Encyclopedia of Earthquake Engineering

2015 Edition
| Editors: Michael Beer, Ioannis A. Kougioumtzoglou, Edoardo Patelli, Siu-Kui Au

Seismic Vulnerability Assessment: Reinforced Concrete Structures

  • Flavia De LucaEmail author
  • Gerardo M. Verderame
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35344-4_252

Synonyms

Axial load failure; Damage measure; Flexure; Nonlinear modeling; PBEE; RC structures; Shear

Introduction

Seismic vulnerability can be defined as the degree of loss to a given element at risk (e.g., buildings) resulting from the occurrence of an earthquake event (Coburn and Spence 2002). The development of methodologies for seismic vulnerability assessment is an essential tool for seismic risk management and for prioritizing pre-earthquake strengthening of the built environment.

Seismic risk can be approached through different methodologies. Most of them aim to deconstruct the problem into the typical elements defining any kind of risk: (i) hazard, (ii) vulnerability, and (iii) exposure, and they are based on the total probability theorem.

Available seismic vulnerability methods, i.e., empirical, analytical, or hybrid (e.g., Calvi et al. 2006), developed in the last 30 years, differ because of the nature of tools and data employed. In the following only analytical approach to...

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

References

  1. ACI 352R-02 (2002) Recommendations for design of beam-column connections in monolithic reinforced concrete structures. American Concrete Institute, Farmington HillsGoogle Scholar
  2. Alath S, Kunnath SK (1995) Modeling inelastic shear deformations in rc beam-column joints. In: Engineering mechanics proceedings of 10th conference, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, 21–24 May, vol 2. ASCE, New York, pp 822–825Google Scholar
  3. Alire DA (2002) Seismic evaluation of existing unconfined RC beam–column joints. MSc thesis, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  4. Altoontash A (2004) Simulation and damage models for performance assessment of reinforced concrete beam-column joints. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil and Environment Engineering, Stanford University, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  5. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2007) Seismic rehabilitation of existing buildings, ASCE/SEI 41-06. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VAGoogle Scholar
  6. Anderson M, Lehman D, Stanton J (2008) A cyclic shear stress-strain model for joints without transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct 30:941–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. ATC Applied Technology Council (1985) ATC-13, earthquake damage evaluation data for California. Applied Technology Council, Redwood City, CA, pp 492Google Scholar
  8. Aschheim AM, Moehle JP (1992) Shear strength and deformability of RC bridge columns subjected to inelastic displacements. Technical Report No UCB/EERC 92/04, University of California at Berkeley, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  9. Aslani H (2005) Probabilistic earthquake loss estimation and loss disaggregation in buildings. PhD thesis, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. Asteris PG, Kakaletsis DJ, Chrysostomou CZ, Smyrou EE (2011) Failure modes in infilled frames. Electron J Struct Eng 11(1):11–20Google Scholar
  11. Bakir PG, Boduroğlu HM (2002) A new design equation for predicting the joint shear strength of monotonically loaded exterior beam-column joints. Eng Struct 24:1105–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Beck JL, Porter KA, Shaikhutdinov R, Au SK, Moroi T, Tsukada Y, Masuda M (2002) Impact of seismic risk on lifetime property values, final report for CUREE-Kajima phase IV project. Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  13. Berry M, Parrish M, Eberhard M (2004) PEER structural performance database user’s manual. Pacific Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, 38 pp. Available at http://nisee.berkeley.edu/spd/ and http://maximus.ce.washington.edu/~peera1/. Accessed 23 Feb 2014
  14. Bertoldi SH, Decanini LD, Gavarini C (1993) Telai tamponati soggetti ad azioni sismiche, un modello semplificato: confronto sperimentale e numerico. In: Proceeding of 6° Convegno Nazionale ANIDIS, vol 2, 13–15 Perugia, Italy, 815–824 (in Italian)Google Scholar
  15. Biddah A, Ghobarah A (1999) Modelling of shear deformation and bond slip in reinforced concrete joints. Struct Eng Mech 7(4):413–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2010a) Deformations at flexural yielding of members with continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct Concr 11(3):127–138Google Scholar
  17. Biskinis D, Fardis MN (2010b) Flexure-controlled ultimate deformations of members with continuous or lap-spliced bars. Struct Concr 11(2):93–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Biskinis DE, Roupakias GK, Fardis MN (2004) Degradation of shear strength of reinforced concrete members with inelastic cyclic displacement. ACI Struct J 101(6):773–783Google Scholar
  19. Bousias SN (1993) Experimental and analytical study of RC columns in cyclic biaxial bending with axial force. Doctoral thesis, Civil Engineering Department, University of Patras, PatrasGoogle Scholar
  20. Bousias SN, Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2002) Modelling of RC members under cyclic biaxial flexure and axial force. J Earthq Eng 6(3):213–238Google Scholar
  21. Calvi GM, Bolognini D, Penna A (2004) Seismic performance of masonry-infilled RC frames–benefits of slight reinforcements. Invited lecture to “Sísmica 2004 – 6° Congresso Nacional de Sismologia e Engenharia Sísmica”, Guimarães, 14–16 AprGoogle Scholar
  22. Calvi GM, Pinho R, Magenes G, Bommer JJ, Restrepo-Vélez LF, Crowley H (2006) Development of seismic vulnerability assessment methodologies over the past 30 years. ISET J Earthq Technol Paper No 472 43(3):75–104Google Scholar
  23. CEB (1996) RC frames under cyclic loading. T. Telford, London, for Comite Euro-international du beton, LausanneGoogle Scholar
  24. Celik OC, Ellingwood BR (2008) Modeling beam–column joints in fragility assessment of gravity load designed reinforced concrete frames. J Earthq Eng 12(3):357–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. CEN (2004) EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance-part 1: general rules, seismic actions and rules for buildings. European Committee for Standardization, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  26. CEN (2005) Eurocode 8: design of structures for earthquake resistance – part 3: assessment and retrofitting of buildings. European Standard EN 1998-1:2005- Comité Européen de Normaliation, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  27. Chrysostomou CZ, Asteris PG (2012) On the in-pane properties and capacities of infilled frames. Eng Struct 41:385–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. CM 617 (2009) Istruzioni per l’applicazione delle nuove norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Rome (in Italian)Google Scholar
  29. Coburn A, Spence R (2002) Earthquake protection, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Colangelo F (2003) Experimental evaluation of member-by-member models and damage indices for infilled frames. J Earthq Eng 7(1):25–50Google Scholar
  31. Colangelo F (2013) Drift-sensitive non-structural damage to masonry infilled reinforced concrete frames designed to Eurocode 8. Bull Earthq Eng. doi:10.1007/s10518-013-9503-yGoogle Scholar
  32. Cornell A, Krawinkler H (2000) Progress and challenges in seismic performance assessment. PEER News, AprGoogle Scholar
  33. Crisafulli FG (1997) Seismic behaviour of reinforced concrete structures with masonry infills. PhD thesis, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  34. De Luca F, Verderame GM (2013) A practice-oriented approach for the assessment of brittle failures in existing RC elements. Eng Struct 48:373–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. De Luca F, Ameri G, Iervolino I, Bindi D (2014a) Toward validation of simulated accelerograms via prediction equations for nonlinear SDOF response. Boll Geofis Teor Appl 55(1):81–101Google Scholar
  36. De Luca F, Verderame GM, Gómez-Martínez F, Pérez-García A (2014b) The structural role played by masonry infills on RC building performances after the 2011 Lorca, Spain, earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):1999–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Deierlein GG, Krawinkler H, Cornell CA (2003) A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of 2003 pacific earthquake conference on earthquake engineering, University of Canterbury, ChristchurchGoogle Scholar
  38. Deierlein GG, Reinhorn AM, Willford MR (2010) Nonlinear structural analysis for seismic design, NEHRP Seismic Design Technical Brief No. 4, produced by the NEHRP Consultants Joint Venture, a partnership of the Applied Technology Council and the Consortium of Universities for Research in Earthquake Engineering, for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, NIST GCR 10-917-5Google Scholar
