 131:160–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Araújo M, Castro JM (2013) Numerical assessment of the deformation capacity of steel members subjected to monotonic and cyclic loading. In: Proceedings of the HSS-SERF international workshop—high strength steel in seismic resistant structures

  • Araújo M, Castro JM (2014) Linear analysis for seismic safety assessment of existing steel buildings: are they trustworthy? In: Proceedings of the 2nd European conference on earthquake engineering and seismology, Istanbul, Turkey

  • Araújo M, Castro JM (2016) Critical review of guidelines and codes for seismic assessment of existing steel buildings. J Earthq Eng

  • Araújo M, Macedo L, Marques M, Castro JM (2016) Code-based record selection methods for seismic performance assessment of buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 45:129–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ASCE (2010) Minimum design loads for buildings and other structures (ASCE/SEI 7-10). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

  • ASCE (2014) Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing buildings (ASCE/SEI 41-13). American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston

  • Bertero RD, Bertero VV (2002) Performance-based seismic engineering: the need for a reliable conceptual comprehensive approach. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31:627–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bojórquez E, Terán-Gilmore A, Ruiz S, Reyes-Salazar A (2011) Evaluation of structural reliability of steel frames: interstory drift versus plastic hysteretic energy. Earthquake Spectra 27:661–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browning J, Warden B, Matamoros A, Lepage A (2008) Global and local seismic drift estimates for RC frames. Eng Struct 30:1262–1271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruneau M, Uang CM, Whittaker A (1998) Ductile design of steel structures. McGraw-Hill

  • Calabrese A, Almeida JP, Pinho R (2010) Numerical issues in distributed inelasticity modeling of RC frame elements for seismic analysis. J Earthq Eng 14:38–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro JM, Dávila-Arbona F, Elghazouli A (2008) Seismic design approaches for panel zones is steel moment frames. J Earthq Eng 12:34–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CEN (2004) ENV 1998-1 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization

  • CEN (2005a) ENV 1998-3 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee for Standardization

  • CEN (2005b) ENV 1993-1 Eurocode 3: design of steel structures—Part 1–1: general rules and rules for buildings. European Commitee for Standardization

  • D’Aniello M, Landolfo R, Piluso V, Rizzano G (2012) Ultimate behavior of steel beams under non-uniform bending. J Constr Steel Res 78:144–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elghazouli AY (2010) Assessment of European seismic design procedures for steel framed structures. Bull Earthq Eng 8:65–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elkady A, Lignos DG (2014) Analytical investigations of the cyclic behavior and plastic hinge formation in deep wide-flange steel beam-columns. Bull Earthq Eng 13:1097–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioncu V (2000) Framed structures. Ductility and seismic response. General Report- Journal of Constructional Steel Research 55:125–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gioncu V, Mazzolani F (2002) Ductility of seismic resistant steel structures. Spon Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioncu V, Petcu D (1997) Available rotation capacity of wide-flange beams and beam-columns. J Constr Steel Res 43:219–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grecea D, Dinu F, Dubina D (2004) Performance criteria for MR steel frames in seismic zones. J Constr Steel Res 60:739–749

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Günay MS, Sucuoglu H (2009) Predicting the seismic response of capacity-designed structures by equivalent linearization. J Earthq Eng 13:623–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Günay MS, Sucuoglu H (2010) An improvement to linear-elastic procedures for seismic performance assessment. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:907–931

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta A, Krawinkler H (2000) Behaviour of ductile SMRFs at various seismic hazard levels. J Struct Eng 126:98–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:1489–1511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosmopoulos A, Fardis M (2007) Estimation of inelastic seismic deformations in asymmetric multi-storey RC buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1209–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krawinkler H (2000) State of the art report on systems performance of steel moment frames subjected to earthquake ground shaking. In: FEMA 355C. SAC joint venture report, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington D.C

  • Krawinkler H, Gupta A, Medina R, Luco N (2000) Development of loading histories for testing of steel beam-to-column assemblies. In: Report prepared for the SAC steel project founded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency; Stanford University

  • Lignos DG, Krawinkler H (2011) Deterioration modelling of steel components in support of collapse prediction of steel moment frames under earthquake loading. J Struct Eng 137:1291–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macedo L and Castro JM (2016) SelEQ: an advanced ground motion selection and scaling tool. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng (under submission)

  • Macedo L, Araújo M, Castro JM (2015) Comparison of modelling strategies for steel structures under cyclic loads. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference of behaviour of steel structures in seismic areas, Shanghai, China

  • Miranda E, Reyes CJ (2002) Approximate lateral drift demands in multi-storey buildings with nonuniform stiffness. J Struct Eng 128:840–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mpampatsikos V, Nascimbene R, Petrini L (2008) A critical review of the R.C. frame existing building assessment procedure according to Eurocode 8 and Italian Seismic Code. J Earthq Eng 12:52–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell JD (2008) Cyclic behaviour and design of steel columns subjected to large drift. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California

  • Panagiotakos T, Fardis M (1999) Estimation of inelastic deformation demands in multi-storey RC frame buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28:501–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paret TF, Searer GR, Freeman SA (2011) ASCE 31 and 41: Apocalypse Now. Structures Congress 2011

  • PEER (2011) OpenSees: open system for earthquake engineering simulation. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; Universtiy of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto PE, Franchin P (2008) Assessing existing buildings with Eurocode 8 Part 3: a discussion with some proposals. In: Background documents for the “Eurocodes: Background and applications” workshop, European Commision, Brussels, 18–20 February 2008

  • Priestley MJN, Calvi CM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, PAvia

    Google Scholar 

  • Romão X, Delgado R, Guedes J, Costa A (2010a) A comparative application of different EC8-3 procedures for the seismic safety assessment of existing structures. Bull Earthq Eng 8:91–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romão X, Delgado R, Costa A (2010b) Practical aspects of demand and capacity evaluation of RC members in the context of EC8-3. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 39:473–499

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-García J, Miranda E (2006) Inelastic displacement ratios for evaluation of structures built on soft soil sites. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 35:679–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toranzo-Dianderas L (2009) Evaluation of the ASCE 41 linear elastic procedure for seismic retrofit of existing structures: pros and cons of the method. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ATC and SEI conference on improving the seismic performance of existing buildings and other structures

  • Whittaker S, Huang Y (2007) Simplified response analysis procedures. Background document of FEMA P-58/BD-3.7.4. Federal Emergency Management Agency

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work has been performed within the framework of the research project ‘Development and calibration of seismic safety assessment methodologies for existing buildings according to the Eurocode 8—Part 3’ funded by the Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology (FCT).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

    Miguel Araújo & José Miguel Castro

Authors
  1. Miguel Araújo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José Miguel Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to José Miguel Castro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Araújo, M., Castro, J.M. On the quantification of local deformation demands and adequacy of linear analysis procedures for the seismic assessment of existing steel buildings to EC8-3. Bull Earthquake Eng 14, 1613–1642 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9897-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-016-9897-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation