Advertisement

Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 875–895 | Cite as

A deformation-based seismic design method for 3D R/C irregular buildings using inelastic dynamic analysis

  • Andreas J. Kappos
  • Sotiria Stefanidou
Original Research Paper

Abstract

A new deformation-based design method concerning 3D reinforced concrete (R/C) buildings is presented, which involves the use of advanced analysis tools, i.e. response-history analysis for appropriately scaled input motions, for multiple levels of earthquake action. The critical issues concerning the inelastic response-history analysis used for the design, namely the definition of the appropriate input, the set up of the analytical model that should account for post-yield behaviour of plastic hinge zones, and the direction of loading, are discussed. The proposed method is based on a partially inelastic model, while the design of structural members is carried out for different performance levels related to their inelastic behaviour. The aforementioned method builds on previous proposals by the first author and his co-workers, nevertheless a new procedure for the design of members that are expected to develop inelastic behaviour for the serviceability earthquake is proposed; its aim is the reduction of member design forces and the a-priori definition of their inelastic performance, by exploiting the deformation limits for the specific performance level, which are related to the damage level of the structural members. The proposed method was applied to irregular multistorey R/C 3D frame buildings with setbacks, and their performance for several levels of earthquake action was assessed using a fully inelastic model and additional ground motions not used at the design phase. The same buildings were designed according to the provisions of Eurocode 8. Comparison of the two methods of seismic design, revealed the advantages of the proposed design method, in particular the more economic detailing of transverse reinforcement in the members that develop very little inelastic behaviour even for very strong earthquakes.

Keywords

Deformation-based seismic design Inelastic dynamic analysis Reinforced concrete buildings Eurocode 8 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. ASCE/SEI: (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings—ASCE standard 41–07. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VirginiaGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyer K, Bommer JJ (2007) Selection and scaling of accelerograms for bi-directional loading: a review of current practice and code provisions. J Earthq Eng 11: 13–45Google Scholar
  3. Carr A (2004) RUAUMOKO, manuals, vol 1 theory and user guide to associated programs, vol 3 user manual for the 3-dimensional version. University of Canterbury, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  4. CEN [Comité Européen de Normalisation] (2004a) Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures Part 1: general rules and rules for buildings (EN 1992-1-1: 2004). European committee of standardisationGoogle Scholar
  5. CEN (2004b) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings (EN 1998-1: 2004). BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  6. CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 2: Bridges (EN1998-2). CEN, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  7. Dymiotis C, Kappos AJ, Chryssanthopoulos MC (1999) Seismic reliability of R/C frames with uncertain drift and member capacity. J Str Eng ASCE 125(9): 1038–1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. FEMA (1997) NEHRP guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings, FEMA 273, Washington DC, Oct 1997Google Scholar
  9. Fib (2003) Displacement-based seismic design of reinforced concrete buildings. Fib Bull 25, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  10. Kappos AJ (1997) Partial inelastic analysis procedure for optimum capacity design of buildings. In: Proceedings of international workshop on seismic design methodologies for the next generation of codes (Bled, Slovenia, June 1997), Balkema, pp 229–240Google Scholar
  11. Kappos AJ, Manafpour A (2001) Seismic design of R/C buildings with the aid of advanced analytical techniques. Eng Struct 23(4): 319–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kappos AJ, Panagopoulos G (2004) Performance-based seismic design of 3D R/C buildings using inelastic static and dynamic analysis procedures. ISET J 30 Earthq Technol, Special issue: performance-based seismic design (Edited by MJN Priestley), 41(1):141–158Google Scholar
  13. Kappos AJ, Goutzika E, Stefanidou S (2007) An improved performance-based design method for 3d R/C buildings using inelastic analysis. ECCOMAS thematic conference on computational methods. Struct Dyn Earthq Eng, Paper no. 1375Google Scholar
  14. Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) A displacement-based seismic design procedure for R/C buildings and comparison with EC8. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 30: 1439–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Penelis GG, Kappos AJ (1997) Earthquake-resistant concrete structures. E&FN SPON, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Priestley MJN (2000) Performance based seismic design. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng 33(3): 325–346Google Scholar
  17. SEAOC Seismology Committee : (1999) Recommended lateral force requirements and commentary. Blue Book, Sacramento, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. Sullivan TJ, Calvi GM, Priestley MJN, Kowalski MJ (2003) The limitations and performances of different displacement based design methods. J Earthq Eng 7(Special issue 1): 201–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Concrete and Masonry Structures, Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations