Skip to main content
Log in

Seismic fragility of RC framed and wall-frame buildings designed to the EN-Eurocodes

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fragility curves are constructed for a portfolio of prototype regular RC frame and wall-frame buildings designed and detailed to EC2 and EC8. The aim is to use EC8’s own seismic performance assessment methods and criteria for existing buildings to evaluate how EC8 achieves its performance goals for new RC buildings. The overall conclusion is that these goals are met in a very consistent and uniform way across all types of buildings considered and their geometric or design parameters, except for RC walls of Ductility Class Medium, which may fail early in shear despite their design against it according to EC8. In fact, these walls do not perform much better than those of braced systems designed to EC2 alone. Therefore, wall shear seems to be an aspect in EC8 worth looking at again. Another finding is that the slenderness limits and the lateral bracing requirements of EC2 for 2nd-order effects under factored gravity loads place severe restrictions on the size of columns and walls, which, although ignored in ordinary seismic design practice, materially impact the outcome of the design and, to a smaller extent, the seismic fragilities of the building’s members. Mixing in the same building columns with significantly different stiffness most often penalizes the more flexible ones and not the stiff, despite their smaller deformation capacities. Another finding is that the reduction in fragility from higher design peak ground accelerations is disproportionately low. Even buildings designed for gravity loads only, but in full accordance to EC2, possess substantial seismic resistance.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Biskinis DE, Fardis MN (2010) Flexure-controlled ultimate deformations of members with continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct Concr 11(2): 93–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biskinis DE, Fardis MN (2010) Deformations at flexural yielding of members with continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct Concr 11(3): 127–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Biskinis DE, Roupakias G, Fardis MN (2004) Degradation of shear strength of RC members with inelastic cyclic displacements. ACI Struct J 101(6): 773–783

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN: (2004) EN 1998-1:2004 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance. Part 1: General rules, seismic actions, rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN: (2004) EN 1992-1-1:2004 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures—Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • CEN: (2005) EN 1998-3:2005 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance—Part 3: Assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Committee of Standardization, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombi M, Borzi B, Crowley H, Onida M, Meroni F, Pinho R (2008) Deriving vulnerability curves using Italian earthquake damage data. Bull Earthq Eng 6(3): 485–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fardis MN (1994) Eurocode 8: reinforced concrete, special session on EC8. In: Proceedings of 10th European conference on earthquake engineering, Vienna, pp 2945–2950

  • Fardis MN, Panagiotakos TB (1997) Seismic design and response of bare and infilled reinforced concrete buildings. Part I: Bare structures. J Earthq Eng 1(1): 219–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Kappos AJ, Stylianidis KC, Pitilakis K (1998) Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment. Nat Hazards 17(2): 177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kappos AJ, Antoniadis P (2007) A contribution to seismic shear design of RC walls in dual structures. Bull Earthq Eng 5(3): 443–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keintzel E (1990) Seismic design shear forces in RC cantilever shear wall structures. Eur J Earthq Eng 3: 7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosmopoulos A, Fardis MN (2007) Estimation of inelastic seismic deformations in asymmetric multistory RC buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(9): 1209–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masi A (2003) Seismic vulnerability assessment of gravity load designed RC frames. Bull Earthq Eng 1(3): 371–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (1999) Estimation of inelastic deformation demands in multistory RC buildings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 28: 501–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2004) Seismic performance of RC frames designed to Eurocode 8 or to the Greek codes 2000. Bull Earthq Eng 2(2): 221–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papailia A (2011) Seismic fragility curves of RC buildings. MSc Thesis, University of Patras

  • Rivera JA, Petrini L (2011) On the design and seismic response of RC frame buildings designed with Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng 9(5): 1593–1616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutenberg A, Nsieri E (2006) The seismic shear demand in ductile cantilever wall systems and the EC8 provisions. Bull Earthq Eng 4(1): 1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael N. Fardis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fardis, M.N., Papailia, A. & Tsionis, G. Seismic fragility of RC framed and wall-frame buildings designed to the EN-Eurocodes. Bull Earthquake Eng 10, 1767–1793 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9379-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-012-9379-2

Keywords

Navigation