Abstract
In the paper the seismic response of different variants of the three-story reinforced concrete frame structure SPEAR is compared. The basic structure is representative of building practice before the adoption of seismic codes. This structure has been compared with four modified variants, which were designed partly or completely in accordance with the Eurocode family of standards. For seismic assessment the practice-oriented nonlinear N2 method was used. The results demonstrate the low seismic resistance of buildings designed for gravity loads only. On the other hand, the advantages of new standards are clearly apparent. By taking into account the requirements of Eurocode 8 it is possible to ensure adequate strength, stiffness and ductility. By means of capacity design it is possible to ensure a global plastic mechanism. All these characteristics contribute to the high seismic resistance of structures designed according to Eurocode 8 and to their satisfactory behaviour during earthquakes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
EC 0 (2002) Basis of structural design, European standard EN 1990. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels
EC 1 (2002) Actions on structures, part 1-1: general actions—densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings, European standard EN 1991-1-1. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels
EC 2 (2004) Design of concrete structure, part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings, European standard EN 1992-1-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels
EC 8-1 (2004) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, European standard EN 1998-1. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels
EC 8-3 (2005) Design of structures for earthquake resistance, part 3: strengthening and repair of buildings, European standard EN 1998-3. European Committee for Standardization (CEN), Brussels
ELSA (2005) SPEAR seismic performance assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings. European Laboratory for Structural Assessment, Ispra. http://elsa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/term_activity.php?id=2
Fajfar P (1999) Capacity spectrum method based on inelastic demand spectra. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 28(9): 979–993. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199909)28:9<979::AID-EQE850>3.0.CO;2-1
Fajfar P (2000) A nonlinear analysis method for the performance-based seismic design. Earthq Spectr 16: 573–592. doi:10.1193/1.1586128
Fajfar P, Marušić D, Peruš I (2005) Torsional effects in the pushover-based seismic analysis of buildings. J Earthq Eng 9(6): 831–854. doi:10.1142/S1363246905002249
Fajfar P, Dolšek M, Marušić D, Stratan A (2006) Pre- and post-test mathematical modelling of a plan-asymmetric reinforced concrete frame building. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 35(11): 1359–1379. doi:10.1002/eqe.583
Fardis M, Negro P (eds) (2005) Seismic performance assessment and rehabilitation of existing buildings. Proceedings of the international workshop, Ispra, 4–5 April 2005. EC JRC, European Laboratory for Structural Assessment, Ispra
Jeong S-H, Elnashai A (2005a) Analytical assessment of the seismic performance of an irregular RC frame for fullscale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing, part I: analytical model verification. J Earthq Eng 9(1): 95–128. doi:10.1142/S1363246905001906
Jeong S-H, Elnashai A (2005b) Analytical assessment of the seismic performance of an irregular RC frame for fullscale 3D pseudo-dynamic testing, part II: condition assessment and test development. J Earthq Eng 9(2): 265–284. doi:10.1142/S1363246905001918
Kosmopoulos AJ, Fardis MN (2007) Estimation of inelastic seismic deformations in asymmetric multi-storey RC buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 36(9): 1209–1234. doi:10.1002/eqe.678
Magliulo G, Maddaloni G, Cosenza E (2007) Comparison between non-linear dynamic analysis performed according to EC8 and elastic and non-linear static analyses. Eng Struct 29: 2893–2900. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.01.027
Negro P, Mola E, Molina J, Magonette GE (2004) Full scale PsD testing of a torsionally unbalanced three-storey non-seismic RC frame. Proc 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada August 1–6, Paper n o 968
Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of reinforced concrete members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J 98(2): 135–148
Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2004) Seismic performance of RC frames designed to Eurocode 8 or to the Greek codes 2000. Bull Earthq Eng 2: 221–259. doi:10.1007/s10518-004-2288-2
PEER (2007) University of Washington. The UW-PEER reinforced concrete column test database. http://www.ce.washington.edu/~peera1/. Accessed 20 July 2008
Peruš I, Poljanšek K, Fajfar P (2006) Flexural deformation capacity of rectangular RC columns determined by the CAE method. Earthquake Eng Struct Dynam 35(11): 1453–1470. doi:10.1002/eqe.584
Peruš I, Fajfar P (2007) Prediction of the force-drift envelope for RC columns in flexure by the CAE method. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 36(15): 2345–2363. doi:10.1002/eqe.735
SAP2000 (2002) Analysis reference manual. Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rozman, M., Fajfar, P. Seismic response of a RC frame building designed according to old and modern practices. Bull Earthquake Eng 7, 779–799 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9119-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-009-9119-4