Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 643–656 | Cite as

Experimental and numerical evaluation of the fundamental period of undamaged and damaged RC framed buildings

  • Angelo Masi
  • Marco VonaEmail author
Original Research Paper

Abstract

This paper deals with the period evaluation of Reinforced Concrete (RC) framed buildings in elastic, yield and severely damaged states. Firstly, period-height relationships either reported in the literature, or obtained from both numerical simulations (eigenvalue analyses) and experimental measurements (ambient vibration analyses) have been examined and compared. Structural types representing low-rise, mid-rise and high-rise RC buildings without earthquake resistant design, widely present in the Italian and European built environment, have been studied. Results have shown high differences between numerical and experimental period values. Period elongation (stiffness degradation) during and after strong ground shaking has been also examined based on results from experimental in situ and laboratory tests performed on some RC framed building structures which suffered moderate-heavy damage. Some comments on the relationship between damage level and period elongation are reported.

Keywords

Reinforced concrete Frames gravity load design Period of vibration Period elongation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ATC (1978) Tentative provisions for the development of seismic regulations for buildings. Report N. ATC3-06, Applied Technology Council, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  2. BSSC (2003) NEHRP recommended provisions for seismic regulations for new buildings and other structures (FEMA 450), 2003 Edition. Building Seismic Safety Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  3. Calvi GM, Pinho R, Crowley H (2006) State-of the-knowledge on the period elongation of RC buildings during strong ground shaking. First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, 3–8 September 2006, Paper Number 1535Google Scholar
  4. Cardone D, Di Cesare A, Dolce M, Moroni C, Nigro D, Ponzo FC, Nicoletti M (2005) Dynamic tests on a 1:4 scaled R/C existing building: comparison of several isolation systems. 9th World Seminar on Seismic Isolation, Energy Dissipation and Active Vibration Control of Structures, KobeGoogle Scholar
  5. CEN (2003) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. Final Draft, Comite Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. CEN (2004) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. Draft no. 7, Comite Europeen de Normalisation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Crowley H, Pinho R (2004) Period-height relationship for existing European reinforced concrete buildings. J Earthq Eng 8(1): 93–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crowley H, Pinho R (2006) Simplified equations for estimating the period of vibration of existing. Buildings, First European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, 3–8 September 2006, Paper Number 1122Google Scholar
  9. Decanini LD, De Sortis A, Goretti A, Liberatore D, Mollaioli F, Bazzurro P (2004) Performance of reinforced concrete buildings during the 2002 Molise, Italy, earthquake. Earthq Spectr 20(S1): S221–S225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dolce M, Masi A, Ponzo FC, Mucciarelli M, Gallipoli MR, Di Cesare A, Tetta M, Vona M (2004) BOB-CODE PROJECT: Identificazione delle caratteristiche strutturali dell’edificio IACP di Bonefro gravemente danneggiato nel sisma del Molise 2002. Proceedings of the 11th Italian Conference on Earthquake Engineering, January 2002, Genova (in Italian)Google Scholar
  11. Dolce M, Masi A, Ferrini M (2006) Estimation of the actual in-place concrete strength in assessing existing RC structures. The Second International fib Congress, June 5–8, 2006, NaplesGoogle Scholar
  12. Gabor D (1946) Theory of communication. IEE J 93:429–457. LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Castro RR, Monachesi G, Contri P (2004) Structure, soil–structure response and effects of damage based on observations of horizontal-to-vertical spectral ratio of microtremors. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 24(6): 487–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Vona M (2008) Empirical estimate of fundamental frequencies and relevant damping for Italian building. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn. doi: 10.1002/eqe.878
  15. Gallipoli MR, Mucciarelli M, Šket-Motnikar B, Zupanćić P, Gosar A, Prevolnik S, Herak M, Stipčević J, Herak D, Milutinović Z, Olumćeva T (2009) Empirical estimates of dynamic parameters on a large set of European buildings. Bull Earthq Eng. doi: 10.1007/s10518-009-9133-6
  16. Goel RK, Chopra AK (1997) Period formulas for moment resisting frame buildings. J Struct Eng ASCE 123(11): 1454–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Guler K, Yuksel E, Kocak A (2008) Estimation of the fundamental vibration period of existing RC buildings in Turkey utilizing ambient vibration records. J Earthq Eng 12(S2): 140–150Google Scholar
  18. Hans S, Boutin C, Ibraim E, Roussillon P (2005) In situ experiments and seismic analysis of existing buildings. Part I: experimental investigations. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34: 1513–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hong L, Hwang W (2000) Empirical formula for fundamental vibration periods of reinforced concrete buildings in Taiwan. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29: 327–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Masi A (2003) Seismic vulnerability assessment of gravity load designed R/C frames. Bull Earthq Eng 1(3): 371–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Masi A, Vona M (2008) Estimation of the period of vibration of existing RC building types based on experimental data and numerical results. Increasing Seismic Safety by Combining Engineering Technologies and Seismological Data, Springer book, WB/NATO Publishing Unit, pp 207–226Google Scholar
  22. Masi A, Vona M, Mucciarelli M (2009) Selection of natural and synthetic accelerograms for seismic vulnerability studies on RC frames. J Struct Eng ASCE. Special Issue devoted to “Earthquake Ground Motion Selection and Modification for Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis of Structures” (under revision)Google Scholar
  23. Mucciarelli M, Masi A, Gallipoli MR, Harabaglia P, Vona Ms, Ponzo F, Dolce M (2004) Analysis of RC building dynamic response and soil-building resonance based on data recorded during a damaging earthquake (Molise, Italy, 2002). Bull Seismol Soc Am 94(5): 1943–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Navarro M, Vidal F, Feriche M, Enomoto T, Sánchez FJ, Matsuda I (2004) Expected ground–RC building structures resonance phenomena in Granada city (Southern Spain). Proceedings of the 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, August 1–6, Paper No. 3308Google Scholar
  25. NZSEE (2006) Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of buildings in earthquakes. Recommendations of a NZSEE Study Group on Earthquake Risk BuildingsGoogle Scholar
  26. Priestley MJN, Calvi GM, Kowalsky MJ (2007) Displacement-based seismic design of structures. IUSS Press, PaviaGoogle Scholar
  27. Sobai M, Abd El-Rahman K, Mady M (2008) Estimation of dynamic characteristics of existing common reinforced concrete buildings in Egypt using ambient vibration tests. 14th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Bejing, pp 11–16Google Scholar
  28. Regio Decreto 16/11/1939 n. 2229 (1939) Norme per la esecuzione delle opere in conglomerato cementizio semplice ed armato. G.U. n. 92 del 18/4/1940 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  29. Yuen K-V, Beck JL, Katafygiotis LS (2002) Probabilistic approach for modal identification using non-stationary noisy response measurements only. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 31: 1007–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Structures, Geotechnics, Applied GeologyUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations