scholarly journals Seismic Performance Evaluation of Existing RC Buildings Without Seismic Details. Comparison of Nonlinear Static Methods and IDA

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 158-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Constantinos C. Repapis

The inelastic response of existing reinforced concrete (RC) buildings without seismic details is investigated, presenting the results from more than 1000 nonlinear analyses. The seismic performance is investigated for two buildings, a typical building form of the 60s and a typical form of the 80s. Both structures are designed according to the old Greek codes. These building forms are typical for that period for many Southern European countries. Buildings of the 60s do not have seismic details, while buildings of the 80s have elementary seismic details. The influence of masonry infill walls is also investigated for the building of the 60s. Static pushover and incremental dynamic analyses (IDA) for a set of 15 strong motion records are carried out for the three buildings, two bare and one infilled. The IDA predictions are compared with the results of pushover analysis and the seismic demand according to Capacity Spectrum Method (CSM) and N2 Method. The results from IDA show large dispersion on the response, available ductility capacity, behaviour factor and failure displacement, depending on the strong motion record. CSM and N2 predictions are enveloped by the nonlinear dynamic predictions, but have significant differences from the mean values. The better behaviour of the building of the 80s compared to buildings of the 60s is validated with both pushover and nonlinear dynamic analyses. Finally, both types of analysis show that fully infilled frames exhibit an improved behaviour compared to bare frames.

2015 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. 203-213
Author(s):  
Yasser Alashker ◽  
Sohaib Nazar ◽  
Mohamed Ismaiel

2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Siahos ◽  
Stephanos Dritsos

The two different procedures of ASCE/SEI 41 Supplement 1 and the EC 8 based Greek Retrofitting Code (GRECO) are compared via pushover analyses for the seismic assessment of RC buildings designed to old codes. In addition, the FEMA 356 procedure is considered in order to evaluate the new provisions of ASCE/SEI 41. Results from two moderate level seismic tests performed on a four-story building are used for comparison. For the first test, all procedures overestimated the experimentally observed limited damage but GRECO was more satisfactory. For the second higher excitation test, all procedures predicted the building's high vulnerability but failed to predict the experimentally observed imminent collapse of a stiff column. In all cases, GRECO gave higher displacements. ASCE/SEI 41 and FEMA 356 predicted better the building's stiffness and gave much higher available plastic hinge rotations for beams when compared to GRECO. Concerning the columns, available plastic hinge rotations at the Life Safety performance level from the ASCE procedure were higher than GRECO, while ASCE values at the collapse prevention performance level were slightly lower than GRECO. Finally, a comparison of the above procedures with nonlinear dynamic analyses of a past earthquake is performed to identify potential pushover analysis concerns.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document