Abstract
The correct evaluation of seismic vulnerability of the existing building stock is a key issue for every earthquake prone Country; the need for reliable decision making tools for the assessment and retrofitting of the existing building stock is widely recognized. Still, the applicability, effectiveness, accuracy of currently codified seismic assessment procedures strongly vary, depending on the features of the assessed structures, and often also on the engineering judgement and knowledge of the applicator. Moreover, time and costs constraints, to which the assessment procedures are necessarily bound, pose further issues as to the details and immediateness of the implementation of such analyses. In the paper, a critical review of the most widespread currently codified seismic assessment procedures is carried out, with reference to the case study of a plan-wise irregular reinforced concrete (RC) frame structure which underwent extensive pseudo-dynamic testing, both in the “as-built” and in retrofitted configurations, in the framework of the activity of the ELSA Laboratory of the JRC. Some conclusions on the relative performance of such assessment procedures and their possible improvements, with reference, in particular, to the issues posed by torsion, are finally presented.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
ATC-58 Project-Development of performance-based seismic guidelines–Work Plan, http://www.atcouncil.org/atc-58.shtml
Computers and Structures inc. (csi), SAP 2000 NL: statics, dynamics and earthquake engineering finite element analysis and design software for structures and bridges (ver 8-9), Berkeley, Ca, USA, 2002
Elnashai AS (2002) Do we really need inelastic dynamic analysis? Journal of Earthquake Enginering, 6 (Special Issue 1): 123–130, Imperial College Press, London
Eurocode 8 (2001) Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 3: Strengthening and repair of buildings. Doc CEN/TC250/SC8/N293, Draft No 1
Eurocode 8 (2005) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance -Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings, EN 1998-3
Fardis M, Negro P, (editors), (2005) SPEAR: Seismic Performance Assessment and Rehabilitation: Proceedings of the international workshop, Ispra, Italy, EU Publications Office
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 273 Report – NEHRP Guidelines for Seismic Rehabilitation of Buildings
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 356 Report (2000) – Pre-standard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings
Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA 440 Report (2005) – Improvement of nonlinear static seismic analysis procedures
Japan Building Disaster Prevention Association: Standards for seismic capacity evaluation of existing reinforced concrete buildings, 1977 revised 1990 (in Japanese)
Mola E, “Criteria for the seismic vulnerability reduction of existing irregular reinforced concrete structures”, PhD Thesis, École Doctorale Mécanique Conception Géomécanique Matériaux, INPG Grenoble, February 2007
Mola E, Negro P, “Post-test analysis and interpretation of the results of PsD testing on a full-size three-storey RC plan-wise irregular frame structure: new perspectives”, Proc. of the 1st European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology, Geneva, 2006
Negro P, Mola E (2005) Application of the Karhunen-Loeve method to the analysis of the results of a PsD test on a torsionally unbalanced three-storey building. Proc. of 4th European workshop on the seismic behaviour or irregular and complex structures, Thessaloniki, Greece
Mola E, Negro P (2009) The importance of plan-wise irregularity. Seismic Risk Assessment and Retrofitting, Springer
Negro P, Colombo A (1998) How reliable are global computer models?, Earthquake Spectra, 14 (3):441–467
New Zealand national society for earthquake engineering (2002) The Assessment and improvement of the structural performance of earthquake risk buildings. Draft 06 May 2002
Priestley MJN (1997) Displacement-based seismic assessment of reinforced concrete buildings. Journal of Earthquake Enginering, 1(1):157–192
Rutenberg A, EAEE Task Group (TG) 8: Behaviour of irregular and complex structures, asymmetric structures–Progress since 1998. Proceeding of 12th European Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper N. 832, Elsevier Science Ltd, London, 2002
Acknowledgments
The Project SPEAR was funded by the European Commission under the “Competitive and Sustainable Growth” Programme, Contract N. G6RD-2001-00525. A group of European partners took part in the SPEAR Project together with the ELSA Laboratory: the University of Patras (Greece), the Imperial College of London, the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia), the Universities of Rome and Pavia (Italy), the National Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering (LNEC) of Lisbon, the Higher Technical Institute of Nicosia and EQE International (London). The research team of the University of Naples Federico II took part in the design and execution of the retrofitting interventions. The Authors gratefully acknowledge the professional expertise and friendly attitude of the whole ELSA staff.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mola, E., Negro, P. (2009). A Critical Review of Current Assessment Procedures. In: Ilki, A., Karadogan, F., Pala, S., Yuksel, E. (eds) Seismic Risk Assessment and Retrofitting. Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, vol 10. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2681-1_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2681-1_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-2680-4
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-2681-1
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)