  39. Di Ludovico M, Verderame G, Prota A, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2013) Experimental behavior of nonconforming RC columns with plain bars under constant axial load and biaxial bending. J Struct Eng 139(6):897–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. DM 14/1/2008(2008) Norme tecniche per le costruzioni. Ministero delle Infrastrutture e dei Trasporti, Rome (in Italian)Google Scholar
  41. Dolšek M, Fajfar P (2001) Soft storey effects in uniformly infilled reinforced concrete frames. J Earthq Eng 5(1):1–12Google Scholar
  42. Elwood K (2004) Modelling failures in existing reinforced concrete columns. Can J Civ Eng 31:846–859CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Elwood KJ, Eberhard M (2009) Effective stiffness of reinforced concrete columns. ACI Struct J 106(4):476–484Google Scholar
  44. Elwood K, Moehle JP (2005a) Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns with light transverse reinforcement. Earthq Spectra 21(1):71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Elwood K, Moehle JP (2005b) Axial capacity model for shear-damaged columns. ACI Struct J 106(S45):578–587Google Scholar
  46. Elwood KJ, Matamoros AB, Wallace JW, Lehman DE, Heintz JA, Mitchell AD, Moore MA, Valley MT, Lowes LN, Comartin CD, Moehle JP (2007) Update to ASCE/SEI 41 concrete provisions. Earthq Spectra 23(3):493–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Fardis MN (2009) Seismic design, assessment and retrofitting of concrete buildings based on EN-Eurocode 8. Springer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Fardis MN, Panagiotakos TB (1997) Seismic design and response of bare and infilled reinforced concrete buildings – part II: infilled structures. J Earthq Eng 1(3):473–503Google Scholar
  49. Fardis MN et al (1992) Damage measures and failure criteria during seismic response. In: Cooperative research program on the seismic response of reinforced concrete structures. First phase, Final report, II, National Laboratory for Civil Engineering, LisbonGoogle Scholar
  50. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (1997) FEMA 273, guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) (2000) FEMA 356, prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  52. Fédération internationale du béton (FIB). Task Group 7.1 (2003) Seismic assessment and retrofit of reinforced concrete buildings: state-of-art report (vol 24). International Federation for Structural Concrete (ed). FIB-Féd. Int. du BétonGoogle Scholar
  53. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-58-1 (2012) Seismic performance assessment of buildings volume 1 – 558 methodology. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  54. Goulet CA, Haselton CB, Mitrani-Reiser J, Beck JL, Deierlein GG, Porter KA, Stewart JP (2007) Evaluation of the seismic performance of a code-conforming reinforced-concrete frame building – from seismic hazard to collapse safety and economic losses. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36(13):1973–1997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Grunthal G (ed) (1998) European Macroseismic Scale 1998 (EMS-98), Cahiers du Centre Européen de Géodynamique et de Séismologie, 15, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  56. Gu X, Lu Y (2005) A fuzzy–random analysis model for seismic performance of framed structures incorporating structural and non-structural damage. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34(10):1305–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hakuto S, Park R, Tanaka H (2000) Seismic load tests on interior and exterior beam-column joints with substandard reinforcing details. ACI Struct J 97(1):11–25Google Scholar
  58. Haselton CB, Liel AB, Taylor Lange S, Deierlein GG (2008) Beam-column element model calibrated for predicting flexural response leading to global collapse of RC frame buildings, PEER report 2007/03Google Scholar
  59. Hassan WM (2011) Analytical and experimental assessment of seismic vulnerability of beam-column joints without transverse reinforcement in concrete buildings. PhD dissertation, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  60. Hwang S, Lee H (1999) Analytical model for predicting shear strengths of exterior reinforced concrete beam-column joints for seismic resistance. ACI Struct J 96(5):846–858Google Scholar
