Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 371–395 | Cite as

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of Gravity Load Designed R/C Frames

  • Angelo Masi


The seismic vulnerability of some frame structures, typical of existing Reinforced Concrete buildings designed only to vertical loads, has been evaluated. They are representative of building types widely present in the Italian building stock of the last 30 years. A simulated design of the structures has been made with reference to the codes in force, the available handbooks and the current practice at the time of construction. The seismic response is calculated through non linear dynamic analyses with artificial and natural accelerograms. Three main types have been examined: bare frames, regularly infilled frames and pilotis frames. The results show a high vulnerability for the pilotis buildings: they can be assigned to the class B of the European Macroseismic Scale of 1998 (EMS98). On the contrary, a low vulnerability (class D of EMS98) can be attributed to the regularly infilled buildings: in this case collapse can be considered unlikely also with strong earthquakes. An intermediate seismic behavior is shown by buildings without infills, whose vulnerability can be placed between the classes B and C of EMS98.

assessment existing buildings frames masonry infills reinforced concrete seismic vulnerability simulated design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arias, A. (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity, in Seismic design for nuclear power plants (ed.) R. J. Hansen, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 438-483.Google Scholar
  2. Braga, F., Dolce, M. and Liberatore, D. (1982) Southern Italy November 23, 1980 Earthquake: A Statistical Study on Damaged Buildings and an Ensuing Review of the M.S.K.-76 Scale, CNR-PFG n. 503, Rome.Google Scholar
  3. Calvi, G.M. and Priestley, N. (1998) Assessment of existing buildings, in Seismic design of reinforced concrete structures for controlled inelastic response, Bulletin CEB 240, Thomas Telford LTD, London, 133-166.Google Scholar
  4. Calvi, G.M. and Recla, M. (2000) Assessment of current prediction capacities of the response of existing reinforced concrete buildings. Proc. of 12th World Conference in Earthquake Engineering, Auckland.Google Scholar
  5. Chopra, A.K. (2001) Dynamics of Structures-Theory and Application to Earthquake Engineering, 2nd edition. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  6. CEN (1993) Eurocode 1-Basis of design and actions on structures-Part 1: Basis of design, ENV 1991-1, Brussels.Google Scholar
  7. CEN (1991) Eurocode 2-Design of concrete structures-Part 1: General rules and rules for buildings, ENV 1992-1-1, Brussels.Google Scholar
  8. CEN (1994a) Eurocode 8-Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures-Part 1-1: General rules-Seismic actions and general requirements for structures, ENV 1998-1-1, Brussels.Google Scholar
  9. CEN (1994b) Eurocode 8-Design provisions for earthquake resistance of structures-Part 1-2: General rules-General rules for buildings, ENV 1998-1-2, Brussels.Google Scholar
  10. CEN (2002a) Eurocode 8-Design of structures for earthquake resistance-Part 3: Strengthening and repair of buildings, prEN 1998-3, Brussels.Google Scholar
  11. CEN (2002b) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance of structures-Part 1: General rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings, prEN 1998-1, Brussels.Google Scholar
  12. Cosenza, E., Manfredi, G. and Verderame, G.M. (1999) Problemi di verifica sismica di telai progettati per crichi verticali. Proc. of 9? Convegno Nazionale L'Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Torino (in Italian).Google Scholar
  13. D.M. LL.PP. 30/4/72 (1972) Norme tecniche alle quali devono uniformarsi le costruzioni in conglomerato cementizio, normale e precompresso ed a struttura metallica (in Italian).Google Scholar
  14. D.M. LL.PP. 20/11/87 (1987) Norme tecniche per la progettazione, esecuzione e collaudo degli edifici in muratura e per il loro consolidamento (in Italian).Google Scholar
  15. Dolce, M. (1996) Seismic vulnerability evaluation and damage scenarios. Proc. of US-Italian Workshop Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit, Columbia University, New York City.Google Scholar
  16. Dolce, M., Masi, A., Marino, M. and Vona, M. (2002) Earthquake damage scenarios of the building stock Potenza(Southern Italy) including site effects, Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, N. 1 (accepted for publication).Google Scholar
  17. ESC Working Group 'Macroseismic Scales' (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998. Geo-ForschungsZentrum Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar
