Ductility considerations in seismic design of reinforced concrete frame buildings according to the Eurocode 8

Abstract

The Eurocode 8 included three ductility classes: ductility class high (DC H), ductility class medium (DC M) and ductility class low (DC L). The aim of the present work is to give a full analysis of the implication during the design stage of the ductility class for the reinforced concrete frame structures regarding the Eurocode 8. To carry out the proposed study, a regular RC frame building has been designed in different hazard seismic zones for the three ductility classes according to the seismic design rules mentioned in Eurocode 8. In the end, nonlinear pushover analysis was used to assess the design of the frames. The results show that DC M has a high performance close to DC H, even in the high hazard seismic zones, and the cost of DC M frame is close to the costs of DC H frame, which could be less, if the workmanship is included, because DC H will cost more for the workmanship according to its complexity of the detailing.

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

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
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35
Fig. 36
Fig. 37
Fig. 38
Fig. 39
Fig. 40
Fig. 41
Fig. 42
Fig. 43
Fig. 44
Fig. 45
Fig. 46
Fig. 47
Fig. 48
Fig. 49
Fig. 50
Fig. 51
Fig. 52

References

  1. 1.

    Mantawy A, Anderson J (2015) Ductility of reinforced concrete frame buildings subjected to the recent New Zealand earthquakes. In: IABSE symposium report. International association for bridge and structural engineering, vol 105, no 11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Rodrigues H, Varum H, Costa A (2010) Simplified macro-model for infill masonry panels. J Earthq Eng 14(3):390–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Papamichalopoulos A (2014) Optimum ductility assessment of earthquake resistant structures. Civ Eng Archit 2(6):251–256. https://doi.org/10.13189/cea.2014.020603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rodrigues H, Arede A, Varum H, Costa A (2012) Comparative efficiency analysis of different nonlinear modeling strategies to simulate the biaxial response of RC columns. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 11:553–566

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Uang CM, Bertero VV (1986) Earthquake simulation tests and associated studies of a 0.3 scale model of a six-story concentrically braced steel structure. Report no. UCB/EERC-86/10, University of California, Berkeley

  6. 6.

    FEMA356 (2000) Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC

  7. 7.

    Chaulagain H et al (2014) Response reduction factor of irregular RC buildings in Kathmandu valley. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 13(3):455–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Rodrigues H, Varum H, Arêde A, Costa AG (2013) Behaviour of reinforced concrete column under biaxial cyclic loading—state of the art. Int J Adv Struct Eng 5(1):4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Eurocode 2 Part 1-1 (2004) Design of concrete structures—part 1-1: general rules and rules for buildings. ISBN: 978 0 580 73752 7

  10. 10.

    Threlfall T (2009) Designed and detailed—good concrete guide 9. The Concrete Society, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Booth ED (2012) Creating a vision for the future of Eurocode 8. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon

  12. 12.

    Fardis MN (2009) Seismic design, assessment and retrofit of concrete buildings, based on Eurocode 8. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Fardis MN, Papailia A, Tsionis G (2012) Seismic fragility of RC framed and wall-frame buildings designed to the EN-Eurocodes. Bull Earthq Eng 10:1767–1793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Athanzassiadou CJ (2008) Seismic performance of R/C plane frames irregular in elevation. Eng Struct 30:1250–1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Namdev Khose V, Singh Y, Lang DH (2012) A comparative study of design base shear for RC buildings in selected seismic design codes. Earthq Spect 28(3):1047–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Kappos AJ (1998) Influence of ductility class on the seismic reliability and cost of EC8-designed structures. In: 11th European conference on earthquake engineering, Paris

  18. 18.

    Kappos AJ, Antoniadis P (2007) A contribution to seismic shear design of R/C walls in dual structures. Bull Earthq Eng 5:443–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Anagnostopoulou V, Zeris C, Karayannis C (2012) Evaluation of the q factor of irregular RC buildings designed according to EC8. In: 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, Lisbon

  20. 20.

    Carvalho EC, Coelho E, Fardis MN (1996) Assessment of EC8 provisions for reinforced concrete frames, paper 2049. 11 WCEE: eleventh world conference on earthquake engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, June 23–28, 1996

  21. 21.

    Sextos A, Simopoulos S, Skoulidou D (2015) Ductility, performance and construction cost of r/c buildings designed to Eurocode 8. ECED 2015 Conference: Earthquake Risk and Engineering towards a Resilient World, 9-10 July 2015, Cambridge UK

  22. 22.

    Mwafy AM, Elnashai AS (2001) Static pushover versus dynamic collapse analysis of RC buildings. Eng Struct 23(5):407–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0141-0296(00)00068-7 (ISSN 0141-0296)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Surana M (2000) Non-linear static analysis using SAP 2000. Non-Linear Analysis, Department of Earthquake Engineering, IIT Roorke

  24. 24.

    Campos CA, Sousa ML, Carvalho A (2008) Seismic zonation for Portuguese national annex of Eurocodes. In: 14 world conference on earthquake engineering, 14WCEE, October 12–17, Beijing

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hugo Rodrigues.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rodrigues, H., Elawady, M.H. Ductility considerations in seismic design of reinforced concrete frame buildings according to the Eurocode 8. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 4, 6 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-018-0192-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Seismic design
  • Ductility
  • Reinforced concrete
  • Eurocode 8