  61. Ibarra LF, Medina RA, Krawinkler H (2005) Hysteretic models that incorporate strength and stiffness deterioration. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 34:1489–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kim J, LaFave JM (2007) Key influence parameters for the joint shear behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) beam-column connections. Eng Struct 29:2523–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Krawinkler H (2002) A general approach to seismic performance assessment. In: Proceedings of international conference on advances and new challenges in earthquake engineering research, ICANCEER, Hong Kong, 19–20 AugGoogle Scholar
  64. Krawinkler H, Miranda E (2004) Performance-based earthquake engineering, chapter 9. In: Bozorgnia Y, Bertero VV (eds) Earthquake engineering: from engineering seismology to performance-based engineering. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  65. LaFave M, Shin M (2005) Discussion of ‘Modeling reinforced-concrete beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading’, by Lowes, L. N. and Altoontash, A. ASCE J Struct Eng 131(6):992–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Legeron F, Paultre P (2000) Behavior of high-strength concrete columns under cyclic flexure and constant axial load. ACI Struct J 97(4):591–601Google Scholar
  67. Lowes LN, Altoontash A (2003) Modeling reinforced-concrete beam-column joints subjected to cyclic loading. ASCE J Struct Eng 129(12):1686–1697CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Manfredi G, Prota A, Verderame GM, Ricci P, De Luca F (2014) 2012 Emilia earthquake, Italy: reinforced concrete buildings response. Bull Earthq Eng 12(5):2275–2298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. McGuire RK (2004) Seismic hazard and risk analysis. Report MNO-10. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute Publication, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  70. Mehrabi AB, Shing PB, Schuller MP, Noland JL (1996) Experimental evaluation of masonry-infilled RC frames. J Struct Eng ASCE 122(3):228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mitrani-Reiser J (2007) An ounce of prevention: probabilistic loss estimation for performance-based earthquake engineering. PhD dissertation, California Institute of Technology (Caltech), PasadenaGoogle Scholar
  72. Moehle JP (2003) A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of ATC-15-9 workshop on the improvement of building structural design and construction practices, Maui, JuneGoogle Scholar
  73. Moehle JP, Deierlein GG (2004) A framework for performance-based earthquake engineering. In: Proceedings of 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper No 679, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  74. Mosalam KM (1996) Experimental and computational strategies for the seismic behavior evaluation of frames with infill walls. PhD dissertations, Cornell University, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  75. National Institute of Building Science (NIBS) (1997, 1999 and 2002) Earthquake loss estimation methodology. HAZUS. Technical manuals, vols 1, 2, 3. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Washington, DC. http://www.fema.gov/hazus/
  76. Özcebe S, Crowley H, Bal IE (2012) Distinction between no and slight damage states for existing RC buildings using a displacement-based approach. In: Proceedings of the 15th world conference on earthquake engineering, paper 5126, 24–28, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  77. Panagiotakos TB, Fardis MN (2001) Deformations of RC members at yielding and ultimate. ACI Struct J 98(2):135–148Google Scholar
  78. Pantelides CP, Hansen J, Nadauld J, Reaveley LD (2002) Assessment of reinforced concrete building exterior joints with substandard details, PEER 2002/18, May 2002Google Scholar
  79. Park R (2002) A summary of results of simulated seismic load tests on RC beam–column joints, beam and columns with substandard reinforcing details. J Earthq Eng 6(2):147–174Google Scholar
  80. Park YJ, Ang AMS (1985) Mechanistic seismic damage model of reinforced concrete. ASCE J Struct Eng 111:722–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Park S, Mosalam KM (2012) Parameters for shear strength prediction of exterior beam–column joints without transverse reinforcement. Eng Struct 36:198–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Park S, Mosalam KM (2013) Experimental investigation of nonductile RC corner beam-column joints with floor slabs. ASCE J Struct Eng 139(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Porter KA (2003) An overview of PEER’s performance-based earthquake engineering methodology. In: Conference on Applications of Statistics and Probability in Civil Engineering (ICASP9), Civil Engineering Risk and Reliability Association (CERRA), San Francisco, 6–9 JulyGoogle Scholar
  84. Priestley MJN, Verma R, Xiao Y (1994) Seismic shear strength of reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng 120(8):2310–2329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Pujol S (2002) Drift capacity of reinforced concrete columns subjected to displacement reversals. PhD thesis, Purdue UniversityGoogle Scholar
  86. Ricci P, De Luca F, Verderame GM (2011) 6th April 2009 L’Aquila earthquake, Italy: reinforced concrete building performance. Bull Earthq Eng 9(1):285–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Ricci P, Verderame G, Manfredi G (2013) ASCE/SEI 41 provisions on deformation capacity of older-type reinforced concrete columns with plain bars. ASCE J Struct Eng 139(12):04013014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Sezen H, Moehle JP (2004) Shear strength model for lightly reinforced concrete columns. ASCE J Struct Eng 130(11):1692–1703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Shin M, LaFave JM (2004) Testing and modeling for cyclic joint shear deformations in rc beam-column connections. In: Proceedings of the thirteenth world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, 1–6 Aug 2004, Paper No 0301Google Scholar
  90. Shing PB, Mehrabi AB (2002) Behaviour and analysis of masonry-infilled frames. Prog Struct Eng Mater 4:320–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Tothong P, Cornell CA (2006) An empirical ground motion attenuation relation for inelastic spectral displacement. Bull Seismol Soc Am 96:2146–2164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Tothong P, Luco N (2007) Probabilistic seismic demand analysis using advanced ground motion intensity measures. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 36:1837–1860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Vecchio FJ, Collins MP (1986) The modified compression-field theory of reinforced concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI Struct J 83(2):219–231Google Scholar
  94. Verderame GM, Ricci P, Manfredi G, Cosenza E (2010) Ultimate chord rotation of RC columns with smooth bars: some considerations about EC8 prescriptions. Bull Earthq Eng 8(6):1351–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Verderame GM, De Luca F, Ricci P, Manfredi G (2011) Preliminary analysis of a soft-storey mechanism after the 2009 L’Aquila earthquake. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 40(8):925–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vollum RL (1998) Design and analysis of exterior beam column connections. PhD dissertation, Imperial College of Science Technology and Medicine-University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  97. Vollum RL, Newman JB (1999) Strut and tie models for the analysis/design of external beam-column joints. Mag Concr Res 51(6):415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Walker SG (2001) Seismic performance of existing RC beam–column joints. MSc thesis, University of WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  99. Watanabe F, Ichinose T (1992) Strength and ductility of RC members subjected to combined bending and shear. In: Concrete shear in earthquake. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, pp 429–438Google Scholar
  100. Williams MS, Sexsmith RG (1997) Seismic assessment of concrete bridges using inelastic damage analysis. Eng Struct 19(3):208–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Wong HF (2005) Shear strength and seismic performance of non-seismically designed reinforced concrete beam-column joints. PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, AugustGoogle Scholar
  102. Yavari S, Elwood KJ, Wu C (2009) Collapse of a nonductile concrete frame: evaluation of analytical models. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 38(2):225–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Youssef M, Ghobarah A (2001) Modelling of RC beam-column joints and structural walls. J Earthq Eng 5(1):93–111Google Scholar
  104. Zhu L, Elwood K, Haukaas T (2007) Classification and seismic safety evaluation of existing reinforced concrete columns. J Struct Eng 133(9):1316–1330Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK
  2. 2.Department of Structures for Engineering and Architecture (DiSt)University of Naples Federico IINaplesItaly