  18. Fardis, M.N. (1998) Seismic assessment and retrofit of RC structures. Proc. of 11th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering (invited lecture), Paris.Google Scholar
  19. Federal Emergency Managenent Agency (FEMA) (1992) NEHRP handbook for the seismic evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings, FEMA Report 178, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  20. FEMA-NIBS (1999) Earthquake Loss Estimation Methodology, ZUS99 Technical Manual, Vol 1-3, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  21. Ghobarah, A., Abou-Elfath, H. and Biddah, A. (1999) Response-based damage assessment of structures, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 78, 789-104.Google Scholar
  22. Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association (JBDPA) (1977) Standard for seismic capacity evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  23. Kappos, A.J. (1997) Seismic damage indices for RC buildings: evaluation of concepts and procedures. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 1(1), 78-87.Google Scholar
  24. Kappos, A.J. (2001) Seismic vulnerability assessment of existing buildings in Southern Europe (invited lecture). Atti del 10? Convegno Nazionale L'Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Potenza, Italy.Google Scholar
  25. Kunnath, S.K., Mander, J.B. and Reinhorn, A.M. (1990) Seismic Response and damageability of gravity-load (non-seismic) designed buildings, Proc. of 9th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Moscow, pp. 323-332.Google Scholar
  26. Mainstone, R.J. (1974) Supplementary note on the stiffness and strength of infilled frames, Current Paper CP13/74, Building Research Establishment, London.Google Scholar
  27. Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. and Park, R. (1988) Theoretical stress-strain model for confined concrete, J. Am. Soc. Civ. Engrs, 114(8), 1804-1826.Google Scholar
  28. Margottini, C., Molin, D., Narcisi, B. and Serva, L. (1985) Intensity vs. acceleration: italian data, Proc. of the Conference on Historical Seismicity of Central-eastern Mediterranean Region, pp. 213-226.Google Scholar
  29. Masi, A. (2000) Valutazione della resistenza sismica di strutture intelaiate in c.a. progettate negli anni '70, Proc. of Final Workshop su Protezione sismica dell'edilizia esistente e di nuova edificazione mediante sistemi innovative, Napoli (in Italian).Google Scholar
  30. Masi, A., Dolce, M., Vona, M. and Telesca, F. (2001a) EsValutazione della vulnerabilità sismica di edifici in c.a. a struttura intelaiata realizzati dopo il 1970-Parte I: definizione delle tipologie strutturali e metodologia di analisi. Atti del DiSGG, N. 4, Potenza (in Italian).Google Scholar
  31. Masi, A., Dolce, M., Goretti, A., Telesca, F. and Vona, M. (2001b) Resistenza sismica di telai in c.a. relativi ad edifici esistenti con e senza tamponature, Proc. of 10? Convegno Nazionale L'Ingegneria Sismica in Italia, Potenza (in Italian).Google Scholar
  32. Min. LL. PP.-Presidenza del Consiglio Superiore-Servizio Tecnico Centrale (1997) Linee guida per progettazione, esecuzione e collaudo di strutture isolate dal sisma, Ingegneria Sismica, n. 1 (in Italian).Google Scholar
  33. Naeim, F. (ed). (1989) The seismic design handbook, 1st edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Pagano, M. (1968) Teoria degli edifici-Edifici in cemento armato, Edizione Liguori, Napoli (in Italian).Google Scholar
  35. Park, R. and Paulay, T. (1975) Reinforced Concrete Structures, J. Wiley & Sons, NewYork.Google Scholar
  36. Park, Y.J. and Ang, A.H.S. (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model for reinforced concrete, Journal of Structural Engineering, 111(4), 722-739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Paulay, T. and Priestley, M.J.N. (1992) Seismic design of reinforced concrete and masonry buildings, J. Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Penelis, G.G. and Kappos, A.J. (1997) Earthquake resistant concrete structures, E & F Spon, London.Google Scholar
  39. Santarella, L. (1968) Il cemento armato-Le applicazioni alle costruzioni civili ed industriali, II volume, Edizione Hoepli (in Italian).Google Scholar
  40. Trifunac, M.D. and Brady, A.G. (1975) A study on the duration of strong earthquake ground motion, Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, 65(3), 581-626.Google Scholar
  41. Tsai, K.C. and Li, J.W. (1994) DRAIN2D+ and VIEW2D user guide, Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angelo Masi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Structures, Geotechnics and Geology applied to Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations